Sadly, by the sounds of it, you did okay...

What it all comes down to is "spin" on how people are now feeling about your findings... and that spin is not to lie, as such, but to explain the disparaging observations within what you found.

It's probably best to point to the "experiments" that police often do at schools and talk-shows... where they have a lecture and, at some point, have a "person" run through the audience, onto the "stage", brandishing "something" and then run off...

...they then get the audience to describe the person who they saw only for a few seconds.

The descriptions run from the accurate to the almost ridiculous... and it's not because people are "lying" or "stupid" or "can't see"... it's because much of what we all experience in the world is based on personal perception.

For example, it's evident when going through historic case studies that one person's "ghost that's unaware of anything around it" is another person's "harbinger of doom and evil" is another persons "guardian angel".

One person's "item being thrown around" is another person's "something got thrown AT ME!" is another person's "This item must be special as it was picked above all others."

Also think "Angel" vs. "Demon" vs. "Ghost". For many, that line is blurred by what their own philosophy and teachings have set down in their consciousness.

What you did... collecting ALL the reports independently to filter them... is the best way to come up with the actual events... as it allows you to (hopefully) remove the biases and personal beliefs and leave only the facts... and for that, I applaud you...

...but to the witnesses, the words "You Were Wrong" must never be uttered... if they find out you've collected other accounts that don't match their own, you must explain that it's all about beliefs, philosophies, and perceptions... and that to you, a (hopefully) neutral and unbiased researcher/investigator into the incidents, you have to look for the hard threads in the data and eliminate people's philosophical, religious, and otherwise "corrupted" views on what happened.

That's a good word too... when one witnesses "publicizes" of otherwise broadcasts THEIR experience and (more or less) tries to enforce that THEIR version is the correct version, we call this "corrupting targets".

If I tell you that there's a face in a random shot of fall leaves... you'll probably find one... if not more of them based on my statement. This is because you're a corrupted witness to the image.

As a proper investigator/researcher, you need to avoid "corrupt data" as much as possible and work from as neutral a point as possible... which it seems, you've done... just that "leaked data" has set off a chain reaction.

My best advice is watch the rumours and "changes" and document them... it's an interesting study in how an event becomes an urban myth and finally a legend...

...and ALTHOUGH there may be an ounce of truth and fact at the heart of things, this will quickly get lost in the shuffle to sensationalize and "sex-up" a good story.

For an example, see this story.

The story above has literally caused violent outbursts to those who are staunch believers in the tunnel and it's "ghosts"... and yet, look at the facts. Two fellows were threatening to kick each other's "@ss" because one claimed that HE had found the tunnel before the other fellow.

All I can offer you is to stay neutral, stay (legitimately) sceptical, and keep the facts straight.

Oh, and please remember... to be "sceptical" does not mean to disbelieve or to deny... it means that you want better evidence... that you "doubt"... that you won't take things without proof or evidence. This goes both ways though... "Ghost Exist" is a claim that requires evidence. "Ghosts DON'T Exist" is also a claim that requires evidence. If the former, what do we need to produce as far as evidence to ensure that this statement is "fact" and not opinion? If the latter is true, then what are millions of people each year experiencing and why are the situations so varied and different... and yet, so similar?

If you can find me a "so-called sceptic" (read: Non-Believer) that's stupid enough to state that "Weird Things Do Not Happen Ever and No One Has Ever Witnessed or Experienced Something Odd", then I'll show you the dumbest and least-well read and educated person you'll ever meet. Science does not deny things out of hand... it allows for hypothesis... and does not call a hypothesis "nonsense" unless it's proven over and over again to be incorrect... even then, a REAL scientist knows that still doesn't make a hypothesis incorrect... just unproven.

As Einstein once said... "Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes just one to prove me wrong."

Welcome to our world of work... it's fun... and it honestly can be exciting... and as you've found out, it can be horribly frustrating.

My honest overall best advice is stay neutral, stay agnostic, and work with the known. Leave hypotheticals, untested hypothesis, faith, and subjectiveness to everyone else... dismiss nothing, accept everything, filter all, conclude only when absolutely certain.

There is truth to be found... but not if we're clouded by baseless opinions and being "preached" to by those who won't accept any alternative then that which follows their own beliefs and philosophies.

I hope this has been somewhat helpful... after a legitimate decade of doing this very publicly, I can tell you that I've made many friends, and managed to accumulate a few enemies... I find that for the most part, my "enemies" are those that refuse to look at inconvenient facts and that do not like to have their cherished views questioned... in this, I've ensured my friends and colleagues question everything and are willing to examine, learn, and generally become smarter than most on certain subjects in order to progress knowledge. In my eyes, that's a good thing... and I'm glad to have those folks as "friends" be that... and the rest, when it comes to my work, I'm kinda glad they stay back.

Matthew