Ghost hunters seem so sincere. What are they seeing and hearing? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Ghost hunters seem so sincere. What are they seeing and hearing?

Cainkane1

23rd July 2007, 11:35 AM

vexed

23rd July 2007, 11:47 AM

Ghost hunters...:rolleyes:

jimbob

23rd July 2007, 12:19 PM

In some cases it is low frequency sound.

I can't recall the article, but I read an article by an engineer whose lab had a "feel" to it. One evening working late at night, he noticed odd images out of the corner of his eye, but which vanished when he looked at them.

After some experimentation, he found a LF vibration, that he guessed was of a similar frequency to his eye's resonant frequency (as a water-filled baloon, no magic vibrations. ;)

The hypothesis was that the vibrations were enough, in a dim room, to make the eye joggle and give fleeting images.

Turning off the lab-kit turned this off.

First google hit (http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/HumA2.html)

As time went on V.T. noticed one or two other odd events. There was a feeling of depression, occasionally a cold shiver, and on one occassion a colleague sitting at the desk turned to say something to V.T. thinking he was by his side. The colleague was surprised when V.T. was found to be at the other end of the room. There was a growing level of discomfort but the workers were all busy and paid it little attention. That is until V.T. was working on his own one night after everyone else had left. As he sat at the desk writing he began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. He was sweating but cold and the feeling of depression was noticeable. The cats were moving around and the groans and creaks from what was now a deserted factory were 'spooky', but there was also something else. It was as though something was in the room with V.T. There was no way into the lab without walking past the desk where V.T. was working. He looked around and even checked the gas bottles to be sure there was not a leak into the room.

The following day V.T.was entering a fencing competition and needed to cut a thread onto the tang of a spare foil blade so that he could attach the handle. He had all the tools necessary but it was so much easier to use the engineer's bench vice in the lab to hold the blade that he went in early to cut the thread. It was only a five minute job so he put the blade in the vice and went in search of a drop of oil to help things along. As he returned, the free end of the blade was frantically vibrating up and down. Combining this with his experience from the previous night he once again felt an immediate twinge of fright. However, vibrating pieces of metal were more familiar to him than apparitions so he decided to experiment. If the foil blade was being vibrated it was receiving energy which must have been varying in intensity at a rate equal to the resonant frequency of the blade. Energy of the type just described is usually referred to as sound. There was a lot of background noise but there could also be low frequency sound or infrasound which V.T. could not hear.

For the full story read the site...

ETA:

Our advice for researchers in the future is to be very wary of ghosts reported to haunt long, windy corridors!

Cainkane1

23rd July 2007, 12:26 PM

I just read that the program "Ghost Hunters" has been debunked. Too bad so sad. I knew it would happen.

Drudgewire

23rd July 2007, 12:34 PM

There's a great show called "Is It Real?" on National Geographic channel (you can often see Randi on there) and the ghost one is probably the best episode they've had. They BURY every aspect of Ghost Hunter-esque television.

Miss Whiplash

23rd July 2007, 12:40 PM

None of the gadgets the plumbers of TAPS or any other paranormal group use have ever been proven to detect shades of the departed. Using EMF meters, infrared thermometers and other hi tech gizmos is like using a rectal thermometer to bake a cake. They are using these devices for other purposes than what they are intended. The data GH collects is useless.

Miss Anthrope

23rd July 2007, 12:46 PM

Normal Dude

23rd July 2007, 01:11 PM

[QUOTE=Cainkane1;2793991]
Ghost Hunters are avid hobbyists. They seem completely sincere in their belief that they can find the shades of the departed. Exactly what are they seeing when they actually record something or are they all just fakes?
[QUOTE]

I was a "ghost hunter" for two years. Keep in mind, I was / still am a skeptic, but I wanted to see first hand how it worked and be able to know from personal experience what was going on. During that time I found nothing to change my opinion. Nothing at all.

