Ghost Code App Test: Does It Really Evoke Paranormal Activity?

It was created by paranormal researcher, Patrick Jackson, who believes that his app is capable of increasing paranormal activity on demand, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Patrick has presented some very questionable evidence of the app in use, but the evidence to date fails to quantify the claim that the app increases paranormal activity. The previous examples are very unscientific, make no attempt to measure changes in the amount of activity. Since the app is being used at a haunted location, how do we know this isn’t just the normal base level of activity?

I wanted to find out for myself and put the app to the test. I wouldn’t say I conducted a scientific test, because the ghost hunting devices I used are very non-scientific and prone to false positive, but it was a controlled experiment. The devices I used are the same that are commonly use, so my aim is really to measure what affect the Ghost Code has on these devices being caused to trigger.

The app’s instructions suggest that it should be used after midnight, unfortunately I was unable to access the building at this time, but since the pub’s staff have only ever reported activity during business hours i.e. before midnight, this shouldn’t be a problem.

The tests were carried out in the kitchen’s store room, a staff only area of the pub with thick walls, no electronic equipment and the room was situated at least 20 meters away from staff and drinkers. No one was using walkie-talkies or any other transmitting devices within this 20 meter exclusion zone. This made the pub’s store room a more robust test location that other places where the app has been tested, most notably at 30 East Drive, which is a normal terraced house with neighbours living in the adjoining property just meters away for where tests are conducted.

Several pieces of ghost hunting equipment were turned on and placed on a shelf in the store room. A Google Pixel 6 phone was placed in front of them with Quantum Paranormal’s Ghost Code app installed. For half of the experiment the app wasn’t running, for the other half it was. The idea being that I would be able to compare the number of times the ghost hunting gadgets were triggered with and without the Ghost Code playing.

1x REM-Pod

2x K-II Electromagnetic Field meters

3x Motion-activated cat balls

1x Mel Meter (REM-Pod only)

1x TriField Meter (set to Sum)

2x EDI+ Meters

The equipment used gave paranormal entities the chance to communicate using 10 different gadgets through eight different methods.

1. Static electricity

The REM-Pod and Mel Meter detect changes to an electrostatic field that it radiates.

2. Electromagnetic

The K-II, EDI+ and TriField meters detect spikes of electromagnetism.

3. Movement/vibration

The cat balls and the geophone built into the EDI+ detect movement and vibration.

4. Temperature

The EDI+ detects sudden significant drops or increases in temperature.

5. Pressure

The EDI+ detects sudden significant drops or increases in atmospheric pressure.

6. Humidity

The EDI+ detects sudden significant drops or increases in humidity.

7. Visual

The video camera can record visual manifestations and light anomalies.

8. Auditory

This test was designed to establish the devices’ likelihood to trigger without the app’s influence.

After the ghost hunting equipment had been given time to acclimatise to their surroundings, the first 15 minute test began. In this test the set up was left alone in the room in silence for the duration of the test.

At nine minutes and 48 seconds both of the K-II meters flashed up to full (20mG+) five times in quick succession. Neither the TriField meter or the EDI+ recorded a spike in EMF, which would suggest that this was actually radio frequency interference (RFI) caused by a manmade transmission such as a mobile phone or walkie-talkie, this form of RFI is something that K-II meters are more susceptible to than the TriField and EDI+.

The K-II meters triggered once. No other activity was registered on the ghost hunting devices or captured by the camera.

This test was designed to establish the devices’ likelihood to trigger without the app’s influence while an investigator was calling out to encourage activity.

The equipment was unchanged in this test and again the app was not in use. The only difference was that over the 15 minutes I called out with seven pre-written statements commonly used by ghost hunters leaving a two minute gap for responses between each.

No activity was registered on the ghost hunting devices or captured by the camera.

This test was designed to record any potential increase to the number of times the devices’ trigger due to the app’s influence.

