UPDATED WITH VIDEO (21 July) If a poll were conducted into the public’s beliefs in a range of phenomena or fables, including ghosts and sea monsters, my guess is that apparitions would get a far higher rating than the Loch Ness Monster or other maritime mysteries.

In a satisfying piece of synchronicity, it was encouraging to learn that last night, while I was dealing with the fall-out from Prof Brian Cox’s insistence that ghosts do not exist and people who believe in them are mistaken, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) was holding a meeting at which the existence of sea monsters was not only discussed but actually supported by at least one of the speakers.

Before the sceptics take to their keyboards and bombard me with comments about the difference between ghosts and sea monsters (apart from the fact that, as sceptics, they probably don’t entertain the possibility of either), I want to point out that in the quotes that follow, the statements made could equally apply to attitudes towards ghostly sightings.

Science writer and University of Portsmouth palaeontologist Dr Darren Naish, one of the speakers at “Cryptozoology: science or pseudoscience?”, a public event held at London Zoo on 12 July, 2011, said prior to the meeting:

“The huge number of ‘sea monster’ sightings now on record can’t all be explained away as mistakes, sightings of known animals or hoaxes. At least some of the better ones, some of them made by trained naturalists and such, probably are descriptions of encounters with real, unknown animals. And because new, large marine animals continue to be discovered – various new whale and shark species have been named in recent years – the idea that such a species might await discovery is, at the very least, plausible.”

The talks were chaired by Henry Gee, a senior editor at Nature, and the event was organised by another of the speakers, Charles Paxton from University of St Andrews, who provided this interesting observation: “The plural of ‘anecdote’ can be ‘data’. Cryptozoological reports can be analysed in a rigorous, statistical manner if the conclusions are restrained.”

Cautiously, Naish (left) explains on Tetrapod Zoology that one of the subjects to be addressed at the meeting is “whether cryptozoology – whatever the term might mean – should be considered a valid branch of zoological science” though he adds that it should not be taken as evidence that the subject “has finally ‘come in from the cold’ nor that the doors are wide open for the acceptance by ‘mainstream science’ of cryptozoologists and cryptozoological investigations. Nevertheless, this is an important step and it demonstrates that the investigation of mystery animal reports remains a topic of interest to trained scientists, or some trained scientists, at least.”

He also makes a comment that certainly applies to those, like Brian Cox, who dismiss the existence of other phenomena, such as ghost sightings:

“What I object to in particular is the knee-jerk reaction that any interest in cryptozoology makes you a crank or a naïve believer in the impossible. Not only are some targets of cryptozoology entirely ‘believable’ (example: new marine sharks and cetaceans*), the assumption that people interested in cryptozoology necessarily ‘believe’ in the existence of the supposed targets of cryptozoology is erroneous. Clearly, you can investigate mystery animal reports because you’re interested in what they might tell you about the evolution and transmission of folklore, the reliability and abilities of eyewitnesses, and so on. Furthermore, I always thought that the scientific evaluation of claims of any kind was meant to be a good thing (see comments in Woodley et al. (2008)). Basically, there’s definitely science to do here, whether you advocate the possible existence of the respective supposed animal species or not.”

Anyone who dismisses the possibility that sea monsters exist needs to provide an explanation for a sighting reported by two experienced British naturalists, Michael J. Nicholl and E.G.B. Meade-Waldo, Fellows of the Zoological Society of London and best known for their ornithological work, at the beginning of the 20th century. Matthew A. Bille tells the story of their encounter at Strangemag.com: The men reported seeing “a creature of most extraordinary form and proportions” during a research cruise aboard the yacht Valhalla, 15 miles east of the mouth of Brazil’s Parahiba River.

They first spotted a large dorsal fin which they did not recognise as belonging to any known fish. Meade-Waldo turned his binoculars on the object and immediately a long neck, about the thickness of a slim man’s body, rose from the water to a height of seven or eight feet.

The sighting, which lasted several minutes and took place in perfect conditions, was reported in the ZSL’s Proceedings (1906) and in the book Three Voyages of a Naturalist. Writer Rupert T. Gould also gave it extensive coverage in his book The Case for the Sea-Serpent (1930).

