How people see ghosts

Shadow ghostSome people believe ghosts are spirits. Others dismiss them as hallucination or delusion. But what if they are none of these. What
if we take witness statements of ghost sightings at face value - they literally do see the figure of someone who is not physically present. How is
that possible without spirits being involved? And can anyone who wants to, see ghosts?

“... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the Sign of
Four.

Misperception and hallucinations

There are no official statistics but it is clear that most ghost cases, when properly investigated, turn out to be caused by misperception. It is
obviously something that must be eliminated first, before anything can be claimed as paranormal. It is therefore important to understand it.

Misperception is misinterpreting something seen, heard, felt or otherwise sensed. It is likely, taking into account the results of many
investigations, that misperception alone accounts for the most reported paranormal experiences. Hallucinations, by contrast, originate inside
your brain, so they don't require any 'something' in the real world (a sensory stimulus). Between them, misperceptions and hallucinations
probably account for a great many reports of apparent paranormal phenomena.

For a quick quide to misperception (as well as 'frequently put objections', see here).

Hallucination Misperception
Do not require any external object Require object external to witness
Can generally not be shared with other witnesses Can be seen by multiple witnesses at once
Originates in brain without sensory input Originates in brain from sensory input

Looking for misperception and hallucination

Hallucination is more difficult than misperception to detect. With no 'sensory stimulus' to look for, detecting hallucination requires examining
what was happening to the witness when they experienced the apparent paranormal phenomenon. If they were on the verge of sleep at the
time, for instance, you might suspect a near sleep experience. If they felt paralysed then it might be sleep paralysis. Many people experience
one or two episodes of sleep paralysis in their lives. Other causes of hallucination include sensory deprivation and absorption. Some other types
of hallucination may be caused by medical conditions (like epilepsy) or by taking certain drugs, so you could check witnesses's medical history
(see also mindsight). A small number of hallucinations may be induced by such things as certain magnetic fields.

With misperception there is something outside the witness to look for - the sensory stimulus! It would be worth trying to recreate the situation
of the original experience, at precisely the same location, to see if the object is obvious. It would be very useful if you could reproduce the
lighting conditions too, if relevant, as many misperceptions occur in poor light. If you're lucky, you too may experience the same misperception.
Sometimes, though, the cause of a misperception may have gone by the time of the investigation.

Misperception

As optical illusions illustrate, our brains can easily be fooled. Misperceptions are caused by ambiguous, insufficient or conflicting sensory
information reaching our brains.

Ambiguous sensory stimuli may present aspects of different objects, forcing our brains to decide which is really present
When our brains get insufficient sensory information they may 'edit in' likely objects from memory to make sense of an experience
Sensory conflicts may arise between different senses which our brains have somehow to resolve
In all such cases, it seems our brains 'resolve' such problems BEFORE presenting sensory information to our consciousness. Thus we are
presented with a seamless experience which may, sometimes, not reflect the real world.

In order to understand misperceptions, we must first understand normal perception. Details of the process are still being unraveled by science
but we know some relevant things already.

The picture in your head - visual misperception

The most 'acute' of your senses is vision. It is 'acute' because it is the one we rely on the most to form our picture of reality. When our senses
receive conflicting information, vision is the one that wins the tussle. Vision also provides more information than any of the other senses,
measuring not only the wavelength and amplitude of light (equating to colour and brightness) but also the spatial layout of light sources in
three dimensions. By comparison, only frequency and amplitude are measured in hearing.

1
Consider the 'picture in your head' - that crisp, colourful movie of the world behind your eyes that most people assume is reality. In fact, it is a
moving image stored and played in your brain. The whole image is not fed continuously by your eyes but instead it receives brief detailed
updates of small parts of the view in front of you. The bits of the image not currently being updated are slightly out of date, being the result of
previous updates. The reason is that detailed views can only be obtained from a small bit of your retina, called the fovea. Your eye performs
constant jerky movements, called saccades, to point the fovea at the most interesting parts of a scene. The fovea then 'fixates' on a small area
while passing information to the brain. During the actual eye movements, little or no information goes to the brain. We generally perform
about three saccades a second, each lasting 20 to 200 microseconds. For the remaining time we are fixating on a relatively small area of the
scene ahead.

So how is the 'picture in your head' maintained? Recent scientific research suggests that it is partly from updates, partly from short term
memory (what was there at the last fixation) and partly from visual long term visual memories. This last bit is particularly interesting from the
point of view of misperception. If you see something that your brain does not immediately recognise from memory (or where there are
conflicting signals from other senses), it needs to make a quick decision. It tries to maintain a picture that 'makes sense', so sometimes it may
substitute the ambiguous visual information with something from its long term memory. This happens before the 'picture in your head' is
updated, so the substitution is not noticed and feels perfectly real to you, the witness.

In order to give us a real time view of the world, our brains do not have time to examine everything in a scene in detail. Instead, our brains take
short cuts, to speed processing. We examine the edges and corners of an object, for instance, rather than the whole thing, to decide what it is.
The rest is frequently filled in from our visual memory. The more vague an object looks, the more memory is used to 'fill in the gaps'.

Consider, for instance, if you saw a shadow in a dark room, your brain might not have sufficient information to work out what it is. So it might
decide it is a human figure. Your long term memory may then add 'details' to the sighting that you can't really see, like limbs or clothes, because
of expectation. Your brain knows, from experience, that humans generally have limbs and clothes, so it inserts such 'details', even though your
eyes can't see them. Because seeing a strange figure in a dark place can be a disturbing experience, psychological suggestion may come into
play making you think it might be a ghost. If the figure doesn't move, as it might not if it is a shadow with a mundane cause, this strange
'behaviour' may reinforce the idea that it is not an ordinary human at all but a ghost. And even people who don't consciously know much about
ghosts will have absorbed enough from the culture to inform such a perception.

This process of 'editing' the 'picture in your head' is entirely unconscious. Therefore the image will feel totally real to you and will be
remembered as such. The process is probably easier if, whether consciously or otherwise, you accept the idea that ghosts, as well as real
people, are possible. This unconscious 'acceptance' may come through cultural memory.

Research has shown that each object in the 'picture in your head' is dealt with separately by your brain. This applies even when two objects
overlap. Thus, an object from your visual memory can be 'inserted' into a real scene completely naturally. It might even be partially obscured by
another real object. This is one reason why misperceived objects can appear completely convincing and normal!

Different people will be subject to differing misperceptions because each has their disparate life experiences and memories. That's because
misperceptions originate in people's long term visual memory. So if three people see an ambiguous stimulus, one may see one ghost, another a
different ghost and the third just a shadow! Misperceptions can also vary according to the viewing conditions. Just as with an optical illusion,
they may look completely different from a slightly different viewing angle or may disappear altogether. Thus misperceptions are sensitive to (a)
who the viewer is and (b) the viewing conditions. This can make them difficult to reproduce.

There are further visual misperception problems related to peripheral vision ('corner of the eye') and low light but they are dealt with
elsewhere. For practical advice on detecting misperception in witness testimony, see visual substitutions.

It takes around 100ms for the signals from our retinas to reach our brains. To compensate for this delay, our brains 'predict' any motion we are
seeing. Thus our minds will show us where a ball that is flying though the air actually is, rather than where we can really 'see' it. If this didn't
happen we couldn't play games like tennis (as we'd try to hit the ball after it had gone). So what we see in 'picture in our heads' is not what is
going on right now but a 'future projection' 1/10s ahead, produced by the unconscious parts of our brains! This delay is thought to be the
mechanism behind optical illusions, where the brain's projection about where things will be is sometimes wrong.

To produce this 'future projection', our brains have a 'functional model' of how objects, like tennis balls, behave when moving. However, when
we see something we have never seen before, or something we mistake for another object, our brains may use the wrong 'functional model'
for the object. If we see a tree in bad light, the unconscious parts of our brains may think it is really a ghost. So, we may see it 'move', even
when it doesn't, because that's what our brains expect a ghost to do! Our 'functional models' of things like UFOs, which most people have
never seen before, may be derived from the movies!

Shadow ghost misperception

2
Shadow ghostLook at the photo, right. It shows a shadow on a stair. The whole photo looks dark. The shadow on the stair bears a passing
resemblance to a human figure in its shape and with a 'hand' on the right banister and 'legs' stretching down several steps. If it were a person it
would be rather short, a child perhaps. However, if you saw this shadow briefly, without having a photo to study at your leisure, you might
think it was a shadow ghost.

There is no shadow ghost in the photo, just the chance way the shadow fell vaguely suggesting the human form. We humans are particularly
prone to seeing figures and faces in random patterns, probably from ancient survival skills. Had the shadow fallen in a different way, the effect
probably wouldn't have worked. Indeed, for some readers it probably doesn't work now!

The photo was just a normal one of the interior of a building. Nothing has been electronically added to the photo. Instead the whole picture has
been simply been darkened and the contrast increased, until the shadow obscures the background, in a photo software package.

The final effect is an ambiguous stimulus - is it just a shadow (as the colour and lack of detail suggest) or a shadowy figure (as the shape
suggests)? Your brain has conflicting visual cues to resolve - shadow or figure? If you were to approach such a shadow, it would probably
change shape or even vanish (as the angles of the light throwing the shadow changed). Since your brain knows that humans can't do things like
change shape or vanish, it might conclude the shadow was a ghost!

Optical illusions (like these) are a common form of misperception. They usually work by providing conflicting, or ambiguous, visual information.
The brain has to make a choice which, with optical illusions, is usually wrong. Again, the brain likes to present a 'reasonable' version of the
world (based on experience), rather than a totally realistic one, so it is fooled into making mistakes.

A briefly-seen dark shape can also resemble a shadow ghost. See this video, for instance. A brief glance is just one kind of 'misperception
trigger' (see section below).

Sound misperception

This same kind of process that occur in vision perception happen with sound. If you listen to speech in a noisy environment, your brain will 'fill
in' likely sounding words that it didn't actually hear. And with ambiguous sounds, you can hear different things, often determined by
expectation and suggestion. Flowing water (a kind of near white noise) can sound like whispering or music in certain circumstances. Once again
your brain is faced with conflicting or ambiguous cues and has to make a choice.

These kind of misperceptions occur in formant noise. You can hear illustrations of these sort of aural misperceptions here.

Another form of aural misperception occurs when you hear an unfamiliar noise apparently coming from a familiar object. You may hear an
expected sound associated with the object even though it is, in reality, a different sound altogether. Indeed, it may even come from another
object in the same direction. One witness reported hearing a door handle apparently being manipulated when there was no one visible and the
handle motionless! It turned out to be a similar, but different, sound from outside in the street. The unfamiliar sound from the same direction
was unconsciously 'transferred' to become a familiar sound from the door! The door was not in direct line of sight when the sound was first
heard which compromised the witness's ability to correctly locate the source of the noise.

Touching misperception

We have a mental map of our body based on vision and touch. However, vision is more important than touch and conflicts between the senses
can lead to misperceptions like the 'rubber hand illusion'. You take a model of a hand and put it on a table in front of you while hiding one of
your real hands where you can't see it (behind a screen, perhaps) and holding it in the same pose. Then you get someone to gently stroke both
the model and your real hidden hand with the same movements. You will get a strange feeling that the rubber hand in front of you is your own!
You can see a demo here. It is possible that the Christos method of inducing out of the body experiences may deliberately induce a conflict
between vision and touch to manipulate your 'body map'.

Now imagine you are sitting in the dark reaching out and you can feel something. Without vision, are you sure you know where your hand is in
space? It certainly brings into question spatial awareness and apparent touching incidents in dark vigils. Could it also explain the mystery of the
'hand in the dark' experience at a physical mediumship seance?

Attention misperception

Another problem that our brain has in constructing the 'picture in your head' is in paying attention. Change blindness is a hot topic in
neuroscience at the moment. We seem to only have a limited amount of 'attention' and we only notice so much change, missing any more that
happens. For instance, people do not usually notice gradual changes in scenes, even if they are big alterations. We also frequently miss changes
if we are distracted while the change is happening.

3
Unfortunately, change blindness can leave us open to not noticing vital clues to natural causes for apparent paranormal phenomena. If an
unstable stack of objects was gradually slipping, over several seconds or minutes, we might not notice the change until it finally falls over. We
might conclude that the stack had looked perfectly stable until it fell over, because we didn't notice it shifting to an unstable position. We might
conclude that the 'object movement' was paranormal when it is not.

There is anecdotal evidence that people particularly interested in the paranormal, who are also frequently paranormal witnesses, may be
particularly focused when watching a scene and prone to missing clues to natural causes. For instance, such people seem particularly likely not
to notice the gorilla in the ball game!

Paradoxically, we can often have a 'gut feeling' that something has changed in a scene we are observing, even though we can't say what it is.
This is mindsight. The interesting point is that, according to research, this can happen both if there is a genuine change in the scene and also if
there is not! This could give someone experiencing it the impression that they have perceived something when they have not - a brief sight of a
ghost perhaps! This may explain ghost sightings where only one person in a group 'sees' the ghost while others don't, even when they are
looking in the same direction.

Xenonormal

Misperception is probably behind many xenonormal experiences. When faced with something unfamiliar or novel, our brains have to decide
what it is before passing it to the 'picture in our head'. An unfamiliar object is an ambiguous stimulus by definition since we have no memory of
it. This is when our brains may plunder our long term memory to find ANY match, whether fact or fiction. A mysterious light in the sky may
match something seen in a film about UFOs. Though the light is actually just Venus, our brains may add 'details', like a saucer shape, to make it
appear more like an alien space craft. By putting images of imaginary alien craft into the public domain, we are encouraging people, very
occasionally to actually 'see' them when faced with the unfamiliar, the xenonormal.

Misperceptions like those outlined above, coupled with memory limitations, may account for some of the problems we see with witness
testimony.

Misperception triggers

Though misperception has been studied quite extensively in the laboratory, it is not so well documented in the field. Perhaps this is a gap that
paranormal researchers could fill! The following examples of visual misperception 'triggers' are anecdotal, so it should not be taken as a
definitive or exhaustive list.

quick glances - objects are often misinterpreted when only seen briefly (see also here).
poor viewing conditions - dim light, bright light, highly coloured light, fog, bright light source from a low angle (eg. the sun in winter at high
latitudes) etc can all produce misperception
corner of the eye phenomena - poor resolution on the edge of the visual field produces misperception
distant objects - these can be the subject of visual substitution
ambiguous shapes - simulacra, optical illusions, etc.
partial views of an object (eg shape obscured) - if the shape is partly obscured an object may be misinterpreted
rapid head turning - may cause apparent movement in the new scene even when everything is stationary
slow moving objects - may be difficult to recognise while in motion
fast moving objects - may 'vanish' if they do not move as predicted
unfamiliar object/situation - something completely unrecognised by the observer OR a familiar object in an unexpected situation
familiar object - something has really changed in a familiar scene but you still 'see' what you expect to see
line of sight - it is difficult to judge the distance between two objects in the same line of sight
objects blending together - part of a foreground object appears to vanish because it 'blends in' visually with a background object (accidental
camouflage) - this can happen with snow cover - also boldly coloured objects where their pattern breaks up their outline
uniform background - where there is a uniform background over most of someone's visual field it may compromise distance perception,
promoting misperception
afterimage - where someone looks at a bright object then looks away and sees a 'negative' version superimposed on the background scene -
though normally not difficult to notice, some situations (eg. monochrome night scene) may produce odd effects
reflection - size and distance of objects are routinely misjudged in reflections which can lead to misperception in certain circumstances
(particularly where they involve featureless backgrounds)
misjudged distance - in certain circumstances may appear closer or further away than they really are eg. when they are covered in repeating
patterns
There are, no doubt, other conditions were when objects are misperceived and, sometimes, substituted. Paranormal investigators should try to
assess if any of these conditions applied to reported anomalous phenomena sightings.

4
Many of the conditions listed above are either temporary or rely on very specific viewing conditions that can change quickly (eg. after a quick
glance you may stare at an object for longer). When the conditions for the misperception change, the illusion will generally disappear. Such
'disappearances' are, of course, a feature of many ghost sightings.

Attempts by the original witness to reproduce misperception at the same spot usually fail. This would tend to indicate that 'surprise' is also a
factor in such experiences. If you are prepared to experience a particular misperception it probably won't happen! However, being aware that
misperceptions can happen may make you more likely to experience them, in general.

Whenever our brains do not immediately recognise an object, they will take any clue to come to an answer, right or wrong, before we become
conscious of the result. These 'clues' may be other things in the visual field or even what we happened to be thinking about at the time.

We might be more vulnerable to misperception if we are in 'default network' state. This is the state when we are not concentrating on anything
in particular, perhaps daydreaming. The state is believed to be the brain's way of reviewing short term memories to decide which to keep and
which to discard. This could possibly inform the imagery of misperceptions. During daydreams our minds not only consider the past but
possible futures and even wild imaginings. Another possible state conducive to misperception might be boredom (where certain brain areas
may become disconnected), due to repetitive tasks for instance. In any of these states, little attention is being paid to surroundings, increasing
the possibility of misperception.

When do we misperceive?

The conditions for misperception are around us for much of the time. An object may be too distant to see well or it might be dark. And all the
time things in our peripheral vision are never observed well. So misperception is probably going on most of the time for everyone. So why don't
we notice it? Because our brains are the things producing the misperceptions and they are 'validating' them - ie. telling us what we are seeing is
real nearly all the time ('seeing is believing').

So the real question is, why do we, very rarely, notice a misperception and interpret it as a strange experience (maybe paranormal)?
Misperception hides from us because it usually takes the form of things that are expected. But occasionally our brains get it wrong! We may see
a poorly-seen tree as a person but if that 'person' could not possibly have appeared in a particular location without being seen earlier, we
notice it! It is like a continuity error in a movie. It seems that our brains can make any particular static scene make sense in itself but not
necessarily maintain the illusion of reality correctly for an extended period of time. Quite simply, we can create a version of reality in our heads
but sometimes we make mistakes and that's when we notice them.

This suggests a strong link with paranormal reports! If we notice a 'mistake in reality', that is practically a definition of paranormal! If you glance
at a human figure in your peripheral vision and, when you turn to look straight at it, it vanishes, the first thing you think is - ghost! This would
explain why many (most?) misperceptions that we notice are interpreted as paranormal.

Occasionally, we might notice a misperception that is NOT a continuity error. Our brains may substitute a poorly-seen object for something else
which is perfectly reasonable in the context, like seeing a post as a tree in a forest! This would probably only be noticed if we had some
particular reason to look at it closely. Since, unlike seeing a ghost, the incident has no great significance, we would probably forget it in minutes.
Our memories tend to hang on to the unusual while dismissing the commonplace.

Psychological priming, can induce us to notice a misperception. If a scene suggests a particular thought, it may make us misperceive poorly-
seen objects within that scene in a particular way. For instance, visiting a spooky castle in the evening might make us misperceive a tree stump
as a ghost in armour! Closer inspection then confirms the stump's true nature and we realise we have been misperceiving. In a wood we might
misperceive exactly the same tree stump but would be unlikely to notice because we'd probably only misperceive it as a tree!

Another possible factor that may make misperceptions both memorable, and apparently paranormal, may be associated negative emotions.
For instance, misperceiving a tree as a human figure when out alone walking, for instance, could cause a feeling of discomfort. And if the figure
then 'disappears' (reverts to being a tree!) it might then give the impression of being a ghost! Being in an area thought of as spooky may induce
feelings of discomfort, thereby encouraging ghostly misperceptions.

Repeat misperception

Once a misperception is seen and recognized for what it really is, it no longer works - usually. However, a particular scene may produce the
same misperception repeatedly for a particular witness (or a group of witnesses). But it can only be repeated once the witness has forgotten to
expect it! If the witness actively seeks out the misperception, it will not appear. If you take a strong misperception stimulus, like a coat lying in a
seat resembling a seated person, this might be misperceived again by the same witness repeatedly but only once they have forgotten their
previous experience.

5
The same thing happens with ghost sightings which rarely, if ever, occur when someone is actively looking for them. For instance, if you know
to expect a ghost at a particular hot spot on a vigil, the chances are extremely low that you will ever see it. On such vigils, many of the best
sightings happen outside 'watching sessions', such as during breaks or when setting up or packing away when investigators are not actively
looking for anything. This tends to suggest that many such ghost sightings are, in fact, misperception.

Duration of misperception experiences

In most cases of misperception, the effect is short-lived, generally measured in seconds. This is because the witness gets a better view of the
object being misperceived and the illusion is broken. However, there are cases of 'persistent misperception' which are prolonged. This may
because viewing conditions do not improve. Probably of greater importance, however, is whether the misperceived object closely resembles
the misperception (eg. hanging clothes resembling a human figure) and if there are few clues to the real nature of the object (eg. if significant
features are obscured by intervening vegetation). It is just such persistent cases that probably produce paranormal reports, as do 'glance' type
experiences which rely on their short duration to work.

Misperceived objects can look odd!

What you see, exactly, when you misperceive a tree as a human figure, for instance, is partly affected by the tree and partly by the memory
your brain is using to substitute for the real object. This means that although the figure looks real, there may be some peculiarities about it that
come from the shape of the tree! These might well not be noticed straight away. So, for instance, a human figure might been seen to be the
same height as an adjacent bush. But it might turn out that the bush is 3m tall, too high to be a real person! There could be other peculiarities
that the witness might remember when they are asked to describe the figure. One thing, in particular, is that the figure may look incredibly still,
more like a statue than a living human being (or even a ghost). This is because, of course, the tree leading to the misperception is not moving!
Such oddities may be a clue that misperception could be behind a particular paranormal observation.

There are limits to how odd misperceptions can be. If an object is too different in size to the thing it might be misperceived as, misperception
does not occur. A bush 4m high, for instance, is unlikely to misperceived as a human figure!

Multiple sense misperception

Sometimes two senses may interact to produce, or reinforce, a misperception in either, both (or even neither). So, if you see a vague shadow
shape in your peripheral vision, while hearing a groaning noise (made by the wind in a tree, maybe), you may get a strong misperception of a
human figure. The groaning noise, even though it is caused by the wind, may be misattributed to the shadow. This sort of experience may give
rise to the idea of an 'interactive ghost' - it might appear to be talking to the witness. This is also based on anecdotal experience and needs
formal research.

Forms that misperception takes

As with 'misperception triggers' above, this area has not been researched much. This is another gap that paranormal researchers could fill. The
following is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. The following list is extremely unlikely to be exhaustive:

figures (sometimes only partial) and faces (eg. a 'ghost') (notes 1,5)
things feared (eg. a watching 'person', a 'shadow ghost', unexplained movement)
UFOs (note 2)
things that used to be there (note 3)
things hoped for (note 4)
things expected (note 6)
Notes on misperception forms :

1: There is a specific area of the brain (the right middle fusiform gyrus) apparently dedicated to facial recognition - other objects are recognised
by other areas. It is, perhaps, unsurprising then that sometimes objects are misperceived as faces. People are also prone to 'over-recognising'
human figures for social and survival purposes - you need to know if there is a person present and if they are a possible threat or maybe a
friend. The ghost connection probably arises if the figure vanishes on closer inspection.

2: The word UFO is, of course, widely taken to mean 'alien spacecraft' in popular culture. This probably explains why unidentified flying objects
are typically interpreted as 'flying saucers'.

3: When we misperceive, objects are substituted from visual memory. While these can be fictional objects (from films, TV programmes, etc)
they can also be real. It is therefore not surprising if we 'see' things as present that were once there but have been removed. We might glimpse
a once treasured possession in half light when it has been thrown away. This, also, feeds into the idea of ghosts as 'recordings'.

6
4: When naturalists particularly want to see a species they've never encountered before, they can sometimes 'turn' a similar but more common
animal into it (when not seen well!). They are convinced they've seen what they desperately wanted to see even though it is not so. This no
doubt happens in other circumstances when people particularly hope to see something (or even someone) not actually physically present!

5: Rarely, some people report ghosts as being only partially visible, eg. the top or bottom half of a human figure or just a limb. This could arise if
the misperceived object most closely resembles only part of a body.

6: We may expect to see things in particular situations from similar experiences in the past. This could include fictional situations, so you might
expect to see a ghost in a spooky house if you've seen something similar in a movie. If we see a 'figure' where we expect to see one, like at the
wheel of a car, it can make a particularly powerful impression (sometimes repeatedly).

Anecdotally, misperception generally takes the form of 'generalised' objects rather than specific examples from memory. So, you may
misperceive a human figure, even seeing their clothes, facial features, etc but without recognising them as anyone you've ever seen. This may
the result of archetypes.

The reason why human and animal figures (often interpreted as ghosts) are seen more often than other misperceptions may be down to a bit
of the brain called the amygdala. This area notices potential threats before we are even consciously aware of them (particularly blurred or fuzzy
objects). Over the span of human evolution, it is likely that animals and other humans have been the most likely immediate threat to personal
security. So though we misperceive all the time, we probably only notice those things tagged by the amygdala as a possible threat. It might also
explain why we are afraid of ghosts!

Misperceived objects

An object can be misperceived as anything of similar dimensions, shape and colour. This generally puts a limit on what the misperception can
be (a small rectangular box is never likely to be seen as a human figure but a tall bush might)*. The worse the viewing conditions, however, the
looser such restrictions on size and colour and so on. There could be multiple objects involved as well. They may line up, from a particular
angle, to give the impression of a completely different object.

Something that is misperceived doesn't even have to be a physical object. Anything that can create patterns of light will do, such as shadows or
highly illuminated surfaces. A pattern of shadows on a wall could resemble a human figure, depending on its shape and size. You could even
misperceive a shape caused by a gap between other objects (a hole, in effect)! Reflections can also cause misperceptions. Shadows can also act
as 'extensions' to real objects to give the impression of something else.

In low light situations there are often fewer colours visible than normal. This is because there might not be enough light around for normal
colour vision or, if using outdoors artificial lighting, the colour range may be restricted by the source. Similarly, if the lighting is from a low sun
the range of colours may be limited to the colours of the sunrise or sunset.

This loss of colour vision means visible details of objects are lost. Different coloured areas of an object, that were clearly differentiated in good
light, may merge to appear as one colour. The result is that objects can appear radically different, even seeming to change shape or apparently
merge with adjacent objects. If there are long dark shadows about, as there will be with a low sun, this can add to an object's changed
appearance by rendering some features invisible (in the shadow). Essentially, objects can look quite different in low light, perhaps even
suggesting a human figure or face, in a way that would not happen in good lighting.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that such low light situations, with fewer colours than usual and long shadows, may be the cause of many
misperception (and paranormal) reports.

Misperceived objectMoving objects, when poorly seen, can sometimes give the impression of being alive. For instance, a tree branch blowing in
the wind, seen in peripheral vision, might suggest an animal or even a moving human figure.

The photo, right, shows a scene that appeared as a leaning ('as if examining something on the ground') woman in a grey coat to one witness!
The 'woman' was seen in peripheral vision, a common cause of misperception. The 'woman' was clearly produced by the greyish tree stump in
the centre of the photo, visibly leaning to the left. The size, shape and colour of the 'woman' were clearly determined by the visual
characteristics of the stump being misperceived. The stump was adjacent to a path making it a reasonable place to expect to see a human
standing. See here for a fuller account of the observation.

* New anecdotal evidence suggests misperceptions can sometimes extend considerably beyond the object causing them!

Archetypes and functional models

Our brains hold models of the objects in the world, derived from our experience. So we recognise a table, even if it is a design we've never seen
before. We have an archetypical table in our brains - the essential 'tableness' quality of every table we've ever seen. We also know how tables

7
behave - they are solid and generally they don't move! We have a 'functional model' of how such an object behaves and interacts with other
objects. Recent research suggests we remember objects as a 'map' consisting of simpler shapes. This allows us to recognise different types of
table, for instance, including from a variety of angles, even if we've never seen it from that direction before.

When we fail to recognise something, for whatever reason, our brains may substitute the real object in our vision with something from visual
memory. Rather than something specific (eg. a particular table), experience suggests that it is a generalised form (any old table) - probably the
archetype we hold in our brains! Thus misperceptions will typically features recognisable tables, people, clouds, etc but not specific ones we've
seen before.* In addition, a 'functional model' will exist for that archetype.

Such 'archetypes' and 'functional models' need not be derived from real experience. We 'know' what a flying saucer looks like from the movies,
even if we've never actually seen a 'real' one. So, if you've never seen Venus before and don't recognise it, your brain may add portholes and a
saucer shape to make it look like a classic flying saucer. It may even appear to move, because that's what flying saucers do!

Alternatively, since the object we're seeing has not been recognised correctly, it may look and behave differently from the archetype and
functional model that our brains have assigned to it. This may give us the impression of strange behaviour and appearance - a spooky
appearance! This can lead to reports of objects 'defying the laws of physics'. For instance, we are not used to seeing ornaments flying through
the air, so if such a thing happens in a poltergeist case, our brains may become confused, causing it to appear to hang in the air before falling.
The apparent 'hovering' occurs while our brains realise that it really is a falling ornament! Many apparently paranormal experiences may be
caused by a difference between what our brains expect an object to look and behave like and what it really does.

* Some ghosts ARE people we already know - crisis apparitions - but most are unknown 'people' and are rarely, if ever, positively identified with
a particular person.

Effects of misperception

As a result of investigation, we know that most reported paranormal experiences have mundane causes. Further, it is generally thought that
misperception is the biggest cause of such reports. Therefore, we should be able to see the effects of misperception (its 'signature') in many
paranormal reports. Here are some examples of aspects of paranormal reports that may fall into this category:

the closer you look for the paranormal, the more elusive it becomes - this has been widely noted, particularly on vigils and among primary
witnesses - it can be explained by the fact that the more attention you pay to a misperceived phenomenon, the less likely it is to be
misperceived
children are often said to report more paranormal phenomena than adults - this might be because they are less resistant to the idea of the
existence of the paranormal as they are routinely, and uncritically, exposed to stories that include it (see culture) - also young children are
unfamiliar with more things than adults and so may misperceive more
Both of these effects are essentially anecdotal, and so would benefit from rigorous studies.

See a ghost for yourself!

Once you become aware of misperception, it is likely you will start to notice mysterious objects, glanced briefly or seen in the 'corner of your
eye', that vanish when you look at them properly. You might one day be aware of a 'figure' in the distance or just glanced briefly. On closer
examination it may turn into a tree, a plant or some other object that vaguely resembles a human. The 'figure' will appear to vanish, just as
ghost frequently do. That's because your brain inserted the 'figure' into the 'picture in your head' instead of the tree which it couldn't see
properly. This may well be precisely how many ghost sightings happen. Just keep a lookout in your peripheral vision and, from time to time, you
will see ghosts! But don't go looking for specific misperceptions as this appears to inhibit the effect! Just expect to be surprised!

But why do misperceptions often feature human figures and ghosts, rather than more mundane objects? This probably arises from the way our
brains work.

Despite probably being responsible for most paranormal reports, misperception is under-researched. You can help! Please send us your
experiences by completing the misperception survey.

It is very difficult to reproduce misperception because of the many variables involved that need to be just right. Here is an attempt that might,
or might not, work for you.

Eliminating misperception

Since misperception is probably responsible for most paranormal reports, eliminating it during investigations is important. Some ideas for doing
that are here.

8
Spookiness factors

There are several environmental factors which, though they don't cause misperception, may encourage witnesses to report such experiences as
paranormal rather than something else. They are factors that contribute to the 'spooky' feeling of a place. These 'spookiness factors' include:

low lighting
high humidity
old buildings
low temperature
a reputation for being haunted
elevated infrasound
These are factors that have been found to contribute to the number of reports of apparent paranormal experiences. Not everyone will be
affected by these factors and the degree of influence will vary between individuals. But, overall, they will contribute to the likelihood of
misperception being reported as paranormal (rather than dismissed as a 'trick of the light', for instance). These factors probably work by
psychologically priming the witness.

