Severnside Centre for Fortean Research

A new article on the peculiar and highly questionable Ghost Box can be found here. Woo! Another way to contact the dead…

Title: This House Is Haunted - The Investigation Of The Enfield Poltergeist
Author: Guy Lyon Playfair
Publisher: Sutton Publishingook (2007)

Repulished by Stroud based Sutton Publishers with a new author’s afterword, ‘This House is Haunted’ chronicles the now infamous Enfield Poltergeist Case from 1977/8, arguably the first major ‘ghost investigation’ to have received wide coverage from the British media. Playfair and lead investigator Maurice Grosse worked together on the case for the best part of the year as representatives for the Society for Psychical Research. By the time events drew to a close both investigators had become figures of derision amongst other members of the SPR and sceptics alike. Yet both stuck to their guns in regard to their belief in the authenticity of the weird happenings which focussed around 11 year old Janet Hodgson.

In brief, strange knocking sounds gave way to vulgar displays of alleged psychokinetic activity involving the sudden appearance and violent movement of household objects. Controversially, Janet was also said to have shown the ability to levitate and became ‘possessed’ by at least one alternative personality, speaking in abusive, gruff tones. Throughout ‘This House is Haunted’ Playfair portrays Janet as a girl able to take such alarming events in a remarkably balanced, occasionally amused manner. This is a red flag for interested parties of a sceptical nature, to the extend that Anita Gregory of the SPR concluded the entire case was most likely a hoax perpetrated by the Hodgson family.

Playfair performs an admirable job fending off the critics, yet whilst he offers an enthralling account of the haunting he produces little in the manner of evidence surpassing the circumstantial. Rather than constantly pushing for decent multi-camera filmed evidence, Grosse and Playfair are continually seen to fall back upon anecdotes; those of witnesses, spiritists and spiritualists. A more cutting eye may notice events outside of the family home seen few and far between, relying upon the word of the Hodgson family members. This isn’t to say the entire case was a fabrication, just that the evidence is not exactly compelling. Weakest of all is Playfair’s assertion that the spirit of Grosse’s late daughter was the root cause of events, a conclusion reached through a succession of coincidental events; the implied linkage often being little more than tenuous.

Although long considered a classic in the field of paranormal related literature ‘This House Is Haunted’ is essentially a catalogue of anecdotes sitting within an entertaining account of a landmark case. Whilst the author’s reasoning remains justly open to questioning Playfair’s lively recount justifies the book’s formidable status.

More big cat sightings in the Forest of Dean have been published at the thisisgloucestershire.co.uk website.

At 00.30 on Friday 29 February 2008 an anonymous dog walker came face to face with a ‘leopard’ on Ruspidge Road, near Cinderford. According to the newspaper, local shopkeeper ‘Tejpal Singh, who runs Lower Ruspidge Stores, said: “A number of my customers have reported seeing a big cat - probably about three or four times out the back there on the railway road. Most people see it at the back, not on the main road, and always in the middle of the night. I have never seen it though so I don’t know if there is any truth in it.”

The Ruspidge sighting follows that on Thursday 21 February when gun wielding teenagers Andrew Warren (1 and James Brain (17) came within eight feet of a mysterious cryptid in the process of a rabbit murdering exercise:

“It was quite nasty with teeth an inch-and-a-half long protruding out of its mouth,” said Andrew, from Cinderford. “I wanted to run away.” James, of Ruardean, said: “It was about 3ft long and a foot off the ground, just under a hedge in a run.”

Just when it seemed the Forest of Dean’s mini UFO flap had been explained in terrestrial terms, up pops The Citizen with some correspondence threatening to extend the alleged mystery (21 February 2008):

LIGHT THEORIES OFFER UFO EXPLANATION
I Recently read an article in your newspaper about a woman who said she saw strange lights in the sky one evening over Cinderford. I then read two weeks ago that a lady from Lydney said that she could explain the mystery lights. She said they were due to a particular type of lantern with a light inside which people celebrate at various parties or functions by letting them rise into the night sky and she thought this was the possible reason that the lady from Cinderford saw [on New Year's Eve, 2007].

Well sir, I find that this explanation is not quite true, I work as a mobile security officer for Glevum Security in Gloucester and I saw these lights quite plainly from the Bristol Road in Gloucester two nights running, a week before the lady in Cinderford saw them.

