Crush Bar Nail Salon – Investigation

Crush Bar Nail Salon Investigation

February 20, 2026

Ambridge, PA

 

Investigation

 

The investigation at Crush Nail Salon was conducted following direct communication with the business owner regarding ongoing but non-aggressive unexplained activity within the establishment. The request was not made out of alarm, but rather from a desire for clarity, documentation, and an assessment of experiences reported by staff and, on occasion, clients. Because the location operates as an active commercial environment, particular care was taken to account for environmental, structural, and operational factors that might influence perception or produce natural explanations. The investigation itself was scheduled after business hours to reduce outside interference and allow more controlled monitoring conditions.

 

Prior to entering the location, Iron City Paranormal conducted preliminary research into the building, surrounding properties, and broader land use patterns within Ambridge. Like much of the region, the area carries a layered industrial history shaped by manufacturing, immigration, and long periods of economic transition. While no immediately documented traumatic events specific to the salon’s current footprint were uncovered during initial research, the building exists within a historically active corridor of the town. Historical significance alone does not indicate paranormal activity, but long-term land use and structural transitions remain important elements of environmental context.

 

 

Accounts provided by the owner and staff described recurring experiences that were notable for their consistency rather than their intensity. Individuals reported sensations of being observed, particularly when alone in certain areas of the salon, as well as isolated sounds after closing hours and minor object displacement without clear explanation. Several people also described distinct atmospheric differences between the front and rear sections of the building. These reports were uniform in tone and did not include claims of threatening behavior or physical harm. Instead, the activity was consistently described as subtle, persistent, and observant in nature. The consistency of these accounts across multiple individuals contributed significantly to the decision to proceed with formal documentation.

 

The investigation itself was conducted using a structured and non-provocative approach. Baseline environmental readings were taken upon entry, including temperature, electromagnetic field levels, and ambient sound measurements. Equipment was placed strategically throughout the buildings including work stations, entryways, and storage areas. Controlled silence periods were observed to monitor acoustic changes within the space. Verbal engagement sessions were conducted respectfully and without provocation, and investigators maintained independent note-taking to allow later comparison of impressions and observations. The objective throughout was observation and documentation rather than stimulation of potential activity.

 

Upon entry, several investigators independently noted a perceptible atmospheric distinction between the front retail area and the rear storage and employee break area. While subjective impressions are not considered evidence on their own, independently reported similarities are documented for pattern analysis. During monitoring periods, localized temperature variations were observed that did not immediately correspond with typical HVAC output patterns. Intermittent tapping sounds were also noted during the controlled walkthrough, and subtle shifts in ambient perception were reported simultaneously by more than one investigator. Each of these occurrences, considered individually, remains inconclusive and will undergo further analysis to determine possible structural, mechanical, or environmental explanations.

 

 

One characteristic of this case that stood out during the investigation was the intermittent nature of the activity. Periods of complete stillness were followed by moments in which the environment appeared more responsive during verbal engagement attempts. The pattern did not present as chaotic or intrusive. Instead, the activity appeared selective rather than continuous. No aggressive or disruptive behavior was observed at any time during the investigation, and the overall atmosphere remained calm yet responsive.

 

Commercial properties often present variables not found in residential cases, including shared walls, exterior traffic vibration, plumbing expansion and contraction, and electrical interference from business equipment. These factors are currently being evaluated alongside recorded data to eliminate conventional explanations before any conclusions are drawn. This stage of analysis is essential in ensuring that environmental causes are ruled out wherever possible.

 

Based on observations, experiences and evidence, the location does not present indicators of hostile or oppressive activity. If anomalous energy is present, it appears passive and non-threatening in nature. Comprehensive audio review, cross-analysis of environmental data, and an evaluation of structural variables were completed.

 

Iron City Paranormal approaches every location with methodological discipline and respect for both property and people. Our role is not to confirm belief, but to document responsibly, analyze critically, and communicate findings transparently.

 

 

From the evidence collected and reviewed, the location does not appear to pose any risk to those who work within or visit the salon. If an anomalous presence or residual environmental imprint exists, it appears calm, non-threatening, and largely unobtrusive in character.

 

This investigation ultimately revealed a space influenced more by subtle environmental phenomena and historical context than by conflict or disturbance. Any recommended cleansing or balancing procedures, should they be desired, would be intended primarily for reassurance and environmental harmony rather than removal of any hostile presence.

 

We are grateful for the trust placed in Iron City Paranormal and for the opportunity to assist in documenting and analyzing the experiences reported within this business. Our goal in every investigation is to approach each location with professionalism, objectivity, and respect, providing clear findings that allow property owners to move forward with confidence and peace of mind.

 

For comments, inquiries, or collaboration opportunities, Iron City Paranormal may be contacted at ironcityparanormal@gmail.com

 

History and Background Documentation:

 

Crush Bar Nail Salon

 

As always, you have been warned, some of this is not for the faint of heart and can be slightly explicit:

 

Pre-Investigation Walkthrough 

 

Upon arrival at the salon on February 20, 2026, the walkthrough was conducted as the first step of the evening. Present during this phase were Iron City Paranormal investigators Derrick, Dan, and Erin, along with owner Riane and employees Katy and Matt. The purpose of the walkthrough was to establish baseline environmental conditions, allow staff to identify areas of concern, and provide investigators with spatial awareness before formal monitoring began.

 

 

The salon layout consists of a front service area containing nail and hair stations, a rear employee break room, and a connected storage and utility space that extends toward exterior alley access. As the team moved from the front service area toward the rear sections of the building, a noticeable atmospheric distinction was independently reported by multiple investigators upon entering the break room area. During this observational phase, a soft but distinct knocking sound was heard originating from the direction of the bathroom adjacent to the break room. The sound was immediately recognized by both Erin and Riane as consistent with prior unexplained knocking reported in that same location. No equipment had yet been activated at the time of this occurrence.

 

No deliberate communication attempts or investigative techniques were employed during the walkthrough. Observations were limited to environmental awareness and natural occurrences within the space. The perceived concentration of activity toward the rear of the building informed equipment placement decisions and established the break room and connected utility area as priority monitoring zones for the formal investigation that followed.

 

Photos:

 

• There was nothing out of the ordinary captured during our walkthrough.

 

Recording 1 – Walkthrough:

 

 

• There was nothing out of the ordinary here but the investigators could be heard discussing the sensations of being watched and feelings reminiscent of walking through cobwebs when they walked in the rear of the building, guiding them to some otherworldly anomaly in that direction.