Misperceptions about misperception

Sometimes misperception is dismissed as a possible cause of a reports of weird experiences because of wrong ideas about what it is and what it
isn't. Here are a list of some of the common objections to misperception and answers to those points.

Misperception is still a new subject and requires a lot more research yet to answer all such questions properly.

----

Misperception - frequently put objections

Misperception - a quick primer

Misperceived treeMany reports of apparent paranormal phenomena have been found, on investigation, to be explained by misperception. This
phenomenon can substitute a poorly seen object with something different in someone's visual field, before they are even consciously aware of
it. It is thus seen by the witness as entirely real.

Misperception arises because of the way our brains work. The scene in front of us at any given time contains too much information to be
processed by our brains to give us an accurate, up to date image quickly enough to be any use. So, our brains and eyes take various short cuts
to give us a 'good enough' idea of what is in front of us (see misperception). In particular, anything not well seen is likely to be substituted with
an object from visual memory (see visual substitutions).

It is important to realise that visual substitutions occur BEFORE we are consciously aware of seeing that object, so we accept them as
completely real and true! The original object becomes invisible - we only see the substitute! Such misperception happens all the time, in
peripheral vision for instance (see peripheral vision) where we have lower resolution monochrome views (like the pic, right). Most of the time
we don't notice misperception because our brains are good at guessing what is really there when doing a substitution.

Sometimes substitutions produce oddities that we notice (they 'feel wrong'). We might see a tree in peripheral vision, for instance, which is
substituted with a human figure (the photo above shows a tree that was actually misperceived as a figure - see here). If the presence of such a
figure is highly unlikely (in a locked room, for instance), we might decide it is really a ghost! This impression is further enhanced because, on
turning to look at the misperceived object and see it better, our brains recognise it for what it really is and the substitute (the 'figure') vanishes!

It has been known for a long time that many, even most, reports of anomalous phenomena sightings could be explained by misperception.
However, it is only recent scientific research which has revealed that people really do SEE what they report! They don't see a tree that vaguely
resembles a human figure and apply a 'vivid imagination', they really SEE the figure (a substitution), often including details like clothing and
facial expression. This means that misperception now can explain some sightings that before could only realistically be hallucination or real
paranormal phenomena.

The section above is just a brief primer for misperception - follow the links within it for much more detail. The section below, as well as
answering questions, contains lots of 'fun facts' about misperception.

Misperceptions about misperception; frequently put objections

9
Sometimes misperception is dismissed as a possible cause of a reported paranormal experience because of misconceptions about what it is and
what it is capable of. Here are some of the commonly heard objections and the answers to them which should help clarify matters:

objection: misperception is all about optical illusions and mind tricks

answer: optical illusions are artificial (hardly ever seen in nature) ways that exploit the way perception functions to deceive us - they are truly
'mind tricks'*. They are usually persistent, if seen at all, and affect most people. By contrast, misperception is a part of the normal way our
perception works. In peripheral vision, for instance, where things are poorly seen, many of the objects apparently there are no better than good
guesses by our brains which may, or may not, be the same as reality. Misperceptions tend to be short lived as, when something is seen in better
viewing conditions, it is seen for what it really is (the misperception is 'broken'). Unlike persistent optical illusions, once 'broken' it can be
difficult, or impossible, to see the same misperception again.*
objection: a misperception is just a simulacrum
answer: objects only need to look vaguely like something else to produce a visual substitution. A simulacrum may closely resemble another
object but you don't actually SEE that other object instead. With misperception, the original object disappears from view completely to be
replaced by the brain's substitute image in your visual field. Because the visual substitution happens before we are even consciously aware of
seeing the original object, we only ever see the substitute and usually accept it as totally real.
objection: we would notice if we are misperceiving
answer: we misperceive all the time but because our brains show us what we expect to see, we don't notice anything odd. Someone aware of
the possibility of misperceiving may notice them but most never people do, even when pointed out.
objection: misperceptions are created in our brains so, not being real, they must be easy to spot
answer: our brains create misperceptions BEFORE we are consciously aware of seeing them so we believe what we are seeing is real (as if they
came from our eyes). We do not notice misperceptions while we're having them. In certain cases we might spot them afterwards if something
then appears strange, like the misperception disappears when looked at more closely. Misperceptions originate from our own visual memory so
they look completely real to us.
objection: people can misperceive any object as any other
answer: our brains do their best guesses when misperceiving which means they are constrained by the shape, size, position, motion, colour,
texture etc of the object being misperceived. For instance, a tree will only be misperceived as a human figure if it happens to resemble one in
size, shape, position etc. Such a tree will never be misperceived as a bus or crane!
objection: you cannot see 'detail' in a misperception
answer: this is partially true in that the objects that we see when misperceiving appear to be 'generic' rather than a specific memory of a
particular object seen in the past**. However, when trying to remember, confabulation and suggestion can provide spurious detail turning a
generic human figure into a particular individual with specific clothes, facial expression, etc
objection: aren't misperceptions supposed to be 'poorly visible' ?
answer: many misperceptions are caused by poorly-seen objects (though other things like strong patterns of light and shade can also cause
them). However, the object that is substituted for them comes from visual memory and so can look perfectly normal and contain detail. While
misperceiving you don't see the real object causing it at all, just its substitute, which will usually look perfectly natural and real and be readily
visible.
objection: as a brain phenomenon, misperception (like hallucination) cannot be shared by multiple witnesses
answer: this is true but multiple witnesses may all misperceive the same object. In a group of witnesses, some may misperceive the same
general thing, a 'generic' human figure** for instance, while disagreeing on its details. The object they are misperceiving puts limitations on
what each will see. So a short, fat tree stump will look like a short, overweight figure to anyone misperceiving it. Others in the same group of
witnesses may not misperceive anything at all. This is what typically happens when a group of witnesses report seeing a ghost - some see it,
some don't and those that see it often disagree on detail.
objection: misperceptions only last a few seconds and cannot explain prolonged sightings
answer: most misperception sightings are short-lived because the witness subsequently gets a better look, so 'breaking' the misperception.
However, in some cases it may not be possible to get a better look, by increasing lighting or approaching the object, for instance, so
misperception can be prolonged sometimes. Also, some people seem to see misperceptions more strongly than others, sometimes prolonging
the effect.
objection: you need a solid object to be present to be misperceived
answer: it is possible to get a misperception from a pattern of light and shadow, particularly when there is high contrast, so you don't always
need an actual physical object to misperceive.
objection: only stationary objects can be misperceived
answer: moving objects can be misperceived though it is rarer because the conditions for the misperception are more likely to lead to a 'break'
objection: 'real' phenomena sightings feel and look different
answer: sightings which are known to be misperceptions have certainly felt just as 'weird' and 'spooky' as any other reports. There is no obvious
difference between known misperception reports and others which have not been explained. Misperceptions only tend to be noticed because
they 'feel wrong', a common characteristic of many anomalous reports.
objection: you need special lighting conditions to misperceive
answer: what you need is for an object to be poorly seen for it to be misperceived. It could be distant, in poor light, out of focus, in high
contrast conditions, in fog or mist, seen in peripheral vision, etc. If the lighting changes significantly, it can certainly stop something being
misperceived, particularly if you start to see it well or shadows give a different apparent shape. So, while misperception is sensitive to lighting,
there are other important factors involved too.

10
objection: misperception only happens to some people in special circumstances
answer: we all misperceive all the time. It is part of the normal way perception works. It is only noticed occasionally and then, because it is
unfamiliar to most people, sometimes interpreted as paranormal.
*Postscript 1: Why misperceptions 'break' while optical illusions persist

An optical illusions works because it depends on the way perception operates in our brains, eg. the way we handle perspective. This is a 'hard-
wired' mechanism in the brain that does not change so, if you see an optical illusion once, you are always likely to see it. By contrast,
misperception is caused by our brain's 'best guess' at what it is seeing. If we get more, or at least different, information on the object being
misperceived, the best guess will change. And the 'best guess' does not usually 'go back' to a previous guess. So once a misperception is
'broken' (ie. you see the underlying object instead of its substitute), it never goes back. Once you've lost a misperception in a particular
situation, it's usually gone forever.

** Postscript 2: Why misperceptions don't look like specific objects we've seen before

How do you know that an object you've never seen before is a chair? We do not keep a memory of every chair we've ever seen and compare it
with each one in turn. This would take too long, require too much memory and only produce a match if we see a chair identical to one we've
seen before. Instead, we have a visual memory of a 'generic' chair - an object with the properties that distinguish it as a chair, like a flat seating
pad for instance. Since what we see when we misperceive is not a real human figure, for instance, our brains substitute in a 'generic' person
rather than a specific individual we've seen. This is why it is usually difficult to recognise ghosts as any particular individual.

-----

Visual substitutions in paranormal experiences

Recent developments in neuroscience indicate that we 'see' with our brains rather than our eyes. Though our eyes contribute to the 'picture in
our heads', there is also input from our memory. In particular, objects in our vision can sometimes be 'substituted' with similar things from
visual memory. These 'visual substitutions' may be responsible for some ghost, UFO and other anomalous sightings.

Shadow ghostThe point of this page is not to discuss the theory (for a full discussion of how visual substitutions work, see misperception while
for a quick summary see here) but to consider the practical consequences of this type of misperception for paranormal research. When might
such substitutions take place and how might investigators recognise them, both from witness reports and personal experience? This is a
relatively new idea, so some of what appears here is speculative or based on personal experience rather than systematic research.

Likely circumstances of visual substitutions

We do not go round seeing things that are not there all the time! Visual substitutions are rare, like optical illusions. Once you are aware of the
possibility that they can happen, you may well start to notice them from time to time in your daily life. You might see something odd in the
'corner of your eye', only for it to 'vanish' or 'change' into something else when you look at it directly.

Visual substitutions are most likely in poor viewing conditions. These include:

low light or high light

objects in the distance
thick dust, fog, heavy rain, snow or similar atmospheric phenomenon
objects glanced briefly
objects out of focus (eg. not wearing prescription glasses or contact lenses)
objects in peripheral vision
In addition, objects that are unfamiliar or unexpected, if not seen well, might cause misperception. Generally, objects seen well in good viewing
conditions are unlikely to be misperceived. It is interesting to note that many anomalous phenomena are reported in poor viewing conditions.

Form of visual substitution

Objects are substituted with something similar from memory. So, what form do these substitutions take? It is likely that expectation or
suggestion play a significant role in the form of visual substitutions.

There has to be something to be misperceived, such as a shadow, patch of light or physical object. This will form a template on which the
substitution will be based. It will limit to possible visual substitution by its shape, size and features. A misperceived object must at least vaguely
resemble a human figure for it to be replaced by a clear image of a person from memory. This means that two people misperceiving the same
object may agree, in broad outline, on what they both saw. On the other hand, one may not misperceive at all and disagree profoundly.*

11
The circumstances of a misperception can, through expectation or suggestion, affect the form of a substitution. So a 'ghost' might be seen in
spooky surroundings. A light in the sky on a lonely road, by contrast, may appear as an extra-terrestrial craft recalling, as it does, many science
fiction film scenarios. Prior knowledge of a site, such as a building's reputation for being haunted, might heavily influence the form of visual
substitutions. It is also possible that someone's psychological state, in particular any strong fears or desires, at the time of a sighting may
influence the substitution.

WoodpigeonHere is a witness example of expectation affecting an 'object' seen in peripheral vision:

"Recently, I was eating at an outside table of a restaurant on the pavement. It was getting dark but still light enough to see everything around
perfectly. Suddenly, something caught my attention under the table. It was a black and white pigeon walking between my feet! I was surprised!
Though I'd seen pigeons and sparrows around the tables, picking up dropped crumbs, I hadn't seen a bird bold enough to walk between
someone's feet! So, I looked under the table to see where the bird had gone but there was nothing there!

Puzzled, I decided to investigate my sighting. The first thing that struck me was that, in the gathering gloom, there were no birds about, though
there had been many earlier. Presumably, they had decided it was time to roost. This didn't rule out a real bird, of course, but it made it less
likely. However, I then noticed that my feet were only a couple of centimetres apart - far too small a gap to allow a bird as big as a pigeon to get
through. It was, by now, obvious that I had not seen a pigeon at all.

So, I watched my feet directly for a while and then saw 'it' again. OK, I didn't see a pigeon but I did see a pattern of light moving swiftly. It gave
the impression of an object passing between my feet. It was caused by passing car headlights! But why a pigeon? Expectation explains it -
having seen pigeons moving around between the tables earlier, my mind obviously just decided it was one of them. What surprised me was
how vividly I 'saw' the ghostly pigeon. It seemed utterly real at the time, even though it was only glimpsed briefly. It reminded me of the many
times I'd heard ghost witnesses say that what they'd seen was completely solid and real. I was shocked at how vivid a misperception could be! "

Detecting visual substitutions

In the example above, the reporter is puzzled by the disappearance of the 'pigeon' and investigates further. In many cases, it is unlikely that
witnesses, often surprised or even shocked, will behave in this way. So how can investigators determine if a visual substitution is a likely
explanation for a sighting?

You need to include some specific topics when interviewing witnesses to pick up relevant details. Thus, it is important to find out:

the viewing conditions (see list above, also the duration of sighting)
how detailed the description of the anomaly is
whether anything else was seen in the same area immediately before or after the sighting
the exact time, date and position of both witness AND anomaly as well as weather
how much the witness knew of any reputation the site may have
A combination of a highly detailed description of the anomaly coupled with poor viewing conditions could indicate a visual substitution. It is
unlikely that a really detailed view can be had in poor viewing conditions. Any objects seen in the area just before, or after, the sighting might
be the object being misperceived, particularly if there is a vague resemblance in shape.

Reproducing substitutions

The information about time, position and weather gathered earlier are vital. With this information it might be possible to reproduce the
sighting on site. It might be necessary to change the time of day, when out of doors, to get correct lighting conditions. For instance, the fact
that a sighting was 30 mins before sunset is more important than that it was 6pm in the evening. The weather can affect lighting conditions as
well, particularly bright sunshine or thick cloud. Misperceptions are highly sensitive to viewing and lighting conditions. If the original witness
can be present, that might be useful in case they see the possible misperception again.

More info on substitutions

Visual substitutions are distinct from hallucinations in that (a) they require an external visual stimulus and (b) they are part of normal brain
perception. Hallucinations, by contrast, require no external stimulus and generally happen when brains are not working normally, eg. due to
certain illnesses, disorders or drugs. Some hallucinations, like sleep paralysis, occur when the brain is working normally but require no external
stimulus.

If 'substitutions' come from the witness's memory, why don't people report recognising 'ghosts' as people they already know? Sometimes they
do - in the case of crisis apparitions and doppelgangers, for instance. In other cases of visual 'substitution', the actual figure 'seen' is probably
influenced strongly by the shape of the object being misperceived. Our brains are always trying to make sense of what we see using all the
sources of information available. It may simply make no sense to see someone you know in an unlikely situation.

12
Visual 'substitutions' might explain why so many supposed extra-terrestrials seen in UFO cases are humanoid in appearance. Scientists studying
astrobiology (the study of extra-terrestrial life) say it is extremely unlikely that extra-terrestrial life would have evolved on other planets in a
similar way to ours. So extra-terrestrials are most unlikely to look human.

* in the case of multiply witnessed phenomena, there is often a discussion between the witnesses that may lead to a 'single' description even if
they saw different things

Eliminating misperception: the theory

Misperception probably accounts for more paranormal reports than any other single cause. It is therefore very important to eliminate it
satisfactorily in any paranormal research. This article outlines theoretical methods for testing if misperception could be involved in a
paranormal report.

WARNING: The subject of misperception in paranormal cases is still currently being researched. As a result, this article will be updated as new
information becomes available. It should NOT be regarded as a definitive or exhaustive account of the subject. Nor is this article a practical
guide to paranormal investigation. It is, instead, a description of theoretical methods of testing for misperception.

Background information

It is important to understand misperception before attempting to identify it. It is not explained on this page so you should read some or all of
the following first: misperception, visual substitutions, shadow ghosts, ghosts - what we know.

The tests outlined here extend existing standard techniques for investigating paranormal reports. Interviewing witnesses, examining the sites of
their experiences and trying to recreate the observed phenomena naturally are all standard paranormal investigation procedures. However, to
check for misperception, you need specific information that might not already be gathered.

Looking for misperception factors

To see if misperception could be an explanation, you need to look for specific information that might not necessarily be gathered in all
investigations. Witnesses, in this case, includes not only those people who casually observe spontaneous phenomena but also researchers on
vigils, who are just as susceptible to misperception as anyone else.

The following table outlines some of the factors to examine when looking for evidence of misperception. Most of this information can be
derived from interviews but some of it comes from site examination.

(table)

Reconstructing the scene

It is vital to examine the scene of the paranormal report, as soon as possible after the original experience. Things change - misperceived objects
may be removed - so it is important to get there quickly. There should be an attempt to reconstruct the incident in situ. Ideally, this should
occur in similar conditions, especially the level of illumination. Scale plans are useful and photographs essential for such an exercise (though
note that cameras 'see' things differently from the naked eye - a cause of many apparently paranormal photos).

When reconstructing paranormal reports, you should try, if possible, to use people who know nothing about the case and the area of the
incident, to act as 'test witnesses'. That's because researchers will know how the misperception is supposed to work and so will be unlikely to
see it, unless it is extraordinarily dramatic. Misperception works because the witness does not recognise what they are seeing (it is
xenonormal). If a researcher familiar with the case looks at a tree, they will probably just see a tree! A witness who knows nothing about the
area or case may see it is a human figure, as in the original report!

Illumination can be crucial to misperception. It might create just the right pattern of light and shadow to suggest something weird, for instance.
Low light levels deprive us of colour vision which means many details of objects may become invisible. It may result in similarly coloured objects
appearing to merge together. In such conditions shadows may be dark enough to make parts of objects appear invisible.

Things to check for on site

Detail level: Is level of detail reported by the witness realistic taking into account the conditions? For example, if a human figure was seen at
50m away in low light, someone could be placed at the relevant position to check what could be seen. If the sighting only lasted 10s, then that
is all a 'test witness' would be allowed as well.

13
Objects that can be misperceived: Are there any suitable objects that might be misperceived in the position indicated in the original report? Do
any objects vaguely resemble the one reported, such as a human figure? If there is an object that looks likely, such as a tree, put a human figure
next to it - how obvious is the difference?

Note that misperceived objects may no longer be present (because they are temporary, mobile or have subsequently been changed or
removed). While this makes investigation more difficult, it doesn't eliminate misperception as a possibility.

Light and shadows: In many cases there may be no misperceived object present at all. Instead a particular pattern of light and shadow might
suggest a human figure or other anomaly. This will usually depend critically on the lighting, long shadows and low light being more conducive to
misperception. For light/shadow misperception, no object is required to be misperceived but there may be things nearby crucial to producing
the shadow patterns. It is vital to visit the site in as near to identical lighting conditions as the original observation as possible.

Out of doors, illumination is impossible to control so you must try to arrange a visit when it will be similar. Even indoors daytime illumination,
which usually depends largely on daylight, can be hard to reproduce exactly except by visiting at the right time. Only when sightings take place
entirely under artificial lighting at night can it be easily reproduced.

Tests for misperception

If one or more factors in the table above are present, it indicates the possibility that misperception could have taken place. It doesn't mean
misperception necessarily took place. We don't see ghost every time we enter a dark alley!

It is also possible to look for positive signs that misperception took place. Factors include:

seeing the anomaly but NOT the object that could have been misperceived - note 1
the anomaly sharing certain prominent features with the object that could have been misperceived - note 2
the witness recalling 'too much' detail of the anomaly for the viewing conditions - note 3
the anomaly 'vanishes' while (often momentarily) not in view - note 4
Note 1: If the proposed misperceived object was in the same place as the anomaly, it should have been seen as well!
Note 2: An example: a 'figure' had an arm projecting to the right and the misperceived object was a tree with a prominent branch to the right
Note 3: You need to be careful to avoid spurious detail from poor interview technique - crude example is asking 'were the trousers black or
grey' rather than 'what colour were the trousers' - visual substitution can produce much more detail than real field observation because it
comes from our own memory
Note 4: misperceptions can easily 'break' but this usually happens when the viewer looks away so expect statements like 'the ghost was clearly
visible but when I looked away for just a second and then looked back it had disappeared'

Case Study (real)

A witness was walking along a familiar path over a bridge that crossed a stream. They noticed a 'figure' in their right peripheral vision. Surprised
that someone would be in that area (which has no path), the witness turned to look directly at the 'figure' but could see no one. Instead, there
were two newly pollarded trees in the position where the 'figure' had been. It was daylight with good viewing conditions (not raining, no fog,
etc). The witness couldn't recall any details about the 'figure' but they were not good at recalling real people's appearance either!

Misperception incident plan

This is a plan (not to scale) of the incident. The witness was crossing the bridge looking forward. The trees were in extreme peripheral vision to
the right. Significantly, the witness did NOT see the trees while observing the 'figure', even though they were in the same position and of a
similar size to it. The witness was a regular visitor to the site and knew it well. However, this was the the first time that they'd noticed the trees
had been pollarded, changing the view significantly.

Misperceived treeIn peripheral vision, we see mainly in monochrome and our visual resolution is nothing like as good as our central vision. The
photo (right) shows a tree that was misperceived as a human figure, exactly like the one in this case. It has been turned into monochrome to
approximate what would been seen in peripheral vision. The tree has a bright round area (where branches have been removed) that is at the
right position and height to suggest a human face.

In the current case study there were TWO pollarded trees next to each other. It is interesting that the witness saw only one figure, not two. The
trees were illuminated quite differently, one looking dark, which may explain this oddity. The trees certainly seem to have caused the
misperception in this case. The witness, who was well aware of misperception and had experienced it knowingly before, realised immediately
that the trees were responsible.

14
Someone not aware of misperception may well have concluded that they had seen a ghost. After all, they had seen an obvious 'human figure'
and on turning to look more carefully it had vanished! Certainly vanishing is a characteristic of ghost sightings.

Analysis of case study

The significant facts in this case are (a) that the 'figure' was seen only in peripheral vision, 'vanishing' when looked at directly, (b) that the
pollarded trees were NOT seen at the same time as the 'figure' and (c) the scene, familiar to the witness, had been changed significantly by
someone pollarding the trees.

It appears that the witness's attention was probably drawn to the scene by the change following pollarding. The combination of (a) and (b)
leads to the obvious conclusion that one of the trees was misperceived by the witness as a figure (the other not visible because it was too dark).
It looks like a clear case of misperception. If the witness had seen both the trees AND the figure simultaneously, a different conclusion might
have been drawn.

Groups of witnesses

Groups of people can be as vulnerable to misperception as individuals. If one person in a group misperceives something and tells everyone else
what they're seeing, psychological suggestion may bias others in the group to see the same thing. Conversely, if someone sees something but
others in the group disagree, then the first witness may start to doubt it too. To have a group of witnesses all see the same thing, in such
circumstances, does not necessarily make the evidence any stronger.

Conclusion

Misperception should always be considered as the most likely possibility in most paranormal reports. Humans are not neutral recorders of their
environment and should not be treated as such. Only once we have eliminated misperception as a possibility should other explanations,
including the paranormal, be considered.

© Maurice Townsend 2010, 2011

15
Paranormal witness memory

Witness testimony is central to establishing the facts of paranormal case. It is often the only access we have to unexplained events. We know
that witnesses can be fooled by misperception and hallucination but, once they've experienced something, how reliable is their memory?

Computer memory is extremely reliable. As well as using tried, stable technologies it usually includes mechanisms to verify that what is stored
is correct. Human memory, by comparison, is fallible, fades with time and there is often no way to verify it. And yet, we use it in court cases and
sometimes for scientific observation.

Psychological suggestion and priming

Scientific experiments have shown that what we recall about a situation can be affected by being primed in advance. If people are shown a
random list of words, including some like 'bed' and 'doze', and are later asked if the word 'sleep' appeared in the list, they will often say yes,
even when it didn't. This is priming or psychological suggestion - putting an idea in your head that then affects subsequent perception and
memory.

If you attend a ghost vigil and see a shadow resembling a figure, you are more likely to interpret it as a ghost than if you just visited at the same
time of day as a tourist or guest. On a vigil you are effectively primed with the idea that you are at a haunted location. If you strongly believe or
disbelieve in the paranormal, that too will increase or decrease your chances of interpreting something as paranormal in any situation, not just
vigils. We are usually not consciously aware of priming or suggestion.

Tidy minds

Shadow ghostIt seems that our brains have a tendency to want things always to 'make sense'. If we see something ambiguous, our brains will
decide on our behalf to plump for one alternative or another before presenting the sensory information to our consciousness (see
misperception). This unconscious decision may be biased by priming.

An example of such an ambiguous stimulus is the photo (right) that is clearly a shadow but it is also 'human' shaped. If briefly glimpsed on a
vigil, some people may say this shadow is a ghost. As a result, our brain may 'edit' what we see to conform with the idea that it is a ghost. As
this sensory information has been altered before we are even aware of it, it is accepted as true ('seeing is believing'). Similarly, when people
hallucinate, this too is accepted consciously as a true perception.

Whether the sensory information we remember is accurate or not, it is still not safe from alteration even when it has been stored in our
memories. Our brains may alter our memories, when they are recalled, if they don't 'make sense' in the light of new, conflicting information.
These alterations are similarly accepted as true and become part of the long term memory. This process is called confabulation (or false
memory).

Confabulation

Confabulation alters existing details of memories, as well as adding new 'events' that never happened. The process happens unconsciously
before we are even aware of recalling the memory. Effectively, the brain has decided, without our conscious knowledge, what is true and what
isn't, just like in misperception. This memory editing process may also be biased by priming or suggestion.

Confabulation tends to occur when conflicts arise between the existing memory and current information or if memories are examined for detail
that they do not contain. If we confer with other witnesses to the same incident, for instance, we might 'alter' our memories to conform with
theirs (or the other way round). Changes can also occur when discussing the memory with people who were not fellow witnesses. If asked
'what colour was the ghost's hat?', we might reply 'blue', even it didn't have a hat! Even reading about, or otherwise researching, other people's
similar experiences may alter our own.

ASSAP's Phil Walton demonstrated confabulation with his research on witness testimony. People witnessed a staged incident and were asked,
directly afterwards, questions about what they'd seen. When asked what rings someone was wearing and on what hand, several people offered
answers of 'left', 'right', 'gold' and 'silver' and so on. The person concerned wore no rings! Forced to remember details that didn't exist in their
memories, people confabulated.

Confabulation is not lying. Lying is a conscious activity where the person involved is aware that what they are saying is not accurate. When
people confabulate, they cannot tell the difference between accurately recalled memories and imaginary additions or alterations. ASSAP has
come across very few cases where witnesses have consciously lied over the years. In the vast majority of cases where witness testimony is
contradicted by other evidence, it is likely to be confabulation.

16
It was once thought that confabulation was a symptom of a medical condition, like dementia or amnesia. However, research has revealed that
we all do it to some extent. Our brains always want our memories to 'make sense', even if it means altering them and not telling us!

Memory fragments

We only remember a fraction of what we experience. We may only remember fragments of a particular event and those bits may not even be
the most important. We might remember what someone was wearing, for instance, but not their name!

While there are useful techniques for recovering memory, by pressing for too many details we may simply encourage people to confabulate.
The problem is, these confabulated details will form part of the witness evidence in paranormal cases. This could cause problems when we are
trying to explain the reported event. We may be trying to explain some details that never even happened!

Judging how good a recollection is

Some people are better at remembering than others. An interesting way to test someone's memory is to get them to imagine a scene in the
future. If they are able to describe it in detail, their memory is good. If they cannot form a strong mental picture of an imaginary future
scenario, their memory is not so good. We use the same brain mechanisms to remember the past as we do to imagine the future, which is why
the test works. It might be worth trying this test with people you interview. Of course, the fact that someone has a good memory doesn't
necessarily mean their memory hasn't been altered.

How do you know if someone's memory has been significantly altered by confabulation? One method is a site examination of the place where
an apparent paranormal experience took place. You can check all the details the witness reported against what you find on site to see if there
any major conflicts. You may find obvious things that the witness ought to have noticed, but didn't or did notice but aren't present. You might
also discover that, due to the geometry of the site, the scene could not have looked as they described. All such discrepancies may indicate that
memories have altered since the event. Of course, this test won't work if the witness has visited the scene since the experience.

Fading memories

Memories fade with time or, to be more precise, with neglect. If we continually recall something it will remain fresh and doesn't fade. However,
things we haven't recalled for years will fade and ultimately vanish. This seems to be a deliberate brain mechanism designed to keep our
memories a manageable size.

Some memories are formed more strongly than others. Those associated with emotions tend to be stronger. We also form stronger memories
when we pay attention, or concentrate, at the time. So, if seeing a ghost has a strong emotional effect on a witness, it is likely to be stored well.
If, however, someone only realises they have seen a ghost after the event (when they find they were alone in a locked building, for instance)
the memory may be weaker and details not stored so well.

Stress and the xenonormal

Interestingly, when people experience uncertainty or the unfamiliar (as in the xenonormal), they often secrete a stress hormone called cortisol.
This hormone affects their memory of the event, sometimes making it vivid ('flash-bulb memory'), though not necessarily accurate, and biasing
it towards negative feelings. Certainly, many people find encounters with the xenonormal disturbing and do not want to repeat the experience.
This is typical of the effect of cortisol. Research shows that, although flashbulb memories are vivid and detailed, they are not particularly
accurate and alter with time like other memories.

Actual fear can partially or totally wipe the memory of an incident. So if a witness is distressed by what they experience, their memory of it may
be particularly vague and unreliable. They may confabulate to fill in the obvious gaps in their recall.

Changing witness stories

Sometimes, when you investigate a case, an obvious xenonormal solution will occur to you that fits the description given by the witness very
well. However, when you put this idea to the witness they will suddenly 'remember' other points about their observation that (a) they never
mentioned before, in spite of rigorous interviewing, and (b) tend to confirm the paranormal interpretation that the witness already places on
what they saw.

While it is entirely possible that the witness may remember more things over time, another possibility is confabulation. If the witness is
convinced that they've seen a ghost they may, quite unconsciously, add further 'memories' to 'plug the gap' that might otherwise allow a
xenonormal explanation.

Some witnesses gratefully accept the suggested xenonormal explanation as they simply want a satisfying solution. But those who may have
profoundly convinced themselves that they've experienced something extraordinary may be reluctant to let that idea go and so, unconsciously,

17
confabulate. Given that (a) most cases do end with xenonormal explanations and (b) the fact that this scenario happens frequently, it tends to
support the idea that confabulation is indeed taking place. Obviously, no investigator can assume such a thing but if it happens repeatedly, with
several xenonormal suggestions producing more and more 'new memories', it has to considered a strong possibility.

Conclusions

The sooner you interview a witness after an apparent paranormal experience the better. Not only do memories fade with time but, more
seriously, they can be altered through recall and discussions with other people. The best you can expect is to extract fragments of the
experience.

Here are a few general guidelines for interviews to avoid confabulation:

avoid questions that force recollection of unreasonable levels of detail

avoid questions that force 'either/or' decisions ('open' rather than 'closed' questions)
use 'free recall' methods (where the witness recalls freely without interruption) to get the basic facts
try to gauge the emotional impact, at the time, of the experience
adopt a neutral attitude to avoid suggestion or priming
find out how much the witness has discussed their experience with others (particularly those with strong beliefs concerning the experiences) or
knows about similar events from prior knowledge or subsequent research
ask what the witness believes their experience represents and their attitude to the paranormal
ask the witness to imagine a future event to see how strong a mental picture they form
Given the problems with misperception and confabulation, we should not rely too much on any single witness's testimony. If we want to
establish whether there is a haunting is worth investigating, we need to find two or more independent witnesses (ie. not aware of each other's
accounts) to see if they agree on important points.

