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

Uncanny (BBC Programme / Podcast)

MorningAngel said:
Evelyn was a lot more glam than I’d imagined. Wasn’t there something about red in The Sixth Sense?
Click to expand...
I couldn't think of the name of the film I was thinking of but it had Donald Sutherland in it...just googled Donald Sutherland films, Don't Look Now has a red motif, could that be Danny's thing? I can't remember Sixth Sense very well.
 
MorningAngel said:
So that actually connects the Howard bakers with the houses.
Click to expand...
I like to use iplayer to go back and double check what was said each time, and your observation about the connection between the Howards as bakers and the house/s is relevant and leads to another loss of faith in the depiction of events.

Kate had found/seen the paragraph posted by Joyce several years ago. She therefore would have read, as would the production crew, the explicit statement that Miss Howard's "father had owned the bakery next door". Yet when the historian asked her "is this the Howards who were the bakers on Moor Corner? " she replies "I have no idea". Yes she bleeding did! As did everyone else on the show.
 
If you break it down it doesn't necessarily effect the essential supernatural experience but the use of subterfuge and omission to create a dramatic format while understandable (after all even on the podcast do we really imagine he's physically going back and forward with Ciaran and Evelyn after each new twist rather than doing it all at once?) does make it easier to think you shouldn't take anything at face value.

It seems to me there are two essential scenarios

1) The two girls had experiences real or imagined, which their mother believed to be real, and deduced were connected to the old lady who lived there before them. She mentioned it to others in the village or the subsequent occupants and hence when Kate had similar experiences she picked up that someone had suggested it was Miss Howard. She reads the 2008 blog post and - not recalling how she knew the name Miss Howard - saw in it very strong confirmation of both the experiences and the identification of the name. She knew who Miss Howard was supposed to be explicitly from the the blog post. She brought the story to Uncanny who broke it down to make it into a unraveling detective story for our entertainment. But non the less one family and the daughter of another really had had perceptions of a female apparition in the same property.

2) Kate found the 2008 post mentioning her old house and invented (or convinced herself of) her own experiences there to get on Uncanny. She simply made up "always knowing her as Miss Howard" because thats who the family who really did have an odd experience said it was.
 
Hmmm.

I have been listening to quite a few of these podcasts this past few days, and it could be me, but does anyone else on here think that some the stories seem staged..? Like the stories were being told by an actor.

As I say, it could just be me though.
 
No ive never thought that. It would be a risky thing to do as a single newspaper report would bring the enterprise to an end.

What i have thought - positively - is how well spoken and articulate nearly everyone is. Perhaps their stories are chosen for that reason.... i have the same impression whenever i see clips of 70s and 80s tv shows about paranormal experiences. Everyone sounds educated and middle class or even posh. Its relevant because rather like hillbillies and UFOs, a tale of the uncanny reported by someone with a strong regional accent, and punctuated with "well" "er" and "like" you imagine being readily dismissed by the audience.
 
gattino said:
No ive never thought that. It would be a risky thing to do as a single newspaper report would bring the enterprise to an end.

What i have thought - positively - is how well spoken and articulate nearly everyone is. Perhaps their stories are chosen for that reason.... i have the same impression whenever i see clips of 70s and 80s tv shows about paranormal experiences. Everyone sounds educated and middle class or even posh. Its relevant because rather like hillbillies and UFOs, a tale of the uncanny reported by someone with a strong regional accent, and punctuated with "well" "er" and "like" you imagine being readily dismissed by the audience.
Click to expand...
I interviewed Danny recently and asked about the fact all the witnesses are very articulate. He said it was down to luck and editing.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Wasn't hugely impressed with the Miss Howard story. I think Ciarán O'Keeffe was spot-on in explaining how the fact that the Howards were tradespeople in the town meant the family was an integral part of the local history and who can say that any of the witnesses hadn't seen slightly creepy old black and white photos of Nora Howard and their young girl's imagination filled in the rest? Also the description of a tall woman didn't really tally with the fairly short woman (who barely came up to the young man's shoulder) in the photo.
Great to see historical footage of the Philip experiment and Danny's new take on it.
The absolute highlight for me was finding Julie, the Bold Street timeslip witness!
Click to expand...
Many of the pasty bakers down here in Cornwall have black and white photographs of the founders of the business displayed in their shops (they all like to claim they are the oldest pasty bakers in Cornwall). So has anyone checked if the bakery had an old photo of the Howards...?

