Based in Brooklyn, NY, I write about all things creepy and strange. My book based on the real haunting of Doris Bither (The Entity 1982 movie) will be released soon. Got a question? Drop me a line.


There are times when a writer must face the music and accept the backlash over certain articles that they’ve written and defend their position or backtrack and apologize for insulting people and/or getting the facts wrong in their article; and like the mortified ostrich, bury their heads in the sand.

This is not that type of post.

I had written an article titled “Years later, where is the South Shields evidence?“. The article was blatant attempt to harshly critique Michael J. Hallowell & Darren W. Ritson for their unwillingness to easily present evidence they claim was captured of the “South Shields Poltergeist” case. Instead, they had released a horribly criticized video of a balancing water bottle to The Sun Newspaper and stated that it was “intriguing and very, very rare“. Pointing out that the balanced bottle could be paranormal evidence.

Now, I will admit that my post was ruthless and I did ‘shoot from the hip’ and unfairly accused the Michael and Darren of deceit. Given that there was no evidence made public of the case (only the ‘water bottle poltergeist’ video existed) I was concerned at the fact that their website(s) only offered brief hooks or selling points for their book on the South Shields case. In fact, their website(s) only has links for you to buy the book, but does not have links to any evidence about the case.

I was recently contacted by Michael J. Hallowell via email in a very harsh, but well deserved email, response to my article.

Michael makes very good points about my ‘shoot from the hip’ method and brought up good insight into what the team has done and is doing with the case. But I had a few rebuttals of my own. (of course)

I would just like to say that looking back at my earlier post, I did come off as a smug son of a bitch. But was I entirely wrong? I mean isn’t the point of paranormal research to find evidence of the paranormal and share that with skeptics, critics, arm chair investigators and professionals in the community? A collaboration of different minds, different backgrounds to help understand the strange phenomena that is around us?

To be fair, here is the email that was sent to me by Michael Hallowell with his explanation. Unedited and in its entirety. Michael addresses my comments as well as the comments left by readers of GhostTheory.

The text that starts with >> and is bold are my answers.

The video in question of the ‘balancing bottle’ is here:

If you would like to buy their book, you can do so here.

Dear Javier,
                   I am one of the authors of The South Shields Poltergeist – One Family’s Fight Against an Invisible Intruder. This morning my attention was drawn to your website GHOSTTHEORY where you’ve published an article in regards to our case.
Darren W. Ritson and I have gotten used to criticism, and we don’t mind it at all as long as it is well thought-out and balanced. Unfortunately, this can’t be said about your column or some of the subsequent postings made in response to it. I apologise in advance if this correspondence is long-winded, but given both its need and nature I had little option.
Before I get into the specifics, let me make a few general observations about the nature of your article.
People are, of course, entitled to their opinions about the South Shields case and our book. However, accusing people of engaging in a “charade”, as you did, has very serious ramifications as I’m sure you appreciate.
Let’s look at the moral implications.
Suppose you were an author/investigator and you were the butt of serious allegations of the type made in your column and subsequent postings when you knew that you had honestly and sincerely done the best you could to document a case of this nature: How would you feel? Wouldn’t you be disappointed, to put it mildly? How would you feel if your reputation and character were attacked on the Internet by people who didn’t know you, weren’t there when the investigation took place and hadn’t a clue about the real facts in any detail? Darren and I have even had to threaten legal proceedings on a number of occasions when false allegations have been made about us, and although its sad that this is necessary we have sometimes ultimately been left with no option when damaging, unwarranted allegations have been made about us.  Can you imagine how it feels, Javier, to be on the receiving end of unwarranted bullshit to this degree?  We’ve never shied away from criticism, Javier, and we don’t mind it at all – providing it’s based on the facts and not distortions and untruths.

>>> Let me quickly say that I don’t think my statement mentioning the word ‘charade’ will have “serious ramifications”. Here is the context in which it was used:

“…Like many other charades that we have seen in the past few years, like the “Bigfoot body” or the video of the “Alien peaking through a window” and the more infamous “Johor Hominid hoax” as well as many others, this case followed the same path.” 

I’m saying that as investigators of the paranormal, the evidence you collected was not made public yet you decided to publish a book on this case and expect us to see this biased investigation as truthful without given the opportunity to review the evidence and form an educated opinion for ourselves. I’ve seen this type of behavior before. I’m not saying that your intentions are to create a hoax, but given that the only available evidence to us (the public) was a video posted on The Sun’s website of a balanced water bottle, it leads me to assume this to be a charade. Much like the mentioned cases in my original comment.
For the record, I receive plenty of ‘hate mail’ for my articles. This comes with the territory…I’m used to it.

And then there’s the allegation that we deliberately held back from releasing the evidence for financial reasons: A wholly bogus assertion without one shred of truth to it, and we have documentary evidence to prove it. We have tried strenuously to get the evidence “out there”, but will only do so under certain conditions, not least of which include maintaining the anonymity of the family concerned. We have mountains of documentary evidence to prove this, too.
You know, Javier, a simple e-mail to us would have allowed us to give you the real facts before you published your article. You could then have published our responses to make sure that your article was fair and balanced. Instead, you have published a one-sided critique which we believe gives a damaging and inaccurate portrayal both of our investigation and our motives.

>> Again, it’s a one sided critique because of your decision on not sharing the evidence with the public.

During the time period since the publication of the book, Darren and I have been working extremely hard to get the evidence we accumulated “analysed”. We have also been negotiating with a number of media companies both here and in the USA. The truth is that had we broken our promise to the family concerned we could have made money – a substantial amount of it, actually – but we turned down the chance of financial gain because we refused to compromise our principles. Now can you see now why the allegation that we held back on publicising the evidence for financial reasons is so galling?
You describe yourself as a writer. I’ve looked at your GHOST THEORY site, and you know what? It’s not bad, actually. But in regards to our case, I’m afraid you got it seriously wrong. In the interests of fair play, I’d respectfully ask you to either take down your article and the subsequent postings or, preferably, post this response in full. At least this gives us the opportunity to nail the untrue and damaging allegations that have been made about us. If you truly believe in fairness and possess journalistic integrity, you’ll do one or the other. Think about it: if you were on the receiving end of unfounded allegations, wouldn’t you want the opportunity to respond and put the record straight? There is, however, a third option, which I’ll discuss with you presently.
I don’t expect you to believe anything we wrote in the book. You’re entitled to your own thoughts about us, no matter how inaccurate or negative they may be. However, once you publish them on the Internet or elsewhere then journalistic integrity demands that you do what you really should have done in the first place; give us the opportunity to respond.
Having said all that, here are my responses to the specific criticisms and allegations made by you and others on your website:
“They both started “WraithScape“. A paranormal research group with a website that sells their books on the subject.”
WraithScape is not and never was a paranormal research group. It is simply the working title of Darren W. Ritson and Michael J. Hallowell. No books are sold on the WraithScape website. Anyone who wants to purchase our books must first click on a link which takes them to one of a number of sites not owned by us where they can buy them.

