Investigating the paranormal with science, technology and parapsychology
19-20 November 2011: This investigation provided the very first clear indications of a portal haunting (i.e. with multiple presences). Reanalysis of audio from the 5-6 Nov 2011 investigation (update) also confirmed the same. However, the presence of multiple potential ghost entities was not immediately apparent at that time.
The intent of this investigation was to determine what spirit entities were in the home, what they wanted, and why they were there. The investigation succeeded in eliciting names (directly or indirectly) of some spirit entities. The investigation also discerned that some ghost entities appeared to be protective of the client. However, no firm progress was made uncovering the source of the haunting. Fragmentary EVP (not posted) pointed to a possible rationale for the haunting.
AUDIO: EVP continued to suggest the possible presence of multiple and interacting spirit entities in the client’s home. Some core personalities might have emerged.
Some activity found in EVP reflected a desire on the part of ghost entities to be recognized (“We Can Get Through”). In other instances, spirit entities provided commentary on the participants. The observers, in effect, became the observed (“You’re Already Careful”).
In some cases harassment or intimidation appeared at play. Some example EVP in this regard were (“She Made Fun of Him”) and (“Lorraine”). The EVP (“Let Me Handle It”) is perhaps an example of a protective response.
One entity identified itself twice by first name in EVP (“David”) and (“I’m David”). The last name of the David entity is possibly (“Morgan”). Searches in historical records found no persons with the name “David Morgan” that had resided near the client’s location. It is also possible that Morgan may refer to a different entity.
Some entities appeared to be protective of the client or may have been attempting to relay advice; an example EVP of this kind was (“Hold Her Now”). The entity “David” may be among these seemingly protective spirits.
One (or more) ghost entities exhibited brusque personalities; a possible Class C example was (“Go Head to the Map”); ** Headphones recommended. ** As was the case with the prior visit, some ghost entities again readily responded to provocation (“You’ll Regret It Now”).
The religious contours of the haunting remain. In the EVP (“Where Is He?”), multiple disembodied voices replied to the investigator’s query as to whether the ghost of a clergyman may be present. Interesting reactions were noted to the mention of Jesus. Collectively, the EVP perhaps suggested there was no spirit of a clergyman there or that possible spirit entities were strongly cautioning against remarks on the prospect in itself.
MOVEMENT/PHYSICAL: There were mixed indications spirit entities were manipulating the physical environment. During the night, the client’s son was awakened by the sound of loud pounding on his bedroom wall. EVP were heard in response to the client’s query regarding this event (“She Made Fun of Him”), that assigned responsibility to a female ghost entity. There were also instances where spirit entities disavowed affecting physical surroundings; in the EVP (“I Haven’t”), an entity possibly claims not to have moved an infrared surveillance camera.
ELECTROMAGNETIC: The most dramatic event involved the outdoor backyard floodlight. At one point, the client prayed for the home to be enveloped in protective white light. Exactly 3 mins and 33 secs the later the floodlight activated. Several EVP were heard (“There You Have It”) during the event; some EVP had a mocking intonation. These EVP were suggestive that spirit entities may have affected the motion sensor to the floodlight.
VIDEO: No apparitions were seen or noted yet in footage. However a large slow-moving orb was noted in infrared surveillance camera footage after the floodlight activation event. Despite the coincident timing, moving dust still remains a natural explanation for this orb activity, which may have been stirred from the client’s movement.
CASE ASSESSMENT/UPDATE: From EVP, multiple spirit entities appear to be aware that we can hear them and made various attempts to be acknowledged. In EVP, some entities signaled on the part of themselves or others, an ability to affect the environment. Core spirit personalities (and names) have emerged; some of whom appear protective of the client.
The floodlight event bears added comment. Although weather conditions were not particularly windy, the activation of the floodlight’s motion sensor may have a natural explanation and perhaps represents nothing more than pure coincidence. However, analysis should consider the possibility, even if remote, that the specific timing of event involving the number “333” could communicate some form of intent.
The number 333 has no universally shared significance. For some Christians, it represents the holy trinity. For numerologists, the number suggests the presence of a guardian spirit. In occult practices, 333 is believed to represent demonic mocking of the holy trinity and is associated with a particular demon named Choronzon.
This event remains unexplained.
In all, this remains a serious case with an exceptional volume of EVP. The tenor of many EVP continues to be a cause for concern and caution.
Audio findings can never provide proof of ghosts. Since the ultimate source/origin of the audio is unknown, one cannot prove that any audio findings came from non-corporeal beings. Moreover, audio collection equipment typically is not shielded from radiofrequency (RF) transmissions. RF cannot be ruled out as a potential audio source.
NOTE: The most current audio and video findings are archived and accessible via the Maryland Paranormal Research Facebook and Tumblr pages. See the ASSESSMENT: A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (Arnold) Maryland page for a rolling analytic review of this case.