PS: Memory, visual images and stories

There are memory competitions where people have to remember the sequence of cards in a randomly shuffled playing card deck. It sounds
astonishing but people recall the sequence of entire decks after studying them for a few minutes. How do they accomplish such astonishing
feats of memory?

A common way is the method of loci. Every playing card is associated mentally with a particular place and the sequence strung together as an
imaginary journey. What is interesting is that a whole image, containing a lot of information, is used to recall a playing card which can be
defined with just two items - suit and rank. So an awful lot of superfluous information is being stored just to recall something simple. Also
interesting is that it is specifically visual images that are used to 'tag' memories.

This clearly relates to the way our memory works and it might explain confabulation and the way witness accounts become exaggerated over
time. If a witness saw a distant dark figure on a dark night, there isn't much detail to recall. However, if the witness interpreted the figure as a
ghost, straight away there is a 'story' attached to the sighting (and maybe even a particular visual image) that makes it more memorable. When
asked to describe the figure, the witness may confabulate details that 'confirm' that the figure was a ghost, such as it was wearing period
costume, when in reality no clothing was visible.

This could explain how our cultural ideas of ghosts, and other anomalies, can feed directly into witness accounts. It may also explain why real
life ghost accounts are much less dramatic and unambiguously weird than 'traditional' accounts. If you can get to a witness soon after their
experience, and question them carefully, you may find out what they really saw, as opposed to what they might have confabulated after many
retellings.

18
Xenonormal

Xenonormal - something that appears paranormal but which has natural causes

Introduction

Why do people report certain events as paranormal? Most such reports, when properly investigated, turn out to be normal phenomena. At this
point in a case, many paranormal researchers tend to lose interest as they are, understandably, looking for the genuinely paranormal. The
problem with this is that many of these, often rare, natural phenomena, that resemble the paranormal, are never properly researched. This
means that when such events occur again, researchers may have to relearn everything that others have already found out.

Xenonormal

It would be helpful if there was a term for events that, in certain circumstances, resemble the paranormal, even though they are not. They can
be called 'xenonormal'. This means 'foreign normal'; in other words 'the unfamiliar but natural'. In many cases, witnesses to apparent
paranormal events (and sometimes even the researchers!) are simply unfamiliar with a purely natural phenomenon.

The xenonormal covers not only rare, exotic phenomena but also some common ones (that were simply unfamiliar to particular witnesses). If
someone hears odd noises in their house that they cannot explain, they might report it as a ghost, even though a plumber would know what is
was immediately. Similarly, a witness unfamiliar with the planet Venus, might report it as a UFO, whereas an astronomer would never do so.

In witness reports of anomalous phenomena you will frequently hear phrases like 'I've never seen anything like it before' or similar. Even when
witnesses don't say this, it often becomes obvious through interviewing that they were not familiar with what they saw. Such phrases are
usually taken by investigators to mean that what was seen was extraordinary, possibly paranormal. Taken literally, however, they simply
confirm that many witnesses see things they don't recognise, regardless of whether they are paranormal or not.

Why do people report events as paranormal?

Not much research has been done into why people report things as paranormal. The picture that emerges, from past cases, revolves around
people's perception and knowledge. The likely factors are:

unfamiliarity with certain phenomena ('encounters with the unfamiliar')

cultural background
over-concentration on detail
lack of background information
misperception
coincidence
Looking in detail at these factors:

Encounters with the unfamiliar

Most of us are surrounded by an increasingly complex environment. We only pay attention to things that are vital to our lives and often know
little about how things work, including nature. How many people can actually explain how a DVD recorder works, for instance, or what the
electronics in a car do precisely? At the same time, our increasingly office and home-bound lives take us further and further from experiencing
natural phenomena. People living in cities can barely see the night sky and so can be forgiven for knowing little about it. As we become ever
busier, we notice less and less of what is going on in our environment.

For example, you may have a concealed fox sleeping through the day in your garden and never even be aware of it. If it starts making a blood-
curdling noise at night or moving small portable items around in your garden, you might reasonably think there was something paranormal
going on.

Many of us tend to notice things only when the unexpected happens. Facing the unexpected, or unfamiliar, can make us anxious. In this
situation most people will seek help. Some people, depending on how they perceive the event, may call in paranormal researchers.

In addition, some people may be in an unusual mental state (such as anxiety) when faced with the unfamiliar. This may affect their perception,
making them less reliable recorders than usual of what they experience. For instance, after moving into a new house, there are lots of
unfamiliar things to get used to. This 'learning curve' can increase stress levels making people more likely to misinterpret things around them.

19
When familiar things do the unexpected

The 'unfamiliar' in the xenonormal is not simply lack of experience of an object, animal or situation. It can also come from over-familiarity. Such
over-familiarity leads to definite expectations - we expect things to behave in a certain way. So when familiar things do something unexpected
it can lead to a xenonormal experience.

Here is an example. You notice someone, perhaps in your peripheral vision, walking along a familiar street. Suddenly they have vanished! Was it
a ghost? In fact, the person slipped into a narrow alley but, because you were not watching them closely, you missed it. Your expectation, that
they would continue to walk along the road, was not met, leaving you with a strange feeling that something paranormal has happened.

Expectation is, thus, an important factor in xenonormal experiences. If something happens that was not expected, we can get a feeling that
something weird, possibly paranormal, has occurred.

Cultural background

As explained elsewhere, we all 'know' (or think we do) what a ghost is and what it is supposed to do. For someone brought up with ghost
stories (which is just about everybody), even if they take no interest in the paranormal, it is therefore not so surprising that they might call in a
paranormal researcher when they hear odd noises in their house. Similarly, if they see something they don't recognise in the sky, they will often
think first of alien spacecraft. The media is so full of images of flying saucers and aliens that it is easy to see why an unfamiliar object in the sky
gets interpreted in that way. In the past, something unfamiliar in the sky might have been seen as a flying fairy or a dragon when these were
prominent aspects of the culture.

Over-concentration on detail

Many paranormal reports are generated by people reading too much into the available data. For instance, people sometimes see 'faces' or
'figures' in photos when they are, in fact, just random background detail. Often, a picture of the same scene taken with a higher resolution, or
from a different angle, will dispel the illusion (like the famous 'face' on Mars). Similarly, demonstration EVP clips containing apparent voices are
often short, omitting any surrounding context that might throw light on their origin. In both cases, there is an over-concentration on small
details at the expense of the total data available which may give a better picture of what was going on.

Grass behind stoneBy looking too closely at data, people may reach, or go beyond, the limit of the resolution of the data. At the limit of
resolution, data becomes uncertain. For instance, take the two photos here. The one on the left shows the edge of a stone plinth with grass
behind. The edge of the stone is reasonably clear and obvious, as you would expect. The picture on the right is a magnified version of a portion
of the same photo. You can see the the individual pixels in the digital photo. Note how the boundary between the stone and the grass is much
less certain at this resolution. The details are no longer reliable at this scale, which is beyond the resolution of the photo. Any unusual 'shapes'
at this resolution are entirely spurious. For a better example, see here.

Another aspect of concentrating too much on detail is the over-processing of data. Software designed to enhance images or sounds actually
alters it. Sometimes data is 'enhanced' so much that is completely distorted. The result is no longer an accurate record of an event but artificial
patterns invented by software.

Seeing too much significance in coincidence is also over-concentration on detail. Some people will see it as significant that an orb appears over
a particular grave stone in a photo, for instance. However, the orb is still caused by dust or insects. The fact that the orb appears over a grave
stone is just coincidence. It is common for non-statisticians to overestimate the odds against such a coincidence.

In all cases, the data are insufficient (or too altered) to support any conclusion about whether the paranormal was involved. Such cases might
be termed 'ambiguous sensory stimuli' because there is not sufficient data to differentiate between different sources (see Postscript 3).

Lack of background information

No event happens in isolation - there is always a background to it, though sometimes we don't notice it. This background includes such basic
things as the time, place, weather, people present, whether a door was locked or a window open, etc. It also includes what other things that
were happening at the time. When witnesses report paranormal phenomena, they often don't notice these background details because they
are nowhere near as interesting. Such details could, however, be vital to understanding the apparently paranormal event.

For instance, someone may report hearing a strange ghostly noise while failing to notice that it only happens when the wind blows in a
particular direction. Or maybe they fail to notice that 'ghostly whispering' is only ever heard when a particular water tap is turned on. Such
clues could easily provide natural explanations for apparently mysterious phenomena. In this case, relevant data are there but they are being
ignored, perhaps because they are not seen as relevant to a paranormal explanation. Witnesses may sometime assume that something is
paranormal (because of cultural priming) and then only notice details that appear to support that view.

20
Recordings, photos and instrumental data are often minutely dissected for possible paranormal content. However, if the circumstances of such
recordings are not logged in sufficient detail then possible natural explanations cannot be eliminated. For instance, if someone produces an
apparent EVP on a recording on a vigil, but it is not possible to demonstrate that no one present was talking at the time, then as evidence for
the paranormal it is useless. It does not matter what sophisticated software analysis might be performed later on the data. Using software to
show that the voice was 'not natural', for instance, might simply mean that it was a normal voice altered by the acoustics of the room or other
noises (more background information).

Misperception

Many reports of the paranormal are put down to misperception. This is, however, probably not as common as many people think.
Misperception is when the human brain is fooled by an optical, auditory or some other illusion. People literally 'see' or 'hear' something, quite
plainly, when it is, in fact, something else. They have a real experience, just not the one they think they're having! It is involuntary and
uncontrollable, unlike an encounter with the unfamiliar. Misperception includes hallucinations, however caused, as they too are completely
real to the percipient. Misperceptions, however, always involve a sensory stimulus while 'ordinary' hallucinations require none.

There are many occasions when you do not see things well. For instance, in low light, at distance or when objects are only glanced briefly or
seen in the 'corner of our eye'. In any such case, your brain may 'substitute' objects from its memory to replace those it can't see properly! You
can literally see something that isn't really there! When the object you are seeing is unfamiliar to you, this effect is more likely.

Certainly, where misperception is present it can be very powerful because it is a real experience, to the witness, and will be remembered as
such. It is likely, however, that encounters with the unfamiliar are a more common cause of paranormal reports. It is difficult to see how
misperception would explain why people report Venus as a UFO, plumbing noises as a 'spirit' or a wisp of fog on a road as a ghost. These stimuli
only vaguely resemble their paranormal interpretations. They are ambiguous visual stimuli. There is a much fuller account of misperceptions
here.

Coincidence

Many reports of paranormal phenomena, when investigated, are found to involve many unlikely factors coming together - a big coincidence, in
fact! This is not so surprising when you consider that coincidences and xenonormal reports share two very important factors, namely: (a) they
are rare and (b) they are 'one time' events (ie. generally one person experiences something weird, once, in one location). For much more on
how xenonormal reports are coincidences, see here.

Why does the xenonormal exist?

Paranormal researchers come across vastly more xenonormal phenomena than paranormal ones. This raises the question - why should there
just happen to be so many phenomena around that resemble the paranormal?

The answer is, of course, obvious. People have misinterpreted unfamiliar phenomena since pre-history. When our ancestors had, say, a sleep
paralysis experience and saw a figure disappear before their eyes, they would naturally have thought they had seen a 'spirit'. They would have
known nothing about modern science and interpreted their vision literally, using their contemporary world view. The worldwide tradition of
ghosts would naturally have arisen from such early experiences and then been perpetuated through ghost stories.

This tradition has now turned full circle. Though we now have the science to understand unusual experiences, the ghostly tradition now affects
the way modern people interpret encounters with the unfamiliar. When witnesses see things unfamiliar to them they are primed to interpret
them in paranormal ways.

This argument does not rule out the existence of real ghosts, of course. It does, however, explain why we have to eliminate so many imitators!

Research has shown that our instinctive decision-making is poor, when faced with unfamiliar situations. So, if we see a tree in such poor light
that it is not immediately recognisable, we might instinctively decide it is a ghost. We might not think of it as a 'decision' but at some point
during a sighting, we unconsciously 'decide' that we are watching something paranormal. This poor decision-making may explain how the
xenonormal arises.

Sensitisation

When something strange is experienced in a building, the wetness may come to believe the place is haunted. They may then start to notice
other unusual incidents at the same location and interpret them as part of the haunting. Such incidents may either not have been noticed at all
before or, if they were, interpreted as normal phenomena. In this way, people may become 'sensitised' to interpreting things they don't
recognise as paranormal, even though they may be xenonormal. Indeed, all the incidents, including the initial one, may be xenonormal.

21
Similarly, someone may experience something strange and then notice odd things happening in various places that they had not previously
noticed. Again, all these incidents, including the first, may be xenonormal. However, the person may come to believe they are psychic (see Am I
psychic). Psychological suggestion, or belief, brought on by such striking initial experiences can bias the interpretation of unrecognised
phenomena towards the paranormal.

Why is the Xenonormal important?

It is clear that any paranormal researcher must have a good knowledge of the xenonormal, otherwise they will waste a lot of time chasing the
normal. It is, therefore, important that we study the xenonormal as a separate subject within paranormal research. We need to know how orbs
are produced, for instance, so that we can explain them in every possible situation when they are found. We need to understand how apparent
voices can appear on sound recordings from natural causes to eliminate them from EVP studies. Although the xenonormal may not seem as
exciting as the paranormal, it is vital that it is studied and understood by researchers. Otherwise paranormal research will spend another
century getting not very far.

It has been assumed by some paranormal researchers that apparently anomalous incidents are best explained by psi - extra-sensory
phenomena and psychokinesis. However, laboratory experiments to look for psi have, despite decades of effort and millions of trials, only
produced evidence for a tiny psi effect (which some people argue may not even exist - see here). It seems highly unlikely that this tiny effect
could possibly be responsible for the dramatic and apparently unambiguous reports, like ghost sightings, that prompted psi lab research. It is
much more likely that most apparently paranormal reports are, in fact, xenonormal.

Xenonormal studies

This is the study of natural causes for apparently paranormal reports. In particular, the aim is to obtain the most comprehensive, testable (and,
ideally, easily demonstrable) explanations for phenomena which resemble the paranormal. This can provide an important diagnostic toolkit for
paranormal researchers when they try to eliminate natural causes. See here for more details.

Postscript: How might the xenonormal work?

Why should people see something they've never experienced before as paranormal? Why don't we just see always things the way they are? Of
course, for most people, on most occasions, that is exactly what happens. The xenonormal is a rare experience.

The most obvious cause of most xenonormal experiences is misperception. Misperception is where you mistake a sensory stimulus for
something else. It happens when your brain experiences a conflict between sensory inputs. To resolve the conflict your brain looks into its long
term memory to try to recognise the object causing the conflict. If it can't find a memory from a real experience, it might sometimes use
something from a cultural memory (such as a ghost or alien spacecraft). With something unfamiliar, the chances of this process happening are
far higher because there is no real experience to draw on. For a full account see misperceptions.

Strange experiences may also be subject to confabulation. That's when something isn't remembered clearly and our brains 'fill in' details that
never actually happened. These can sometimes have a paranormal slant, again for cultural reasons.

Interestingly, when people experience uncertainty or the unfamiliar, they often secrete a stress hormone called cortisol. This hormone affects
their memory of the event, sometimes making it vivid ('flash-bulb memory'), though not necessarily accurate, and biasing it towards negative
feelings. Certainly, many people find encounters with the xenonormal disturbing and do not want to repeat the experience. This is typical of the
effect of cortisol.

Postscript 2: The brain's need for a logical explanation

Another interesting point to note is that human brains have a strong in-built urge for 'logical' explanations. This occurs at the unconscious level
so that a logical (though not necessarily rational) image or memory is presented to our conscious minds. In misperception, a badly seen object
that is not recognised may be substituted with another from memory to make it 'logical'. In confabulation, our memory of a poorly recalled
incident may be 'padded out' with events that never happened to make it 'logical'. In both cases, our brains present the images or memories as
'fact' so that we recall them as having definitely happened ('I know what I saw'). Also, in both cases, the elements 'added' from memory may
have come from fictional sources of paranormal activity. This quirk of the way our brains work may explain the existence of the xenonormal.

Postscript 3: Ambiguous stimuli

Regular readers of parapsychological literature may have come across 'ambiguous (sensory) stimuli' as an explanation for some ghost sightings.
An 'ambiguous sensory stimulus' is one where there is insufficient data available to decide which of several possible sources may have
produced it. So a vague scratching sound, for instance, could be a mouse, furniture under stress or a finger scratching wood or something else.

22
We have not used this term here because it only forms a small subset of the wider xenonormal. As noted in Postscript 2 above, there is a
specific brain mechanism that logically unites all the xenonormal as an explanation for most paranormal reports. This makes it more logical to
consider the xenonormal as a whole, rather than divide it into subsets. Further, it is not the 'sensory stimulus' that is important (ambiguous or
otherwise) but how it is perceived.

In practice, most paranormal cases involve sensory stimuli that are not at all ambiguous, simply unrecognised by their witness. For instance,
many people in the UK are familiar with the 'too-wit-too-woo' call of the Tawny Owl. But how many are familiar with its other calls or the eerie
hissing and screech of the Barn Owl? The call of a nearby Barn Owl would be completely unambiguous, to a birdwatcher, but utterly unfamiliar,
and chilling, to most UK residents. And consider orbs. To a serious photographer orbs are easily recognised as circles of confusion. However,
orbs are continually reported to ASSAP, and other paranormal research organisations, by people who are puzzled by them and consider them
paranormal. They are not ambiguous, just unrecognised by non-specialists. The same is true of vigils. Most xenonormal sights and sounds
encountered on vigils are not ambiguous but easily recognisable to some people (eg. the sound of water in plumbing faintly resembling
whispering) but many don't recognise them and interpret them as paranormal, given the context.

So, while ambiguous stimuli are certainly a cause of paranormal reports, they are a minor subset of the more general xenonormal.

Postscript 4: The normal!

Some paranormal sightings don't appear weird at all at the time. They are only deemed paranormal in retrospect. Strictly speaking, these
cannot be called xenonormal. However, they often share many of the same characteristics and probably many of the same causes.

23
Why ghosts are spirits - to most people!

Ghosts, and other paranormal phenomena, have been reported for millennia. When systematically investigated, haunting cases often produce
evidence of odd events but usually nothing like the kind of sensational events portrayed in popular ghost stories or films. The reality of
authentic paranormal investigations hardly ever reaches public attention. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the public attitude to paranormal
phenomena appears to be heavily influenced by the media portrayal. That media portrayal may, in turn, be influenced by longstanding cultural
influences.

When ASSAP receives a new haunting case, it will, often, consist of some odd goings-on in a building. These may consist of unexplained noises,
possibly strange smells and lights and maybe a feeling of presence. The reason it is reported to us is that the witness has reason to believe the
effects are not due to anyone else in the building and cannot explain them. Only in rare cases will the witness see an apparition. So how do a
few weird noises get reported as a case of haunting?

Another common type of report that ASSAP receives consists of someone seeing something odd in the sky; maybe an unusually bright light at
night. The witness will generally consider the sighting a UFO. Taking the strict definition of an ‘unidentified flying object’, they may well be
correct since they don't know what the 'object' is. And yet, we will often be asked if we think it is alien visitors from another planet. How does a
simple light in the sky become visiting aliens?

Investigation

Subsequent investigation by ASSAP may confirm that there are indeed odd sounds in the ‘haunted’ building though frequently there will be
normal explanation for them (see 'new house effect'). Looking into the UFO sighting, it will often emerge that the sighting can be identified as a
planet, aircraft, hot-air balloon, satellite, laser display, etc.

There are two interesting points to be noted so far:

The first is that, in both cases, the witness observed a real, objective phenomenon, subsequently verified by investigators. They did not imagine
it. They simply misinterpreted an unfamiliar phenomenon. This is typical of many cases ASSAP investigates.
The second point is the witness interpretation (initially, at least) of those events far exceeded the available facts.
In the case of the haunting, the witness decided that some odd noises might be produced by a ghost or 'spirit', despite not having seen an
apparition. There is frequently nothing that specifically points to the noises being made by human (eg. recognisable voices), far less a ghost. In
the case of the UFO, the witness decided that an unfamiliar light in the sky meant visiting aliens. This was despite that fact that all they saw was
a bright light. In recent years people have interpreted orbs as spirits, just because they were found in photos taken at reputedly haunted places.
This is despite the fact that the orbs in question are clearly a photographic artifact.

In many cases, witnesses are unfamiliar with what causes strange noises in houses or lights in the sky. This is fair enough - we all have limits to
our knowledge. But why do spirits of the dead and aliens from outer space so readily fill the void in knowledge when people are faced with the
unknown?

Widespread knowledge of anomalous phenomena

In the early days of ASSAP, investigators were generally more impressed by witnesses who claimed little or no prior knowledge of the
paranormal. Since they didn’t know what to expect, it was argued, their observations could be deemed unbiased and so of potentially greater
value. They didn't know how ghosts were 'supposed' to behave so they would report accurately what they saw. It is doubtful that many
investigators would make that argument seriously today (nor would they have such faith in witnesses, knowledgeable or otherwise).

Many people with no active interest in anomalous phenomena nevertheless seem to have a surprisingly detailed knowledge of the subject. In
particular, the idea that a ghost is a 'spirit' and that UFOs are spaceships is extraordinarily prevalent. So where exactly did this knowledge, and
particularly the ‘spirit’ and ‘alien’ elements, come from?

It is not hard to find. Consider the exposure the typical westerner receives to paranormal ideas over a lifetime. As a child they might be read
fairy stories (or more likely see them in a Disney cartoon these days) before progressing to Harry Potter and the ghostly and mythic inhabitants
of Hogwarts. They may also come across video games with supernatural characters and storylines. As adults they would continue to be exposed
to paranormal themes in popular books and films, such as White Noise, Amityville Horror, Ghost, etc. There are even more titles concerned
with alien invasions like Independence Day, Roswell, etc. There are also many blockbuster films and best-selling books with supernatural and
folkloric themes like Lord of the Rings and even the Da Vinci Code that demonstrate a widespread interest in such matters. On TV there are
programmes like the X-Files, Supernatural, Invasion, etc., with similar themes.

24
Then there are the ‘real life’ (faction) TV programmes like Most Haunted and Haunted Homes that apparently show genuine investigations. In
addition to this, newspapers and the internet provide extensive coverage of, allegedly, ‘true’ paranormal events. They are feeding a well-known
appetite for the weird and wonderful.

Thus, even someone with no active interest in the paranormal would find it difficult to miss all this coverage. They probably absorb this material
unconsciously, just as many of us know about celebrities despite having never seen or heard them.

None of this would be too bad except that almost all this exposure, whether fictional and non-fictional, tends to present anomalous
phenomena in a stereotypical way. And, like many stereotypes, it is not supported by the evidence on the ground!

It's all true or it's all nonsense!

One stereotype that the media present is that ghosts are 'spirits' of the dead. You are then 'invited' to either believe or disbelieve in them (even
though they have never been explicitly defined!). It is one of the first questions someone being interviewed on the subject is always asked. The
fact that ghosts may not have anything to do with 'spirits' is hardly ever mentioned. It is presented as a 'take it or leave it' dichotomy. Believe
ghosts are 'spirits' and that people see them or reject it all as nonsense. The media don't tend to look for any other point of view.

In fairness, the media is probably only reflecting a public attitude acquired through the culture itself. That culture is transmitted from
generation to generation by stories, some fictional, other supposedly true.

Paranormal in fiction

Obviously, with fiction, consumers are well aware that the events portrayed are not true. However, it usually assumed (and generally true) that
the background against which the events take place is authentic. Writers of fiction take pride in researching background details meticulously.
So, though the specific events never happened, it is often assumed that they could. It may well be assumed by readers of ghost stories that
authors have an intimate knowledge of the paranormal and supernatural in the flesh.

Certain ‘traditional’ themes and plots are presented in a consistent way. So ghosts always turn out to be either real 'spirits' or fakes! UFOs are
always spacecraft piloted by aliens or some sort of government plot. Only very occasionally are other alternative possibilities are presented, like
in Nigel Kneale’s famous TV play The Stone Tape. In that case the apparitions were not 'spirits' but a form of 'recording' in the surroundings.
This theory has spread widely in paranormal research circles since, though there are many problems with it. Even in the X-Files, where Scully
always tried to present alternative possibilities to the obvious supernatural ones, she was usually wrong! We, the viewers had a privileged view
of events that always confirmed Mulder's paranormal analysis.

The kind of alternatives encountered in real cases, such as misperception, near sleep experiences, mind tricks or magnetically induced
hallucinations, even coincidence or some other, as yet, unknown cause don't generally feature in fictional accounts. Presumably, they're either
unknown to the author or simply not considered exciting enough. The ghost as a signifier of life after death (even if it is generally a grim one) is
more appealing than other possibilities, whatever the evidence may say.

As an example of how badly served the paranormal is by fiction, consider premonitions. There appears to be an unwritten rule in fiction that if a
character has a premonition (usually a very unlikely one) it will invariably be fulfilled, in some form or other, by the end of the story. Even
Shakespeare couldn't escape this rule - remember how Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane in Macbeth! This representation of premonitions is
the reverse of the real life situation. The vast majority of real life premonitions are reported AFTER they have been fulfilled, rendering them
almost useless as evidence. The few premonitions that are reported BEFORE the event almost invariably never happen. The end of the world
has been predicted imminently many times throughout history and yet we are still here.

The effect of science fiction on UFO cases is a striking example of how culture can directly feed back into real life cases. For instance, alien
abductees frequently report that inside a UFO they can see no source of illumination. Curiously, this was mentioned in science fiction accounts
of space ships many times and long before abductions were ever reported.

Factual coverage

Non-fictional coverage of the paranormal is disturbingly similar. Though it ought to be based on factual evidence, the news media seem happy
to mix in cultural, or even fictional, elements as 'background' material. Newspaper reports tend to follow the usual stereotypical 'angles' of
'spirits' or hoaxes. Other alternatives are rarely presented or examined. A newspaper’s idea of balanced coverage is generally to interview a
‘believer’ (in 'spirits') and a ‘sceptic’ and let them trade insults. The idea of examining the evidence without preconception seems to be quite
alien.

The recently popular 'faction' TV programmes about ghosts, like Most Haunted, follow a similar line. Such programmes typically use mediums
heavily. This is probably because, generally, not a lot really happens on the vigils as presented. The most fun is usually to be had by watching

25
the reaction of presenters to 'events' that probably have a mundane explanation. The vigils are, of course, always held in the dark with all the
problems that presents.

ASSAP doesn't use mediums on vigils. That is because the origins of mediumistic information, and the way it is obtained, has not yet been
established by paranormal researchers. Given the unknowns involved, mediumistic information is not a sensible source of information about
ghosts. Even when it appears that a medium has correctly obtained information about a previous occupant of a house, how do we know they
got it from a ‘spirit’ or that said ‘spirit’ is actually haunting the place?

Faction TV also uses seances, ouija and similar techniques to contact 'spirits'. The same problems that apply mediums also apply to these
methods. Any casual viewer who does not take an active interest in paranormal research will probably not be aware of these objections. The TV
programmes therefore serve to reinforce the cultural stereotypes.

Classic cases; folklore?

A major non-fiction source of information about ghosts is the huge library of regional guides (eg. 'Ghosts of Somewhereshire') now available. In
these tomes, ghosts are typically identified with previous occupants of the haunted premises, implying they are 'spirits' even if it is never said.
How such identification is made is rarely stated. Such books rely on 'classic' accounts of hauntings (which have often never even been
investigated properly in modern times) that may owe more to folklore than history.

So where do assumptions like ‘ghosts are spirits’ and ‘UFOs are alien craft’ come from originally? A few noises and lights hardly constitute a
'spirit'. A bright light in the sky isn’t compelling evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. Even well attested apparitions frequently have (on
investigation) mundane explanations. Tellingly, ghosts have only been seen wearing period costume since the early twentieth century. Before
that, ghosts of previous eras never occurred!

The idea of ‘ghosts as spirits’ goes back into antiquity. Seeing someone who 'shouldn't be there' probably gave rise to the idea of ghosts readily
(and quite reasonably) in centuries past. Once the idea took hold, it remained central to the culture right up to now where it is still being
propagated strongly. Most serious researchers know, from experience, that there is little, if any, evidence to connect real-life hauntings with
'spirits' (or lights in the sky with aliens) but that message never reaches the broad population. It has to compete in the media with a continuous
bombardment, both from fiction and non-fiction sources, continuously reinforcing the cultural cliches of 'spirits' and 'aliens'. The idea that
weird noises in your house could be the unquiet dead is a compelling one. The idea that it could be dormice in your loft simply cannot compete.

Memes

Many ideas, like 'ghosts are spirits', self-replicate within our culture. Such ideas are called memes. Memes are, like genes, subject to a form of
natural selection. However, memes only compete with other memes, irrespective of any benefit, or otherwise, to their 'hosts', human beings.

The meme of 'ghosts as spirits' survives despite the lack of any obvious supporting evidence. For many people this is because their only
experience of ghosts is second-hand. Even those who do see ghosts themselves are influenced unconsciously in the way they interpret their
experiences. Clearly, as a meme, the idea has defeated alternative versions like, 'ghosts are mainly misperceptions' or 'ghosts are recordings' or
similar ideas. Memes are not subject to evidence in a scientific way. They are only subject to competition from other memes and the 'ghosts are
spirit' version is currently the easy winner.

Some prominent cases can give rise to specific memes, like extraterrestrials as short grey aliens. Before the Betty and Barney Hill abduction
case, aliens were reported to come in many different shapes and sizes (often showing regional variation depending on which part of the world
they were reported from). After that case, most aliens are now reported to be the classic 'greys'. Furthermore, there are descriptions of similar
short grey aliens in science fiction published before the Hill case. In an interesting parallel, there was a wide variation in the reported
appearance of North American bigfoot until the Patterson-Gimlin film. After that most bigfoot sightings agreed with the figure seen on that
film. These examples suggest a meme-like feedback from culture back into real-life reports.

Unsupported ideas and the internet

The rise of the internet has widened access to disparate ideas, no longer filtered through conventional media. An unfortunate side-effect of this
is that ideas that are not obviously supported by evidence can become widely accepted simply due to their popularity (memes). Examples
include the ideas that orbs are paranormal or that EMF meters detect ghosts. Such ideas might have arisen through the conventional media but
their spread and persistence would probably not have been as wide or deep.

Skeptics versus believers

The whole 'skeptics versus believers' debate, so beloved by the media, is generally completely sterile and pointless. That's because the 'debate'
is more often about beliefs (and non-beliefs) rather than what it should be about - credible evidence. Two people debating whether ghosts exist

26
on TV is meaningless unless they (a) both agree on what ghosts are and (b) use hard evidence from properly investigated cases rather than
sources that amount to little more than folklore.

In science, evidence is everything. If someone can demonstrate convincingly that telepathy happens then scientists would have to accept it (or
cease to be true scientists). A useful debate about the paranormal should start by stripping away the assumptions implanted in most people's
minds by culture. Forget about the media vision of 'spirits' dragging clanking chains in a graveyard at midnight in a thunderstorm and think
about what is really causing weird footstep-like sounds in an empty house on a wet Thursday afternoon.

Postscript 1: On 'cultural' memory

How much do we humans really remember? There is thought to be enough capacity in our brains to remember virtually everything we've ever
done in our lives. However, it is not yet known whether we simply forget most of it or if it is still there but we are unable, most of the time, to
access it. Some people have difficulty forgetting and can say what they did on a specific date many years ago (checkable against contemporary
diary entries). It is a debilitating condition, with the past constantly playing in their heads like a unstoppable film. In order to deal with the
present it seems we need to forget most of the past, only recalling it as necessary.

