Ghost hunters investigate Sandusky’s Hotel
A ghost hunter searches for paranormal activity inside the Hotel RiegerIn Nomine Paranormal Research group have investigated the old Hotel and find that they experienced noises, footsteps, EVP and video activity that they cannot explain. In a surveillance video, they said to have captured some orb activity. As most well seasoned paranormal investigators know, the team knows that orbs are almost always dust, insects and other natural phenomena. They have some evidence that they cannot explain themselves.
As it waits for new development, the Hotel Rieger stands empty in downtown Sandusky.
Or does it?
Paranormal investigators called in from Fort Wayne, Ind., spent hours in the building the evening of Oct. 25, checking reports that it may be inhabited by ghosts.
Rob Stone, an investigator for In Nomine Paranormal Research of Fort Wayne, says he and another investigator, Megan Price, were called in to check out rumors that a ghostof a small child and other spirits haunt the hotel.
Jason Snyder, In Nomine’s lead investigator, is a Sandusky native and 1996 Perkins High School graduate.
He decided to send in Stone and Price after talking to two old friends who are members of Erie Paranormal.
Because of the Hotel Rieger’s history as a nursing home, he said it seemed like a good place for an investigation.
“It’s pretty much no surprise to anybody hauntings are found in places where death occurs,” Snyder said.
Armed with video cameras, digital cameras and other equipment, Stone and his team came back with photographs from many rooms in the old hotel.
Price said at one point she heard footsteps outside of a room known as the waiting room. The sounds could not have been made by other members of the team, who were in a separate area of the hotel.
She said she serves as a photographer and “sensitive” for paranormal investigations.
“I’m able to feel things that normal people can’t,” she said. “That’s how I help them find all of the hot spots.”
Another interesting incident occurred when a video camera captured a moving orb, or transparent ball. Stone notes that an orb is on the left in the video and says that instruments showed a burst of electrical energy.
During the rest of the night, “we got no electrical interference at all,” Stone said.
“It’s almost like something hurled some kind of energy at the camera,” he said. “I’m not saying it’s paranormal.”
Investigators have to be careful about attributing orbs to ghosts, Stone said. About 99.9 percent of the time, orbs in photographs are produced by dust, insects and other natural phenomena.
Skeptics say there’s plenty of justification for Stone’s cautious attitude.
Ben Radford, managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine, is particularly critical of recordings of electronic voice phenomena, alleged voices from the beyond.
In theory, the noises capture communications from ghosts.
Radford, interviewed last year by the Register after ghost hunters gave a presentation at the Clyde Library, contends that EVPs are meaningless sounds and any apparent content is supplied by the listener.
“There has never been an EVP that has given any information,” Radford said.
Stone said his group tries to follow the scientific method, looking first for natural explanations for alleged ghostly phenomena.
He said the group would like to return to the Hotel Rieger for a more thorough investigation.
If it has any ghosts, the Rieger had plenty of time to acquire them.
According to an article by Helen Hansen and Virginia Steinemann, printed in “A View of Sandusky — Volume II,” John L. Rieger opened a 60-room hotel at 232 Jackson St. in 1912. By 1926, it was up to five stories and 130 rooms. The Rieger became the Erie Inn Motor Hotel in 1964, then became a nursing home, then was turned into a bed and breakfast before closing in the 1990s.
Full source: Sandusky Register
Video results where the team captures an “orb”. They are not saying that this is proof, or that it is even something paranormal. They are still looking for answers.
When Orb's Attack!
Written by Javier Ortega - javier@ghosttheory.com
Get GhostTheory updates faster! sign up to our RSS Feeds or
add us on Twitter
While I’m glad to hear that this group uses the scientific method, I’m wary of any investigators that employ sensitives on a regular basis. Even though I believe there are people who have the ability to sense and communicate with spirits, it’s just too spotty of an investigation technique to rely upon. It’s also way too subjective; how can you prove that the person isn’t just making things up, or suffering from delusions? Just like in court, eyewitness experiences are the weakest evidence there is. Give me a good video or something like that anyday.
As far as the validity of EVP’s, the jury is still out. I’ve heard some that were very clear and needed no “translation”, and I’ve heard some that sounded like random noises that may or may not be speech. My problem with folks who proudly call themselves skeptics is that they refuse to admit that they could be wrong. They’re zealots who often refuse to even listen to opposing points of view. Skepticism is a great thing in the paranormal world, but if it blinds you to evidence that may hav some validity why are you bothering? I think that a lot of skeptics are simply people who are afraid of the idea that something may lay beyond what they can see and feel, that there may be more to the universe around us than what the surface reveals.
Talthar,
I agree, skeptics need to learn to be observant at times. Not everyone out there is creating hoaxes.
EVP is something that is still fairly new and everyone does it. What it is? no one can say for sure. The evidence is astounding though..