 

Video 1 – Walkthrough 1:

 

• The video is the same as the audio where nothing out of the ordinary was seen here.

 

 

Front Service Area

 

Following completion of the initial walkthrough and baseline assessment, investigative equipment was deployed throughout the salon, beginning with the front service area. This section of the building houses the primary nail stations, hair styling chairs, and customer waiting space. While staff reports primarily centered around the rear break room, it was important to evaluate the front area independently to determine whether environmental or interactive anomalies extended beyond the previously identified hotspot.

 

 

Static monitoring devices were positioned to establish environmental baselines, including electromagnetic field readings, ambient temperature tracking, and audio recording. A K2 meter sweep was conducted around electrical outlets, service stations, lighting fixtures, and electronic equipment to rule out faulty wiring or naturally fluctuating fields. No irregular EMF spikes were detected outside of expected readings near powered equipment.

 

Initial EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) sessions were conducted in this area with direct questioning, allowing adequate silence between prompts to document potential responses. Questions focused on whether any presence was attached to the business itself, the property, or individuals within the space. No immediate audible responses were heard in real time. The atmosphere in the front remained comparatively neutral throughout this phase, with no physical sensations, unexplained sounds, or equipment anomalies reported.

 

 

While the front service area did not produce notable direct responses during structured communication attempts, its stability served an important role in the investigation. Establishing a controlled baseline in this section further emphasized the atmospheric shift and activity concentration previously noted toward the rear of the building.

 

Photos:

 

• While there was nothing captured through photography, there were a few moments recorded through the trail cameras where light anomalies were moving and even following investigators.

 

 

• A similar view point through the trail camera showed the K2 meter lighting up, drawing attention to it.

 

 

• Later in the night, the SLS camera was utilized, capturing two intriguing moments. The first was when an investigator was mapped as he felt as though someone was following him just as the SLS camera mapped a figure next to him. The next moment, a figure was captured through the camera as we felt the energy began to slowly move out of the back room.

 

 

 

• While reviewing the video footage, we noticed a few moments where the camera showed energy surges which incredibly coincided with moments when the investigators felt like there was someone close to them and got the sensation of pins and needs in his back and chest. We were informed that the only way for these moments to occur was when there was an incredible amount of energy surging through the device. Two of those moments were screen captured below.

 

 

 

Recorder 1 – EVP 1:

 

 

• While this recording didn’t produce much, there were moments we sensed that there was definitely some type of energy emanating from the back area of the building.
• Above and beyond that, the sense was that this entity did not want to leave that back area.
• Right around 3:25, the investigators heard a knock and attempted to replicate the sound and figure out where the sound was coming from.
• The investigators did not like the feeling that the area was giving off while the K2 meters set up in that area were piking and flickering like crazy.

 

Recorder 2 – Clip On Camera 1:

 

 

• Immediately, the knocking that the investigator heard in the moment was captured thanks to the clip on camera and was extracted from that video file transitioned into an audio file in order to create this clip.

 

Recorder 3 – Clip On Camera 2:

 

 

• A trio of knocks was then extracted from the clip on camera in this clip.

 

Video 1 – Trail Camera 1:

 

• From :02 – :06 there was some odd dragging type noise which we could not explain.

 

 

Video 2 – Trail Camera 2:

 

• The K2 meter could be seen spiking here at multiple moments throughout this clip starting with :02, continuing to :04, :06, and ending at :08.

 

 

Video 3 – Trail Camera 3:

 

• There was a strange light anomaly spotted on the right side of this clip immediately as it began which coincided with the K2 meter activating.
• The light anomaly returned in a similar spot on the right side but was clearly a different form which also activated the K2 meter. All of this could be witnessed at :02.
• At :03, another light anomaly was spotted at the top of the screen toward the ceiling which also activated the K2 meter.
• The K2 meter again spiked at :04 but, this time, there were no light anomalies. This occurred two more times here as well, as :06 and :09.

 

 

Rear Break Room and Utility Area

 

The rear employee break room and adjoining utility space served as the primary focal point of the investigation. During the initial walkthrough, multiple investigators independently noted a distinct atmospheric shift upon entering this portion of the building. Staff had previously reported repeated knocking sounds originating near the bathroom area connected to the break room, along with persistent sensations of being watched while working in the rear of the salon. These prior reports directly informed equipment placement and investigative focus for the evening.

 

 

To minimize contamination and allow for layered observation, investigators positioned themselves both inside and just outside the break room. Derrick and Erin initially occupied the interior space, with Riane and Katy later joining. Dan and Matt remained stationed near the doorway, providing a secondary observation point and helping rule out environmental interference from hallway movement. This configuration allowed investigators to monitor both the interior of the room and activity extending toward the utility and bathroom areas.

 

Equipment deployed in this section included trigger flashlights, REM pods, K2 meters, motion-activated light devices, and a digital voice recorder. Devices were positioned along countertops, near the utility area threshold, and within the open floor space of the break room to monitor for electromagnetic fluctuations, proximity disturbances, and potential interactive responses. Environmental baselines were established prior to structured questioning. Early in the session, spontaneous device activations were observed, including intermittent flashlight illumination and brief K2 meter spikes. Knocking sounds consistent with prior staff reports were again documented from the bathroom direction, along with an unexplained breath-like audio anomaly.

 

 

As activity continued, investigative methods were expanded to include use of the Phasma Box and the Estes Method in an effort to gather direct communication. These sessions were structured to seek identifying information such as names, emotional states, actions, and potential reasons for continued presence within the location. Responses received during these sessions would later provide contextual detail that shaped the team’s situational analysis of the rear space. The transition from spontaneous device interaction to structured communication marked a clear shift in investigative focus and set the stage for the more detailed exchanges that followed.

 

Photos:

 

• The still photographs did not produce any visual anomalies here but the trail cameras once again captured a few unexplained moments beginning with this first still of the K2 meter lighting up.

 

 

• Occurring early on here, just after we set out our equipment and began to explain our process to the owner and employees, a shadow moved out of the Utility area and toward the equipment as if to test it out. This was captured on the trail camera and pulled out via screen capture.

 

 

• One startling moment occurred when one of the nail salon employees was questioning them, asked them to step forward and do something a little more and they responded by physically pushing over a flashlight they were previously lighting up to communicate. This scenario was captured through a stationary video camera and screen captured here.

