Stocksbridge Bypass Ghost

[oldrover]

This is the thing isn't it. Memory is a funny thing. Even the first time you tell about something that happened to you, you've probably been going over it in your head for hours, days, weeks. And by the time you've turned it into an actual Tellable Anecdote, you've already edited and drawn out what you think's most relevant or interesting. you start to remember the memory not the original incident. I suppose that's how memory gets formed?

Absolutely. We remember remembering not the event itself. We can deceive ourselves so easily even when we're trying our best to be objective.

two and a bit years down the line, how many times had PC Ellis recounted his tale? Perhaps he HAD just forgotten that detail about the v-neck shape, perhaps he'd left it out of his story after a while and then forgot it. The two programmes' accounts tally in other respects, don't you think? I don't see it as much of a contradiction, myself, but maybe I'm just being more lenient than you and I shouldn't be. But I kind of think he's just retelling his story (again, go on Mr Ellis, tell us that story of yours about the ghost again) by the later programme and so we have to see it in a different light?

The reason it strikes me as being so problematic is because a visual memory like that would I think be the strongest, so I'm struggling to imagine that detail would have been forgotten. Vision (I think) is our primary sense. I think you'd forget a detail about sequence of events, even sounds, but a sighting of something that close to you would stay, it'd be the first thing you'd recall. That said I'm no psychologist.

One thing in his favour - I don't know who the people are in your own research of course - but one thing in Ellis's favour is that he was a policeman, and trained to Observe Things. He'd be a much better observer than most people. In fact in his account he slips into peculiar Police Observer language (stuff about "the vehicle" when we'd just say car). Also, surely he must have written down his report soon after all this actually happened? Even if he didn't put in the weird bits in his official police paperwork, I bet he wrote it all down out of the sheer police habit of writing down observations and evidence? Speculation, but I'd be intrigued to know the answer.

My lot are about five scientists, the Tasmanian commissioner of police, and the alderman of Hobart City Council, and I agree completely with what you'd say his police training, which is similar in its emphasis on accurately recording facts as my scientist's training. I'm seriously having to ask questions about them though. But you're right you would expect him to have recorded it accurately. As far as I recall though this isn't the only time police have contradicted themselves in this type of incident, I'm pretty sure the two officers who attended the initial appearance of the Enfield 'Poltergeist' gave different versions of what they remembered experiencing in subsequent interviews. Maybe a barrister would be the best person to ask about how reliable police testimony actually is?

Another thing I'd love to know - after that business in the car with the figure at the windows and John Beet screaming, what on earth would have possessed them to stick around?!! I'd of been out of there double quick!

And also to note, the actual experiences happened in 1987, seven years before the Strange But True episode.

I think they stuck around because they were the police. As Dick Ellis said, it wasn't long after the Miner's Strike and they were probably pretty hardened. As he also says though, they checked under the car and searched for footprints which to me indicates at least that they were still acting as if they were acting on the assumption that 'someone' had spooked them, rather than 'something'. Also perhaps staying put and doing their job was some sort of default setting in their minds which might have been their first response by conditioning or it may have been a comfortingly familiar reaction for them.

Seven years is a long time for anyone to hold a memory to reasonably objective extent, even for a policeman or a scientist. I think we tend to rely more on their testimony than others, but should we?

 

[sloop]

Ah I see, a bit like the sighting by Graham and Nigel, with part of the figure invisible beneath the road. But in your sighting, all of the legs, rather than from the shins down.

I only took torso to mean just a body (no head or legs/arms) because that's it's dictionary definition. So I guess that's why I didn't twig about the hooded bit. I suppose with a fairly shapeless bit of clothing like a hooded cape, you'd not be so aware of the wrong proportions of head:body when you saw it?

I'm not trying to be an arse but 'torso' isn't that common a word (maybe why you think it includes the head) - but it's a word that PC Ellis used because he had the impression of somebody's body blocking his car window. Maybe that's why you used it, because you'd heard it on the video?

