• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The South Shields Poltergeist

markbellis said:
rynner said:
When a book is new out, a paper might well produce an article and/or review about it.
What's the problem?
.....


You can also buy the book at Amazon, Waterstones and other places - no doubt they have a financial interest too... ;)
Click to expand...

The difference is that they are book sellers, but the Daily Mail's a newspaper - presenting a book they have a interest in the sales of in a news story is a conflict of interest, particularly in a story that is very promotional of that book - in North America, only the worst sort of tabloid would do this.
Click to expand...

This simply isn't true, I'm afraid. Any newspaper staffer will tell you that the bulk of stories in a daily come from press releases, given a spin or a news angle. Presumably the publishing xompany here gave a press release to the paper. If the story has been written to catch people's attention and is directly associated with a book, of course you put all the details. It's no different from writing a restaurant review and then putting a "book a table" phone number at the end.
 
Has anyone else read this yet? I finished it last week, so thought I'd share a few comments on it.

First off, it's a great read. While not quite as flat out spooky as the Enfield poltergeist (as told in This House is Haunted), there are still plenty of scary moments, and it certainly seems to have been a very active polt.

The authors come across as rational and sensible people (with a dose of Native American mysticism thrown in), and it seems a highly credible investigation. There are a large number of independent witness statements at the end from other investigators too, leaving you in no doubt that something weird was happening in this house.

Besides the photos in the book (and possibly in FT), has anyone seen any of the footage recorded in their investigations though? Throughout the book the authors seem to be recording everything so, if the polt was as active as suggested in the book, then they must be sitting on a gold mine of polt recordings. I appreciate the authors have their own media plans, but it would be nice to see at least some of the evidence, even on somewhere like youtube. Any news on the possible tv program mentioned?

<Possible Spoiler Alert!>
Throughout the book, like the authors, I was very suspicious of the boyfriend. Even though later in the book events happen that seemed to clear him of any possible involvement, I couldn't shake off that feeling. While the lady involved seemed to be justifiably terrified, the boyfriend came across as rather calm and unworried by the whole thing.

The investigators identify the boyfriend as the focus of the poltergeist, but I'd be curious if anything happened while he wasn't in the house (besides the couple of spooky incidents away from the house). At the start it mentions he has a job, yet he always seems to be in the house when the investigators are there, regardless of time of day. If someone is the focus of a polt, then do they have to be there for activity to happen? (The book suggests that this polt took on a life of its own).

Maybe he is just a really down to earth guy, putting on a brave face for his family, but he just didn't seem that freaked out by the whole experience.
<End Spoiler>

Lastly, something just didn't seem right about the weird poses the child's toys were found in. To me they seemed slightly too "evil", almost as if someone (or thing!) had set out to see what the most messed up thing they could do with a toy. Even though this seemed to be a pretty nasty polt towards the end, these seemed a little out of character maybe.

Anyway, it's a good book and well worth a read if you're into polts or just want a bit of a chiller. I'll look out with interest for the tv program or any follow ups.
 
I saw the 'scratches' footage, and the water bottle balancing act footage at Weird Weekend last weekend. It's not easily dismissed.

The boyfriend was, I believe, a cook. And incidents did happen when he wasn't in the house. But I'm only a few chapters into the book at the moment.
 
Ravenstone said:
I saw the 'scratches' footage, and the water bottle balancing act footage at Weird Weekend last weekend. It's not easily dismissed.
Click to expand...
I saw the WW footage too. On its own it proves nothing of course, if you believe the narrator (which on balance I do), it is very interesting imagery. Polts seem to occur around lots of unfocused energy; frustration, poverty, anger, abuse. Never having experienced one personally it's difficult to know what conclusions to draw.

