Ghost Boxes – Where Do the Words Come From?

Ghost boxes (and related ghost hunting equipment) include real-time EVP devices, Shack Hacks, Frank’s Boxes, and Digital Dowsing equipment like the Puck and Ovilus.

Ghost Boxes - where do the words come from?Today, Kyle (a visitor to Hollow Hill) asked where the words come from. Here’s my reply.

Different ghost communication devices work in different ways.

Some – like the Puck and Ovilus – have a built-in vocabulary. In theory, those are the only words those devices can say.

However, I’ve heard an Ovilus – in dictionary mode – say my name (Fiona Broome) when “broom” was in the vocabulary list, but “Fiona” definitely wasn’t. So I haven’t a clue how that happened.

I’ve witnessed other investigations where the words weren’t in the vocabulary. So, it wasn’t just that one time. (That first was at the Salem Inn, in Salem, MA, in one of their most haunted rooms.)

Those kinds of words are emitted when EMF spikes/surges occur. In theory, the words should be drawn from the built-in vocabulary, at random.

Therefore, when words (or phrases) are relevant and/or repeated beyond a statistical norm… that suggests some intelligent (spiritual) energy is involved.

Some ghost boxes – like Shack Hacks and Frank’s Boxes – use radio stations’ broadcasts. The devices cycle through lots of radio stations in succession – maybe half a second, each – and grab words or parts of words, at random.

I’ve heard those devices speak clearly, in full sentences, even though the clips were brief and strung together in real time.

One of them – a Frank’s Box – produced my late mother’s voice, complete with her regional accent, and “she” said something relevant to me. There is no way anyone would have known that particular phrase or way of saying it, to fake the voice/message.

That happened two days in a row in Ontario (Canada), The first time was at a haunted site investigation. The second was the next day, at a not-haunted hotel site hosting a ghost hunters’ conference.

But, adding a little geek-skepticism here: Is it possible that people – consciously or inadvertently – can use some weird form of psychokinesis to control the words coming through those devices…?

(Psychokinesis is the supposed ability to move objects by mental effort alone. I’ve seen it happen in real life, frequently enough to believe it’s an actual phenomenon, and may explain some poltergeist activity.)

That explanation outside my understanding of physics and psychokinesis, but it’s the only possibility I can think of.

It’s a fascinating field of study!

Ghost Box Resources

Shack Hacks

Frank’s Box

Here’s a demonstration of a Frank’s Box. (Note: I can vouch for Chris being gifted in terms of his use of a Frank’s Box. Other than that, I’m uneasy recommending Chris, based on a few red flags that bothered me.)

More Resources
  • Digital Dowsing – Some of this equipment works very well. I’ve used a couple of models of the Ovilus EMF device. Another research I respect has said that the Puck is even better. You may have seen some Digital Dowsing tools in use on ghost hunting TV shows.
  • Ghost Box Hacks – Open Source Paranormal’s plans and tips. The site hasn’t been updated in some time, but the information is still useful.
  • Halloween Ghost Box Tips (2016) :

If you have questions or insights about these kinds of devices, I hope you’ll leave a comment at this site.

Ghost Hunting? Leave Nothing!

Many ghost hunters routinely carry (and use) ghost hunting equipment. The following story explains why you should always double-check the site (and your backpacks) to be sure you’ve left nothing behind.

Ghost hunting? Leave nothing!Of course, this isn’t just about ghost hunting equipment.

The list could include food wrappers, muddy footprints, and anything else that wasn’t there when you arrived.

Just as when you’re at hiking trails and campsites, the rule should be “leave nothing behind.”

The following excerpt from a news story is a cautionary tale.

Basically: before leaving the investigation site, a team forgot to double-check their ghost hunting equipment. They left an EMF-related device behind.

Then, the police thought it was a bomb or a bomb triggering device. So, the police destroyed it with a water cannon.

Here’s part of the news story:

“Paranormal investigators in Windsor, Ontario, say they’re sorry for getting the bomb squad involved after leaving a ghost-hunting device lying “around.

“This week, police were called to Mackenzie Hall, a historic building in west Windsor, after people came across a suspicious black box with a blue light and a red wire sticking out.

“Investigation revealed that a suspicious item was left in a room within the building,” police said in a news release. (As of July 2018, that news release seems to have been removed.)

“Mackenzie Hall was built in the 1850s by Alexander Mackenzie, who later became the second prime minister of Canada. Though the building today serves as a cultural centre, it once functioned as a courthouse and jail where public executions took place.

