Investigation 5/25/26

A return investigation began with a structured, multi-floor inquiry at a recently renovated historic hotel—now a “new old place” with reworked rooms and restricted access to formerly explored spaces. The team performed a detailed walkthrough to reorient amid extensive changes, mapped an equipment plan prioritizing the third-floor speakeasy and the second-floor historic rooms, and deployed a ten-camera, multi-recorder array across levels. They ran two formal investigation sessions—first in the speakeasy/attic area and then in second-floor salon rooms—documenting high EMF, intermittent device responses, specific audio replies (including a clear “yes” to a drink order), and a series of text-based spirit-box outputs referencing names heard in prior visits. In a final session downstairs, they examined recent claims and successfully PARTIALLY debunked a reported “face in the window” apparition in the restaurant by demonstrating it was a reflection/smudge artifact combined with staff movement behind the bar .Communication attempts and responses: Devices: K-II meters and a text-based spirit box were used; a Data Logger device provided yes/no by blink count. At one point, a device blinked once for “yes, ” twice for “no, ” then alternated between multiple devices, suggesting some form of responsive patterning. Direct questioning produced a faint “four” to “How many people are in this room?” The team also heard laughter and several whispers, with intermittent “voices in the building. ”  The bartender figure—previously named Gerald by a medium—was again engaged: a “vodka and orange juice” request received a clear “yes” on audio, while a cigar request received a clear “no. ” A K-II also responded to whether Gerald liked customers. The name “David” recurred (second time that night), previously heard via Wonderbox on last visit. The team floated that “David” could have been a builder (non-conclusive viewpoint).