Overall this was a great start to 'Uncanny' on TV and neither the skeptics or the believers had things their own way. The Bold Street witness Julie was the highlight for me, too. Have to say I was expecting her to make some claims to now being a psychic, or being reincarnated or whatever, but was instead relieved to find her so down to earth. She seemed genuine, my only hesitation being that she continued into the shop after she had seen all the 1940s people in the street, personally at that moment I would have taken off back home, or somewhere familiar, to get back to normality. But then it didn't happen to me and I got the sense she hadn't realised what was happening at that moment.

There is always the possibility she was not genuine but rather someone looking for her 15 mins of TV fame. After all, the story has been written and talked about for over two decades now and she hadn't come forward before. Below is the narrative of the time-slip that appears most frequently:

"Frank went into the shop, closely followed by the young women. When they entered he was surprised and pleased to see that it had indeed turned back into a bookshop. The young women smiled, shook her head and said, ‘that was strange, I thought it was a new clothes shop!’ then she walked away looking extremely puzzled."

https://medium.com/@NellRose1/the-l...erious-occurences-in-bold-street-7a42898c124b

Notice in her interview with Danny she doesn't mention Frank going in to the shop (yet he could see her), she doesn't mention conversing with Frank and in the above there is no running away as mentioned by Danny. She also doesn't mention any vehicles, only people:

"As he approached, he glanced up and was surprised to see the name, Cripps above the door. As he was about to cross over to see what was going on, a van swept past him with the name Cardin’s on the side. The van drive honked his old fashioned horn and drove past.

Looking around, Frank suddenly realized that things were not quite what they should be. He looked at the cars driving past and realized that they were all old fashioned vehicles such as people would drive back in the 50’s and 60's."

https://medium.com/@NellRose1/the-l...erious-occurences-in-bold-street-7a42898c124b

She also doesn't describe Frank's features, not even his hair, nor does Frank mention grabbing her by the arm. She doesn't mention the name of the time-slip shop, either. Worth noting that in different accounts of this event there is some confusion in various accounts between Waterstones and Dillons, it seems that the Dillons became a Waterstones in 1999 and Tom Slieman states it was a Dillons in 1996 as does Julie.

So there are some discrepancies in the accounts, although this raises the tantalising possibility that there was more than one time-slip event
 
Last edited:
gattino said:
No ive never thought that. It would be a risky thing to do as a single newspaper report would bring the enterprise to an end.

What i have thought - positively - is how well spoken and articulate nearly everyone is. Perhaps their stories are chosen for that reason.... i have the same impression whenever i see clips of 70s and 80s tv shows about paranormal experiences. Everyone sounds educated and middle class or even posh. Its relevant because rather like hillbillies and UFOs, a tale of the uncanny reported by someone with a strong regional accent, and punctuated with "well" "er" and "like" you imagine being readily dismissed by the audience.
Click to expand...
The show goes out on Radio 4 which in itself would explain why lots of articulate, middle-class people who listen to Radio 4 contact Danny.

Also, when I worked in hospitality I had to interview people who weren't articulate or middle-class and yet when put in a formal situation they were certainly more articulate than after we had employed them. People raise their game when the focus is on them.
 
DrPaulLee said:
I was wary about Julie. How do we know it was her? Anyone could answer an appeal and concoct a story. How would one go about checking she is who she said she was? The answer probably is: "you can't."
Click to expand...
The curious aspect of her account is how readily available Frank's account is with all the details including the traffic and the Cripp's name above the door. Yet her account differs, most noticeably the lack of traffic but also small details.. She also doesn't give a description of Frank who grabbed her arm, not even his accent or distinguishing features such as glasses or a hat. You could argue she is hedging her bets lest Danny tracks down either Frank or a photo of Frank. On the other hand, the fact she didn't corroborate every detail leads to me to wonder if her event was the same as Frank's.

The other possibility is that Tom Slieman invented Frank's story and she is a fraud...
 
gattino said:
Well a little bit of investigation answers some questions...and raises some about the editing of the show!

I've found the post the two girls mother wrote...its actually just a brief paragraph. The most important thing to the above discussion is the mother (and therefore Danny and the production team) already knew as a fact that Miss Howard had lived at that address. The belated discovery of these details on the show is indeed a bit of theatrics.

So it would appear they assumed the identity of the ghost based on knowledge of who had lived there.

How Kate, the later occupant, knew the name may remain a mystery or may be surmised to be a case of the story of visits from Miss Howard was passed on between seller and buyer (Kate's parents) when the place changed ownership. (Edit: an even more disappointing option....we only have Kate's word that she "always knew" the ghost was called Miss Howard. It may be more a case of having discovered the matching post from the previous owner which identified the apparition by that name she convinced herself that the name in it was familiar/seemed right)

In terms of who else experienced phenomena, the family dog apparently aware of a presence and the parents frequently heard phantom footsteps.

