ChatterBank1 min ago
The South Shields Poltergeist
34 Answers
Not sure whether this should be here or in 'religion + Spirituality' but here goes.
What do you think of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102107 0/The-sinister-images-caught-camera-prove-polt ergeists-DO-exist-.html
True? hoax? or a collective delusion?
TIA
What do you think of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102107 0/The-sinister-images-caught-camera-prove-polt ergeists-DO-exist-.html
True? hoax? or a collective delusion?
TIA
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 4GS. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thanks for copying and pasting some responses off your website, Mike.
I see there's one picture of the alleged activity on http://www.mikehallowell.com/shieldspolt/page7 .html
Obviously you'd agree that the picture shows nothing that need require a supernatural explanation, but pointing people towards that would surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made.
As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people. Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else.
You can hardly blame people for being skeptical about a story that is all about "The sinister images caught on camera that could prove poltergeists DO exist..." and then uses a still from a Hollywood movie, even if you have no control over what the paper chose to print.
Incidentally, can you just confirm something for me - that you've investigated the psychic's claims that a man called Peter killed his wife with a poker then hung himself about 50 years ago in that very house, and that it's in the book? Should be a piece of the proverbial to check that up.
I see there's one picture of the alleged activity on http://www.mikehallowell.com/shieldspolt/page7 .html
Obviously you'd agree that the picture shows nothing that need require a supernatural explanation, but pointing people towards that would surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made.
As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people. Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else.
You can hardly blame people for being skeptical about a story that is all about "The sinister images caught on camera that could prove poltergeists DO exist..." and then uses a still from a Hollywood movie, even if you have no control over what the paper chose to print.
Incidentally, can you just confirm something for me - that you've investigated the psychic's claims that a man called Peter killed his wife with a poker then hung himself about 50 years ago in that very house, and that it's in the book? Should be a piece of the proverbial to check that up.
Hi folks - more responses...this post is too long again, so the end will follow. Apologies...
"Could they post a part on Youtube for people to see?"
It depends upon what goes into our final contract with the TV company, I'm afraid.
"...surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made�.
Well when you said "Gosh - and you have to pay for the book to see the images, do you..? Hmmm ;-)..." and Lil O'Lady said, "Innit marvellous that people want to be believed but want you to pay first to see the evidence". I don't think we were being unfair in thinking that really was your point. More than happy to accept your clarification, though!
For some reason, people out there really do seem to have an attitude that we are being immoral by charging people for the book, which baffles us. What's the difference between our book and any other?
If we're being defensive, its only in the face of what we believe to be unfair or misguided criticism. Everyone who gets attacked defends themselves � that's human nature. If we're unfairly criticised and respond to it people then accuse us of being defensive. If we don't respond people then think its because we aren't able to answer the point being made. Either way, we get it in the neck.
"As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people."
Couldn't agree more.
"Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial [sic]statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else."
"Could they post a part on Youtube for people to see?"
It depends upon what goes into our final contract with the TV company, I'm afraid.
"...surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made�.
Well when you said "Gosh - and you have to pay for the book to see the images, do you..? Hmmm ;-)..." and Lil O'Lady said, "Innit marvellous that people want to be believed but want you to pay first to see the evidence". I don't think we were being unfair in thinking that really was your point. More than happy to accept your clarification, though!
For some reason, people out there really do seem to have an attitude that we are being immoral by charging people for the book, which baffles us. What's the difference between our book and any other?
If we're being defensive, its only in the face of what we believe to be unfair or misguided criticism. Everyone who gets attacked defends themselves � that's human nature. If we're unfairly criticised and respond to it people then accuse us of being defensive. If we don't respond people then think its because we aren't able to answer the point being made. Either way, we get it in the neck.
"As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people."
Couldn't agree more.
"Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial [sic]statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else."
Hi folks - more responses...this post is too long again, so the end will follow. Apologies...
"Could they post a part on Youtube for people to see?"
It depends upon what goes into our final contract with the TV company, I'm afraid.
"...surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made�.
Well when you said "Gosh - and you have to pay for the book to see the images, do you..? Hmmm ;-)..." and Lil O'Lady said, "Innit marvellous that people want to be believed but want you to pay first to see the evidence". I don't think we were being unfair in thinking that really was your point. More than happy to accept your clarification, though!
For some reason, people out there really do seem to have an attitude that we are being immoral by charging people for the book, which baffles us. What's the difference between our book and any other?
If we're being defensive, its only in the face of what we believe to be unfair or misguided criticism. Everyone who gets attacked defends themselves � that's human nature. If we're unfairly criticised and respond to it people then accuse us of being defensive. If we don't respond people then think its because we aren't able to answer the point being made. Either way, we get it in the neck.
"As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people."
Couldn't agree more.
"Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial [sic] statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else."
"Could they post a part on Youtube for people to see?"
It depends upon what goes into our final contract with the TV company, I'm afraid.
