I'm in the long hard part of the research now, but I suspect I'll be done some time this week hopefully. Any of you who've been following my research know that I'm studying 50 haunted places around the country to find out what common physical traits they share and then to hopefully be able to come up with "haunted formula" that helps to decide just how haunted a place should be. Right now, I'm putting them in order and the formula has come down to this:
1. (Most important feature) A lengthy history of death/trauma/emotional upheavel.
2. (Second most important) The geological makeup of the land.
3. (Third most important) The actual construction materials in the building itself.
You're probably asking, what happened to the place being over 50 years (part of the original formula). This is really unnecessary, as #1 states that it needs a lengthy history. What about railroads? Even though the incidence of railroad tracks being nearby is high, I believe this to be an incidental finding. The fact is, older places were conveniently located near tracks when they were built and many tracks were built near townships, so this doesn't seem to correlate. I like to be really objective and honest about the findings and even though I had hopes for train tracks, it's just an interesting coincidence. What about waterways? I still have a feeling waterways are very important, especially as part of the geology, but I've found that the right types of geology for hauntings happen to contain active waterways and aquifers, so that takes care of that.
Why the certain order? I've tried to find good hard proof hunters have had of places where no death or trauma occurred and there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of weighty proof. I'm not talking about hearsay or class C EVPs or orb photos, I'm talking something a bit more meaty. It's not to say that such sites couldn't be haunted but when compared with ones that contain lesser geology and construction, the ones with trauma still win out, but ironically the ones with trauma histories are generally built quite ideal for hauntings to occur.
I've summized from all of these studies that what we're discussing here are residual hauntings or events recorded into an ideal setting with the ideal emotional conditions. Thus, emotional events are critical to the recorded history so far as humans intuitively being receptive to reading them.
So far as intelligent hauntings go (ones in which you can interact), I'm still skeptical of their existence yet, but should they occur, I seriously doubt they'd be site specific. If one believes in souls and spirits, they aren't tied to a place, confused about how to leave, or any other such rot. I think what we're talking about here is intelligent hauntings can occur anywhere, anytime. These are most often reported by family members after someone's passing and that certainly has more to do with the individual the spirit would want to contact than with a house or object he supposed loved. This might also explain the high incidence of phenomenon that is reported in graveyards where family members come to grieve and the assumption is that the spirit comes when drawn.
Of course, this site is really about ghost hunting theories, and I'm a logical person, so I can't help but find ways that don't defy commonsense when describing haunting occurrences and my own theories on hauntings based on what I've experienced and studied. Some time this week the list should be coming out (in order from most haunted to least of the 50 sites). I'll also describe the features of each site so you can see how they've come to be rated. Once you read the order and the features and the names of the places, I think it'll be evident to you, as it is to me, that this seems to be a very logical lineup.