For this 15 minute session the set up was exactly the same as in test one, the only difference is that the Ghost Code app was now playing. Unfortunately, I quickly found that the app times out and stops emitting its code after five minutes, which meant I had to break the lockdown in order to return to the room every five minutes to restart the app. When I open and close the door of the room the pressure indicator on the EDI+ lights (top of the device). This shouldn’t be mistaken for paranormal activity, this is merely due to the pressure change caused by the door opening and closing. The movement also cause the geophone indicator on the EDI+ to light up (bottom of device).

No activity was registered on the ghost hunting devices or captured by the camera.

This test was designed to record any potential increase to the number of times the devices’ trigger due to the app’s influence while an investigator was calling out to encourage activity.

The set up for this test was exactly the same as in test two, the only difference is that the Ghost Code app was now running and over the 15 minutes I called out with seven pre-written statements commonly used by ghost hunters leaving a two minute gap for responses between each.

Once again I had to restart the app every five minutes, but because I was already in the room so that I could call out there is no issue with the pressure or geophone lights flashing in this test because the door of the room remains closed at all times.

At five minutes and 47 seconds into the test both of the K-II meters flashed up to full (20mG+) five times in quick succession. Once again this EM spike wasn’t recorded on any other device suggesting RFI is to blame. The incident seems to tie in with the moment that I reach over to restart the app.

The K-II meters triggered once. No other activity was registered on the ghost hunting devices or captured by the camera.

1. If there’s anyone here with me, can you give me a sign by lighting up one of these devices?

2. Please could you try to touch one of the devices on the shelf, they won’t hurt you.

3. Could you try to communicate with me by making the green light flash.

4. If you move towards the green light you can make it change colour to show me that you’re here.

5. There’s a box with a little orange number on it, can you try to make it hotter or cooler to change the number?

6. If you’re here with me can you move toward the lights on the shelf and try to affect them please?

7. If you can hear my voice, please move towards the lights and try to make them flash.

In order to make things fair, the equipment was left in the room for an hour before the experiment began to allow it to acclimatise and calibrate in order to minimise false positives.

During the one-hour-long experiment that equipment was left in the same position, was not touched and I did my best to ensure the same atmospheric conditions were maintained i.e. ensuring the room was unheated, and that doors and windows were closed.

During the tests where the app wasn’t running, the phone with the app installed sat idle next to the ghost hunting devices in the same position it would be in when the app was running. In both cases the phone was switched to flight mode to avoid unwanted emissions triggering any of the ghost hunting devices.

Each test was timed and limited to 15 minutes so there was equal opportunity. In the tests where I called out to encourage paranormal activity, I read seven pre-written questions from a script. The first was read at the one minute mark, subsequent questions were read after a two minute gap. The same process and script was used in both tests.

The tests without the app were conducted first so I could rule out the possibility that the app had called forward paranormal entities that would linger into the tests without the app.

Triggers without code: 1

Triggers with code: 1

Increase due to code: 0%

During the control tests (one and two), the ghost hunting devices were triggered once. Although the cause of this was unknown, the aim of the experiment was to measure activity recorded via these common types of ghost hunting devices. So that gives us one incident of possible paranormal activity in the control tests.

During the tests with the Ghost Code (three and four), the ghost hunting devices also triggered once, although the robustness of this is questionable due to my proximity to the devices at the moment they triggered. However, I didn’t have any transmitting devices or anything magnetic on me, and the devices weren’t triggered by my proximity the other four times I restarted the app during the test.

This means that at best the app had no affect on the amount of activity recorded through the ghost hunting devices.

The other quite likely possibility is that the two times the app triggered was nothing more than external interference caused by RFI. If this is the case, then we can conclude that there was no base level of paranormal activity in the store room and that the app still had zero impact on the amount of activity recorded through the ghost hunting devices.

Of course this is just one series of tests at one haunted location. More test of this nature would need to be conducted in order to find a robust pattern.