The team was mostly sincere, from what I could see. They honestly believed in what they were doing, and they didn't make any profit nor charged for services. In fact some spent quite a lot of personal money on the outfit. It is worth mentioning that none of them had even the most elementary understanding of science, apart from what misinformation they had gleaned from all the wrong resources (Movies, paranormal books, etc). The major reason for most of them doing what they did was a need for being part of a team - a sense of belonging. A few were there to pick up on girls/guys (not joking), and a couple were just freakin crazy, like the two "psychics" we had that I had continual clashes with:
1 - At one point an investigater, at a site, called one of the psychics with his cell phone, and had her "read" the room THROUGH THE CELL PHONE.
2 - Watched the other bipolar psychic argue heatedly (yelling, cursing, insulting, etc) for a good fifteen minutes, with an empty chair.
3 - At one time the other psychic did her pre-investigation run through and reported that she could sense "cylindrical spirits running along the ceiling". When I pointed out that this was a high ceiling restaraunt and that there were large cyclindrical air ducts all over the ceiling, I was chastised for not being open minded.

As for the clients, they came in three general veins - hotel / estabilishment owners trying to increase their profits, potheads / drug addicts who were wiggin' out, and families that had internal problems and were often just looking for someone to talk to. I liked a lot of our household clients. Most were really good people, just a bit mistaken and wanting to tell someone their problems.

As far as evidence goes, the entire two years amounted to one interesting EVP and one fascinating, but not necessarily paranormal, EMF reading. That's it. The rest was orbs and psychic conversations. Every single investigation I concluded in the final report that as no evidence of a haunting. Of course many, many times the team over-ruled that that there was paranormal activity, almost always based on the psychics.

I had to leave the team after 2 years because it was obvious that with a lack of evidence they were getting nuttier. More and more reliance on the pyschics, posting nothing but "orbs" for evidence.

That's all I can think of now, time to work on my statistics project. I'll post if I can think of anything else.

Drudgewire

23rd July 2007, 01:47 PM

Alice Shortcake

23rd July 2007, 02:21 PM

The Vampire - never again will I be able to bake a cake without thinking of rectal thermometers...

Lanzy

23rd July 2007, 03:00 PM

I've been ghost hunting several times. I've also had my share of "spooky" photos, odd recordings and orbs orbs orbs. However, my team would carefully examine what happened and come up with explanations as to what could have produced the results. Then eliminate whatever the cause seemed to be and repeat the tests. All but one time, we eliminated the "odd" results. I used to post my photos and stuff online and even though I was obviously debunking things, to this day I get emails from fans thanking me for proving ghosts exist. I haven't done this for the last three years and removed all my web sites but apparently some of my work is floating around the web somewhere.

bob_dezon

23rd July 2007, 05:45 PM

I do not disagree with ghost hunting, it seems like an interesting hobby. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to support the paranormal though. It seems that many of the experiences reported are actually based psychological and enviromental phenomena rather than paranormal.

Crossbow

24th July 2007, 07:42 AM

http://tech.msn.com/news/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=5177523&GT1=10240

Ghost Hunters are avid hobbyists. They seem completely sincere in their belief that they can find the shades of the departed. Exactly what are they seeing when they actually record something or are they all just fakes?

I posted a site where it says Ghost Hunters are going high tech. Also after watching these videos of theirs I've come to the conclusion that if what we are seeing is real then the "specters" are actually alive. Perhaps using protective mimicry to scare intruders away.

I lean strongly toward fake.

Sorry, but even a person who is quite sincere, and who is very honest, and who is very hardworking, can still be wrong.

Randi has had the same experience with several thousands of dowsers over the years who were so sure that their powers were real, but yet they always failed a real test of their powers.

cj.23

24th July 2007, 07:52 AM

In some cases it is low frequency sound.

I can't recall the article, but I read an article by an engineer whose lab had a "feel" to it. One evening working late at night, he noticed odd images out of the corner of his eye, but which vanished when he looked at them.

Vic Tandy - but no highly suspect - see this thread on here where DR B and I critique the theory.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74732&highlight=infrasound

Us "ghost hunters" are not as credulous as you seem to believe! if I was not in the middle of a flood disaster I'd talk more on this, but promise i will as soon as I have drinking water sorted. Priorities!

cj x

strathmeyer

24th July 2007, 08:31 AM

Next thing you're going to tell me Don Quixote didn't actually fight dragons and that Santa Claus doesn't really exist.