They were quite still in the sky hovering over the Forest of Dean at around 9pm on the first night then the second night they were roughly in the same position at about 9.30pm.

They consisted of four white lights and two red lights in an oblong position with a bright white light which was dancing between the two red lights. They were there for about 20 minutes dead still which I thought was quite strange, I telephoned my colleague Carly Jones who works in the control room which is at Waterwells Business Park Quedgeley and asked her if she could see these lights? She said yes, she could but did not see them on the second occasion, so I find it very hard to believe that these were Chinese lanterns with lights inside them. In fact you would not see this type of lantern over the Forest of Dean from Gloucester would you?

I find that the lady from Cinderford was telling the truth and that is
why I have written to you.

Herb Burrows
Bream

Mr Burrows’ correspondence to the press makes for interesting reading but at the same time he is taking a huge leap of faith by assuming that the lights he saw, and those seen on New Year’s Eve are one and the same. Mr Burrow’s lights were seen a week prior to the New Year celebrations, therefore there is no evidence - other than wishful thinking - to suggest the two phenomena are related.

Certainly, SCFR would be surprised if Mr Burrows’ lights were fire balloons or Thai lanterns if they were, indeed, positioned over the Forest of Dean (although this opinion could be wrong). To be seen over the Forest from Gloucester they would need to be at a considerably high altitude. However, witness rationalisation of distances, altitude and sizes against a black sky are notoriously inaccurate. This is not to say that something ‘extraterrestrial’ or ‘paranormal’ was to blame, just that no answer can be reached based upon the available evidence.

A new article is now online, examining the worth of utilising faith based methodologies on Fortean and paranormal investigations.
Click here for more.

Title: Ghosthunters - On the Trail of Mediums, Dowsers, Spirit Seekers, and Other Investigators of America’s Paranormal World
Author: John Kachuba
Publisher: New Page Books (2007)

Will Storr laid down an ominous benchmark for other authors to surpass in his own investigation of the people who hunt ghosts. Highly entertaining, amusing and occasionally heart wrenching, Storr gave the subject a light edge it so desperately deserves. By contrast, American author John Kachuba’s ‘Ghosthunters’ is a more sober account, with a strange format.

Unlike Storr, Kachuba is an established ghost hunter. His views are also established and in the opening chapter he lays down his opinions which include the devastating ‘everyone passes into a spiritual form after death’. Wow, where is the evidence for such a startling claim? Unfortunately it seems to rest upon the old tactic of invoking the name of Einstein, vague talk about ‘energy’ and how it cannot be created, destoyed and can only change its form. I’ve still never grasped how it is ascertained this ‘energy’ once again assembles itself in sentient form, and neither does Kachuba. Even so…

After the author lays he cards so brazenly upon the table the remainder of the book is given over to time spent with the spook chasers and photos of particles described as spirit. We meet the Warrens, woos, whisperers, spiritualists, token sceptic and money makers. For the pages given to these people Kachuba never really gets under their skin to establish just what makes them tick.

And this is exactly the problem with ‘Ghosthunters’; whereas Storr was a newcomer to the world of ghosts and outlandishly cheeky in disarming the personalities involved, Kachuba is much closer and more sympathetic to his subjects. A character such as Patti Starr, who offers a ‘qualification’ in ghost hunting so steeped in pseudoscientific methodology as to make me cringe, deserves a hardline set of questioning yet Kachuba is matter of fact and benign in his approach. Through choosing to study peers with whom he shares a major sympathy, Kachuba has produced a book that is dry, unscathing and ultimately - in my opinion - forgettable.

Title: 21st Century Ghosts - Encounters With Ghosts in the New Millenium
Author: Jason Karl
Publisher: New Holland Publishers (2007)

Although attributed to former Most Haunted cast member Jason Karl, ’21st Century Ghosts’ is essentially a collection of ghostie tales from investigators, psychics, mediums, dowsers and a ‘tarot consultant’ who performs a fantastic line in Bobby George impersonations … nice candleabra.

Clearly this is a title aimed at the armchair enthusiast well versed in the author’s association with the goggle box. Old mucker Derek Acorah writes the foreword and the numerous photographs throughout the book have been digitally enhanced with the archetypal vertical hatching effect. It’s the type of stuff which sets alarm bells ringing amongst the sceptically minded, even more so that contributions are presented ‘as is’, with next to no analysis from the author. Despite this the reader is assured many of the alleged ghosts did their business despite ‘rigorous scientific procedures’ being in place on investigations. Me thinks the prefix ‘pseudo’ should come before the science.

