Monday, 20 January 2014

Hauntings- Best Evidence by Don Philips

Hauntings- Best Evidence from GSI Paranormal UK can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr8yU-rj0Qs.
This new film by Don Philips is a follow up to two previous productions he did, this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIwR5G51DY.
And this one, a joint production with HPANWO TV, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ghostly-goings-on.html.

In this video Don interviews the staff at The Chequers Inn in Ullesthorpe, Leicestershire. The newly-appointed landlord has seen and heard strange things in his pub, which dates back to the 1700's, including an elderly woman sitting in a corner knitting; the most common recurring apparition is of a young girl called "Alice". Similar reports have come from customers and former staff dating back many years. One barman saw a small girl in a white dress running around; she disappeared into thin air when he looked away for a moment. The same man also experienced apparent poltergeist activity when he was struck on the head by a coin; not a modern coin either but an old halfpenny dated 1964 which is not legal tender today and so is unlikely to have been found lying around in the bar. Was this an apport, a physical object that materializes by spirit activity? The inn definitely a has a reputation for supernatural activity. As you often find in haunted locations, there are manifest records of death and destruction. An unknown grave was recently unearthed there after Don's spirit guides told him about it. There was apparently a major fire in the building some time during the 19th century which resulted in many deaths, including a young girl named Alice; we explain the details in the previous films linked above. Both the landlord and one of the barmaids state that they were initially sceptical, but changed their minds later on.

Don's team picked up many EVP- Electronic Voice Phenomenon, recordings during this investigation (although he prefers the term AVP- "Actual Voice Phenomenon"). At one point a child-like whisper appeared on a recorder saying very distinctly: "I'm not scared". Another male voice announced: "I'm fucking with your head!" and "You fucker!" Spirits don't always respect polite company! The most amazing incidents were when they heard voices live while they were filming. There was a child's voice saying "Mummy?" very loudly, and later on Don heard a voice saying "Mrs Wright". Also the chiming of a clock was heard when the pub doesn't have one. The night vision cameras also picked up several strange shapes. Don's team is somewhat notorious in the paranormal investigation community. There's a lot of controversy surrounding his work. Many members of both ASSAP and The Society for Psychical Research have criticized him harshly, but he is very respectful and professional at all times when on an investigation and follows a strict code of conduct. He is quite open in his methods and allows all the equipment he uses to be examined at all times. In the end what counts is the evidence, nothing else. Hopefully a time will come when his contribution will gain the recognition it deserves.

27 comments:

Trystan said...

The issue is that Don collects supposed evidence using fatally flawed methodologies. He then presents the results to people as 'proof' of what is happening. I suggest he is essentially chasing 'ghosts' of his own creation. Given the importance of EVP to his methodology, have a read of http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/01/22/when-the-dead-start-speaking/

Trystan said...

The issue is that Don collects supposed evidence using fatally flawed methodologies. He then presents the results to people as 'proof' of what is happening. I suggest he is essentially chasing 'ghosts' of his own creation. Given the importance of EVP to his methodology, have a read of http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/01/22/when-the-dead-start-speaking/

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Sure, Trystan, I always look at both sides of the story.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Blogger Ben Emlyn-Jones said...
I also covered some of the issues in your article in my last interview with Don: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/programme-66-podcast-don-philips.html

Don Philips said...

Thanks for that Ben, I see Mr Swayle is still full of charm & open mindedness, people can make up their own minds & everyone is entitled to their own conclusions even if some do present themselves with a less than professional method of inquiry & review.

As far as getting into trouble with the advertising standards authority matter,well no they followed up a complaint, I informed them what I state still stands as far as whats advertised is concerned and I'm more than happy to take things as far as need be. I even invited them along with me,they went away and nothing else was heard. 'That's the factually correct version of events',I do happen to have the recorded telephone conversion should you wish to hear it at anytime Ben?

And no! Don does not get upset easily by derogative comments from bloggers
1. past that stage along time ago it goes with the turf & 2. the way some people present themselves often paints a poorer picture of themselves than those their grumbling about.3. It's often the case some bloggers are as controversial as possible towards others one of the reasons being to draw attention to themselves.

I, have now teamed up with S.E.P (The Scientific Establishment of Parapsychology) who shall be on occasion be witness to live phenomena such as over seeing planned experiments + control's and also responsible for analysis using all available scientific methods of all further submitted evidence and review / finalized reports. I look forward to our association & their own findings. Speak soon Ben.

Whilst quoting past study as some form of defense to any argument,that's fine but any logic would also suggest this in itself does not and cannot be taken as complete certainty when used to hypothesize about new experiments.
If that were to be the case why research anything" we already did that" Past data is however used to compare data from previous experiments to determine the likely cause & most probable explanation. That said there is an exception to many rules and the willingness to accept new possibilities is how science & mankind has progressed. I I have no Malice towards Mr Swayle it's just him being his usual self. Hope you had a good Xmas and new year Trystan

Trystan said...

Ben, I will listen to that interview and probably blog in response.