"...surely be better than getting all defensive and saying, 'very few books are given away for free', which wasn't actually the point being made�.
Well when you said "Gosh - and you have to pay for the book to see the images, do you..? Hmmm ;-)..." and Lil O'Lady said, "Innit marvellous that people want to be believed but want you to pay first to see the evidence". I don't think we were being unfair in thinking that really was your point. More than happy to accept your clarification, though!
For some reason, people out there really do seem to have an attitude that we are being immoral by charging people for the book, which baffles us. What's the difference between our book and any other?
If we're being defensive, its only in the face of what we believe to be unfair or misguided criticism. Everyone who gets attacked defends themselves � that's human nature. If we're unfairly criticised and respond to it people then accuse us of being defensive. If we don't respond people then think its because we aren't able to answer the point being made. Either way, we get it in the neck.
"As an experienced researcher, you must surely be aware that there are some terrible con merchants out in 'supernatural land', and I'm sure you'd be the first to state the charlatans damage the legitimate people."
Couldn't agree more.
"Given that I'm sure you agree with these uncontrovertial [sic] statements, it should be hoped you'd be pro-actively putting some of the evidence out there to show us doubters that you're genuine; it's pretty standard marketing apart from anything else."
Lil O'Lady also said,"Innit marvellous that people want to be believed ..." which was sort of saying the same thing. The truth is that we don't have an agenda of converting people into believers or proving to them that we're genuine. Of course, it makes for an easier life if people do accept you at face value, but at the end of the day we know that isn't going to happen all the time. If people believe what's in the book then we'll be happy because we know its true, but all we set out to do was tell the world what we considered a pretty astounding story. We don't �want people to believe"; just to look at the evidence fairly and open-mindedly without resorting to vicious, ad hominem attacks and juvenile sarcasm. Fortunately these seem to have died down in the last few days and are now being replaced with genuine responses like your own, which we're happy to respond to.
"You can hardly blame people for being skeptical about a story that is all about "The sinister images caught on camera that could prove poltergeists DO exist..." and then uses a still from a Hollywood movie, even if you have no control over what the paper chose to print."
I'd have though that it would have made more people puzzled about editorial decision-making. Naturally people are going to be sceptical - we British are hooked on scepticism to the point of rabidity. We honestly don't know why the pics weren't used in the Mail, and, yes, on the surface of it I wish they had. The reason I'm holding back from criticising the Mail is because I have an awful feeling that if I do the picture editor will send me fifteen good reasons why they couldn't have used them and I'll look like an idiot :)
"You can hardly blame people for being skeptical about a story that is all about "The sinister images caught on camera that could prove poltergeists DO exist..." and then uses a still from a Hollywood movie, even if you have no control over what the paper chose to print."
I'd have though that it would have made more people puzzled about editorial decision-making. Naturally people are going to be sceptical - we British are hooked on scepticism to the point of rabidity. We honestly don't know why the pics weren't used in the Mail, and, yes, on the surface of it I wish they had. The reason I'm holding back from criticising the Mail is because I have an awful feeling that if I do the picture editor will send me fifteen good reasons why they couldn't have used them and I'll look like an idiot :)
"Incidentally, can you just confirm something for me - that you've investigated the psychic's claims that a man called Peter killed his wife with a poker then hung himself about 50 years ago in that very house, and that it's in the book? Should be a piece of the proverbial to check that up."
Eh? Its a new one on me - PLEASE send me the link to this! Are you serious? If you're just winding me up then I apologise for being such a divvy and falling for it.
Just in case you ARE being serious, though, I can tell you that a) the house is nowhere near 50 years old, and b) there's nothing in the book about anyone braining anyone else with a poker or hanging themselves. To the best of our knowledge the previous (and only other) resident was an elderly lady. Now you've got me intrigued, I'm going to dig out the draft manuscript and see just what it is in there that could have been so grossly misinterpreted.
Mind you, maybe the psychic picked up on something; I'm currently working on a book which (seriously) has a lot to say about people who, erm...hang themselves...
Eh? Its a new one on me - PLEASE send me the link to this! Are you serious? If you're just winding me up then I apologise for being such a divvy and falling for it.
Just in case you ARE being serious, though, I can tell you that a) the house is nowhere near 50 years old, and b) there's nothing in the book about anyone braining anyone else with a poker or hanging themselves. To the best of our knowledge the previous (and only other) resident was an elderly lady. Now you've got me intrigued, I'm going to dig out the draft manuscript and see just what it is in there that could have been so grossly misinterpreted.
Mind you, maybe the psychic picked up on something; I'm currently working on a book which (seriously) has a lot to say about people who, erm...hang themselves...
Er... apologies. It appears late night reading of the story resulted in me conflating the Easington poltergeist with the South Sheilds one; I genuinely had thought it was the same one when I wrote that post last night.