It’s this lack of analysis and reliance upon anecdotal testimony which ultimately renders ’21st Century Ghosts’ to be of little interest to the serious researcher. The entry on Woodchester Mansion is a case in point, focussing around an investigation conducted by Gloucestershire Paranormal Research Group in 2005, which I attended as a guest. The session produced an interesting piece of camcorder footage in which something resembling a hooded figure crosses the camera’s field of vision. Within 24 hours of being made aware of the film clip I’d figured out that the likely cause was torchlight from an upstairs balcony [I was with a group of artists touring the building], and offered my opinion. I was surprised to see in the text I’d apparently stated the group I was with ‘could not have been in the area where the hooded figure had been caught’. Sorry, but that’s simply not true as we were directly above the location, although the believer’s liking of anecdotal evidence tends to come down upon the many ways it can be interpreted and tweaked to suit almost any cause. Furthermore, the text doesn’t explain that attempts to replicate the footage were not fair because the exact torches used by the party I was with were not utilised.

Anecdotal evidence aside, another disappointing practise is the use of some questionable photography to accompany the text. When orbs are accompanied by captions such as ‘do they show something paranormal, or are they merely dust or moisture particles?’ you find yourself shouting out the answer! Amusingly, the obligatory camera strap makes an appearance as a ‘vortex’ elsewhere in the book. No matter, I’m sure the average Most Haunted wannabe ghost hunter will lap up ’21st Century Ghosts’, offering a peek into the world of the ghost hunters. However, its appeal to anyone seeking insight and genuine experimentation is barely minimal.

Earlier in the week SCFR received an email appeared in which it was suggested yours truly should engage in surgery to enable increased familiarity with my rear orifice. In addition to this it would seem SCFR has been deliberately ‘pushing skeptics lies’ as ‘part of the ufo conspiracey … to hide truth’. Rather than replying privately to the sender (presumably British by their email address), I thought it better to share my response here, in public.

So, what’s being suggested by the writer? Essentially, SCFR is apparently engaged in a secret, ill-intentioned plot [conspiracy] to conceal and hide some factual reality [truth], presumably the existence of UFOs, through the dissemination of critically minded and sceptical writing.

It is notoriously hard to respond to such claims from conspiracy buffs as any response unfavourable to their way of thinking will immediately be interpreted as yet another lie. Therefore I’m wondering why I’m even bothering, but I will persevere. Why? Because the sender of the email has recognised that I am a sceptic in the manner by which I reach a conclusion about any specific claim. I’ve written it numerous times before and I’ll do so again; scepticism is the method of utilising critical thought and doubt to assess evidence. In other words, I look at both sides of the story from the best available evidence and weigh up whether a particular claim could contain any substance. Furthermore:

1. SCFR has never denied the existence of UFOs. By definition a UFO is something airborne that cannot be identified by the witness. Certainly people do see UFOs, but that is not to say there is proof that aliens are the cause. In fact, many UFOs can be explained away by less fanciful means (for example, those Thai lanterns over the Forest of Dean on New Year’s Eve).

2. SCFR is philosophically open to the idea of life on other planets. However, to hold this position does not require the individual to cry ‘alien spacecraft’ every time something unusual is seen in the skies by a witness. Until such solid, factual evidence arises - rather than the speculative ‘no smoke without fire’ logic we are treated to by many of today’s researchers - of the existence of alien life, SCFR will remain sceptical.

3. The idea that SCFR is engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth of the existence of UFOs is utterly fallacious.
a) This website may be updated from within a county which also contains Government Communications Headquarters but that is not to say there is any link between the two. In fact, quite the opposite. Given my personal politics as an anti-globalist, disarmament favouring follower of the deep ecology movement, it’s pretty unlikely that I’m going to be in the pay of the government. But of course, it’s just a front. I really am a MIB.
b) In terms of web traffic SCFR is just a piece of driftwood in the world’s oceans. Just what do the government have to gain (other than a reduced bank balance from the big payoff I must be receiving!) by engaging me to suggest a handful of local UFO sightings can be explained by Thai lanterns, satellites and searchlights?

