• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I've just listened to the latest podcast and feel a bit underwhelmed.
My overarching feeling concerns Ann's partner who was dismissive of her claims. Until he comes home and finds her and their child gone leaving just a note. Now he has some inkling that this thing is not just a nuisance but is actually installing fear into Ann.
I think he wanted to placate her by telling her that he'd experienced something too to convince her that she wasn't going doolally. So he concocts his confirmatory experience. That was my immediate reaction to listening to this.
That's what the sceptic on the show said. But it seems to me to itself be a figment of the imagination. There's not only no evidence presented to suggest it, but there is evidence explicitly undermining it :

"I scribbled a note to my other half saying I'm at this friend's house, come and get me when you get home. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED"



She further says when he rang her she was insistent there was no great hurry or emergency.



The sceptic says he came home and saw his wife had rushed out in panic and taken their son etc. But this - on the only testimony available - seems to be pure fantasy. What sign of panic? It's not in her note nor in her response on the phone.



The child's absence would not have been some clue that things had escalated to the point he needed to make things up to placate her ...surely whether she was at her friend's , the park or the school fete she would have taken the kid with her so there's nothing out of the ordinary at all from that point of view.

So why would he think "She's at her friend's - the ghost delusion must have escalated dramatically. I'll calm things down by feeding it further "?
 
Last edited:
But he could have decided on the way home, having heard her story, that she needed consoling and so told her that he had experienced something just now too.
 
What's the alternative? Just placate her without any confirmatory anecdote and implying or telling her directly that she's nutty, with the added offence that entails?

This kind of lie to make you feel better has happened to me a fair amount, so much so that I recognise it straight away now.
 
What's the alternative? Just placate her without any confirmatory anecdote and implying or telling her directly that she's nutty, with the added offence that entails?

This kind of lie to make you feel better has happened to me a fair amount, so much so that I recognise it straight away now.
Well he never had to that point. He hadn’t believed her at all. Why suddenly change unless there was new evidence?
 
To make her feel better? She'd never fled the house before so things - either from a ghostly or mental health viewpoint - had escalated. By telling her he'd experienced things too would make her think "phew, it's not just me!"
 
Again the use of the word fled implies that's what he perceived when he got home. But the testimony presented flatly contradicts that.

Which only leaves your suggestion that he came to the conclusion after she told him what had happened on the car ride home ( she may have done but makes no reference to doing so) .

But that comes up against a) her testimony that he was insistent on coming straight away despite her repeatedly telling him there was no great need and he should relax at home and have a cup of tea . b) her report of the actual conversation on the car ride home. She says she repeated her observation that there was really no need to rush around to collect her and he explains his motive being he didn't want to be in the house alone because something had just happened literally as he was reading her note.

None of this is consistent with the idea he's responding to some greater than previous state of turmoil evident in her.
 
Playing devil's advocate...but I, and probably others, have been interviewed and caught up in the moment, embellish a story. Looking back I kick myself. But I don't tell whoppers, just change the language or emphasis. Not something I do deliberately. Maybe the same thing happened here.

The Liverpool timeslip thing is hard to explain. I don't think Danny knows. Maybe send him a message?
Thing is, we all do that, many times a day. We adjust the language we use, according to the other person in the conversation.
 
Ah yes sorry, I'd forgotten that bit.
I feel a bit foolish now. I won't be contributing anything more.
There's nothing to feel foolish about ...you made a perfectly legitimate argument/conclusion from what the show broadcast because one of the contributors in it explicitly painted that picture. The great thing about iPlayer is you can go back repeatedly and check exactly who said what.

When the guest psychologist/sceptic is asked about the husband now being a witness she says - as unchallenged fact - that his experience ( not his claim to an experience but the experience itself) was had in the context that "she ran out of the house in great panic and fear, and he's aware of this". No one picks her up on this claim despite the main witness explicitly saying she wrote a note to say she was at her friends and didn't say what had happened.

Because she says this and no one corrects it anyone listening would come away with the impression that being primed by knowledge of his wife's fear is a reasonable and obvious explanation.
 
Last edited:
If you are missing Uncanny this is a very interesting replacement. I’m just on episode two.