Pretending doesn't make something true.

my_wan

24th July 2007, 02:05 PM

All I've ever seen was measurement of environmental variations and the researchers freaking out. It makes the whole phenomena look like this.
lW2yKlNFFuU

cj.23

24th July 2007, 02:28 PM

OK, been out carrying water for little old ladies so only just had a spare moment to address this. Luckily flood waters receding now...

I've been a "ghost hunter" or as I'd prefer to claim an academic parapsychologist specialising in spontaneous cases since 1992. I am a veteran of several hundred ghost investigations, and i must say that in that time I have five times witnessed phenomena which I can not explain -- which is in no way to claim they were not explicable -- I just did not personally find any explanation. Obviously there were dozens of occasions when I felt the witnesses in good faith thought they had experienced something, and many many cases where a perfectly simplistic explanation was forthcoming.

Since 2001 and the "Most Haunted" TV series we
have seen what was a minority hobby interest, with maybe 30 ghost groups active in the UK explode till in 2005 Ciairan O Keefe suggested to me there were in excess of 600 such groups. There has always been very limited overlap between the parapyschological community and the ghosthunters,
though that may have marginally increased in recent years, but generally the two are fairly distinct.

I'll happily answer questions or defend my involvement, and explain a little about the "sociology of ghosthunting" in my limited, UK, experience if anyone is interested at all.

cj x

Cueshark

24th July 2007, 02:33 PM

I saw Derren Brown live at the Worthing Pavillion and he was damn amazing.

This video is one that all woo subcribers should see.

Thanks.

this charming man

24th July 2007, 05:28 PM

My personal opinion is best put forth as question.

Why do people get spooked or scared at those Halloween time "haunted houses" and the like? The ones that charge admission. The answer is because they want to be.

People see, hear, or feel things because they want to, or they read and hear stories that prepare them for the ghostly incidents. The mind is very powerful, just ask someone who has tripped on acid or shrooms.

my_wan

24th July 2007, 07:15 PM

I saw Derren Brown live at the Worthing Pavillion and he was damn amazing.

This video is one that all woo subcribers should see.

Thanks.
Watching him I think we would all make more effective skeptics if we learned from him and used it in our debunking. Nothing better than having more skeptics than the wooers could count that was better at performing woo than the wooers are.

He is premiering in the US Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 10:00 PM eastern time on the scifi channel. 2 days to go. Thank you Derren! Wake up call for those that don't question their beliefs. In his Messiah special he came incognito to the US and got himself endorsed by 5 of the top woo purveyors in 5 different areas of woo. The depth of his skills are jaw dropping yet he tells how each and every skill works somewhere. I especially like the detailed video on the ch4 website that walks you through him detecting the car salesman's lies. You can learn these skills just from his teaching and a lot of study. For a better overview of his skills here is a full movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1907236763549038512

Here is the ch4 site hosting movie clips with official explainations of how he did some of his segments.
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/video/

The Messiah special are split into 5 youtube movies.
Derren Brown - Messiah (1/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4E3fk5t69s)
v4E3fk5t69s
Derren Brown - Messiah (2/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTqwzjczuvw)
CTqwzjczuvw
Derren Brown - Messiah (3/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VztoBme43Xg)
VztoBme43Xg
Derren Brown - Messiah (4/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzJpKPzdOGs)
kzJpKPzdOGs
Derren Brown - Messiah (5/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EbFfyJ0QjU)
1EbFfyJ0QjU

I think I am going to do an index with synopsis of all his videos. I've began studying him very closely for educational purposes. He is making the study of this stuff so much easier.

Minarvia

24th July 2007, 07:39 PM

Us "ghost hunters" are not as credulous as you seem to believe! if I was not in the middle of a flood disaster I'd talk more on this, but promise i will as soon as I have drinking water sorted. Priorities!

cj x

I believe that you are probably right, and that most ghost hunters are not mindlessly credulous. However, the TAPS team is full of credulous idiots who, as much as I enjoy watching them, also make me cringe. Slack-jawed Brian and "I faw down" Dustin come to mind.
And Most Haunted certainly makes the field look silly, as well. Every time they have their resident "medium" begin to blather, I am torn between cringing and laughing. Or both. :)

Quakeulf

25th July 2007, 01:30 AM

...using a rectal thermometer to bake a cake.