Of course, no matter my response, if someone wants to cry conspiracy they will not believe anything to the contrary. Unfortunately I know I’m not alone in being someone of a sceptical nature on the end of similar allegations. Again, my words will most likely do nothing more than fuel the fire. But, hey, you heard it here first. SCFR is part of the UFO conspiracy. Time to shift my reptilian backside as the Bildeburgs are meeting at the Town Hall…

Just as January looked destined to pass as a barren month in the annals of Gloucestershire related Forteana, up pops the Gloucestershire Echo with the thoughts of a team of local ghost chasers called, umm, Ghostchasers:

A Paranormal investigation team say they are being undermined - by bogus ghost hunters. Ghostchasers, based in Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, are fed up with unqualified teams ruining the reputation of the experts. Now they find popular haunted locations are increasingly reluctant to let them investigate. And those that do are starting to ask for money.

Team member Steve Higgins said: “We’ve heard stories of groups going into hotels and stabbing beds with knives or wrecking hotel rooms. That’s not what we do. That happened at the Ancient Ram Inn at Wotton-under-Edge. Before we had a good relationship with the owners, but I can understand now if he’s reluctant to let a team in again. It’s a shame, because ours is a professional team with 30 years of experience, let down by a group of cranks.”

The Ghostchasers, a team of eight paranormal investigators, conduct their searches as a hobby. All have full-time jobs to juggle with, as well as their hunting. So when venues, such as Woodchester Mansion, start asking for up to £400 for an investigation to be done, they simply can’t afford it. “I know Woodchester has been doing a lot of work with TV’s Most Haunted,” said Steve. “They host days where hundreds of people turn up. They can’t get very far with so many people around, that’s all I can say.”

When the Ghostchasers are searching for possible ghouls, they like the area to be deserted. They go out in teams of two with equipment, including cameras, in various parts of the target location. If a member of the team gets a hunch, they will go out on their own. Sometimes they find the unexplainable, sometimes they find nothing. Steve said: “We’ve had various boring nights where we’ve sat there and nothing happens. But we’ve had spooky ones too. “You often come away feeling uneasy when things have happened which couldn’t be explained.”

Normally SCFR does not comment on articles related to individual investigative teams but on this occasion the article is so error ridden that it is worth scrutinising:

1. The reporter comments on ‘unqualified teams ruining the reputation of the experts’. An interesting choice of words as beyond the iffy online, essentially worthless, courses run in paranormal investigation and faux-parapsychology, there are no formal qualifications in ghost hunting. It is not unreasonable to suggest that ghosthunting is an almost entirely pointless activity as much of the evidence it produces is subject to biased intepretation. Perhaps all such ghosthunting can ever hope to produce is a nod towards a hypothesis which may explain certain types of ghost sighting. As for the ‘experts’ comment, is a group that seems keen to present evidence of orbs, a phenomenon which all sceptically minded, rationalist teams now acknowledge are a photographic aberration, really appropriate to carry such a label? Indeed, are there any ‘experts’ in the field of ghost hunting? Perhaps the only differentiations to be made are on issues of ethics, professionalism and approach to evidential analysis. Certainly no one group is more qualified than another to be considered ‘experts’.

2. Tales of bed stabbings and the like at the Ancient Ram Inn are old hat, and certainly not new as suggested in the article. Owner John Humphries has told similar stories for a number of years.

3. The journalist writes that venues ‘are starting to ask for money’. Again, it is not new for venues to charge investigators, although a keen eye may notice that prices have tended to rise. Perhaps groups should ask themselves whether it is worth parting with the money to investigate such places and thereby continue to give in to the demands of the owners, especially when the findings taken from investigations in terms of observing something inexplicable is almost always zero. Perhaps the ghost hunt is more worthy for those interested in the psychology of those participating in an investigation.

4. By no means a defence of the prices charged by Woodchester Mansion, the days ‘where hundreds of people turn up’ are typically open days targetted at visitors interested in the factual history of the building, as opposed to any supposed paranormal heritage. The vast majority, if not all, paranormal related events run at the location are conducted by individual groups or commercial operations. Unfortunately paranormal tourism has become a profitable business.