 

 

Recorder 1 – EVP 1:

 

 

• As we explained the devices that were strewn about the room, there was a trio of knocking captured at :03.
• This same knocking, in a group of three, was captured at :16 but neither occurrence was heard in person.
• While one of the investigators moved out of the room to give them space, a heavy breathing was captured at :40 as if they were getting aggravated with all the people and movement back in their space.

 

Recorder 2 – EVP 2:

 

 

• Following some K2 meter activations, the investigators again swapped locations but as the investigator stepped out of the room, the Rempod was alerted as if an unseen energy force had followed him out. This first time occurred at :03 but occurred again at :28 and 1:02 as they attempted to debunk this unsuccessfully.

 

Recorder 3 – EVP 3:

 

 

• These Rempod activations continued and could be heard three more times here at :05, :34, and :49.

 

Recorder 4 – EVP 4:

 

 

• While these prior moments of Rempod activity all occurred as an investigator either entered or exited this back room, this final moment of activity actually occurred as the group got settled into their individual spots inside the back room which could be heard at :10.

 

Recorder 5 – Flashlight Communication Transcription 1:

 

 

• This timeframe was reliant on visual flashlight confirmation so the best form of documentation is a pure transcription.
• Before the device was even recording, the flashlight turned on.
• It flickered off then turned back on and stayed on at :06 and the K2 meter joined in at :16 as it spiked.
• While the flashlight turned off at about 1:00, it turned back on at 2:35 then flickered off and back on at 3:27.
• Up to this point, it seemed as though someone was simply turning the tools on and off, testing them out.
• As the group discussed the flashlights and K2 meter activity, the flashlight again turned on at 3:32.
• We attempted to start setting up some ground rules and asked if they could turn it back off, to which they did at 3:46.
• Continuing to ensure this was intelligence and not random device malfunctions, we asked if they could turn it on to which they complied at 3:53.
• They also followed our request here to turn it back off which it did at 4:34 but flickered at 4:46 as if they were excited and anxious to continue and start meaningful communication.
• While it stayed on after that moment of flickering, we asked them to finally turn it off and keep it off at 6:43, which they did.
• As the flashlights remained off, we asked them to turn them on if they would like to speak with us and, at 7:23, both flashlights turned on then flickered out.
• We asked if they were tied to this building and they both turned on, and stayed on, at 8:38 for a yes answer.
• At 9:04, a heavy breath could be heard, which we pulled out and separated in the next clip, Recorder 5A – Flashlight Communication 1A.
• Around 9:20, there was a shared sensation of feeling uncomfortable.
• We followed this by asking if they could turn the flashlight off to which it did at 9:44.
• After we asked if they got hurt in the alley behind the building, the flashlight turned on to signify a yes response at 10:02 immediately turning off after.
• We asked if this was an accident which occurred in the alley and the flashlight turned on and off at 11:07, again signifying a yes response.
• The group discussed this being an accidental attack, perhaps a case of mistaken identity, and the flashlight turned on and stayed on at 11:21.
• There was some lingering silence at that point as the Ovilus produced the word ‘Win’ at 11:54 followed by the K2 meter spiking at 12:08.
• With the flashlight remaining on, we asked if they could turn it off to which they did at 12:15.
• The Ovilus again sprung to life and gave us the word ‘Power’ at 12:59.
• With that, the group felt that maybe this was the murderer so we bluntly asked this to which the K2 meter spiked at 13:21 and the flashlight turned on and off at 13:25.
• To confirm this, we once again reiterated that this was the murderer to which the flashlight turned on, giving us a yes response at 13:30 only to turn off a moment later.
• With this, we then wanted to confirm if this was an accident and the flashlight once more gave us a yes response by turning on at 13:35. It shut off on its own after.
• Since we were given a plethora of information, we asked if they’d be willing to speak to us in a different way to which the flashlight turned on at 14:03 followed by the Ovilus producing the word ‘Easy’ at 14:22 followed by the flashlight turning off.
• We wanted to confirm this once more and asked if they wanted to talk with us a different way once again and the flashlight turned on at 14:29.

 

Recorder 5A – Flashlight Communication 1A:

 

 

• At :16, the heavy breathing could be heard a little bit better here.

 

Recorder 6 – Phasma Box 1:

 

 

• The Ovilus produced the word ‘Knife’ at :04.
• We repeated and questioned the word ‘Knife’ and heard a response of “Yes” at :19.
• “Knife” was then heard at :25.

 

Recorder 7 – Phasma Box 2:

 

 

• Unprompted, we heard “I love you” at :02 then “Platform” at :08.

 

Recorder 8 – Phasma Box 3:

 

 

• Another unprompted phrase began with a name of “Emmett” at :02 then “You’re drunk” at :03 as if replaying some event from the past.
• Seemingly a police officer’s name of “Officer Foley” was heard at :07.

 

Recorder 9 – Phasma Box 4:

 

 

• A strange question of “What did I get?” was recorded at :05.
• We asked if they were looking to get something and the flashlight turned on at :24.
• A dog’s bark was heard at :49.
• We felt as though they were remorseful and mentioned this out loud and heard an odd remark of “Nice” at :50.
• After we asked if they were saying that they’re nice, even though this seemed off, we heard “Yes” at 1:10 and again at 1:15 as if to confirm this.

 

Recorder 10 – Phasma Box 5:

 

 

• We explained that we simply wanted to talk to them in order to tell their story and we were told “Then you should” at :04 which was followed by “Thank you, sir” at :07.

 

Recorder 11 – Phasma Box 6:

 

 

• There was a clear knocking first heard here at :01.
• A little awkwardly, we were told to “Say I’m pretty” at :08 but this was directed at one investigator in particular as we heard “Dan” at :06.
• This was paired up with another knock at :10 which was pointed out by the investigators at that moment.
• We were then informed that “It’s my birthday” at :56 followed by the Ovilus producing ‘Chest’ at :58.
• This clip was capped off by knocking once more at 1:05.

 

Recorder 12 – Phasma Box 7:

 

 

• At this point, prior to this clip, a local Ambridge police officer, Tim, knocked at the door who is part of the Beaver County Paranormal team and wanted to make sure everything was going okay being that we were there after hours.
• As the investigators discussed some things with him, the flashlights and K2 meters were going off the charts, most likely since we were ignoring them or at least our attention had shifted momentarily.
• While the group had just begun to make their way back into the room, we were greeted with “Investigation” at :08.
• Following that, we asked if we could ask them questions but were told “Don’t want to” at :46.