There is evidence that we remember a lot more than we are usually aware of but that often those memories are not easily accessible or
particularly accurate. Sometimes we may be prompted spontaneously to remember an incident, by a particular smell, sight or sound (or a taste,
according to Proust). However, if you look at your old photo albums or visit an old haunt, you will soon realise that many of the 'details' you
think you remember are inaccurate.

It has been suggested that mediums may be particularly good as accessing memories that they are not consciously aware of having
(cryptomnesia or latent memory). When they produce evidence of their abilities, they may sometimes be remembering facts they were not
aware they even knew.

Cultural memory is different from personal memory. Though it is still held in our heads, it is also constantly reinforced by other people and the
media in TV, films, books, etc. Both in fiction and, supposedly factual reporting, cultural cliches are repeated endlessly. A report of a haunting
will get a newspaper reporter checking the history of the building where it took place to 'identify' the ghost and add 'colour' to their story. The
fact that all that was heard was unexplained footsteps won't stop a reporter linking it to some newsworthy former inhabitant of the building.
The link is a cultural one - the idea that ghosts are 'spirits' or even 'recordings' of former people. Consumers of the media, which is pretty much
everyone, have their cultural memories constantly reinforced with every such report. Writers of fiction know that they will sell more books or
films if they tap into these cultural memories, whether they are right or wrong. It is not a conscious process so that people will often truthfully
claim that they have no interest in ghosts or aliens and yet they will still 'know' what these entities are supposed to do.

Postscript 2: Culture and cases evolve together

While there is little doubt that cultural representations of the paranormal inform the characteristics of real cases, the reverse happens too.
Modern 'ghost hunting' techniques are now appearing in fiction. This feeds back into the content of real cases but including purely imaginative
content from authors and script writers. This the cultural representation of the paranormal cases evolve together, like a spiral feeding each
other.

27
Time displaced paranormal

Time displacement paranormal

In many cases witnesses only realise they've seen something anomalous after the event. For instance, someone might see a human figure in an
office and think nothing of it until later, when they realise they were actually alone in a locked building. Then they start to think it was a ghost.
It is only the 'impossibility' of the sighting that makes it apparently paranormal.

This is a 'time displaced' paranormal report because, at the time, nothing appeared wrong or unusual about what was seen. Lots of ghost
reports are like this which is why apparitions are often reported as looking completely normal. By contrast, many UFO witnesses are aware at
the time of their observation that they are seeing something weird.

Explanations

Time displaced paranormal reports (TDPRs) can have the same range of possible explanations as those where witnesses realise they are
experiencing something odd. Many may be misperception, for instance.

Impossible or improbable?

TDPRs are interesting because they rely mainly on factors other then the phenomenon itself. The figure in the office in example above is only a
ghost if it is certain there was no one else present. Otherwise, they are just a real person. Even if no one else was present it could still be a
misperception of a hat stand!

The problem for paranormal investigators then becomes deciding whether something really was impossible, improbable or a misperception (or
hallucination). Often we have to rely on the witness's memory or on what 'must have happened'. This latter line of thought goes thus: a block of
offices is always locked at 6pm so anyone seen there after that must be a ghost! Of course, such rules can always be broken. Unless there is
some evidence, such as from a CCTV, that a building really was locked up and empty, it is difficult to take this as positive evidence of the
presence of a ghost.

Evidence missed

A major problem with TDPRs is that, because the witness didn't know there was something odd going on, they won't have looked for any other
evidence (either for or against the paranormal) or made a detailed observation. If you pass someone in a crowd in the street, you're unlikely to
remember much about them. But that person could potentially have been a ghost! The same thing happens in TDPRs.

Multiple sightings

A one-off TDPR can be very frustrating and unlikely to produce positive evidence of the paranormal. If, however, the same thing is reported
repeatedly from the same site, there might be something in it. However, if the later witnesses were aware of previous reports, psychological
suggestion is always a distinct possibility. Given several reports by independent witness, however, there might well be something there worth
investigating.

Why paranormal?

Why do people, when encountering an apparently 'impossible' occurrence, so readily consider the paranormal? There may be an explanation in
ghost stories. Many ghost stories involve a 'twist in the tail' device whereby a hitherto seemingly normal situation is revealed as paranormal by
an 'impossible' feature. For instance, someone has a chat with a stranger only to find out later that the person had died years before! It is
possible that this literary device is seen by many people as an indicator of the paranormal. Real life lacks the emotionally appealing neat
structure of ghost stories and many TDPR cases turn out to have natural explanations.

28
Am I psychic?

Xener card symbolsWhat makes someone think they are psychic? In many cases it is probably because someone else (often a psychic
themselves) told them so. So how can you tell if you are psychic?

Am I psychic?

Psychics, when asked this question, generally talk about various strange experiences they've had, often from childhood. These include such
things as:

seeing ghosts
seeing auras
having dreams that came true
frequent deja vu
knowing things about people they've just met as though they'd known them for years
a feeling of 'connectedness' with places or people
knowing who was calling as soon as the telephone rang
knowing things straight away about a place never before visited
There are lots of other similar factors (such as having a strong interest in the paranormal) and experiences that are also considered indicators of
being psychic. In addition, people who consult psychics may be told by someone that they might be psychic, even without the 'symptoms' listed
above.

What is a psychic?

It is difficult to pin down exactly what a psychic is. However, a very generalised definition might be:

someone who supplies information, on a particular subject, that they were not previously consciously aware they had

No doubt, many people will argue with such a definition, particularly concerning its vagueness. However, when you have to summarise such
things as telepathy, clairsentience, psychometry etc, you inevitably end up with a rather odd definition. Let's analyse the definition to see why it
makes sense.

Firstly, it assumes no particular mechanism (like a sixth sense or spirit communication). Psychics may claim such mechanisms but there is no
absolute way of knowing precisely where such information originates. All we can really do is test the validity of such information. Note that the
definition does not say 'correct' or 'accurate' information. As anyone who has had a reading with a medium will know, much of what psychics
tell us can, in fact, be wrong. However, we often forget those bits because we are so impressed with the remainder that is correct.

Secondly, the 'consciously aware' bit assumes that they are not doing anything fraudulent, however it does not rule out cryptomnesia.
Somebody can be 'unconsciously' aware of a fact!

Memory

Cryptomnesia is remembering things you had consciously forgotten (known in neuroscience as 'latent memory'). Research into memory shows
that we forget most of our experiences quite soon after the event. However, we retain 'hidden' (or latent) memories for long periods and they
can be retrieved by association (thinking about something associated with the memory) or by sensory triggers such as certain smells, sights or
sounds. Someone may think that they are getting information for the first time, through a sixth sense, when, in fact, they are recalling a
memory they didn't realise they had.

The way such 'hidden' memories 'pop into their head' can make it feel as if it is coming from outside. We are all subject to cryptomnesia.
Sometimes you will watch a TV quiz and 'just know' the right answer to a question, even though you've no idea how you know it. The words in
the question may be the trigger to release your latent memory.

Cryptomnesia is, of course, a normal means of gaining information, as opposed to paranormal. Our definition does not assume that information
is gained paranormally. It is perfectly possible for someone to persuade themselves that they have a sixth sense when they do not (there are
recorded cases of this). There are other also possible 'natural' mechanisms for gaining information that, if used unconsciously, might persuade
someone that they have paranormal gifts (see below). Cryptomnesia is becoming more of a problem in the twenty-first century. Through the
internet, for instance, information on people, places, history and even hauntings, is becoming simply and freely available. A supposed psychic
invited to describe their feelings at a haunted location may be remembering something they had earlier read, and then forgotten, about the
history of a building, rather than picking anything up from ghosts.

29
Most, if not all, of what we retain in our long term memories is of emotional importance to us. Psychics deal with highly emotional material
when giving readings. Perhaps, for some people who think they are psychic, this emotive content is the key to unlocking their own hidden
memories, allowing material to 'pop' into their heads, as if from outside.

Unconscious insight

In the stories of Sherlock Holmes, the eponymous hero is able to deduce things about his clients simply by observing their clothes, their
manner, the way the talk and walk and so on. In the case of the fictional detective, he has a conscious gift of insight. Someone may think they
are psychic if they have a unconscious gift of insight, that might appear paranormal. They may be particularly sensitive to body language, notice
small details about places or objects, all of which may tell them things about a person or situation that others miss. It is, indeed, an impressive
gift, it just isn't paranormal!

Such an 'unconsciously insightful' person may notice empathically what someone's mood is, even if they are a complete stranger. They might
even pick someone from a crowd by their mood, using body language. Similarly, they might gain impressions from a room, its decoration,
furniture, layout and so on, that could tell them something about its history and current and former inhabitants (which could be relevant in
haunting cases). All of this would be unconscious, giving rise to the idea that was obtained by a sixth sense. Such people might even have a rare
condition called mirror touch synaesthesia.

Some people (around 2% of the population) are 'super-recognizers' - they can recognize faces they may have seen just once, briefly, years
before. Super-recognizers can also remember other personal details about people they've only met briefly. This is not a psychic ability, just a
rare normal one. Some psychics report knowing things (which turn out to be correct) about people they cannot recall meeting before. They
may, in fact, be super-recognizers, rather than psychic, and DID meet someone before but do not consciously recall it.

Our brains process visual information in parallel. So one area of the brain determines the colour of an object, another its texture, another its
shape and so on. These different aspects are only united into a single visual object when they enter our consciousness and we 'see' them in the
widescreen view in our heads that we call vision. Sometimes, however, we do not 'see' objects at all, consciously, but nevertheless they are in
the unconscious parts of our brain and may effect future thinking.

Such subliminal recognition can occur if we only see something for a brief interval, perhaps while scanning a scene, or in poor lighting
conditions (such conditions can also give rise to misperception) . So we may be aware of much more about a scene than we consciously realise.
This may give rise to a feeling of 'just knowing' something that we've never consciously been aware of, as if from a sixth sense.

Unconscious cold reading

Cold reading is a technique used to obtain information from people in such a way that they are not aware it is being extracted. It is used
primarily by stage magicians as a trick. It is also possible that some people may develop its techniques, without being consciously aware of it, if
they are convinced they are psychic.

Cold reading methods overlaps with 'unconscious insight' in that clues from a person's dress, appearance, body language etc may be used.
However, cold reading is primarily about obtaining information through conversing with people. In cold reading, it is usual to start with vague
statements that could apply to many people. By watching or hearing the subject's reaction, the cold reader can home in on things that the
subject accepts as accurate. Essentially, the cold reader 'homes in' by discarding possibilities that are rejected, either verbally or through body
language, by the subject, leaving only the true material. If the subject believes the cold reader has psychic abilities, they may unwittingly assist
in the process by providing additional clues. If a cold reader is convinced of their psychic abilities, they may not be aware that they are using
cold reading techniques.

Guessing

Guessing answers to examinations rarely gets people a pass. With multiple choice questions, for instance, there may be 5 possible answers to
each question. So, by random guessing you'd expect to get 20% right. You might do better than chance if your guesses were informed, even
without having a detailed knowledge of the subject being examined. Multiple choice exams try to reduce this possibility by including similar
possible answers.

Suppose, however, you were giving an apparently 'psychic' reading to someone using only guesswork. If your guesses were guided by hints
from cryptomnesia, unconscious insight and unconscious cold reading, it could tip the scales heavily in your favour. If your client wanted to
believe the reading was psychic, the results could appear very impressive indeed.

Attitude

30
To believe you are a psychic, you will, of course, believe in the paranormal. This makes it much easier to accept that what may, in fact, be the
result of unconscious insight, cryptomnesia and so on, is paranormal. Once having declared to the world that you are psychic, psychologically it
may be difficult to back down even if you start to doubt your abilities.

The attitude of any clients or subjects that you may 'read' is important. Believers are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt, more
likely to feedback helpful information to you and less likely to remember all the stuff you got wrong. If you find that it is much easier to give
readings to a believer than a skeptic, this may be why. If you were truly using some paranormal sixth sense, there is no obvious reason why it
should not work as easily on a skeptic as a believer (though, obviously, we cannot say for certain as we don't know how such a thing might
work).

Seeing ghosts

Many people report seeing a ghost once or twice in their life. However, someone seeing many ghosts may well think they are psychic. Most
ghost reports are probably the result of misperception. This is where an object, like a poorly seen tree on a dark night, is unconsciously
substituted by something else, like a human figure, by our own brains.

It is important to realise that such visual substitutions happen completely unconsciously and that they look utterly real (because they originate
in our own memory). So the witness sees an apparently real human figure, often with details like clothes, facial expression and so on. In
essence it is a REAL experience that simply doesn't correspond to the physical object being seen. Misperception is common but most people
don't notice it most of the time.

Anyone noticing such misperceptions regularly would probably conclude that they must be psychic. They can, after all, see a full human figure
in great detail while someone standing next to them sees only a tree. So a pronounced tendency to notice misperceptions would make
someone believe they were psychic.

Another common reason for people to apparently see ghosts are near-sleep experiences. These are strange episodes that occur at the point of
falling asleep, or waking up, when dreams can intrude into normal perception. Most people will have one or two of these during their lifetime
but some people may get a lot more, possibly giving them the idea they are psychic.

Hearing voices

A few people experience brief dream states during microsleep episodes - microsleep with REM - MWR. This is a type of hypnogogia and may be
indicative of a sleep disorder. Either way, it could produce paranormal reports even though the witness appears, and believes themselves to be,
fully awake and alert.

One witness reports both 'normal' microsleep episodes (without REM) and MWRs. The latter often happen when reading, watching TV or doing
something not requiring active participation, such as watching scenery on a journey. Usually, they go 'somewhere else' ie. into a dream state
located somewhere completely different from their actual location. This could explain some alien abduction experiences where people report
being yanked out of their normal life and taken somewhere else, albeit briefly. Alternatively, some MWR episodes involve a 'continuation' of
the real place where the witness actually is but with something happening that does not occur in reality (see here for an example). This could
explain some ghost experiences if the witness sees a human figure, for instance, against a real background. As soon as the witness comes out of
the MWR, the figure, or anything else produced by the REM state, will vanish, reinforcing the impression it is paranormal. These latter MWRs
feel completely real at the time.

In another variation, people experiencing MWR may hear other people's voices, even though no one is actually talking. One witness reported
that phrases are heard which sound like snatches of overheard conversations that are neither directed to the listener, or anything they were
thinking about. Though these words are presumably derived from the listener's own memory, the way they are selected appears near random.
As a result the voices give the impression that they originate with other, unseen, people. It would be easy to interpret such hypnagogic
experiences as spirit voices and for the listener to believe themselves psychic.

It should be emphasized that MWRs are rare but, nevertheless, they could explain some brief but extraordinary experiences that happen when
a witness is apparently wide awake. However, another point is that people with MWRs may realise they have had one when they wake up, in
which case they may not interpret their experience as paranormal.

OOBE

Unconscious audience participation

Not everyone who thinks they are psychic starts doing public readings! However, some may offer their 'services' for friends and acquaintances.
Here another effect may help in reinforcing the idea that they are psychic - unconscious audience participation! Many people who get readings,
who often believe strongly in psychic abilities, will unconsciously help the the psychic by 'filling in the gaps' with extra information.

31
So, if the psychic makes a vague guess, it may strike a chord with someone in their audience. And the participant may then supply details
previously unknown to the psychic. This can allow the psychic to make more targeted informed guesses. Between them, the psychic and helpful
participant can together home in on startlingly accurate information.

Thoughts from elsewhere

Most of us get a random thought, as if from nowhere, from time to time. It can feel as if it has come from outside - maybe from a spirit or
telepathy. However, it just a result of the way the normal way that our brains work, on the edge of chaos in a state of 'self-organized criticality'.
These thoughts literally appear at random, from the unconscious parts of our brain. There is no evidence that they originate outside it, even if it
feels like it.

Pattern recognition

We humans are good at seeing patterns in data, whether it's visual, oral, speech, numerical, nature, etc. It is a key part of the learning process.
Naturally, as with most things, some people are better at it than others. Some people have this ability to such a degree that they may
sometimes see patterns where none exists. This may take the form of seeing 'faces' or 'human figures' in random shapes in pictures. Such a
pronounced ability to see patterns may make people more likely to misperceive objects as ghosts or hear voices in ambient sounds.

If someone regularly sees ghosts they are highly likely to believe they are psychic. However, it is possible that they are good at misperceiving
rather than being sensitive to the paranormal.

An initial weird experience sensitises

Many psychics report having had an initial weird experience, like seeing a ghost for instance, that made them aware they might be psychic.
From then onwards they noticed many other odd things, like those in the list at the top of this article.

It is possible that this initial, often striking, incident was not paranormal at all. Misperception is responsible for many apparently paranormal
incidents, for instance. However the incident was caused, it may 'sensitise' someone to the idea of the paranormal, having perhaps taken little
interest in the subject beforehand.

Some scientists believe that human intelligence is based on our building unconscious 'models' of reality, from personal observation, in our
brains. Thus, as a child, we do not need anyone to tell us that an object released above the ground will fall straight downwards. Such 'models' in
our brain allow us to return a fast-moving tennis ball, despite not being able to react in time, because we unconsciously predict where it ought
to go, given its observed trajectory. If someone becomes convinced that they've seen a ghost, even though it was really a poorly-seen tree, they
may develop a 'model' in their brain such that every subsequent similar experience is interpreted as a ghost. This may explain how we become
'sensitised' to apparent psychic phenomena and experience them frequently.

Once aware of the possibility of the paranormal, some people will interpret many small incidents, previously unnoticed or dismissed as natural,
as psychic. For instance, a slight knock from a wall may be seen as a 'spirit' announcing its presence. In reality, the 'knock' may be caused by
slight expansion in a pipe due to central heating switching on. There are many such noises found in any building but we tend not to notice them
normally (see New House Effect). These sort of psychic interpretations, of what may be naturally-caused incidents, can tend to reinforce the
idea that someone hearing them is psychic when, in fact, they are not.

Testing psychic ability

From the above, it is easy to see how someone might convince themselves that they have genuine psychic abilities when, in fact, they were just
insightful. With such self-belief, it is also easier to convince others of their gifts too. This does not mean that there is no extra-sensory
perception. What it does mean, however, is that to test such abilities we need to remove all these possible ways for information to 'leak' to the
psychic by normal means. Otherwise we can never be sure if they are genuinely using a sixth sense or just unconsciously using the usual five.

If someone thinks they are psychic but are not, it should be possible to tell. In essence, if the information is being passed by normal means as
each 'natural paths' for information is successively closed, so any apparent 'psychic ability' will diminish. So, someone not sure if they are
psychic, could try giving readings face to face with a subject in their own home (surrounded by their possessions) followed by a similar session
but at a neutral venue. Then they could try again with the subject unseen, perhaps over the internet by exchange of email, so that body
language is eliminated. Then they do readings without any contact at all, other than a request from someone by letter or email. If the readings
become less and less accurate, as the possibility of any natural feedback is reduced, it may indicate that the psychic is unconsciously using
natural techniques, at least to some extent. Finally, the psychic could try to see if they can beat random fixed odds, like in Xener cards, to a
significant degree with no human subject involved at all.

Beating random chance

32
Why use random fixed odds? The random element means that no information can leak to the subject. The fixed odds (eg. 1 in 5 for Xener cards)
means we can work out whether the subject is exceeding random chance to a significant degree. In most situations where psychics typically
operate, such as giving readings, working out the odds against random luck is either very difficult or practically impossible. What are the odds of
guessing someone owns a blue car, for instance? If you can guess randomly presented Xener cards consistently at better than 1 in 5 then you
may be truly psychic.

Unfortunately, running long tests with things like Xener cards is boring. Some people think this may affect the ability of real psychics to
perform. This may be unavoidable, however, because the more you make the task like those typically encountered by psychics in the real
world, the harder it becomes to calculate odds and stop information leaks - see here.

Postscript 1: Factors that make someone appear psychic

If someone has several of the characteristics outlined above, they may believe they are psychic when, in fact, they are not. Here is a summary
of the factors that might make people think they are psychic when they have no paranormal sensitivity:

good latent memory or cryptomnesia

notice misperceptions more than other people
get more near-sleep experiences than other people
have good unconscious insight
are super recognisers
believe in the paranormal
often get random thoughts 'as if from nowhere'
are good at recognising patterns
are good at unconscious cold reading
have had one or more striking weird experiences
have synaesthesia, temporal lobe epilepsy (see below)
There are various tests to see whether someone has these personal abilities. However, that goes beyond the purpose of this current article.

Postscript 2: Synaesthesia and auras

Some psychics see a coloured glow around people and objects that they call an aura. They say they can tell things about people from the colour
and shape of their aura.

A common explanation put forward to explain people seeing auras is synaesthesia. This happens when two or more senses appear mixed up so
that you can 'see' sounds or view numbers as coloured. Interestingly, synaesthesia is associated with enhanced memory. Thus we have
someone who sees colours that are not present and has unusually well-developed memory abilities (see Memory above). Anyone with this
combination of unusual mental abilities might easily consider themselves psychic.

Postscript 3: Temporal lobe epilepsy

A tiny number of people suffer from a condition known as temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). This can give people vivid hallucinatory experiences
that strongly resemble those described by psychics. There is an in-depth article on it, including a first hand account, here.

It is possible that someone with TLE might think they are psychic. They are likely, however, to have a range of symptoms other than apparent
psychic experiences. Anyone who feels they might have TLE should consult a medical practitioner.

Postscript 4: A speculative theory about some psychics

Through genetics and environment (nurture and nature) we all have different mental attributes. Is it possible that some psychics, or rather
people who think they are psychic (see above), may represent a particular group within that spectrum of mental abilities?

To illustrate this, let's start with autism (this is not a theory that psychics are autistic - quite the opposite, in fact!). Autism is a brain condition
characterised by difficulties communicating and forming social bonds. A small proportion of people with autism, known as savants, display
extraordinary abilities with numbers and / or language and / or memory. Some can do amazing feats of mental arithmetic. Such people
attribute more to numbers or words than mere digits or letters. They might see a number as 'lumpy' or 'round' or see it as part of a 'web' with
other numbers (see Daniel Tammet's interview, for instance ). Such webs or other properties automatically reveal how the number relates to
others such as those that, when multiplied together, produce it. Knowing such properties makes feats of mental arithmetic comparatively
simple for savants.

33
Let's suppose there is another end to the 'mental spectrum' from autism - people with highly developed communication abilities and social
skills. Since such abilities are seen as positive attributes, they would not be classed as any kind of 'disorder'. And suppose such inherent skills
manifest as being highly empathic - able to sense others moods, even much of their biography, simply from seeing their facial expression,
clothes, movement, speech, body language and so on. As with savants, this empathic ability would work very quickly and without great effort.
Such a person might be able to tell a number of important facts about someone as soon they walk into a room. They might also be able to tell a
lot about someone not physically present from a room they live in - their possessions, how they are arranged, etc.

In another parallel with savants, the kind of psychic proposed might see their specialist subject - people - as having certain properties. But
whereas a savant might see a number as 'round', a psychic might see a person as accompanied by another person - a 'spirit'! It seems natural
that if a psychic sees the world in terms of humans and their relationships, the attributes they might 'see' would be another person. Just as a
savant's number isn't really round, a 'spirit' seen or heard by a psychic might not by objectively present, just a way the psychic's brain
represents a person's attributes.

In this way, a psychic might feel they are getting information about someone from a 'spirit'. In reality, they would be picking up information
about the person through many unconscious cues. We all pick up these cues, through body language, but psychics may take this ability to
another level.

This IS only a speculative theory. There certainly seems to be no evidence that psychics have any mental disorder but clearly they are different
to most of us. However, there is also little evidence from lab parapsychology that psychics use extra-sensory perception either. This current
theory suggests some new lines of research into psychics, away from the previous stuff which hasn't lead anywhere interesting so far.

34
Near sleep experiences

Science has recently demonstrated that the apparently obvious difference between sleep and wakefulness is far more fuzzy and ill-defined than
we ever thought. It is possible to be partly asleep and partly awake in any one of a number of 'near sleep experiences'. It is even possible that
parts of our brains may be asleep while others are awake. It is now thought likely that only when 'most' of our brain is asleep do we actually
become unconscious. It is likely that we regularly shuffle between different states ranging from fully alert to deep sleep throughout the day and
night. Strange experiences are reported by people in intermediate states between sleep and wakefulness which may explain many paranormal
reports.

Near sleep experiences are important in understanding many paranormal reports because they produce bizarre experiences, often with
apparently paranormal elements, in which dreams appear real. They are also important because they happen to 'normal', healthy people who
have no history of illnesses or disorders. These hallucinatory episodes are called REM intrusions - REM is rapid eye movement associated with
dreaming. REM intrusion is an episode where elements of dreams are overlaid on observed 'reality', making the experience appear utterly real,
because the subject is partly awake and partly dreaming. Hallucinatory content can be visual, auditory or both. There are so many connections
between these various types of experience, both in effect and cause, that it is justified to lump them together.

Paul Chambers wrote an excellent article on these, and other phenomena, back in 1999. This articles is intended as an update taking into
account new scientific research since then.

Hypnagogia

This is a state that can occur when going to sleep or waking (this latter stage is sometimes distinguished as hypnopompic). During a hypnagogic
episode, dream-like elements can intrude into a view of the real world, like a hallucination. See here for more details..

Sleep paralysis

If you have ever woken from sleep to find yourself paralysed, you have probably experienced sleep paralysis which is thought to have affected
around 40% of people at least once. As if being paralysed wasn't disturbing enough, some people experience hallucinatory hypnagogic imagery
at the same time. Hallucinatory sleep paralysis usually lasts longer than common sleep paralysis, up to around 8 minutes. Some people with
sleep paralysis may experience an OOBE (see below). See here for more details.

Microsleep and sleep deprivation

When people are sleep-deprived, as many are these days with busy lives, they can be subject to microsleep. These are periods of a second or
two, up to minutes, when someone is not responsive despite often having has their eyes open. It can be difficult to detect both for the
experiencer and anyone watching them. During these periods, the experiencer will miss any sensory input. Someone doing a monotonous task,
like driving, can also get microsleep. Microsleep is most frequent at times of day when the experiencer would normally be asleep.

For example, if someone was sleep deprived by attending a ghost vigil, they might microsleep during the latter parts of the night. If something
in the room changed during a microsleep, they might not notice it happening and assume it had happened paranormally. An object might
appear to 'jump' from one place to another when, in reality, it simply fell normally.

People vary enormously in their ability to cope with sleep deprivation. It is now thought possible that, when sleep deprived, parts of our brains
may go 'off line' temporarily while we are apparently awake. In this condition we become forgetful or daydream, both of which could result in
reports of apparent paranormal activity.

Microsleep with REM

A few people experience brief dream states during microsleep episodes - microsleep with REM - MWR. This could be related to hypnogogia and
it may be indicative of a sleep disorder or severe sleep deprivation. Either way, it could produce paranormal reports even though the witness
appears, and believes themselves to be, fully awake and alert.

One witness reports both 'normal' microsleep episodes (without REM) and MWRs. The latter often happen when reading, watching TV or doing
something not requiring active participation, such as watching scenery on a journey. Usually, they go 'somewhere else' ie. into a dream state
located somewhere completely different from their actual location. This could explain some alien abduction experiences where people report
being yanked out of their normal life and taken somewhere else, albeit briefly.

Alternatively, some MWR episodes involve a 'continuation' of the real place where the witness actually is but with something happening that
does not occur in reality (see here for an example). This could explain some ghost experiences if the witness sees a human figure, for instance,

35
against a real background. As soon as the witness comes out of the MWR, the figure, or anything else produced by the REM state, will vanish,
reinforcing the impression it is paranormal. These latter MWRs feel completely real at the time, like hypnagogia.

Another form of MWR consists of voices, or rarely other sounds, heard while apparently awake and conscious of visual surroundings. Other
witnesses present will not notice any such voices or sounds.

It should be emphasized that MWRs are rare but, nevertheless, they could explain some brief but extraordinary experiences that happen when
a witness is apparently wide awake. However, another point is that people with MWRs may realise they have had one when they wake up, in
which case they may not interpret their experience as paranormal. MWRs (sometimes called micro-dreams) may be seen as an extreme case of
SOREM - sleep onset REM.

Some people may experience MWRs without realizing their true explanation and interpret their strange experiences as paranormal. Sleep
disorders often go undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed, for many years or even a lifetime.

OOBE

Out of the body experiences (OOBEs or OBEs) are often seen as paranormal (such as astral projection). However, recent advances in
neuroscience are providing an alternative explanation. OOBEs are most often experienced during the near sleep period when waking,
particularly if dreaming. Some people get OOBEs while experiencing sleep paralysis.

In a typical OOBE, the subject will find themselves apparently floating outside their body. They often find themselves near the ceiling of the
room they are in, looking down on their own body. Naturally, this experience has often been seen as a sort of astral body floating free of the
physical one. It is also often part of an NDE or near death experience (see below). It is estimated that 5% of healthy people experience at least
one OOBE in their lifetime.

Recent research has shown that there is a part of the brain, called the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) which, if it temporarily behaves unusually
for any reason (such as from reduced blood pressure), can lead to OOBEs. The job of the TPJ is to give us an impression of our physical bodies in
space, where we end and the 'rest of the world' begins. Since we don't possess motion sensors all over our body, this is an important job
without which we would have no sense of how big we are. The TPJ uses sensory information from sight, touch, 'balance' (from the inner ear)
and so to create the spatial body image.

It is possible to fool our brains about where our body is fairly easily, giving rise to some strange effects. In the 'rubber hand illusion', for
instance, a subject's hand is hidden from view while a rubber one is placed in front of them. If the rubber hand and the subject's real hand are
then gently stroked simultaneously, it feels to the subject as though the rubber hand is their own.

An even more interesting experiment can reproduce a full OOBE. Subjects wear a 'virtual reality' head mounted display that shows a TV image
of their body from behind. When someone strokes their body, which they can see in their display, they feel as if they are going into the 'body'
on the screen. Similar later experiments have induced subjects to experience seeing their own bodies as if from above, the classic OBE.

Whether any OOBEs are paranormal is now down solely to whether they can produce information that could not possibly have been available
any other way. It is not enough for someone having an OOBE to report what happened in the room where they were lying because this
information could have been deduced by sounds heard during the experience or visual impressions of the room gained while conscious before
the experience. Even the viewpoint from the ceiling is not beyond the power of our brains to construct. All sorts of weird viewpoints are
constructed during dreams so they could easily be used during similar OOBEs.

Sleep disorders

Though hypnagogia, sleep paralysis, microsleep and OOBE can be experienced by anyone who is perfectly fit and healthy, they could also be
symptoms of a sleep disorder or other medical condition. If anyone having these experiences is concerned in any way, they should seek medical
advice.

There are various sleep disorders that can produce symptoms similar to or including near sleep experiences. These include narcolepsy,
parasomnia, hypersomnia and so on, which are beyond the scope of this article.

NDEs

It has been suggested by some scientists that the striking parallels between OOBEs and NDEs may be more than coincidence. It has been
proposed that NDEs may be a particular kind of OOBE that occurs in time of crisis. When our bodies are in a crisis state, near death, they release
chemicals that damp down our fear and pain response. This may account for the feeling of euphoria commonly reported in NDEs rather than
the fear that often characterises hallucinatory sleep paralysis, for instance.

36
During NDEs, recordings of brain rhythms with EEGs (electroencephalographs) show flat lines ie. no activity. However, EEGs only record waves
from the topmost layers of the brain and REM originates deep inside the brain. Research is ongoing to test these ideas.

Anomalous reports while near sleep

Many reports of anomalous phenomena, like ghosts or alien abductions, involve the witness either about to go to sleep or waking from it (often
in bed). It is difficult to eliminate near sleep experiences as the most likely cause of such reports. Often there are odd factors which reinforce
the subjective nature of such reports. Not only are bright lights and loud noises (in alien abductions, for instance) not noticed by others in the
house but not even by partners sleeping the same bed, who typically remain asleep! Similarly strange, witnesses may simply go back to sleep
after their weird experience when, had it been objectively real, that might seem the last thing they would be likely to do. Also, paralysis is
frequently reported in alien abduction experiences.

