TAPS Caught Cheating

[ProbeX]

TAPS has been caught doing questionable things. And if you think that sounds too vague, here you go:

Coat Yank Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpV-K3whGU)

Here's a longer version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW-COYLzZSA) in which the narrator makes a couple added points that most other like vids seem to miss (like the right-handed/left-handed thing).

Here's a re-creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoebSD6GT0) of the trick.

[kitakaze]

The show where nothing ever happens caught trying to make something happen again? That show is some of the worst woo on TV. Particularily when they try to present themselves as being objective skeptics. I'll watch it only if I feel like hurling invectives at the tv. I like how they try to pad out the show with the unnecessary drama, conflicts, and critiques of job performance.

TAPS sucks. Woo poo.

[kittynh]

I mean, I don't see how this show can still be on television.

It's so BORING... it's dark and NOTHING HAPPENS.

Ohhh, look at the meter! Oh a temperature change!

whoohooo whoo hoooo

[shadron]

I mean, I don't see how this show can still be on television.

It's so BORING... it's dark and NOTHING HAPPENS.

Ohhh, look at the meter! Oh a temperature change!

whoohooo whoo hoooo

Now, if they were inside the space shuttle trying to find a gas leak, that would be boring; even if the video and audio was identical. In irony, referencing the pair of engineers who died a few years back of asphyxiation after climbing into a purged external tank, the shuttle can be a darned sight more risky.

[not daSkeptic]

I think Occam's razor applies here. The paranormal requires far more assumption than the mundane. Thus, if it can be shown that a purported paranormal event could have been staged, one must assume it was unless there is evidence to the contrary. I believe this is the general attitude of JREF in its approach to the MDC.

[The Professor]

I think Occam's razor applies here. The paranormal requires far more assumption than the mundane. Thus, if it can be shown that a purported paranormal event could have been staged, one must assume it was unless there is evidence to the contrary. I believe this is the general attitude of JREF in its approach to the MDC.

That's just silly!

I'm not claiming to know if this was faked or not. I'm sure a polygraph would give a little more light on the subject.
Question... If the character could pass a polygraph, what would you say then?

[ProbeX]

TAPS made the mistake of foolishly taking on a live recording of their show and being sloppy enough in the course a few minutes, to bring down a house of cards that extends well beyond their own paranormal group.

While TAPS could never be taken as anything remotely approaching scientific investigation by most of us, they'd made bleevers out of a lot of viewers, spawning a near pandemic of spin-off "research" groups calling themselves part of the "TAPS family". In one fell swoop they took a proverbial cannon ball to their own show, and probably have knocked some (but not all) wind out of "ghost hunting" as a televised fad.

[not daSkeptic]

That's just silly!

Why?

If the character could pass a polygraph, what would you say then?

I would say it changes nothing. The number of confounding variables in a polygraph is quite large. It's not terribly difficult to get false readings. This is why their use in legal situations is so questionable.

[tyr_13]

Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. I'm not going to pretend that the coat thing was 'paranormal' but that doesn't mean it was a hoax either. It could very well be something with that jacket and not intentional.

I love Ghost Hunters for full disclosure. That doesn't mean I think what they find are ghosts. But let's have some perspective; compared only to other paranormal and ghost hunting groups, TAPS is a skeptical group. It doesn't seem to be in their nature to fake stuff, which is why the show is so 'boring'. Hell, TAPS takes a ton of **** in the paranormal community because they are so 'close minded'.

I could be wrong. They may have started hoaxing. However, I just can't get excited over what could be just a stupid mistake.

Polygraph wouldn't mean much to me personally.

[The Professor]

Polygraphs are pretty close about 90% of the time. Hardened criminals and self believing liars are hard to catch. I'm not sure this guy is one of those.

It does look pretty fishy to me. However, how do you prove deception?

No one can SEE the method and no one has confessed.

[ProbeX]

Gave more thought to these clips and my personal conclusion now is that the TAPS member's behavior seemed suspicious, but it no longer seems blatant enough to call it patently fraudulent. This still doesn't mean I fully accept what they do as paranormal and/or scientifically based. Just no longer totally convinced that this particular episode was a "stunt" in the specific way it's being portrayed.

Tyr, wrote this before seeing your response. Have to say I basically agree with you.

[not daSkeptic]

Polygraphs are pretty close about 90% of the time.

Source please.

[Jonquill]

Unless we are going to believe that ghosts go around tugging on people's collars it has to be fake. It's a bit different to getting a cold spot or electrical interference or whatever else it is that they pretend to measure.

He didn't seem very surprised by it either, you'd think even a hardened paranormal investigator would be amazed at the idea that some supernatural force was pulling at your clothes.

[RoboTimbo]

This one is clearly faked. He isn't even very clever at it. His hand never strays far from the bottom of his jacket. If your jacket were getting paranormally tugged, would you nonchalantly leave your hand at your side?

Did you ever wonder why it's always Grant who has the paranormal movement experiences that can be explained with threads and fishing line? The chair moving at the lighthouse, the covers moving, and now this.

[Moochie]

Fer FSM's sake, it bloody e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-t. Piss-poor entertainment, at that.


M.

[kittynh]

well and it's become a big hobby.

I don't really like TAPS, but they don't usually bring in some stupid psychic to "talk" to the dead people (or do they now?) I find that really annoying and how do you disprove a psychic?

Also I hate paranormal state where they exploit small children. It's frightening to me as a parent and teacher when they manipulate small children.

[Galaxie]

Speaking of cheating, wasn't it proven that TAPS faked/altered some FLIR footage?

Or am I mistaken?

[not daSkeptic]

Speaking of cheating, wasn't it proven that TAPS faked/altered some FLIR footage?

Or am I mistaken?

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/doctored-manson-flir/

[I Ratant]

That's just silly!

I'm not claiming to know if this was faked or not. I'm sure a polygraph would give a little more light on the subject.
Question... If the character could pass a polygraph, what would you say then?
.
Polygraphs are applied wool

[Gate2501]

That's just silly!

I'm not claiming to know if this was faked or not. I'm sure a polygraph would give a little more light on the subject.
Question... If the character could pass a polygraph, what would you say then?


Question... If I could pass a polygraph, stating that I was in fact *god*, how soon could I expect to have you onboard as a loyal worshipper?

[Kil]

I think Occam's razor applies here. The paranormal requires far more assumption than the mundane. Thus, if it can be shown that a purported paranormal event could have been staged, one must assume it was unless there is evidence to the contrary. I believe this is the general attitude of JREF in its approach to the MDC.Oh hell. Forget Occam's razor. You can see the collar go down after the second slap on the back after the collar is examined by one of the other baloney artists. There is no reason for a lie detector or anything else. It's right there. No way does the collar go down in the same spot and not get mentioned if it's not a hoax.

We don't have to over think this. TAPS is busted...

[tyr_13]

It could be a hoax, it could be something with the jacket. All around not paranormal. But to say that TAPS is busted based on them not being able to figure out a stupid mundane happening is jumping the gun.

No, TAPS doesn't use mediums, and doesn't put any stock in what they say. They had a very heated feud with the Warrens about it.

You want ghost hunters to be really upset with? Sure TAPS is popular, but in the paranormal community the Warrens and their ilk are even more so, and complete and total frauds from word one. Of course Ed Warren is dead now, so no use being upset with him.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually this answers my question. Though I actually never really doubted there was fakery in these shows. After all if TAPS didn't do it, one of the many take off versions was surely going to try. It's a money maker and too tempting not to do it.

A am referring to one TAPS show where a chair moved and another where a picture frame moved. I suspected either the owner of the building rigged something to get more business or an individual on the TAPS team or perhaps the leaders had faked the movement.

There is a spin off of TAPS that filmed a brick flying through the air on its own. Again, either it was purposely faked or they had actual evidence and we all know which of those two possibilities is the likely one.

It does pose a question however. If anyone ever does catch real inexplicable evidence on tape, how could it possibly be verified as legit?

[imjohn]

Bah.

