Ghosts in our footsteps?

Hello Stephen D. Smith:

I have nothing to substantiate this theory but I wonder if a ghost sighting is due to a witness who actually reminds the ghost of somebody that some person knew before that person died and left a ghost. This recognition may be in terms of body language or perhaps even thought patterns that the witness inadvertently duplicated - or perhaps both as body language reflects thoughts. My point is witnesses may unknowingly trigger a ghost’s memory upon which the ghost “subconsciously” re-enacts some past event regardless if it was a one time event or regular occurance. (Yes, I can certainly be accused of having a vivid imagination with repect to this theory.)

What I’m getting to is this. The next time you go to Borley, consider walking away from the patio of the church, for example, and then turn around and take a picture of the empty(?) space behind you. This would arguably parallel the time when Rev. Harry Bull left the church’s patio and, hearing footsteps behind him, turned around to allegedly see the ghost nun slowly following him from the patio. My theory in this case is that the nun perhaps regularly followed a pastor out that door in her time when church services were over and Rev. Harry triggered the ghost’s memory about this that day. But it would probably be difficult to guess exactly what these pastors might have been thinking about when they left the building. And their thoughts may have influenced if they were walking faster than usual, for example. Many possibilities here.

No promises, but I wonder if one out of a thousand people (arbitrary number) would get some kind of result if everyone who took pictures at Borley Church walked off the patio then turned around and took a picture of the empty(?) space behind them regardless if anything was visible. Turning around at random spots to shoot pictures after walking along the road a bit may prove interesting too. (Don’t forget that walking along the road can be VERY DANGEROUS too.) After all, since people would naturally follow somebody from _behind_ them, unlike a dog on a leash, I don’t see why ghosts wouldn’t follow people from _behind_ too.

Scott Cunningham

Dear Scott;

Many thanks for your message and thoughts.

I _try_ to keep an open mind and open eye and, as you suggest, I'll keep a look out behind me too.

As I said in one of my first messages to borleyrectory.com, some ghosts are likely to be "replays" of events that happened in the past. Somehow, the action was captured in the atmosphere's chemicals (like a photograph is captured on a film's chemicals) and, given the right conditions, that action is replayed again and again. This claim is partially borne out by the fact that in very few ghost sightings is there any interaction between the person who views the ghost and the ghost itself, despite the viewer sometimes trying to establish contact.

The only tale I can recall - off the top of my head - where a ghost actually responded to something done by the viewer occurred in London (in a house in Cheyne Walk, if my memory serves me correctly). However, this is a very rare event and the author of the tale (perhaps it was Elliot O'Donnell) mentions it as an exceptional happening. The fact that so many ghosts are seen but almost none of them respond to stimuli from a viewer might add credence to the "replay" theory. Only in the movies do ghosts interact with people.

The "replay" theory would also seem to apply in those cases where a ghost is seen high in the air or below floor level - because that's where the floor was in the ghost's day, so the replay shows how it was then, not how it is now. I have actually seen this with my own eyes but not at Borley (It was when I worked on the railway... a figure walked out from the side of a tunnel wall, crossed the tracks and disappeared into the tunnel wall on the opposite side. The curious things about this figure - which was seen by four people, including myself - was that we couldn't see him from about the knees down. We never did discover if there was a passageway at that point in the tunnel but we did find out that the track was much lower than at present - hence not being able to his legs because he was walking on a lower level? Incidentally, I say "he" although it was impossible to tell if the figure was male or female, but it definitely had a "human" shape).

The ghosts and other activity at Borley seem more complex that this "replay" theory and, frankly, it doesn't help our understanding of the situation there when people are posting messages about "ghostly dwarfs" and/or hideous gnomes, etc., none of which are part of the generally-accepted Borley story. Even the monk part of the tale is decidedly dubious in my view; that whole aspect having mainly come to light in the planchette-writing sessions - none of which turned-up anything concrete (in my personal opinion - unless, of course, you believe the warning about the fire at the Rectory... which was given some considerable time before the fire actually took place).