 

Recorder 13 – Phasma Box 8:

 

 

• Prior to this clip, the flashlight turned off as we asked if they were okay as if to say that they were not okay so we asked them if there was a way that we could help them. At :06, we were told “There is.”
• We then heard the name “Emmett” once again repeated to us at :23 and :25.
• The name “Dave” followed here at :27.
• A cry for “Help” sounded desperate and occurred twice at :31 and :33.
• We were flabbergasted and tried to gather ourselves and how to continue the conversation so there was a low murmur of voices to which we heard “Hate it” at :35 and “It lingers” at :41.

 

Recorder 14 – Phasma Box 9:

 

 

• While some flashlight activity told us they only wanted to speak to the girls, we asked them if they were ready to speak to just the girls, they responded with “Don’t want to” at :04.
• We asked directly if both of the energies that were with us were murdered and the flashlights turned on at :26.
• As we attempted to get more information on their identities, we asked if they were married, and we were left with a lingering response of “Well…” at :45.
• Since we weren’t given a straight answer, we were unsatisfied with this and it must have shown as they asked “what, you sad?” at :49.

 

Recorder 15 – Phasma Box 10:

 

 

• As we tried to put pieces together we tried to ask for any type of confirmation we could get and after we asked if the husband murdered his wife, the flashlight turned on at :03.
• We repeated this, altering some of the verbiage, asking if the husband killed his wife but this time we were told “That didn’t” at :15 followed by “Happen” at :17.
• With the confusing and contradictory responses, we explain that if the husband killed his wife that he should turn the flashlight on and, at :48, it turned on signifying that this in fact did occur.

 

Recorder 16 – Phasma Box 11:

 

 

• We pushed for names and at :10, we were provided with a name followed by a little bit of personality as a little attitude came through, altogether giving us “Anna, hello…”
• In awe, we continued to capture audio recordings starting with “Back box” at :19.
• The K2 meter spiked at :20 as if trying to get our attention and push for more communication as we were told “Don’t stop” at :38.
• We shifted back to their identification and explained that we’d like some confirmation of their name as we heard “Anna” at :47.
• So with that name of Anna coming through again, adding to the growing total of times this name was given, we asked them to turn the flashlight on if this is Anna. At 1:02, the flashlight flickered on.

 

Recorder 17 – Phasma Box 12:

 

 

• As we collected ourselves and discussed that her name was definitely Anna, the decorative lights just outside this back room flickered off then back on at :01. These lights are hardwired and not easily manipulated so it must have been extremely meaningful to them to get our attention and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that her name was Anna.
• We asked if we should move out there, to a bigger and more open space but got laughed at through the Phasma Box at :24.
• The flashlight could be heard being physically pushed over here, which made a loud sound at :27 but,  more incredibly, this was  captured on video so the flashlight can be physically witnessed being pushed over.
• The original thought of speaking with only the girls was tested here as we asked if they only want the girls to be in this back room but were clearly told ”No” at 1:18.

 

Recorder 18 – Phasma Box 13:

 

 

• The sense that they were getting mad at the group since most were getting frustrated at the contradictory responses and answers that we were getting. As we mentioned that we aren’t mad and that it was crazy to get mad at a ghost, the flashlights all turned on, and bright, at :08 as if to agree with this sentiment.
• After explaining that we were just joking, there was a voice that asked “What’s this?” at :15 followed by a response, regarding getting mad at these unseen forces, with “Ya think?” at :21.
• Laughter was the final audio capture from this timeframe, captured at :25.

 

Recorder 19 – Phasma Box 14:

 

 

• As we tried to reset and almost start over, we asked if they wanted to talk to us but heard a rather aggravated voice in response with “I already told you” at :12.
• As we felt their frustration, we asked if we should be done for the night and we heard “You should” at :14 followed by the flashlight turning on at :18 then back off as if to reiterate this.
• Regardless, we continued and asked if this was someone named Mike to which the flashlight turned on once more at :44.

 

Recorder 20 – Phasma Box 15:

 

 

• After asking if they died in the 1900’s we heard “The flashlight” at :07 as if drawing our attention to the pre-lit flashlight just as the flashlights both shut off at :13.
• We altered our guess and asked if it was more like the 1930’s to which we heard an unsettling comment of “They’re watching” at :21 then again, this time in a deeper tone, at :28.

 

Recorder 21 – Phasma Box 16:

 

 

• As we changed the conversation, we asked if they liked being here and they responded with a non-committal answer of “Sure” at :03.
• The group agreed that it was feeling good and comfortable in this area now to which we were given an almost cocky comment of “You’re welcome” at :16.
• We asked for confirmation and if they agreed with that to which we heard a simple “Yeah” at :20 and “Sure” at :23.

 

Recorder 22 – Phasma Box 17:

 

 

• The team was discussing the area and how the energy was definitely back here and whoever was actively speaking with us at that point chimed in explaining that “It happened” at :08, apparently referencing the area back here which was followed up with the name “Lexi” at:23.
• A surprised exclamation of “How’d you get this to happen!?” as if they were surprised at their ability to use the devices to communicate.
• More names of “Olivia” and “Elizabeth” were then heard at :32 and :35 respectively.
• We were guided with “This way” at :40 as the flashlight turned on toward the utility room as if they were telling us to go deeper.
• We explained that the police were just here, referring to Tim of Beaver County Paranormal, in hopes of maybe stirring something up. While we’re unsure of the context relevancy here, “You just missed it” was captured at :45 followed by “Anne” at :50 and finally “Wrong building” at 1:09. This all could be describing some action that these entities experienced, but without further elaboration we cannot be certain.

 

Recorder 23 – Phasma Box 18:

 

 

• We asked if there were two energies in this area and the flashlight turned on to signify a yes response at :06.
• In order to confirm this, we simply asked what exactly the flashlight meant as we were told “How many” at :13 referring to our previous question and answer of two energies being here.
• As the group all discussed this event, a low murmur arose so we were told we were getting a little loud as they verbalized this with “Quiet!” at :15.
• We asked if they could turn it back off as they obliged at :30 shutting it off.
• After we asked if one of them were here more often than the other, we were told “Yeah” at :33
• With that, we asked if it was Anna who was here more often as we heard an inquisitive thought of “What are you up to?” at 1:08 as if they did not trust us and our intentions.