With science and dedication, someone is bound to show you it's possible.

cj.23

25th July 2007, 01:32 AM

Never seen TAPS, but Most Haunted (with which I was briefly associated) is appalling in many, many ways!!! :) What can you say? Only that from watching many amateur groups while working at a supposedly haunted venue, all castigated Most Haunted quite correctly for it's lack of scientific and investigative rigour - and then 9 times out of 10 proceeded to equal if not excel that uninspiring show in sheer ludicrousness. :)

The types of Ghosthunter according to CJ --

1. the Safari Group - out to "catch" a ghost on film, armed with the latest in video, camera and laptop equipment. Every "vigil" begins with several hours of wiring and setting up sensitive devices all over the shop to allow these latter day big game hunters to bag the spook. Usually succeed only in making you uncomfortable using the toilet in case you are being filmed or monitored, and while generally pleasant folks there is more technobabble than an episode of Star Trek. Always find an "anomaly" which as they are usually waving around EMF meters sensitive enough to pick up a fridge being turned off at 300m is no surprise! Unfortunately unlikely to follow their own mobile phones in their pocket around, and tend to be Very Serious Indeed, while having very little knowledge fo the literature of parapsychology. Never publish their results.

2. the Legend Trippers - usually young people, who have dared themselves to go to the spooky place, where they plan to drink alcohol, tell ghost stories, frighten each other and make out. Not all legend trippers are teenagers - some are much older, but if you want to flirt and hear a lot of screaming these are your folks. No ghosts but a good time, a bit like a fairground haunted house! They never publish their results.

3. the Pyscho-dramatists - ok, these tend to be ladies, and these groups usually revolve around one or two star performers, with several minor competing mystics, all of whom compete to tell you the story of the lost little Victorian girl who was the daughter of the wicked Squire who abused her terribly, etc, etc. Occasionally they encounter Terribly Evil Entities (TM) whose lack of corporeality has not slaked their lusts, and who have designs on the mediums person, which in many cases having seen the medium an witnessed their shrieking I would agree were unnatural lusts in any entity. A redemptive myth is played out, and the spirit "moved on" in to "the light". Bizarrely, despite my cynicism I once saw this process appear to do something useful -- not all people in this category are nuts -- however a considerable number are... They never publish their results.

4. The Enthusiastic Amateurs - always nice, people unsullied by contact with other ghost hunters and sometimes still naive enough to think that orbs are definitely paranormal, and scorn the dust hypothesis, these people have watched Most Haunted and bizarrely responded by wanting to do it themselves rather than selling their TV and emigrating. I like them a lot, because generally you can teach them a few good habits, and sell them merchandise for said dodgy TV shows, and because on the whole these are good hearted people with often great knowledge of local folklore and
history. Enthusiastic, fun folks. They never publish their results.

5. The Ghosthunting Machiavelli - this person has been in a dozen groups in the last year, all of which split off or schism-ed from each other.They have appalling relations with half the groups in the UK, and love to discuss ghost group family trees, their many enemies, and who is doing what with whom. Often they have a profitable sideline in paying events, but really they seem to mainly succeed in creating new groups and then alienating the committees of said groups. They never publish their results, which is probably just as well!

I suppose i should offer my own perspective and why I differ very slightly while having many of the failings i point out light heartedly in others. All these "types", and most groups contain a mix resulting in internal conflict, favour a method of "investigation" called the "vigil", which means pretty much sitting around all night waiting for stuff to happen. They hope to observe and interact with the phenomena first hand, and hence all the mediums/night vision cameras/EMF meters (very handy of you want to put a nail in the wall and not electrocute yourself, or see if your neighbour has turned on their washing machine, not si useful for ghosts!) and shouting "is there anybody there?" Not bloody likely with you lot kicking up a row. :)

I have of course sat through many hundred of these (being paid to do so for a long while) but my preferred method is the Inquiry Model. Briefly, arrive in daylight, and interview carefully the witnesses to previous "sightings". Record their testimony, and photograph "the scene of the crime" from many angles. Try to ascertain where the story originated, and who knew what and when about the purported phenomena. Collect interviews and evidence for as long as it takes,and perhaps attempt to reconstruct the incident. Carefully check out maps, and local histories for any useful clues, and then consult with relevant experts - often builder, plumbers, electricians, naturalists, geologists. The emphasis here is on understanding how the account arose, and on trying to find the origin and explanation for the ghost, rather than sitting around trying to see it yourself. of course if the occurrences are frequent you might well do that -- but the tragedy of Most Haunted was it suggested ghost hunting was about personal encounters with the unknown, whereas really its generally about understanding and trying to explain other peoples experiences, and then writing up what you find. I'm not sure I have put this very well, but perhaps you can follow my intent?