Here is her account in its entirety, posted in 2008.

"I lived at 65 High Street from 1964 to 1971. The two little figures on the left of the photo are my two daughters, Lisa and Jane. We shared our house with a ghost who, we believe, was Miss Howard, who had previously lived there. Her father owned the baker's shop next door and had built the two houses next to it. Miss Howard 'appeared' to both my daughters at different times, when they were 18 months old and 3 years old, and I think that, at that young age, they were not capable of inventing such a story. Our dog was also aware of her presence, and over the years we were there, we frequently heard her walking about, along the landing and up and down the stairs. I've often wondered if any subsequent families living in the house has had similar experiences. My name in those days was Joyce Thorn, if anyone remembers me or my family, I would love to hear from them."

https://www.francisfrith.com/uk/melbourn/a-ghost-in-melbourn-high-streeet_memory-46271
Click to expand...
First, I am disappointed that here, I can't watch any BBC program:(, so I ´ll have to enjoy it vicariously through those who can.

The original post from the mother states that the ghost appeared to them several times and that they were 1 1/2 and 3ish at that time. The mother claims that they could not have been making it up because of their ages. Maybe, but the naming of the ghost was clearly made by the adults. So, I would agree with @gattino's original suspicion that people knew beforehand that the picture presented as looking like the ghost was the Howard. And gattino's finding of the original post shows this foreknowledge.

The adult assumption that children are too young to make things up or lie has also been disproven.

See article regarding children lying at early ages:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-deception/201906/why-is-my-child-lying

Children may not be lying per se, but they do fabricate stories. This is not my actual impression of the story as I can't watch it, but is something to be taken into consideration when listening to what a child is telling you.
 
Last edited:
I only managed to finally catch this last night, and sat in barely-disguised glee throughout. I'm not a particular believer in ghosties, but I do love a good and well-constructed ghost story... and this was superb. Having not listened to the podcast, I had no preconceptions as to how the presenter should look, but his infectious enthusiasm soon won me over. As to the 'Time Slip' segment... hmm, well, that was the only point I felt it let itself down. Herself who answered the call for a witness was too coincidental. Too easy to write her off as just someone who wanted to get on TV. Of course, she might be telling the truth- but without deeper investigation of her and her history... who knows.

Mind you, if *I* were to answer a similar call "for a laugh", I feel sure someone who knew me would soon let the cat out of the bag, and reveal that I had never mentioned it before and had never actually been there. So that may stop me doing it, unless I was telling the truth.

The "Miss Howard" element (which is the most affecting part) falls apart a bit when you look at the 2008 post that led to the programme- the Howards are plainly mentioned as owning the bakery next door and having built the house in question. Not too much to imagine the name "Howard" was a well-known one locally, or even that the house was known as "The Howard House".

But none of this matters, because as a ghost story, it was brilliantly told, and as a piece of "paranormal tv" it was fantastic.
 
I watched it last night too, and was pleasantly surprised. I don't think the mould explanation holds water, because there would certainly be general ill-health, not just hallucinations - sinusitis at least. I've been rather sceptical of the Bold Street time-slips because of the Slemen connection, but it was quite interesting to see a claimed witness come out of the woodwork. I will, therefore, forgive the podcast churning out a repeat of a recent episode last Wednesday.
 
SimonBurchell said:
I watched it last night too, and was pleasantly surprised. I don't think the mould explanation holds water, because there would certainly be general ill-health, not just hallucinations - sinusitis at least. I've been rather sceptical of the Bold Street time-slips because of the Slemen connection, but it was quite interesting to see a claimed witness come out of the woodwork. I will, therefore, forgive the podcast churning out a repeat of a recent episode last Wednesday.
Click to expand...
I think Danny implied that the repeat podcast episode on Wednesday could be because of the new uncanny on the telly Friday and too much new paranormal material would probably be too much for us

I was a disappointed that Reece Shearsmith only spoke at the start, I was hoping he would add some opinion throughout the episode or maybe some new insight.

Isn't it another old one this Wednesday?
 
Steev(still) said:
I only managed to finally catch this last night, and sat in barely-disguised glee throughout. I'm not a particular believer in ghosties, but I do love a good and well-constructed ghost story... and this was superb. Having not listened to the podcast, I had no preconceptions as to how the presenter should look, but his infectious enthusiasm soon won me over. As to the 'Time Slip' segment... hmm, well, that was the only point I felt it let itself down. Herself who answered the call for a witness was too coincidental. Too easy to write her off as just someone who wanted to get on TV. Of course, she might be telling the truth- but without deeper investigation of her and her history... who knows.