The illustration I have used at the top of this Blog, incidentally, is not an eye-witness drawing but an imaginative depiction by James Huckaby. However, it does show a resemblance to another sighting of a sea serpent that has been reported in the waters of British Columbia, Canada. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge and head of its Polar Ocean Physics Group – as well as being a member of the Society for Psychical Research – tipped me off about this particular monster. He tells me:

“A physical oceanographic colleague in Canada, Paul LeBlond, wrote an excellent book [see cover, above left] on the sea serpent which frequents BC waters: the ‘Cadborosaurus’ (because it was seen in Cadboro Bay). There is even (almost) physical evidence in that a young serpent was sicked up by a whale that was killed at the local whaling station in 1937. Unfortunately, although it was photographed, the body was not kept.”

If sea serpents do exist, they are not, of course, paranormal. But then it could be that some phenomena described as “paranormal” are also normal, natural events that we incorrectly label as paranormal because we do not yet recognise them for what they are.

UPDATE: Eight days after I posted the above, Paul LeBlond appeared in a special “Alaskan Monster Hunt” edition of Discovery Channel‘s “Deadliest Catch” series. After watching a video of an unidentified creature (see below) made by fisherman Kelly Nash the stars of the show, Johnathan and Andy Hillstrand, go in search of the monster and, it seems, after picking up a large underwater object on their radar, come very close to catching it.

To order books for delivery in the UK or Europe, click on the Amazon.co.uk covers, for delivery in North America or rest of the world, click on Amazon.com covers.

Before revealing why a picture of American actor George Raft (right) adorns this blog, I must explain the lack of recent contributions. There is a very good reason for this. I’ve been working flat out on a new book and have just delivered all 90,000 words to an American publisher. The subject? Reincarnation. I’ll reveal more later in the year, when I have a clearer idea about when it will be published.

It was great bringing myself up-to-date with the latest news and case studies relating to an aspect of the paranormal that has always fascinated me. What reincarnation studies have in common with mediumship and near-death-experience research is that they are looking for evidence that consciousness, in some form, continues after the death of our bodies.

In my new book, I pay tribute to the enormous contribution of the late Ian Stevenson at the Department of Perceptual Studies, which he established at the University of Virginia in 1967. Many of the cases I quote come from his scientific papers and the books he wrote about his investigations in many countries.

The person who is now continuing that work at the University of Virginia is Jim Tucker (left), associate professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences and author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives. And he has just revealed, in a recent teleseminar from the Institiute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), details of a fascinating new American case which illustrates the complexities involved in “cases of the reincarnation type”.

Interviewed by IONS’ senior scientist Dean Radin (below right), Tucker told of a child who spoke of a life in Hollywood, of dancing on stage, becoming an actor, then an agent, having a big swimming pool, and travelling around the world on a big boat. It sounded like a fantasy, until his mother showed the boy some old Hollywood movie books to see if they stirred more memories.

Looking at the images, he came across one from an old George Raft movie. “Oh, that’s the movie I made with George,” he told his mother. Then, pointing to a man in the picture, added: “That was me, mom. That’s who I was.”

The person he identified was not another big movie star but an extra. It was, Tucker told Radin, quite a task to identify the man, who turned out to have been a dancer who became an actor, then an agent. He had a big house with a swimming pool and travelled around the world on the Queen Elizabeth. “We’ve got pictures of him on that boat,” Tucker added.

Not all the information was correct, and the teleseminar includes a discussion about the possible reasons for this, and the accuracy we should expect from such memories, as well as about birthmarks related to reincarnation memories. A transcript is available here. I’ll report more on this case when a detailed report is published.

Tucker reveals that although he trained at the University of Virginia and was aware of Stevenson’s work, he wasn’t fascinated by it. After training he went into private practice. However, when he remarried, his new wife was very intrigued “by reincarnation, psychics and things that I had never really given much thought to”. Because of her interest he began reading up on the subject, and found in one of Ian Stevenson’s books a reference to a new grant his Department had recevied to study the effects of near-death experiences on the lives of those who had them.

Tucker, “looking for a hobby”, called up Stevenson and assisted him for a couple of years, interviewing patients. Then Stevenson asked if he would accompany a colleague to Asia to study reincarnation cases. After that, Tucker joined the department on a half-time basis before becoming a full member in 2000.