As well as near sleep experiences, some reports from witnesses in bed may be false awakening dreams. Many people have such dreams where
they may get up in the normal way, have breakfast and so on, only to later waken for real, feeling disorientated. Such dreams can involve also
involve bizarre imagery, including that typical of anomalous phenomena reports.

To show that a report from a witness near sleep was truly objective would require there to be multiple witnesses to the phenomenon or some
physical evidence that it had occurred. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to eliminate near sleep phenomena from such cases.

OOBEs when NOT near sleep

Not all OOBEs happen when the subject is near to sleep. Occasionally people can see their surroundings as if from a different viewpoint to the
usual 'behind the eyes'. Witnesses do not necessarily see their own bodies. Such 'mini-OOBE's can be triggered by various circumstances. Here
is one witness statement:

" I was just walking along when I happened to look down at the brick pathway underfoot. It suddenly appeared to me to be very close, as if I
was floating just above it rather than looking from normal walking head height! The illusion quickly broke and I walked off, bemused. "

This mini-OOBE seems to have been triggered by a loss of a sense of depth caused by the highly uniform brick pattern which took up the entire
field of view. Subsequent attempts to deliberately reproduce this experience at the same spot have failed. This suggests that knowing what
might happen actually inhibits it!

Similar weird experiences have been reported in other situations where judging depth suddenly becomes difficult, such as walking down a
motionless escalator. The striped pattern of the metal stairs may be the cause but there is also a weird effect from our brains expecting the
stairs to move (see here).

False awakenings

Technically this a a sleep, rather than near-sleep, experience but it can be difficult to tell apart. Someone dreams that they wake up and may do
many things before later really waking up (or have a repeat awakening dream). These dreams can be vivid and appear very real even though
they contain things that are often wrong, like the surroundings or what happens, compared to a real life awakening.

Some ghost or alien reports may be false awakenings. In particular, there is the inability to wake up other potential witnesses to strange events
and the lack of any tangible trace of things that supposedly happened during the 'experience'. Witnesses may also notice things 'wrong' during
such 'experiences', such as furniture not in its usual position.

Hypnagogia can also resemble a false awakening.

37
All in the mind

All in the Mind?

by Paul Chambers

This article originally appeared in Anomaly 25

(for a research update on some of these topics, see near sleep experiences)

The human brain is a far more extraordinary organ than most of us imagine. It is quite capable of manufacturing ‘experiences’ that have no
basis in consensus reality. Sadly, for paranormal researchers, some of these effects resemble the kind of phenomena we are attempting to
study. Unless we are aware of this possibility our effort may be wasted on purely natural phenomena.

The degree to which the human brain assists in the generation and understanding of paranormal experience has been a hotly debated topic for
over a century now.

Sceptics would argue that all paranormal experiences are generated by the scientific workings of the brain and are therefore not ‘paranormal’
but simply cases of misinterpretation. Parapsychologists generally believe that the brain is capable of producing completely unknown powers,
such as extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis, which may be involved in a range of paranormal phenomena such as crisis apparitions and
poltergeists. Those of a religious or Spiritualist nature will more commonly believe that many paranormal phenomena are generated totally
outside the brain through the intervention of discarnate entities such as spirits of the dead, angels or demons. It was partly to try and
understand where the seat of such paranormal experience lay that organisations like the Society for Psychical Research and, more recently,
ASSAP were founded.

In recent decades the use of technology such as EEGs (electroencephalograph - an instrument that measures brain electrical activity), CAT
(computerised axial tomography - a method of producing a detailed cross-section of internal organs such as the brain) scans, computers and
sleep laboratories, has allowed the science of psychology to move away from the more theoretical days of Sigmund Freud into an era of
measurement and understanding of the way in which the mind and brain work and interact. This process has uncovered a number of now very
well documented sets of psychological conditions and disorders that, under the right circumstances, can make a person believe that they are
undergoing a paranormal-type experience when in fact they are not.

While psychology cannot explain most of the wide range of strange phenomena that has been documented throughout human history, it can
explain some of them. As part of their duty to the understanding of a person’s paranormal experience, it is vital that any investigator be aware
of the symptoms and causes of those psychological conditions that can mimic unexplained phenomenon. It is the objective of this section to
briefly introduce the investigator to the more commonly encountered of these psychological conditions so that they can be recognised in the
field.

This article can only hope to introduce these topics in the briefest of terms. Please use the recommended references for more in-depth reading.

The Common Causes

Sleep Paralysis (The Old Hag)

Symptoms: This disorder is probably responsible for more mistaken reports of the paranormal than any other and it is the most likely to be
encountered by ASSAP investigators.

During an episode of sleep paralysis a person will wake to find themselves unable to move any part of the body except, sometimes, their head.
This can be accompanied by the feeling that there is somebody else in the room. In extreme cases the person will actually see, hear, smell or
even feel a bedroom intruder which normally takes on the form of a supernatural entity from the culture of the victim. Thus sleep paralysis
victims in Africa will see demons, those in Europe will see ghosts and Americans will see aliens. The bedroom invader, which is a form of
hypnopompic hallucination, can seem very real indeed and may even get into bed with the victim or, more rarely, be reported even to assault
them. In conjunction with these hallucinations can come a feeling of immense tightness in the chest area that is commonly described as being
like having a heavy weight pressing down on them or like being strangled. It is this description of being pinned to the bed by a weight that is
most readily recognisable in supernatural reports that can be attributed to sleep paralysis. After a few minutes the feeling of paralysis, and the
supernatural entity, disappear.

Causes: Sleep paralysis was first identified at the end of the last century and has since been induced and studied numerous times under
laboratory conditions. Between 15 and 18% of the population have had an attack of sleep paralysis (myself included), normally in their teenage
years or in periods of stress, although not always with the associated ‘presence in the room’.

38
The condition is caused by disruptions to the normal sleep patterns, most particularly the shortening of dream sleep cycles. During dream
cycles the body’s muscles are paralysed by the brain to stop people from damaging themselves by acting out their dreams in bed. In the case of
sleep paralysis the brain becomes conscious but the paralysis mechanism has not been turned off. The associated feelings of a presence in the
room stem from the intrusion of dream sleep into waking consciousness (see Hypnagogic Hallucinations below).

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: The symptoms of sleep paralysis can commonly be seen in cases of supernatural assault (including sexual
assault), OOBE (out-of-body experience) and alien abduction.

Historically, cases of nocturnal assault by demons (succubi and incubi), vampires, ghosts and witches can all be seen to be derived from sleep
paralysis. Some psychologists call sleep paralysis ‘the Old Hag’ after the medieval and Newfoundland traditions of a witch who would paralyse
people and sit on their chest during the night. The modern term ‘nightmare’ is derived from the old Germanic word mare meaning incubus.

In the modern world the supernatural entity said to assault the sleep paralysis victim is derived directly from their cultural traditions. Americans
get assaulted by aliens, Africans by demons, Europeans by ghosts, south-east Asians by spirits and Newfoundlanders by the Old Hag itself.

The following are accounts of sleep paralysis attacks:

Examples: An ex-nurse from Liverpool claimed to have been sexually molested by a ghost for a period of ten years between 1984 and 1994. She
described the attacks as occurring at night and that she would wake up paralysed to find a hooded figure with grey wrinkled skin on top of her.
She says that she felt the figure pressing down on her and that she was unable to even scream to attract the attention of her husband sleeping
next to her.

A Zanzibar farmer was raped by a local demon called Popobawa. He awoke one night to find himself paralysed. He said:

‘At first I thought I was having a dream. Then I could feel it. Something pressing on me. I could not imagine what sort of thing was happening to
me. You feel as if you are screaming with no voice. It was just like having a dream but then I was thinking it was this Popobawa and he had
come to do something terrible to me, something sexual. It is [much] worse than what he does to women.’

The following is a quote from ‘Jerry’, an alien abductee patient of Professor John Mack:

‘She [Jerry] woke up terrified and remembered pressure in the abdomen and the genital area and that she could not move. “In my head I was
screaming,” Jerry remembers, but does not know if any sound came out.

“Somebody was doing something,” she recalled, but it was “something alien.” Although she recalls wondering to herself, “Is that how sex is
done?” she knew with great certainty that “it wasn’t a person.”

In the years that followed, Jerry had a number of “nightmares” in which she would awake paralysed, hear “buzzing and ringing and whirring”
noises in her head, and see humanoid beings in her room.’

Further Reading: Hufford (1982); Blackmore (1996, 1998); Chambers (1999).

Hypnagogic/Hypnopompic Hallucinations

Symptoms: Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations occur in the few seconds/minutes before and after sleep. The person will awake, often
with a start, to find that they can see, hear, feel or smell something in the bedroom that either disappears or is later found not have happened.
The most common hallucinations are: thinking that a name has been called out or that the phone is ringing; bright or dark amorphous blobs
that hang in mid-air and slowly fade; a feeling that somebody has touched the face, feet or hands; the appearance of a person by the bedside
who rapidly disappears.

Causes: The hypnagogic state is the period when the brain is falling asleep after being awake, while the hypnopompic state is the period when
the brain is waking up from sleep. Hallucinations occur, like sleep paralysis, in the confused period of time between sleeping and consciousness
when the brain is neither fully asleep or awake. During this time the dream state can intrude into our waking world, producing hallucinations
through all the senses. Our brain can also misinterpret signals it receives from the senses and create hallucinations from these as well. For
example, a shirt hanging on a wall can, in the first few moments after waking, be misinterpreted as a human figure.

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: Hypnagogic/hypnapompic hallucinations are most likely to be misinterpreted as being various types of
ghostly phenomena. The paranormal investigator should make a conscious effort to look for reported cases of strange phenomena occurring to
people who have just woken up or who are very relaxed or falling asleep.

The chances of seeing a ghost are greatly enhanced if the person is sitting or lying down and in a relaxed state. Similarly, a majority of the
several hundred cases of crisis apparition collected in Phantasms of the Living occurred to people who had just woken up. This is not to say that

39
there may not be a paranormal element in some of these cases (eg. telepathy), but the link with hypnagogia/hypnopompia is quite
unmistakable.

Examples: Bob is a person, encountered by the author, who has a severe fear of spiders. He does not interpret his experience as being in any
way paranormal and recognises it as a hallucination.

‘I woke up suddenly and saw a massive spider run across the top of my duvet and onto my pillow. I sat straight up in bed and shouted....
Although I knew it wasn’t real [he has had a similar experience on a number of occasions] I still had to strip the bed back to its mattress and
wake up my flat mate to check the room.’

‘On the second night, at about 4.00am when I was almost fast asleep, I heard a loud purring noise and felt a pawed animal walking across my
chest and abdomen, like a heavy cat. I was mostly asleep, so I convinced myself that it was part of a dream and did not open my eyes to look.’

Absorption

Symptoms: A person is concentrating on something so hard that they may become totally unaware of anything else that is going on around
them. This can occur, for example, while driving a car, watching television, reading or any other single-minded task. In the absorbed state a
person may be so engrossed as to be completely unaware of passing time or of the actions of others around them. Once the concentration is
broken, the person may be surprised to find out what has happened during their absence. For example, a motorist may not remember large
sections of a car journey he has just undertaken. Many complain of a feeling of lost time. Absorption can also be associated with certain drug
states and with repetitive tasks such as rhythmic dancing.

Causes: Absorption is a function of the mind’s ability to devote itself solely to one task to the exclusion of all others. It is also the ability of the
mind to ‘switch-off’ during repetitive actions.

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: Many of the results of absorption can be seen in UFO encounters involving motorists late at night. Alien
abductees commonly report that they have missing periods of time when driving home and that they may suddenly ‘wake-up’ to find
themselves several kilometres from where they can last remember driving. Both these are common results of periods of absorption which,
combined with the human tendency to underestimate the length of time a journey will take, can make it feel like a journey has taken longer
than it should and that sections of it have been erased from the memory. Linked with this is what Jenny Randles has called the ‘Oz factor’
where, during a paranormal encounter, all external stimuli seem to disappear, eg. birds stop singing, other traffic disappears from the road, etc.
This, too, has the hallmarks of absorption.

Laboratory tests have found that a capacity for absorption varies considerably between people. High absorption capacity has been linked to a
tendency for fantasy proneness, something else that may strengthen this condition’s link to the paranormal.

Examples: The following case, which happened to Elsie Oakensen of Northamptonshire in November 1978, has many hallmarks of absorption.
Elsie was on the busy A5 road in daylight when she saw some lights in the sky and then a UFO.

‘When I got off the A5 the electrics of the car started to play up. I was able to travel a little further, until I passed under some trees. When I
came out from under the trees I suddenly found myself in darkness, absolute pitch black darkness. As I sat in the car I could not see the road,
buildings, trees or anything else.

As I sat there, a circle of brilliant white light about a yard in diameter shone onto the road to the left-hand side of the car. It went off and it was
dark again.’ This occurred several times before Elsie suddenly found herself ‘...in normal daylight about thirty yards down the road, driving
normally in third gear as I had been before this started. I travelled for about a hundred yards without being in control of the car. I think it was
probably being driven by remote control.’

Folie à Deux (Contagious Insanity)

Symptoms: Two or more people, who are often related to one another or share some aspects of their lives together, may develop shared
delusional beliefs, suspicions or paranoia.

Causes: In cases of folie à deux there is normally one very dominant person who imposes their psychotic beliefs onto the other person(s). This
often happens in conditions where the people have, deliberately or otherwise, isolated themselves from normal human contact. Many
psychologists have studied this disorder in an effort to understand how madness can spread from person to person.

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: Folie à deux is a relatively rare condition that is unlikely to be encountered by many ASSAP members. Its
greatest effect has been seen in cults where a charismatic leader can impose his beliefs and laws onto his congregation sometimes, as with the
Heaven’s Gate cult, with disastrous consequences. It has been postulated that a minor form of folie à deux could be operating in situations

40
where multiple witnesses have observed a paranormal phenomenon. For example, C. D. B. Bryan carries examples of multiple-alien abductees
who have, through over-analysis of a probable example of absorption, convinced each other that a shared paranormal event had taken place.

Examples: A French convent in the early nineteenth century had an outbreak of mewing nuns. The trouble started when one nun began to
continuously mew like a cat. She was soon joined by other nuns until practically the entire convent would spend their entire day standing in the
courtyard mewing. There are many, many other historical examples of such convent madness including, most famously, the Devils of Loudun.
Convents, by their isolated communal living and devotion to routine, are ideal candidates for folie à deux.

The Sense of Presence

Symptoms: A person on their own will become aware that they are not alone. They may believe that they are being followed, that they are
being watched or that the atmosphere around them has become oppressive and unpleasant. Accompanying this may be perceptions that the
environmental conditions around them have changed, eg. they may believe it has become suddenly dark, cold or quiet.

Causes: The individual causes of a person’s believing they are not alone are manifold, but it is essentially a mild form of paranoia brought on by
the person’s being uneasy about the location they are in. In such circumstances it can be easy for the mind to convince itself that its worst fears
are coming true.

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: A sense of presence sometimes forms a large part of reported cases of paranormal phenomena where
very little is actually witnessed. Many haunted houses are designated so by virtue of an owner or visitor, who will normally claim to be sensitive
to such things, feeling that there is an ‘atmosphere’ about the place. Sometimes entire reports can consist of nothing but a feeling of unease by
the witness (see below). It is also possible that the perceived drop in temperature or uneasy quietness associated with hauntings could be
related to this condition. Some first-hand examples of phantom hitchhikers also consist of little more than a feeling of a supernatural presence
in the car or, in some cases, on the back of a motorbike.

Examples: ‘A reporter of the Marlborough Times whose home was in Ogbourne St. Andrew was in the habit of travelling to and from
Marlborough each day. He noticed when he came to a certain spot in his journey he always felt very cold, regardless of the weather and also
felt some “presence” in the car... At a certain spot it left the car, after which the temperature returned to normal.’

‘When this man went to see his girlfriend, he had to walk through a swamp to get to her house. One night he stayed rather late, and when he
came back through the swamp, he heard something following him along the edge of the road. When he looked he could see nothing, and when
he walked it walked, and when he ran it ran. He said that when he got to the edge of the swamp, the sound stopped in some weeds at the edge
of the road. He picked up a rock and threw it into the weeds, but no sound came from the side of the road.’

Diminished Input (Sensory Deprivation)

Symptoms: People who are on their own for long periods of time, or who are performing repetitive tasks, can suddenly find themselves
experiencing hallucinations that resemble paranormal phenomena. Most common are the sudden arrival of ‘spectral companions’ or of solid-
looking people. However, voices, tactile feelings, smells and tastes can also result.

Causes: Psychical researchers have long recognised the value of diminished input to the paranormal. Some laboratories believe that depriving
people of key senses like sight and sound can help enhance the psychic senses. The Ganzfeld experiments use a mild form of sensory
deprivation and have allegedly produced significant positive results in tests for extrasensory perception.

Diminished input, in the form of isolation from other human beings, is also capable of producing false sensory information that resembles
paranormal phenomena. The sense of presence discussed earlier is a mild form of this; a stronger reaction is the hallucination and pseudo-
hallucination (a hallucination that is realised to be unreal by the perceiver).

Hallucinations can come in a wide variety of forms of differing intensity. They can be auditory, tactile, visual, olfactory or any combination of
these things. They can be produced by a massive range of conditions, not just diminished input, and are also associated with drugs, illness
(physical and psychiatric) etc. - these latter causes are beyond the scope of this article.

Diminished input in the form of loneliness, hunger, tiredness, repetitive tasks and illness can lead to altered states of consciousness in which
day-dreams and hallucinations can seem very real indeed. Total sensory deprivation, in the form of isolation tanks, can lead to much more
extreme hallucinations involving wild flashing lights, whole imaginary landscapes and the appearance and disappearance of spectral people
and/or supernatural beings.

Some religions utilise diminished input to induce paranormal-type phenomena. For example, social isolation (eg. hermits), starvation, repetitive
tasks (eg. chanting, ritual prayer, counting), rhythmic dancing or meditation. All these can induce altered states of consciousness in which the
person believes they are having a divine experience.

41
Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: Pseudo-hallucinations are a common side-effect of diminished input, particularly in conjunction with
tiredness. Those people who spend long periods of time on their own (eg. deep-sea divers, lone explorers, long-distance drivers, hostages,
single-handed yachts-people, mountaineers, etc.) are particularly susceptible.

A large proportion of paranormal phenomena occur to individuals who are on their own. Lone drivers are particularly susceptible, and there is a
whole range of phenomena that are associated with people driving on their own at night - phantom hitchhikers, spectral jaywalkers and alien
abduction to name but a few. Lone walkers also report encounters with black dogs, ‘white ladies’ and other ghostly phenomena. Solo
mountaineers, divers, yachts-people, explorers and hostages sometimes find themselves with very solid-looking companions whose existence
they know is not real.

Examples: ‘The lone sailor Joshua Slocum was smitten with sea-sickness in the middle of the South Atlantic and could not leave his cabin for
several hours. When a storm blew up, a phantom helmsman appeared and took control of the vessel. Slocum had a long conversation with him,
and was told that his visitor was the pilot of one of Christopher Columbus’ ships.’
Scuba instructor Ian Skinner was diving off Malta when ‘..I saw a light ahead of me and was drawn towards it both by curiosity and what
seemed like an unknown force. Over the next ridge and very much further down I saw a very beautiful young woman, tall and slim, with a lovely
figure, standing at the entrance to a large cave... I thought I must be suffering from nitrogen narcosis... then she spoke: “Hello, I have been
waiting for you, do not be afraid, with me you are safe.” I backed away but she smiled, walked towards me and held out her hand. It felt warm,
sensual and safe, and my fear disappeared.

“When you return to me I will be waiting for you, then you will stay with me for ever. I have a gift with you.” She handed me a small jar shaped
like an amphora. As I ascended, I saw her waving as she slowly faded from view.’

Autoscopy (Doppelgänger)

Symptoms: A person will see a life-sized mirror image of themselves standing just beyond their reach. This image will often replicate the living
person’s movements but is normally transparent, blurry or lacking any colour. Such encounters normally take place during the night or at dawn.
The very rare negative autoscopy involves people who cannot see their reflection in mirrors, etc. Most encounters are of only a few seconds’
duration.

Causes: Autoscopy is associated with periods of stress, tiredness or mental illness. Its study is not well documented and most examples of it
have been associated with schizophrenia, delirium or epilepsy. It can also be experienced by people not suffering from these mental illnesses,
where it is normally associated with diminished input or extreme forms of stress, including migraine headaches.
There may be a comparison between autoscopy and the ‘phantom limb’ syndromes suffered by amputees and also the ‘Alice in Wonderland’
syndrome where people’s perspective about the shape and size of parts of their body becomes confused.

Paranormal Phenomena it Resembles: Autoscopy is synonymous with the paranormal tradition of the dopplegänger, where a person has an
encounter with their own ghost (sometimes called a fetch). The term dopplegänger was taken from the German folk-belief that seeing your
own double is an omen of death. The association of autoscopy with severe brain injury and brain tumours may well be the cause of this myth.
People can also see images of their own body during near-death and out-of-the-body experience, although these are not traditionally classified
as examples of autoscopy.

Negative autoscopy, or the inability to see one’s own reflection, is rare (so rare that I have not encountered any examples of it in the
literature!), but there is an obvious resemblance to the lack of reflection attributed to vampires. Whether there is any relationship or not is not
known.

Examples: ‘On the 15th March, 1978, at 10 o’clock at night, I saw an apparition of myself. I was alone... One of the children was sleeping
restlessly; I took the lamp to see if anything was wrong. As I drew back the curtain which shut off the bedroom, I saw two paces from me the
image of myself stooping over the end of the bed, in a dress which I had not been wearing for some time: the figure was turned three-quarters
away from me, the attitude expressed deep grief...’

Beyond the Scope of this Article

The are some extremely complex and contentious psychiatric conditions with paranormal implications that cannot reasonably be covered here.
I would urge those interested to familiarise themselves with the following:

Dissociation of the Personality

People suffering from multiple personality disorder (also called dissociative identity disorder) can apparently have several different
personalities living within the one body. Each of these personalities may be of a different age, sex and temperament to the others. Although its
existence is still very hotly debated, patients with this disorder show a remarkable resemblance to the multiple personalities displayed by
Spiritualist mediums and those possessed by spirits.

42
Cultural-Bound Disorders

There are a number of psychiatric conditions that are integrally tied into the religious or cultural beliefs of the individual. Speaking in tongues
(glossolalia) is almost exclusively restricted to evangelical Christian communities. Koro, where the patient believes his penis to have retracted
into the body, is a Chinese cultural belief (although it has recently occurred in West Africa). Latah is a southeast Asia condition where a person
exactly mimics the actions and movements of another.

Cryptomnesia (Hidden Memories)

There is a strong belief among some psychiatrists that the brain can deliberately hide memories of violent or abusive episodes in a person’s life.
These memories are frequently recovered using hypnosis and have been used on occasion as evidence of physical and sexual abuse in court
cases.
The scientific value of such techniques has become increasingly doubtful of late and there is considerable evidence that, instead of recovering
memories, hypnosis actually implants them, leading to so-called false memory syndrome. The value of evidence obtained through hypnosis is
now uncertain, which has implications for the testimonies found in examples of past-life regression, alien abduction, Satanic ritual abuse,
multiple personality disorder and others.

Paranoia

Paranoid delusions of grandeur and persecution can become complex and unpleasant affairs. Overlap into the paranormal can occur when the
paranoid delusions are fixated upon conspiracies in which the individual is at the centre of a plot by larger organisations such as governments,
religions or big business. Paranoid people may be predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, and there are several extreme delusional
states, such as Capgras Syndrome (illusion des sosies), in which it is believed that objects, close relatives or whole societies have been replaced
by sinister carbon copy replicas.

Fantasy Proneness

Although a commonly used term, fantasy proneness is actually poorly defined. It is apparently possible to define people’s fantasy proneness
using a series of psychological tests. Those with a higher fantasy proneness index are liable to have imaginary childhood friends and to have
lived in make-believe worlds. Fantasy prone people are statistically more likely to report having paranormal experiences and have an increased
capacity towards absorption and hypnosis. Near-death, out-of-the-body, UFO and ESP experiences have all been linked to fantasy proneness, as
have mediumship and religious visionary experiences.
Conclusion

This brief article has been designed to introduce the most commonly encountered psychological and psychiatric disorders that may be mistaken
for a paranormal experience. This list is not by any means definitive and each topic has only been covered in the scantiest of detail - those who
are interested should consult some of the books in the further reading list or try searching the Internet.

When reading about peoples’ paranormal experiences, or interviewing them in person, some of the above symptoms may become apparent.
Pay particular attention to paranormal experiences that occur to people when in bed, when driving at night or when alone in a potentially
‘spooky’ location (eg. an empty house). These are just the conditions that are liable to produce an anomalous experience through optical
illusion, hallucination or other cognitive means. Although it is good to be aware of these conditions, it is irresponsible to try and make amateur
diagnoses of genuine psychiatric and psychological disorders - something to bear in mind for those ASSAP investigators that will have to
interview people about their experiences.

We can only ever hope to try and understand peoples’ strange experiences through painstaking investigative work and through a thorough
understanding of both the workings of psychology and parapsychology. Often these experiences are explicable in rational terms. However,
sometimes a rational solution is not possible and the experience can be considered genuinely paranormal. At this point science will normally
turn its back on such experiences and it is then left to organisations such as ASSAP to make sense of them.
Seeing Small

A bizarre but seemingly quite natural effect was recently reported in New Scientist (July 1999). Strangely, it has never been studied
scientifically. It is the phenomenon of suddenly perceiving everything miniaturised. It might be likened to looking at the world through a pair of
binoculars from the wrong end. The suggested explanation is that the mechanism that the brain uses to scale objects suddenly gets it wrong.
This perfectly natural mechanism is the one that makes a moon on the horizon look much bigger than one overhead. The brain compares the
size of the moon on the horizon with terrestrial objects like trees and decides it is bigger. Such an effect, which appears spontaneously and
suddenly, could easily be misinterpreted as paranormal (as an OOBE for instance). Ed.

Paul Chambers would like to hear from anyone who has had, or knows someone who has had, first hand experience of any of the phenomena
described in this article. Please email him with reports on: pmc@atlantis.simplyonline.co.uk

43
Postscript

Some places tend to attract more reports of paranormal activity than others. Such 'haunted places' may gain their reputation through
psychological, rather than paranormal, means.

Further reading

Chambers, P. Sex and the Paranormal. Blandford Press (London), 1999.

Evans, H. Visions, Apparitions, Alien Visitors. Thorsons Publishing (London), 1984.

George, L. Alternative Realities . Facts on File (New York), 1995.

Gregory, R. L. The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press (Oxford), 1987.

Hufford, D. J. The Terror That Comes in the Night. University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia), 1982.
Reed, G. The Psychology of Anomalous Experience. Prometheus Books (New York), 1988.

Townsend, M and Hope, V. The Paranormal Investigator’s Handbook. Collins and Brown (London), 1999.

Notes

. From an interview done by the author.

. The Paranormal Review , Issue 10, p.30, 1999.

. Spencer, J. The UFO Encyclopedia. Headline, 1997. p.268-9.

. Bryan, C. D. B. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995. Chapter XIII.

. Wiltshire, K. Ghosts and Legends of the Wiltshire Countryside. Compton Russell Ltd., 1973. p.39.

. Montell, W. L. Ghosts Along the Cumberland. University of Tennessee Press, 1987. p.118.

. Reed, G. The Psychology of Anomalous Experience. Prometheus Books, 1988.

. Fortean Times , Issue 92, p.51.

. Parish, E. Hallucinations and Illusions. Scott, 1897. Quote taken from Evans, H. Visions, Apparitions, Alien Visitors. Thornsons, 1984. p.62.
NOTE: the 1978 date, which is reproduced from Evans, does not tally with the year of the original book which was published in 1897.

44
Mindsight

Mindsight
by Ian Fairholm

This article originally appeared in Anomaly 27

Scientists are starting to unravel the mysteries of the unconscious. In doing so they have come across faculties that resemble ESP.

There have been considerable efforts in the past few years to explain parapsychological phenomena (eg. telepathy, precognition, mediumship,
etc) in terms of ordinary psychological phenomena that have no paranormal or spiritual connection whatsoever. One type of attempt has
dismissed these phenomena out of hand, suggesting that they are the result of misguided or fraudulent individuals, poor evidence, or out-and-
out shams (eg. Randi, 1991). A second type of explanation has taken a different approach by suggesting that very specific psychological effects
may account for many supposed cases of the paranormal. This article will briefly list some examples of the latter type, but emphasis will be
placed on a possible alternative explanation for many apparent examples of ESP that reflects recent work done by psychologists on the nature
of conscious and non-conscious processing.

Although such explanations do not discount the possible existence of extra-sensory perception, they may explain why so many individuals
believe they have had an experience of ESP or 'the sixth sense'. They may also show that we do have incredible abilities but that they are simply
not paranormal in nature.

The complexity of the human mind/brain and the fact that there is still very much unknown about its capabilities have led many individuals to
postulate that it may be able to produce abilities such as telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, etc. Each of these abilities is beyond the range of
normal human sensory experience, hence the term extra-sensory perception or ESP.

There have always been those who are sceptical about the reality of these abilities, and more recently various scientists, particularly those
interested in the mind such as psychiatrists, psychologists and parapsychologists, have attempted to explain these supposedly paranormal
phenomena in terms of purely natural phenomena. Paul Chambers, for example, has already provided excellent summaries of several such
phenomena. Chambers (1999) lists sleep paralysis, hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations, absorption, contagious insanity, the sense of
presence, diminished input (sensory deprivation), and autoscopy as examples of rare but relatively explainable and scientifically acceptable
phenomena that may be misinterpreted as paranormal phenomena. In his article he also touches on Dissociative Identity Disorder (better
known as Multiple Personality Disorder) and has gone into more detail about the possible similarities between the disorder and paranormal
phenomena in his Fortean Times article 'First Person Plural' (Chambers, 2000). Elsewhere scientists Jorge Martins de Oliveira and Julio Rocha do
Amaral (1998) presented a case report entitled 'Paranormality or Psychotic Manifestations?', again suggesting that apparently spiritual or
paranormal phenomena may be more suitably labelled as cases of some form of brain dysfunction. This is not to say that the effects that can be
observed or the stories that are told are not remarkable, but rather that they are explainable by existing scientific understanding. This article is
not going to discuss any of the work just referred to in any greater depth, but references are provided at the end if you wish to find out more.

What have been discussed so far are various suggestions that many paranormal phenomena are explainable in terms of certain psychological
and physical conditions. Such suggestions have been around in one form or another probably for at least the last hundred years, even if the
precise scientific explanation and terminology may have changed over time. The rest of this article will look at more recent speculations about
paranormality based on cutting-edge theories of consciousness and brain function. Although these theories are commonly formulated using
evidence obtained from patients suffering from some form of brain damage, the theories suggest that the implications apply to all of us and
may explain some of the mysteries of the so-called 'sixth sense'.

Conscious and Unconscious

A great deal of evidence is accumulating that there are parts of our brain that are responsible for consciousness and other parts that operate
perfectly well without conscious processing. For example, visual processing in the brain is split into largely independent streams or pathways.
One of these pathways is concerned with the perception and recognition of objects, and it is this stream which provides us with conscious
visual experience of the world. The other pathway is responsible for guiding motor action (Milner and Goodale, 1995). This may sound odd,
because one of our common-sense notions about vision is that it is a single process.