Mind you, if *I* were to answer a similar call "for a laugh", I feel sure someone who knew me would soon let the cat out of the bag, and reveal that I had never mentioned it before and had never actually been there. So that may stop me doing it, unless I was telling the truth.

The "Miss Howard" element (which is the most affecting part) falls apart a bit when you look at the 2008 post that led to the programme- the Howards are plainly mentioned as owning the bakery next door and having built the house in question. Not too much to imagine the name "Howard" was a well-known one locally, or even that the house was known as "The Howard House".

But none of this matters, because as a ghost story, it was brilliantly told, and as a piece of "paranormal tv" it was fantastic.
Click to expand...

I've just watched at lunchtime and was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was entertaining and well put together. I had to laugh a Kieran squirming when he had to be tactful.

My take, for what it's worth, is that the Howard's were well known in the town and it wouldn't surprise me if the sisters had overheard parents talking about Miss Howard, the old lady who died in the house. You've then got the local gossip about the girls "seeing" a ghost which makes its way to the new owners of the house who are overheard talking about the alleged ghost by their daughter Kate. Now, I am sure that Kate mentioned that she had a sibling at the start of the show. But there was no mention about the sibling seeing, hearing or feeling anything.

I was intrigued by the renumbering of the houses, so did some digging on. Looking at the area maps over the ages, we can see that Nos 65/67 are much bigger now than the building shown in the years 1892-1914 and this makes me wonder if the current 65/67 are indeed the same building? The building on the 1892-1914 map is much closer to the road as well. Was the old building 95, then once demolished and new houses built in its place become 65/67? The building that is now the cafe looks much bigger on the old maps as well.

I got my maps from here https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.0&lat=52.08410&lon=0.01630&layers=168&b=1

Modern day
modern.jpg


OS 25 Inch 1892-1914
circa1900.jpg


Overlaid Image

overlay.jpg


Frontage with same labels as overlay
frontage.jpg


I've not finished yet. So watch this space. I need to know when 65/67 were built.

Mark
 
Had you found these @Mr. Banooka?

I came across them when I was having a little snoop around the other night but I was too tired by then to post. I was intrigued to read that 67 (the second ref below) was said to have been built around 1920 when I thought from what had been said on the programmes that they were both Victorian. Clearly you have been looking into it in far greater depth than I have so you've no doubt already unearthed these but just in case you haven't thought I'd post them up. :)

https://capturingcambridge.org/places-in-south-cambridgeshire/melbourn/65-high-street-melbourn/

https://capturingcambridge.org/places-in-south-cambridgeshire/melbourn/67-high-street-melbourn/
 
Last edited:
Th
Sollywos said:
Had you found these @Mr. Banooka?

I came across them when I was having a little snoop around the other night but I was too tired by then to post. I was intrigued to read that 67 (the second ref below) was said to have been built around 1920 when I thought from what had been said on the programmes that they were both Victorian. Clearly you have been looking into it in far greater depth than I have so you've no doubt already unearthed these but just in case you haven't thought I'd post them up. :)

https://capturingcambridge.org/places-in-south-cambridgeshire/melbourn/65-high-street-melbourn/

https://capturingcambridge.org/places-in-south-cambridgeshire/melbourn/67-high-street-melbourn/
Click to expand...
thanks for these. They are a massive help.
 
Mr. Banooka said:
I've just watched at lunchtime and was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was entertaining and well put together. I had to laugh a Kieran squirming when he had to be tactful.

My take, for what it's worth, is that the Howard's were well known in the town and it wouldn't surprise me if the sisters had overheard parents talking about Miss Howard, the old lady who died in the house. You've then got the local gossip about the girls "seeing" a ghost which makes its way to the new owners of the house who are overheard talking about the alleged ghost by their daughter Kate. Now, I am sure that Kate mentioned that she had a sibling at the start of the show. But there was no mention about the sibling seeing, hearing or feeling anything.

I was intrigued by the renumbering of the houses, so did some digging on. Looking at the area maps over the ages, we can see that Nos 65/67 are much bigger now than the building shown in the years 1892-1914 and this makes me wonder if the current 65/67 are indeed the same building? The building on the 1892-1914 map is much closer to the road as well. Was the old building 95, then once demolished and new houses built in its place become 65/67? The building that is now the cafe looks much bigger on the old maps as well.

I got my maps from here https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.0&lat=52.08410&lon=0.01630&layers=168&b=1

Modern day
View attachment 70528

OS 25 Inch 1892-1914
View attachment 70529

Overlaid Image

View attachment 70530

Frontage with same labels as overlay
View attachment 70531

I've not finished yet. So watch this space. I need to know when 65/67 were built.

Mark
Click to expand...
They do strike me as Edwardian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top