Ghosthunters is too boring to watch.

[Kil]

It could be a hoax, it could be something with the jacket. All around not paranormal. But to say that TAPS is busted based on them not being able to figure out a stupid mundane happening is jumping the gun.

Need more?

Look here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohfocjCX2sc).

And by the way, the coat was "pulled" three times. Once when it wasn't meant to be. If it had been something mundane, that's when it would have been discovered. But that third pull wasn't even mentioned because it wasn't supposed to happen. And the guy wearing the coat didn't have the use of one arm (although he did have the use of his hand at the end of that arm) only in those scenes?

I'm not jumping the gun. Their busted.

[LTC8K6]

When it's that obviously fake, and people still claim they can't tell, it's time to give up on them, imo.

Even if you couldn't see the actual collar pull, the right hand/left hand deal gives the game away entirely.

He should be checking his collar with his supposedly empty and unoccupied right hand.

[not daSkeptic]

Even if you couldn't see the actual collar pull, the right hand/left hand deal gives the game away entirely.

He should be checking his collar with his supposedly empty and unoccupied right hand.

I would be curious to know about his handedness. If he's right-handed, it really begs the question why his supposed dominant hand wasn't being used.

[Kil]

It does pose a question however. If anyone ever does catch real inexplicable evidence on tape, how could it possibly be verified as legit?
When Joe Nickell (http://www.joenickell.com/ParanormalInvestigator/paranormalinvestigator1.html) or some other credible paranormal investigator comes up with something, I will sit up and take notice...

And hi there B-gal!!!

[LTC8K6]

The video shows which hand he normally uses, his right.

For some strange reason, during the coat pull scenes, his right arm remains extended and fixed at his side, and he carries a flashlight in his left hand, and he even tries to examine his collar with his left hand, even though he is using it to carry the flashlight.

His fixed right arm looks odd, even if you don't know anything about the video. One begins to think there's something wrong with his right arm.

[Kil]

I would be curious to know about his handedness. If he's right-handed, it really begs the question why his supposed dominant hand wasn't being used.The natural thing to do would be to reach up with both hands. Try it on someone and see how they react.

[LTC8K6]

The pull is straight down.

Not what you'd get from being grabbed from behind by the collar.

[tesscaline]

It could be a hoax, it could be something with the jacket. All around not paranormal. But to say that TAPS is busted based on them not being able to figure out a stupid mundane happening is jumping the gun.

No, TAPS doesn't use mediums, and doesn't put any stock in what they say. They had a very heated feud with the Warrens about it.

You want ghost hunters to be really upset with? Sure TAPS is popular, but in the paranormal community the Warrens and their ilk are even more so, and complete and total frauds from word one. Of course Ed Warren is dead now, so no use being upset with him.Personally, the reason I'm more upset with TAPS than other "paranormal research groups" is that they claim to take a scientific approach when they don't. They also claim that debunking incidents is their goal when it most obviously is not. They purport themselves as being of a skeptical nature -- a fallacy I happen to take a bit personally since I happen to be a real skeptic. And then, to add insult to injury, they fabricate "evidence."

If they were "mediums" or "psychics" claiming to find ghosts, I'd be able to just sit back and laugh. But that they claim to be scientific and skeptical? I'm sorry, I have a hard time laughing that off -- which is why I no longer watch the show, or frequent the scifi forums for the show.

[Delvo]

...they claim to take a scientific approach when they don't. They also claim that debunking incidents is their goal when it most obviously is not. They purport themselves as being of a skeptical nature...Did you hear them saying that themselves? I've only seen 2 or 3 episodes, but in one of them, I remember the bald guy telling a couple of others that what they had in that case wasn't convincing, and when he got the response from them that surely he must believe after all they've seen, he answered that he did but they were there not to find something that would convince the already convinced, but to find something that would convince those who weren't.

[tesscaline]

Did you hear them saying that themselves? I've only seen 2 or 3 episodes, but in one of them, I remember the bald guy telling a couple of others that what they had in that case wasn't convincing, and when he got the response from them that surely he must believe after all they've seen, he answered that he did but they were there not to find something that would convince the already convinced, but to find something that would convince those who weren't.Yes. They have claimed those things themselves numerous times. And then the next minute, they go into a place and declare it haunted -- to their viewers, if not the actual location owner/inhabitants -- with "evidence" that could be debunked by my 9 year old.

If you've only seen 2 or 3 episodes, you might want to reserve your judgement, or defer to that of people who have watched several full seasons (like myself).

[Clairvoyant_Kyle]

These videos that show how much TAPS members are willing to act and showboat seems to answer a lot of my questions about their equipment, methods, and findings. Nice to see someone is paying real close attention to what they present to us as a “real” show. I used to have respect for Grant and Jason (if that is their real names), because I thought they were sincere in their investigations. I believed they were wrong, but truly sincere. Thank you so much for pointing out they are obviously more worried about making money off of their show then trying to find out the truth. The only thing I hate more then con artist liars is con artist liars in sheep clothing. So seriously, thank you!

-Kyle

[Skeptic Ginger]

When Joe Nickell (http://www.joenickell.com/ParanormalInvestigator/paranormalinvestigator1.html) or some other credible paranormal investigator comes up with something, I will sit up and take notice...

And hi there B-gal!!!Hi Kil. How are things at the SFN?

[Kil]

Hi Kil. How are things at the SFN?
Heh. Nice that you caught this. I got mixed up. Good that you saw this thread.

SFN is doing great. (As one of the founders, I'm bound to say that, eh?) But as a member of the JREF I feel the need to look over here from time to time. We skeptics are, hopefully, one larger community after all...

This thread happen to catch my eye.

Write to me or drop by SFN if you would like to catch up on things! It's always good to see you...

[makaya325]

TAPS has been caught doing questionable things. And if you think that sounds too vague, here you go:

Coat Yank Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpV-K3whGU)

Here's a longer version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW-COYLzZSA) in which the narrator makes a couple added points that most other like vids seem to miss (like the right-handed/left-handed thing).

Here's a re-creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoebSD6GT0) of the trick.

I thought youtube isnt reliable? Only when its in the skeptics favor?

[RoboTimbo]

I thought youtube isnt reliable? Only when its in the skeptics favor?


Which part of it do you take exception to?

[makaya325]

Which part of it do you take exception to?

Thats not my point. Many skeptics say youtube videos are bs and unreliable, but when its in the skeptics favor, its considered reliable.

[RoboTimbo]

Thats not my point. Many skeptics say youtube videos are bs and unreliable, but when its in the skeptics favor, its considered reliable.

I don't find a reference to that in this thread. Do you have a link?

[tesscaline]

Thats not my point. Many skeptics say youtube videos are bs and unreliable, but when its in the skeptics favor, its considered reliable.
I've never seen anyone say that, and I've certainly never said it.

Are you entirely sure you're not confusing someone saying that a specific video is unreliable with someone saying that youtube in general is unreliable?

[Audible Click]

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/
This is one of the original skeptic Ghost Hunter's sites. It has great discussions and also has the evidence of the Manson FLIR hoax.

[makaya325]

I've never seen anyone say that, and I've certainly never said it.

Are you entirely sure you're not confusing someone saying that a specific video is unreliable with someone saying that youtube in general is unreliable?

Its not a specific instance, its a pattern in the media and on other sites

[RoboTimbo]

It would be difficult to defend against such a broad generalization. Do you have anything to add to the OP?

[JCL]

I thought youtube isnt reliable? Only when its in the skeptics favor?

Therefore Bigfoot exists?

[makaya325]

Therefore Bigfoot exists?

Im not talking about that, im talking about cherry picking youtube videos when its in the skeptics favor

[RoboTimbo]

Im not talking about that, im talking about cherry picking youtube videos when its in the skeptics favor

It would be helpful if you could give some examples that we could discuss but that might also be fodder for a different thread so this one doesn't get derailed.

[makaya325]

It would be helpful if you could give some examples that we could discuss but that might also be fodder for a different thread so this one doesn't get derailed.

