Estimate/Assessment: A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (Arnold) Maryland
NOTE: This case aired on Season 5 and an update of the Discovery Networks television series “A Haunting” on the Destination America channel.
|
Discovery Networks/Destination America: A Haunting (Season 5 Episode 2)
VISIT 1: DISCOVERY
ASSESSMENT: Analysis of audio and video provided ample indications of “drop-in” communications, with streams of EVP and ausio from multiple and varied communicators. There appeared to be differences in pitch/tone/accent across EVP. The content of some remarks has at times a religious cast. Since some audio content appeared to indicate location awareness, the activity was characterized as a haunting. Many EVP were close to the noise floor and indicated the need for higher quality audio equipment. (5-6 Nov 2011)
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County: Case File 5-6 Nov 2011 Arnold, Maryland – UPDATE
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County: Case File 5-6 Nov 2011 Arnold, Maryland
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (“We Act So Stupid”)
VISIT 2: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ASSESSMENT: Core “drop-in” communicator personas may be emerging in EVP. First names such as “David” and “Lorraine” were captured in EVP in direct response to queries. There were limited indications in EVP that some physical activity could be attributed to communicators. A female presence was seemingly identified as the origin of unexplained pounding noises on a bedroom wall. Another communicator in EVP disavowed moving a camera. There were mixed indications in EVP that communicators could have manipulated outdoor floodlight motion sensors. A large slow-moving orb was noted in infrared surveillance camera footage after the floodlight event however airborne dust remains a natural explanation for this activity. (19-20 Nov 2011)
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County: Case File 19-20 Nov 2011 Arnold, Maryland – UPDATE
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (“There You Have It”)
VISIT 3: ESCALATION
ASSESSMENT: The tempo and level of invective remarks in EVP has generally increased as well as their precision. Such remarks appear to have been directed against all parties connected to this haunting, and in some instances by name, nickname or personal circumstances. Supportive remarks in EVP and ITC, though fewer by comparison, continue to be directed primarily at the client. The client and resident family members have reported movement or displacement of objects, scratching sounds, and footsteps. The investigation noted consistency in responses across ITC and followon EVP sessions. There were more reflections in EVP/ITC from (and about) the communicator self-identified as “David”, who appears to communicate supportive remarks/responses to the client. ITC appeared to yield striking content but also introduced radiofrequency and white noise artifacts. (17-18 Dec 2011)
Example EVP/ITC findings from 17-18 Dec 2011 investigation include:
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (“Yes Cathy”)
VISIT 4: DE-ESCALATION
ASSESSMENT: The haunting continues from apparently multiple/core communicators. However, invective remarks in EVP/ITC have abated, and the darker cast to the haunting seemed absent. The client reports the atmospherics of the home are generally calmer, however she continues to experience apparitions. The client adopted folklore mitigation measures that appeared to help reduce activity. These outcomes may possibly owe to psi-functioning and intentionality on the part of the client. The impromptu investigation mainly employed ITC and yielded a few more insights on a possible core communicator named “David”, who appeared to convey supportive remarks/responses to the client, and seems to exhibit a recognizable speech pattern. The investigation provided only fragmentary insights on the origin of the haunting, and on why it continues. (24 Jun 2012)
Example EVP/ITC findings from the 24 Jun 2012 investigation include:
Uriel [** Audio quality is poor]
A Haunting in Anne Arundel County (“Save Us God”)
VISIT 5: EQUILIBRIUM
ASSESSMENT: This follow-up investigation employed the full complement of technical capabilities to include sound stages (digital recorders, mixers, dynamic microphones), along with data acquisition to continuously monitor environmental conditions, as well as digital imaging in the infrared spectrum. Focus areas were the basement and master bedroom. Preliminary indications suggest activity continues from a handful of benign “drop-in” communicators. (10-11 Aug 2013)
