Undisclosed Location - Kent

Ghost Connections were privileged to be granted access to the same venue as visited in August and twice in September 2007. This venue is in rural Kent and is significant historical interest spanning several centuries. To our knowledge it has never been subject to a paranormal investigation and after our first visit we are pleased to be able to conduct further investigations at this venue.

The first report can be read here.
The second report can be read here.
The third report can be read here.

The site consists of three buildings of which two have been referred to as buildings A and B in the previous report. The same terms will be used here. Further to these there is a utility block which will be referred to in this report.

The Investigation

Video camera-
Sony DCR HC-24E with night vision and Sony HVL-IRM IR light
Sony DCR-HC19 with night vision and Sony HVL- IRM IR light

Digital Camera-
Fuji Fine Pix S5000
Fuji Fine Pix S5500
Fuji Fine Pix S5500

Voice recorder -
Olympus VN-2100PC
Olympus DM20

Other-
Video tapes (mini DV)

Team:

Kim
Ian
Dave

Method:

Using visual and scientific methods combined with spiritual information investigate the background to alleged paranormal phenomena at this venue.

Investigation:

This night would be subject to light to moderate winds across the site.

Unfortunately Paddy could not be present on this continuation of a series of investigations into the same venue.

Based upon the previous two reports we decided to enter building A with audio and video running intending that anything occurring in those initial moments would be captured evidentially.

Within building A a series of footfalls were heard immediately behind Kim.

Ian then arrived and immediately made comment that he had seen the figure of a girl in a white dress walk across in front of the utility block. No one else saw this and no cameras were running.

During everyone's presence outside there was the sound of a loud rustle of leaves from the area of a neighbouring driveway. There were as many as 9-10 paces. The drive is in view and subject to lighting from the premises. Nothing was seen and the sounds stopped as suddenly as they started.

We returned to building A and conducted a vigil within. Nothing was reported or noted.

As we left the building the access door which is stiff, and remains open of its own accord, was left open behind us. It is accepted that unless secured and locked it is generally ajar by about 1”. Whilst outside the door was heard to slam violently closed. This would be subject to later testing based upon later further events.

A further vigil in building A took place during which various single clicks were heard in various parts of the building. There appeared to be no pattern and they were not repeated on request. Ian then hard a faint 'double click' (two produced quickly) and when asked to be repeated a single click was produced. The source of these eluded us.

Kim saw a shadow move through the building.

A strange image was seen to have been recorded in Kim's camera when viewed initially on the camera display.

The temperature was 14.2 deg C.

Another break was taken and the door was left partly open again. A sound of someone running through nearby bushes was heard. It would have been seen if any persons were present from our location. None was seen.

Ian stated it was the same girl but has no idea why he mentioned this.

A heavy bang and a thud was heard just outside building A during this time.

Fireworks could be heard in the vicinity but not seen in the sky.

Another bang was heard outside.

It was now 12.1 deg C.

Whilst outside the door slammed again. On returning to the door we attempted to recreate the sound. We managed to do this by exerting some force upon the door.

Upon returning we positioned ourselves further up the building deciding to attempt to get as close as possible to the clicking noises that had been heard. A loud crack was heard within the roof structure. It was accurately placed as coming from one of the main upright beams.

It then felt very cold in the area where we were and the temperature was noted now to be 11.4 and 11.3 deg C.

We then took a break and on our return attempted a séance. Further clicks were reported of a similar nature to those previously mentioned. Attempts to identify them were made.

Having exhausted our attempts to identify the clicking noise we then held a séance by the door which was subject to slamming. Nothing was noted during this time.

We took a break and the door on this occasion was shut whilst we were outside. Again it slammed.

Camera's were set up inside and outside of this door and we remained outside for any movement to occur. It did not.

The temperature was now 11.1 deg C.

It was clear that none of us were responsible for the footfalls heard initially in building A. The were cleanly described and could not be accounted for. No other persons were present and were definitely from inside.

Ian's sighting of the girl is not supported by Kim or Dave and his belief later that she was responsible for the sound of running through the bushes is not explainable or supported. It could be that this was imagination from a previous description of a girl.

Throughout the night the sound of clicks would be heard intermittently. After noting this these were investigated. It was found that in one corner of the building there was a loose pane of glass in a window and when physically rattled it produced the same clicking noise when it struck a retaining nail. This leaves us with the likely explanation that this was produced by the wind moving the pane of glass. These noises, once identified were discounted from any other note.

The door movement was thought to be more significant. A photograph of the door will be produced later to show the door however the door is of solid construction. It is heavy on its hinges and level such that at any point it remains still and does not move on its own. It can only be moved with effort from an person moving it. It does however have a degree of movement when closed to a point that allows it to open freely to about 1” open. It was thought that, similar to the window pane, the wind could be responsible for slamming it. The interior of the building is not subject to wind flow although it would be correct to say that there a re off draughts present. These draughts have no strength to them. Throughout the investigation the door never moved whilst the team were inside yet did so on every occasion that the team were outside. The wind was monitored and this played no obvious part in the pattern of movement. The only regularity is that the team were outside when this happened on every occasion. Coincidence? What is known is that when camera's were deliberately deployed nothing was noted. It made no difference to the circumstances of it being slammed if the door was left open or closed.

The sounds of movement up the neighbouring driveway would have produced a sighting or continued to the house which was in view as they were heard to go in this direction. None of this happened and these were felt not to have been caused by an animal. We cannot discount this because we saw nothing.

The temperature drops during the night were as might be expected during these hours although the initial drop was felt to be substantial. We are not sure how to interpret this.

The loud crack from the identified beam cannot be explained. It did not move by hand and made no sound similar to what was heard when struck, banged or pushed / pulled.

It has been mentioned that fireworks were heard. It is believed that none of the bangs heard outside were fireworks. This cannot be proved but is an assessment of the team based upon what they heard.

The anomaly caught on Kim's camera was looked at on computer. A cropped view of the original is shown (cropped to currently protect the identity of the site). It shows the object of discussion to be small and wither illuminated by flash or to have its own light source. A magnified view also appears which seems to show a spherical object which twists and turns in the air. This appearance can also be caused by insect movement when subject to long exposure and exposed to flash. We are uncertain as to which is portrayed here as we know there are insects within the building. There are no tell tale signs of an insect in this ie: wing movement as shown on previous reports from the same site. The camera was a Fuji S5500 and the setting was on auto. The following data is stored -
Shutter 1/64th sec, Exposure 1/60th sec, Focal length f2.9 at 8mm with an ISO rating of 200.