I was surprised to discover the polt disappeared so quickly for the reasons given. If the thing was as devious and lucid as Mike Hallowell suggested and able to second guess people's thoughts I wondered whether it got bored or was attracting too much attention and decided to go along with the 'theory'.
Mike felt polts could harm people but it wasn't in their interests to do so which I'm not sure about. Case histories suggest most blows and scratches are of a temporary nature. The psychotic/sociopathic analysis of the polt's handwriting was interesting, on balance I'm inclined to believe there's more than an externalisation of stress going on but who knows what dark, angry recesses hide within all of us?
 
you can see the clips here, though it's footage of footage, so to speak, and the quality is rather poor.

is the bottle meant to look like someone's squeezing it? before it falls over?

i can't make out the scratches at all in this vid.

not sure about the guy banging on about how they can only show those few minutes for 'contractual reasons'. i'd rather they just laid their cards on the table...
 
Here is a slightly better quality vid, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... 523213.ece

from the scum newspaper.

First comment, the quality is horrific. There is a severe white balance problem. It seems to be under incandescent lighting. It's so bad that it is impossible to distinguish a difference in colour when the scene changes from the wooden table top surface to the back of the bloke being scrabbed.

Next problem. Its possible to suspend a bottle in this way by having a 'prop' on the other side of the bottle (one made of clear plastic would be best), but you can never see this side. When the bottle falls, the bottom of the bottle, where the prop would be is conveniently out of sight. When its out of sight and before it falls, the bottle shakes a little, no doubt as the magician fumbles with the prop holding it up.

The scrabs, well again quality is turd, but as others have pointed out, if someone gives you a good scrape, it takes a few seconds for the scrapes to rise in a ridge and for the area to redden.
 
Actually, you don't need a prop to make a bottle like that stand up on its own. You just need to indent a couple of the 'bobbles' on the bottom of the bottle.

However, if what is being suggested is that the authors of the piece fraudulently produced pictures of the scratches and the bottle balancing, then I have to disagree. Just because something can be reproduced using fakery in no way means fakery was employed to create it.

What about the experiences of the victims and investigators? Sure, it's all anecdotal, but if we dismiss everything that's anecdotal about everything, then we may as well all pack up and go home.

One thing's for sure - if - if - the footage was faked, then they could have at least done a better job of it. Steadier, stiller camera work. Steady closeups.
 
I agree with you regarding the personal experiences, which i value a lot, depending on the quality of the witnesses. I dont know them enough about them to form an opinion on that.

Obviously these must be their best clips and it's not good that they can be so easily criticised. For me the fact that you cant see the other side of the bottle, and the fact that when it falls, the base is out of sight and it wobbles, raises loud alarm bells in my mind. I'm not saying that they're hoaxes, but i am very suspicious about these clips. One other thing, if I saw that happening for real I would be swearing my head off and/or praying to God for protection, don't hear too much excitement in the audio portion of these clips.

Another thing to note is that during the bottle suspension, there is an obvious 'clip' i.e. there is a join in the video where something has been taken out, although this may be innocent, it makes it lose more points.
 
The footage was taken on a digital stills camera, so may have been limited to short 30 second or so bursts. Also, it's been cut by the Sun. At least, it's not exactly the same footage as was shown at Weird Weekend.

With a documentary being produced, it would seem the 'best stuff' would be used in that, and is therefore probably unable to be shown until the programme has actually aired.
 
Which was the nearest thing to hand when the investigator was dragged out of bed at gone midnight one night to go and deal with the hysterical victims.

Dunno about anyone else, but I'm only surprised anyone remembered to grab the camera, much less use it. It's very easy to sit here in the cold light of day and say "Should have done this/that/other", but when you're in the middle of it, I bet it's bloody difficult to think, "Ooo I wonder if the polt would mind doing a retake???"
 
Dunno about anyone else, but I'm only surprised anyone remembered to grab the camera, much less use it
Click to expand...

Absolutely true in the case of a random, chance situation, but inexcusable when you're there pretending to be an investigator.
 