 

Recorder 24 – Phasma Box 19:

 

 

• As the flashlight began on, we asked if they could turn the light off, which it did at :05.
• We continued asking about dates and if they were referring to the year 1967 when we heard “Potential keyword” at :07 so we took that as we were on the right track.
• With that, we asked if they meant 1867 and heard the name “Jeff” at :47.
• We asked what potential keyword meant as the Ovilus produced the word ‘Power’ at 1:00.
• After we asked directly why they said power again and heard an odd phrase of “32 minutes” at 1:04.
• With the time stamp comment, we mentioned that the group should check the recording and see if we’d been recording for 32 minutes. While we paused to check it, we were told “Surprise!” at 1:16 followed by laughter at 1:29 as if they had loosened up enough to joke with us.

 

Recorder 25 – Phasma Box 20:

 

 

• After a long pause, we tried to figure out where to take the conversation and we asked if they were done speaking to us and heard a desperate cry for help as we were told “I need help!” at :04.

 

Recorder 26 – ESTES Method 1:

 

 

• We swapped communication techniques as we felt that there was too much noise and distractions for them to speak through the devices and for us to hear them accurately. After the break, the group also gathered their thoughts and created a list of questions to continue on with the communication. Our goal as a team moving forward here was to gain some type of confirmation of all of the evidence and information gathered from names to purpose to relationships.
• To start, we simply explained the way this method works and gave them some time to get acclimated to the form of communication as well as the group of investigators. 
• We asked if there was anyone willing to communicate with us and heard a response of “No” followed by an opposing line of communication with “Me” at :07 and :10 respectively. TO note, the first, more negative response, was not heard by the listener while the second, more validating response was in fact heard and repeated by the listener.
• After asking directly for their name, we heard and repeated “Mike” at :22.
• Another, rather counter productive, phrase was heard at :32 of “Who’s Mike?” after we explained that we just wanted to know who we’re communicating with throughout the night.
• There were two more names heard through the Spirit Box: “Anna” at :47 and “Lexi” at 1:02.

 

Recorder 27 – ESTES Method 2:

 

 

• After a rather blunt question asking if Mike murdered Anna, we did hear “Yeah” at :09 and “Yes” at :14.
• Continuing that thought, we asked if there was perhaps an affair which had led to the murder to which we heard “Anna” at :24.
• We asked if Anna was the one who had the affair and we heard “One” at :38, then “Both” at :48.
• As the group began to get a bit louder and actively discussed their thoughts as well as the next questions to ask, “Addressed” was captured at :54 followed by “Too much” at 1:04 as if there was simply too much noise and activity.
• A mere second later, the incredible word of “Murder” was heard which tied things together here.

 

Recorder 28 – ESTES Method 3:

 

 

• The group asked if he killed her with a knife, referencing the Ovilus communication earlier in the night, and a simple yet extremely powerful word of “Murder” at :09. 
• The word “Whacked” was then heard at :14 which could potentially be tied in with murder.
• The number “Three” was then heard at:25 in response to the aforementioned question asking if he killed her with a knife.
• After some time to gather themselves, the group asked if the building was once their home and heard a clear “No” at 1:16 followed by a rather angry and derogatory term of “Bastard” at 1:19.
• As if in response to that former question regarding the building’s function, the word “Store” was then heard at 1:20.

 

Recorder 29 – ESTES Method 4:

 

 

• As we proceeded to dig into their relationship, we asked if they had kids to which we heard a response of “Try” at :03.
• The name “Paul” was then heard followed by “Kids” at :14 and :23 respectively as if to say their child’s name was Paul or perhaps Anna had a child with Paul, not Mike.
• We apologized to Anna and heard “See” at :38. It is unknown what she was trying to say at this point in time but she may have been telling her companion that we could be compassionate as well as trusted.
• To this, we asked if the murder was an accident and we were told that “You could” at :53 completed by “Say that” at 1:06.
• “Anna” was once again heard here at 1:18, unprompted.

 

Recorder 30 – ESTES Method 5:

 

 

• The group was discussing this conversation and heard “Freddy” at :02 so the group asked if it was Freddy that had the affair with Anna and heard a straight forward response of “No” at :19.
• We followed this asking who Freddy was and simply heard “Here” at :46 followed by “Alone” at :55.

 

Recorder 31 – ESTES Method 6:

 

 

• We named everyone who was part of this potential love triangle with Freddy and Anna and Mike and we heard “Bodies” at :18.
• With that, we asked where the bodies were and we were told “Under” at :34.
• Thinking they were referring to the crawl space basement underneath the building, we asked if we should go down below to continue speaking and, at first, we were questioned with “How?” at 1:01 then “No” at 1:10.
• After asking how many bodies were under there, we were once again given contradictory information starting with only “One” at 1:34 which transitioned into “A lot” at 1:37.
• We asked if there was only one body down there and were told “No” at 1:57.
• To that, we asked if the bodies were underground somewhere, maybe not right here but heard “Forgets” at 2:16 followed by “Was” at 2:39.
• As we tried to put this all together, we asked if there was an accident involving three bodies to which we were told “Hid” at 2:54 as if these bodies needed to be hidden.

 

Recorder 32 – ESTES Method 7:

 

 

• While we attempted to change the subject and focus on Freddy, we asked if he was a child and heard “Three” at :15, although, looking back, this could have been a delayed response to the former question of hiding three bodies.
• The name “Eliza” was then produced through the Spirit Box although we’re not entirely sure how this name connects at that point in the conversation outside of some relation to Freddy.
• With all the information being thrown at us we asked if we should go back to a former conversation and heard a confirmation of this through with “Go back” at 1:22 followed by “Anna” at 1:27 as if they did in fact want to go back to talking about Anna.
• To this, we confirmed that they wanted us to once again talk about Anna and heard her name at 1:38 with “Anna.”

 

Recorder 33 – ESTES Method 8:

 

 

• We spoke amongst the group about what to talk about and heard a seemingly annoyed voice tell us that they were “Waiting” at :04.
• At that, we were guided to talk about “In this” at :15 followed by a shocked question of “Dead?” repeated at :42 and again :44.
• While they began to seem confused, this thought continued with “Not me” at :47 as if to say they were not aware that they were dead.

 

Recorder 34 – ESTES Method 9:

 

 

• We asked if Freddy worked at the store and we were told “Yes” at :05 but after asking what they sold at the store, a feminine voice came through saying “Me” at :43.
• After some silence and figuring out where to take the conversation, we heard a few more words leading toward this building being a former brothel with “Boys” at 1:44 and “Work” at 2:00.
• There was an odd noise followed by a recognition of this as they asked “What was that?” at 2:03.
• We asked who they sold themselves to and heard “Men” at 2:15.