The video that one of the members here presented in the thread?

[RoboTimbo]

The video that one of the members here presented in the thread?

ok.

Which part of it do you take exception to?

[Archangel]

Which part of it do you take exception to?

Well duh obviously the bit where the big bad skeptics are accepting of a youtube video in this case because it's "cherry picking" the evidence in their favour, yet every other youtube video is apparently written off as fake.

I certainly hope you don't expect proof of any of Makaya's claims as s/he has shown in pretty much every other thread that they've posted to that they will just obfuscate the matter or flat out ignore posts asking for a solid answer.*

Makaya seems to me to be the biggest troll on the JRef since Amy "It's True" Wilson (pretty sure that was his name). If Makaya isn't a troll, I truly feel sorry for them as there are amoeba out there with better debating and discussion styles.

*See both:
alien life possibility is pathetic & hominids... threads

[Greg44]

Well I'm not sure about this forum, but in the conspiracy forum Truthers are routinely ridiculed for their respect for the veracity of youtube videos. So this " Give me specific examples" ( of someone discounting youtube videos in general )
routine is a joke.

Makaya is right, youtube videos are not considered good evidence most of the time by skeptics on this forum. To deny this is to be obtuse and in this case quite rude.

[RoboTimbo]

Then take it to the CT forum for discussion.

[Galaxie]

The bottom line is that Youtube videos are only as reliable as the evidence they are presenting.

[technoextreme]

Makaya is right, youtube videos are not considered good evidence most of the time by skeptics on this forum. To deny this is to be obtuse and in this case quite rude.
No. Makaya and you are both wrong. I Here is a youtube video to prove it:
WrjwaqZfjIY

[Biscuit]

Source please.

Allow me.

http://www.increasebrainpower.com/lie-detector-test.html

[rant+derail]
It would appear it depends on how you measure it. Not surprising is that the american polygraph association measures in such a way that they get a higher accuracy marking than independent groups including the military.

So 'pretty close 90% of the time' is not only vague but inaccurate. Results are not measured on a pretty close scale but as positive, false positive, and inconclusive.

Unless it worked 100% of the time I would not believe someone, who I believed to be lying, especially on the subject of the paranormal where the teste (giggle) had something to gain from deception, just because they passed a polygraph.[/rant+derail]

[Bandersnatch]

The video that one of the members here presented in the thread?

/reiterate
Can you point to a video in this forum that was dismissed based on the fact it was hosted on youtube?

[Cainkane1]

The show where nothing ever happens caught trying to make something happen again? That show is some of the worst woo on TV. Particularily when they try to present themselves as being objective skeptics. I'll watch it only if I feel like hurling invectives at the tv. I like how they try to pad out the show with the unnecessary drama, conflicts, and critiques of job performance.

TAPS sucks. Woo poo.
Actually I watch it because they go into neat old houses.

[tyr_13]

Actually I watch it because they go into neat old houses.

And often delve into the local history. Which is also cool. Plus, they do debunk absolutely funny stuff, like 'ghostly bumps' being freaking cats.

[rwguinn]

Well I'm not sure about this forum, but in the conspiracy forum Truthers are routinely ridiculed for their respect for the veracity of youtube videos. So this " Give me specific examples" ( of someone discounting youtube videos in general )
routine is a joke.

Makaya is right, youtube videos are not considered good evidence most of the time by skeptics on this forum. To deny this is to be obtuse and in this case quite rude.
That is a Total misrepresentation.
The "truthers" attempt to make pixel-by-pixel analysis of Youtube videos and proclaim the gospel according to them
Skeptical mids understand the difference between "It moved down" and "It moved exactly 1.387215 inches down at a rate of .052 inches per second"
Strawman alfalfa noted.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Sooo, you think they faked faking it?

[Hitch]

Allow me.

...

So 'pretty close 90% of the time' is not only vague but inaccurate. Results are not measured on a pretty close scale but as positive, false positive, and inconclusive.

Unless it worked 100% of the time I would not believe someone, who I believed to be lying, especially on the subject of the paranormal where the teste (giggle) had something to gain from deception, just because they passed a polygraph.[/rant+derail]

60% of the time, it works every time. ;)

[chillzero]

Please get back on topic to the specific TAPS videos. Open a new thread to discuss YouTube. Thanks.

[Archangel]

Well I'm not sure about this forum, but in the conspiracy forum Truthers are routinely ridiculed for their respect for the veracity of youtube videos. So this " Give me specific examples" ( of someone discounting youtube videos in general )
routine is a joke.

Makaya is right, youtube videos are not considered good evidence most of the time by skeptics on this forum. To deny this is to be obtuse and in this case quite rude.

Most of the time is the operative phrase in your quote.

In this specific case we have:

1) scenes taken directly from the TAPS show (Ghost Hunters Live it looked like to me) which can be verified by viewing the show as broadcast to make sure there was no digital manipulation or even editing trickery if need be.

2) no extraordinary claims on behalf of the claimant. The only claim which is being made in the TAPS video shown is that it's apparent that the guy in the coat (sorry didn't catch his name) has his hood/collar pulled down, and that by the way he is positioned that he has some sort of apparatus to do this.
The ability to do this is well within the bounds of scientific knowledge, thus viewing the video as supplied COULD supply enough evidence to either confirm or deny the claim of TAPS cheating

3) No one has supplied any rational counter to the fact that the coat pull looks exactly like someone with a bit of fishing line(example only, it could be something else) pulling on his own collar/hood that does not invoke some utterly improbable scenario.

4) the footage is clear.

With regards to Youtube in general I do not believe any skeptic would have a problem with evidence provided on Youtube just because it was on Youtube, but because the video itself does not hold up.

Look at the Downwind Faster than the Wind Device in the Science & Mathematics section, at first it appeared that the evidence was insufficient and trickery may have been involved due to the nature of the device, but after an explanation from Spork & Co, along with new videos that showed experiments designed by it's skeptics, it is now thought to be an actual (if counter-intuitive) working device, even though most (all?) of his videos were posted on Youtube.


***
Sorry Chillzero, the majority of my post is in regards to the TAPS video and I hadn't seen your post prior to submitting mine.
***

[stephenenelson]

(Sorry to revive a dormant thread, but I think it's an interesting topic.)

As Audible Click said a while ago, we've documented a few suspicious cases where TAPS is concerned over at Skeptical Viewer. Others (such as DreamSinger over at darkrealmlabs.com-- sorry, still getting to the link-posting stage) have done so as well.

First, let me acknowledge that we have never quite reached the smoking gun level of the Most Haunted outtakes available on YouTube, where you can see Yvette Fielding fake a ghost moan or Derek Acorah proclaim himself a liar in anagram. TAPS has been, in my opinion, far more careful. Still, there are plenty of cases that are hard to explain any other way. We may not have a smoking gun, but we have a hole in the wall and a strong smell of gunpowder.

The first well-known case is the moving chair at the Race Rock lighthouse. Dark Realm Labs has done the best analysis I've seen here. There's an unexplained black patch on the stairs and something (or someone) blocks the light as the chair gets pulled.

Next, of course, there's the Jacket Tug. FORMERGHFAN is rightfully famous for doing his 3D analysis. Of course, the analysis doesn't prove anything in itself, but it calls attention to a number of strange things about the clip. Why does Grant keep his hand hidden the entire time? If he's being pulled backward, why does he kick his leg out to counterbalance as he leans backward, rather than stepping backward as one normally would?

When Ghost Hunters came to the Mount Washington hotel, Grant and Jason were investigating a dark hallway. There was the sound of a small piece of glass clattering off the wall. Jason says, "What was that?" and finds a piece of glass on the ground. Just an ordinary episode of GH, except that during a panning camera move immediately before the sound, we can see a shadow that looks like Grant's arm flinging something.

I'm just an ordinary viewer without any unusual knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes, but after the collar tug I was unable to suspend disbelief any further. TAPS claims to be a skeptical organization, but it seems to me that they're not above enhancing the show with cheap tricks.