He continues to be impressed by the cases he encounters – not only their evidential nature but also the emotional component. “It is clear,” he tells Radin, “that for many of these kids this is not a game of make-believe but very important and meaningful for them. They talk about the people they miss. Some children cry daily to be taken to someone they say is their real family.”

Readers in UK and Europe wishing to purchase a copy of Jim Tucker’s book should click on the lefthand book cover, those in the United States or elsewhere in the world should click on the righthand cover.

Particle physicist Brian Cox has angered many by mocking people who believe in ghosts and the afterlife. He did so on Twitter after learning that the BBC had received complaints that Infinite Monkey Cage, the Radio 4 show he hosts with comedian Robin Ince, was unbalanced in an episode dealing with the paranormal.

Prof Cox – a former keyboard player in 1990s pop groups before focusing on cosmology and becoming a star presenter on television (a sort of supernova) – responded to the criticism by Tweeting:

“Just heard we got complaints about lack of BBC balance about ghosts – there are some utter nobbers out there! Here is my official statement, which also has the benefit of being fact. There are no ghosts, so it would be silly to believe in them.”

Which, of course, demonstrates that Cox is himself an even bigger nobber than the people who have upset him. The term nobber, for those unfamiliar with slang, means extremely stupid.

Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal, as were the guests on the very entertaining programme that caused offence: psychologists Richard Wiseman and Bruce Hood, and actor and magician Andy Nyman. Which is fine, of course, and their views shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the programme’s concept is to inject comedy into science and make it a fun subject to discuss.

The Twitter pronouncement, on the other hand, was delivered as a statement of fact, based on the assumption that Cox knows the truth of such matters better than anyone else. Has he become God? Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise? And what about the incredible theories of multiverses and quantum events that cosmologists ask us to accept? How would he feel if we all dismissed such ideas and labelled their originators as nobbers, just because we don’t understand them or find them difficult to explain?.

While I realise that ghost sightings and hauntings are open to many different interpretations, there’s really no doubt that people report seeing them. Endeavouring to understand the phenomenon of apparitions – both of the dead and the living – has engaged the intellects of many scientists every bit as gifted as Cox over the centuries, and his dismissal of the subject is, to say the least, unscientific. Even a BBC source told the Daily Telegraph that, although the physicist was entitled to his views, “to call people ‘nobbers’ is just a little offensive.”

I suggest Brian Cox shows greater respect in future for those whose views differ from his own, and a good starting point would be to become better acquainted with the best parapsychological literature and those who have taken the trouble to conduct research.

A good starting point would be to acquaint himself with the opinions of British scientist Peter Sturrock, whose research in nuclear physics at Engand’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment led, in time, to a long association with Stanford University, California, where he was appointed Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics in its School of Engineering and its Physics Department. Since 1961, Sturrock has worked primarily on plasma physics, solar physics and astrophysics, as well as gravity research and studying the history and philosophy of science. He has 300 scientific papers to his name, most in solar physics in which he is a towering figure.

Does Sturrock believe in ghosts? I don’t know, but he has studied a range of paranormal phenomena and is open-minded about many of them. His interest in the role of anomalies in the progress of science led him to Chair the Founding Committee of the Society for Scientific Exploration and he has served as its president since 1982.The recipient of numerous scientific awards, Sturrock keeps an open mind on the paranormal for very good reasons: he has experienced an unusual phenomenon – notably a UFO sighting – at first hand.

Wikipedia’s extensive biography of Sturrock tells us that his interest in UFOs began when he employed Dr Jacques Vallee on a research project and learned that he had authored a number of books on UFOs. Sturrock, we are told, ‘felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee’s books’ which led him to research the subject further. Though this story is true, it was not the start of his interest in the subject. That occurred on an autumn day in 1947 – the year the word ‘flying saucer’ was coined – when he was a student at Cambridge and saw an unidentified flying object: an experience he has since described as ‘very disturbing’. It was, he says, his ‘first encounter with an unorthodox world that does not conform to the orthodox, neatly packaged, world of conventional science.’