 

Recorder 35 – ESTES Method 10:

 

 

• As we apologized that she got killed in this place and under these circumstances, we heard a response of “Forever” at :05.
• We mentioned this as a group, ensuring we heard correctly and heard “Here” at :18 as if to tell us that they are stuck in this place forever.

 

Recorder 36 – ESTES Method 11:

 

 

• As we attempted to figure out the main reason why the energies were here and we discussed that the Harmonites were the predominant group who settled in the area and maybe had something to do with the way they felt and had to hide if it was in fact a brothel. We heard an almost annoyed, partially aggravated “Ha, please” at :03.
• With that, we asked if those Harmonites were weird or mean to them and heard a simple answer of “Yes” at :20.
• As we discussed the amount of churches in the area, and that one of the investigators’ family has always been from the area, he’s heard of stories of all the different churches and religions in the small town and was asked “We know you?” at 1:02 as if perhaps there was some kind of lineage or heritage that crossed paths with them in the past.
• With that, an almost disgusted comment of “Come on…” was recorded at 1:14.

 

Recorder 37 – ESTES Method 12:

 

 

• This section came through very softly as if the entities here were fighting over control to speak and no one clearly came out on top. Unfortunately with that, none of this was heard in person and repeated out loud by the listener. But, luckily, this was picked up by the recorder after some noise reduction and altering to the background noise.
• It started with the name “Dave” coming through twice, at :03 and :05.
• “Again” was recorded at :17 followed by the word “Wonder” at :20.
• “Nineteen” was captured at :40 followed by “Twenty” at :42 followed by the number “8” at :46. We believe that this may be the year of 1928 relating to the actions which occurred here in the past.

 

Recorder 38 – ESTES Method 13:

 

 

• We ended our session here, and ultimately the night, in a rather unexpected hurry as we were emphatically  told “Out” at :06 followed by “Get out” at :20 after we asked if they had enough and that we should be done.
• They continued to share their disapproval of our presence as we were told two more times “Out” at :30 and :36.
• As we packed up, in the background, we heard a little more last second attempts at communication with “Hey” and “17” at :39 and :44 respectively.

 

Video 1 – Trail Camera 1:

 

• At :06, the motion activated light turned off. This was following them being turned on by some unseen energy which turned it on prior to the camera being alerted to turn on.

 

 

Video 2 – Trail Camera 2:

 

• A full shadow was seen moving here at :01.

 

 

Video 3 – Trail Camera 3:

 

• The motion activated light could be seen turning on at :03 as it was activated by something unseen.

 

 

Video 4 – Stationary Camera 1:

 

• In this very short video clip, the K2 meter could be seen spiking as the camera battery was completely drained at the same time.

 

 

Video 5 – Stationary Camera 2:

 

• After swapping out camera batteries, we let the camera run the entire time of the investigation, so our voices could be heard echoing from the front. The K2 meter is the predominant feature throughout this running clip that we will notate below, but for the most part there was no true reasoning for it to jump the way it did. There was no electrical nearby or even in the vicinity to set it off. Our belief is that the entities back here paced from side to side and even approached the device to test it and see what it did, but the majority of the light turning on was just these energies coming close to the tool.
• These anomalies began at 1:06 and continued at 1:44 and at 1:54 it flashed strongly and held for a few seconds.
• The K2 meter continued here at 2:15, 2:41, 3:50, 4:22, 4:28, and 4:37.
• The motion light turned on as if someone moved in front of it at 4:44.
• The K2 meter activity continued on at 5:07, 5:15, 5:28, 5:43, and 6:12.
• After some odd clicking sounds at 7:00, the K2 meter continued to be alerted at 7:16, 7:44, 8:24, and 8:48.
• The Rempod went off at 9:26 with no one in the area to set it off.
• There were soft knocks heard at 9:35 which were heard by the lone investigator in the area at that time.
• The K2 meter then continued flickering on at 10:02 but spiked and held momentarily at 10:35.
• At 10:52, 11:26, and 11:32 the K2 meter flashed on then off just as quickly.
• We noticed this and began to test the device starting at 11:36 which continued to 11:41, 11:46, 12:07, 12:15, and 12:21 which is when we decided to swap it out for a new device.
• As we left the room, the K2 meter continued its activation at 12:24 which was followed by a knocking again at 12:34.
• The K2 meter jumped at 12:50 as we asked if they could knock again but, instead, the K2 meter at 12:54.
• At 13:00 the K2 meter jumped as an investigator entered and it again jumped at 13:18.
• The K2 meter again started to jump at 13:24, 13:35, 13:50, 13:57, and 13:59.
• At 14:07 the K2 meter again spiked but this time, much more intense and bright.
• Again, the K2 meter hit strongly at 14:10.
• The flickering of the K2 meter continued starting at 14:16 and continuing on at 14:30, 14:54, 12:12, 15:26, 15:48, and 16:07.
• At 16:53, the K2 meter spiked and held momentarily.
• The K2 meter went back to its slow and steady activation at 17:00, 17:13, 17:28, 17:59, 18:39, 19:18, 19:30, 19:42, 20:07, and 20:16.
• At 20:29, the Rempod, which was located in the back doorway toward the Utility Room,  was alerted.
• The K2 meter was alerted at 20:50, which coincided with the team moving the Rempod out of that doorway in the back just to test the device.
• The K2 meter spiked intensely at 21:46 but lowered its sensitivity once again at 21:56.
• From 22:05 – 22:08, the K2 meter flickered consistently.
• Suddenly, the K2 meter began to activate in a much stronger fashion, showing brighter and seemingly stronger, stronger at 22:24 which continued to 23:10, 23:52, 24:36, and finally at 25:16.
• While the team adjusted the motion activated light back in the doorway, the K2 meter again spiked at 25:45.
• The K2 meter spiked again at 26:03.
• At 26:58 and 27:32, the K2 meter activated until it hit intensely at 28:22.
• The continuation of the K2 meter’s activation began again at 29:05 and 29:44.
• As the team walked in, the K2 meter again jumped at 30:00.
• Following a group of investigators exiting the room, the K2 meter flickered multiple times: 30:31, 30:48, 30:50, and 31:00.
• The final investigator left the room causing the K2 meter to once again activate at 31:14, 31:36, and 31:38.
• There were two more instances of the K2 meter flickering, at 32:18 and 32:36, before the group re-entered causing it to spike at 33:36.
• At 33:40, for no apparent reason, the K2 meter spiked and held with some force, which repeated at 33:54 and 33:56.
• Once again, the K2 meter simply flickered at 33:59 and 34:19.
• While some of the group left the room, the K2 meter spiked at 34:26.
• As the group attempted some type of communication, all that occurred here was more K2 meter activity proving to us that someone was simply testing out the devices as they stepped forward then backed away. This occurred beginning at 34:36 and continued sporadically until 35:50 when the group re-entered the room causing the K2 meter to spike hard.
• Another heavy spike of the K2 meter occurred at 36:08 and occurred again at 36:28 as the group left the room.
• Once the group re-entered, the strong spike occurred once more on the K2 meter, seen at 36:43 but after more members left, it spiked strong at 36:48.
• The K2 meter went back to flickering activity starting t 36:52 and containing through 36:55.
• As the investigators walked into the room, the K2 meter spiked and held from 37:16 through 37:22 when some of the group left the area.
• The K2 meter flickered at 37:27 followed by the Rempod activating at 37:48.
• A similar situation occurred from 37:54 until 38:01 as the K2 meter spiked and held throughout.
• The Rempod was once again alerted at 38:16 followed by a pair of K2 meter spikes at 38:18 and 38:20.
• At 38:32 the Rempod once again activated followed by two more K2 meter flickers occurring at 38:50 and again at 38:52.
• After walking close by the Rempod we believed we set it off, at 39:26, but there is a possibility that someone was following close behind us.
• We relocated the motion activate light in the corner, and simultaneously, the K2 meter activated at 39:44 and 40:05.
• The K2 meter activated two more times, at 40:17 and 40:34, prior to the Rempod once again jumping to life twice at 40:44 and 41:02.
• As the reminder of the investigators entered, the Rempod was alerted at 41:39 to wrap up this long stationary camera feed.