Don, in response:

>>'Thanks for that Ben, I see Mr Swayle is still full of charm & open mindedness, people can make up their own minds & everyone is entitled to their own conclusions'

Thanks Don, I aim to please. The problems potentially arise though when you are providing individuals, as you have done, with supposed proof that their house is haunted. This is based upon little more than the subjective, unscientific, unsafe and extremely unreliable evidence you provide them in an unethical manner.

>>'even if some do present themselves with a less than professional method of inquiry & review.'

If you're branding me unprofessional Don, I used to work with PSI in Wiltshire who operated by a strict code of ethics. That's something you don't do. It means you don't lie on a bed in a hotel and pretend a succubus wants to get jiggy with you.

PSI operated on the principle of using the best possible methodology using the best possible equipment. Oddly enough, this 'less than professional' individual used to compile their report and once came second in ASSAP's Michael Bentine prize for a report into an investigation of a haunting. From what I recall, ASSAP's president withdrew from a project with you Don, after he learned of the unethical methods you used.

>>'As far as getting into trouble with the advertising standards authority matter,well no they followed up a complaint, I informed them what I state still stands as far as whats advertised is concerned and I'm more than happy to take things as far as need be. I even invited them along with me,they went away and nothing else was heard. 'That's the factually correct version of events',I do happen to have the recorded telephone conversion should you wish to hear it at anytime Ben?'

They offered you some advice about the wording of a misleading claim you made on your website, Don. One that rapidly disappeared. The letter I received from the ASA explained what happened.

>>'And no! Don does not get upset easily by derogative comments from bloggers
1. past that stage along time ago it goes with the turf & 2. the way some people present themselves often paints a poorer picture of themselves than those their grumbling about.3. It's often the case some bloggers are as controversial as possible towards others one of the reasons being to draw attention to themselves.'

1. I'm pleased to hear it.

2 & 3. Lovely points, although not relevant in this discussion. I call unethical bs where I see it. There's a difference between roaming around a mansion hired out for events, and telling someone their house is haunted. As I've mentioned before, I've seen what can happen to people who have been told they have a ghost at home or at their place of work. It doesn't always end happily. What's especially sad, in both cases is that the 'evidence' for the haunting had no scientific basis of whatsoever, as neither do the methods you utilise to reach your conclusions.

'I, have now teamed up with S.E.P (The Scientific Establishment of Parapsychology) who shall be on occasion be witness to live phenomena such as over seeing planned experiments + control's and also responsible for analysis using all available scientific methods of all further submitted evidence and review / finalized reports. I look forward to our association & their own findings. Speak soon Ben.'

I would challenge the assertion that SEP are a scientific organisation. From what I understand they are associated with MAPIT. Pleasant people, but not utilising scientific methodology.

Severnside Centre for Fortean Research said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trystan said...

>>'Whilst quoting past study as some form of defense to any argument,that's fine but any logic would also suggest this in itself does not and cannot be taken as complete certainty when used to hypothesize about new experiments.'

You're exactly right, but the problem is the experiments you have conducted, and the methodologies you use, have extremely poor protocols.

>>'Past data is however used to compare data from previous experiments to determine the likely cause & most probable explanation.'

But if the past data you're using is flawed, then there is a strong danger that applying it will lead to further flaws. Look at poor old Konstantin Raudive.

>>'That said there is an exception to many rules and the willingness to accept new possibilities is how science & mankind has progressed.'

If something is a rule, it doesn't have an exception, Don. Basic logic. And you're right, science moves forward by adjusting its view in light of new evidence. But that doesn't validate your findings as scientifically sound or correct, or methods as ethical!

>>'I I have no Malice towards Mr Swayle it's just him being his usual self.'

I'm a wonder, Don.

>>'Hope you had a good Xmas and new year Trystan'

Same to you. As I've said to Ben, I would be more than happy to do a show somewhere with you at some point in the not too distant future. I'd merrily go through the methods you use and highlight their limitations and the assumptions that accompany them.

Don Philips said...

Cognitive dissonance - springs to mind :) goodbye Mr Swayle

Trystan Swale said...

You do know what cognitive dissonance means, Don? It's clearly easier to run away than engage and address the points I've raised. Oh well.

Don Philips said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trystan said...

Ah, so you're not addressing the issues. Just running off and playing avoidance games.

By the way, you do realise I wrote that article on how to be a celebrity skeptic to highlight some what was going at the time? It was actually a humorous swipe containing some self-deprecating irony. (Skeptics couldn't really complain about it as they would be guilty of what it accused them of, nevermind the article itself also demonstrated same features.) You don't parody, no?

That's ironic given you're posting on the website of a 'mere blogger' whose parody videos cost him his job. I give Ben more respect than that though.

Also, I did outline my past earlier, but you missed the boat. For the record, I can operate a dictaphone too. That makes us equally qualified. I can tie my shoelaces as well.

Don Philips said...

