Tag Archives: Proof

The problems with the latest Nessie photo

For just over a week I have attempted and failed to contact George Edwards who took the latest photo it is claimed shows the Loch Ness Monster. Clashing work schedules coupled with  a busy season for Loch Ness boat tours means being able to chat just hasn’t happened so I haven’t been able to get answers to the questions I have about the photo from the man who took it. However, even without speaking to Edwards there are still problems I have with the photo.

“The best evidence” 

Many who have commented on the photo have refered to it as the best evidence they’ve seen for the Loch Ness monster for decades. Steve Feltham, the only full time Loch Ness Monster researcher who lives on the shore of Loch Ness on the small beach at Dores is quoted as saying

“It is the best photograph I think I have ever seen… I think the images are fantastic – that’s the animal I have been looking for all this time,”

and

“I would say it doesn’t prove what Nessie is, but it does prove what Nessie isn’t, a sturgeon which is a fish that has been put forward as one of the main explanations as to what Nessie could be but this hasn’t got a serrated spine like the sturgeon.”

The problem with this is that if it doesn’t prove what Nessie is then what is it evidence of? How can this photo be proof of something when we don’t know what that thing actually is?

The photo shows an unidentified object in the water of Loch Ness a short distance away from the boat the photo is being taken from. To conclude that this is evidence for there being a Loch Ness monster is illogical because if there is a monster or unidentified animal causing strange sightings we don’t know what it is and don’t know it’s characteristics. Without knowing it’s characteristics it would (and is) impossible to comment upon what does count as evidence of the monster/creature existing, and what doesn’t.

There have been so many sightings of the Loch Ness Monster over the years and it is true that many of the eye-witness testimonies contain similar defining characteristics for the creature – a long neck, humps, a grey colour, large in size… but to suggest that these characteristics popping up time and time again in eyewitness testimony makes them true characteristics of the monster in residence in the Loch suggests that it is impossible for the eyewitnesses to have been mistaken about what they saw, or not primed to see a monster in the water that had characteristics reported by previous eyewitnesses. This is not so, and because of this, the photo cannot rationally be presented as evidence of a monster in the water.

The postcards

In my initial attempt to get in touch with George Edwards I also got in touch with various other people I know who research Loch Ness sightings. I was surprised to learn from one contact that the photo being presented to the world media by George Edwards was being sold to tourists on a postcard – a postcard which had been on sale for months. In his interviews with various newspapers, George Edwards claimed he didn’t come forward with the photo straight away (after taking it in November 2011) because he was having it examined by “experts”. However the fact that the photo was being sold to tourists prior to him taking the photo to the press makes me doubt the sincerity of the delay in publishing it internationally.

The postcard – Edwards’ latest photo pictures bottom left.

The 1986 photo

In 1986 George Edwards took a different photo he claimed showed the Loch Ness Monster. Of the 1986 photo Dick Raynor says on his website

I remember him telling me at the time how hard it had been to drag the water filled tube out of the back of a van and down to the water before it was towed out into the loch!

One mans word is not evidence of a hoax, of course. However, with the 1986 photo the same problems arise when it comes to presenting the photo as evidence of X when it isn’t known if exists or what the characteristics of X truly are. I truly believe that this photo is just another photo of something unidentified in the water that people are claiming is a monster when there is no supporting evidence for that conclusion. There is no logic to support the conclusion that it is a monster and just because something is unidentified doesn’t mean it is something unidentifiable.

flattr this!

Psychic Medium David Russell knows best… or so he thinks

As the creator and sole organiser of Project Barnum I get a lot of messages from all sorts of people, especially on Twitter. Most of the time it’s people who understand what I’m trying to achieve with Project Barnum, but occasionally I get contacted by someone who believes people can have psychic ability or can act as a medium between the spirit world and this world and takes what Project Barnum aims to do personally. Often Project Barnum gets completely misrepresented, and people try to sound smart in their take down of Project Barnum despite the fact that they’ve completely missed the point.

