In search of magnetic anomalies associated with haunt-type experiences: pulses and patterns in dual time-synchronized measurements

Journal of Parapsychology, The, Fall, 2004 by Jason J. Braithwaite, Katty Perez-Aquino, Maurice Townsend

In many ways the discussion outlined above is analogous to that of searching for seizure-type patterns that may indicate neural storms in an EEG (electroencephalograph) scalp recording of a suspected epileptic patient. In some patients, seizures can only be distinguished around the time of the ictal event. In others, there can be a more constantly available abnormality in the EEG, which can be picked up during inter-ictal periods. In both cases the researcher is interested in the underlying mechanisms mediating how and where the anomalies occur, how they are sustained, how they propagate, and how they disappear--if indeed they do. The EEG has been an invaluable tool to the researcher interested in detailing cortical electrical anomalies and how these relate to neuro-cognitive processes. In essence the task is no different from that of detailing magnetic anomalies, which may exist as invisible thunderstorms in certain locations that may occasionally strike at vulnerable brains.

Appropriate Baseline Areas and Locations

In order to truly establish whether a magnetic environment or a particular signature within it is indeed remarkable in some way, such measurements must be compared to appropriate baseline measurements. The baseline provides estimates of variability contained within such signals where no apparent anomalous consequences are associated. What constitutes an appropriate baseline can be a matter of debate and contention dependent on the questions being asked, but a study that does not employ some form of baseline can be seriously compromised (see Houran & Brugger, 2000, for a fuller discussion of these issues). Also, it is not always explicit from field studies what attempts have been made to try to match the baselines (or not as the case might be) to the location of interest. There are a number of approaches to choosing appropriate baselines.

One approach has been to compare any target site with a selection of random other locations (see Houran & Brugger, 2000, for a discussion). The underlying logic is that most parameters should cancel themselves out across these randomly selected locations and build a representative template of natural variability of the important factors being studied, in the absence of anomalous reports. This approach often shows that what might look anomalous at the target site is actually part of the natural variability of a host of other "control" locations as well; therefore these factors are not particularly distinguishing as anomalous. However, one problem with using lots of random baseline locations is that many other dimensions are also free to vary. These include, room/area dimensions, location age, wiring configurations, electrical appliance demand, experiential context, architecture, lighting levels, sound levels, subterranean geology, person/ occupancy frequency, and so on. This should still be fine if it is being assumed that the magnetic signatures themselves are solely crucial (i.e., none of these other factors matter). However, if a complex interaction between magnetic signatures and the specific experiential context is assumed, the usefulness of such random locations as an appropriate baseline can be questioned.