As a reward, they've just been renewed for a seventh season.

[jakesteele]

ProbeX;4216409]TAPS made the mistake of foolishly taking on a live recording of their show and being sloppy enough in the course a few minutes, to bring down a house of cards that extends well beyond their own paranormal group.


Would you mind explaining that a bit more and pasting a link if you have one? I never watched TAPS so I have never seen that vid and I would love to see them get hoisted by their own petards.


While TAPS could never be taken as anything remotely approaching scientific investigation by most of us, they'd made bleevers out of a lot of viewers, spawning a near pandemic of spin-off "research" groups calling themselves part of the "TAPS family". In one fell swoop they took a proverbial cannon ball to their own show, and probably have knocked some (but not all) wind out of "ghost hunting" as a televised fad.

[/QUOTE]

[Jekyll's Guest]

But...but...ORBS!

Explain THAT, Mr. observes evidence man!

[stephenenelson]

Would you mind explaining that a bit more and pasting a link if you have one? I never watched TAPS so I have never seen that vid and I would love to see them get hoisted by their own petards.


There have been many questionable events on Ghost Hunters, but the standout is their 2008 Live Halloween show. They were investigating Fort Delaware, an old military base, and had already gotten a very fishy-sounding disembodied voice saying "You're not supposed to be here."

Grant (the smaller, non-bald one) was walking down a hallway when suddenly the back of his jacket collar crinkled up, and he leaned backward as though he had been grabbed by the collar. "Something grabbed onto my jacket," he claimed. This happened twice more.

There are a number of YouTube entries analyzing it. You can find some links in the top post. Some of my favorite analyses are from a user named FORMERGHFAN:

The video with annotations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlM-Uy8ODYQ&feature=related)
Grant's collar, stabilized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xJdYBVCXQ&feature=related)
3D model (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_HwoTKafY&feature=related)


And, of course, we discuss it over at Skeptical Viewer (http://www.skepticalviewer.com).

[stephenenelson]

But...but...ORBS!

Explain THAT, Mr. observes evidence man!

You have me there. I have no explanation of why someone would think that random specks in their handheld camera photos would be ghosts.

[Learjet]

The jacket string pull is the one that turned me skeptical about TAPS and even more suspicious of anything that happens around Grant. Funnily enough, he's always around when stuff happens.

I just watch the show now to see the monkey business.

[Rramjet]

When Joe Nickell or some other credible paranormal investigator comes up with something, I will sit up and take notice...
Sorry if this backtracks a little but when someone cites Joe Nickel as a “credible paranormal investigator” I can only shake my head in awe at the blind faith of a belief system that could have produced such a statement.

I simply think people should be made aware that there are actually investigators out there conducting applied science in the realm of paranormal investigation (eg: http://www.spinvestigations.org/research.html) - (as opposed the opinionated pseudoscience spouted by Nickell or the TV-land trickery of TAPS).

[Resume]

Sorry if this backtracks a little but when someone cites Joe Nickel as a “credible paranormal investigator” I can only shake my head in awe at the blind faith of a belief system that could have produced such a statement.

I simply think people should be made aware that there are actually investigators out there conducting applied science in the realm of paranormal investigation (eg: http://www.spinvestigations.org/research.html) - (as opposed the opinionated pseudoscience spouted by Nickell or the TV-land trickery of TAPS).

Nice link. I especially like their "definition" of a ghost; hardly makes any assumptions at all, other than being all supposition.

[Cainkane1]

This shows going from bad to worse. These days they have a box that lights up when a ghost touches it.

[Rramjet]

Nice link. I especially like their "definition" of a ghost; hardly makes any assumptions at all, other than being all supposition.

"There are many sites that attempt to define “ghost”. From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth. In other words, scientifically, there is no such thing as a ghost, by this definition. So let’s redefine what we are researching.

I propose that a “ghost” is a term applied to any non-ordinary phenomena that manifests itself in the physical dimension upon which we exist with out
appreciable physical properties, but which leave markers in the environment that can not be readily explained. I am sure we could build upon this basic definition to flesh it out more, but you get the idea. So we are charged with a mission, should we choose to accept it, of further defining this phenomena we have labeled a “Ghost”. In order to do this, we must understand everything that is going on surrounding the event. (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)

To what precise suppositions do you object?

[Resume]

"There are many sites that attempt to define “ghost”. From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth. In other words, scientifically, there is no such thing as a ghost, by this definition. So let’s redefine what we are researching.

I propose that a “ghost” is a term applied to any non-ordinary phenomena that manifests itself in the physical dimension upon which we exist with out
appreciable physical properties, but which leave markers in the environment that can not be readily explained. I am sure we could build upon this basic definition to flesh it out more, but you get the idea. So we are charged with a mission, should we choose to accept it, of further defining this phenomena we have labeled a “Ghost”. In order to do this, we must understand everything that is going on surrounding the event. (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)

To what precise suppositions do you object?

The ones in the preamble to the nonsense you quoted. Like "soul" or "spirit" or "apparition." Talk about other "planes of existence." Quoting other pararnormal nonsense from other paranormal groups as an introduction to your own nonsense is still nonsense.

[stephenenelson]

Rramjet: Basically, that definition fits any cluster of anomalies. For example, the Pioneer spacecraft is moving slightly faster than it should according to the known laws of physics. Is that extra acceleration a ghost? It's non-ordinary. It leaves markers in the environment that cannot be readily explained.

I would be less concerned about definitions if the evidence were stronger. For example, I don't really have a good definition of a smile or a river, but people can show me these things. For ghosts, all I have is a collection of interesting anecdotes and some video taken under uncontrolled conditions.

Rramjet: do you consider TAPS to be "credible paranormal investigators"? If not, what makes them not credible, and what are your criteria for credible paranormal investigation?

[Rramjet]

The ones in the preamble to the nonsense you quoted. Like "soul" or "spirit" or "apparition." Talk about other "planes of existence." Quoting other pararnormal nonsense from other paranormal groups as an introduction to your own nonsense is still nonsense.

Strange ...I could have sworn the passage I quoted contained the following statement concerning such things as you mention:

"From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth." (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)

..oh, wait...it DID contain that sentence...huh.

...and I could have sworn that the only thing of "mine" in the post you reference was a single, small question:

"To what precise suppositions do you object? "

...so according to you such a question is "nonsense"? Huh. :cool:
Perhaps you would care to actually answer the question?

Rramjet: do you consider TAPS to be "credible paranormal investigators"? If not, what makes them not credible, and what are your criteria for credible paranormal investigation?

I think the incredulity of TAPS has been well outlined in this thread so far. As for my criteria for credible paranormal investigation …well perhaps you would care to comment on the methodology of this group (http://www.spinvestigations.org/)?

[Learjet]

…well perhaps you would care to comment on the methodology of this group .........

I'm still reading through it, but I don't think the purists would like it. There's a mountain of speculation amongst the research and some of the ideas are quite bizarre, yet thought provoking.

Better than the average paranormal group anyway. I'll keep reading...

[Resume]

...so according to you such a question is "nonsense"? Huh. :cool:
Perhaps you would care to actually answer the question?[/url]

Yes, the link you provided was nonsense.

[Rramjet]

Yes, the link you provided was nonsense.
You mean this link (http://www.spinvestigations.org/)?

How so?

(I must also note that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true)

[Resume]

You mean this link (http://www.spinvestigations.org/)?

How so?

(I must also note that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true)

Then why do "ghosthunting" groups make so many of them? This group you're pimping is no different, planning to investigate "anomalies" using "fixed sensor data logging devices, or "handheld localized detection instrumentation" In other words the same old EMF meters, FLIR cameras, etc that all the other groups use to find what they call "ghosts."

Why do unsubstatiated anecdotes require any investigation at all? Why are natural explanations like hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations not sufficient for these groups? Because people like woo, or in other words, nonsense.

[Senex]

This show is a joke, yet I watched a bit as I was going though the channels the other day. What I saw was a flashlight coming on demand when they asked the spooks to put the light on demand.

