Rating the Reliability of Reports of Unexpected Paranormal Phenomena

 It is very common for humans to report seeing or hearing something that seems to be paranormal. But reports of such observations vary in quality. How can you can judge the quality of a report? Below is an informal system in which an observation report is assigned a number of stars that can vary between 0 and 6. A six-star observation report is one that has the most weight as evidence. 

Add 1 star if we have first-hand testimony or testimony exactly quoting what a witness saw

People can make mistakes when reporting what someone else saw. They may misinterpret or poorly remember what someone said.  It's much better to have a first-person account spoken or written by the person who claimed to have seen something.  One of the lowest quality reports of the paranormal we can imagine is someone saying something like, "Long ago my friend said that she saw something she thought was a ghost," without giving an exact quotation.  Similarly, a newspaper report saying "Mrs. Wilson says she saw a UFO" is offering a bit of evidence inferior to an exact quotation from Mrs. Wilson about what she saw. 

Add 1 star if we have a named and reliable witness 

You often read online and in books or magazines reports of unnamed single witnesses claiming to see amazing things. Such reports tend to have less value as evidence than reports coming from named witnesses.  The reason is partially that an unnamed witness may feel that he is free to lie without any consequences.  So, for example, if I read a stunning UFO story told by someone with an anonymous user name such as metssuperfan, it has relatively little weight as evidence. It also has lesser weight as evidence when a writer tells us that Mr. B. saw such and such a thing, without listing a full name. It also has little weight when a named witness with a record of lying reports seeing something. But it has much more weight if a named and reliable witness reports seeing something. 

Add 1 star if a written dated eyewitness report was made very soon after the observation occurred, with the report being quoted, or the account being such a report

The longer a gap has passed between an observation and someone's recollection of the observation, the greater the chance that the recollection may be inaccurate.  So your mother's story about a ghost she says she saw twenty years ago does not have nearly as much evidence weight as your mother's written account of what she saw on that night, written on the same night as the observation. Credibility is increased when we have someone's report of what that person saw  when an observation was fresh in his memory. 

Add 1 star if the observation report was published very soon after the observation occurred

Dated written reports are a good thing to have, but it is even better if such reports are published soon after the claimed observation. Such a thing helps to prove that the claim of an observation was made very soon after the claimed observation date. If someone has a written dated page saying that he saw the ghost of his mother, with the date being two days after his mother's death, that suggests (but does not prove) that such a claim of seeing a ghost occurred at the reported date. There is no proof because the person could have written the report at a much later time, and put an earlier date on the report. But if the report is published soon after the claimed observation, then we have proof that the observation claim did occur by a particular date. The publication of a report also lends credibility by putting the witness "on public record" of having seen a particular thing. 

Add 1 star if the observation report was made by multiple witnesses who agree with each other

It is rather obvious that the more witnesses we have of something occurring, the more credible is the observation report. 

Add 1 star if the observation report is backed up by physical evidence such as a photo or video

The fact that people are sentenced to prison very frequently based solely on eyewitness testimony shows that physical evidence is not a necessity for a credible observational report.  But when physical evidence such as a photo or video exists, it provides additional strength to the credibility of an observational report. 

Let's give some examples of using this system:

Example #1: Reddit user georgiaguy23 says he remembers his mother Ida long ago saying that she saw a UFO. Rating: 0 stars. 

Example #1: Joe Smithson says he remembers his mother Ida long ago saying that she saw a UFO. Rating: 1 star, but only if Ida is a trustworthy person.  If Ida is a shady character, the rating is 0 stars. 

Example #2: Joe Smithson quotes a letter written by his mother Ida on June 8, 2023, saying she saw a ghost about twenty years ago. 1978.  Rating: 2 stars, if Ida is a trustworthy person.  

Example #3: Joe Smithson quotes a letter written by his mother Ida on June 9, 1993, saying she saw a ghost on June 8, 1993.  Rating: 3 stars, if Ida is a trustworthy person.  The short gap of only one day between the report and the claimed observation event merits an additional star in the rating. 