One suggestion is that the two pathways represent different stages in our evolutionary development, that the pathway responsible for guiding
motor action is the older pathway and that it provides us with a kind of early warning system. For example, if a large object looms towards us
we don't initially want to spend too much time consciously deciding what the object is, we want to be ready to react to it. As Ramachandran
(1998) puts it quite neatly:

45
‘ ¼ this older pathway tells me where the object is, enabling me to swivel my eyeballs and turn my head and body to look at it. This is a
primitive reflex that brings potentially important events into my fovea, the high-acuity central region of my eyes.’ (p.72)

At this stage we want to know what the object is, to know how to consciously respond to it, and this is where the 'newer' of the two pathways
comes into play.

There are many examples of individuals who have suffered some form of brain damage that seems to affect their conscious processes but still
leaves them with surprisingly intact cognitive abilities. For example:

Amnesia Popularly defined as a total loss of memory but a lot of recent work has suggested that many cases of amnesia actually affect
conscious memory only (eg. Schacter, 1987). For example, you may well have memories of conscious experiences such as learning to play the
piano or knowing that when you were younger a dog bit you. If you were suffering from amnesia you might be unable to remember these
events, and thus would have no conscious memory of being able to play the piano or that you were frightened of dogs. However, this might not
prevent you from being able to play a piece of piano music presented to you or from being extremely frightened when you next see a dog. Both
your ability to play the piano and to still be frightened of a dog are examples of memory, though not of the conscious kind. Someone who was
frightened of a dog or could play the piano but without remembering the experience associated with that non-conscious memory might feel at
a loss when asked how or why he or she did what they did. An anecdote often presented in the literature (originally reported by Claparede,
1911) will also illustrate the point. Claparede hid a pin in his hand before shaking hands with an amnesic patient. The patient was, from then on,
understandably reluctant to shake hands with Claparede, but was unable to explain why. The patient's behaviour suggested that she could
remember the incident but had no conscious recollection.

Visual Neglect This is a strange condition commonly seen in people after they have experienced a stroke. It seems to affect the human
attentional system and individuals suffering from it neglect or ignore part of their visual field (usually the left side). Patients with this disorder
commonly read only one side of written text, bump into objects, put clothes on only one side of the body, and when eating leave food on one
side of the plate. Oddly, though, patients suffering from visual neglect can seemingly still be influenced by visual stimuli at some pre-conscious
level even though they are otherwise 'ignoring' it. For example, while claiming that two quite clearly dissimilar stimuli are identical they might
still answer a question in a way that would suggest some tacit knowledge of the difference (both that there is a difference and what it actually
is). (For an example see Marshall and Halligan, 1988)

Blindsight Earlier I mentioned the two visual pathways in the brain, one of which is responsible for visuomotor action and the other for the
conscious perception and recognition of objects. When the latter stream is damaged, patients will often appear to be completely blind in part
of their visual field. When asked about an object (eg. a stick) in that part of the visual field a typical patient will point out that the question is
silly because they can't see the object. However, when asked to guess over a number of trials whether the object is, for example, being
presented vertically or horizontally, the patient will more often than not 'guess' correctly (well above chance). This 'blindsight' effect has been
reliably reproduced by many researchers and with many different patients (see Weiskrantz, 1996). As Ramachandran (1998) asks: ‘Without
invoking extrasensory perception, how do you account for blindsight - a person's pointing to or correctly guessing the presence of an object
that he cannot consciously perceive?’ (p. 76). The suggested answer is that while the visual stream responsible for conscious visual perception
and recognition of objects is impaired, the other stream still functions reasonably or even perfectly well. Information still gets to the brain via
this stream, and by using this information the person can interact with the object in numerous ways, including grasping or pointing at it,
detecting orientation or motion etc, though importantly without conscious awareness of it.

Now you might want to say that, despite the evidence from these conditions, the effects that can be seen are merely some form of artefact
resulting from brain damage, except that such evidence is actually only the beginning. Extensive work with individuals who have completely
normal vision suggests that they too may show this distinction between conscious and non-conscious processing of information. One such
paradigm is that of change blindness (see Rensink, 2000) where large changes in a visual scene ‘become difficult to notice if made during an eye
movement, image flicker, movie cut, or other such disturbance’ (Rensink, 2000, p. 1469) even though such changes would be readily seen
under normal conditions. If you have ever experienced a change blindness experiment then you may well identify with the fact that observers
very often report that they can feel when something is changing, even though they cannot see it. These individuals, then, are seemingly sensing
the change without an accompanying visual experience. And these individuals are not just guessing either - catch trials, where no change
actually occurs, are included among the change trials, and observers who seem skilled at this 'sensing of change' usually correctly identify the
catch trials as not changing (for more details see Rensink 1998, 2000).

A Sixth Sense

Rensink (1998) has dubbed this phenomenon - that some observers can have an abstract mental experience of change but without actual
sensory experience - ‘Mindsight’. He has suggested that mindsight might be some form of early warning signal, possibly from the visuomotor
system. He has also suggested that mindsight might correspond to the so-called 'sixth sense', which is often believed to provide a warning
about dangerous situations.

Ramachandran (1998), on the other hand, refers to the non-conscious 'being' that seems to operate independently of our consciousness as a
zombie, something capable of making complex and skilled movements but without any apparent conscious thought, much like the creatures in

46
films like 'Night of the Living Dead'. Ramachandran wonders how intelligent our own zombies are, in their own way: he rightly points out that
many sports rely on spatial orientation and co-ordination. For example, the skilled basketball player can close his/her eyes and toss a ball into a
basket if they stand on the same spot each time. Now this is quite a remarkable feat, though the feat itself (the actual success of repeatedly
hitting the target) does not in any way require conscious thought or planning. As Ramachandran points out, in this case and indeed many others
in sport and in real life there appears to be some considerable benefit to 'releasing one's zombie', letting it do its own thing without our
conscious intervention. Indeed, allowing the zombie to 'do its thing' may be what the mystical and philosophical traditions found in the martial
arts talk about when they refer to 'chi'. Such traditions refer to letting go of conscious control and instead relying on instinct, intuition and some
kind of mystical force to achieve quite incredible acts. Could these traditions, as Ramachandran suggests, be referring to what he calls the
zombie, the non-conscious visuomotor system?

I am not suggesting here (and nor, I think, are Rensink or Ramachandran) that this visuomotor system can enable us to achieve paranormal
abilities, but it might, through training, enable us all to perform quite amazing acts of human performance related to perception, memory,
balance, co-ordination and dexterity.

Now, of course, this description of the way that the ‘sixth sense’ and other remarkable abilities may well be explained by the existence of
conscious and non-conscious pathways does not rule out the existence of all psychic powers or even particular cases of the sixth sense. It does,
however, offer a well-recognised scientific theory as the explanation for many cases of so-called ESP and remarkable acts performed without
conscious awareness. These abilities may appear strange, incredible, or even unexplainable, but they need not be in any sense paranormal.

One particular case that mindsight does not successfully account for is the idea of sensory awareness without any apparent sensory input, for
example the feeling of being stared at when there is no possible way of knowing that someone is doing so (because they are directly behind you
or out of view). This may be a genuine case of ESP, but the evidence for the existence of this ability is not particularly good (see Baker, 2000). I
shall not discuss the reality (or otherwise) of this ability any further as it would fill a whole paper in itself. However, it is important to note that
this article does not in any way rule out the possibility of ESP and other psychic abilities, rather it offers a reasonable scientific explanation for
one type.

One final interesting, not to say ironic, point worth noting is that many people who have speculated on the existence of psychic abilities,
particularly the sixth sense, proposed that they might represent an evolutionary development in humans. But if Rensink, Ramachandran and
others are right then the explanation for the sixth sense is that some older evolutionary abilities are still in operation alongside the more recent
development of consciousness. The sixth sense may not represent our future but an important part of our past.

References

Baker, R. A. (2000). Can we tell when someone is staring at us? Skeptical Inquirer, 24 (2).

Chambers, P. (1999). All in the mind? Anomaly 25, 2-21.

Chambers, P. (2000). First Person Plural. Fortean Times, 130, 34-40.

Claparede, E. (1911). Recognition et motie. Archives de Psychologie, 11, 75-90.

Marshall, J. C. & Halligan, P. W. (1988). Blindsight and insight in visuo-spatial neglect. Nature, 336 (22/29), 766-767.

Milner, A. D. and Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain In Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

de Oliveira, J. M. & do Amaral, J. R. (1998). Paranormality or psychotic manifestations. Brain and Mind: Electronic Magazine On Neuroscience, 6.
(http://www.epub.org.br/cm/)

Ramachandran. V. S. (1998). Phantoms in the brain: human nature and the architecture of the mind. London: Fourth Estate.

Randi, J. (1991). James Randi: Psychic Investigator. London: Boxtree Limited.

Rensink, R. A. (1998). Mindsight: visual sensing without seeing. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 39, 631.

Rensink, R. A. (2000). Seeing, sensing and scrutinizing. Vision Research, 40, (10-12), 1469-1487.

Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13,
501-518.

Weiskrantz, L. (1996). Blindsight revisited. Current Opinion in Experimental Psychology, 6, 215-220.

47
Coincidences: the roots of the paranormal?

Paranormal researchers sometimes say that certain suggested 'natural causes' for the paranormal are so unlikely, they are less likely than the
paranormal! While it's not a great argument in favour of the paranormal, it does suggest an overlooked cause of some spontaneous paranormal
reports - pure coincidence! Many uniquely puzzling cases may have several different causes that happen to come together.

Coincidences behind the paranormal

Here are some common attributes of many paranormal reports:

They are rare. If they weren't, we would probably have explained them all years ago. Many people may only experience one or two apparently
paranormal events in their lifetime. A few people may have many experiences while some have none at all.
They are one time events. In other words, one person experiences something weird once in one location. Many other people may go to the
same place, deliberately looking, and not have the same experience. In effect, these experiences are almost irreproducible.
Of course, there are certain places where many people may experience strange phenomena at different times, such as hauntings. But we are,
here, mostly considering one off reports, like sightings of UFOs, alien animals, etc.

These two important attributes of many anomalous reports are shared with coincidences. They, too, are rare and difficult to reproduce. Are the
roots of such reports in xenonormal coincidences? Consider some examples.

UFO report as a coincidence

Someone sees a satellite crawl across the night sky, being unfamiliar with the sight, thinks it is a UFO. Various factors need to come together for
this sighting to be reported as a UFO:

it must be a bright satellite - most are too faint to be seen without optical aids
someone has to look up at the night sky at the right time
satellites take just a few minutes to cross the sky, so the observer needs to look in the right direction
there must be no clouds or mist to obscure the view
there should not be too much streetlight to obscure the view
the observer must be unfamiliar with the way satellites appear in the sky
These are just some of the more important factors that must come together to generate such a UFO report. Change any of the factors above
and the report won't happen. It is a coincidence involving many factors coming together by random chance.

A researcher, on investigating this report, has to decide what it represents and whether it is anomalous or xenonormal. It is likely that
misperception and witness memory may affect the witness report, so that it may no longer obviously resemble a satellite. For instance, it might
be reported as being brighter, larger or moving much faster than a satellite. However, if it is known that a bright satellite was visible at that
exact time and position, and the observer is unfamiliar with how they look, it is still a likely explanation. In addition, if the observer is convinced
that it is an alien spacecraft, this may affect their report.

Ghost as a coincidence

Now consider another example. Someone is walking along a dark road at twilight when they see a shadow, cast by someone's washing blowing
in the wind, on a wall, that resembles a moving person. Startled by the 'person', they don't notice the washing, and report it as a ghost. What
factors are involved here:

some washing hung up that resembled a human figure (a coat perhaps)

if the shadow fell in a different direction it would not resemble a person
the shadow hit a wall (as opposed to the ground) making the 'figure' look vertical
low lighting increases the likelihood of misperception (see corner of eye phenomena)
the observer believed in ghosts
Again, you could add lots of lesser factors in as well to come up with a fairly unlikely coincidence. On investigation, a researcher would be
extremely lucky to find a similar shadow at the same location, given the number of factors involved. However, if the noticed the washing line,
they could do a few experiments to try to reproduce the effect.

A real example: a witness noticed a woman in a red coat ahead of them along a street but moments later she had 'vanished', like a ghost! An
apparently different woman was then seen along a side street - she was carrying a red coat! The witness had not noticed the woman take off
her coat making her look completely different. By coincidence (!) the woman had removed her coat during the few moments when the witness
was looking elsewhere.

48
Anomalous photos

Water sprite?Anomalous photos almost always seem to involve a coincidence. Millions of people, all over the world, between them take many
millions of photos every day. It's inevitable, by sheer chance, that some of these photos will show something odd that the photographer didn't
intend (like orbs) or didn't notice at the time of exposure (like insects). And, just occasionally, a photo will show something weird that the
photographer did see and intend to shoot. All, however, could be fairly unlikely coincidences.

In the example here, right, there is a mysterious mist, apparently hovering over a river (a water sprite?), together with two tiny flying rods at
the top. The golden area is the sun, shining through a gap in overhanging trees, illuminating the river bed. The 'mist' is actually the reflection of
the sun from the top of the water, while the flying rods are caused by passing insects.

The factors involved in producing such a photo might include:

the sun happening to shine through a gap at just the right angle
someone taking a photo covering that area, also from just the right angle
the river being shallow and clear enough to produce reflections from both the bed and water surface
the exposure time being long enough to show insects as flying rods (they also have to be in focus)
And so on! In fact, this photo was taken deliberately to catch the mist effect, which was visible at the time of exposure, but it might easily have
been missed if it hadn't been the intended subject. If you analyse almost any anomalous photo you will find that many such unlikely factors
have to come together to produce the effect seen.

You could also do a similar analysis on other reports of spontaneous anomalous phenomena. Consider what might be involved to generate a
xenonormal report of a Bigfoot, a Man in Black, falls from the sky (such as frogs), monsters, etc.

Telepathy as a coincidence

In many cases of apparent telepathy, it is said that the 'sender' had a high emotional need to contact the 'receiver'. How could this
extraordinary fact possibly be explained by coincidence?

To see how, you need to consider the following. We all tend to worry about the welfare of our loved ones from time to time. It is human nature
and usually completely unnecessary. In such cases, we generally quickly forget about such unjustified concerns. But every now and then
someone will worry about a loved one at exactly the time that they are indeed in trouble, upset or in danger. This will happen somewhere,
sometime, to someone by sheer chance, from time to time.

In this situation you have all the ingredients of apparent telepathy. The 'sender' is indeed in trouble or upset and so highly emotional and
probably wants to contact the 'receiver'. By chance, the 'receiver' happens to be worrying about the 'sender' at the same time! There you have
it - a pure coincidence where the 'sender' emotionally needs to contact the 'receiver' who is worrying about them at the time. The high emotion
involved in the incident, not to mention the weirdness of it, makes it highly memorable. Unlike all those hundreds of times when they worried
unnecessarily! If this happened once in a life time it might seem dramatic but, it might almost be inevitable statistically if the receiver got
worried about someone tens of thousands of time over that period.

Such examples of apparent telepathy are less frequent these days than they used to be. That's because technology, like mobile phones, means
we can contact each easily most of the time. It is possible to have a much more up to date idea of what people are really up to and therefore
there is less need to worry about them.

Coincidences that cause the xenonormal

When analysing real life anomalous cases, many turn out to be xenonormal and a lot were full of coincidences, like those in the examples
above. So, it turns out that the very unlikelihood of such coincidences, which might make the paranormal appear a more realistic option, is
actually the cause of such cases.

The very important lesson to draw from this is that, when investigating, you should never reject a possible explanation just because it appears
ridiculously unlikely. We are all used to the 'likely', it is the unlikely that commands our attention by its apparent weirdness. In many cases it is
interpreted by the observer, often meeting something unfamiliar to them, as paranormal.

Common factors - witnesses

There are some other factors in common between many of these 'one off' cases, apart from their rarity and irreproducibility. These factors
often include:

witnesses unfamiliarity with the phenomena being experienced (xenonormal)

49
'noisy' perception (eg. often poor conditions for viewing, hearing, etc. promoting misperception)
It is unlikely that an astronomer would not recognise a satellite or a zoologist mistake an otter for the Loch Ness Monster. But others, without
such specialist knowledge, might well report such xenonormal phenomena as paranormal.

Though many people will see one or two things they don't understand during their lifetime, some people repeatedly report odd phenomena.
When people see several UFOs during their lifetime, ufologists call them 'repeaters'. People who repeatedly report ghosts and similar
phenomena may be considered psychic by researchers. One possible factor involved in this is belief. People who believe in the paranormal are
more likely to report anomalous phenomena.

Multiple experiences

Hauntings are the main example of recurring phenomena at a single location. Unlike one-off reports, hauntings are associated with multiple
experiences, often by many witnesses. While such phenomena are unlikely to be explained by coincidence, some individual incidents recorded
at a haunted site may be. Once a location is well known to be haunted, many people visiting it will be expecting to see weird things. This
effectively lowers their 'experience threshold'. They may report, as strange experiences, coincidences they would normally write off as
uninteresting. The same phenomenon may be responsible for UFO flaps. One well-publicised UFO sighting may encourage people living in the
same area to report their own coincidental experiences as UFOs.

So coincidences may even play their part in recurrent phenomena, if only at the periphery. The idea of coincidences should certainly be
examined in all one-off anomalous cases. None of this means that the paranormal does not exist but it does explain how some one-off
xenonormal incidents get reported.

Cases with multiple causes

One of the unspoken assumptions made by anomaly researchers, whether they are looking at xenonormal or paranormal explanations, is to
assume that each incident in a case has a single cause. Indeed, sometimes they assume that all, or many, incidents have the same cause (eg.
'the ghost', ' the magnetic field'). While it might seem 'neat' to assume a single cause, there is no logical reason why it should be so. On the
contrary, as described above, the irreproducibility of many cases may be a tell-tale sign of multiple factors needing to come together.

If someone sees a UFO, and it is known that Venus was in the right part of the sky at the time, an investigator may assume Venus is the cause.
But what if the observer was familiar with Venus? It then becomes an unlikely explanation. Maybe an additional factor, like thin high cloud
giving the planet an unusual appearance, contributed to it looking unfamiliar.

Some ' natural explanations' can appear so simplistic that they seem less likely than a paranormal cause. This will often lead the witnesses to
reject such an explanation even if it is, in essence, correct. There could be more factors involved.

If no single explanation seems to fit a case, you should always consider the possibility of multiple factors. Many cases, when analysed, turn out
to rare coincidences. You should always try to keep the number of different contributing causes to a minimum but don't go with a single cause
if it doesn't fit.

What are the odds?

Witnesses routinely overestimate the odds against an event happening by pure random chance. If you think of a friend and then they phone
you 5 minutes later, it is tempting to think it must be telepathy or precognition. But what are the odds of such a thing happening by pure
coincidence?

To find out you need to consider such things as how often your friend calls, how often you think of them and so on. But you also need to
consider the probability that anyone, anywhere in the whole world will have such a coincidence occur to them in any given 5 minutes. Suddenly
the odds against chance don't look so extraordinary. There is a good chance that such a thing is happening to someone, somewhere in any 5
minutes, even if the odds are millions to one against it happening by chance to one particular individual. Of course, if the coincidence keeps
happening to the same individual, the odds against chance start to stack up again.

The odds of two events coinciding is called conditional probability and it is calculated using something called Bayesian logic. It is how you would
work out the odds of getting that phone call just after thinking of someone. In the example above, Bayesian logic ensures that the overall
probability of anyone getting such a call after thinking of their friend, not just one individual, is taken into account. It should therefore always
be used in such cases.

Very often, it is difficult to work out what the odds against a particular coincidence happening by chance are. But by using Bayesian logic we can
be pretty certain the odds are nothing like as high as might first seem apparent.

Factors affecting the odds

50
Suppose there is, on average, a 1 in 10000 chance of a particular event happening in any period of a single year. Predicting when it happens
accurately would appear to be amazing. However, there are few truly random events in nature and, as a result, such an unlikely event may not
be as unpredictable as it might appear at first sight.

Factors which may make it more predictable include:

precursive signs - events that typically occur before the rare event
circumstances - certain factors may come together that make the event more likely or even inevitable
In the second case, the odds of a rare event happening may shorten or lengthen due to measurable factors that affect it but do not produce
precursive signs. If someone is aware of these factors and how they affect the event, it could make prediction easier.

So, when checking the odds of an unusual event occurring you need to consider that:

odds may vary over time

experts may be able to spot when an event becomes more or less likely
It is crucial to realise that the person who makes a prediction is as important in a premonition case as the event itself. They may have expert
knowledge, that they are not even consciously aware of, including casual experience of similar events, that could make them better at
recognizing precursive signs or important causal factors. It is the not the average odds of ANYONE predicting the event at ANY time that
matters, but the particular odds of THAT specific person predicting THAT specific event and THAT specific time. There is a good chance that the
these specific odds are not as high as the average ones.

When does a coincidence become paranormal?

Simply because a coincidence is extremely rare, it doesn't make it paranormal. Provided the event does not contradict any physical laws there is
no need to invoke the paranormal to explain it. People tend to think of coincidences as paranormal if some sort of 'paranormal process' is
associated with them. For instance, if you use dice to select a set of lottery numbers and win at your first attempt, it would be considered a
lucky coincidence. But if you consulted a psychic to select the numbers, or dreamed of them, many people would think it was precognition. But
such a once-off event, however bizarre, cannot be easily separated from blind chance. Only if someone repeatedly dreamed up winning lottery
numbers could the paranormal be justifiably suspected.

People who favour the paranormal explanation for a reported incident often use the unlikelihood of its being a coincidence as an argument to
support their case. So, for instance, if someone suggests that a plastic bag caught by the wind just happened to resemble a human figure
floating down a road, many people would consider it so unlikely that they would think a ghost a more likely explanation for the report. But such
an unlikely coincidence is not impossible, simply infrequent. If it was a common occurrence, people would quickly recognise it for what it was
and never consider any paranormal explanation. Since one of the features of the paranormal reports is that they are infrequent, this hardly
rules out rare coincidences as possible explanations for many reported incidents. Suppose a wind-blown floating plastic bag DID drift along a
road, it is perfectly possible that one or two people, out of many observers who notice the incident, may think it was a ghost. The sheer
unlikelihood of a coincidence does not, of itself, make it paranormal.

51
Magnetic fields causing ghosts?

Magnetic Hallucinations
by Maurice Townsend
There is now so much laboratory evidence in favour of magnetically induced hallucinations that some paranormal researchers are taking it as
read that they are the source of certain anomalous experiences, notably some kinds of ghost. However, the field evidence for such magnetic
fields is slight at present. But that could soon change as equipment capable of detecting them is now being deployed at haunted locations. If
these magnetic fields exist outside the laboratory, what exactly is causing them?

There have been several articles in Anomaly recently concerning theories on the true nature of ghosts. In particular, there has been a lot about
the possibility that they may be hallucinations induced in susceptible people by suitable ambient magnetic fields. While the results of lab
experiments are impressive and compelling, there is still little evidence from the field to back this theory up. Initiatives like MADS (described in
Anomaly 34) are designed to fill that gap. It will, at last, be simple to measure relevant magnetic fields in allegedly haunted locations.

An important question concerns the detailed nature of any such fields found at haunted locations for MADS to research. They are unlikely to be
just like those produced artificially in the laboratory, so we need to investigate what they really ‘look’ like in the field. Once we know that, we
can try to ascertain what aspects are absolutely necessary for strange experiences to occur.

Once such fields, and their principal components, have been identified then the next intriguing question becomes, ‘where do they come from’.
At first sight, there seem few obvious sources for such fields, perhaps explaining why ghosts are not common. I decided to research the
possibilities so that the search could be narrowed down. I hope this will assist investigators when they are researching possible field sources in
haunting cases.

Defining the Fields

Before we can identify possible sources of relevant magnetic fields, we need to define exactly what we are looking for. I am indebted to Dr
Jason Braithwaite for reviewing the relevant papers (from Persinger et al) concerning the laboratory experiments which have induced ghost-like
hallucinations.

The best results have come from what could be broadly described as weak, complex, time-varying magnetic fields. Because the nature and
potential sources of such fields are difficult to characterise at this stage, Braithwaite introduced the general term Experience- Inducing Fields, or
EIFs for short. This definition relates to all, or any, fields that could have experience-inducing properties. This distinction is helpful for a number
of reasons. Firstly, while not all magnetic anomalies will have implications for experience, some will have the ability to influence equipment
(which could be interpreted as paranormal) but will not alter the operation of the brain in any way. Those fields could be characterised as
Event-Related Fields (ERFs) as they pertain to a tangible physical event. Secondly, it focuses the researcher theoretically on the potential
relevance such fields might have.

There are three main aspects to EIFs that have been demonstrated experimentally to be of crucial importance. The following figures are by no
means absolute limits: things might happen outside them. However, experiments within these bounds have produced reliable, strong results.
So it makes sense to look for fields within these parameters first, at haunted locations.

At present, the evidence suggests that EIFs are varying magnetic fields with low frequency (approx 0.1 to 30 Hz, and certainly under 50Hz) and a
moderate intensity (from 100 to 5000 nT) or amplitude (or, more correctly, flux density). For comparison, the average geomagnetic field, which
is not generally considered strong and does not vary greatly over time, is around 50,000 nT. An important point to remember is that EIFs are
most likely to overlay whatever ambient static magnetic field is present in the area. This would usually be the geomagnetic field itself.
Confusion often arises here because the geomagnetic field is usually described as being ‘static’ (ie. does not change over time), whereas, in fact,
it does change over time, but very slowly (over hours). There might also be other local permanent distortions to the local magnetic field, such as
the presence of the mineral magnetite in the geological strata below the site. At present, such permanent static fields are NOT considered
important to inducing hallucinations, however. Therefore, EIFs, if present, would most likely appear as fluctuations on top of the local static
field (though see discussion below).

There is another important factor that greatly enhances the chance of hallucinations: field complexity. This is more difficult to characterise. As
an example, a typical laboratory experiment may use a simple 30 Hz sine wave field but pulse it for, say, 1s every 3s for a period of 30mins
(during this time the field may also vary in amplitude across the pulses as well). Thus, the field fluctuates overall, in addition to the fundamental
sine wave. Such overall variance could involve any, or all, of the major field variables: amplitude, frequency and direction. Laboratory studies
have used amplitude-modulated, frequency-modulated and complex pulse-patterned sequences with great success. Overall field variations
might be repetitive, with the field eventually returning to its original state after a certain period, or they may be chaotic with no obvious
repetition. The time period over which fields need to vary is probably (from experiments) in the millisecond to multiple minute region. Simple
continuous waveforms, like sine waves, are not at all as effective. The reason for this is that such simple fields are considered not to ‘contain’
the complex information profile that a brain would accept as sensory information. Incidentally, the direction of a magnetic field (which is

52
conventionally said to flow from the north pole of a bar magnet to the south pole) determines which way it will produce a force on another
nearby magnetic object.

There are two other important issues concerned in producing magnetic hallucinations, not directly related to the field characteristics. The first
is that not everyone is susceptible to hallucinating when subjected to the EIFs outlined above. Current estimates suggest that only around 20 -
30% of the population show a substantially increased susceptibility, due to increased neuronal instability in specific brain regions. Secondly,
susceptible people need to be subjected continuously to the EIFs for a significant time, say 20 to 30 minutes, before hallucinations are reported.
This applies if the person is static. I will mention people moving around in fields later on. There is, therefore, an important exposure component
to EIFs – the effects are not instantaneous.

The hallucinatory phenomenon is thought to arise because the frequency of the external magnetic waves is similar to that used internally by
the brain for cognition. This stimulates brain activity, through a process called neural entrainment, which can confuse the brain into producing
hallucinations (see ‘Magnetic Fields and the Brain’, this issue).

The table below summarises the factors involved.

Factor
Magnitude
Magnetic field frequency 0.1 to 30 Hz
Magnetic field amplitude (flux density) 100 to 5000 nT
Time varying ‘complexity’ 1ms to 100s+ period
Brain susceptibility Some 20 - 30% of the population
Length of exposure to EIFs Over 20 minutes [if static]

Naturally Occurring EIFs

Could fields with the relevant characteristics occur naturally? The first obvious place to look is the geomagnetic field. This is the magnetic field
that is constantly present at the Earth’s surface and in which we are all immersed continuously. It is what makes a compass point north. It is
caused by a dynamo effect in the molten core of our planet. Though this effect produces a highly stable field, like that of a bar magnet, the field
is constantly changing, primarily due to the effects of the sun impinging on it. The sun is constantly bombarding the Earth with the solar wind,
which consists of highly energetic, charged particles. These interact with the geomagnetic field and cause changes reflecting the sun’s own
activity. Features such as solar flares can have a major effect on the geomagnetic field. The most significant changes to the geomagnetic field
take place over periods of hours. Thus, from a human perspective, the geomagnetic field appears relatively stable.

The geomagnetic field might appear, given its slow variations, an unlikely candidate for EIF, at first sight. Having said that, there have been
some studies that have reported correlations between geomagnetic activity and the occurrence of spontaneous hauntings. These correlational
studies did not involve field investigations and are considered controversial. As any statistician will tell you, a correlation does not always imply
a causal link.

There are certain geomagnetic variables that change at frequencies required for EIFs. Unfortunately, it turns out that these variables, though
they have relevant frequencies, are far too weak to produce EIFs, as shown in the table (Campbell, 2003).

Factor
Typical frequency
Typical Amplitude
Comments
Pc1 pulsations 0.2 - 5Hz 0.1 nT Pc = pulsation continuous, caused by magnetosphere processes
Schumann resonances 7.8, 14, 20, 26Hz 0.05 nT Caused by lightning energy resonating between the earth and ionosphere.
Atmospherics 5 - 100+ Hz 0.05 nT Caused by distant lightning

Geomagnetic storms can bring larger amplitude changes in the geomagnetic field. A storm is defined as a period (usually of several days) when
there is a large reduction in the horizontal component (parallel to the ground) of the geomagnetic field. On average, one big geomagnetic
storm per year might bring a field reduction of around 250 nT, but most will be much less (maybe 10 per year bringing about 50 nT reduction).
Therefore, only the largest, most infrequent storms have the sort of amplitudes we are looking for in EIFs. However, these changes typically
occur over hours, or minutes at the fastest. Even the Pc1 pulsation component of the geomagnetic field, which has the correct frequency, varies
only by a maximum amplitude of a few tenths of one nT (Belyaev, 2003). In summary, there are no natural variations of the geomagnetic field
that provide both the amplitude and frequency together to be classed as EIFs, even during geomagnetic storms. Indeed, as we will see later,
most of us live in an environment where such natural magnetic variations are entirely swamped by more powerful local artificial sources. So the
geomagnetic field can, effectively, be dismissed as a likely source of EIFs.

53
Another natural source of EIFs that has been suggested is tectonic strain. Essentially, the Tectonic Strain Theory (TST) states that stresses within
the Earth’s crust, less than those required to produce an earthquake, may result in highly localised surface electromagnetic disturbances
through piezoelectricity in sub-surface rocks. Piezoelectricity is the phenomenon whereby certain crystals, notably quartz, produce an electric
charge across opposite crystal faces when under physical pressure or strain.

The TST is the reason why many ghost researchers these days get excited if a geological fault lies near an allegedly haunted location. A fault is a
crack in the Earth’s crust. Like any crack in a solid object, it is an indicator of strain, or pressure for movement, in the local area. Strain generally
builds up around a fault until it is released through a physical movement (usually) underground, resulting in an earthquake. Thankfully, the vast
majority of earthquakes are, in fact, tremors and are so small they are only noticed by seismologists using sensitive equipment.