It was complete bulloney and it is complete bulloney.

We should infiltrate their ghost busting crew. I'm too old (over thirty) but others here might make the cut.

[Rramjet]

Then why do "ghosthunting" groups make so many of them?
For the same general reason you do I guess…

This group you're pimping is no different…
Hardly “pimping”… I was simply responding to the unfounded assertion that there were no “ghosthunting” groups that actually apply strict scientific protocols.

…planning to investigate "anomalies" using "fixed sensor data logging devices, or "handheld localized detection instrumentation" In other words the same old EMF meters, FLIR cameras, etc that all the other groups use to find what they call "ghosts."
The difference here is that this group actually take time to scientifically explore and recognise the capabilities and limitations of the equipment they use and they specify precisely what that equipment can and cannot show them and under what circumstances such equipment can be legitimately utilised. They are critical of most “ghosthunting” groups for using inferior/misunderstood/incorrect usage equipment. So it is not (as you would have it) “the same old” equipment at all (http://www.spinvestigations.org/equipment.html). I get the impression you have not actually explored what this group does and does not do?

Why do unsubstatiated anecdotes require any investigation at all?
The true nature of scientific investigation is to explore these “unsubstantiated anecdotes” to see if they CAN be substantiated. Obviously even you have some interest in them otherwise you would not even be posting here.

Why are natural explanations like hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations not sufficient for these groups?
Simply because where it eventuates that these hypothetical mundane explanations are not plausible, then other explanations are sought. As the investigators point out, they are not looking for “ghosts” at all, they are simply working on the hypothesis that IF there is something to the “anecdotes” then it should be the case that something measurable should also be apparent.

Because people like woo, or in other words, nonsense.
People are naturally intrigued by mysteries and seek to explain them in whatever way they can – using whatever tools are available to them. You should be applauding the application of sound scientific techniques rather than the typically folklaw-ish and mystical interpretations many people and groups seem to found their assumptions and analytical and explanatory techniques on.

Obviously you are a “believer” in that you have faith that your interpretation is the only correct one (This opinion of yours is based on what research?) That is your right, but all I am saying is we should recognise and encourage sound scientific techniques when we see them, rather than try to tear them down as you seem to be doing here.

[Learjet]

I must admit, S.P.I.R.I.T.S. EMF and radio monitoring equipment (my area of interest) and technical knowledge of such is impressive.

I'd be willing to listen to any evidence they have before discarding it without even looking at it. Though the ghost boxes pdf is pretty wacky.

[Resume]

People are naturally intrigued by mysteries and seek to explain them in whatever way they can – .
And I've found that those intrigued by the mystery of "ghosts" generally spout nonsense. And I've had some experience with these "investigators" who tend to cloak their nonsense in a veneer of pseudoscience that may fool some.

The group you're pimping doesn't impress me any more that the others I've seen. That you're impressed with them is your feature.

[ShadowSot]

I liked it to start with, when a pretty fair amount of the time they found nothing.

Even when they did, a good amount of the time it was marked inconclusive, or iffy.

Went downhill fairly quickly.
Might have been a hook for skeptics.

[Rramjet]

And I've found that those intrigued by the mystery of "ghosts" generally spout nonsense.
Yes, and that is why I pointed you toward S.P.I.R.I.T. as a counterexample to that assertion (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).

And I've had some experience with these "investigators" who tend to cloak their nonsense in a veneer of pseudoscience that may fool some.
Okay, then presumably you will be well placed to point out the pseudoscience in S.P.I.R.I.T.’s analytical techniques. Merely implying that their analytical techniques contains pseudoscience does not make that assertion true. You need to support your assertions with evidence before we can take them seriously.

The group you're pimping doesn't impress me any more that the others I've seen.
Your emotive appeal and unfounded assertions here are not based on any scientific analysis of the evidence before you. How is it your demand a scientific approach from others, yet resort to unscientific practice in your own assertions?

That you're impressed with them is your feature.
I never stated I was “impressed”, I am merely pointing out that the S.P.I.R.I.T. group seems to conduct themselves in a manner consistent within the rigours of scientific enterprise. Something you contend generally does not occur in “ghosthunting” groups. If you question their scientific credentials, then you will of course be able to point out precisely where the group’s techniques do not measure up to scientific standards. Otherwise you are simply stating unfounded assertions – and the mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true.

[Frying Dutchmen]

Yes, and that is why I pointed you toward S.P.I.R.I.T. as a counterexample to that assertion (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).


Okay, then presumably you will be well placed to point out the pseudoscience in S.P.I.R.I.T.’s analytical techniques. Merely implying that their analytical techniques contains pseudoscience does not make that assertion true. You need to support your assertions with evidence before we can take them seriously.

The quote about Ghosts is pseudoscience, first they need to prove that there is other plains(sp) of existence Oh and they have a http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf


Your emotive appeal and unfounded assertions here are not based on any scientific analysis of the evidence before you. How is it your demand a scientific approach from others, yet resort to unscientific practice in your own assertions?

I'm not Resume but seriously they have the typical ghost hunting equipment. It's not a unfounded assertion if you look at their equipment and read their 'details' Also http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf

[QUOTE=Rramjet;6114808]
I never stated I was “impressed”, I am merely pointing out that the S.P.I.R.I.T. group seems to conduct themselves in a manner consistent within the rigours of scientific enterprise. Something you contend generally does not occur in “ghosthunting” groups. If you question their scientific credentials, then you will of course be able to point out precisely where the group’s techniques do not measure up to scientific standards. Otherwise you are simply stating unfounded assertions – and the mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true.

I doubt they do also http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf


Quick question why is Joe Nickell's work pseudoscience?

[catsmate1]

The quote about Ghosts is pseudoscience, first they need to prove that there is other plains(sp) of existence Oh and they have a http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf

[quote=Rramjet;6114808]
Your emotive appeal and unfounded assertions here are not based on any scientific analysis of the evidence before you. How is it your demand a scientific approach from others, yet resort to unscientific practice in your own assertions?

I'm not Resume but seriously they have the typical ghost hunting equipment. It's not a unfounded assertion if you look at their equipment and read their 'details' Also http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf



I doubt they do also http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf


Quick question why is Joe Nickell's work pseudoscience?
A wormhole detector? Oh dear :eek:

[Resume]

Yes, and that is why I pointed you toward S.P.I.R.I.T. as a counterexample to that assertion (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).
I never stated I was “impressed”, I am merely pointing out that the S.P.I.R.I.T. group seems to conduct themselves in a manner consistent within the rigours of scientific enterprise. Something you contend generally does not occur in “ghosthunting” groups.

A "ghostbox", just one of their "instruments," isn't scientific. It's nonsense.

[Frying Dutchmen]

A wormhole detector? Oh dear :eek:

Indeed, I'm sure Rramjet will defend it by saying it's "experimental".

[Rramjet]

The quote about Ghosts is pseudoscience,…
HOW is it pseudoscience? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

…first they need to prove that there is other plains(sp) of existence …
Why? Would they be related to the prairies of existence? Please define your terms here.

Oh and they have a http://www.spinvestigations.org/Expe...ion-Device.pdf
First, certain solutions to equations in general relativity predicts wormholes do exist. (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole).

Second, if wormholes exist then it might be possible for energy to pass through them.

Third, if energy passes through them, that could explain “ghosts” and other “paranormal” phenomena.

Fourth if energy passes through them, it should be detectable (measurable).

S.P.I.R.I.T. has designed equipment to test the above hypothesis (a “wormhole detector” - http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf).

I asked if you (anyone) could point to anywhere that S.P.I.R.I.T. was utilising pseudoscience. Clearly you have yet to do so.