 

 

Video 6 – Stationary Camera 3:

 

• The flashlight on the back table turned on immediately, at :03, then back off at :04.
• The second flashlight, on the table on the hand, turned on at :13 then back off at :20 just as the first flashlight turned on, simultaneously.
• At :22, the first flashlight then turned back off.
• The K2 meter, placed on the stool in the center, spiked hard at :34 then again at :36.
• The flashlight on the back table turned on at :47 and stayed lit until we asked them to turn it off at :51.
• We explained that they found the flashlights and told them we can use them to talk and they turned it on at 1:08.
• We asked if they could turn it back off so we could ask questions and, quite immediately, at 1:23 it shut off.
• After we asked if they could turn the other flashlight against the side wall on, it did turn on at 1:32 and stayed lit until they turned it off at 2:15 at our request.
• The flashlight against the wall turned on then back off quickly twice, at 2:20 and 2:27.
• This same light turned on at 2:50 but stayed on until they shut it back off at 3:05.

 

 

Video 7 – Stationary Camera 4:

 

• At :07, the flashlight against the back wall turned on and, after we asked if they could shut it back off, it shut off at :10.
• We explained how the yes/no game worked while turning the flashlight on signified a ‘yes’ response, and during this timeframe, the K2 meter spiked at :48.
• After we asked if they could answer the yes/no question in this manner, the K2 meter spiked at 1:05 as well as both flashlights turned on at the same time.
• The flashlights again turned on then off at 1:18 and 1:23.
• We explained that we were going to ask a question now and the K2 meter spiked at 1:49, 1:55, and finally at 1:59 as if they were anxious and excited.

 

 

Video 8 – Stationary Camera 5:

 

• We started off by asking if they were tied to this area to which they responded with a yes as both flashlight turned on at :18.
• The flashlights remained on until they shut off the one against eh back wall at :23 followed by K2 meter spiking at :31, :45, and 1:07.
• As the flashlight against the right wall remained on, we asked if they could turn it off which they did so at 1:25.
• We asked if they were associated with the incident in the alley and the flashlight against the back wall turned on at 1:43 and shut off at 1:49.

 

 

Video 9 – Stationary Camera 6:

 

• Since the word ‘Knife’ appeared on the Ovilus earlier in the night, we asked if they could turn on a light if, in fact, a knife was what killed them. At :09, the K2 meter spiked followed by the flashlight against the back wall flickering on then off at :29.
• We asked if that attack in the alley was perhaps an accident, such as a case of mistaken identity, and the flashlight against the back wall again turned on at :47 followed by it turning off at :59.
• As we discussed if that was the case (mistaken identity) the flashlight against the right wall turned on at 1:04 and stayed on as the K2 meter spiked at 1:41 and again at 1:53.
• We asked if they could turn the light back off so we could continue asking questions, and they did so promptly, at 1:58.

 

 

Video 10 – Stationary Camera 7:

 

• As we seemingly had an epiphany, we asked if this was the killer we were speaking with, the K2 meter spiked at :04 as the flashlight against the wall jumped on at :12.
• We discussed that this was an accident and the flashlight, already on, got even brighter at about :18 and held until it shut off at :33.
• As we prepared to use the Phasma Box, we asked if they would be willing to speak to us a different way and seemingly received a yes response as the flashlight turned on at :46.
• As the flashlight shut off, at :52, the K2 meter spiked at 1:00.

 

 

Video 11 – Stationary Camera 8:

 

• The Ovilus produced the word ‘Knife’ immediately, at :01.
• As we questioned this word, the Flashlight turned on at :11 and back off at :32.
• The Phasma Box could be heard beginning to produce information here stating with “Platform” at :41 and “What’d I get?” at 1:10.
• After we asked if they were looking for something, the flashlight turned on at 1:24 then back off at 1:28.
• At 1:32, unprompted, the flashlight turned on and back off at 1:42.

 

 

Video 12 – Stationary Camera 9:

 

• The Phasma Box continued to produce communication starting with the odd phrase of “Say I’m pretty” at :05.
• We followed the command and told them that they’re pretty and the flashlight turned on at :09 but shut off at :32.
• After asking if there was more than one spirit, the flashlight turned flickered on and off at :59 then again at 1:15.

 

 

Video 13 – Stationary Camera 10:

 

• We asked if their name was Anna and directed them to turn the light on if so and, at :12 the flashlight against the back wall flickered on then off.
• After repeating this same question, the flashlight to the right turned on and off this time at :35.
• The K2 meter spiked after this at :40.
• Incredibly, the hardwired lights outside the room shut off then turned back on immediately at :48.