The 'invisible legs' thing is also something from the video.

I suppose you'd seen the video before you went out on your ghost hunt. So how do you ensure you're not letting the things in the video influence your interpretation of whatever you see while you're out there?

Ok, I'm being silly, it's a rhetorical question really, I don't suppose anyone can and if I went to stocksbridge I'd be seeing legless monks in every shadow, because that's what I'd be expecting.

Again, I'm not trying to be an arse but on this message board we like to get to the meat and bone of things, and so as it's your sighting, could you explain what made you believe you were looking at the upper half of a ghostly monk rather than an earthly shadow of some sort?

Also, how did you work out that its legs were missing - did you get everyone into their original positions and send someone to the spot to compare their size?

Ah I see, a bit like the sighting by Graham and Nigel, with part of the figure invisible beneath the road. But in your sighting, all of the legs, rather than from the shins down.

I only took torso to mean just a body (no head or legs/arms) because that's it's dictionary definition. So I guess that's why I didn't twig about the hooded bit. I suppose with a fairly shapeless bit of clothing like a hooded cape, you'd not be so aware of the wrong proportions of head:body when you saw it?

I'm not trying to be an arse but 'torso' isn't that common a word (maybe why you think it includes the head) - but it's a word that PC Ellis used because he had the impression of somebody's body blocking his car window. Maybe that's why you used it, because you'd heard it on the video?

The 'invisible legs' thing is also something from the video.

I suppose you'd seen the video before you went out on your ghost hunt. So how do you ensure you're not letting the things in the video influence your interpretation of whatever you see while you're out there?

Ok, I'm being silly, it's a rhetorical question really, I don't suppose anyone can and if I went to stocksbridge I'd be seeing legless monks in every shadow, because that's what I'd be expecting.

Again, I'm not trying to be an arse but on this message board we like to get to the meat and bone of things, and so as it's your sighting, could you explain what made you believe you were looking at the upper half of a ghostly monk rather than an earthly shadow of some sort?

Also, how did you work out that its legs were missing - did you get everyone into their original positions and send someone to the spot to compare their size?

 

[sloop]

Ah I see, a bit like the sighting by Graham and Nigel, with part of the figure invisible beneath the road. But in your sighting, all of the legs, rather than from the shins down.

I only took torso to mean just a body (no head or legs/arms) because that's it's dictionary definition. So I guess that's why I didn't twig about the hooded bit. I suppose with a fairly shapeless bit of clothing like a hooded cape, you'd not be so aware of the wrong proportions of head:body when you saw it?

I'm not trying to be an arse but 'torso' isn't that common a word (maybe why you think it includes the head) - but it's a word that PC Ellis used because he had the impression of somebody's body blocking his car window. Maybe that's why you used it, because you'd heard it on the video?

The 'invisible legs' thing is also something from the video.

I suppose you'd seen the video before you went out on your ghost hunt. So how do you ensure you're not letting the things in the video influence your interpretation of whatever you see while you're out there?

Ok, I'm being silly, it's a rhetorical question really, I don't suppose anyone can and if I went to stocksbridge I'd be seeing legless monks in every shadow, because that's what I'd be expecting.

Again, I'm not trying to be an arse but on this message board we like to get to the meat and bone of things, and so as it's your sighting, could you explain what made you believe you were looking at the upper half of a ghostly monk rather than an earthly shadow of some sort?

Also, how did you work out that its legs were missing - did you get everyone into their original positions and send someone to the spot to compare their size?

I hadn't seen the video but had the book Strange But True which featured Stocksbridge. There was mention of children dancing under a power pylon and various sightings of a monk-like figure and two instances of an accompanying musty smell. Nor do I recall anyone identifying the exact point on Pearoyd Lane where our sighting occurred. Two members of the vigil were sitting next to the pylon, another standing on the raised embankment to our right, one seated in a hollow to the left who saw nothing despite being in an expected line of view and the two of us standing on the road itself that saw the figure. We weren't expecting to see a legless torso any more than we expecting to see it suddenly appear in the middle of the road.

