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

Although searching for appropriate and separate baseline locations is one way to address this issue, another has been to take multiple measurements from the same location of interest but to compare areas that are associated with anomalous reports to areas that are not. (Wiseman et al., 2002, 2003; see Roll & Persinger, 2001). Note that all of the above possibilities involve comparing different spatial locations or areas at different times. A major methodological improvement has been to compare a specific and known area of interest to other proximal spatial areas at exactly the same time (Braithwaite, 2004). This method gets around the problem of trying to locate other separate locations that are matched in a number of ways. With these issues in mind, perhaps the most parsimonious approach would be to initially couple measuring the specific area of interest to more proximal time-linked baseline measurements in the same location. Both sets of measurements could then be further compared to other separate baseline location measurements for other estimations of magnetic variability. This approach should be appropriate for most purposes.

For the present study we needed to consider several factors when choosing an appropriate baseline. These were mainly that the baseline area should (1) share as many physical parameters (lighting levels, temperature, sound levels, and so on) as possible with the "haunt area" of interest, particularly those areas directly implicated in inducing haunt-type experiences; (2) share as many structural parameters as possible, such as room dimensions and subterranean geology; (3) share as many (potential) witness parameters as possible, such as occupancy level and frequency; and (4) be sufficiently distal so as not to share any specific localized anomaly possibly surrounding the haunt-area. These factors, taken together, should to some degree isolate magnetism and the presence of haunt-reports as the sole differentiating parameters between the baseline area and the haunt-area. Furthermore, this method is further improved by employing synchronized time-linked measurements at both the baseline and haunt-area simultaneously. This allows for a more direct comparison between the areas and has the potential to reveal anything special about both the spatial and temporal aspects of the magnetic signatures present. With these parameters in mind, the obvious choice for a baseline area in the present study was within the same room, several meters away from the main area of interest and any obvious artificial magnetic sources. We were lucky in that the actual haunt-area associated with the most striking and consistent experiences could also be estimated to within a few centimeters (as explained below).

Coupled to this time-linked baseline measure, we also provide some comparison data from other baseline locations. These baseline measurements have come from (1) modern living environments of both low and high dwelling loads, and (2) another stately building matched for structural and geological similarity (granite-based structure). The general normative data from these baseline locations are presented in the General Discussion section for further comparison.