It may be that Borley is somehow a channel for supernatural activity, but the question then becomes: "Are conscious entities attracted to the place somehow or are supernatural phenomena simply sucked into the area?"

This gets us back to your suggestion about being "followed" by ghosts or whatever because, for this to happen, the "ghost" would have to know that you're there and, therefore, the ghost would also have to be a conscious entity. This is also true in your suggestion that a ghost might be "reminded" of someone or something it knew when alive. As I suggest above, I doubt that ghosts have the power of thought. However, you may be onto something, in that there is a possible connection with regard to "mass hysteria". We already know that this phenomena can lead to dozens of people fainting, for example. It is therefore quite conceivable that a group of people could see the same thing simultaneously - although, as yet, the mechanism by which this happens is not understood.

Incidentally, a nun may have indeed walked out of the church regularly in times gone by, but the main "nun" stories are associated with the former rectory and, in particular, its garden - rather than with the church. I cannot recall the story about Harry Bull turning to see the nun in the churchyard but it's a long time since I read up on it properly. Nevertheless, I understand the point you're making.

I have to say that, from my point of view, I separate poltergeist activity and ghost activity, although I accept they are probably related. I suspect that the mechanisms for each activity is different. Poltergeists certainly seem to have a conscious aspect about them, since they _can_ interact with living people (e.g. poltergeist have been known to return a missing item that has specifically been requested) whereas ghosts are mainly "replays" (i.e unconscious).

I am convinced that in years to come - perhaps hundreds of years from now - science will have explained the mechanisms for both. In the meanwhile, I would like to add to the volume of information that, ultimately, may help lead to an understanding of these subjects. I realise that I'm a very small cog on a very big wheel but I hope that my "research" (such as it may be) will be both logical and understandable.

I really enjoy your thought-provoking messages, Scott, and I like the positive debate we have. Not to mention the "discoveries" we've made between us. Frankly, it makes a change from some of the messages I get which, sometimes, border on the abusive.

With best wishes,
Stephen D. Smith

Hello Stephen.

Regarding attempted interaction between people and ghosts, consider that there are known barriers that can strain people/people communication which could conceivably also strain people/ghost communication. One such error, for example, is trying to communicate with a ghost while ASSUMING the ghost speaks the same language you do. I live in a multilingual area and am very familiar with the blank stare resulting from speaking to someone having assumed they understand the language I was speaking. Also, how would a ghost speak if it didn't really have vocal cords considering that some ghost have been reported as being able to talk even if only to themselves.

Also, point a gun at someone and that should force some kind of interaction even if they don't understand the language you're speaking, right? Well in the case of ghosts, what if the person who became the ghost you're pointing the gun at lived in a time before guns had been invented? But threaten to swing the gun at that ghost as if it were a club and you might get a response.

Another point to consider is have you ever been so preoccupied with a thought that you stopped paying attention to your surroundings and subsequently get teased by family and/or friends that you weren't all there? For all we know a ghost may be similarly preoccupied with a private matter that happened in their time and not paying attention to their surroundings.

Indeed, regarding the nun following Rev. Harry Bull out of the church, I wonder if the nun following _some_ Reverend at a distance as they left the church may have been the "proper" way for people to leave a church building in their time. Consider that leaving the church with a Reverend, walking side by side and possibly talking/joking about matters, could possibly have been construed as suggesting impropriety in their time. If this was the case then the nun possibly deliberately avoided walking too close behind Rev. Harry.

The bottom line is just because ghosts rarely act like they are nothing more than some playback medium that isn't capable of thinking doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the capacity to think, not that you were saying that. In fact, you did volunteer that one exception which I will probably investigate.

Scott Cunningham

Dear Scott,

You wrote:
"Regarding attempted interaction between people and ghosts, consider that there are known barriers that can strain people/people communication which could conceivably also strain people/ghost communication. One such error, for example, is trying to communicate with a ghost while ASSUMING the ghost speaks the same language you do."

I say:
I see your point and entirely agree with it. However, confined to the context of Borley, it would be reasonable to expect that any ghost there, e.g. Harry Bull, would speak English. The possible exception may be the nun, who, it seems, is now widely accepted as having been French, though whether she was or not is a matter for inconclusive speculation.