Thanks for the footage links. From a quick first viewing, the bottle footage is really interesting. You can't see it in much detail here (better on Sun site), but it certainly looks weird. I couldn't really tell anything from the scratches video either. If the bottle footage is a fake, then maybe it is being suspended by something around the neck? Most of the footage is focused on the bottom half of it. Hard to say at this quality.

I really wish they would release more (must be patient!), although I suppose as an investigator this is a once in a lifetime case, so if they want to make some money from it fair enough. They certainly seem to be media savvy.

I think poltergeist cases like this where there is so much activity seen by so many people, are really tough. You're almost forced to choose between thinking the whole thing is a fake, or if you accept that something can move a bottle like that say in front of a few people, then why shouldn't everything else be real too, so polts must exist. They lack the comforting ambiguity of an average ghostie tale, and the sceptic in me finds it hard to take that leap of faith.

Based on reading the book, I did't feel the authors are faking it. If they were going for the sensationalist approach and after money then I'd expect it to have been scarier, and also with a less well thought out conclusion (although I don't think I agree with them). I also wouldn't expect a faker to appear somewhere like Weird Weekend. Is it possible to believe it's not a fake but still be slightly sceptical? How wishy washy of me!
 
Just because you believe one story doesn't mean you have to believe them all. So - yes - it's entirely possible to believe it's not a fake but remain sceptical. In fact, being sceptical is exactly the right attitude to maintain, as long as it's the right kind of sceptical. Sceptical doesn't mean you think everyone's a liar and/or stupid; it just means you don't always believe what they're telling you. That's okay; you just have to weigh the evidence, like you would anything else.

It's the sceptics that get all rabid and just plain rude that annoy me. The ones who are just as rabid as the fluffy woo-woo True Believers.

The thing is, just because someone tells you they've seen a ghost doesn't mean you shouldn't wonder whether they were mistaken. But it's not right to assume they're flat out lying. Neither should you assume they haven't already checked whether it's the most obvious explanation. I speak from experience when I say that when something weird happens to you, you are praying for a straightforward normal explanation. You really don't want it to be some kind of weird shit.
 
So it's a plastic bottle with a dented base?
 
azuredoor said:
The footage was taken on a digital stills camera
Click to expand...

O dear, the 'investigators' lose a ton of points.
Click to expand...
I have no way of knowing the veracity of the imagery or the story accompanying them and have no investment either way in it being real or otherwise, but did talk to Mike Hallowell (and his wife) about the case at the weekend and see no reason to doubt his word. His conclusions I can take issue with but suspect he's giving a fair account of what he felt or saw happening.

I am surprised people lay such emphasis on visual or audio recording to underline a case. It provides a context, yes, but any old parlour trick could be knocked up before we even get to image manipulation software and the like. He explained that he was getting terrified calls from the householders at all times of day and night and his prime motivation was giving the occupants some kind of support, not (I suggest) festooning the house with ghostbusters style gear, which is usually only marginally successful at gathering evidence anyway.
He said that since the case he is far less tolerant of people who say, 'it's all rubbish' than he was previously which, if the events occured as portrayed, is a fair attitude - no marginal temperature drops and fluctuating meters can do justice to such high strangeness.

Ultimately belief will always be in the eyes and ears of the beholder. I hope the cfz gang put the talk on their site, it's well worth a look.
 
What is in that bottle? :shock:

On second thoughts, probably best not to ask ;)

My Other Half got a much more impressive version by denting in a couple of the prongs on the bottom of a bottle, and balancing the bottle at a steeper angle. (steeper? less steep? Perhaps? Okay, it was lent over more, at about 45 degrees, when he did it).

I would say, though, for either of them, they were fairly stable. The bottle on the South Shields incident appears to sort of wobble a bit. It seems more precarious anyway. And when it falls over, it doesn't appear to have any Blu-Tack attached to the bottom. The South Shields bottle is also more lent over than your versions

Thing is, if this whole story were based on just these two incidents, I don't think there would be a book in it, never mind a documentary. There is - or was - a lot more going on that just these two bitty pictures.
 