The TST looks attractive, in principle, but it does have its critics. I have always had problems understanding it, when considering the physical
details of the processes involved. Quartz generally occurs underground within other rocks, like granite, where its crystals are separated by other
minerals. If you crush granite, an electric charge will build up across individual quartz crystals. However, since the crystals are orientated
randomly, the charges (on opposite sides of each crystal) do not align. Therefore, they tend to cancel each other out rather than combining to
form a strong overall electric field. There is a tiny overall field where stressed granite (under strain from lateral stress near a fault) is exposed at
the earth’s surface, due to the fact that there are no crystals above the surface to completely cancel the field. But it is very small indeed.

Another problem that arises is that any electric field that might conceivably be produced by straining quartz underground will, in any case, be
static. There is no movement (except for extremely slow tectonic movement, usually measured in mm per year) in the rocks and so no change
in any field produced. This means there could be no magnetic field. In order to get a magnetic field you need to move electric charge through
an electric field (such as when current flows down a wire). With no physical movement, there is no magnetic field.

Things change dramatically if the rock fractures, as has been demonstrated in granite crushing experiments (Zhu, 2001). Then, measurable
electric (and magnetic) fields can be generated, through both the piezoelectric effect and something called seismoelectric conversion (caused
by acoustic waves). The effect is amplified by the presence of water. While this process produces magnetic fields, you have to bear in mind that
it involves the rock fracturing, not simply getting strained. There is little or no evidence for underground rock fracturing, even near faults,
except during and immediately prior to an earthquake (Robb, 2005).

We do have some measurements of the kind of magnetic fields that might be produced by rock fracturing immediately prior to an earthquake.
As a method of predicting earthquakes it is controversial, but the evidence does exist. One of the best known examples was the Loma Prieta
earthquake in California in 1989. This was preceded by a weak (up to 60 nT) magnetic field with low frequency (0.01 to 10 Hz) up to 55 km away
from the epicentre and three hours prior to the quake. However, even this field is not quite up to the strength required for an EIF and it took a
7.1 magnitude earthquake to generate it.

A further problem with TSTs is the very specific locality of the phenomena they set out to explain. In particular, the phenomena are often
restricted not just to a single house but to particular rooms or even parts of rooms (sometimes in upper storeys). Houses nearby are seemingly
unaffected. It seems unlikely that widespread tectonic strains could give rise to phenomena localised to just a couple of metres. However, it is
possible that environmental factors within a house may amplify (or even attenuate) more widespread field disturbances. Also, a house may
appear haunted, though next door does not, merely because an EIF-susceptible person lives in one and not the other.

In spite of these problems, I will outline later a variation on the TST that might make it work better than the existing one.

Artificially Occurring EIFs

In a paper on the electromagnetic environment around Moscow (Belyaev, 2003), it was found that the magnetic fields at frequencies around 1
Hz were around 10 times higher in the suburbs, and 100 times higher in the city centre, compared to the countryside. In the city centre fields up
to 250 - 300 nT at a frequency of 0.5 Hz were measured. These are strong enough to constitute EIFs. The fields were attributed, unsurprisingly,
to electrical equipment in the city. This indicates, quite eloquently, that we should probably look first for artificial sources of EIFs in
investigations before looking for, generally weaker, natural alternatives.

Artificial sources contribute significantly to the magnetic fields in a domestic environment, as a quick survey with an EMF meter will show.
However, the 0.1 to 30 Hz frequency range of varying fields is generally quiet. This is because most electrical and electronic devices operate
using a mixture of DC (for motors, electronic power supplies, etc.), mains frequency (50/60 Hz) and higher. The DC (static) element is rarely
pure, being derived from mains supply with rectifiers (often accompanied by transformers). The resultant DC current has a slight voltage ripple
on it. However, due to the way rectifiers are designed, this ripple will typically be at mains frequency or above and so not contribute to EIFs.
Similarly, the mains supply itself can be distorted by the electrical loads placed on it by various bits of electrical equipment. This gives rise to
harmonics but these, too, have a higher frequency and lower amplitude than the mains fundamental frequency. So most domestic electrical
appliances, as well as the mains supply itself, will not contribute to EIFs.

Probably the most important source of low frequency magnetic fields is the simple movement, or mechanical vibration, of magnetic materials.
By magnetic materials I mean metals with a high magnetic permeability. This means that magnetic fields prefer to flow through them, rather

54
than through the air. Common examples include objects made of iron and steel. The object itself does not have to be magnetised, so long as it
has high permeability. You can test if an object is highly permeable by seeing if a magnet is attracted to it. It may, or may not, be able, in turn,
to attract other bits of unmagnetised steel (eg. paper clips) to itself. All objects with high magnetic permeability (let’s call them HMPs, for
short), whether magnetised or not, distort the earth’s magnetic field around them. In the accompanying figure you will see two objects, one
weakly magnetic, the other merely highly permeable. Both distort the surrounding geomagnetic field dramatically. When such objects are
vibrated, they drag the magnetic field distortion around with them.

An unmagnetised HMP (top) distorts the geomagnetic field nearly as well as a weak magnet
An unmagnetised HMP (top) distorts the geomagnetic field nearly as well as a weak magnet

To produce an EIF frequency disturbance in the ambient magnetic field, all we need to do is vibrate an HMP at a rate of between once every ten
seconds (0.1 Hz) and thirty times a second (30 Hz). It doesn’t need to be a constant frequency motion since, as we have seen, varying fields
actually work better! The distortion to the ambient magnetic field will move in sympathy with the movement of the HMP, so inducing an EIF
frequency change.

The possible examples of such moving HMPs in the domestic environment are almost endless. A sheet of corrugated iron vibrating in the wind,
an iron bedstead shaken by nearby heavy traffic, a steel filing cabinet in a seaside office swayed gently by the crashing surf. Anything made of a
suitable metal, whether magnetic or not, vibrated at a suitable frequency, will give us the EIF frequency disturbance. Whether it attains a
suitable amplitude for an EIF depends on the degree of vibration of the object and the amount of distortion the HMP brings to the ambient
field.

As well as bits of metal, there are also machines that can act as moving HMPs. An electric motor can be imagined as a permanent magnet being
rotated, pole over pole, between the opposing poles of two other permanent magnets. In the real world, all the magnets are electromagnets
but the effect is the same. A rotating magnetic field will be produced with a frequency reflecting the rotation rate of the motor’s armature.
Most motors in domestic use are likely to produce rotating fields at EIF frequencies. That’s because few will go round faster than 1800 rpm,
which equates to 30 Hz. In addition, DC motors may spark where brushes meet the commutator. This would introduce a sharply pulsed field, at
twice the frequency of rotation, which might still be low enough to contribute to an EIF.

There are many motors used in the domestic environment. They commonly occur in such things as pumps (central heating, fridges, air-
conditioning), fans (computers, air-conditioning, some ovens), washing machines, vacuum cleaners, even hi-fi equipment and hair dryers. Such
appliances can produce quite powerful rotating magnetic fields.

Vibrating HMPs may produce the right frequencies, but will they give us the right amplitudes for people nearby? It comes down to your physical
distance from the source of the field disturbance. Assuming the amplitudes exceed minimum EIF level at their source, there is bound to be
some critical distance, or zone, away from the source where the field amplitude will be correct. All you have to do is stay in that critical area for
long enough and, if you are susceptible and the field varies enough over time, you may well get hallucinations. It is difficult to predict how far
such a zone would extend without doing experiments. Magnetic fields decline quickly away from their source, falling with the inverse square
law. As a guess, I would say EIFs would probably extend no further than a metre or two from a source likely to be encountered in a domestic
situation, assuming the average geomagnetic field as a background. If there was a higher than usual ambient magnetic field, the range would
decrease. Conversely, in an area of lower than usual ambient field, the range would increase. One might reasonably ask, how can you live in an
area of lower than normal geomagnetic field? HMPs can distort the local magnetic field, as we have seen, and create areas where the local
magnetic field is actually lower than average. Such HMPs would, obviously, not need to be moving to produce such an effect. This is the
principle behind magnetic shielding. The magnetic field is ‘dragged’ into the HMP, so attenuating the ambient field around it. A place where the
ambient field is low could be particularly promising, as it would require less of a field distortion to produce an EIF.

Interestingly, the degree of distortion caused by HMPs to ambient fields depends on such things as the shape of the source and its angle to the
field, as well as the permeability and magnetisation of the metal. Long thin HMPs (like sheet metal) and curved ones (think of a horshoe
magnet) disrupt the local magnetic field more than short, fat ones. Also, HMPs aligned with the ambient field will produce a larger effect than
those at right-angles to it. Note, also, that the presence of vibrating HMPs would mean that hallucinations would only be experienced in quite
small areas inside a house. This would fit in with the often observed fact that only certain rooms, or even particular spots, regularly produce
ghosts.

Transformers and a relay (middle curve) combine transitions to produce seemingly chaotic fluctuations (top curve)
Transformers and a relay (middle curve) combine transitions to produce seemingly chaotic fluctuations (top curve)

Another possible source of EIFs is combined magnetic transitions in mains frequency equipment. There are many pieces of electrical equipment
that can produce such magnetic transitions. Though transitions are not EIFs in themselves, if you get enough of them in a small area, over a
short period of time, they could have the same effect. By a transition, I mean a significant, slow (by electronic standards) change in the mains
frequency magnetic field produced by electrical equipment. This would appear to a DC magnetometer (insensitive to mains-frequency) as a
pulse. A transformer, for instance, though it operates at mains-frequency, takes time to become fully energised or drained (because the
magnetic field induced is resisting the current change) when it is switched on or off. This produces a change in the magnetic field slow enough

55
to be ‘seen’ by a DC magnetometer. Another example is a relay, which contains an electromagnet. When a relay is switched on or off, a static
magnetic field will either rise or fall, producing a magnetic transition. Transformers and relays are common in the supply and switching sections
of domestic electrical, and particularly electronic, equipment. Electrical house wiring may also show transitions (though not as powerfully)
when equipment downstream is switched on or off or has a changing load.

In the accompanying illustration you can see three imaginary transformers powering on and off, as well as a relay being operated once. The
transformers only produce brief pulses, as explained above. The relay, by contrast, maintains a steady magnetic field, while on. The picture
shows the way a DC magnetometer would ‘see’ the resultant magnetic fields. The top line shows the net fluctuations in the ambient static (DC)
field. It looks, more or less, chaotic and could, with suitable frequency and amplitude, constitute an EIF.

In a house with lots of electrical equipment in use there may sometimes be enough pulses, close enough together, both in space and time, to
constitute EIFs. If there are a few vibrating HMPs about as well, so much the better. It might seem unlikely that you would get enough pulses to
constitute an EIF this way. But consider this, you only need one 100 nT pulse every ten seconds to qualify! As more and more electrical devices
are operated in a house at once, the combined fluctuations will show a rise in amplitude and frequency as well as appearing increasingly
chaotic.

Another important, though rarer, possible artificial source of EIFs is malfunctioning electrical equipment. This could include the mains supply
itself. There are only a few ways most bits of electrical equipment can operate correctly, but any number in which they can malfunction.
Therefore it is difficult to list particular examples of malfunctioning equipment producing EIFs. In general, though, accidental capacitances and
inductances could possibly, in certain circumstances, give rise to low frequency currents (and hence magnetic fields). Fields can leak,
unintentionally, from electrical equipment to nearby conductors (such as water pipes) through induction. Though these would be at the mains
frequency, there might be resonances set up by the plumbing configuration that could be at a different frequency, possibly lower. Earthing
problems are another possible source of unintentional fields. As I said before, it is difficult to come up with a concrete example, but it might
happen and should be considered.

Of course, you may just happen to live in a magnetically dense area. As we saw with the unfortunate inhabitants of central Moscow, some
places may be bathed perpetually in a sea of fields that qualify as EIFs. There may be nearby industrial users, such as factories, that could
produce EIFs through HMPs and densely packed electrical equipment. So artificially produced EIFs may be outside the premises that are
allegedly haunted. You should not assume EIFs are produced naturally just because they have no obvious source inside a house.

Another interesting source of EIFs is human movement! Although you may not have any moving fields within your home, you might move
through reasonably strong, complex static fields sufficiently often to produce an EIF in your brain. If you think about it, walking between two
areas of high magnetic field, with a low area in between, is no different from having a varying field pass through your head as you sit still. Given
that you need to be exposed to such varying fields for some time, however, it might involve a lot of walking! It should be considered, however,
particularly in a workplace that might well combine a lot of walking and a complex static magnetic environment. A probable example of this is
an instance of a'haunted bed' (where some people lying in it experience strange ghostly sounds of a child crying). What is extremely interesting
is that the bed has been found to magnetic, so that anyone tossing and turning in it would be exposing themselves to EIFs. This research is
decribed here, on the MADS website.

The Tectonic Strain Theory Revisited

A scientist called Friedemann Freund (of San José State University in California) has suggested that electric charges could be induced to flow by
applying unusual pressure (through tectonic stress) to igneous rocks (normally insulators), turning them temporarily into semi-conductors
(Enriquez, 2003). He has done experiments, crushing rocks, to demonstrate this effect. When the rocks are turned temporarily into
semiconductors, holes (positively charged discontinuities) can flow rapidly through the rocks and might even reach the surface. The charges are
conducted underground both by rocks, in their semi-conductor state, and by water.

Such moving charges would generate magnetic fields. It is thought these would be low-frequency fields, though there is no prediction, as yet,
concerning exact intensity or frequency. The whole idea is still very new, but it could possibly result in natural EIFs near tectonically strained
areas around geological faults. The strengths of the theory are that the electric charges are not cancelled out and that they move around
(unlike the piezoelectric theory), so producing magnetic fields. The theory is still being developed, but it looks promising. Researchers should
still, therefore, investigate local geology (particularly the presence of faults and igneous rocks, such as granite, diorite, gabbro, basalt, etc.)
thoroughly in their investigations and see if any EIFs detected can be traced to an underground source.

Detecting EIFs

Unfortunately, the equipment required to detect EIFs satisfactorily is not cheap. That explains the lack of convincing field evidence to date. To
have a chance of detecting EIFs, you will need a sensitive magnetometer capable of giving a flat response to fields from 0 to 30 Hz. You will also
need to be able to sample the field sufficiently frequently to capture waves up to 30 Hz (requiring 60 samples a second). In practice, it would be
better to sample waves up to, say, 100 Hz to include mains frequency (50 Hz). So a sample rate of 200/s or better is required. You will need to
sample for extended periods of time (hours) to capture any time variance in the field. The magnetometer should be sensitive to changes down

56
to 50 nT (and preferably 1 nT) to capture waveforms accurately. In addition, it should measure over three axes simultaneously. This allows the
whole field to be sampled accurately.

A suitable setup would be a tri-axial, fluxgate magnetometer linked directly to a computer recording device. Fluxgates are most suitable and
typically operate from DC upwards and give a good, flat response at low frequencies. In fact, you’ll need something very like the MADS system.
Unfortunately, many of the cheaper EMF meters on the market are not suitable for scientific measurement of EIFs. Many are deliberately
frequency-biassed towards mains frequency as they are designed to measure electromagnetic pollution. They rarely cover the sub-mains
frequencies accurately. Some only register changes in the ambient magnetic field and so do not allow absolute amplitudes to be measured. In
addition, few such meters respond quickly enough to field changes or allow attachment to a computer.

The infrasound - magnetic field connection

Infrasound has also been implicated in giving people ghostly hallucinatory experiences. Infrasound is sound at too low a frequency for people to
hear (generally below 20 Hz). Interestingly, infrasound shares a frequency range with EIFs. In addition, some potential sources of EIFs could also
produce infrasound. In particular, moving HMPs (see above) could, potentially, produce infrasound at the same time and at the same frequency
as EIFs. So an electric motor, for instance, might produce infrasound and/or EIFs. It is therefore important to check for EIFs if you find strong
infrasound sources in a haunted location. The laboratory evidence for infrasound producing ghostly hallucinations is not as clear-cut as that for
EIFs. Therefore, to establish a case for infrasound alone producing ghostly experiences, EIFs must first be eliminated.

References

Campbell, Wallace H., 2003, Introduction to Geomagnetic Fields, Cambridge University Press.
Belyaev, G.G., Chmyrev, V.M., Kleimenova, N.G., 2003, Hazardous Ulf Electromagnetic Environment of Moscow City, “Physics of Auroral
Phenomena”, Proc. XXVI Annual Seminar, Apatity, Kola Science Center, Russian Academy of Science.
Zhu, Zhenya, Morgan, F. Dale, Marone, Chris J., Toksoz, M. Nafi, 2001, Experimental Studies of Electrical Fields on a Breaking Rock Sample, Earth
Resources Laboratory (MIT) consortium report.
Robb, Laurence, 2005, Introduction to Ore-forming Processes, Blackwell Publishing.
Enriquez, Alberto, 2003, The Shining, New Scientist, vol 179 issue 2402.

57
Popular misconceptions about the paranormal

There are certain misconceptions about paranormal and anomaly research that have gained widespread currency, even though there is little or
no compelling evidence to back them up. Since the same misconceptions come up again and again, it makes sense to list them in one central
place. The list will be added to from time to time.

Here is a list of just a few of the commoner misconceptions, along with reasons why they are wrong.

EMF meter misconceptions

Popular misconception: EMF meters can detect EIFS.
The reality: EIFs are experience inducing fields. They are a particular kind of complex, varying weak magnetic fields that have been shown in the
laboratory to induce magnetic hallucinations, resembling such things as ghosts. The vast majority of EMF meters are incapable of detecting EIFs
because they cannot distinguish EIFs from other common sources of electromagnetic fields. This is because they don't capture relevant
frequency information. See here for more.

Popular misconception: EMF meters can detect ghosts.

The reality: There is no compelling evidence that this is true. There are one or two anecdotes around about but they are extremely vague,
severely lacking in relevant details and often a source. What is needed is a proper study showing consistent EMF meter reading changes while
people are actually seeing ghosts. Not only is there no such study, at present, but there are good theoretical reasons (such as their inability to
distinguish between different sources of electromagnetic fields) for thinking an EMF meter could never act as a ghost detector. See here for
more.

Ghost misconceptions
Popular misconception: Ghosts are spirits. Or hallucinations. Or misperceptions. Or telepathy. Or 'recordings'. And so on.
The reality: The most popular idea is that ghosts are spirits. People also often debate whether ghosts might be hallucinations, misperception,
telepathy, 'recordings' or lots of other possibilities. However, the evidence from careful investigation of ghost cases shows that different ghost
sightings actually have different causes.

Ghosts (which can be practically defined as is 'human - sometimes animal - figures, witnessed by someone, which cannot be physically present')
are a 'multiple cause phenomenon', with quite different explanations resulting in similar sightings! Some ghost sightings are caused by
hallucination, many others by misperception, some by coincidence and so on. This explains how ghosts can apparently have quite different
characteristics in different cases. A witness may apparently interact with a ghost when it is caused by hallucination but this won't happen with
one caused by misperception. Oddly enough, given popular ideas about ghosts, there is little, if any, evidence that they are spirits. Most ghost
sightings, when carefully investigated, prove to be caused by misperception or hallucination.

The problem with looking for a single explanation for all ghost sightings is that the evidence is, overall, highly contradictory. This makes it
impossible to come up with a testable theory that would explain all the evidence. But when different explanations are considered for different
sightings, it soon becomes obvious that the term 'ghost' actually covers a whole group of phenomena that all result in someone seeing a human
figure! The reason why ghosts are often considered a single phenomenon appears to be due to the strong cultural meme that sees ghosts as
spirits.

Popular misconception: Ghosts haunt!

The reality: In the narrow dictionary sense, a ghost does indeed 'haunt'. But the phenomena reported as hauntings are somewhat different. A
haunting is a series of unexplained strange incidents generally associated with a particular physical location. Though these are commonly
attributed to the actions of a ghost, there is often little evidence for this. In many cases no apparition is ever seen. Further, when apparitions
ARE seen, they are not doing the things reported in the haunting, like moving objects, knocking on walls and so on. The idea that there are
invisible ghosts causing hauntings is an assumption rather than something supported by compelling evidence. Many of the odd things that
occur in a haunting case are often found, on investigation, to have different, unrelated causes. Ghosts are also frequently sighted where there
are no associated haunting phenomena. See here for more.

A widely noticed, but rarely discussed, feature of hauntings brings yet further doubt to the idea that ghosts cause hauntings. As everyone who
has ever organized a ghost vigil knows, strange phenomena are not evenly spread through a haunted location but occur at particular hot spots.
Other areas produce no reports of strange activity. Furthermore, these hot spots usually have the same phenomena happen each time they are
observed. So footsteps might be heard in one room, but never in others, and objects may move solely in a kitchen. it is difficult to reconcile
these hot spots with the idea of a ghost moving freely around and purposefully 'haunting' a property. See here for more.

Popular misconception: Most ghosts are invisible most of the time

The reality: This is such a widely held assumption that it seems odd that it is not apparently supported by compelling evidence. Here is a
summary of where the evidence ought to be: (a) witnesses often see ghosts vanish - this could be accounted for with sightings caused by
misperception or hallucination, as many are; (b) witnesses sometimes report seeing partial or (very rarely) transparent ghosts - these, too,
could be accounted for by misperception or hallucination; (c) haunt phenomena - see 'ghosts haunt' above; (d) there are photos showing

58
figures that were not seen by the photographer at the time of exposure - but see here; (e) there are photos showing transparent figures - but
see here.

The evidence shows that ghosts are a 'multiple cause phenomenon'. It is therefore difficult to generalize about the characteristics of all ghosts.
This may explain why it is so difficult to pin even one consistent property - that they are mostly invisible - on them.

Paranormal investigation misconceptions

Popular misconception: Witness testimony is generally reliable and accurate.
The reality: We all tend to feel that what we personally experience and remember is an accurate representation of reality. However, research
shows this not to be the case. Right from the moment of perception, what we experience is only an approximation of real physical reality.
Indeed our brains offer us the edited highlights of what our eyes actually see. And after the experience, our memories fade and alter over time.
See here for experiments involving people witnessing unexpected events.

Popular misconception: Witness testimony, being anecdotal, is of no value

The reality: While, as discussed in the previous point, witness testimony is not generally very accurate, it does not follow that it has no value.
When someone reports a mundane, trivial incident they are highly likely to be believed. However, they are no more nor less likely to be
accurate than if they reported something extraordinary (when they may not be so readily believed). The difference is, thus, due to what is being
reported rather than the witness themselves. In every case, when someone witnesses something there is an explanation, whether it is an
external objective event or an internal subjective one. To dismiss all reports of the extraordinary as 'imagination' or 'made up', particularly
when multiple reports show common elements, is thus clearly not a credible position. On investigation, few such 'extraordinary' reports are
easily dismissed. In many cases the witness has an objective experience but with subjective elements - in other words they misperceive
something perfectly real as something else, which isn't. Misperception happens all the time as part of our normal sensory perception, it is
simply rarely noticed. Just occasionally it produces something apparently extraordinary. Thus, there is nothing 'wrong' with the witness, nor
their report. They have had a perfectly valid experience, no more nor less real than ones we all have all the time. The fact that many
paranormal reports contain common elements points to a valid experience worthy of study. Even misperception involves an objective external
sensory stimulus.

Popular misconception: Investigators can never get at the truth of an incident because they weren't there.
The reality: While investigators who are not present at an incident will never experience what the witness did, it does not follow that they
cannot explain the observation. Investigators can use techniques, like cognitive interviewing, to obtain as much accurate detail as possible from
witnesses. In addition, they can examine the area where the incident occurred to look for evidence that might explain the witness report (see
here for instance). Most importantly, they can use their knowledge of many similar incidents to reconstruct how a reported event may have
happened.

Popular misconception: Science cannot be used to investigate the paranormal.

The reality: Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the paranormal involves forces and effects beyond the current state of science to
detect or measure, as some claim. The fact that we receive reports of the paranormal shows that, at some point, these paranormal effects must
somehow impinge on the ordinary world. If they did not, we could not experience them. And if an effect occurs in the ordinary physical world,
even if it is only a subjective experience in someone's brain, it must be measurable by science. So, even if we cannot measure the paranormal
itself, we can measure its effects. So, it follows that science IS an appropriate tool to study the paranormal, no matter what its origin. See here
for more.

Paranormal photo misconceptions

Popular misconception: Most paranormal photos are fakes.
The reality: Most apparently paranormal photos do not show anything paranormal. However, only a tiny minority are deliberately faked. The
vast majority are photographic artefacts like orbs. The number of fakes may have increased lately, due to the ease with which smart phones can
produce 'ghost photos' very easily through 'apps', but they still form only a small minority of the hundreds examined by ASSAP. Whether there
are any genuinely paranormal photos out there remains debatable.

Popular misconception: Orbs are caused by bits of dust.

The reality: Most orbs are indeed caused by bits of dust (watch dust turn into orbs here), as well as insects, water droplets and other small
objects. However, the crucial missing part of this explanation is that all these objects are actually OUT OF FOCUS. This fact explains such
defining aspect of orbs as their characteristic circular (or sometimes diamond) shape. The idea is expanded in the orb zone theory which has
been tested and explains known characteristics of orbs in detail.

Popular misconception: Some orbs are caused of moisture.

The reality: Some orbs are caused by water droplets. It might seem like nit-picking but 'moisture' implies water vapour, which is a gaseous form
of water that is invisible and so cannot form orbs. To form orbs, an object must be able to reflect light, which water vapour cannot. Water
droplets by contrast, in the form of rain drops (where it can form tails) or mist or fog, DO reflect light.

Popular misconception: A tiny percentage of orbs really are paranormal.

59
The reality: This could be true except that (a) there is no current compelling evidence for it and (b) no current consistent way of distinguishing
'ordinary' orbs from supposed paranormal ones. There have been many objections made to the naturalistic interpretation of orbs. They have,
however, been thoroughly investigated and are dealt with here.

60
Popular misconceptions about the paranormal

There are certain misconceptions about paranormal and anomaly research that have gained widespread currency, even though there is little or
no compelling evidence to back them up. Since the same misconceptions come up again and again, it makes sense to list them in one central
place. The list will be added to from time to time.

Here is a list of just a few of the commoner misconceptions, along with reasons why they are wrong.

EMF meter misconceptions

Popular misconception: EMF meters can detect EIFS.
The reality: EIFs are experience inducing fields. They are a particular kind of complex, varying weak magnetic fields that have been shown in the
laboratory to induce magnetic hallucinations, resembling such things as ghosts. The vast majority of EMF meters are incapable of detecting EIFs
because they cannot distinguish EIFs from other common sources of electromagnetic fields. This is because they don't capture relevant
frequency information. See here for more.

Popular misconception: EMF meters can detect ghosts.

The reality: There is no compelling evidence that this is true. There are one or two anecdotes around about but they are extremely vague,
severely lacking in relevant details and often a source. What is needed is a proper study showing consistent EMF meter reading changes while
people are actually seeing ghosts. Not only is there no such study, at present, but there are good theoretical reasons (such as their inability to
distinguish between different sources of electromagnetic fields) for thinking an EMF meter could never act as a ghost detector. See here for
more.

Ghost misconceptions
Popular misconception: Ghosts are spirits. Or hallucinations. Or misperceptions. Or telepathy. Or 'recordings'. And so on.
The reality: The most popular idea is that ghosts are spirits. People also often debate whether ghosts might be hallucinations, misperception,
telepathy, 'recordings' or lots of other possibilities. However, the evidence from careful investigation of ghost cases shows that different ghost
sightings actually have different causes.

Ghosts (which can be practically defined as is 'human - sometimes animal - figures, witnessed by someone, which cannot be physically present')
are a 'multiple cause phenomenon', with quite different explanations resulting in similar sightings! Some ghost sightings are caused by
hallucination, many others by misperception, some by coincidence and so on. This explains how ghosts can apparently have quite different
characteristics in different cases. A witness may apparently interact with a ghost when it is caused by hallucination but this won't happen with
one caused by misperception. Oddly enough, given popular ideas about ghosts, there is little, if any, evidence that they are spirits. Most ghost
sightings, when carefully investigated, prove to be caused by misperception or hallucination.

The problem with looking for a single explanation for all ghost sightings is that the evidence is, overall, highly contradictory. This makes it
impossible to come up with a testable theory that would explain all the evidence. But when different explanations are considered for different
sightings, it soon becomes obvious that the term 'ghost' actually covers a whole group of phenomena that all result in someone seeing a human
figure! The reason why ghosts are often considered a single phenomenon appears to be due to the strong cultural meme that sees ghosts as
spirits.

Popular misconception: Ghosts haunt!

The reality: In the narrow dictionary sense, a ghost does indeed 'haunt'. But the phenomena reported as hauntings are somewhat different. A
haunting is a series of unexplained strange incidents generally associated with a particular physical location. Though these are commonly
attributed to the actions of a ghost, there is often little evidence for this. In many cases no apparition is ever seen. Further, when apparitions
ARE seen, they are not doing the things reported in the haunting, like moving objects, knocking on walls and so on. The idea that there are
invisible ghosts causing hauntings is an assumption rather than something supported by compelling evidence. Many of the odd things that
occur in a haunting case are often found, on investigation, to have different, unrelated causes. Ghosts are also frequently sighted where there
are no associated haunting phenomena. See here for more.

A widely noticed, but rarely discussed, feature of hauntings brings yet further doubt to the idea that ghosts cause hauntings. As everyone who
has ever organized a ghost vigil knows, strange phenomena are not evenly spread through a haunted location but occur at particular hot spots.
Other areas produce no reports of strange activity. Furthermore, these hot spots usually have the same phenomena happen each time they are
observed. So footsteps might be heard in one room, but never in others, and objects may move solely in a kitchen. it is difficult to reconcile
these hot spots with the idea of a ghost moving freely around and purposefully 'haunting' a property. See here for more.

Popular misconception: Most ghosts are invisible most of the time

The reality: This is such a widely held assumption that it seems odd that it is not apparently supported by compelling evidence. Here is a
summary of where the evidence ought to be: (a) witnesses often see ghosts vanish - this could be accounted for with sightings caused by
misperception or hallucination, as many are; (b) witnesses sometimes report seeing partial or (very rarely) transparent ghosts - these, too,

61
could be accounted for by misperception or hallucination; (c) haunt phenomena - see 'ghosts haunt' above; (d) there are photos showing
figures that were not seen by the photographer at the time of exposure - but see here; (e) there are photos showing transparent figures - but
see here.

The evidence shows that ghosts are a 'multiple cause phenomenon'. It is therefore difficult to generalize about the characteristics of all ghosts.
This may explain why it is so difficult to pin even one consistent property - that they are mostly invisible - on them.

Paranormal investigation misconceptions

Popular misconception: Witness testimony is generally reliable and accurate.
The reality: We all tend to feel that what we personally experience and remember is an accurate representation of reality. However, research
shows this not to be the case. Right from the moment of perception, what we experience is only an approximation of real physical reality.
Indeed our brains offer us the edited highlights of what our eyes actually see. And after the experience, our memories fade and alter over time.
See here for experiments involving people witnessing unexpected events.

Popular misconception: Witness testimony, being anecdotal, is of no value

The reality: While, as discussed in the previous point, witness testimony is not generally very accurate, it does not follow that it has no value.
When someone reports a mundane, trivial incident they are highly likely to be believed. However, they are no more nor less likely to be
accurate than if they reported something extraordinary (when they may not be so readily believed). The difference is, thus, due to what is being
reported rather than the witness themselves. In every case, when someone witnesses something there is an explanation, whether it is an
external objective event or an internal subjective one. To dismiss all reports of the extraordinary as 'imagination' or 'made up', particularly
when multiple reports show common elements, is thus clearly not a credible position. On investigation, few such 'extraordinary' reports are
easily dismissed. In many cases the witness has an objective experience but with subjective elements - in other words they misperceive
something perfectly real as something else, which isn't. Misperception happens all the time as part of our normal sensory perception, it is
simply rarely noticed. Just occasionally it produces something apparently extraordinary. Thus, there is nothing 'wrong' with the witness, nor
their report. They have had a perfectly valid experience, no more nor less real than ones we all have all the time. The fact that many
paranormal reports contain common elements points to a valid experience worthy of study. Even misperception involves an objective external
sensory stimulus.