Post in thread 'TV & Radio Reminders'
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/tv-radio-reminders.7356/post-2310330

Here goes. Journalist Tristan Redman moved to a house in London when he was a teenager. On several occasions, objects in his bedroom would move without anyone touching them – a vase would end up on a bedside table, say, where he definitely didn’t put it. As an adult, he discovered that other people who’d lived in the same house had also had weird experiences, often involving seeing a woman with no face.

So far, so Danny Robins’s Uncanny. But the story becomes complicated by the utterly mad coincidence that Redman’s wife, Kate’s, family used to live in the house next door. And that a woman in that family – Naomi, Kate’s great-grandmother – was murdered in that house. Naomi’s husband, known as Feyther, escaped being killed himself, through his cleverness and quick actions. Redman decides to find out more.' From the Guardian.
 

Here goes. Journalist Tristan Redman moved to a house in London when he was a teenager. On several occasions, objects in his bedroom would move without anyone touching them – a vase would end up on a bedside table, say, where he definitely didn’t put it. As an adult, he discovered that other people who’d lived in the same house had also had weird experiences, often involving seeing a woman with no face.

So far, so Danny Robins’s Uncanny. But the story becomes complicated by the utterly mad coincidence that Redman’s wife, Kate’s, family used to live in the house next door. And that a woman in that family – Naomi, Kate’s great-grandmother – was murdered in that house. Naomi’s husband, known as Feyther, escaped being killed himself, through his cleverness and quick actions. Redman decides to find out more.' From the Guardian.
I’ve started a tread for this interesting investigation.

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-ghost-the-murder-mystery.70901/
 
Apparently it’s Christmas already.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001tqgh?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
IMG_3596.jpeg
 
I wonder if she told her buyers about all the paranormal activity? I'm not convinced there are any laws around this in the UK, although I have a vague memory that sellers in the US have to disclose this kind of thing. As we saw in the Bearpark episode there is no guarantee that the new owners will experience anything. Either way they'll probably find out now the programme is out!

I liked the episode but I wish they had investigated whether infrasound may be playing a role in the activity. I'm not convinced that would explain everything but it would be an interesting possibility to explore.
 
I wonder if she told her buyers about all the paranormal activity? I'm not convinced there are any laws around this in the UK, although I have a vague memory that sellers in the US have to disclose this kind of thing. As we saw in the Bearpark episode there is no guarantee that the new owners will experience anything. Either way they'll probably find out now the programme is out!

I liked the episode but I wish they had investigated whether infrasound may be playing a role in the activity. I'm not convinced that would explain everything but it would be an interesting possibility to explore.
It would be good if there was a registry where you could look up if there had been issues in a certain place.
 
I enjoyed the (early) Christmas special too - notably the sheer weirdness of the bodiless apparition and the irony of the house owner hoping to rid herself of the ghost by selling her new-build and buying an erstwhile 18th century coaching inn!
Ciarán O'Keeffe's admission "it's a ghost" albeit obviously tongue-in-cheek, couldn't detract from the fact that he had no explanation for the apparition.
 
I enjoyed the (early) Christmas special too - notably the sheer weirdness of the bodiless apparition and the irony of the house owner hoping to rid herself of the ghost by selling her new-build and buying an erstwhile 18th century coaching inn!
Ciarán O'Keeffe's admission "it's a ghost" albeit obviously tongue-in-cheek, couldn't detract from the fact that he had no explanation for the apparition.

Yes! I raised an eyebrow at that point, like 'good luck with that'... :chuckle:
 
I enjoyed the (early) Christmas special too - notably the sheer weirdness of the bodiless apparition and the irony of the house owner hoping to rid herself of the ghost by selling her new-build and buying an erstwhile 18th century coaching inn!
Ciarán O'Keeffe's admission "it's a ghost" albeit obviously tongue-in-cheek, couldn't detract from the fact that he had no explanation for the apparition.
I am a bit surprised he didn't pick up on this but perhaps he did and it was edited out? But during the apparition she was in bed with her son watching TV. She could easily have dropped off and dreamed it. The son's opinion is not recorded so he is presumably too young to back up the story. Just my 2p though. I enjoyed the episode and would very much like an update to find out how she gets on in the new (old) house.:D
 
I've just heard the 'Good Evening' episode and the Daisy May Cooper episode. Both very good listens.

