|
NORTHLAND FARMHOUSE - OUR CONCLUSIONS |
|
|
|
|
| EDWARD KANN'S CONCLUSIONS In my opinion the Ghost Vigil crew led by Mark has done an outstanding job on their first field investigation. Without the opportunity to attend the investigation first hand I feel that I can offer only a very limited personal opinion on the Farmhouse and whether paranormal activity is present at the location. Paranormal activity would suggest activity which is outside of the normal and is usually reserved for activity and in this case would be considered activity which is related to some sort of spirit or supernatural activity at the site. I support the TAPS standard which allows for eyewitness experiences which did not occur during the actual investigation. My understanding of the TAPS standard is that while eyewitness testimony or stories are intrigueing that they do not provide evidence of paranormal activity as it relates to the investigation itself. I think what we are trying to find and record here is specific evidence of paranormal activity during the investigation. Looking over the statements of the investigators and the photographic evidence gathered during the on-site investigation I am forced to conclude that no clear evidence of any paranormal activity was gathered during the on-site investigation. My conclusion therefore is that there was no paranormal activity observed at the site during the investigation. That is not to say that paranormal activity has not manifested at the site at other times, however, I think that with what we have to work with from this first field investigation that I am going to conclude that there is no current paranormal activity taking place at this time, as far as I can tell. CHRIS STEVENS' CONCLUSIONS Hypothesis: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed. Following this basic theorem of physics, a similar hypothesis is considered; the life force of sentient beings cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed. Theory: None exists at this time. A goal of GVI is to establish a theory that contains a set of statements that explain a group of phenomena, which has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about other phenomena based on observations and objective diagnosis. Methodology: Ideally, a laboratory study would be incorporated that was reproducible with repeatable observations under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of phenomenon occurring during an investigation. It's like trying to find lightning when you don't know anything about lightning. If you go out on a sunny day, you probably won't find any. Scientific Instrumentation: GVI seeks first to exclude all natural causes for reported activity before making a paranormal determination. However, there is no 'Paranormeter' that is recognized by the scientific community. It is interesting that some groups believe the only 'valid' means to collect data is with mundane instruments. GVI uses technology to uncover natural causes for effects and only offers observed data in conjunction with sensory data as evidence of the paranormal. In the early days of psychology, there was no way to scientifically verify the symptoms of the mentally ill. The feelings of patients were relied upon to develop theories that are used today. Therefore, first hand, eye-witness accounts should be considered in evidentiary discovery. Of course the credibility of the witness and environmental conditions should be evaluated. Evidence from investigation... Ocular Sensations: I experienced two ocular sensations, both in the NW Bedroom. The first time was during an EVP in the NW Bedroom, (the same room that I felt touched). I had just arrived at the site. Flickering lights were in my peripheral vision. It was similar to applying electrical stimulation to the temples. The second time was also in the NW Bedroom. This occurrence was much more intense throughout my field of vision and lasting several minutes. Aportment: At one point, the three of us were in the front room; Mark was explaining the difference between apparitions and aportments. At that time, I stated, "we have an aportment of our own over here." I smelled a foul odor I thought was emanating from Mike. Everyone denied that they were the producers of the odor. We checked our shoes and found nothing. No one else smelled the odor. Psychokinesis: I was alone in the NW Bedroom taking video. I was rotating in place sweeping the room with my camera when I was "touched" on the back of the head. It felt like I had backed into a string hanging from a light. I turned and nothing was there. This is the bedroom where the little girl was touched on the head and shoulders. I did not know that this was the little girl's bedroom until after reporting being touched. We could not find anything hanging from the ceiling or in the area I was standing that could have made me feel that way. Just to note that when the three of us went back into the bedroom, Mark indicated that he felt something touch his hair. He immediately said it probably was power of suggestion. Apparition/EVP: As previously noted, the video of the face in the glass is noteworthy by itself. However, what I find interesting are the conditions prior to the face appearing. Mark was in the back bedroom making one last request for the entity to reveal itself. Mark said, "This is your last chance to show us you are here. This house will be demolished in a few days." It was at this point that the face appeared. The expression of anguish in the face is congruent with losing its residence. Conclusion: Based on the history of the site, eye-witness accounts, evidence collected at the site and first hand observations, it is my opinion that paranormal activity is present at this location. As this is not a lab with repeatable and reproducible scientific criteria, absolute proof will have to wait another day. MARK STINSON'S CONCLUSIONS Let's get the big question and answer out of the way right off the bat. From a professional and scientific standpoint, can I assert that during our on-site investigation we found proof-positive of paranormal activity at the Northland Farmhouse? My answer would have to be, "No." But do I personally feel there is paranormal activity at the farmhouse? Yes, I suspect it is. The first-hand stories of paranormal activity that I have been told about the house by past residents build on each other, and begin to argue a case that this is a haunted house. During our investigation several incidents reaffirmed this finding for me personally. None of these incidents on their own prove anything, but