 >> This excerpt is taken from your “WraithScape” site:
“WraithScape is the official website of Michael J. Hallowell
and Darren W. Ritson, the UK’s most radical paranormal v
investigation duo.  

WraithScape exists to keep you informed about Darren
& Mike’s activities.

Through WraithScape you will soon be able to link to the
WraithScape Media site where you can ALSO purchase
Mike & Darren’s publications and other merchandise.
Their books are also available from the Book Store page on
this site.”

So to me it seems like “WraithScape” is clearly the website for paranormal researchers Michael H. and Darren R. for the purpose of sharing their latest news and selling books (and other merchandise). Or did I misinterpret your statement? Guys, I’m all for selling your books and work on your website. There is no crime in that, so why deny it?

“…but withholding evidence in order to make more money goes against the basic reason why one pursuits [sic] a job in the paranormal field; the quest for truth.”
Well, firstly, withholding evidence to make money doesn’t in itself mean that the “quest for truth” has been compromised. Distorting evidence does that, which is an entirely different thing. But we haven’t done either. To suggest that we withheld the evidence to benefit financially is completely untrue. The evidence has only been “withheld” because we insisted that anyone using it must not identify or compromise the anonymity of the family concerned. Several media companies have negotiated with us since the case ended about the possibility of making a documentary on the affair, but felt that it would be necessary to identify the family. We are honouring our promise not to identify the family, which the individuals concerned requested.

>> Withholding and Distorting are both different, yes I agree. In this case, withholding evidence is assumed since you do not make your research public and are actively threatening legal actions if anyone posts the video of the infamous “water bottle poltergeist”. More on that later….

“Like many other charades…”
That’s just your subjective opinion of course. My dictionary defines “charade” as, “An obvious pretence; a deceptive act”. Working on the presumption that your definition of a “charade” is the same as ours, unless you can prove that we did anything as a pretence or engaged in any deception then you have no right to say that we did. If you feel we are guilty of deception then put forward your evidence. If not, then please retract the allegation. If you neither put forward the evidence nor retract the allegation – or at least clarify what you meant – then it will be obvious to us that you really don’t mind making unsubstantiated allegations about people.

>> I explain why I made the comparison between your research and the other cases that have been labeled a charade. Please read my earlier response above.

“Darren W. Ritson and Michael J. Hallowell are withholding the evidence that they claim is “… one of the best-ever documented cases of poltergeist infestation…” and are following the path of the Johor Hominid all over again. In the end of the Johor hominid, [sic]  the presenter of the evidence were [sic] made out to be a charlatan and his reputation tarnished [sic]. All because he refused to let the world analyze the evidence that was given to him. Not until he had a book deal.”
I’m confused. How on earth does a refusal to distribute evidence automatically make you a charlatan? It may make it more difficult to prove your case, but it doesn’t mean that you are lying. In any case, we aren’t following this path at all, and a simple e-mail to us would have allowed us to provide you with the real reason the material has not been released yet. It is disappointing that you decided to make your completely unfounded allegations without checking the facts first. In any case, we couldn’t be following what you call the “path of the Johor Hominid presenter”, as we already had our book deal, and had already offered up our evidence to scrutiny.

>> Granted, you’re right. The refusal to distribute evidence does not make you a charlatan. Although you guys do not play fair when it comes to offering your evidence for scrutiny. As I mentioned before, you have requested me to remove the “water bottle poltergeist” video from my website. This is from your letter:

“Since I began composing this e-mail I see that the original, authentic “bottle balance” footage (or at least a link to it) has again been published on your site without our permission. Darren and I would respectfully request that you respect our copyrights and remove this immediately”

“Why would any Paranormal Researcher refuse to share the evidence that they captured with the rest of the world [sic], if we are all in it for practically the same reasons?”
For the reason stated above, which you could have availed yourself of had you just bothered to check. In any event, what proof do you have that we are “refusing” to share our evidence? Just because we haven’t thrown it from the top of the Empire State Building with an open license doesn’t mean that we are refusing to distribute it. Quite simply, we are doing what any good investigators would do; releasing it in a controlled way and within moral and legal parameters. Darren and I find your assumptions completely audacious, as you have made them without any evidence or a detailed knowledge of the true facts.

 >>audacious? really? what about your request for me to take down the video? I find that to be audacious. Why not let the world examine it freely? This can be done and still preserve the anonymity of the family.

“If there was legit evidence captured on tape, I would assume that an investigator would be thrilled to have it analyzed and continue working on the case.”
And we are thrilled, for the evidence has been examined. For example, a review of the case is to be published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research soon. Scientific analysis of some footage has also been carried out, with fascinating results. We are confident that the review will go a long way to silencing our critics. As for “working on the case”, can you please supply us with any evidence that we aren’t? Actually, we have written a follow-up book, for which contracts have been signed with our publisher. Maybe this doesn’t qualify as “working on the case” in your eyes. Again, Javier, all this information could have been made available to you had you simply asked.

>> I apologize. I did wrongfully assume that you were not working on this case. The reason being was because no evidence has been released for years. It’s all kept private. Or at least not easily obtained by the public.