Quick question why is Joe Nickell's work pseudoscience?
Have you ever examined an “investigation” of his with a sceptical mindset? There is no science involved, merely pseudoscientific and hypocritical, opinionated rambling. There is a reason why he makes it onto Hall of Shame lists such as (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/joe_nickell.htm) – which include a large number of UFO proponents as well, so you can hardly call them biased (eg; Sean David Morton & wife; Ray Santilli of Alien Autopsy Film fame; Philip Klass (deceased); Richard Hoagland; Art Bell; de-frocked psychologist Richard Boylan; Jim Dilettoso; skeptic Joe Nickell; Peter Gersten; Erik Beckjord; remote viewer Ed Dames; Steven Greer; Donald Schmitt; Billy Meier; actress Shirley Maclaine; Bob Lazar; Jaime Maussan; Linda Moulton Howe; Wendell Stevens; and finally, two leaders of the Raelian cult). You may consider this biased: “Joe Nickell: (CSICOPs): Considered the worst UFO debunker by Stanton Friedman.” (http://nawewtech.angelfire.com/redflags.html) – but again there is a reason why Friedman considers him the “worst”. Here for example is a taste of his pseudoscientific methodology (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/rogers.htm and here http://www.examiner.com/x-35403-Salt-Lake-City-Religion--Reason-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Professor-Jodi-Magness-refuted-A-response-to-Professor-Magness-concerning-the-tomb-of-Jesus?cid=edition-by-channel-rss-Salt_Lake_City-Religion_and_Spirituality). Another example of his pseudoscientific ramblings can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU) (the point here is not whether levitation is real – that’s a different argument - it is the nature of Nickell’s “refutation” that is the issue). I could go on, but you should be getting the idea by now…

A "ghostbox", just one of their "instruments," isn't scientific. It's nonsense.
HOW is it not scientific? WHY is it nonsense? You people seem to be very good at stating unfounded assertions as if you believe the mere stating of them makes them true. Scientific inquiry demands evidence. Until any of you can produce the evidence to back your assertions that S.P.I.R.I.T. is pseudoscientific, we are entitled to dismiss such unfounded assertions as nonsense.

[Resume]

HOW is it not scientific? WHY is it nonsense? You people seem to be very good at stating unfounded assertions as if you believe the mere stating of them makes them true. Scientific inquiry demands evidence. Until any of you can produce the evidence to back your assertions that S.P.I.R.I.T. is pseudoscientific, we are entitled to dismiss such unfounded assertions as nonsense.

A ghostbox is a radio receiving device, a frequency scanner, and in some iterations, a sending unit. It no more converses with the "other side" than Edward or Van Praagh. What people claim to be ghost voices are stray radio broadcasts, and pattern-seeking among white noise. The credulous line up for this stuff; in fact the group you're touting sells this junk on their site.

[Frying Dutchmen]

HOW is it pseudoscience? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

LOL IRONY, by merely making unfounded assertions is how Ghost hunters hunt ghosts how UFO researchers do research and how pseudoscience works!


Why? Would they be related to the prairies of existence? Please define your terms here.

What? I'm quoting the source.


First, certain solutions to equations in general relativity predicts wormholes do exist. (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole).

First, I'm out of my depth with physics but I'll show you that it's theoretical...
That the first link is dead, but it's about the universe being in the middle of a wormhole which has nothing about your case. Also the second link is from wiki which I thought was a typical UFO debunker site?


Second, if wormholes exist then it might be possible for energy to pass through them.

Second It's Theoretical and would require a lot of energy. Or you can show me how a invisible wormhole to another dimension would only show up on the worm hole detector without adversial effecting the surrounding area.


Third, if energy passes through them, that could explain “ghosts” and other “paranormal” phenomena.

First you need to prove evidence of ghosts and a hypothesis about how the exist then second you have to have a hypothesis that energy can stay around


Fourth if energy passes through them, it should be detectable (measurable).

S.P.I.R.I.T. has designed equipment to test the above hypothesis (a “wormhole detector” - http://www.spinvestigations.org/Experimental-Wormhole-Detection-Device.pdf).

And yet you haven't read the link. Talk about stating unfounded assertions! Tell me how detecting sound would equal wormhole?


I asked if you (anyone) could point to anywhere that S.P.I.R.I.T. was utilising pseudoscience. Clearly you have yet to do so.

To your standard. Your standard for something to be science is set so low that almost anything that you agree with is science.
EVPs are voices from beyond? Science!
Ghosts are real and are energy? SCIENCE!
Ghosts are what we call things we can't explain with our current scientific understanding?


Have you ever examined an “investigation” of his with a sceptical mindset? There is no science involved, merely pseudoscientific and hypocritical, opinionated rambling. There is a reason why he makes it onto Hall of Shame lists such as (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/joe_nickell.htm) – which include a large number of UFO proponents as well, so you can hardly call them biased (eg; Sean David Morton & wife; Ray Santilli of Alien Autopsy Film fame; Philip Klass (deceased); Richard Hoagland; Art Bell; de-frocked psychologist Richard Boylan; Jim Dilettoso; skeptic Joe Nickell; Peter Gersten; Erik Beckjord; remote viewer Ed Dames; Steven Greer; Donald Schmitt; Billy Meier; actress Shirley Maclaine; Bob Lazar; Jaime Maussan; Linda Moulton Howe; Wendell Stevens; and finally, two leaders of the Raelian cult). You may consider this biased: “Joe Nickell: (CSICOPs): Considered the worst UFO debunker by Stanton Friedman.” (http://nawewtech.angelfire.com/redflags.html) – but again there is a reason why Friedman considers him the “worst”. Here for example is a taste of his pseudoscientific methodology (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/rogers.htm and here http://www.examiner.com/x-35403-Salt-Lake-City-Religion--Reason-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Professor-Jodi-Magness-refuted-A-response-to-Professor-Magness-concerning-the-tomb-of-Jesus?cid=edition-by-channel-rss-Salt_Lake_City-Religion_and_Spirituality). Another example of his pseudoscientific ramblings can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU) (the point here is not whether levitation is real – that’s a different argument - it is the nature of Nickell’s “refutation” that is the issue). I could go on, but you should be getting the idea by now…

When Stan Friedman calls him the worst UFO DEBUNKER you have to sit up and take notice. LOL...

Also that Secrets Of Human Levitation, talk about confirmation biased, What's your thoughts on the other guy in the video?

I think everyone who views this thread and reads either RR's post or my reply should watch this video just to know what RR would call evidence.


HOW is it not scientific? WHY is it nonsense? You people seem to be very good at stating unfounded assertions as if you believe the mere stating of them makes them true. Scientific inquiry demands evidence. Until any of you can produce the evidence to back your assertions that S.P.I.R.I.T. is pseudoscientific, we are entitled to dismiss such unfounded assertions as nonsense.

The shear lack of information dealing with the should be a red flag that SPIRIT isn't much more then another ghost hunting group. Since you stated that they do science while TAPS and Joe Nickell do pseudoscience. I would like to draw two tv ghost hunting shows that are on the same level as SPIRIT.. that's Paranormal state and Ghost adventures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Adventures

[JoeTheJuggler]

nevermind

[Rramjet]

A ghostbox is a radio receiving device, a frequency scanner, and in some iterations, a sending unit. It no more converses with the "other side" than Edward or Van Praagh. What people claim to be ghost voices are stray radio broadcasts, and pattern-seeking among white noise. The credulous line up for this stuff; in fact the group you're touting sells this junk on their site.
This is what S.P.I.R.I.T. has to say about the “ghost boxes”.

“Perhaps the most controversial device in the paranormal field today is the “ghost Box” a device being hailed by some as a “telephone to the dead”. The device employs a randomly tuning RF receiver to pull in radio signals and supposedly the dead communicate back through it. The problem is, it is unshielded, allowing any RF signal of sufficient power to come through. With a million natural sources for the “voices” it is impossible to say what it is.