You wrote:
"Also, how would a ghost speak if it didn't really have vocal cords considering that some ghost have been reported as being able to talk even if only to themselves."

I say:
Communication and interaction wouldn't necessarily be confined to speech. For example, even if the ghost couldn't speak it could respond to a yes/no question by nodding or shaking its head. Ghosts "talking to themselves" may be a variation of the "recording" theme, in that both vision and sound from a past event are captured in the atmosphere's chemicals and, given the right conditions, replayed.

You wrote:
"Also, point a gun at someone and that should force some kind of interaction even if they don't understand the language you're speaking, right? Well in the case of ghosts, what if the person who became the ghost you're pointing the gun at lived in a time before guns had been invented?

I say:
A good and valid point, but if a ghost doesn't respond under such circumstances, do we assume that it doesn't know what a gun is or do we simply think that it has no consciousness and, therefore, sees and comprehends nothing at all? In short, a lack of reaction from the ghost in these circumstances doesn't prove or disprove that it is a conscious entity.

You wrote:
"But threaten to swing the gun at that ghost as if it were a club and you might get a response."

I say:
If you did get a response then I think we'd have to say it was a conscious entity.

You wrote:
"Another point to consider is have you ever been so preoccupied with a thought that you stopped paying attention to your surroundings and subsequently get teased by family and/or friends that you weren't all there? For all we know a ghost may be similarly preoccupied with a private matter that happened in their time and not paying attention to their surroundings."

I say:
Yes, like everyone else, I've been so pre-occupied with something that I've failed to notice what's going around me. However, when we translate this scenario to the realm of ghosts, we gain no knowledge because, once again, we have no indication as to whether it is a preoccupied and conscious entity or it is simply a "replay" ghost. The bottom line is that whenever there is no response from a ghost, we can draw no conclusions for certain as to its consciousness or not.

You wrote:
"Indeed, regarding the nun following Rev. Harry Bull out of the church, I wonder if the nun following _some_ Reverend at a distance as they left the church may have been the "proper" way for people to leave a church building in their time. Consider that leaving the church with a Reverend, walking side by side and possibly talking/joking about matters, could possibly have been construed as suggesting impropriety in their time. If this was the case then the nun possibly deliberately avoided walking too close behind Rev. Harry."

I say:
I think I can speak with some authority in replying to this, having been a organist for much of my adult life (not, I might add, because I'm particularly religious, but simply because I think that a church is a fairly respectable place in which to keep an organ dry). The churches that I have invariably been associated with are "high" churches which still do things "the old fashioned way" (if I have to be subjected to religion in a church, this is the type of worship I personally prefer, as opposed to the happy-clappy type). Anyhoo... the point is this (and it's something that hasn't changed for, probably, hundreds of years): At the end of a service the vicar will invariably make his way to the main door of the church where he will meet and greet people as they leave the building. Those people would include nuns and, only when everyone has left, would the vicar return inside the church and change out of his robes, etc. For this reason, the vicar would often be the last person to leave to building and he may even lock-up on his way out - although another church official (which in Bull's time would have always been a man) may have done the locking-up. I know of no reason in Canon Law (the Church's rules, as it were) why nuns should walk behind vicars. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be true, as when a procession enters a church it starts with the choir; then the lawyers (if there any); various dignitaries, etc.; and finally the vicar. At Saint Paul's Cathedral the procession can take 20 minutes to enter the main body of the building and, at the very end, is the Cathedral's Dean or, on special occasions, the Bishop of London.

You wrote:
"The bottom line is just because ghosts rarely act like they are nothing more than some playback medium that isn't capable of thinking doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the capacity to think...

I say:
I entirely agree with you on that but, conversely, just because they don't react it doesn't mean that they're conscious entities who are choosing not to react.

You wrote:
"...not that you were saying that."

I say:
That's true enough and, frankly, I think it would be rather stupid and narrow-minded of me to suggest that there is only one possible explanation which accounts for all ghostly happenings!

With best wishes,
Stephen D. Smith