“Building their reputation as a legitimate researcher [sic], and not a novel writer.”
Javier, we have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone else in this regard. We are legitimate, and even world-famous veteran investigators like Colin Wilson have described our book as “one of the great classic works” on the poltergeist phenomenon. Another veteran researcher, eminent in his field, is Guy Lyon Playfair. Do you think a writer and researcher of his status would have penned a foreword for our book dealing with a case that was as risible as your article and some of the subsequent comments collectively suggests?
    A novel is a work of fiction. Our book was not a work of fiction; you may not like it and you may disagree with with our conclusions, methods, etc, but the people in the book are real and the events took place as described, often in front of multiple witnesses.
    I have written over one thousand articles on the paranormal and over a dozen books. Darren and I have lectured at conferences and universities on our research and acted as advisors to numerous media companies on different paranormal phenomena. I’ve interviewed dozens of people in the field, including Uri Geller, James Van Praagh, Tony Stockwell, Colin Fry, Billy Roberts…as well as professional researchers such as Ciaran O’Keefe, cryptozoologists Jon Downes and Richard Freeman, and ufologists Malcolm Robinson, Timothy Good, Philip Mantle and Nick Redfern to name but a few. A number of these are close personal friends of mine. I’m not boasting; I’m simply pointing out that I don’t need to build a reputation in my field as I think I have already established one.
“So where does this leave us? The South Shields Poltergeist website does not give us any data to go off on [sic], but instead has a long and argumentative Q&A section where it’s obvious that both Mr. Ritson and Hallowell [sic] are on [sic] defensive and protective mode.”
Of course we are. But then again, if we didn’t answer questions we’d be accused of “running scared”, wouldn’t we? Rather than ignore our critics we’ve faced them head on and answered them. Isn’t this the right and proper thing to do? Not in the eyes of some, it seems. If we don’t answer our critics we get accused of avoiding their questions because we don’t have answers. If we do answer them we get accused of being defensive and protective. It’s a classic case of being, “damned if we don’t and damned if we do”.

 >> Not necessarily. As investigators you have the responsibility to address all questions concerning the presented evidence or claim. You cannot simply pick and choose what you want to answer (unless of course the questions is blatantly rude or out of context).

“The video alone does not prove, nor does it disprove anything. The video of the water bottle does not prove that there is something paranormal about it. Just like the several videos on YouTube that show how the trick can be replicated, do not disprove the original video.”
And I’d agree. The footage we took shows what actually took place. How you interpret it is up to you. We have consistently said that it is the collective evidence that gives strength to our case, not one piece in isolation. Those who deride the “bottle balance” footage consistently fail to mention one thing; in our book The South Shields Poltergeist I specifically state that, for a number of factors, the footage really amounts to little or nothing evidentially. Here are my exact words:
“From a viewpoint of hard evidence, there’s not much to work with. There was only one witness present; myself. Further, there are numerous ways I could have faked the incident. In addition to this, the fact that the damaged base made it just possible to balance the bottle on its edge under some circumstances means that a rational explanation was available, even if highly unlikely.
       “Did I knock the bottle with my arm when I was dozing, and coincidentally hit it with just the right amount of force, and at the right trajectory, to tip it onto the damaged, slightly flattened area on the edge of the base? It seems unlikely, but I can’t rule it out”.
Its fascinating how those who either accuse us directly or imply that we may have faked the evidence never seem to point out that I personally neutered the evidential value of the footage myself and admit that there may have been a rational explanation for what occurred! It never seems to occur to our detractors that someone who wanted to fake evidence certainly wouldn’t be the first one to demolish its value before it has even been released into the public domain.
“The video above was uploaded by the YouTube user in order to show that the “Water bottle Poltergeist” video can be replicated easily and it’s a matter of simple physics”.
But surely as a professional writer and a historian you’d agree that it is a non sequitur to suggest that just because something can be faked, then it must have been?

 >> This is what you stated in The Sun’s article about the video in question:
“I had my head in a book, but glanced up to see my bottle of water tilting over.

“I poked and prodded it, but it was defying gravity and wouldn’t fall.

“When I came to my senses, I started filming again.

“It really is intriguing footage and very, very rare indeed.”

As a seasoned paranormal investigator, you presented the water bottle video to The Sun and commented on the footage as being really “intriguing and very, very rare”. Why present such weak evidence and play it up to be so intriguing? Your website states the following about the case:
“For several months, the authors and other researchers witnessed bizarre events in an otherwise ordinary South Shields home – including one of the householders being cut severely on his torso, threatening text messages sent to a mobile phone and objects hurtling through the air.”
So the only evidence you gave to the newspaper was the water bottle video? What about the cuts and the hurtling objects? Those would seem to be better choices for evidence in my opinion

“To this day, there has [sic] not been any new video or photos released about the case. Their website has not been updated and still stands as a website designed to sell a book, more than help the study of the paranormal.”
We’ve never said that the site was there to “help the study of the paranormal”. The website – which has been updated – is there to give people basic information about the case and to inform them about the book. That is the purpose of the website, Javier, and what’s wrong with that? The book was our arena for disseminating detailed information about the case and, we hope, furthering the advance of research into poltergeistry. The only updates necessary are those which involve new editions of the book or other relevant material. If we don’t make updates for a while then that’s because it wasn’t necessary to do so. As for no new pictures of the case being released, that is simply not true either. A number have been submitted to various media, and have been published. Your statement has no foundation. In any event, how could you possibly know that no new photos have been released? Did you blithely make this statement just because you weren’t personally aware of any such picture releases? A truly professional journalist would have contacted us and asked us if we’d released any new footage or pictures, and if not, why not?  Did you bother to do this? It seems that you didn’t, despite the fact that our contact details are all over our websites and in the back of the book.
“Was this all just misidentified natural phenomenon? [sic]  or [sic] was there a true haunting in play?”
I presume you mean phenomena. We never claimed that the case was a haunting, and have always drawn a strict demarcation between hauntings and poltergeist infestations.
“Until the documentary comes out on cable, and explains this a little better, I will always have my doubts.”
We are currently working with a media company who say they are prepared to do a documentary on the case without identifying the family concerned – which was our only reason for “withholding the evidence” until now, and not for financial motives as you scurrilously suggest.
“I mean, if the team says that this was a vicious and very active poltergeist, then why would it restrict itself to balancing a water bottle?”
Are you serious? Of course, it didn’t “restrict itself” to this at all; if you read the book you’ll see that it did far worse than this on scores of occasions! Did you actually read the book, Javier? However, the very nature of your question demonstrates your shallow understanding of the essence and modus operandi of the poltergeist.    
    The poltergeist will do anything to frighten its victims, and if you truly think that bizarre manifestations such as moving objects, bottles balancing on end, etc, are not frightening then you need to get out more. It is exactly because these manifestations are so bizarre that they are frightening. A poltergeist frightens people in many more ways than simply by naked aggression.
    Finally, you may be interested to know that in our follow-up book we uncovered a case involving poltergeistry in which the poltergeist did exactly the same thing, again with a plastic water bottle balanced on a table. The parallels between the two events are, by any standards, uncanny. The intriguing thing is that the second occurrence happened before our book was published or we had made public the “water bottle event” which occurred at South Shields. This means that the second event simply couldn’t have been a “copy-cat” hoax. Further, we had no knowledge of the case involving the second water bottle event before our book was published, and can prove this. This, then, eliminates the possibility of Darren and I having duplicated this other event at South Shields. That a poltergeist should perpetrate two identical events without witnesses in either case knowing about the other must go some way to legitimising both, I reckon.

