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

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.

Therefore, under some circumstances there is an argument that it might be prudent to try to match target and baseline locations along certain dimensions as much as possible. This is important for a number of reasons. All these other situational and contextual factors may indeed interact with magnetic signatures themselves, creating an experience-prone state in certain observers. Therefore a random baseline here may not share any geological, contextual, architectural, or magnetic properties at all with the target site, which could make it more difficult to identify the crucial components in any particular case as all factors are free to vary considerably. One possibility is to match sites along certain dimensions while ensuring that they differ considerably along the crucial dimensions of interest (e.g., geologically defined magnetic fields). These would provide more conservative estimates as all other variables are being held relatively constant.