Haunted Earth - Fools or Idealists?
In the years that I have been examining the paranormal, I`ve encountered schools of varying opinion as to what they feel the paranormal really is.
`Open scepticism` is a much vaunted expression, but rarely practised by it`s adherents, as it indicates moderation and a willingness to remain open to all possibilities, but in practice it is sometimes a mask to conceal a deeper and unhealthier desire to bury the reality of what paranormality really is by employing `abstract reasoning` to their arguments.
This was denounced as a giant `hair` despite it emerging from a cupboard doorway , and despite it being reactive to my presence. A real hair would be much smaller, and of course this was moving against a draught coming from the main door opposite.
An example of this would be offering `a solution` to an act or event captured on film which they (without any regard to the season or location) can best explain away as an answer that might fit, rather than with something that is pertinent.
A case point from a real life investigation
Let`s say an orb like energy is captured interacting with a cameraman on a night investigation.
Despite the fact that the event was captured in late winter, and in a freezing environment without any indication of other insect life, the anomaly has to be a bug - because nothing else in their own imagination can fit this construct. But, as the cameraman explains, `why is the bug hovering around me, and remaining virtually static in one spot?`
The next `solution` is to create a species for this bug that might (despite the fact it`s still a very cold winter) give a `logical` explanation for that too, and in this case it becomes a gnat (and still a solitary one)which is seeking the warm blood of the cameraman.
Of course, this disregards the intelligence, experience, and onsite observations of the investigator and in effect shows the commentator`s own ignorance because it is an `opinion` and one that ignores relevant facts that the cameraman has already noted and explained.
So now we enter into a fantasy opinion that soon in the minds of other similar `sceptics` becomes fact - and still disregarding the explanation of the cameraman who was actually there and experiencing this phenomena.
At this juncture the investigator now offers another observation that kills the `bug` theory (and is recorded on film) of the `bug` splitting in two and shooting off in two different locations.
This is an event meticulously recorded and shown in slow motion. When offered to the `sceptic`, he/she unsurprisingly cannot see it because that would be admitting that their logic was flawed.
So now we have an `open minded sceptic` who not only fantasises opinion but suffers with an apparent selective viewing disorder.
More ramblings from a sceptical mind
When I capture and share activity, I do not expect everyone to immediately accept and embrace it, for that would be naive to the extreme. I would therefore want the viewer to look at everything that is shared and to conclude on the evidence or lack of evidence offered.
Sharing any form of alleged paranormal activity for me is always a minefield - especially when asserting paranormality on a seemingly obvious explainable occurrence like a bat.
My recent collection of best paranormal events shared on YouTube as, `THE MOST HAUNTED GHOSTLY BUILDING IN ENGLAND` attracted widespread `sceptic` condemnation - and again after they disregarded all the facts that were shared by me on the video.
Look from 02:47 to see a `bat` fly into a concrete roof
Yes, a bat is a generally expected creature on a paranormal investigation, but not a bat that is actually filmed flying up into a concrete roof.
So despite revealing that clip on the same video, the sceptic uses another tool in their armoury, which is that of `selective memory`.
Showing anything that contradicts their `logical` argument is a real bone of contention for them.
They know that by acknowledging this event they would be dismissing their own observations, and that simply isn`t done, so they ignore it completely and continue on with the attack.
The biggest and most single controversial paranormal subject has to be the existence of `orbs` as being spiritual activity. I have studied this phenomena for many years and have released many videos on Youtube that shares my studies in detail.
I have shared what bugs, dust and water vapour looks like on IR and digital still, and despite covering to a satisfying degree as to how one determines and differentiates between all examples, the sceptic still suffers with a memory of convenience.
I quite often would direct them to my research work on video, but rather than be faced with persuasive evidence that contradicts their opinions, they still persist with their attacks that all orbs are explainable anomalies.
Here is a very active energy in my own home that appeared on demand. `Sceptics` denounced this as a headlamp from a car - despite showing that this room faced onto gardens.
An example I want to refer to is that on some videos I am able to `see` orb activity in the dark, and on some occasions the activity I am referring too actually appears on film.
My contention is simply this, `If orbs are dust, why am I sometimes able to report this activity on video and in total darkness?`
Now most `sceptics` persist in ignoring quoted examples, and blithely continue with their biased denunciations. But once, just once, I had a `sceptical` paranormal group on Facebook actually respond to a video clip I shared to show how that was possible. And the reply from one person was that I have had my eyes `polished` by laser to see in the dark!
When I asked him how this was possible - outside the realms of science fiction, his colleagues rallied around him to say that we had both our own opinions and left the matter at that.
And these were people that had written their own `scientific paper` that had `conclusively proved` all orbs were dust motes. Hardly were they open minded sceptics.
Some examples where I can see spiritual energy in total darkness through the naked eye.
I have also noted from sceptics that when they start to lose the `moral high ground`, they quote `scientific evidence` as proof that paranormal activity has been proven to be false.
In reality, scientists that believe this to be so are merely offering an opinion as they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the paranormal from any perspective.
And of course, from anyone that supports belief in the paranormal the answer is still the same.
My professional background was in analytical research with the police.
I was chosen to perform that role because I was able to collect and disseminate data on criminal activity to a high standard which was shared to undercover units to develop `targets` through observations and informants.
I wasn`t chosen because I was a naive fool, but because of my critical ability to assess information from variety of sources and arrive at a likely scenario of future crime trends and those employed in committing them.
For that work I was commended, and having left the police I employ the same practices with my work in the paranormal.
I am further `lucky` that I can embrace the spiritual too, and employ both disciplines to delve deeper and further into this last frontier of the unknown.
If people do not want to believe in the paranormal then I can accept that, but I cannot and will not allow narrow-minded individuals to bury and deny others the opportunity to experience something that many accept as truly wonderful and amazing to the extreme.
Ignorance is stupidity, and stupidity is the last stumbling block that humanity has yet to clear in it`s inevitable journey towards true spirituality.
Thoughts and Conclusions
I am lucky that I am one of the few full time researchers and investigators of the paranormal, and am indeed fortunate that I can make documentaries of my research to share.
I think true and honest scepticism is very much a minority opinion, and I believe many `sceptics` are people who are genuinely fearful of `ghosts` and what some describe to be `demons`.
If they can push it far enough away in their collective consciences, it makes them less frightened of `the unknown`.
To a degree we are all like that, but fortunately many of us are willing to be open enough to be able to experience this, and it is `believers` like us who are all on the frontier working and experiencing this phenomena to share with the world. And for that I feel truly privileged.
Chris Halton 2011