 >> No, I did not read the book. As far as not understanding a poltergeist’s M.O., of course I do. It all boils down to evidence being withheld. With no information to go by, I judge on the evidence presented.

One of our readers who goes by “Leinster Danny” had this to say:

“I think it came down to a new book ,,and they dramatised the events…”

To which you replied:

“And your evidence for this is what, exactly? The only way you could know we had dramatised the events is if you had been there at the time. Then, and only then, would you be in a position to say whether our portrayal in the book was accurate or dramatised.”
I agree with you. We do not have evidence that states that the book was overly-dramatised. I do however have a review of one of your books titled “Paranormal South Tyneside” done by Tom Ruffles ‘Honorary review editor’ for the Society for Psychical Research. It states:

“Some of the personal anecdotes from the newspaper are rather weak but Hallowell compensates for this by producing an eclectic mix in a chatty style, with a wide variety of fortean phenomena thrown in, resulting in the type of narrative where if something is unconvincing or has a tenuous link to South Tyneside, never mind, there will be something else along shortly. A number of the items definitely bear only a tangential relationship to the area. Jack the Ripper may have been an unnamed sailor who spent some time in South Shields but the evidence is flimsy, as Hallowell acknowledges, and he does not indicate in what way any connection might be paranormal. A canal boat wasn’t haunted in Tyneside; the family came from there but the mystery occurred while they were navigating the Warwickshire Ring.”

This doesn’t paint a good picture about your previous book. So my guess is that your style of writing has not changed. Maybe I’m wrong. I guess I could buy the book and read it myself. Which I think I will.
Listen guys, I’m not trying to be difficult or rude, but the mere act of showing a bottle balancing on a table and calling it “intriguing and rare” does not help you convince the skeptics. Or the general public for that matter. I will admit that my post was harsh and I did jump the gun on a lot, but this was all based on no evidence being made available since 2006. Yet two books have been published on the case and one documentary is on the works.

I think releasing the evidence to the public is the norm. Many have released evidence to the public for the sake of documenting a case, yet they focus on peer reviews and reviews from professional organizations. I think going back and forth through emails and stating small quips is unprofessional. To answer your request, I will not take down my original article, but will publish your email in its entirety.
I would also like the opportunity to see any other evidence that you guys have collected during your investigation of the South Shields Poltergeist case and would like to show it on so that readers can be made aware of your work. I would gladly ‘eat my words’ if the evidence presented is compelling.