I've just finished reading the book, and I haven't seen any of the videos - I don't really want to start another argumentative discussion about the video sbut rather ask people-who've-read-it's opinions of the book.

The reason I borrowed the book was because I'd read the Invisikids article in last month's FT, which I thought was very interesting, because it showed Mr Hallowell's analysis of the phenomenon. I was a bit disappointed that the poltergeist case didn't seem so thoroughly analysed. Obviously the things that were alleged to have happened were very thoroughly described, and that's really good. But it is written in a bit of a sensationalist way (ends of chapters are always "BUT THINGS WERE ABOUT TO GET MUCH WORSE") - I think the book about the Enfield poltergeist is much more soberly written, and so seems more... authoritative? But I think that was mostly due to the apparently hurried way the SS book was put together?? There are so many cliched phrases and the odd grammatical error, you feel like no-one proofread or edited the book before it went to press? I mean this does give it a very honest feel, as though the writers are talking to you directly, so the approach has its advantages, but it loses some kind of professional edge I think??

Obviously, from an everyday point of view, the events described make no sense - it almost seems daft to believe them unless you were there to see them (if you don't keep some scepticism then it's like you're admitting you'll believe anything you read, really). But if you're going to believe in poltergeists I guess you might as well believe what they've written, as none of it is particularly outlandish (relatively speaking!) So for its detailed descriptions, it's great. But then everything stops very suddenly at the end of the book, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion about what was going on, even though the events seemed to have stopped as a result of turning off all the electrical equipment, and much of the activity centres round battery operated toys and mobile phones - the 'conclusions' chapter is only just over 3 pages.

One thing that is simply not discussed is the possiblity that the scratches that appear (apparently on camera) on the stepfather's body could be similar to stigmata... I mean, psychosomatically caused. I don't think that's unreasonable? but their cause isn't speculated about at all.

I'm sure in the midst of it it would be hard to think clearly, and certainly it wouldn't be a situation that turns up all the time - but (and I know this kind of criticism has wound up the authors before) you would think they would try to obtain some more professional recording equipment than the video function on an ordinary little camera? and perhaps would think of some experiments to set up (other than the drawing board ones)? and also there was often mention of 'locking off' rooms, but really they hadn't been locked at all, just left. Maybe these are little details and part of a investigator's learning process.

So what I'm saying really, is that the book is great for sucking you in as a story and a description of a poltergeist haunting. But I think there should have been more questioning of certain things that were just presented as 'accepted' (such as the use of protective circles and rituals and things that really don't make sense as we know it like the ripped up lottery ticket reforming). And then, it would have been so nice to have much more analysis of what had happened, at the end of the book.

NOT that I could write a book or anything - this isn't supposed to be a personal attack but a critique of the book!

Anyway. I am still keen to get hold of the invisikids book!
 
Thanks Epona, I purchased the book after I read your post above and have to agree with review. A very abrupt ending and a tad overly long. Every item logged seems to be mentioned and for me it became to repetitive. Infact if the phrases "it threw the small yellow nut" / "we had an full English Breakfast" / "Marianne made us tea and coffee" they book would be at least ten pages shorter.

As for the polt...does Wraithscape still visit the boards?

I'd like to know what happened to the documentary? Are the audio recordings available anywhere? Am I right in thinking that all the footage that exists show only stationary items and any paranormal events are only heard?

There's some other stuff I'd like to know. What was the history of the property? Were any of the neighbours questioned?

One of the things that struck me was the first doodleboard message "Bey bey" which I read phonetically as "baby" and one of the entities had female characteristics. I'm couris as to how Marc, who is named as the "generator" can create a "female" aspect of the polt.

mooks out
 
Thanks for the response, Mooks.