After research EVPs for many years, the evidence we have collected is very indicative of EVPs being an EMF in the audio spectrum. So, let’s assume for a minute the dead are trying to talk to us. If they talk to us via EMF, wouldn’t it make sense to talk back to them with EMF? So now all we need is an EMF transmitter, right? There are several ways to assembled an ITC device in your own home for very little monetary investment. I will showcase two such systems below.” (http://www.spinvestigations.org/The_Spirit_Box.pdf)

(I have highlighted the relevant bits here. Rr)

So, S.P.I.R.I.T. is commenting here on a device that is already being used by “ghosthunting” groups (et al.) and commenting on what other’s have used it for (as a “telephone to the dead”). It is NOT a device of their own invention. S.P.I.R.I.T. then notes that “The problem is, it is unshielded, allowing any RF signal of sufficient power to come through. With a million natural sources for the “voices” it is impossible to say what it is.” (indeed!)

S.P.I.R.I.T. has obviously investigated these devices and concludes that “After research EVPs for many years, the evidence we have collected is very indicative of EVPs being an EMF in the audio spectrum”. In other words, NO GHOSTS.

However, given the such devices exist and that people DO use them, S.P.I.R.I.T. (graciously and informatively) describes common setups that are used - from the “Budget Telephone to the dead…” to the “High tech telephone to the dead…” (and describes where such equipment can be obtained and at what price) and I assume here most people, who are not rusted on believers, would note immediately the tongue firmly planted in the cheek!

In fact S.P.I.R.I.T. does NOT sell the equipment described at all! (so I guess you are typical of the UFO debunker crowd who also fail to actually examine the evidence before commenting).

I stated:
“HOW is it pseudoscience? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

And you reply with MORE unfounded assertion?
LOL IRONY, by merely making unfounded assertions is how Ghost hunters hunt ghosts how UFO researchers do research and how pseudoscience works!
Why don’t you just answer my question? I’ll tell you what my opinion is: You cannot answer the question because you realise that S.P.I.R.I.T. actually conducts itself in a scientific manner. No pseudoscience at all!

What? I'm quoting the source.
No you’re not, you merely making unfounded assertions about the “source”. Until you can provide the direct quote in context we are entitled to assume that you are simply misrepresenting “source” (and misleading us).

First, I'm out of my depth with physics but I'll show you that it's theoretical...
That the first link is dead, but it's about the universe being in the middle of a wormhole which has nothing about your case. Also the second link is from wiki which I thought was a typical UFO debunker site?
Oh, how strange, sorry about that…this link should work (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html)

My “case” is that wormholes theoretically can exist. The whole article is based on that theory. That is why I showed it to you. To show that science takes the concept of wormholes seriously.

As for the Wiki link, I notice you don’t comment on the content – and of course it is the content that refutes your contentions here.

Second It's Theoretical and would require a lot of energy. Or you can show me how a invisible wormhole to another dimension would only show up on the worm hole detector without adversial effecting the surrounding area.
After stating that “First, I'm out of my depth with physics…” you are now an expert on wormholes (!) and can make assumptions about such things as their energy requirements and that somehow an “invisible” wormhole cannot be detected without adverse environmental effects? Can you please show me the research that leads you to make these (so far) unfounded assumptions?

I stated:
“Third, if energy passes through them, that could explain “ghosts” and other “paranormal” phenomena.”
First you need to prove evidence of ghosts and a hypothesis about how the exist then second you have to have a hypothesis that energy can stay around
In science one makes a hypothesis and then sets about testing the hypothesis by gathering evidence. The hypothesis here is that energy could be “leaking” through a wormhole, thus giving us the experience of “ghosts” (etc). The first step in testing the hypothesis is to see if energy CAN be detected. If it CAN, then hypotheses would need to be generated as to HOW such energy can provide the experience of “ghosts” (etc). If energy CANNOT be detected, then other hypotheses about our experience of “ghosts” will need to be generated. That’s the way science works.

And yet you haven't read the link. Talk about stating unfounded assertions! Tell me how detecting sound would equal wormhole?
Oh dear… the equipment is primarily set up to detect EMF sources. An audio interface is added to detect possible EVP. I think perhaps you should actually read the articles and discover what the equipment is actually used for (and what hypotheses are being tested) before commenting again?

I stated:
“I asked if you (anyone) could point to anywhere that S.P.I.R.I.T. was utilising pseudoscience. Clearly you have yet to do so.”
To your standard. Your standard for something to be science is set so low that almost anything that you agree with is science.
If you persist in making unfounded assertion I will simply reply every time that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true.

For example:
EVPs are voices from beyond? Science!
Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever about EVP?

Ghosts are real and are energy? SCIENCE!
Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever concerning the reality (or otherwise) of ghosts. I WILL state an opinion here though: I believe that it is possible that “ghosts” are misperceived energy of some form. I DO NOT believe they are the spirits of the dead.

Ghosts are what we call things we can't explain with our current scientific understanding?
Possibly… “ghosts”… UFOs”… (and other paranormal phenomenological terminology)… all terms we use to describe things we seemingly cannot understand with our current scientific methodology.

Re: Nickell
Also that Secrets Of Human Levitation, talk about confirmation biased, What's your thoughts on the other guy in the video?

I think everyone who views this thread and reads either RR's post or my reply should watch this video just to know what RR would call evidence.
Did I or did I not state:
“…the point here is not whether levitation is real – that’s a different argument - it is the nature of Nickell’s “refutation” that is the issue…”?

Wait… Yes…yes I did state that. Hmmm… “the nature of Nickell’s refutation” is the issue… perhaps you would care to actually address the issue instead of making (sigh) unfounded assertions about what I might or might not believe concerning levitation?

The shear lack of information dealing with the should be a red flag that SPIRIT isn't much more then another ghost hunting group.
So a whole website full of detailed information is, according to you, a “lack of information”? You people really are incredible (literally).

Since you stated that they do science while TAPS and Joe Nickell do pseudoscience. I would like to draw two tv ghost hunting shows that are on the same level as SPIRIT.. that's Paranormal state and Ghost adventures
Again with the unfounded assertions? Must I remind you that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true?

S.P.I.R.I.T. actually LISTS its affiliations (http://www.spinvestigations.org/affiliates.html). Just goes to show (again) how very little attention to the actual evidence the debunkers pay.

[avengingwatcher]

Okay I actually have a question to those who discount the equipment being used by "ghost hunting" organizations. What equipment, if the study were to be done discounting the physical impossibilities, would be viable equipment for the study of a coherent, apparently radio based phenomenon?

[Frying Dutchmen]

S.P.I.R.I.T. has obviously investigated these devices and concludes that “After research EVPs for many years, the evidence we have collected is very indicative of EVPs being an EMF in the audio spectrum”. In other words, NO GHOSTS.

So there are no ghosts then? Also I LOVE how you were defending the ghost box till you found out that SPIRIT wasn't using it.



I stated:
“HOW is it pseudoscience? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Because they have a wormhole detector


And you reply with MORE unfounded assertion?

kinda like how you make stuff up about me?


Why don’t you just answer my question? I’ll tell you what my opinion is: You cannot answer the question because you realise that S.P.I.R.I.T. actually conducts itself in a scientific manner. No pseudoscience at all!

Well I did but I think you are just cutting up my post and forgetting it's one post, not six or seven posts.


No you’re not, you merely making unfounded assertions about the “source”. Until you can provide the direct quote in context we are entitled to assume that you are simply misrepresenting “source” (and misleading us).

I will link it then from your posts

[I] "There are many sites that attempt to define “ghost”. From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth. In other words, scientifically, there is no such thing as a ghost, by this definition. So let’s redefine what we are researching.



Oh, how strange, sorry about that…this link should work (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html)
My “case” is that wormholes theoretically can exist. The whole article is based on that theory. That is why I showed it to you. To show that science takes the concept of wormholes seriously.

Thanks for the re linking, tho I do remember reading about this so it's still sort of fresh in my mind. It's a theory, a very cool theory that does make some sense, doesn't explain why some people see ghosts tho.


As for the Wiki link, I notice you don’t comment on the [I]content – and of course it is the content that refutes your contentions here.

I noticed you still haven't shown why wormholes can be found in haunted locations.

I'm not arguing against worm holes, which is a magical straw man you created, bravo, I'll say this about the links

There is nothing about leaking energies from other dimensions taking in form of ghostly images or haunts in those links nor methods. So why bring them up?