“And what is really puzzling about the water bottle video is that at 0:16 the video has an odd “jump cut.” Then right before the bottle falls over, we see the camera zoom in to a nice tight crop cutting off the bottom part of the bottle. So, if perhaps the cameraman merely just pushed over the bottle at this point, causing it to fall, we wouldn’t have been able to see this.”
As I was “the cameraman” in question I think I’m more than qualified to answer this. Firstly, the video you saw was taken from several pieces of footage on the website of a national newspaper. The pieces were joined together to provide a brief vignette of the entire amount of material. The “jump” was not in the original footage, but is there simply because two pieces of footage have been cropped and spliced together. The original pieces of footage – not spliced together – have been shown in lectures we have given and at private showings to independent researchers. There was no mystery about the “jump” – it’s purely the result of two separate pieces of footage being joined together for editorial reasons. If you read the book, you’ll see that I took several pieces of footage of the bottle at the time.
Secondly, regarding your cunning observation about the bottle being pushed over. You really DO need to read the book, for had you, you’d know that I did push the bottle over with my finger and have never hidden the fact. In fact, one of the pieces of footage actually shows me doing just this. Far from precipitating a mystery, you’ve simply supported our account of the incident as detailed in the book.
Leinster Danny:
“I think it came down to a new book ,,and they dramatised the events…”
And your evidence for this is what, exactly? The only way you could know we had dramatised the events is if you had been there at the time. Then, and only then, would you be in a position to say whether our portrayal in the book was accurate or dramatised.
“Funny they left there [sic] group just after the released the book”
What group?
“…a lot of [sic] goes on this side of the world give [sic] you a teaser then to know about [sic]  the rest buy the book.”
So, how would you suggest that we do release the full facts for people to read if not in a book? Since the dawn of civilisation people have written books. This is how the system works:
1) Someone writes a book.
2) Someone buys the book and reads it.
3) They tell someone else about the book.
4) That person then buys the book themselves, whilst simultaneously running the risk of not enjoying it as much
    as his or her friend did.
Everyone who wants to know the full facts as portrayed in a book has to buy the book, okay? There’s no other way of doing it, unless you steal one, borrow one, get one as a Christmas gift or find one lying in the street. There’s nothing immoral about making a living out of writing books. Like all authors, we get paid royalties for writing. This is how writers actually make a living. This may come as a shock to you, but very few writers or publishers give their books away free of charge.
“The video is suspiciously edited like you pointed out. Goes to show that when people always withhold evidence until they get a book or movie deal, it’s a red flag for hoaxes.”
Suspiciously edited? As I’ve pointed out, the footage you saw was spliced together for editorial reasons and there was nothing suspicious about it. We never portrayed it to be one continuous piece of footage. Read the book and you’ll see exactly how the footage was taken – in several separate pieces. If we’d spliced the footage together and claimed it was one continuous piece then that would have been both suspicious and deceptive, and, as you say, a “red flag for hoaxes”, but we didn’t and have never claimed any such thing.
Leinster Danny:
“Really? So people found out that they over-dramatized the events? Interesting…”
It certainly is, and if anyone has any evidence that we did “over-dramatise” events we’d like to see it. There isn’t, because we didn’t.
“Sheesh. I agree with ya Jav, if they had some evidence, why not release it and then go after a book deal after growing your reputation? Something smells funny in Denamrk [sic]…:)
But we got our “book deal” – on the strength of the case. We didn’t need the footage to get the book. As for our reputations, we already have them.
“…this guy goes step by step into how it was done…”
Uh, no; he shows how it could have been done. We’ve always said that it was possible to fake what we filmed – any paranormal phenomena can be faked.  As I’ve pointed out earlier in this response, I fully acknowledged in our book that the “bottle balance” footage could have been faked. The point is we didn’t fake it.
“A similar trick can be performed with a drinks can. Just drink about a third of it and try to balance it at an angle on its rim. If it won’t balance, drink a little more and try it until it does. This is exactly the same as the South Shields Polt hoaxer did for that video.”
I hope you aren’t referring to me as a hoaxer, Stig, and that you are referring to the person who did a video showing how it could have been hoaxed.
Andrew Keeler:
“…another situation of [sic] the paranormal being exploited for profit.”
Actually, we’ve made very little out of this at all, and it was never our intention to. It would be interesting to know just how you arrived at this conclusion. How did you get to know what our motives were? Did you ask us? Or are you simply making an unwarranted assumption without any evidence?
“Peoples [sic] lack of real knowledge and absolute desperation to find something beyond thier [sic]  pathetic lives strikes again.”
Really? What pathetic lives are they, then? We’re two successful authors who’ve written dozens of books between us. We have solid reputations as investigators and our expertise is continually sought by professional people in the media and other areas of endeavour.  We’re successful, contented and happy. Where exactly does “pathetic” come in? What have you done with your life?
“This whole new wave of paranormal interest is doing so much damage to the credibility of the trade that people think we are nothing but con artists.”
Actually, what does real damage to our profession is when people make unfounded allegations without one whit of proof or evidence. Professional investigators make sure of their facts first, and do not make ad hominem attacks upon people without reason.
    Its ironic, isn’t it, that you accuse us of creating, “…another situation of the paranormal being exploited for profit.”, whilst at the same time calling our profession a “trade”, which is actually a way of making money! A question for you, Andrew: Do you believe that everyone who earns money from the field of paranormal research is engaging in exploitation? Think very carefully before you answer…
“I think there should be a Boy cott [sic] of this book!!!”
Go for it, Andrew! The best way to guarantee book sales is for someone to boycott it or demand that it’s banned. Then everyone want’s to read it. Organise your boycott, and knock yourself out! Then Darren and I might just make the money in reality that people erroneously think we’ve made already.
“They are probably seeing the footage and are like are you serious? you [sic] expect us to think this crap is for real?”
Well, we’ve been there when they saw the footage, and I can assure you that there was no such reaction as you describe – at any time. You weren’t there, so how would you know?
Somehow, I suspect you don’t investigate the paranormal for a living. As for “amatuers”, you can’t even spell the word correctly, which about says it all, really.
“…but like any real investigator ive [sic]  got alot [sic] pent up rage”.
And what makes you a “real” investigator? You do this for a living? You’ve written books on the subject too, and done decades of intensive research? And why do “real investigators” have to have “pent-up rage”?
I’m sorry if my responses to the criticisms in your article and the subsequent postings seem robust. Javier, but I’m sure you’ll agree that they are no more robust than the criticisms themselves.  Darren and I do not mind in the least being criticised, as I’ve said, but in the interests of fairness we think the least you can do is publish this response so that your readers can hear the other side of the story – for there truly is one.
All Darren and I did was make a monumental effort to help a family that was in real distress. We never took so much as a dime from them or anyone else during the entire investigation, and paid all our own expenses, which were considerable. Our income from the book has been extremely modest, and we have never held back from releasing our material for financial reasons.
I have sent this to you as a private e-mail before submitting it as a posting to elicit your comments first. If you decide – and I hope you will – to publish it on your site then please let me know whether you are going to post it up there yourself, whether you want it re-submitted as a posting from me or – this is the third option which I mentioned earlier – you will allow me to write up my response as a conventional article for publication on your site. I’d be happy to do this if you’d prefer.
Darren and I will be happy to answer any further genuine questions or criticisms on your website, given that time allows considering our busy schedules, providing that they are submitted in a reasonable manner and do not contain vitriolic language, insults, false allegations or ad hominem attacks, which are entirely unnecessary.
As one writer to another, I appeal to your sense of fair play. All we are asking is the opportunity to defend ourselves.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Hallowell
PS: Since I began composing this e-mail I see that the original, authentic “bottle balance” footage (or at least a link to it) has again been published on your site without our permission. Darren and I would respectfully request that you respect our copyrights and remove this immediately.

  • Joe the Waiter

    I’ve read the book, I’ve followed the debate. Mike Hallowell has a new Poltergeist to sell: The Essex Case. Good points from The Sceptic and a very interesting exchange from all concerned.

  • Mike

    Hi Joe the Waiter, sorry to be a bubble-burster, but If you’d read anything at all that I’d written on the case, or listened to any of my lectures on it, you’d know that John and I are claiming that whatever “it” is it definitely ISN’T a poltergeist.

    BTW, you might also want to check with the divvy who said we’re “selling” the poltergeist – the poltergeist that doesn’t exist, that is – and get him/her to check their own sources as we aren’t selling anything – except maybe – quelle horreur! – a book at some time in the future.

    As for the Skeptic’s “good points”, you might want to see our comprehensive demolition of them at:

    If you follow the thread, you’ll see that the Skeptic has made a shed-load of completely false assertions which he’s been challenged on to the point of monotony to justify. These assertions were originally made on:

    So embarrassing was his apparent attempt to find some way to shoot me down in flames he attempted to justify his spectacular errors by saying that exposing them was a “hollow victory”. Why? Because he wasn’t writing a “formal research project” when he made them!

    Count how many times he’s been pulled over excruciating schoolboy-howler errors, in both threads, and then count how many he’s actually responded to. The former will take you some time, the latter virtually none at all. I’ve challenged Skeptic to a public debate, offered him the chance to air his views in one of my newspaper columns…but a) he hides behind a cloak of anonymity, and b) despite his seeming intellectual prowess he declines my offers. I have the guts to be publicly identified. He doesn’t, apparently. I have the guts to go head-to-head with him in a debate and let the audience and/or readers make their own mind up. He doesn’t apparently.

    Its so easy to be a keyboard warrior and take a pop at people when no one knows who you are, but for some reason Skeptic gets cold feet when asked to put his metaphorical money where his mouth is.

    Go figure.

  • the skeptic

    Mike Hallowell is busy getting his anti-science backside kicked here:

    And at the Shields Gazette link, you might care to notice that my comment No. 7 has been deleted. Clearly it is just a coincidence that my criticism of Mike Hallowell, Shields Gazette columnist, has been censored from the Shields Gazette website by a Shields Gazette moderator.

    Perhaps he will have comment 7 exorcised when it comes back to haunt him.