Example #4: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost ten years ago. Rating: 3 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness. 

Example #5: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024). Rating: 4 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness.   

Example #6: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024), and quotes his brother as saying that he also saw the ghost. Rating: 5 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness.

Example #7: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024), and quotes his brother as saying that he also saw the ghost. David also has a photo showing what he says is the ghost he saw. Rating: 6 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness, and the photo holds up to scrutiny.

Some reports of the paranormal do not qualify as 5-star reports using the system above. An example is the very interesting tale of hypnotic clairvoyance told on page 248 of The Psychology of the Future by Emile Boirac. Boirac quotes a report of a subject who reportedly displayed the most astounding clairvoyance, describing what was going on as a man met with two others very far away. In the account the very specific details given are soon verified as correct. But there are some reasons why the account fails to qualify as five-star evidence using the system above. First, Boirac does not give us the full name of the person who gave the account, merely saying it was provided by Jean B.  Secondly, Boirac's book dates from 1918, but the account is of events that supposedly occurred in 1892, with the account not published before Boirac's 1918 book. So sadly the report only earns one of the five stars mentioned above. 

But very many reports of the paranormal qualify as 5-star reports following the system above. In the 1870's very many people holding seances were very good at publishing very detailed reports of the observations, with the reports very often published very soon after the observation event. Examples of such reports are quoted in my posts here and here. In those posts are actually some examples of reports of the paranormal which should be rated 5 or 6 stars using the rating system above. The observations claiming materializations of Katie King during the seances of Florence Cook were reported in  many different extremely detailed eyewitness accounts by very many reliable witnesses, typically giving their full names and often giving their addresses, over years of observation, with the reports very often being published soon after the day of observation, and with photographs being published as corroboration. The reports appeared in the Spiritualist newspaper during 1872 and 1874. Examples of such reports are quoted in my posts here, here and here.

Here is an example of a report that must be rated highly. Using the system above, we can rate is as 4 stars or 5 stars. The report appeared in the December 10, 1938 edition of the Psychic Observer publication here. We have three witnesses testifying on November 21, 1938 to phenomena they say occurred quite recently, on October 12, 1938.  The one-month gap might be a justification for granting only 4 stars rather than 5. 

See page 5 of the document here for more testimony in favor of such wonders. 

If you ever see something that you think may have been paranormal, you should make a dated record of your observation as soon as possible, noting as many details as you can. Even if you doubt you will ever publish your account, you should either:

(1) Write a detailed report on a piece of paper or electronic document, as soon as possible, and record the date and time.

(2) If the account was particularly noteworthy, such as an account of seeing an apparition or a UFO, you ideally should use your smartphone or camera to make a video of you describing what happened, and make sure to mention the date. 

Such a record will be very valuable in establishing the credibility of your observation, should anyone later challenge the credibility of the observation, or should you ever want to help establish the credibility of what you saw, or publish an account.  The advice above also applies to anyone witnessing a crime or witnessing something that might be the center of a lawsuit. 

Let us now look at a case of a report of the paranormal which should be rated as a 5-star report according to the system above. It is a report by seven named witnesses of seeing on Monday, March 23, 1901 an apparition of the deceased Julia Murray while near a coffin which contained Julia's dead body. The report was published in a newspaper on Friday, March 27, 1901. The image below shows part of the newspaper report:

You can read the full newspaper account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1901-03-27/ed-1/seq-3/

We have seven named witnesses who all say they saw an apparition of the late Julia Murray on Monday, March 23, 1901. We even have the addresses of the witnesses. The accounts include these:

• Giving firsthand testimony, Mrs. Mary Corbalis states she a vision of Julia Murray came from behind a picture on the wall, becoming an apparition surrounded by "white, filmy clouds." She says the room lit up dramatically, and that Julia wore a wreath of roses.  
• Giving firsthand testimony and using an old word for ghost ("shade"), Rose Kearns tells of seeing the same thing, saying, "The shade of Julia Murray appeared there. I saw it." Rose says the apparition "appeared to have something on the head," saying that some said it was a wreath.  (The article has apparently used a section header misstating Kearns' first name as Kate.) 
• Giving firsthand testimony, Rose McGowan says, "I looked and saw Julia in white and a wreath of roses at her head, the most beautiful thing I ever saw." She says Julia bowed her head slowly, and put her hands together in prayer. 
• Giving firsthand testimony, and using the old word "shade" meaning a ghost or apparition, Mary Regan says, "I saw the shade of the young girl who was dead," saying "her features were plainly distinguishable."
• Giving firsthand testimony in a separate newspaper account dated one day later (March 28, 1901), Katie Kane states she saw a brilliant light on the wall, and saw Julia with a wreath of flowers around her head, and also clouds around her head. 

The same apparition sighting is described in the news report here and here. 

Let's look at another case of a report of an apparition, one that appears on page 80 of Volume II of the nineteenth century book "Bristol Past and Present." We read this:

"Of the rise of the church of Dr. Blomberg, who about this time held a prebendal stall in this cathedral, a curious story is related. When the English forces were in possession of Martinique, in the seven years’ war, his father, Major Blomberg, was detached from head-quarters to a distant part of the island, and while there died of a violent fever. The morning after his decease a Col. Stewart was surprised while in bed at head-quarters by the appearance of Major Blomberg in regimental dregs, who, in answer to an alarmed inquiry why he was not with his detachment at his post, assured his interrogator that he was no longer alive. ‘I died yesterday,’ said he, ‘at seven in the morning’; and then delivered an earnest request that his friend, on his return to England, would attend to the welfare of his young son, then in the island, by seeing him put into possession of an estate to which he was entitled, the deeds of which were secreted in the private drawer of an old chest, in a house that he named in Yorkshire. He then disappeared, leaving Col. Stewart in the greatest astonishment, but that gentleman directly called to Captain Mounsey, who slept in the same room, and inquired if he had seen Major Blomberg, to which that officer replied that he had not only seen him but had heard everything he had said, which he repeated to Colonel Stewart, and they both made notes of the event. Soon after advice arrived of the death of Major Blomberg upon the same morning and at the same hour as had been mentioned by Colonel Stewart to his brother officers, who had hitherto treated the matter with derision. In company with his guardian, Colonel Stewart, the boy, at the conclusion of the war, returned to England, and the story having reached the ear of Queen Charlotte, she appointed him one of her pages. The papers were found as indicated, and, after law suit against the undue possessor of the estate in question, young Blomberg was finally put in possession. He afterwards entered the church, became chaplain to the Prince of Wales, married and settled at Burrington, in Somersetshire, and was appointed a prebendary in Bristol Cathedral. The story is stated to be on the authority of Dr. Blomberg’s own handwriting."

Now at first, this sounds like a very convincing piece of evidence. We hear of an apparition sighting, one that is seen by two witnesses. The apparition's claim to be a person who just died is proven correct. You might think an account like this should be scored highly, but using the system here, it merits no more than about three stars.  The problem is that we have no first-hand testimony, and we don't know how long the gap is between the reported events and the date of the account given above.  The story supposedly comes from a respectable Colonel Stewart, but we have no first hand testimony from him or anyone else. Even if we make generous assumptions that the report of multiple witnesses is correct, and that the witnesses wrote down what they saw soon after seeing it, and that the physical evidence corroborating the apparition's words was actually found, the report above can be given a rating of no higher than about three stars.  The Colonel Stewart account cannot be given the five stars that the Julia Murray account merits. 

We have below an interesting account that might well be true, given all of the other evidence that has been gathered for telepathy and clairvoyance. But under the system discussed above, the account can only be given about two stars. We at least have a named witness, and a quote from the witness. But the testimony is vague, with no testimony of exactly what was seen or experienced. And there is no corroboration in the form of testimony from the traveling soul-mate. What exactly does the witness mean when claiming "my mental self has traveled with Captain Leslie"? We don't know. Accounts of the paranormal lacking details cannot be rated very highly. Conversely, in the Julia Murray account cited above, the level of detail is excellent.