“My problem with folks who proudly call themselves skeptics is that they refuse to admit that they could be wrong. They’re zealots who often refuse to even listen to opposing points of view.”
do you have some links to examples of this type of behavior? the very ideal of skepticism is to have an open mind while exploring any and all avenues of validity and reject those that come up wanting, for lack of a better word.
“Skepticism is a great thing in the paranormal world, but if it blinds you to evidence that may hav some validity why are you bothering?”
again, to you have some examples of where skepticism has blinded someone to objectively-reviewed valid evidence?
fwiw, – imho, it’s not usually the skeptical sorts who are overly zealous and blinded by bias.
I agree with bellaboo on the idea that it’s not the skeptical people who are overly zealous and blinded, although they CAN be. I have dealt with my fair share of skeptics at points and many of them CAN be zealous and blind, and I can attest, they are not open minded when they do not want to be. Then again, isn’t that a human condition with most of us.
bellaboo, I do not think that talthar needs to show you examples of anything. He is allowed an opinion just as you are, if you want a challenge, prove him wrong without a shadow of a doubt, through whatever means that cannot be disproven. I’ll bet you cannot do it thus it means you shouldn’t be asking the same of someone else.
talthar makes a great comment. “I think that a lot of skeptics are simply people who are afraid of the idea that something may lay beyond what they can see and feel, that there may be more to the universe around us than what the surface reveals.” Thus many people have already closed their minds to any new information or evidence. They are no longer ’skeptics’. They become close minded due to fear?
i wasn’t asking for proof of an opinion, i was simply asking for some examples which led to the (obviously strong) opinion’s formation.
the “skeptics are afraid of the unknown” theme is rampant – used ubiquitously online wherever paranormal beliefs are questioned.
if you want me to provide links showing this, i could do so – but it would be very time consuming as there are so many examples.
back to skepticism vs belief — here is an interesting bit by a skeptic who has made some very wothwhile contributions to the skeptic/believer discourse (i highly recommend him as a shining example of a “good guy” skeptic if there really needs to be such a thing):
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/03/adams-maxim-spinozas-conjecture/#more-413
“This research supports Spinoza’s conjecture that most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity and that belief comes quickly and naturally, whereas skepticism is slow and unnatural. The scientific principle of the null hypothesis — that a claim is untrue unless proved otherwise — runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true what we can comprehend quickly. Given the chance, most of us would like to invoke Adam’s Maxim because it is faster and feels better. Thus, it is that we should reward skepticism and disbelief and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence.”
Here’s a interesting article pertaining to skepticism:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4134
This guy also refers to Shermer in other articles.
that was an interesting POV, and had a lot of truth in it. i particularly liked his closing:
“So don’t focus on buzzword labels like “closed minded” or “true believer”. You can be both of those things and still be able to properly analyze evidence and draw a supported conclusion. You can also be guilty of neither fault, and yet be unable to distinguish a well-supported conclusion from mountains of poor evidence. Focus on the method behind the conclusion. Focus on the quality of evidence that supports the conclusion. The ad-hominem attack of “He’s closed minded” says nothing at all about the quality of evidence.”
now, this is just my opinion, but i think that many (if not most) people who eventually embrace a skeptical outlook started out as ‘believers’ in one way or another ( religion, psuedo-science, paranormal, etc). i think that’s the point shermer is making in the article i linked to — we naturally tend to be Believers first as it’s faster and easier. skepticism is a longer road, takes more thought and initially seems unnatural.
many skeptics have already been where “believers” are and remember their own issues with skepticism — i know i do.
i can still remember one of the first books that i read – many years ago – which made me start looking at pseudo-science with more of a critical eye. it was when i was still fairly into paranormal ideas, though with a strong “i doubt that” attitude, (i do not consider myself one of those hard-core Skeptics, i’m not nearly smart enough
)
the book was by carl sagan: “dragons of eden”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragons_of_Eden
i recently purchased a copy of that book, along with sagan’s “cosmos” and “demon haunted world”. i’m going to leave them laying around the house and see if my already fairly skeptical son wants to read them (he loved sagan in the TV edition of “cosmos”)
to this day, it always amuses me when i see people online who are obviously very woo-oriented using sagan in their sig files. somehow i have to think that if they’d actually read any sagan they’d have to be having some serious second thoughts about their woo
Yeah, that was a pretty good article on Skeptiod. I really liked the fact of how he pointed out the opposing POV’s and how they related to one another, diametrically, of course.
I wouldn’t doubt if peer pressure adds into the believers thought processes. We all know that nueral pathways are created from the ways we think, and if you start becoming a ‘yes’ man (in believing and agreeing with others), you close down your skeptical processes, and in turn like the starting article, find it easier to believe than to not believe.
I have never read any of Sagan’s work, but from what I saw of interviews I would say he was a visonary. The man has credentials (I just did a wiki on him).
orbs attack please people show me whats bhind the camera