    I never use swearing, name-calling or defamation to make my points, so what is going on, I wonder?

    On the Gazette website, Hallowell posts as “Out There” and he uses the common technique of lengthy multiple posts to bore people away. Some of those multiple posts have been removed, but all of his comments are intact.

    So don’t criticise Mike on his own turf.

  • Mike

    “Mike Hallowell is busy getting his anti-science backside kicked here:”

    Actually, its the other way around, but don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good story. Is this one of your “formal research projects” Skeptic? If not, by your own admission it may not exactly dovetail with reality, might it?

    “And at the Shields Gazette link, you might care to notice that my comment No. 7 has been deleted. Clearly it is just a coincidence that my criticism of Mike Hallowell, Shields Gazette columnist, has been censored from the Shields Gazette website by a Shields Gazette moderator”.

    This is typical of the way you cherry-pick small details and string them together to give a completely distorted picture.

    For the edification of readers who may want to know what really happened, look on:

    1) For some reason, over a period of a couple of days, several of my posts appeared multiple times, one after the other, on the Gazette website. I don’t know why. I hit the “send” button once, and, irritatingly, the post would appear two three or even more times. This has occasionally happened to me before on Facebook and on other forums. It has happened to others, too. Skeptic claimed that this technical glitch only happened to me. It didn’t. It also happened to at least one other poster on the same thread.

    2) The moderator removed several posts from the thread, including the comments that had appeared multiple times due to the technical glitch. He/she (I don’t know who the moderator is) also removed a post of Skeptic’s and also one of mine. I don’t know why; perhaps we inadvertently broke some in-house protocols. If Skeptic still has a copy of his deleted post,I’d be delighted to see it posted here. Then I can post my response.

    3) Skeptic seems to imply that his post contained some points which had a negative impact upon me. It didn’t. It was simply a re-hash of his own, previously-posted rants which were devoid of any supporting evidence. If Skeptic thinks that there was anything in that post that troubled me, he’s living in a fool’s paradise.

    4) “Clearly it is just a coincidence that my criticism of Mike Hallowell, Shields Gazette columnist, has been censored from the Shields Gazette website by a Shields Gazette moderator. Perhaps he will have comment 7 exorcised when it comes back to haunt him”.

    Let me state the following for the record: Since the postings on my article in the Gazette appeared, along with my responses to them, I have had absolutely no contact whatsoever with whoever moderates the comments. I have never at any time attempted to exercise any influence regarding what comments are posted and/or removed. I do not know who the moderator is.

    Since my article was posted, and the comments, including Skeptic’s, appeared, I have not spoken to anyone at the Gazette at all. My last phone contact with the Gazette was shortly before my article
    appeared, when I was contacted by a reporter who passed on to me the telephone number of a reader who wished to get in touch with me over a matter completely unrelated to the article in question or the added postings. My only e-mail contact has been the forwarding of subsequent articles to sub-editors. These did not require a response, and none was received. I am not employed by the Shields Gazette and never have been. I freelance for them.

    5) Any suggestion that may be made to the effect that I attempted to influence the removal of Skeptic’s post is a lie, plain and simple. If Skeptic no longer has a copy of his original post, I think I may well do, and if he wishes I can search for it and post it here, along with my response, which was also removed.

    “I never use swearing, name-calling or defamation to make my points, so what is going on, I wonder?”

    Well, I’ve never accused you of “swearing” as far as I can recall, so why you should mention this is a mystery.

    Regarding name-calling, you carefully avoid the use of abusive epithets, but have no problem with making entirely unsubstantiated allegations, which is worse. At this point I’d like to point out something to GhostTheory posters. Some time ago, on this very site, Skeptic made the following claim (21 09 10):

    “A common theme in a lot of the stuff Mike writes is this business of evidence being sent away for “expert” or “scientific” analysis; and according to him, these things are always returning “startling” results. The only problem is that we are never shown these startling results. Don’t expect to actually see this evidence, or find out who the experts/scientists are, or in which scientific journals their results are published, and expecially (sic) don’t expect to ever hear anything about it again. This kind of claim has been going on for over ten years in the dire “paranormal” column Mike Hallowell inflicts on the readership of the Shields Gazette every Thursday evening. In all that time I cannot remember any of these claims of “analysis” and “startling results” ever being referred to again”.

    Now, I’d appeal to Javier et al to put aside their personal feelings regarding me, the books I’ve written on my own or with others, etc, and just for now focus upon one, singular thing. Skeptic is here making a series of very specific and somewhat damaging accusations. Actually, he repeated the same allegations recently in another post:

    “Hang on a minute. Hasn’t Mike Hallowell sent this broken smoke detector away for the usual “expert” or “scientific” analysis that always returns “startling” results that we never hear about again?”

    Now if, as Skeptic claims, this sort of activity has “always” been “a common theme” in my writings for “over ten years”, you’d think it would be a pretty easy task for him to find just one example. Be fair,Ghost Theory; is it too much to ask for a man who claims I’ve been making false promises regarding the examination or analysis of evidence for “OVER TEN YEARS” to come up with just one, representative example? Surely not; and so, that’s exactly what I asked Skeptic to do. He stalled, and so I pushed:

    “Recently, a poster on a blog rather sarcastically made a curious inference; to whit, that I (or Darren and I) had supposedly sent away some evidence for scientific analysis, subsequently providing startling results, but which was then never heard of again. This puzzled us, and we’d like that poster to tell us to what he’s specifically referring so that we can defend ourselves. Currently, we haven’t a clue. The same poster then questioned whether or why another piece of evidence had not also been submitted for testing. Had that poster read my article carefully, he’d have been aware that the evidence in question was disposed of by the witness in September 2004, and I only became aware of the case in 2011. Retrieving it from the local tip would be problematical, I reckon, and I don’t have the dosh [money] to hire a fleet of earth-movers to shift mountains of accumulated household rubbish to look for it”.

    Even Skeptic, whose ability to ignore rebuttals and repeat already-demolished allegations is breathtaking, had to come up with something to maintain his credibility. And so, he offered the following:

    “As for the claims you make about things being sent for expert analysis, but which we hear nothing about again, that is quite true. One example that comes to mind is of a hairdresser in Frederick Street whose tumble dryer was switching itself on and off with no one near it. And in the same Gazette article was a photograph that purported to be a face that had appeared on a nearby wall. That photo was supposedly sent for analysis – maybe I just missed your follow-up article that presented the startling results. If you can point me to that follow up, then I will withdraw that comment”. (Shields Gazette website, (04 06 11).