What connects resistance to new scientific theories ? The psychological phenomenon known as (cognitive dissonance)< few people seem to appreciate that cognitive dissonance is not a rare event experienced only by those with strong religious beliefs, but rather a known flaw in the operating system of the human mind".--- Trystan' having looked into the credentials of SEP,I can assure you they are more than qualified to analyze & review my work than yourself as they dont form conclusions from assumptions (that would not be logical or scientific!! It is you who stated it's you who said "In order to become a (celebrity sceptic), be as controversial rude & loud as possible to draw attention to yourself & get noticed, rub shoulders with career sceptics" or words to that effect (remember that?)I guess your not there yet but still trying eh? this in itself displays an underline objective & hardly makes your arguments credible. QUOTE "I would challenge the assertion that SEP are a scientific organisation" = then do it to them ?
> Past data is however used to compare data from previous experiments to determine the likely cause & most probable explanation.'< I was referring to your comparison on past research relating to evp so your response makes no sense at all. You seem to have some notion that I am accountable to you ? Tristan Im not, your nobody, your opinions dont matter, you have done nothing but post condescending blogs about me since day one. You dont know me, never spoke or worked with me. Had you shown a little more in the way of benefit of the doubt in the 1st place, id have been happy to bring you along.Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with your ((How to become a celebrity sceptic guide)) so instead you chose the more illogical route of assumption and ridicule based logic. So no, I'm not interested in you or your opinions for that reason. Your version of events are also more than a little questionable! I'm done here Trystan,but good luck with the celebrity sceptic thing.

Trystan said...

Oh dear, he's deleted his comment now. Night night, Don.

Don Philips said...

Lastly: to make clear, "the mere blogger comment was aimed at you not Ben",you numpty lol
Ben's blog Ive always found informative, factual, >fair & polite< and presented well. Hes able to get his point across without ridicule and being offensive, the opposite to some ss I have of other's pages. All in all very representative of what an informative blog should be & a credit to him. Im finished now !!

Trystan said...

No Don, you're not accountable to me, but in a situation where you are potentially dealing with the well being of members of the public I consider your methods unethical. Just as I do you posting details of a child you claimed to communicating with, just two years after they died. Don't you get how unethical that is?

As such I am perfectly entitled to call you out. You don't like that because I'm questioning both your ethical stance as someone offering a service, and the basic underlying scientific principles of the methods you're using.

You seem to be reading way too much into that 'skeptical celebrity' stuff, totally missing the point of the whole thing. It's very funny, especially as I have had very minimal involvement with skepticism side then. It highlighted how certain people could achieve celebrity status by stirring the pot, not actually having any particular skill. Even so, it's not relevant. I'm not the one offering a service to the public where ethics are applicable. You are. I'm a hobby folklorist and former Fortean investigator. I'm not offering any service to the wider public. But when I did I ensured I followed an ethical code.

You're griping that I'm using 'past research' but you can't reach a conclusion before an experiment has occurred. Please present me with evidence that disproves the sources I quoted. Do that and we'll start getting somewhere.

Don Philips said...

QUOTE:

so instead you chose the more illogical route of assumption and ridicule based logic. So no, I'm not interested in you or your opinions for that reason.<--ABSORB-->GOODBYE

Trystan said...

Could you repost that with the insertion of the appropriate grammar? Then I may have some idea of the point you're trying to make. Thanks!

Trystan said...

A follow up, of sorts:

http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/01/31/don-phillips-too-scared-to-talk/

Don Philips said...


I personally find this allot more interesting with some very recognizable traits displayed:
http://www.examiner.com/article/narcissistic-personalities

Trystan said...

Anything to detract from the issue, eh?

Had a go over at http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder.html

Afraid to say I scored 30% narcissistic personality. Ah well.

Don Philips said...

The wonderful thing is, people can make up their own minds of what fair representation is & fair balanced adult debate & what is a personal vendetta and fabrication.

Unfortunately your blog is not representative of anything more than someone who does not understand the concept of logic, normal reasoning & constructive open & fair debate which is clearly obvious to me and anyone with a half functioning brain cell!! as such NO I wont engage you on radio or anywhere else, but rather than me being afraid too ‘as both & your ego suggests’you now have a more detailed explanation for that reason.

If you fail to understand that id suggest you explore your own rationality in more detail.

I have always made clear I will only deal with those who have are polite, show some genuine professionalism & few manners,& at least some basic understanding of what a constructive debate is.

THE REST OF THIS FINAL REPLY IS HERE :http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/01/31/don-phillips-too-scared-to-talk/

Don Philips said...

Just a radio interview! O.I.C https://www.facebook.com/ForteanTimes/posts/593830437302273

Trystan said...

Great job. Once again you're going for me rather than addressing the points I've raised.

And by quoting Vebjørn Hästehufvud, which is a fake identity used by . . . Sean Manchester of all people! The man who claims to have slain vampires and a girl turned into a giant spider. Lol! Have a read here for some information:

http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2013/12/19/byrne-or-bullshitter/

Trystan said...

You can have a listen to the show itself here: http://www.forteanfolklore.com/forteanradio/2013/03/02/episode-3-anthony-hogg/

Anonymous said...

I found this clip of a Don Philips poem Trystan which may cheer you up. Looks like it was done by some radio DJ and posted to facebook. Found it quite funny pmsl..

https://www.facebook.com/mark.vernon.754/videos/766209520150403/