When I first launched the Project Barnum website, I did an interview for the lovely Kylie Sturgess – you can read it in full here, but there’s a particular quote I want to focus on for a moment. In the interview I was asked why I’d started Project Barnum and I said:

In one episode for the podcast [Righteous Indignation], episode 99, we interviewed a psychic named Litz Butcher and she was very much speaking out against those who use trickery. We interviewed her the day after the Sally Morgan story broke. She said, “I’m so shocked that Sally has potentially done this. I’m disgusted.”

It was something that I’ve heard time and time again with other psychics that we’d interviewed. I said to her, “Why don’t you do something about it?” because she also claimed that she knew numerous psychics who used similar tricks. I said, “Well, Litz, if you think you know, why don’t you speak out about it? I accept that you might be genuine and you think that your ability is genuine, but if you think you know people who are using trickery, why don’t you speak out about it and help to educate people?”

Then Litz said, “Well if I do, that it’s just a can of worms and I don’t really want to deal with that.”

With Project Barnum there has always been the approach that we’re not interested in whether it is possible for people to speak to the dead or tell your fortune, we’re just interested in explaining to people how those people who aren’t at all psychic can make it seem as though they are. Project Barnum achieves this by teaching people about the tricks and methods used by psychic tricksters. Yet, despite being open and honest about this many people just can’t understand what I’m trying to achieve with Project Barnum, and they completely misrepresent what it’s about.

Enter David Russell – a self proclaimed Psychic Medium, who has been tweeting the Project Barnum Twitter account with plastic pearls of ‘wisdom’ about how we’re doing it all wrong. The first time Russell got in touch he shared these gems:

I have no prob with people not believing in mediums but why spend so much energy trying to convince others.I’ve had my proof.
I’m not having a go but why look for the negative ? Why not do something on a greater scale by looking for genuine mediums?

The intention of Project Barnum has never been to ‘convince’ others and to turn them into non-believers. The sole of aim of Project Barnum is to demonstrate how to spot someone using trickery to convince you they are psychic. We do not state anywhere that everyone claiming to be psychic is using these tricks. The aim of Project Barnum has never been to prove that some mediums are genuine either – for one, the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming they are a psychic or a medium. Secondly, it would be hugely biased of me to set out with the intention of proving that something is genuine as I would have started with a conclusion and that is not the way to test a claim with an open mind.

I explained to David Russell what Project Barnum intended to do because, as I pointed out in the quote from the interview I did with Kylie Sturgess, although psychics often agree there is a problem with fraudsters in their industry, they often seem uninterested in actually doing much about it. When I also pointed out to Russell that the Burden of Proof lay with the person making the claim, not the one who is skeptical of said claim he explained to me that

what’s proof to one isn’t to another.

My response was to explain that what he’d just given me was a cliche, to which he explained it was the truth and that he’d seen incredible things that were proof enough to him and all he saw from me was one sided negativity. Now, if one mans definition of proof was not the same as another mans definition of proof then we’d have no facts. Ever. I believe that what Russell was trying to say is ‘what’s good enough for me isn’t good enough for you, so I’ll never convince you‘ or ‘my standard for evidence is set a lot lower than yours‘ or ‘how dare you suggest I should prove anything to you?

A short while later someone called Simon K tweeted Project Barnum to ask:

so when u say ‘fake psychics’ your admitting that there are real ones too?

Oh gee, he got me ther- no wait, no. He didn’t.

Simon has simply misrepresented what Project Barnum is about. We clearly state on the website that we’re not interested in whether any particular psychic is real or actually a trickster, we’re just interested in sharing the tricks used by those people who pretend to be psychic. We hope that by arming people with such information it can help them determine whether they’re being misled when and if they visit a psychic or medium in the future. Knowledge is power.

In response to Simon K’s tweet, Russell tweeted both Simon and Project Barnum to say that some psychics had passed testing in the past to which this little exchange followed

SimonK: tbh mate unless projectbarnum saw a ghost and it said hello then he wouldn’t believe lol
David Russell: pretty sure they wouldn’t own up to it in fear of losing face lol.
SimonK: lol u know it mate :0) just laughable aren’t they XD

Firstly, it’s ‘she’.

Secondly, I have seen what people would describe to be a ghost but I don’t believe it was a dead person because I am aware of the delusions of the mind and the way in which external factors can influence the ways human beings interpret things. I openly admit I have experienced things as a paranormal investigator that I cannot explain, I simply refuse to make illogical leaps of logic when there is no evidence to support the conclusion said leap of logic will have me reach.