I would have liked to have had a bit more detail on the Roman (soldier?) that Daisy's housekeeper said she had seen walking into the wardrobe.

Re: the half-body apparition of a pair of legs witnessed by both Daisy and her young son, a bit more description wouldn't have gone amiss there either. Was there a sharp 'cutting off' of the apparition at the waist? Or did it 'fade out'? And was it barefoot or shod in footware of any kind?

Daisy's thoughts about the apparent ghosts being people who will move into the house sometime in the future is a fascinating idea to toy with for sure, but I'm not sure it would account for the Roman!

Good luck to the new residents, who I daresay must have moved in by now. I wonder if they have listened to the episode? Let's hope Daisy has a peaceful Christmas and New Year in her new old house.
 
Maybe they enjoy historical re-enactments as a hobby? :)
Or just plain old fancy dress parties?

I think it was unusual, and refreshing, to hear Daisy May Cooper say at the start that she had always wanted to see a ghost, and had been interested in the subject for years. More often, the witnesses on Uncanny (and elsewhere) start off by professing to have 'never had time for ghosts or anything like that'. I sometimes wonder what reaction I would get from my nearest and dearest if I told them I had finally seen a ghost, UFO or cryptid having been into the paranormal for so many years. "Oh yeah, right. Jog on", I expect.

But in Daisy's case it does seem to have been a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.
 
Well I have to say I hugely enjoyed the Christmas special with Daisy, a good mixture of intrigue and humour. Glad she is doing well for herself as she is very talented and didn't have it all easy earlier in her career.

As ever, more detail would have been appreciated as regards the apparitions but overall the multiple witnesses make this a pretty sound case, with the disembodied legs taking centre-stage, especially as we have a thread about this very phenomenon:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ning-along-the-road.69994/page-4#post-2301706

From a skeptical viewpoint you might argue that she already had an interest in the paranormal and her housekeeper claimed to be a medium which is "setting the scene" somewhat for something to happen, but then why should only non-believers see ghosts and experience mild poltergeist activity...?

The ghost hunting was, like Danny's presenting style, rather theatrical and I don't give much weight to ghost hunting equipment, especially as they were using electrical devices of their own (eg phones). Also I don't believe the paranormal appears when asked in that fashion. The boy made me think of cross-country running, I wonder if there was ever a school nearby? Anyway, great case and looking forward to more of the same in 2024.

Oh, and Daisy, If you are a visitor to this site then come and say hello and tell us more, please!
 
........the boy made me think of cross-country running, I wonder if there was ever a school nearby? Anyway, great case and looking forward to more of the same in 2024.

Oh, and Daisy, If you are a visitor to this site then come and say hello and tell us more, please!

The same occurred to me! That maybe at some point during the last century the field/land had been used for sports, and as mentioned in the programme the happenings were more of a 'time glitch' than phantoms.

I think we need to contact Mr Robins and invite him to peruse these fine fora, if he doesn't already :)
 
Well from the clues given I have found what I believe may have been her house (assuming she has moved out). I won't reveal its location at this stage as I feel that would be unfair on the new owners, but everything fits bar one factor. Will share these details in confidence (pm me) and will further research the area.

Edit: now believe have found the exact location and it is as Danny describes and next to an abandoned railway and a man-made lake. Interestingly the level of the land there seems to have changed in the past due to the reason for the lake being constructed. It is also close to a village which may have had the school the young boy attended and from which he started on his cross-country run.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and it is also not far from a Roman town, so perhaps the Romans were hanging around there, too.

The abandoned railway is now a cycle path. Given the height of the railway embankment then the land on which the house stands must have once been a small hill, which is possible.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot this.jpg
    Screenshot this.jpg
    166.4 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Just to add the construction is of the style Danny states, the other properties aren't lived in permanently, it has been on the market and even has the hot tub as described. Everything checks out, even the military connection (Boer War). Now looking for old maps of the area.
 
According to the local village website, before the lakes were dug there used to be a lane that ran close to the railway track and was considered to be haunted. This took the form of a feeling of inexplicable fear and uneasiness at one particular location to the extent that locals actively avoided this route after dark and the account comes complete with named witnesses. That location is really not that far from the house in question but it is not adjacent.

It is more evidence that the landscape clearly changed a great deal when the lakes were dug.
 
Back
Top