“That made it the perfect place to go hunting for ghosts, according to Jen Parker, the assistant director of the Listowel Paranormal Society.

“Parker said she only realized what had happened after police called her to ask about the EMF sensor. She said police told her they evacuated the building, then destroyed the device when a bomb disposal robot blasted it with a water cannon.

“Parker said her group of seven ghost hunters is going to start using an equipment checklist on future investigations so as not to repeat the mistake.”

Read that full news article:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/bomb-squad-called-for-emf-sensor-left-by-ghost-hunters

And here’s a related story. (I can’t imagine how embarrassed the ghost hunting team must be, to see so much negative publicity. They have my sympathy.)

Bomb Squad Scare Highlights Missteps of Modern Ghost Hunting

 

Ghost Hunting without Equipment

This is one of the first of my re-issued Hollow Hill podcasts.

Ghost Hunting podcast - Hollow HillIn this 16-minute podcast from November 2009, I talked about using your five (or six) senses to investigate haunted places. I also shared other ghost hunting tips.

Some things have changed in the eight years since I recorded this. (Okay, a lot has changed, but the info in this podcast is still valid, with a few notable exceptions.)

For example, as of 2017, the K-II isn’t the only good EMF meter.

EMF Ghost MeterIn fact, right now (late 2017) I like the Ghost Meter better than the K-II. (Also, the Ghost Meter costs about half as much as a K-II meter.) In “seance mode,” the Ghost Meter been surprisingly accurate for yes/no responses.

(That’s one in a photo on the right. Mine has a clear case, not black. And yes, it is an “as seen on TV” product. Despite that, it seems to work as a real-time communication device. I’d trust it far more than, say, a loosened flashlight/torch.)

Also, the Ovilus is available again. It’s far more sophisticated than it was in 2009. As of 2017, I’m testing its accuracy in a variety of on-site and remote experiments. So far, I can confirm that the Ovilus III can work remotely, with about 30% accuracy.

Other than that, most of this 2009 recording is still good information.

Yes, I still experience frustration when people miss seeing apparitions and other ghostly phenomena. But, since 2009, I’ve learned to accept that some researchers are going to hyper-focus on their ghost hunting equipment… and miss real hauntings.

Maybe this podcast will help. (It’s from HollowHillPodcasts.com.)

First, I talked about the importance of looking around and listening. I described the kinds of evidence you might see and hear.

Then, I shared an easy way to make your hands more sensitive to “cold spots” and exactly how to find them.

I also described the best ways to use dowsing rods, and whether or not you should investigate “lights out” at indoor locations. (In most cases, there’s not much reason to work in the dark, but there are exceptions.)

Related Links

Homemade Dowsing Rods – My article about how to make and use your own dowsing rods.

Joey Korn’s Dowsers.com – The only professional-grade dowsing rods I use.

Podcast by: Fiona Broome, the founder of HollowHill.com
Music: Zombie by Devin Anderson

The Orbs Issue in One 1910 Photo

Orbs are a hotly contested topic. Are they ghost orbs… or something less interesting?

ghostly orbs at gilson road cemetery
One of my own orb photos

My message today is: In ghost hunting, the most reliable person is yourself.

When anyone (including me) assures you that something is true, verify it.

Most orb debates would resolve quickly if people routinely tested their own cameras to see what dust, pollen, rain, fog, reflections, breath, and insects look like in those photos.

Do this yourself. Test every camera you use for ghost hunting. Deliberately stage “false orb” conditions.

Then, analyze those photos. Could you confuse them with truly anomalous orbs?

When I stumbled onto this discovery, I was embarrassed by how simple it was. For nearly 10 years, I’d kept insisting that most orbs were caused by dust, pollen, insects, reflections, and so on.

Then, after a heated argument with a long-time friend who insisted that all orbs are ghosts, I was irked. I set out to prove my theory. I really wanted to show him that he was wrong.

But then…

I discovered that it’s more difficult to create convincing, fake orbs — with dust, pollen, smoke, insects, etc. — than I’d realized.

The key word is “convincing.” Until you know what you’re looking for, most orbs can look alike.

I’ll explain more about this in the future.

For now, I’ve stumbled onto a great, old photo that shows some easily identified issues, as well as orbs that might be ghostly.

The following is a photo of the Custer Battlefield National Cemetery. The picture was taken in 1910, when photography was very different from now. But, the issues remain the same.