Sturrock knows from personal experience how closed minded many scientists are. So he has been doubly courageous not only in pursuing his interest in the paranormal but also in expressing his views on the subect in his books, A Tale of Two Sciences: Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist and The UFO Enigma.

Brian Cox’s contributions to litereature, on the other hand, appear to be largely confined to his co-authored books based on his television series, Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. If you want a starry-eyed account of astrophysics, Cox is your man. If you’d prefer a sensible discussion about unusual phenomena and scientists’ attitudes to them, Sturrock is undoubtedly the person you should turn to. [Just click on the appropriate images below, depending on whether you are UK or USA-based. One is a Blue-Ray disk.]

Or Cox could make contact with Prof Bernard Carr, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University, London, or Prof Archie Roy, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the British Interplanetary Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Both are past presidents of the Society for Psychical Research with immense knowledge of the paranormal. I suggest, however, that Cox doesn’t open the discussion with the words, “Hello, nobber.”

I’m not alone in taking issue with Cox. For those interested in a far more academic – and amusing – response, SPR member and psychic investigator Chris Jensen Romer has provided one here.

Cox, I’m sorry to say, appears to have let his TV success go to his head. He is in danger of losing credibility and going the way of all supernovae: fading from sight very quickly. Still, he could always return to playing the keyboards.

In what many will see as a humiliating climbdown, three members of the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) paid a visit to their honorary president, Eric Hatton, in Stourbridge last week to discuss their reasons for banning his autobiography. Their discussions have resulted in a joint statement that reveals the book – which the Union-run Arthur Findlay College was instructed to withdraw from sale – is now back on its shelves.

Here’s the statement in full:

Following the decision of the Union not to stock copies of its honorary president Eric Hatton’s book, Taking Up The Challenge, the president, the vice-president (Administrative) and the general secretary of the Union held a meeting with Mr Hatton, Hugh Davis and Susan Farrow to discuss the matters which had led to this decision.

The Union has accordingly agreed to put Mr Hatton’s book back on sale at the Arthur Findlay College bookshop. Mr Hatton recognised that some of the references in his book could have been taken to be misleading and denigratory but gave an assurance that this had never been his intention. With hindsight, the representatives of the Union present at the meeting acknowledge that a preliminary discussion with Mr Hatton about the Union’s concerns regarding his book might have resolved this situation more speedily.

The three SNU officials who met with Eric Hatton were David Bruton, president, Dinah Annable, vice-president (Administration), who are both members of its National Executive Committee (NEC), and Charles Coulston, the Union’s general secretary. Also at the meeting were Susan Farrow, who assisted Eric in writing the book, and Hugh Davis, a trustee of the JV Trust.

Though the statement does not acknowledge the fact, the decision to reverse the book ban is undoubtedly the result of the outcry which followed news that the book had been removed from sale at the Arthur Findlay College, without any reason being given and without any attempt to discuss the issue with its author, who is respected throughout the Spiritualist movement.

The ban was announced by Sue Farrow on 7 May on her SpiritOfPN website. I drew attention the story on the following day and made my own comments, including the suggestion that David Bruton should phone Hatton, apologise that the book ban had been handled so badly and disrespectfully, and then issue a statement discussing the issues. I’d like to think he would have done all those things without my prompting, and that of the 36 visitors to my Blog who felt so strongly about it that they made their own comments.

Even more supporters of Eric expressed their anger (with just a few who felt otherwise) on SpiritOfPN website which received an incredible 176 responses.

I’m not sure which pleases me the most: (a) the fact that the Union has at last started to show signs of listening to complaints and being prepared to act with greater civility and respect toward others; or (b) the new voice that the internet has given to those who feel bullied or ignored by those in power.

Above all, of course, I’m delighted that Eric’s excellent book is now back on sale at the Arthur Findlay College, as well as elsewhere. It’s a great read, even though the joint statement doesn’t shed any light on what it was that someone in the SNU felt so angry about to have it banned in the first place. I have my suspicions as to who that person is, but there’s no need for them to resort to a Super Injunction to keep me silent – I’m not saying.