 

 

Video 14 – Stationary Camera 11:

 

• The employees who got in the rhythm of asking questions told them that they couldn’t understand what they’re saying and the flashlight was physically forced over at :04 startling everyone in the room.
• The K2 meter then started to spike harder and hold longer starting at :16, :28, 30, and finally at :40.
• We asked if they wanted to speak to the girls and the Phasma Box produced a clear and concise “No” at :58.
• The K2 meter again spiked twice more here 1:04 and again at 1:08.

 

 

The investigation of Crush Bar Nail Salon revealed a location defined not by widespread or chaotic activity, but by a concentrated and responsive presence localized primarily within the rear employee break room and adjoining utility area. From the outset, the front service space remained comparatively stable, allowing for a controlled baseline that highlighted the contrast observed toward the back of the building. This distinction between areas proved critical in understanding the pattern of activity.

 

Early events in the rear section suggested a blend of spontaneous environmental interaction and potential intelligent engagement. Initial flashlight and K2 activations occurred without direct prompting, establishing movement and energy fluctuations independent of structured questioning. However, as investigative methods transitioned into direct communication sessions, including use of the Phasma Box and Estes Method, responses appeared increasingly timed to questions. This shift from spontaneous to interactive behavior marked a notable development in the investigative trajectory.

 

 

One of the most notable patterns observed throughout the evening was the apparent preference for communication through the owner and employee. While investigators initiated early questioning, responses appeared to strengthen and become more frequent when the business owner and staff members engaged directly. This behavioral shift suggests familiarity or comfort with individuals connected to the space rather than investigators alone. Additionally, when attention was diverted, particularly during the brief interruption involving a visiting officer, device activity escalated dramatically as though attempting to regain engagement. This reaction introduces the possibility of awareness and situational responsiveness.

 

Communication through both the Phasma Box and Estes Method produced layered and, at times, conflicting narratives. The repeated emergence of the name “Anna,” confirmed by simultaneous device activation, stood out as one of the most consistent elements of the session. Other names including “Mike,” “Emmitt,” “Dave,” “Jeff,” “Freddy,” “Lexi,” “Olivia,” and “Elizabeth” surfaced intermittently. The narrative suggested themes of injury in the alley, references to a knife, tension between accident and murder, possible infidelity, and implications of a store or brothel operating within the building at some point in time. However, these details were not delivered in a cohesive historical sequence. Instead, they appeared fragmented, sometimes remorseful, sometimes defensive, occasionally impatient, and at other times evasive.

 

Notably, responses frequently contradicted themselves. When asked whether the death was an accident, the answer was affirmed. When asked about murder, that too was affirmed. Questions regarding whether the building was once a home were denied, while “Store” was offered in response. References to bodies being “Under,” followed by clarification that none remain there now, further complicated interpretation. This push and pull dynamic, alternating between cooperation such as “Then you should,” “Don’t stop,” “I need help,” and resistance such as “Don’t want to,” “You should,” and “Get out,” suggests either multiple overlapping presences or a single intelligence deliberately controlling narrative flow.

 

 

Emotional tone shifted throughout the evening. At times communication felt conversational, even playful with phrases like “Say I’m pretty” and “It’s my birthday.” At other moments, frustration became apparent when group noise increased with responses such as “Too much” and “Waiting.” The phrase “They’re watching” introduced an additional layer of ambiguity, hinting at awareness beyond a singular presence. The final directive of “Get out,” followed by “Hey” and “17,” left the session unresolved rather than conclusively closed.

 

From an investigative standpoint, what distinguishes this location is not the confirmation of a specific historical event, but the responsiveness and behavioral complexity demonstrated. The communication did not present as purely residual replay. Timing correlations, repeated name confirmations, and emotional shifts suggest interactive engagement. However, the fragmented storytelling, internal contradictions, and dynamic shifts in tone prevent definitive conclusions regarding identity or origin.

 

The evidence collected indicates that the rear of the building serves as a focal point for interactive phenomena. Whether this activity is tied to documented historical events, undocumented incidents, or layered environmental imprint remains undetermined. What is clear is that the engagement was situationally aware, reactive to group dynamics, and capable of altering tone in real time.

 

 

One additional layer that warrants mention is the repeated reference to historical context, including the year 1908, which surfaced during questioning and aligns with the era in which the building itself would have been active in early commercial use. While no direct archival confirmation has yet been established connecting that year to a documented incident at this specific address, the consistency of early twentieth century references suggests that any originating narrative, if legitimate, may predate modern occupancy by over a century.

 

Communication themes repeatedly implied that the structure may once have functioned as a “Store,” with additional dialogue suggesting the possibility of transactional activity involving a female presence identifying as “Anna.” When combined with references to multiple male names and emotionally charged exchanges surrounding jealousy and harm, one interpretive theory is that the building may have operated in a capacity similar to a brothel or informal boarding establishment during its early commercial period. This remains speculative and is presented solely as a narrative pattern observed during structured communication sessions.

 

The most consistent storyline that emerged involved an incident in the alley behind the building. References to injury, knife involvement, accident versus murder, and concealment including terms such as “Hid” and “Under” suggest a possible altercation that may have resulted in death. The repeated pairing of the names “Anna” and “Mike,” along with affirmations of both marital connection and conflict, introduces the possibility of a domestic dynamic. The emergence of “Freddy” in proximity to affair related questioning, as well as “Emmett” accompanied by references to intoxication, further complicates the narrative and suggests either multiple individuals involved in a singular event or layered stories overlapping in the same space.

 

 

However, it must be emphasized that these elements were not delivered as a cohesive historical record. The narrative shifted between accident and intentional harm. Questions regarding bodies yielded contradictory responses. At times, the communication felt remorseful and seeking acknowledgment. At others, it appeared evasive or controlling. This fluidity prevents definitive historical attribution and suggests either fragmented memory impressions, multiple overlapping presences, or a single adaptive intelligence shaping responses dynamically.

 

While the possibility of a concealed altercation occurring in the alley during the early 1900s cannot be ruled out without deeper archival research, no physical evidence was observed during the investigation to indicate human remains or structural concealment beneath the property. Any references to hidden bodies are therefore classified as narrative communication only and not supported by environmental findings.

 

 

As with many first investigations, answers were not finalized. They multiplied. The session revealed names, emotional fragments, and narrative suggestions, but not a singular verified history. A return investigation focused on controlled, one voice questioning, quieter group dynamics, and historical cross referencing may provide clarity regarding whether these communications represent distinct identities, fragmented memory impressions, or a singular adaptive presence shaping responses to inquiry.

 

The night did not end in resolution. It ended in ambiguity. In locations of genuine complexity, ambiguity is often the most honest conclusion.