Sunrise at Custer Battlefield Cemetery - orbs

I’ve enlarged some of the orbs to show what might be an anomaly — also called a “ghost orb” — and what’s probably a glitch in the photo.

Processing Mistakes

First, an obvious glitch. In the photo above, the following area is in the lower right part of the picture, to the left of the white writing.

chemical spatters

That photo was processed in a lab. Chemical splashes and spatters could happen. That’s the most likely explanation for those irregular, somewhat circular areas.

Even in the 1990s, when I was taking film photos at haunted sites, I still had to examine the negatives for splashes and lab errors.

False Orbs – Dust and Insects

The next enlargement shows what could be pollen and insects, as well as some possible anomalies. In the original photo, this area is in the lower half of the picture, and just left of the center.

Orb #1 includes a clear dot. In a color photo, it might be yellow or orange. When it is, the orb is almost always caused by pollen.

But, I see other similar, small dots nearby. So, the orb might be real and the dots might be a glitch from the developing or printing process, or damage to the print during storage.

Solution: When you’re taking photos, ask a friend to stand to one side and in front of you. He or she can tell you if anything in the air looked highlighted by your flash.

Orb #2 is an odd shape, and part of it is more solid looking. That’s often a flying insect.

Solution: When you’re ghost hunting outdoors, regularly look up at streetlights, or have a friend leave a flashlight on for several minutes. Many insects are attracted to light.

If you see bugs flying in front of a light, keep them in mind when you’re analyzing your photos, later.

Miscellaneous Items

The next enlargement is from the sky area in the Custer photo. It’s near the top and to the right of the middle.

Irregular shape #1 is probably damage to the print or something that spilled on the negative.

Shape #2 could be almost anything, including an insect or two, or a printing glitch.

Possible Ghost Orbs

After ruling out things that look like false anomalies, I still see several orbs I can’t explain. Not entirely, anyway. (I am mindful that sunlight may have been streaming directly towards the camera.)

I’ve indicated a few possible orbs from the sky area of the photo. But, a closer examination of the original photo may reveal more.

ghost orbs at custer battlefield cemetery

Of course, they could be processing errors from the darkroom. They could be insects or pollen, or something else that’s perfectly normal.

I have no idea and, frankly, no one can be sure whether anything I’ve said is accurate about this photo.

We’d need to test the camera the photographer used.

That’s my point.

For the past several years, I routinely test every new camera. I want to see how dust, pollen, moisture, breath, smoke, and other issues may affect my photos.

It’s a semi-scientific approach to ghost photography. More importantly, testing each camera is the only way we can tell whether our photos include possible anomalies… or probable dust, insects, and so on.

This is important, as well: Even after those tests, we’ll have unanswered questions.

Never to assume that the logical, normal explanation is the only explanation. Something that “looks like dust” could still be an anomaly.

And, even if it is dust, you may have another mystery: What causes dust in that area, but nowhere else at that location or nearby?

In other words, the orb may not be the anomaly. Maybe the weird dust is.

Are Orbs ‘Paranormal’?

cameraNow and then, the word “paranormal” seems to take on a life of its own.  In a recent discussion about orbs, a couple of people insisted that orbs aren’t paranormal.

Well, I can’t argue with a skeptical critic.  He or she has already made up his or her mind.  The skeptical critic is usually a bottomless well of explanations, no matter how extreme or preposterous.  (But, to be fair: Anyone absolutely, positively determined to interpret everything as ghostly… he or she can be equally defensive.)

I think skeptical critics feel a little more secure in their uncertainties, if they think they have a nice, normal reason for everything.  (Since they simply want to argue with people like me, I’m not sure why they’re involved in ghost hunting.)

However, I’m not convinced that yesterday’s critics meant what they said.  I think they meant that orbs aren’t ghosts.

THE DEFINITION OF PARANORMAL

“Paranormal” does not mean “ghostly.”

Para-, the prefix, comes from the Greek.  It means beside (not part of) or beyond.  So, “paranormal” is something beyond what’s normal.

The Free Dictionary defines paranormal as, “Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.”

Dictionary.com says it’s “of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation.”

Merriam-Webster says paranormal means, “not scientifically explainable.”

Most definitions refer to supernatural phenomena as an example, but the basic definition comes down to:

  • Para = Beyond or outside.
  • Normal = Standard, not deviating from the norm, or average.
NOLA - Pirates Alley, on a foggy, rainy night
New Orleans on a foggy night, after rain, with lots of lights & reflections. No orbs.