Popular misconception: Investigators can never get at the truth of an incident because they weren't there.
The reality: While investigators who are not present at an incident will never experience what the witness did, it does not follow that they
cannot explain the observation. Investigators can use techniques, like cognitive interviewing, to obtain as much accurate detail as possible from
witnesses. In addition, they can examine the area where the incident occurred to look for evidence that might explain the witness report (see
here for instance). Most importantly, they can use their knowledge of many similar incidents to reconstruct how a reported event may have
happened.

Popular misconception: Science cannot be used to investigate the paranormal.

The reality: Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the paranormal involves forces and effects beyond the current state of science to
detect or measure, as some claim. The fact that we receive reports of the paranormal shows that, at some point, these paranormal effects must
somehow impinge on the ordinary world. If they did not, we could not experience them. And if an effect occurs in the ordinary physical world,
even if it is only a subjective experience in someone's brain, it must be measurable by science. So, even if we cannot measure the paranormal
itself, we can measure its effects. So, it follows that science IS an appropriate tool to study the paranormal, no matter what its origin. See here
for more.

Paranormal photo misconceptions

Popular misconception: Most paranormal photos are fakes.
The reality: Most apparently paranormal photos do not show anything paranormal. However, only a tiny minority are deliberately faked. The
vast majority are photographic artefacts like orbs. The number of fakes may have increased lately, due to the ease with which smart phones can
produce 'ghost photos' very easily through 'apps', but they still form only a small minority of the hundreds examined by ASSAP. Whether there
are any genuinely paranormal photos out there remains debatable.

Popular misconception: Orbs are caused by bits of dust.

The reality: Most orbs are indeed caused by bits of dust (watch dust turn into orbs here), as well as insects, water droplets and other small
objects. However, the crucial missing part of this explanation is that all these objects are actually OUT OF FOCUS. This fact explains such
defining aspect of orbs as their characteristic circular (or sometimes diamond) shape. The idea is expanded in the orb zone theory which has
been tested and explains known characteristics of orbs in detail.

Popular misconception: Some orbs are caused of moisture.

The reality: Some orbs are caused by water droplets. It might seem like nit-picking but 'moisture' implies water vapour, which is a gaseous form
of water that is invisible and so cannot form orbs. To form orbs, an object must be able to reflect light, which water vapour cannot. Water
droplets by contrast, in the form of rain drops (where it can form tails) or mist or fog, DO reflect light.

62
Popular misconception: A tiny percentage of orbs really are paranormal.
The reality: This could be true except that (a) there is no current compelling evidence for it and (b) no current consistent way of distinguishing
'ordinary' orbs from supposed paranormal ones. There have been many objections made to the naturalistic interpretation of orbs. They have,
however, been thoroughly investigated and are dealt with here.

Eyewitness testimony and the paranormal

The Eyewitness
by Paul Chambers
Few researchers are lucky enough to witness paranormal phenomena personally. We therefore have to rely on witness testimony. But how
accurate is that vital testimony? See also eyewitness research by ASSAP.

When it comes to solid proof, the paranormal world does not have a good track record. Several centuries of serious-minded investigation have
yet to produce a single piece of independent evidence that satisfies the demands of the sceptic.

With almost every reported paranormal experience the only evidence we have to go on is that of the eyewitness. However, considering how
important eyewitness testimony is to the credibility of the paranormal, it is amazing how little attention is actually paid to the conditions under
which such testimonies are taken or the factors which can affect their reliability. In fact, experience suggests that many paranormal researchers
start with the premise that eyewitness testimony is both 100 percent correct and infallible. This paper aims to show that there are many factors
which can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and that such factors must be taken into consideration if the paranormal is to be taken
more seriously by the established scientific community.

One of the most frustrating aspects of any paranormal experience, be it a poltergeist or UFO, is the lack of solid proof to back up people's
claims of having had an apparently impossible (in scientific terms) or improbable experience. It is this lack of hard evidence that more often
than not defines a case as being paranormal. If a cryptozoologist could bring back the body of the Bigfoot, rather than just a few out of focus
pictures of something that might or might not be an unknown species of giant ape, then there would be no mystery to solve. Zoologists could
examine the body and be happy that there is a wild primate living in the forests of western America. Likewise, if every alien abductee could
bring back a piece of material not found on Earth or every ghost be made to appear at a pre-arranged press conference, then most paranormal
investigators would be out of a job. However, none of this hard evidence ever comes to light and it seems, as many have remarked, that the
paranormal world will give just enough proof to keep people intrigued but not enough for them to be able to convince a sceptical world.

Whether by design or accident, the long and short of all this is that we are left with no tangible evidence other than the word of the witness or
witnesses to the paranormal phenomenon concerned.

Considering that practically every sphere of the paranormal relies heavily on the testimony of eyewitnesses, there has been remarkably little
work done into the question of its reliability. It seems that while paranormal investigators will travel long distances to see the site of a strange
activity or will spend hours researching in libraries, very few ever direct their attention towards understanding the ins and outs of the reliability
of the eyewitness testimony that underpins their craft.

Given the lack of direct research performed by the paranormal community, it is necessary to look for parallels in other research fields. A
literature search revealed that practical research into the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has almost exclusively come from the legal
profession, whose concern is the reliability of the testimony of eyewitnesses in a court of law.

The testimony of an eyewitness will often be the only evidence offered up in a court of law. There tends also to be a propensity for a court jury
to believe without question what an eyewitness tells them. For this reason there has been a great deal of research done as to how accurate an
eyewitness testimony in court actually is and, in cases where it turns out to be inaccurate, why errors have occurred and how they can be
spotted or avoided in future.

Eyewitness testimony in court frequently concerns the recall of a spontaneous event or events which occurred some time previously (eg. a car
crash). Eyewitness testimony given in the aftermath of a paranormal encounter is also likely to concern a spontaneous event which occurred
some time ago. The parallels between criminal and paranormal witnesses are profound. Thus the bulk of the material in this paper will be
drawn from research carried out on behalf of the criminal justice system but which can equally well be applied to paranormal research.

Hearsay Evidence

The first matter to be considered is whether or not second-hand testimony by witnesses is admissible as evidence.

Using first-hand sources might seem to be a common-sense thing to do, given that first-hand accounts are generally considered to be more
reliable than second-hand ones, but the need for first-hand evidence is even more crucial than this.

63
The paranormal researcher, like most courts of law, is almost totally reliant on eyewitness testimony in their need to study the mystery before
them. In a court of law only first-hand eyewitness testimony is admissible, with so-called hearsay evidence (i.e. telling somebody else's version
of events) being wholly inadmissible. In other words as far as the law of the land is concerned, second-hand evidence is a non-starter. If the
paranormal world is to gain the respect of scientists and other professional researchers, then it too should adopt this same high ideal. But why
is hearsay evidence so unreliable?

Anybody who has ever tried to make a copy of an audio or video tape will know that the second copy is never as good as the original. This is
because the copying process is imperfect and any minor faults on the first tape will become exaggerated on the second one. If a third copy is
made from the second tape then this will be of worse quality still. If copies of copies are continually made, then by the sixth or seventh
generation the imperfections will be so great as to make the original soundtrack and picture practically unrecognisable. Anybody who has
bought a pirated videotape from a market stall will be able to testify that the quality is most certainly not the same as an original one purchased
on the high street. The same is true of any type of sequential copying, be it art forgery or video piracy: to guarantee quality you have to go back
to the original source. This is also true with eyewitness testimony and there have been a number of interesting experiments done to prove this.

The earliest, and probably still the best, experiment done with regard to hearsay evidence was performed in the 1930s by Sir Frederic C.
Bartlett, a Cambridge psychologist who had an interest in the reliability of memory. In addition to his desire to understand the workings of
human memory, Bartlett also had a fascination with folktales, especially with regard to the manner in which their meaning and content could
become altered through time. He chose to use a folktale as the central focus in the following experiment, something that makes it all the more
relevant to students of the paranormal.

In deciding how accurate a second or third hand recounting of somebody else's description of events is, Bartlett set up an experiment in which
one person was told a traditional American Indian ghost story. This person then had to tell the story as best as they could remember it to
another person who in turn had to tell it to somebody else who told somebody else, and so on down the line. In so doing, Bartlett wanted to
see how much it was possible for a story to change after going through several generations of repetitions. The original ghost story was as
follows:

One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals, and while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they
heard war-cries, and they thought: ‘Maybe this is a war party’. They escaped to the shore, and hid behind a log. Now canoes came up, and they
heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said:

‘What do you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on the people’.

One of the young men said: ‘I have no arrows’.

‘Arrows are in the canoe’, they said.
‘I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you’, he said, turning to the other, ‘may go with them.’

So one of the young men went, but the other returned home.

And the warriors went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down to the water, and they began to fight, and
many were killed. But presently the young man heard one of the warriors say: ‘Quickly, let us go home: that Indian has been hit’. Now he
thought: ‘Oh, they are ghosts’. He did not feel sick, but they said he had been shot.

So the canoes went back to Egulac, and the young man went ashore to his house, and made a fire. And he told everybody and said: ‘Behold I
accompanied the ghosts, and went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit,
and I did not feel sick’.

He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black came out of mouth. His face became contorted. The
people jumped up and cried.

He was dead. [1]

Bartlett based a number of experiments around the telling and retelling of this story, which he calls 'The War of the Ghosts'. See if you can
recognise the following version of 'The War of the Ghosts':

Two Indians were out fishing for seals in the Bay of Manpapan, when along came five other Indians in a war-canoe. They were going fighting.

‘Come with us,’ said the five to the two, ‘and fight.’
‘I cannot come,’ was the answer of the one, ‘for I have an old mother at home who is dependant upon me.’ The other also said he could not
come, because he had no arms. ‘That is no difficulty,’ the others replied, ‘for we have plenty in the canoe with us’; so he got into the canoe and
went with them.

64
In a fight soon afterwards this Indian received a mortal wound. Finding that his hour was come, he cried out that he was about to die.
‘Nonsense,’ said one of the others, ‘you will not die.’ But he did. [2]

This version of 'The War of the Ghosts' emerged from the tenth person to be told the tale. While it is still recognisable as being related to the
original story reprinted above, there are very significant changes in terms of its length, detail and overall meaning. In fact, if you were to read
this last version without having first read the original, it would not make much sense at all, there being no real point to it.

Bartlett repeated the experiment using different stories and found the same result in each case. Like making copies of video tapes, as a story
gets copied from person to person, the inaccuracies get steadily worse until much of the original detail and meaning is lost. The stark lesson
here is obvious. Only first-hand eyewitness testimony can be considered to be reliable. The legal courts accepted this fact a long time ago and
so must we in the paranormal.

A Matter of Time

Before leaving Bartlett's work entirely we must complicate matters further. It is not just the reproducing of a story from person to person that
can cause radical changes in it - the details of even a first-hand experience can also change radically with the passage of time. The crucial factor
in this is the length of time that elapses between an event and the person being asked to recall the details of it.

Human memory is not infallible, and the quality of a recollection fades rapidly with time. This degradation can introduce new details, or
subtract original ones, from the original version of events.

Going back to 'The War of the Ghosts' again, look at the next two reproductions of the story. The first was told six weeks after the person first
heard the story, the second after six and a half years.

65
After Six Weeks

There were ghosts. There took place a fight between them. One of them asked: ‘Where are the arrows?’ The other said: ‘They are in the canoe’.
A good many of the combatants were wounded or killed. One of them was wounded, but did not feel sick. They carried him to his village some
miles away by rowing in the canoe. The next day something black came out of his mouth and they cried: ‘He is dead’. [3]

Six and half years

Brothers. Canoe. Something black from mouth. Totem. One of the brothers died. Cannot remember whether one slew the other or was helping
the other. Were going on a journey, but cannot remember why. Party in war canoe. Was the journey a pilgrimage for filial or religious reasons?
Am now sure it was pilgrimage. Purpose had something to do with a totem. Was it on a pilgrimage that they met a hostile party and one
brother was slain? I think there was some reference to a dark forest... [4]

Here we can see the degree to which the memory can alter or we forget key pieces of information.

It can reasonably be argued that the volunteers involved in Bartlett's experiments were not recounting an actual experience but merely a story
that had been told to them.

A frightening paranormal experience could be expected to imprint itself on the mind more powerfully than a dull ghost story and so could be
expected to be recollected better. Although this is to some degree true, experiments similar to those of Bartlett have been carried out on
people who have had memorable experiences, such as being involved in street crime, and have produced the same results. [5]

Again, the conclusion from this must be that even first-hand testimony should only be considered to be accurate if the witness is interviewed
within a short period of time of their experience having occurred. The greater the length of time between the occurrence of an event and the
eyewitness' recollection, the less reliable the testimony will be.

A Matter of Perception

Bartlett's experiments show us some of the pitfalls inherent in eyewitness testimony. However, the actual set-up of his tests, which involve the
rote learning of an oral tale, bears little relationship to undergoing a physical experience and then later having to recall it.

Judging how accurately a person can recall an experience that has actually occurred to them would seem to be much more relevant to the
paranormal than being able to recount a ghost story word for word.

Considering how important eyewitness descriptions are in criminal cases, research into this field of memory was surprising late in coming, with
the first useful experiments not taking place until the 1970s. Most of the work in this field has been performed in order to assess the reliability
of people's reporting of events in court, but it can be directly applied to paranormal cases as well.

In general, various studies of memory have found that not only do we have differing means of storing memories, such as short-term and long-
term memory [6], but that we have differing ways of recollecting different types of information.

For example, the way in which we memorise and recall a telephone number is different to the way in which we memorise and recall the events
of a traffic accident. Those looking into the question of eyewitness memory have broken the field down into a number of different areas based
upon the type of detail that the eyewitness is being asked to recall.

The field of research that most applies to the eyewitness testimony of paranormal experiences is called 'event memory', which focuses on
people's ability to recall events that they were a witness to or participated in, such as accidents, robberies, fights, riots, etc. Most of these
events are of short duration, occur unexpectedly and have an emotional effect on the witness. In this respect they are very similar indeed to
the average paranormal experience.

Many people (including many psychical researchers, especially those using hypnotic recall techniques) treat the human memory as though it
were some form of video tape recording that is capable of faithfully reproducing the sights, sounds and smells from any point in a person's life.

This view of memory as being infallible has led to great faith being placed in the value of eyewitness testimony by the police, legal system,
paranormal researchers and others. Bartlett has already shown us how inaccurate the memory can be when repeating learned information, but
how accurate are people's memories of physical events? In other words, how much faith can we place in the testimony of those who claim to
have undergone a paranormal experience?

Over the last few decades many different experiments have been designed with the objective of quantifying the accuracy and reliability of
event memory. Almost without exception these experiments have concluded that event memory is highly unreliable as a matter of routine. In
fact, not only is it unreliable, but it can also be seriously affected by many external and internal factors.

66
There are many factors than can influence or change a person's memory. Here I will briefly cover the three that are most applicable to the
reporting and investigation of a paranormal event. These are:

(1) the influence that can be exerted by an interviewer over his/her interviewee.
(2) the influence that personal bias can have on memory.
(3) spontaneous changes that can occur to memory.

Leading Questions

In order for news of a paranormal experience to make it into print, the eyewitness will normally have had to tell their story to a third party,
such as a journalist. This extra link in the chain between the witness and the paranormal researcher can present a problem.

During my years of interest in the paranormal I have interviewed many people about their strange encounters. I have always tried not to put
words into their mouths, preferring instead to let them tell me things in their own way. I also always try to tape record the interviews so as to
avoid problems with my own inaccurate memory or with scantily scribbled notes that later do not make any sense. I hope that by doing this I
introduce a minimum of bias into the interview process and can also later faithfully reproduce what was said to me. While this is probably the
preferred means of operating, it is difficult to tell whether first-hand accounts presented by other paranormal researchers have been gathered
in the same way. If the interview has not been carried out properly then there is a danger of bias entering the process.

A classic example of what can happen when the interview process goes wrong can be seen in some of the satanic ritual abuse scares which
swept through America, Europe and Australia during the 1980s and 1990s [7]. At this time dozens of people were accused by the authorities of
having kidnapped children and then having subjected them to vile black magic rituals.

Few of these charges ever stuck, with most of the court cases falling to pieces as soon as the prosecution witnesses took the stand, their
testimony turning out to be highly unreliable and biased. Later investigations into some of the more spectacular court case collapses of satanic
ritual abuse trials found that the testimonies were inaccurate because of bias introduced at the interview stage.

Dealing with interviewer bias is a very serious problem for both the legal system and the paranormal. In the case of one of the most famous
satanic ritual abuse scares, that of the Broxtowe Estate in England, the government report into what went wrong found that social workers who
had interviewed children had deliberately misled them into changing their testimony during the interview process [8].

This is a very easy thing to do both deliberately and by accident. A person interviewing an eyewitness can very easily change that person's
testimony using leading questions. In one study it was found that volunteers who had watched a video recording of a car accident could have
their testimony of the event changed almost at the will of the interviewer [9]. After watching the accident on video, several volunteers were
subjected to close questioning about the actions of the drivers and other details of the accident. The interviewers found that when they asked
'About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?', the average answer was 30.8 mph. However, if they changed the
question to 'About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?', people's estimation of the speed of impact rose to 41
mph. The simple rephrasing of a question changed the estimation of speed by 10 mph. The same was found to be true for other aspects of the
accident, including the car’s colour, the number of drivers, etc. This is a relatively minor example of how the wording of a question can affect a
person's view of events.

Less subtle questioning can produce even more dramatic results. In the aforementioned Broxtowe Estate satanic ritual abuse case it was found
that the social workers interviewing the child 'witnesses' had not only asked highly leading questions but also refused to accept any answers
that did not fit in with their view of events. The following is a transcript of an interview between a social worker involved in the Broxtowe Estate
satanic ritual abuse case. Note that the interviewer simply ignores the child's responses, choosing to follow their own agenda instead:

Interviewer (I): 'You had to eat babies more than once?'

Child (C): 'I can't remember.'
I: 'We think you did.'
I: 'Who brought it? A name? Difficult to remember who killed the baby?'
C: 'I didn't kill it.'
I: 'Who told you to? Did she give you the knife?'
C: 'No.'
I: 'I think she did. You were asked to kill the baby. You had to do it. How was it killed?' [10]

In this questioning technique there is no subtlety at all. The child is not given the opportunity to give an answer that differs from the
preconceived beliefs of the interviewer, who clearly believes that a baby has been killed and eaten and will not accept answers to the contrary.
Similar techniques were used in ancient witch trials where the accused would be tortured until they confessed. There was never any question
of their innocence.

67
However, questioning need not be so severe in order to change people's point of view. In the aforementioned experiment involving the video
of the car crash, leading questions like: 'He was driving too fast, wasn't he?' or 'How close was the car when the boy stepped into the road?'
also changed the testimony considerably. Leading questions like these are not permitted in court, and we must be wary of them in paranormal
cases too.

As the conditions under which an eyewitness to a paranormal event is interviewed are rarely published, it is difficult to know whether or not
they have been asked leading questions. However, one of the most common criticisms of those sceptical of the paranormal is that interviews,
particularly those conducted under hypnosis, have had an element of bias introduced into them by the interviewer. In some cases this is most
certainly true. Look at this transcript of a female alien abductee being interviewed under hypnosis.

Abductee (A): 'My legs are up, and I'm getting snipped, but internally...'
Interviewer (I): 'They're using instruments for this, I guess?'
A: 'Very tiny, tiny, long, very long little itty bitty scissor things...'
I: 'Do they remove their instruments?'
A: 'Yeah, they removed something out of me...'
I: 'An embryo, you mean?'
A: 'Yeah, it's like...'
I: 'What do they do when they remove it?' [11]

Note how the interviewer uses leading questions to reinforce the story being given by the person under hypnosis, encouraging them to develop
the story rather than just telling it. This line of questioning would not be allowed in a court of law and should be viewed with suspicion by the
paranormal fraternity too.

Over-enthusiastic interviewers present a problem with regard to the accuracy of eyewitness testimony to paranormal experiences. The extent
of this problem has, however, never been quantified and so for the moment we must simply be aware that it may have had an influence on
some of the cases encountered.

Personal Bias

The introduction of bias into an interview need not just come from the interviewer, but can also come from the interviewee as well.
Preconceived ideas held by witnesses themselves can be introduced into the version of events without their knowing it. Again we must turn to
the experiments performed in connection with court witnesses.

A great many experiments have been done with regard to the degree to which racial stereotyping can affect a person’s view of events. A recent
study asked volunteers to look at slides of an altercation between a black man and a white man on the London Underground. In these slides the
white man was holding a knife threateningly towards the black man. The volunteers were then shown a second set of slides and asked to pick
out the one that matched the incident they had seen before. A significant number of people picked out a slide in which the black man was
holding the knife. [12]

The racial bias of the volunteers had led them to expect that the black man would be holding the knife and this expectation had either
consciously or subconsciously filtered into their memory of the events causing them to radically change their belief as to what it was that they
had originally seen.

The same bias can easily be introduced into paranormal cases as well. Many people have preconceived ideas as to what a paranormal
experience should or should not be like, and doubtless some imaginary details can later get added by mistake. Testimony given under hypnosis
is a particular problem. A great many alien abduction victims rely almost totally on hypnosis as an aid for recalling their memories of the
abduction itself, the original memory having allegedly been 'erased' by the aliens.

The later reconstruction of memory where none previously existed leaves the whole process open to abuse by both the hypnotist asking
leading questions and by the hypnotised subject simply basing their memories around the experiences of other alien abductees.

Although many will deny it, most alien abduction victims have a very extensive knowledge of the alien abduction experience prior to their own
encounters. Such a strong and preconceived opinion of a paranormal experience can act in exactly the same manner as the racial bias did in the
experiment with the slides above.

The power that preconception can have is illustrated in a piece of modern research by war historian Helmut Schnatz, who performed an in-
depth study of the allied bombing of the German city of Dresden in February 1945.

After the bombing raids it had commonly been claimed that allied fighters flew low over the city, strafing its fleeing citizens. Over the years
there have been a number of eyewitnesses who have come forward to testify that this apparently heartless attack took place. However, Mr.
Schnatz examined records of flight paths, levels of fuel of the aircraft and official reports of the intensity of the firestorm that followed the

68
bombing. His conclusions were that there could categorically not have been fighters flying as low as eyewitnesses have described. They would
have had neither the time, the fuel nor the visibility to do so.

The conclusion was that people’s memories of the events of that night had been severely altered by a cultural belief, which had been heavily
reinforced by the East German government, that the strafing had taken place. In other words, some survivors from Dresden had been led (or
told) to believe that the attacks took place and so they adjusted their memories of the experience to accommodate them. [13] This is not as
uncommon or as improbable as it may at first appear.

It may be, for example, that the wide cultural use of the 'grey' alien (those beings with the wide elliptical eyes, no nose and thin mouth that
currently appear on everything from book covers to T-shirts) during the 1980s and 1990s could lead many who report alien abduction
experiences to expect that their kidnappers would be grey aliens whether they were or not. After all, if racial bias can completely alter the
sequence of events in an everyday experience, then cultural expectations about certain paranormal phenomena must be expected to intrude to
some degree into a testimony of a paranormal experience.

Even though personal bias is very hard indeed to discern from within a person's testimony, there is undoubtedly an element of it in a great
many first-hand accounts of paranormal experiences. It is something that must be borne in mind.

69
Other Factors

In addition to a testimony being affected by the preconceived ideas of both the interviewer and the witness, various research programmes have
noticed a number of other factors that can affect the reliability of an eyewitness statement. I will not dwell on these factors but they are worth
noting.

One of the strangest affects noticed about eyewitness testimony is the regularity with which the duration of the incident has been exaggerated.

In 1987 Elizabeth Loftus carried out an experiment in which she showed volunteers a video tape of a bank robbery that took exactly 30 seconds
to complete. In later interviews it turned out that almost everybody had vastly overestimated the length of time that the robbery had taken,
the average estimate being two minutes and thirty seconds - five times longer than the reality. [14] This is something to bear in mind, given that
most paranormal experiences are estimated to be of very short duration indeed, with the longest ones, which are commonly the UFO
encounters, being a few minutes long at most (alien abductions excluded). If the overestimation factor really is genuine, then this could mean
that the average paranormal experience is actually only of a few seconds’ duration rather than the tens of seconds or minutes commonly
estimated by the witness.

Other factors in the reliability of eyewitness testimony include a person's age, occupation, sex and confidence.

In general it is middle-aged people that have the best memory of events, those that work in the security forces (eg. police) or army that have
the best eye for detail, and those that are confident that are less likely to later change their statements, even if what they have said is blatantly
wrong. [15] Women are more likely to notice details about clothes and faces than men, while men are more likely to notice details about cars
and other machinery. [16]

There is, as might be expected from Bartlett's experiments, a strong tendency for peoples' memory of events to change very seriously with both
time and the number of times a story is repeated. The most accurate statements are those that are taken within a few minutes or hours of the
event itself. When it comes to eyewitness testimony, nothing is as straightforward as it first seems, and various experiments have shown that
sometimes an eyewitness description of a crime scene actually bears little resemblance to the reality, with people, objects and events being
added, removed or changed to such a degree that little of the original series of events is memorised with any accuracy.

Is Nothing Sacred?

The lesson from all this is quite clearly that a person's memory of an event is not a fixed recording, but can become radically altered through a
whole series of differing factors. The degree to which all these factors can affect the final testimony varies considerably from person to person.
An old age pensioner being asked leading questions about an event that occurred several weeks ago is unlikely to produce a very accurate
testimony. A thirty year old man being interviewed a couple of hours after an event is more likely to give a reasonable version of events.

It must by now seem to the reader that virtually any testimony given by anybody, whether in a court of law or to a paranormal researcher, is
practically useless with few aspects of people's memories remaining unaffected by the influence of bias, age, etc. This is not entirely true.

Although it is recognised that a first-hand version of a paranormal experience will contain some inaccuracies, a knowledge of how a testimony
can be affected may be able to give us an idea as to how seriously we should take such cases.

The police will not refuse an eyewitness testimony because it is several years old, but they will be aware of the fact that, while the broad gist of
the story may be accurate, some of the finer detail may not be. The same is true for us.

Paranormal researchers are rarely, if ever, called out to the scene of a paranormal experience. In fact, we are lucky if we can get to a witness
within months of their experience. More commonly it is several years. Given this, there is bound to be some embellishment or alteration to the
testimonies they give, but that does not mean that these testimonies are useless.

I hope that this article has helped point out some of the problems that may be encountered during the interview process. To be forewarned is
to be forearmed.

References

1. Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge), 1995 (Original 1932).
Quote from p.65.
2. Bartlett, F. C. Op. cit., p.124.
3. Bartlett, F. C. Op. cit., p.76
4. Bartlett, F. C. Op. cit., p.77. This was originally presented as a long list of 17 points. Here I have removed the numbers from the list and have
omitted points 14 to 17 for reasons of space.
5. For a summary of this information see Ainsworth, P. B. Psychology, Law and Eyewitness Testimony. John Wiley and Sons (Chichester), 1998.

70
6. I use the phrases short and long-term memory to illustrate the point. Most modern researchers do not hold to this theory any more, the
reality being somewhat more complex.
7. Chambers, P. Sex and the Paranormal. Blandford Press (London), 1999.
8. As 7.
9. Loftus, E. F. and Palmer, J. C. 'Reconstructions of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.'
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, Vol. 13; p. 585-589. 1974.
10. JET Report; A report by the UK government into the satanic ritual abuse scares of the late 1980s and 1990s. Despite assurances that the
report would be published, its findings were so damning that it remains unavailable to the public today. Fortunately a copy was leaked onto the
Internet where, despite attempts to suppress it, copies can still be found on several web sites today.
11. Jacobs, D. Secret Life: First-hand Accounts of UFO Abductions. Fourth Estate (London), 1993. Quote from p.124. The quotes given by the
abductee have been edited because of their length.
12. Boon, J. and Davies, G. 'Attitudinal influences on witness memory: Fact and fiction.' in Gruneberg, M. M. et al., Practical Aspects of Memory:
Current Research and Issues, Volume 1. John Wiley and Sons (Chichester), 1988.
13. BBC NewsOnline; Daily Telegraph, 6/6/2000
14. Loftus, E. F., Schooler, J. W., Boones, S. M. and Kline, D. 'Time went by so slowly: Overestimation of event duration by males and females.'
Applied Cognitive Psychology, Volume 1: p. 3-13, 1987.
15. For a summary of this information see Ainsworth, P. B. Psychology, Law and Eyewitness Testimony. John Wiley and Sons (Chichester), 1998.
Chapter 3.
16. Powers , P. A., Andriks, J. L. and Loftus, E. F. 'Eyewitness accounts of males and females.' Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 64: p. 339-347.,
1979.

This article first appeared in Anomaly vol 30

Post script: Confabulation

by Maurice Townsend
As if Paul Chambers' excellent article didn't give eyewitnesses enough problems, here is another - confabulation! Confabulation is essentially
'making up stories', usually to 'fill a gap' in someone's memory. It is not conscious lying but an apparent attempt by the brain to reconcile
between past memories and current reality. People who confabulate are convinced that what they are saying is true ('false memory
syndrome'). While confabulation has long been known to be common in people with Alzheimer's disease and similar conditions, it has now
been, worryingly, replicated in people with no known conditions. Indeed, it may be widespread or even universal.

In experiments, when eyewitnesses are forced to make choices without enough information they will generally do so reluctantly. However,
when questioned later, they will be convinced that their forced choice (which may be right or wrong) is correct. The effect can be enhanced by
the use of hypnosis where people regularly 'invent' details of memories that are known to be wrong.

Imagine the situation where you see a fleeting shadow in a dark corridor. It might be caused by a curtain fluttering in the wind but, if the place
is known to be haunted, your mind might 'decide' it is really a ghost. The 'decision' (essentiality about what is reality) is taken by your brain
before it reaches your conscious mind (which is why it is so convincing).

When questionned about your experience you might, again, completely unconsciously, confabulate extra 'details' that back up your
interpretation (perhaps turning the amorphous shape into a 'figure'). With no objective evidence, like CCTV pictures, to contradict your
memory, it could be recorded as a convincing report of an apparition. ASSAP's own research in this area reinforces the idea that people will
confabulate readily in 'eyewitness' situations.

If it appears odd that people should 'fill in' missing gaps in their memory through confabulation, a clue has recently appeared in neuroscience
that could explain this strange behaviour. The same areas of the brain are involved both in recalling events as are used in imagining things that
never happened (or thinking about things that might happen in the future)! It is therefore not surprising that memories of real events may be
extended or altered and that the person doing so may be completely convinced that their memory is accurate, even when it is demonstrably
wrong.

71
72
Contents
How people see ghosts ................................................................................................................................. 1
Misperception - frequently put objections ................................................................................................... 9
Visual substitutions in paranormal experiences ......................................................................................... 11
Eliminating misperception: the theory ....................................................................................................... 13
Paranormal witness memory ...................................................................................................................... 16
Xenonormal................................................................................................................................................. 19
Why ghosts are spirits - to most people! .................................................................................................... 24
Time displaced paranormal ........................................................................................................................ 28
Am I psychic? .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Near sleep experiences ............................................................................................................................... 35
All in the mind ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Mindsight .................................................................................................................................................... 45
Coincidences: the roots of the paranormal? .............................................................................................. 48
Magnetic fields causing ghosts? ................................................................................................................. 52
Popular misconceptions about the paranormal ......................................................................................... 58
Popular misconceptions about the paranormal ......................................................................................... 61
Eyewitness testimony and the paranormal ................................................................................................ 63

73