    Okay; I made the challenge and he responded. The question is, just how valid was it? Please judge by my response (Gazette website, 2011):

    “Unfortunately, Skeptic, I’m going to have to point you to a veritable shed-load of things, so I hope you don’t have to dash off anywhere in a hurry.

    1) The article to which you are referring could be one of two (Gazette, February 17, 2009, South Tyne Star, February 19, 2009). Neither made mention of a tumble dryer switching itself on and off. They did mention an incident involving a dryer, in which the clothes were spinning around even though the dryer wasn’t switched on – hardly the same thing.

    2) Contrary to your assertion, neither of those articles contained a photograph that “purported to be a face that had appeared on a nearby wall”.

    3) A third article did appear in the Gazette (March 6, 2009) which carried the photograph you describe.

    4) The photograph was not “purported to be a face”. In the article I described it as “face-like”, and the opening sentence read, “Is this the face of the ghost haunting a South Tyneside hairdressers?” What you intimate is an assertion was actually a mere question.

    5) When you said that the photograph was “supposedly sent for analysis”, this puzzled me, as I don’t recall giving anyone permission to do this. Indeed, not one of the three articles even remotely hinted that the photograph was going to be sent anywhere. What you may be referring to is the following statement made by me (Gazette, March 6, 2009): “Until they [the photographs] have been analysed further we can’t make any definite pronouncements”. In the same article I also admitted that what looked like faces could well “be nothing more than strange combinations of light and shade”.

    6) The reason that the photograph was not sent anywhere for analysis is that it didn’t need to be; I do my own analysis. Since 2006 I have been self-employed. Writing is my main activity, but I also restore badly damaged photographs using specialist software. Further, I also carry out analysis of photographs for newspapers and magazines, usually to determine whether or not they display genuine anomalies or, to put it bluntly, have been faked. The only person I would have considered sending the photograph to, then, was myself.

    7) “That example is memorable to me only because a few months later a friend of mine had similar problems with his own tumble dryer”. Not memorable enough, I fear: As I think I’ve ably demonstrated, the problems weren’t similar at all – unless your friend’s dryer was also spinning clothes whilst switched off.

    8) “In his case, however, he didn’t phone a ghost hunter, he phoned the fire brigade when it burst into flames and nearly burned his house down. Sometimes an electrical fault has great explanatory power”.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “explanatory power”, but in any case I can only repeat what I’ve said above; the electricity was switched off, so any supposed parallels between the dryer at the hairdressers and the one owned by your friend are entirely superfluous.

    9) “Maybe I just missed your follow-up article that presented the startling results”.

    Well, its going to be difficult to point you to any “follow-up article” I may have written because I never actually wrote the first, second or third ones. All three articles were written by reporter Verity Ward, someone to whom I bear very little physical resemblance – she’ll be delighted at that, I’m sure – and whose name I have neither shared nor appropriated. As I’m not in the habit of discourteously doing follow-up articles to the work of other journalists without being asked, then I’m afraid your request for me to point you to a follow-up article is in vain. In any case – bearing in mind that I never promised to write a follow-up article detailing the results of the analysts to whom I never sent the photograph in the first place – just why would I be under any obligation to do so any way? If I take a photograph and decide to analyse it, am I then automatically obliged to pen an article detailing the results? Is this yet another of those “moral rights” which allows people to make entirely unreasonable demands?

    10) Perhaps the most interesting part of your statement was, “…maybe I just missed your follow-up article that presented the startling results”.

    These were, of course, the “startling results” that were never promised in the first place, so it would be interesting to know just where this phrase – which I presume is a quotation – originated. As far as I’m aware it certainly wasn’t from me.

    Skeptic’s one offering, made in an effort to substantiate his bogus allegations, was, then, nothing more than a horribly convoluted tissue of further false allegations. I posted my response and pointed out, in excruciating detail, just how false they were. Now if, as a professional journalist, I’d vilified someone like that – not that I ever have or would – without any evidence whatsoever I’d apologise. Immediately and unreservedly. In those circumstances its the right and only thing to do. Skeptic seems to have other ideas, for his response was as follows:

    “The hairdresser point is indeed interesting, but if you think you have gained some kind of victory over me then it is a hollow victory indeed. I am not writing these posts as a formal research project, in which case every point would have been double checked, verified and the EVIDENCE PRESENTED unambiguously”.

    No apology; just a dismissive comment that my demolition of his allegations was “interesting”. He then followed it up with one of the most extraordinary excuses I’ve ever heard in my career; namely that because he wasn’t penning a “formal research project” when he made his outrageous allegations then there should have been no assumption made that his post was unambiguous, evidence-checked or verifiable! So now we know. If Skeptic writes something other than a “formal research project” be very, very careful before accepting so much as a single word of it as true.

    Quite reasonably, then, I pushed Skeptic to provide further examples – real ones this time – and I have continued to do so. For example:

    “Skeptic: Instead of raising new points for discussion, could I suggest that you try something truly different, and address some of the points I’ve raised in previous ones instead of just ignoring them? By simply raising arguments and then completely ignoring my rebuttals, some might get the impression that all you really want to do is engage in verbal fisticuffs and haven’t the faintest interest in having a meaningful, civilised discussion”.

    Or if you like;

    “I ask you to provide specific examples to back up your allegations you never provide any. Look; either put up or shut up. Come out with your alleged proof that I’ve done what you say – you’ve had long enough now – or stop making the allegations and apologise….Just WHEN did I promise to write a “follow-up article” detailing “startling results? Just WHEN did I say that I had sent a photograph away for analysis? These are all completely false allegations that you have made repeatedly and I have lost count of the number of times I’ve challenged you to provide evidence that I’ve done so. You haven’t. You have had more than enough time to prove your case and provide your proof, so lets have it. It won’t take much time. All you have to do is provide a link or a reference to the supposed “follow-up article” comment, or to any of your other allegations, and we’ll be done. If you can do this, I’ll apologise. If you can’t, then I’ll await a humble apology from you”.

    Of course, Skeptic still hasn’t posted any evidence to back up his extraordinary accusations for the simple reason that he doesn’t have any. He is, as they say, “busted”. He claims he does, and says he has been working on his “response”, which he will offer up “in due course”. He still hasn’t done so.