Earlier in the month The Citizen carried an interesting story from the village of Horsley. Residents were apparently hoping to install motion activated cameras to capture footage of the ‘Great Dane’ sized alien big cat (ABC) which has been sighted in their area. It seemed a little odd that an entire community should engage in such a project, and Nailsworth Town Council’s ‘The Fountain’ magazine clears it up with the following article (reproduced by permission of author Chris Harmer):

I have to say that I have been very reluctant to write this article, and had to be pushed into it by a member of the town newsletter committee. Until a few years ago, I would have filed this in the same place as flying saucers, but the views of this “doubting Thomas” have been changed by what I have seen.One day in late spring or early summer about four years ago [2003], I was enjoying my usual early morning circular walk. Around thirty yards along the path from Washpool to Hartley Bridge, I spotted a slight movement, immediately behind the deer fence at the bottom of the wood to my right, about fifty yards away. That area was in deep shadow, in contrast to the bright early morning sun on the other valley side. As yet, there were no leaves on the trees. Realising that it had been spotted, a seemingly jet black animal around the size of a great dane turned and bounded up into the wood with a long, elegant, springing motion that was quite distinct and different from a dog, a deer, or indeed anything that I had seen before. Unfortunately, because of the deep shadow and the fleeting nature of my sighting, perhaps only a few seconds, I was unable to be sure of either its exact colour or features such as its tail and ears. I soon met Ann Philimore, out walking her dogs, who commented that “the dogs have not reported anything” which any dog owner would understand.

I reflected on my experience for a few days, bearing in mind that reporting what I had seen might bring my sanity into question in some quarters! I then decided to ring Caroline Aistrop of Stroud Valleys Project for some confidential advice. To my surprise, Caroline said that a few days previously she had been returning from Dursley late in the evening, and had had an animal cross the road in front of her just short of the Owlpen gate and the right turn to Horsley. She thought it was a beige coloured large cat, around the same size as my sighting. Caroline suggested that I ought to report my sighting to the police. This I did, and a wildlife officer rang me back and took my sighting very serously. He commented that the police sometimes have sufficient sightings that they can track an animal as it moves around the area or is passing through.

Just before that time, and unbeknown to me at the time of my sighting, my wife had seen a black cat in the field past Hartley Bridge which she took to be a prowling moggie until she saw its long, thick tail with a rounded end.

Four years ago the six deer in the woods at our end of Rockness were getting bolder, appearing in daylight, and eating our apples and vegetables. In the woods beyond Hartley Bridge towards Kingscote there were many deer, and yet from that time on they have become much less visible in both areas. Last year or the year before, there were two deer kills nearby, one in my neighbour’s garden and one at the Nailsworth end of Rockness. The latter kill had already lost its tail to an old wound, and had large scratch marks on its side from sharp claws (see photo above): a dog’s claws are blunt.

In April of this year, I was walking up Barcelona Lane when I came upon a fresh young deer carcass. It had been killed by a bite to the neck, and had a large hole where its killer seemed to have gone for its internal organs. Subsequently I learned that these are signs of a probable big cat kill. Judging by the remnants of skin and coat the kill site was about fifteen feet away from the carcass and it had been dragged to where I found it. By the time I returned a day later or so later with a camera, the outer meat had been taken, probably by foxes (see photo below).

I emailed my pictures to Stroud Valleys Project whom I had not realised had recently hosted a talk on “Big Cats in the Countryside”, given by Rick Minter who is the editor of “ECOS”, the journal of the British Association for Nature Conservation. When he saw my photos, Rick emailed to advise that he was arranging a visit to Gloucestershire by two of the foremost experts in big cat signs in the country, Jonathon McGowan from Dorset and Chris Johnston from Liverpool, and they would like to investigate the Horsley valley. This visit took place a few weeks later: we were accompanied by Roger Duncan of Ruskin Mill as a lot of the land we visited is under Ruskin Mill’s ownership or management. Starting with Barcelona Lane, we covered the valley to about the Horsley parish boundary past Sandgrove. Whilst we found nothing obvious, the comment was made that this was potentially good cat habitat, and work will be carried out using unattended automatic cameras. Watch this space for any results!

By the time you read this, Rick Minter will have given a talk at Ruskin Mill on this topic on 16th October. Finally, it is said that there is little potential risk to people from the kinds of large cats which may be extant when compared to the risk from certain large dogs or even wasps. It is believed that some physical evidence such as road kills may have been kept quiet by the police and landowners. If you do have a sighting or find a fresh deer kill, please let me know. If you have web access, putting “bigcatsinbritain” into your search engine will bring up relevant material.

Chris Harmer, Rockness Hill

Sources: Thisisgloucestershire.co.uk, Chris Harmer, The Fountain