Whatever next? First, the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) shut down the weekly Spiritualist newspaper Psychic News after almost 80 years, making its staff unemployed and its subscribers out of pocket. Next, it showed its gratitude to three members of its Philosophy and Ethics Committee, who had written two excellent books, by replacing them. Then Duncan Gascoyne, former SNU president and chairman of the Arthur Findlay College, resigned in protest at the lack of consultation that he was receiving from the National Executive Committee after more than a decade in that position. Now – in what amounts to the biggest slap in the face yet for one of the Union’s most respected and dedicated workers, Eric Hatton – it has banned the Arthur Findlay College (AFC) from selling Taking Up The Challenge, the superb autobiography by Eric Hatton, former SNU president and college chairman, the Union’s first ever Lifetime Achievement Award holder and its first and only honorary president. Who, in their right minds, would want to deprive Spiritualists from reading his life story? And why?

Sue Farrow, former editor of Psychic News who is continuing to be the voice of independent Spiritualism on her ‘Spirit of PN’ website, has just broken the story of the ban on Eric’s book. You’ll find the full story here.

Before running the story, she asked SNU president David Bruton to confirm that Taking Up The Challenge had been banned from sale at the college. She also asked whether he was aware that the decision had been taken, and whether it was a collective decision by the SNU’s NEC or the action of the AFC’s new chairman, Andrew Hadley. In addition, she wanted to know why the book had been on sale at the college prior to Gascoyne’s resignation and Hadley’s appointment.

The reply she received came not from Bruton but from Charles Coulston, SNU general secretary, who side-stepped most of these questions. His response, which Sue gives in full, begins by asserting that “the internal decision-making processes within the Union are a matter for the National Executive Committee and its Officers and not for private individuals to question”.

Such arrogance!

Regular visitors to www.ParanormalReview.com will recall that last year David Bruton refused to answer a question I put to him simply because he did not like something else I’d written earlier.

Do those running the SNU not realise that it is essential that their actions are scrutinised by independent observers and that they also have a duty to their membership to act with integrity and transparency?

So what was Coulston’s response to the main thrust of Sue Farrow’s questions?

“The Union has exercised its right, in common with all organisations which sell books, to decide what it will stock and what it will not. In the case of Minister Hatton’s book it was discovered late in the day that there were a number of references in the book to the Union’s activities which were inaccurate, misleading and denigratory of the Union: our minutes show the accurate version of events, which clearly differ considerably from the book.

“The Union sees no reason why it should stock any book which contains unfounded statements and derogatory innuendoes about the Union: no other organisation would countenance the promotion of a publication which contained such baseless and unwarranted assertions and insinuations against itself and its governing body.”

Banned books usually sell very well and I hope Eric’s will be no exception. It deserves to be a Spiritualist best-seller on its own merits: it abounds with fascinating accounts of his experiences with some of the finest physical and mental mediums, as well as offering insights about his business and personal life. I hope that the AFC ban on selling his book will encourage the entire SNU membership to buy it (just click on the book cover, here, to buy it through Amazon) and find out what it is the NEC does not want people to read.

What amuses me is that when David Bruton is not trying to steer the SNU ship through choppy waters he runs a retail newsagents, selling newspapers and magazines whose contents and opinions, doubtless, he does not always agree with. If anyone should understand the principles of free speech, it is the SNU president.

I trust, for his sake and the Union’s – assuming he is the ship’s captain and not a cabin boy – that Bruton lives up to his presidential pledge and starts communicating effectively with his committees, his membership and those of us who take the trouble to report on its activities.

And he could start by picking up the phone and calling Eric Hatton to offer his sincere apologies that the dispute over his autobiography has been handled so badly and disrespectfully. He should then authorise publication of a statement that puts the Union’s side of the issues Hatton has discussed and which the minutes apparently contradict.

Without that, the membership can make its own judgment and, having known Eric for well over 40 years, and knowing him to be a man of honesty and integrity, I’d put my money on his account of events every time, and I’m sure most SNU members will, too..

With careful steering, a fair wind and a crew who are encouraged to put the emphasis on “spiritual” rather than “ego” and “power”, I’m sure the SNU ship can eventually get back on course and return safely to port and start behaving in a way that Spiritualists can be proud of once more. But it will need more positive leadership than it has at present if a mutiny is to be avoided.