You're not wrong about the repetitive yellow nut and the full english breakfasts! The bey bey thing seemed obvious to me as well when I read it. I trust you didn't think you'd wasted your money! It was still interesting even if lacking in various directions.

I've looked on the Wraithscape website but there's a surprising lack of information and no videos. Which is a bit weird considering. Yeah they'd probably get picked over for Fakeness, but at least they're theoretically shored up by a whole book, unlike all the phoney videos on you tube. I'd have thought they'd sell a few more books by putting the videos on their site! There was supposed to be one at the Sun website but that wasn't working as far I could tell. And nothing on you tube at all?
 
[quote="EponastillI trust you didn't think you'd wasted your money! [/quote]

Not at all, for all it's faults it was still a thorough (to thorough in some aspects) chronicling of interesting investigation, that was quite dark in its nature. Would still like to see some of the footage.

mooks out
 
Nearly finished reading the book, the authors seem pretty genuine to me, a little bit to sensationalist for my liking.

My main complaint is the general writing style, not the content I beleive it is the writing style that makes some people doubt it, (if you understand what I mean) Still a good read nonetheless
 
Did any more details of this case ever get published to us good old general public in the end? I know they did the book and some lectures, plus there was talk of a tv program, but did any more footage or photos get released on the net? I'm not sure where to look. I'm lazy and rely on things like that to filter along to FT. I've not seen any more about it recently.

Such a shame that there must be so much documentation in a modern case like this one, yet not much seems to have made it into the public domain so far. I'd love to see more video footage.

I enjoyed Darren Ritson's book, In Search of Ghosts, too. Bit pricey mind, £18, ouch.
 
The words media savvy were mentioned. The minute money and agents are mentioned (especially so soon) I have to say I back off. A while ago I tried to meet a touring psychic to ask him about his experiences and he said he couldn't discuss cases as he owned the copyright to them or some such thing. Arsehole.
 
Mike Hallowell will be talking about the South Shields Poltergeist at UnCon this year - still a chance to get tickets!

Gordon
 
Just been watching the youtube video of Mike Hallowell at the Alum House. That place was my watering hole from the day it re-opened as a pub and i worked there for a good while and had a 'ghostly experience' of my own one evening.
 
Tell us more, ritchiehardcore.
 
Not quite 20 years back i was working one evening behind the bar, we'd ran out of ice, so i'd gone upstairs along the passage shown in the video to the room where we kept the ice cube machine. It was quite dark upstairs with a little light from the windows in the rooms off the passage and no-one in residence at the time. On reaching the room with the ice cube machine and filling the ice bucket i heard a noise behind me. Stopping what i was doing to hear better the unmistakable sound of footsteps coming up the stairs approached. The stairs at the time were uncarpeted and the tread of foot on hard surface repeated steadily, i shouted down the passage that i was already getting ice for the bar, thinking it was one of my colleagues. There was no answering voice nor any pause in the footsteps, it then started to dawn on me that the amount of footsteps i heard vastly outnumbered the amount of stairs from the bar. Shouldn't whoever was approaching be visible in the gloom of the hall by now? Then i did either the bravest or most cowardly thing i'd ever done. With the hair stood up on the back of my neck and clutching a bucket of ice, i flew down the dark passage not knowing what i might bump into and bounded down the stairs to burst into the welcome light and company of the bar. By all accounts i was as white as a sheet and needed several stiff drinks and roll-ups to regain my composure and good humour. In fact i didnt have to put my hand in my pocket all the next night as i retold it for the regulars who had missed my high velocity re-appearance the previous evening.

I would spend many hours alone in the cellar and in the cellar bar and it does have an 'atmosphere' but i would put that down to it being cold, ill lit and quiet due to it being below street level. I did encounter a figure propped up in a corner of the cellar bar a la Blair Witch Project one night but it was just a paralytic drunk who'd been looking for the netty. Still it gave me quite a turn.

Anyone in the area could do a lot worse than pay a visit, its an interesting wee place and the ale's not bad either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top