So, avoid using “paranormal” when you mean “ghostly.”

A photo of an orb can be paranormal. So can a photo of a flower, a cat, or your shoe.  It all depends on what’s normal, and what can’t be explained within the range of normal.

NORMAL AND PARANORMAL ORBS

An orb I can identify as pollen artifact is normal.  

An orb that I can’t reproduce by normal means (setting up the lighting, dust, moisture, etc., in a certain way) is paranormal.

  • It’s not necessarily a ghost.
  • It’s not necessarily energy.
  • It’s not necessarily an angel, your great-granny, or the Tooth Fairy.

It’s just an orb that — at the present time — can’t be explained, and can’t be reproduced using similar photographic staging.

I may apply other descriptions to that orb, but they relate to the experience at the time the photo was taken. I’m looking for other phenomena, what investigators were sensing at the time, EVP, EMF spikes, sensory phenomena, and so on.

The orb photo itself… it doesn’t prove anything.  All by itself, it’s supporting evidence, at best.

Here’s my story:

For years, I was guilty of insisting that most orbs are dust, pollen, moisture, reflections, insects, and so on.  And, fed up with saying that to people who just wouldn’t believe me, I decided to prove it.

I planned to create some great, convincing-looking, fake orb photos.  Frankly, I didn’t think it would be very difficult.

I set up my cameras — multiple film and digital cameras — and used things like:

  • Ragweed (pollen).
  • My Swiffer (dust).
  • Flour (denser dust).
  • Very fine, powdery sand and dirt from unpaved roads (more dust).
  • Spray bottles (moisture).
  • Mirrors, shiny glass, and chandeliers (reflections).
  • Stop signs, traffic cones, other street signs (reflections).

I trekked to swampy areas with wall-to-wall mosquitoes.  I walked down dirt roads at night, and waited for a car or truck to drive by, stirring up the dust.

I visited damp locations on humid and foggy nights.  I even went to New Orleans shortly after Katrina, when everything was pretty soggy.

NOLA-reflect-cone
Flash photo of shiny glass, lights and a traffic cone in New Orleans’ French Quarter… on a damp evening. No orbs.

Sure, I got photos that included orbs. The problem was, they didn’t look like the orbs I photograph at haunted locations.  They weren’t convincing orbs.

A beginner might be fooled by them… but not me.  Not after all these years in ghost hunting, after tens of thousands of photos.

But, after spending years insisting (with no proof) that most orbs were the product of the environment, I wasn’t going to eat crow quite yet.

In fact, I spent six years trying to stage photos that would produce orbs identical to the orbs photographed at haunted and spiritual sites.

The one and only thing that produced convincing orbs — orbs that looked like “ghost orbs” — was breathing (or talking with a lot of exhaling) while taking the photos.  And even then, I couldn’t get real-looking orbs in more than half my photos.  Most of them still looked fake.

Toulouse Street, New Orleans.
A street corner in New Orleans at night. Bright lights. No orbs.

Some researchers claim that all orbs — even those with logical explanations that you can see — are evidence of spirits.

I’m not one of those researchers.  Sure, maybe a ghost floated that particular fleck of pollen in front of my camera exactly when I was taking the picture. Maybe he did that just to get my attention.  I can accept that as a possibility.

However, I’m not going to state, categorically, that any orb represents a ghost.

It’s just something paranormal… and it seems to happen most often at “haunted” sites.  That’s all I can state with confidence.

That and the fact that believable orbs are amazingly difficult to fake.

Having been a skeptical critic of “ghost orbs” for many years, I’m regretting that — as the author of some of the earliest ghost hunting articles online — I led people to believe that most orbs can be explained by dust, pollen, reflections, and so on.

Sure, I can still spot an orb that doesn’t look right.  I know that, either inside the frame of the photo or just outside it, there’s a likely explanation.  If the photographer revisits the site, he or she will usually see what caused the lens flare or refraction.

But, there’s a different quality to the orbs we usually can’t explain.  And, to replicate those… well, except for breathing while taking a flash photo — and even that isn’t a “sure thing” — I can’t seem to create convincing-looking orbs with staging.

Fake-looking orbs are easy.  Real-looking ones… no.

But, my point in this article isn’t just about orbs.  It’s about how people misuse the word “paranormal.”

If you mean “ghostly,” say so. 

If you just mean something that — at this time — can’t be explained by anything normal in that setting, at that time… that’s paranormal.

There is a difference, and it’s an important one when we’re discussing research techniques and results.