Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

We're not enforcers! Honest!

This will not be a rant... although to justify what I'm about to write, I do need to pick apart some of the complaints I hear every so often against ourselves... so bear with me.

This weekend past, I had to (finally) put together the effective "rules" that already are more-or-less governing how Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada does things. Those rules, up until this past weekend, weren't in a single document... so I hammered it out with help from Sue. The nice bit is, internally, amongst our volunteers, it's been met with not just acceptance, but an unexpected amount of praise to myself and Sue for finally banging it out so well! (...and only a couple of modest revisions suggested and adopted!)

You can have a look at it by clicking here.

To kind of re-iterate again, the document is about how we do things... not how we're telling other people to do things... in fact, that's why right at the beginning, I made sure it says...

This document is an internal document that is applicable only to PSICAN proper and it’s directly related websites and groups. It is not applicable to our affiliate groups or any group outside of the directly related PSICAN groups.

We don't assume nor do we pretend we're "in charge" or any sort of quasi-enforcer to the other people who are looking into things around Canada... but we did want people to know this is how we, the volunteers working within PSICAN, do things.

Now, in all honesty, I think it would be grand if every group or investigative team (or even solo-investigator,) had a document like this that anyone could have a look at... if nothing else, to let others, especially witnesses or "experiencers", know what they hold dear and what they will or will not do.

Still, even saying the above has probably raised an eyebrow with some folks around these parts, (I'm controlling, doncha know?) but what the heck, I can toss it out there... for better or worse... after all, it's up to those others if they think there's merit in the suggestion... if they may choose to adopt, adapt, and/or improve to their uses.

For now, it's what we've done... and as with all our things, we'd love your feedback... so let us know what you think if you have some time.

One of the first lectures on the topic of ghosts, and hauntings that Matthew gave was at Ryerson University here in Toronto, and was more than ten years ago. What really stood out about this particular speaking engagement was it was heavily attended by nurses, and nursing students some even wearing their nursing scrubs making their occupation and/or course of study very obvious to the casual observer.

Later we thought of course, its obvious why so many nurses attended .... while cemeteries are overly represented in ghostly fiction, in reality it is hospitals, hospices, and long term care facilities that tend to yield more reports of hauntings than any other type of public building. It is also therefore no wonder that we have more health care providers volunteering for PSICAN then any other profession.

Nursing is a demanding profession and requires much care and dedication. Many of these hospital ghosts are not former patients, but nurses still seen in there scrubs clothing or old fashioned uniforms roaming the corridors and still caring for their patients long after they are physically gone.

* This blog entry is brought to you by our friends at Blue Sky Scrubs who provide high quality cheap scrubs through their secure online shop.

Over the weekend I watched a documentary on the recommendation of an SPR member that involved past life regression, and an investigation afterwards into the information retrieved.

It start off with a UK fireman who undergoes hypnotic regression out of curiosity. While under he comes forward with an elaborate "past life" of being a well off rural landowner in the mid 1700s who after the death of his wife loses everything and ends up killing a bill collector.

The memories are so real to him when he awakens from the session and weeks afterward that they leave him emotionally shaken, and driven to find out if he can prove his past life actually occurred.

Armed with a name, some rough dates, a detailed sketch of his former home and lands, and the town he felt this all happened in he approached a genealogist who was able to supply a handful of likely candidates as a starting point.

As the investigation continued he began hitting brick walls and his past life memories began unraveling.......

His father recognized the sketch as a view from their former family home. They were able to go back and compare the sketch with the actual view today, and they were very similar despite the fireman not having seen this view since he was 5 years old. Other bits of the Fireman's current life became very suggestive of his past life, his "wife" dying early - his this lifetime Mom dying early causing him to rebel and suffer terribly etc etc etc

By the end it is fairly clear that the past life was actually a very creative imagining from his subconscious knitted together out of this lifetimes events.

Was fascinating!

I don't think the documentary can take away from those cases that do seem to point strongly to an actual historical person, but it is food for thought.

The strong emotional response to the regression and later the obvious disappointment of the fireman as he comes to grips with his past life unraveling is also interesting to note. He actually says the whole investigation was for shit. I disagree.

Earlier today the topic of ghost cars and urban legends came up on our Facebook group. The question was posed by one of our regular group members to a newer group if they would investigate a case involving a ghost car and a ghost driver picking up a passenger.