considered together and in combination with the first-hand accounts, they support my personal leanings that the house is haunted. The first of these incidents was the way the video camera would not work properly in the SW bedroom. In the rest of the farmhouse the camera needed very little attention to keep it running. But in the SW bedroom, a thumb had to be firmly held on the battery to keep the connection between battery and camera from being broken. This occurred throughout the investigation and almost every time we went into the room. See the Strange Events section of this investigation report for all the details on this incident. The second indication was Chris feeling like his head was touched in the NW bedroom, and then my own feeling of getting touched on the head in that room. Chris did not know the NW bedroom was the room of the 12-year-old girl that was always being touched by something unseen in the farmhouse, and especially in her bedroom. See the Strange Events section of this investigation report for all the details on this incident and the Background & History section to read about the 12-year-old girl. Again, I don't feel this incident in itself proves anything, but it continues to build a case for me personally. The third indication was the "face in the glass" captured on video tape in the SW bedroom. See the Face in the Glass section of this investigation report to see the video and to read our analysis of what appears there. It can be argued that the "face" is the result of matrixing and that its actually a simulacra. Honestly, that's a question we'll never be able to resolve with certainty. But for reasons I go into in that section of the report, I don't believe its just matrixing. I personally feel it is something more than that. So that brings us to my conclusion about the investigation. I do not believe that from a professional or scientific standpoint we have solid proof of a haunting at the Northland Farmhouse. The evidence we gathered can all be potentially explained away by natural causes. But on a personal level, based on the large number of past paranormal reports at the farmhouse and some of our experiences during the investigation, I believe there is something going on at the house that we do not fully understand. DAVE BERG'S CONCLUSIONS While I keep an open mind regarding evidence, I must say that this investigation provided little that I would consider as “scientifically sound” proof of paranormal activity. Both Chris and Mark reported a tactile sensory experience, but could not discount the effects of static electricity, wind, or other scientific explanations for the events. I would have to rule these as interesting personal experiences. Without having been on scene and there being no other corroborating evidence, I really can’t say that they were paranormal experiences. Mark indicated that the house was drafty and very old. It was wintertime and cold dry air, which is a great precursor for static electricity, can cause your hair to feel like it was touched when a static field is involved. The experiences described are also not backed up by other reading that may have demonstrated the events as paranormal. It would have been nice if the team recorded some other disturbance like an EM reading that corresponded with the event. I may have concluded differently. The only other notable phenomenon that was discussed was the face in the glass. In itself, this was not particularly compelling. It was the combined image in the glass and the very striking graffiti in one of the adjacent rooms that makes this so intriguing. There is a definite similarity between the two images. Both are clown-like or depict an eerie jester-like figure. It is odd that both of these images exist in the same investigation. It is also odd that the reflection appears in such a timely point when Mark is nearly asking them to take form. I am not comfortable simply saying that all of this is coincidental. As I explained to Mark, this is a bit of evidence that needs further investigation. Who drew the graffiti? Why was it drawn? Is there some correlation between the two? Mark indicates his childhood memory is that one of the “friends” was akin to a dark blob. Is this the same entity? Does the clown symbolism have merit? There are many reports of clown-like ghosts. Some people even have a fear of clowns. It is termed Coulrophobia. Look at this image of John Gacey. He was reported to dress up as a clown and entertain children. Now that’s scary! Ok, back to being serious. I have to say that the image in the glass is insufficient by itself to call evidentiary. It is however, a lead. It is something the group should try to learn more about. With additional information, it may stand as evidence. By itself, it is merely an interesting video artifact. Having reviewed the video, it is not the only face that could be picked out in the window. A face of a black man, and a young boy both appeared. They were both partial in form and lacked the duration that the clown demonstrated. I believe that this is why Mark chose to discount them. Perhaps that was a mistake, as one of the “childhood friends” was a black man and the young girl’s report of paranormal activity seemed playful and child like. Sorry Mark, evidence is evidence. In a courtroom, you have to put it all up for review, even if it doesn’t meet your standards. Maybe they are simulacrum, maybe not. I would let others decide. To Mark’s defense, I know that he does not want to mislead people and is unlikely to report things that might be considered reaching for evidence. My final conclusion is that there is very likely paranormal activity at the location. Too many reports of activity exist; the frequency and longevity also weigh in on this conclusion. The reports are from many witnesses and some of them are from people I consider reputable (yes that’s Mark I talking about). He obviously has a lot to be lost to report false information so I give his reports more weight than most. Additionally, circumstantial evidence seems to exist as well. As for evidence being collected during this brief investigation, I have to say “maybe?” Proverbially, you have a smoking gun, but is it the one that shot JFK? The only way to know is to run down any leads that you may be able to find. You may learn if the image in the window is more than just a trick of the mind’s eye. For my part, I think that I will start doing a little research into this “clown” phenomenon to see if it leads anywhere, perhaps we are looking at something bigger than expected or that has yet to be defined. |
|
|