    Now one of the things that Darren W. Ritson and I were criticised for was our alleged refusal to disseminate evidence collected during our investigation of the South Shields case. This wasn’t true, and we proved conclusively that we had supplied our evidence to others. The only thing we didn’t do was put it into the public domain for reasons which we’ve already explained on numerous occasions. Skeptic has been one of our most vocal critics in this regard. Now if you’re going to make allegations of this nature – albeit completely unfounded ones – then you need to make sure that you don’t engage in exactly the same sort of activity, particularly if its to a much greater degree. This, unfortunately, is exactly what Skeptic has done.

    My argument, quite simply, is this: Its only fair that Skeptic, having made personal, damaging allegations about my professional conduct, and stating that I’ve been engaging in such conduct many times for over a decade, should provide evidence to substantiate his allegations. He doesn’t. What he DOES do is completely ignore my requests to produce evidence and simply repeat the same unfounded assertions, or, alternatively, respond with sweeping, generalised criticisms that also have no evidence to support them. For example, when I recently demolished a whole raft of false assertions he’d posted, he didn’t respond to a single one of my rebuttals or attempt to counter them. He simply posted the following:

    “You must have a lot of time on your hands to be able to put together that load of sophistry. But insults do not equal evidence, although it seems to be all you have to offer after you have distorted my words and my meaning out of all recognition”.

    Of course, typical of the Skeptic, he doesn’t offer so much as a single example of where I supposedly “distorted” his words; he just makes the sweeping allegation and backs it up with absolutely no proof at all.

    Seeing as Skeptic has ignored my repeated requests to back up his eyebrow-raising accusations about me on various other sites, I’d like to make yet another series of appeals to him here on GhostTheory:

    1. You’ve had long enough to collate your evidence that, over a period of ten years, I have regularly made promises regarding the sending away of evidence for analysis and received “startling results” which I then failed to write up in newspaper articles when I’d allegedly promised to do so. Please post your evidence now: SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. REFERENCES. EVIDENCE. NO SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS.

    2. You have not yet responded – other than with one, brief, defensive dismissal – to my rebuttal of your embarrassingly inaccurate claims regarding the “hairdresser” incident. I took apart your claim line by line and proved that your “proof” was bogus from start to finish.

    3. You hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Identify yourself so that everyone can see who you are and publicly judge you in the way that you have publicly judged Darren and I.

    4. If you’re really as confident in your position as you claim, then take up my challenge to engage in a public debate. We’ll hire a venue, charge for entrance and donate any and all profits to a charity of GhostTheory’s choice. You can argue from your skeptical stance, and I’ll argue from mine as someone who believes in the reality of paranormal phenomena. If I’m so way off base on this issue, and you are so capable of easily shooting me down in flames, why not go for it?

    “On the Gazette website, Hallowell posts as “Out There” and he uses the common technique of lengthy multiple posts to bore people away”.

    But, unlike you, I’m not anonymous. Yes, my on-line name on that site is “OutThere”, but that simply a common-sense technique of not using the same passwords, names, etc. when posting to enhance one’s security. The only point I can think you’re trying to make here is that my on-line name is not my real one. However, I make it quite clear in the postings who I really am. Everyone who visits the page can see that “OutThere” is Mike Hallowell.

    Regarding the multiple posts, you again seem to be suggesting, as you have before, that I was responsible for the fact that some of my postings appeared multiple times. This is completely untrue. I have already suggested to you that you contact the Gazette regarding this matter and discuss it with them. In any case, what on earth would be the point in such an action? People would get irritated, yes – as I did – but they’d simply scroll down past the repeated postings till they got to the next one and, if they had any sense, realise that the multiple postings were simply a technical glitch and not some sort of conspiracy to “bore people away”. The fact is that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something – anything – to pin on me, and a short-lived, temporary computer glitch which affected I and other posters is the best you can come up with?

    As for the idea that I may have been implicated in the removal of one of your posts – which you carefully avoid stating explicitly, although I can surely be forgiven for thinking that you might be hinting at it – I can only re-state that this is completely and utterly false. If this is what you’re thinking, then you have an inflated opinion of yourself. There isn’t a single thing in your postings which bothers me, except for your repeated refusal to back up your unfounded accusations about me with so much as a single fact.

    So, Skeptic – once again I’ll ask you to “put up or shut up”. HAVE you any evidence to back up your claims about me or not? Why not give GhostTheory a world exclusive and post your evidence here?

    “So don’t criticise Mike on his own turf”.

    The Gazette website is no more my “turf” than it is your “turf”. You can criticise me whenever and wherever you like – but you better make damned sure you get your facts right and have evidence to back up your claims. Personally I think you’re in danger of making yourself look like an abject hypocrite and a complete idiot. Having said that, when you post your mountainous evidence against me to back up your claims I’ll apologise.

    Stop stalling and post your evidence that for over a decade I’ve been a) claiming to send material away for scientific analysis, b) claiming to get “startling results”, c) promising to write up these results in a “follow-up article but then failing to do so.

    You said it, so prove it. You made these allegations, so back them up. Not “in due course”, but now. If you ignore this and/or simply post more generalised, evidence-free swipes, then everyone will know what my colleagues and I know already; your allegations are nothing more than complete fabrications.

  • Mike

    Another computer glitch; an emoticon has sneaked its way into my above post. I didn’t put it there. Nor did the Gazette moderator, Bigfoot or the second shooter on the grassy knoll, so no more conspiracy theories, please…

  • You kicked my arse did you, Mike? Still waiting for your “rebuttal” of my article about approaching ghost research in a scientific manner.

    Not that you’d know anything about that, of course.

  • Mike

    I think it was you who recently declared an interest in kicking people “in real life”(I presume that means as opposed to giving someone a good old metaphorical kicking), whilst wearing your “Dr. Martens” boots, and also told those who didn’t like you that they had “been warned”. You’re a real sweetie, aren’t you?

    As for my rebuttal of your “scientific” article, don’t worry – its coming – in fact, the rebuttal is finished; Now we’re just building a shiny new website to decorate it with.

  • Mike Hallowell there demonstrating a lack of a sense of humor. Oh, and we’re still waiting on that rebuttal…

  • Mike Hallowell

    Alas, my health is really poor at the moment – not sure if you’re aware of it but I suffer from both narcolepsy and cataplexy, which are real buggers to cope with – and my wife is currently preparing for major surgery, both of which have slowed up the development of the website. Whatever else you might think of me, trust me when I tell you that I have penned the rebuttal and as soon as the website is finished it will be posted.

  • owlman

    I was unfornate enough to go on ghost hunt with ritson,the guy is a total idiot,trust me !