The group in question said they were unable to investigate urban legends, or one-time spontaneous cases of possible paranormal origin. I tend to agree that any investigation of such a report would be very limited in scope, but (and just like urban legends) they are important to not, and document in case of any repeat occurrences. For instance what if you had a similar report of a vanishing car of similar description say like a Chevrolet Silverado or other distinctive model, on the same stretch of road, that you may then be able to trace a potential history to it.

Ghost cars, like many other inanimate objects do have their ghostly counterparts, which brings up all sorts of questions that are beyond the scope of this humble blog entry. Well at the least we can assume ghostly cars would not need major repairs like a brake job or would they.....

*This blog entry is brought to you by our friends at RepairPal, please do check them out especially if you are in need of Dallas auto repair sources.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

College Park - The Carlu Toronto - Updated

Private Residence Markham - New

Lakeshore West Private Apartment Toronto - Updated

Private Residence Jarvis Area Toronto - New

Private Residence Bellamy Road South Scarborough - New

Private Residence Barrie - New

Newmarket Farmhouse - New

Enjoy!

Defining things sometimes is annoying... especially when you feel there's probably no need for a definition and that, indeed, most folks should understand the basic principals of certain things without having them laid out in any way. The real trouble is, within the "paranormal investigative/research community", there is a bit of a disconnect with the idea of review, criticism, and the sense of being attacked.

Now, thankfully, we've dodged this bullet of late and not had too many run-ins with folks for any reason... but this is also because we've had to self-muzzle when we've wanted to present data that we know would upset certain folks... and yes, in some ways... many ways... that's wrong... because we are occasionally holding back things we know are true (and verifiable) to keep a silly sense of peace.

Right now, we're watching not one, but three other folks (groups, to be exact,) we know start down a really bad path which can be... well... almost a bit destructive. I don't want to get into gory details, but it's because of them not grasping the ideas of those three words... "Review", "Criticism", and "Attack".

First, allow Merriam-Webster to help me out...

REVIEW: An act or the process of reviewing, a retrospective view or survey, a renewed study of material previously studied or an exercise facilitating such study.

So, to "review" someone's work is to simply re-study it... an effective "new look" at something that's already out there.

CRITICISM: The art of evaluating or analyzing works, the scientific investigation of literary documents, an observation or remark.

So, a "criticism" is an evaluation of something previously done and the remarks about it afterwards.

Last but not least...

ATTACK: To set upon or work against forcefully, to assail with unfriendly or bitter words, to begin to affect or to act on injuriously.

So, for lack of anything better, an "attack" is... an attack. It's the act of being not very nice. Nothing more, and most certainly nothing less.

Allow me to give you some diagrams to follow...

(Insert a: )

...or, to give a more tangible example...

(Insert b: )

Seems reasonable enough, and with more review and criticism, a possible actual answer that stands up to all scrutiny will be found!

The trouble is, this is how the above is read by many... far too many...

(Insert c: )

...or worse.

...and if anyone thinks this is "just us" here, boy are you wrong. (Please, do not get grumpy with that observation! Head to any large message board and you'll find similar somewhere about someone...)

The problem is this...

Many people forget that if they publish anything, especially publicly, and make any claim, it will probably be challenged... and that CAN be a good thing for all involved... unless you see yourself in "Insert C" above..

Many people publish reviews and/or criticisms without taking into account the sensibilities of the "opposing" number who is being reviewed or criticised... which, if you think about it, shouldn't be THAT big a deal because, hey, if you're in the public eye and make a statement, you should be willing to support the claim with the data you have... but again, remember, this is a study based a LOT on faith and belief... two VERY strong things. As much as we can ask, in a perfect world, for everyone to stick with the hard data only, for many it's the equivalent of asking a fundamentalist Christian to imagine "Christ isn't walking with you... just for a second"... it won't happen... and people should keep this in mind when reviewing or critiquing things.

...but...

If you're a SERIOUS researcher and/or investigator, you should welcome CONSTRUCTIVE review and criticism on your work... and either defend it based on the data ONLY (never the personalities involved) or work towards eliminating possible holes in the fabric of your data to make it more complete.

...that's the perfect world... but... well, here's how it's worked for me.

Them: We published this document and we think "X" is "Y"!

Me: Okay, but what if "X" is "Z"... or even "A"... or perhaps "X" doesn't exist at all? Have you looked into all these possibilities?

Do I need to finish this... or can you hear the screaming, cursing, and genuine hatred towards me, the great heretic, already?

As another example (not me but I saw it transpire...)