Yes, we went to our original positions and a member crossed the road at the same point. He was too tall to carry it off. Then there's the increased incline of the road which we hadn't noticed on previous vigils as they were always conducted in the dark with us travelling up after work.

Finally it doesn't seem to be a cyclic or 'anniversary' ghost as subsequent annual visits confirmed.

 

[Eponastill]

That's really great, that you were all so disciplined and analytical about it that you reset the scene, I like that. And are you saying you came back in the day to do that? ('previous vigils were always conducted in the dark' - you saw the figure in the dark did you not).

So do you have any ideas why some people saw it and others didn't? You mention the 'stone tape' theory of ghosts, so might you say some people are good receivers/players and maybe others aren't - that you have to be sensitive enough to the signals?

It's all very interesting.

 

[Coal]

and two instances of an accompanying musty smell.

Most interesting, that detail.

 

[oldrover]

Ergot perhaps? I really didn't mean that seriously.

 

[lordmongrove]

Bedtime stories covres the case.

 

[NomDeGuerre]

The Mysteries and Monsters podcast covered this quite extensively in an episode I listened to over the weekend.

Dr David Clark features, who interviewed the two police officers in the days after the sighting. It’s a very compelling account, but it’s a shame the two security guards have never spoken up about what they saw.

The podcast states the original sighting was of a man in Victorian dress - the ‘monk’ seems to have been retrofitted by later, more dubious witnesses, who falsely believed the road was built over the grounds of an old monastery.

 

[lordmongrove]

A docco on the case.

 

[ChrisBoardman]

Apologies if this has already been posted...

 

[ChrisBoardman]

During the Strange but True episode the security men see an apparition by an electricity pylon. It's odd how many hauntings are near these power lines. I've checked on google earth and it is by the bridge.

 

[Eponastill]

Ah so ChrisBoardman - if that really is the case (which who knows, it might be) - do you suppose it's the electromagnetic field messing with people's brains and making them see things that aren't there at all, or the electromagnetic field summoning ghosts (somewhat like hattifatteners in the Moomins), or that the field helps you see ghosts that just happen to be in the area, or something else...
(Obviously there's no right answer you're under pressure to come up with but it surely is a good starting point for a hypothesis and an experiment)

 

[ChrisBoardman]

Ah so ChrisBoardman - if that really is the case (which who knows, it might be) - do you suppose it's the electromagnetic field messing with people's brains and making them see things that aren't there at all, or the electromagnetic field summoning ghosts (somewhat like hattifatteners in the Moomins), or that the field helps you see ghosts that just happen to be in the area, or something else...
(Obviously there's no right answer you're under pressure to come up with but it surely is a good starting point for a hypothesis and an experiment)

I would go for "it's the electromagnetic field messing with people's brains "

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Sounds like the Lambton Worm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambton_Worm
My Grandad used to regale me with that tale when I was a kid.

No, it was different. A couple driving across the moor witnessed a large Lovecraftian maggot itching across the road.

Don't have the time to go through those old copies.

 

[IbisNibs]

Itching to do what?

 

[Krepostnoi]

Itching to do what?

To get a ride. Hobviously.

 

[Spookdaddy]

No, it was different. A couple driving across the moor witnessed a large Lovecraftian maggot itching across the road.

Don't have the time to go through those old copies.

That would be the Longdendale Slug, possibly (although, I seem to recall that the witness was a lone motor cyclist, rather than a couple in a car - but I think there is a not dissimilar slug type sighting associated with a couple driving near Loch Ness).

The incident has been fairly common folklore in the area for a while (I live not far away) - although I think it was a one-off sighting, associated with the general oddness of the area, rather than with any other similar slug based sightings.

The specific location of the alleged encounter was the Devil's Elbow - a bend on the B6105 north of Glossop.

Thought so - we have a way back thread on it: The infamous Longendale Slug.