I’m always willing to admit I’m wrong, and I do so on a daily basis. I don’t believe that admitting you were wrong about something equals ‘losing face’, but that admitting you were wrong about something actually demonstrates that you keep an open mind about the decisions and conclusions you reach. Think about it.

Finally, while logged in as Project Barnum one day I tweeted ‘Remember folks, the moment you insult someone you disagree with you lose any dignity your argument had. Even Acorah is better than that’ to which Russell responded

what about insulting peoples intelligence ? You do that quite a lot.

If doing what psychics and mediums often refuse to do and teaching the general public about the tricks used by those who pretend to be psychic is insulting peoples intelligence then yes, you’ve got me bang to rights. I’m guilty as charged.

Remember though, people are often shown to be faking psychic ability and using psychological trickery to achieve their deceptions, with Project Barnum I’m trying to show people how to look out for these tricks and how they work. How many Psychic Mediums like David Russell do you see doing the same?

I’ll just leave that thought there and let you ponder a while.

flattr this!

Dear psychics,

I get that you don’t need the $1million that the JREF offer anyone who can prove they have a paranormal ability. I get that the experiences your fans have at your shows and readings are enough proof for them personally, and that you consider this to be good enough for you.

I also understand that some people who doubt your claims are rude and nasty with the comment they make. I get that you might not trust why people want to test you when they offer large amounts of money. I get that you probably genuinely believe you have the abilities you claim to have and that you’re probably not intending to mislead anyone. I understand why you think you don’t owe your critics anything by way of proof to support your claims. I also don’t feel I owe those who criticise me anything!

I get that. I can understand all of that.

However, you DO owe it to your audiences to prove you can do what you say you can. Those people who simply accept that you have the abilities you claim to have are the people you owe it to, to devise and take a test in controlled conditions.

If you don’t need or want the $1million then don’t take it – do a test for free.

Don’t undergo a test to prove your critics wrong, take a test to prove your supporters are right.

Be a decent person.

- Hayley.

flattr this!

Using lasers to hunt ghosts

Last week I wrote an article for the Wiltshire Phenomena Research website about the latest ghost hunting fad, Green laser grids. You can read the article by clicking here.

For those not in the know, Wiltshire Phenomena Research is the investigation team I helped to form back in 2005.

As I’m sure many of my readers are aware, there is a trend amongst ghost research teams to collect and use as many different gadgets as possible while on the search for ghosts. The use of these gadgets is inspired largely by paranormal television shows, as well as misinformation from other researchers.

The latest of these pieces of equipment to be causing excitment in the ghost hunting world is a laser grid that fills a room with small green laser dots that, apparently, will help you spot shadow figures and ghost moving around the room.

Yes, I know, turning the lights on would be easier, cheaper and safer.

Ever since the article was posted we have had a lot of hits to it, mainly from people who are searching for the following.

“laser grid paranormal equipment”

“ghost hunt laser grid”

“laser grid ghosthunters”

“laser grid for ghost hunters”

If you read the article on the WPR site, you will know that the use of laser grids on ghost hunts was first suggested to the masses on Ghost Hunters – a US paranormal television program.

I feel confident enough to say that the majority of people searching the above terms who end up on the WPR site are probably looking to buy a laser grid for their research team.

Isn’t it a sad state of affairs when the majority of people in the research field are taking their tips from television programs that have shown time and time again that they have no interest in rational investigation into paranormal phenomenon?

You only have to read this free PDF, ‘Top 5 ghost hunting mistakes’ by Ben Radford to see how the show Ghost Hunters are anything but scientific.

I think it also shows just how many researchers have double standards when it comes to their methodology. So many people will deny that they are influenced by dodgy paranormal television shows, yet they copy everything the television shows promote.

It’s very doubtful that Jason and Grant from the show Ghost Hunters will read this, but if they do I have one thing to ask them. In the next episode you film, will you please wear foil hats?

I cannot tell you how much I would love to see copy cat ghost hunters wandering around a graveyard with a green laser grid pointer, an K2 meter, a night vision camcorder, a dictaphone and a foil hat.

It would make my day.

flattr this!