Them: Buy tickets to go on a ghost thing that NO ONE has EVER DONE BEFORE in this famous haunted locale!

Person 'A': Well, it has been done before... and often... here's where and here's how.

Them: {Delete Person 'A's comment and ignore them.}

Okay, now this was a "for profit" thing... and it was to earn those involved some dosh... but then anyone might ask, by doing this, are you suppressing the evidence? Are you hiding the truth? If you're asking people to pay to find something with you, shouldn't you be honest?

From poor history from "historians" which cannot be questioned (because questions are "attacks",) to bad science coming from those who claim "scientific experience" (but again, no questions... that's attacking,) many people looking into this topic can not or, more likely, are unwilling to accept criticism and review... because either it may cut into their profits, their chances of fame, or they won't get to feel "as smart" as they were...

...even though, with proper review and criticism, they might learn more, find out more, answer questions they may not have thought of, and overall, do a better job and service to this study (amongst others!)

"Criticisms" should not be ad hominem attacks (against the person or people) but should be critiques of the data intended to make people think or do better.

"Reviews" should also not be little more than non-constructive criticism, but a genuine look at with positive and/or negative feedback with an eye to what was wrong and/or right with what's being reviewed... suggestions should be welcome as well!

In closing, however, if you tell me that The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, it is NOT an attack on my part to correct you, and cite sources... it's a genuine wish that, indeed, the facts are put out for those interested.

...and if you DO STILL DECIDE to say The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, I promise that my response will NOT be, "Well, what do you expect from mouth breathers who can't tie their shoes and who probably cheat on their taxes!", but again, I'll question the data... and bring my evidence to the fore... and hopefully, you can either correct me (if you have the information to cite,) or perhaps I can show you...

This isn't "controlling"... it's "helping".

AGAIN, if you put something "out there" in the public, expect review... expect criticism... accept it, adopt it, adapt it, and improve...

Dismiss personal attacks and things said that are not relevant to your data.

GRANTED, you can ignore this entire article if you're only interested in the study of the paranormal for your own amusement... and don't care about the truth, possible alternative hypothesis or answers, and don't want to have less flawed work out there for the masses to see...

...but then, do us all a favour... call yourself ANYTHING but "researcher" or "investigator". Don't even suggest you're actually in the field for any other reason than some bizarre egocentric weirdness... and let us know, TRUTHFULLY why you're interested.

You want fifteen minutes of fame ONLY? There's people who'll still follow you if that's your goal... you don't have to make the false claims of being genuine in your interest.

You want to make MILLIONS? Then be honest and say it out loud, "Show Me The Money!" Again, you can shelve any semblance of altruism... at least you'll be honest, if nothing else, and yes, people still like entertainment.

Do you KNOW what these things are and are only more or less going through the motions to preach your belief to the masses? Fine... but again, let us know... don't cloak yourself in any sort of term like "study" or "investigation"... If you already know what you're looking at, why pretend you're looking any deeper than normal?

Are you genuinely interested in finding out more about these things that are considered "unknown"? Then again, accept, adopt, adapt, and improve... and share with us all... and consider yourself a legitimate and proper investigator or researcher.

Sue and I will still (mostly) keep a civil tongue in our head... for now... but to those "in the field", consider this notice... We may start questioning... yup, that's right, we might start reviewing... and even offering criticism... we will NEVER attack, it will be about the data... it may be YOUR data, but it's the data we will question... and if that's gonna be a problem, I don't know what to say to you.

Basically, if you're calling yourself a "researcher", "investigator", or even a "historian", "folklorist", "scientist", "physicist", or anything like that... and you publish something we see an error with... it JUST MIGHT be questioned.

One hopes if we continue to keep our fingers off the keyboards at those moments, other's will take up the cause... and battle back against hearsay, conjecture, and just plain "made up stuff" presented as "FACT" with evidence, citable sources, and indeed... REAL facts.

...because we need less attacking, more reviewing and even more critical analysis in this field.

The witnesses will appreciate it. Your colleagues will appreciate it. And the study as a whole will definitely benefit from it.

In Addenda: Already got a question... Is this one way, or do YOU expect review and critisism?...

The answer is, OF COURSE! Provided it's constructive, not ad hominem attacks... and it's about an article or paper of ours that's based on the data therein with examples and citations brought to the fore... not simply based on conjecture or personal belief sent in to us as "fact".

Basically, if we made a boo-boo... if we didn't cover something properly... if we ignored something... yes, we do want to know about it! We appreciate that as, again, it's help!