Going back to the 'giving the book away for free' thing, I don't read anyone as suggesting an author doesn't have the right to sell and profit from their book, they're simply making a point about the lack of pictures in a story about pictures proving poltergeists. I certainly was, and even if the decision is down to the Mail, it still comes across very strangely.
Going back to the 'giving the book away for free' thing, I don't read anyone as suggesting an author doesn't have the right to sell and profit from their book, they're simply making a point about the lack of pictures in a story about pictures proving poltergeists. I certainly was, and even if the decision is down to the Mail, it still comes across very strangely.
Not really. Every story has to break somewhere, and ours started with articles and the book. As for TV, we're currently negotiating with a company over the production of a major documentary on the case, and allowing the footage to go on news programmes now would probably skew our chances of this happening. We've already had to turn down the chance of putting the footage on the website of a national newspaper for the same reason. Don't worry, you'll see it soon enough.
People who aren't experienced in dealing with the media don't understand that how and when you release material into the public domain has to be planned like a military operation. We're getting there though - I promise!
People who aren't experienced in dealing with the media don't understand that how and when you release material into the public domain has to be planned like a military operation. We're getting there though - I promise!
By the way - the book is about the poltergeist phenomenon - not ghosts, which is something completely different. Whether you view the evidence as "world-shattering" or not is up to you the reader. Darren and I aren't trying to convince anyone of anything - we're merely presenting the evidence so that you can make your own mind up.
Then it won't be 'news' as such will it?
I've been involved in press releases , I'm ex military so I know a wee bit about telling that particular media what you want them to know. My point is that, if the 'press/tv got hold of this, it would go some way to proving the existence of the paranormal/ghosts or even the existance of an afterlife and perhaps a
superior being/deity, to me that in itself would constitute a darned good scoop, look how they jumped on that alleged apparition that was 'seen' opening a door in a London tourist site a couple of years ago.
I've been involved in press releases , I'm ex military so I know a wee bit about telling that particular media what you want them to know. My point is that, if the 'press/tv got hold of this, it would go some way to proving the existence of the paranormal/ghosts or even the existance of an afterlife and perhaps a
superior being/deity, to me that in itself would constitute a darned good scoop, look how they jumped on that alleged apparition that was 'seen' opening a door in a London tourist site a couple of years ago.
"Then it won't be 'news' as such will it?"
Well, it stopped being news the moment anyone heard about it. Your point was that it seemed strange it hadn't been on TV or TV-related websites.
"I've been involved in press releases , I'm ex military so I know a wee bit about telling that particular media [sic] what you want them to know".
Its nothing to do with telling any particular medium "what" we want it to know, but "when" we want it to know.
"My point is that, if the 'press/tv got hold of this..."
But they have. The case has already been the subject of several articles in national magazines and papers - the Mail article was not the first. It just hasn't been on TV yet - and soon that will change too.
"...it would go some way to proving the existence of the paranormal..."
Look, you can't prove the "existence of the paranormal"; its such a wide field - ghosts UFOs, poltergeists, psychokinesis, mediumship, cryptozoology...the best you can do is hope to offer objective evidence in support of one aspect of it.
"...ghosts or even the existance [sic] of an afterlife and perhaps a superior being/deity, to me that in itself would constitute a darned good scoop",
Proving something like that incontrovertibly is a nice thought, and would indeed be "a damn good scoop" to put it mildly. Somehow, I doubt Darren and I will be the first people in all of recorded history to achieve it. Even we don't get that lucky!
Still, who knows; masybe with our next book...
Well, it stopped being news the moment anyone heard about it. Your point was that it seemed strange it hadn't been on TV or TV-related websites.
"I've been involved in press releases , I'm ex military so I know a wee bit about telling that particular media [sic] what you want them to know".
Its nothing to do with telling any particular medium "what" we want it to know, but "when" we want it to know.
"My point is that, if the 'press/tv got hold of this..."
But they have. The case has already been the subject of several articles in national magazines and papers - the Mail article was not the first. It just hasn't been on TV yet - and soon that will change too.
"...it would go some way to proving the existence of the paranormal..."
Look, you can't prove the "existence of the paranormal"; its such a wide field - ghosts UFOs, poltergeists, psychokinesis, mediumship, cryptozoology...the best you can do is hope to offer objective evidence in support of one aspect of it.
"...ghosts or even the existance [sic] of an afterlife and perhaps a superior being/deity, to me that in itself would constitute a darned good scoop",
Proving something like that incontrovertibly is a nice thought, and would indeed be "a damn good scoop" to put it mildly. Somehow, I doubt Darren and I will be the first people in all of recorded history to achieve it. Even we don't get that lucky!
Still, who knows; masybe with our next book...
You should read the book because it looks at all different aspects and possible explanations. It is a well put together book with all types of insights into different thoughts and perceptions into the the poltergeist activity. It is extremely captivating. The guys have done their best to rule out any kind of hoax and they are seasoned investigators. The book has specific details and goes in depth to explain, as best they can, the reasons behind this phenomonen. Don't read it at night time though!!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Technology4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.