After stating that “First, I'm out of my depth with physics…” you are now an expert on wormholes (!) and can make assumptions about such things as their energy requirements and that somehow an “invisible” wormhole cannot be detected without adverse environmental effects? Can you please show me the research that leads you to make these (so far) unfounded assumptions?

So you're answering my question in an unfounded assumption? Worm holes are theoretical, we don't know the effect it would have on the environment, nor do we know if they really exist.


I stated:
“Third, if energy passes through them, that could explain “ghosts” and other “paranormal” phenomena.”

No.


In science one makes a hypothesis and then sets about testing the hypothesis by gathering evidence. The hypothesis here is that energy could be “leaking” through a wormhole, thus giving us the experience of “ghosts” (etc). The first step in testing the hypothesis is to see if energy CAN be detected. If it CAN, then hypotheses would need to be generated as to HOW such energy can provide the experience of “ghosts” (etc). If energy CANNOT be detected, then other hypotheses about our experience of “ghosts” will need to be generated. That’s the way science works.

No, you can pile cow dung on top of each other as much as you want it still doesn't make it right. You make a hypothesis ghosts are really energy coming from another dimension, which is another hypothesis, and the said energy is detected via a worm hole detected which is basically coils and amps.


Oh dear… the equipment is primarily set up to detect EMF sources. An audio interface is added to detect possible EVP. I think perhaps you should actually read the articles and discover what the equipment is actually used for (and what hypotheses are being tested) before commenting again?

How rude of course I read it. What are preamps then?


I stated:
“I asked if you (anyone) could point to anywhere that S.P.I.R.I.T. was utilising pseudoscience. Clearly you have yet to do so.”

If you persist in making unfounded assertion I will simply reply every time that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true.


There are no unfounded assertions here, you trying to make out that we are doing that is an unfounded assertion in it's self.


Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever about EVP?
Do you have to? You got on your box and defended the ghost box, which you still probably would be if SPIRIT didn't say they debunked it.


Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever concerning the reality (or otherwise) of ghosts. I WILL state an opinion here though: I believe that it is possible that “ghosts” are misperceived energy of some form. I DO NOT believe they are the spirits of the dead.

and yet you defend it all the same with the same zeal you defend floating derby in space.


Possibly… “ghosts”… UFOs”… (and other paranormal phenomenological terminology)… all terms we use to describe things we seemingly cannot understand with our current scientific methodology.

I disagree we have all the understanding to explain ghosts.


Re: Nickell

Did I or did I not state:
“…the point here is not whether levitation is real – that’s a different argument - it is the nature of Nickell’s “refutation” that is the issue…”?


This is a founded assumption, Skeptical explanations on tv shows are almost always cut down to short clips. Joe Nickell talks about it when he was on Monster Quest. Or Richard Sauders on "The One" Australia's search for it's top psychic, 7 hour show cut to 45 minutes.


Wait… Yes…yes I did state that. Hmmm… “the nature of Nickell’s refutation” is the issue… perhaps you would care to actually address the issue instead of making (sigh) unfounded assertions about what I might or might not believe concerning levitation?

Again with your newly made term. I was talking about the other guy in the video asking why is he the non rambling one since the last thing he said was pretty much. LET'S SAY IT'S TRUE AND THUS MAKING IT SO.


Once again talk about confirmation bias In the video we have two people Joe Nickell and mister Levitation is real because there were witness! Ah nevermind I forgot that witness' equal evidence.


So a whole website full of detailed information is, according to you, a “lack of information”? You people really are incredible (literally).

Yes, it is lacking in information such as why would the wormhole detector work and nothing about the newly discovered vortexs. Why ghosts would appear out of worm holes


Again with the unfounded assertions? Must I remind you that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true?

Yes that's right, I kinda wish that they wouldn't make those.


S.P.I.R.I.T. actually LISTS its affiliations (http://www.spinvestigations.org/affiliates.html). Just goes to show (again) how very little attention to the actual evidence the debunkers pay.

Broken record much? You said that TAPS and Joe Nickell are pseudoscienfic and then you link to a website that uses the argument from Quantum physics and theoretical science and Holofractal to explain ghosts.

[Slimething]

In science one makes a hypothesis and then sets about testing the hypothesis by gathering evidence. The hypothesis here is that energy could be “leaking” through a wormhole, thus giving us the experience of “ghosts” (etc). The first step in testing the hypothesis is to see if energy CAN be detected. If it CAN, then hypotheses would need to be generated as to HOW such energy can provide the experience of “ghosts” (etc). If energy CANNOT be detected, then other hypotheses about our experience of “ghosts” will need to be generated. That’s the way science works. (Bolding mine.)

No, sorry. That's absolutely not how science works.

First, you state that your hypothesis is that, ASSUMING wormholes exist, energy could be "leaking" through. Then, you're claiming to test that. You have not established the specificity of your testing technique, justified your procedures, established procedures to identify and control possible bias or even identified what "energy" you will test or how it will be measure. Two rudimentary concepts come to mind straightaway: accuracy and precision. Even if (and I find your belief in the propriety of using any of the various instruments to detect paranormal activity to be ridiculous) the instruments you are using are appropriate, they are not calibrated to quantify or even qualify the phenomena in question.

The very premise of using thermometers to measure changes in room temperature is laughable. There is not one iota of scientific evidence that ghosts or anything intangible causes a change in temperature. So, why is that so popular? Movies, is all I can think of. The same can be said of orbs, flashes, thumps, coat-tugging, etc.

So, please educate us on what form of energy you suspect may be leaking out of wormholes and why you believe that this type of energy would be exclusive to wormholes. Do wormholes leak a magic type of energy that is attributable to them only? Your basis here is highly suspect.

Science does NOT work by stating that something might exist and then traipsing into rooms and other spaces with any bit of expensive electronic device that looks cool on TV. I'd love to see a ghost hunter try to detect ghosts with, say, a pH meter or moist litmus paper! (It's every bit as justifiable as a FLEER!) How about UV lamps? Why not them? Maybe ghosts will change the color of a flame like metal salts do? Maybe they absorb in the UV or block x-rays! Thought of that yet?

Really, the naiveté of the ill-informed who hunt paranormal phenomena with physics instruments is itself high comedy.

[Learjet]

Okay I actually have a question to those who discount the equipment being used by "ghost hunting" organizations. What equipment, if the study were to be done discounting the physical impossibilities, would be viable equipment for the study of a coherent, apparently radio based phenomenon?

I'd go with an EMF spectrum analyzer and a radio spectrum analyzer. Spectran make a variety of handheld units, but it's possible to get base gear as well. It would also be useful to have something like an Icom IC-9500 to double check the source. Note, the IC-9500 also has a spectrum analyzer built in, though it's not optimised for speed. Lastly, having a spectrum engineer or other person skilled in the radio spectrum and use of the equipment would be prudent.

There are also hobbyists out there that take their interest very seriously. Another group are those that listen to natural Earth sounds and chase Schumann resonances at Extremely low frequencies. The equipment they use is often home built, yet extremely sensitive.

The equipment mentioned above makes a typical ghost meter like the K-II look like a very silly toy.

Personally I think the whole EMF / ghost connection is an urban legend, propagated by TV shows like Ghost Hunters where they have no idea.

[Resume]

This is what S.P.I.R.I.T. has to say about the “ghost boxes”.

[INDENT][I] “Perhaps the most controversial device in the paranormal field today is the “ghost Box” a device being hailed by some as a “telephone to the dead”

In fact S.P.I.R.I.T. does NOT sell the equipment described at all! (so I guess you are typical of the UFO debunker crowd

Yes, the group you're pimping doesn't sell these devices. They merely provide links so the credulous can purchase them. I also notice that they constantly use wiggle phrases such as "some say" or "others believe" when describing paranormal dogma as if to distance themselves when said dogma is too ridiculous.

By the way, the nonsense we're discussing isn't UFOs, but ghosts.