Anyway, not sure if that is particularly helpful, but I thought I'd try and explain and am happy to field questions if I can. That i smy personal experience, and despite my cynicism, i rather like the vast majority of ghosthunters who are lovely folks...

cj x

Jason_Roberts

25th July 2007, 07:32 PM

I’ve watched “Ghost Hunters” since their original air date on the Sci-Fi channel, and coincidently, also picked through every single episode (Seasons 1-3) a couple weeks ago just out of boredom.

Personally, I don’t believe they have ever acquired anything that could even remotely be considered “evidence” of ghosts. What makes this worse, is that after seeing these last few episodes in their new season it’s been made pretty clear to me that they are now (and probably have been) doctoring everything from their “EVPs” to their video clips.

This should never come as a surprise to anybody. Eventhough the subject of ghosts should be a big enough red flag to someone; the fact that it’s also a television program practically screams twaddle.

I found a very revealing post by CLD - If he or she doesn’t mind me mentioning - that seems to lead to some points that could evidence what they are up to:

forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2793897#post2793897 I cannot link directly until I have made 15 posts.

Decide for yourself.

(My apologies to anyone who didn't want to see this thread bumped. I felt like adding my two cents.)

my_wan

26th July 2007, 02:28 AM

Welcome Jason. Feel free to contribute. Your contribution to this thread is noted and appreciated.
Here's your link;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2793897#post2793897

cj.23

26th July 2007, 05:18 AM

HI Jason

Interesting, and pretty much the path Most Haunted took. Once the fans cotton on to something wrong they are stuffed, though some of the editing could have just been later in production, rather than by the TAPS folks? I have never seen the show so I can't comment sensibly.

On Most Haunted it was clear that as soon as OFCOM or whoever ruled they were a light entertainment show devoid of scientific merit all bets were off, and they had no reason not to cheat. IN the early days when I was involved, and you can read my contemporary posts on Bad Psychics and other sceptical forums, part of the issue in trying to work out what was going on was the number of people and organisations involved - venue people, crew/presenters, 'medium' the charming Mr Acorah, post-production (pretty much Karl actually) and Living TV. I therefore raise the possibility that some or all of these TAPS guys could be sincere?

I like to think the best of people. The truth is always the same - get out while you are successful, before you find network pressure to improve the show. :( Better walk and be poor than compromise your integrity -- but its harder than you might think, I bloody know.

cj x

Normal Dude

26th July 2007, 05:59 AM

Before I left the team, we would occasionally watch Ghost Hunters videos - as examples of what NOT to do.

CLD

26th July 2007, 09:54 AM

...some of the editing could have just been later in production, rather than by the TAPS folks? I have never seen the show so I can't comment sensibly.On Most Haunted it was clear that as soon as OFCOM or whoever ruled they were a light entertainment show devoid of scientific merit all bets were off, and they had no reason not to cheat. IN the early days when I was involved, and you can read my contemporary posts on Bad Psychics and other sceptical forums, part of the issue in trying to work out what was going on was the number of people and organisations involved - venue people, crew/presenters, 'medium' the charming Mr Acorah, post-production (pretty much Karl actually) and Living TV. I therefore raise the possibility that some or all of these TAPS guys could be sincere?

If "editing" and other deceptions are being perpetrated by a TV show staff, why do not these "sincere stars" complain? Or even mention it?

I like to think the best of people, too, except when I am reading email from Nigeria asking me to believe $7M is mine for the asking. :)

my_wan

26th July 2007, 10:09 AM

If "editing" and other deceptions are being perpetrated by a TV show staff, why do not these "sincere stars" complain? Or even mention it?

I like to think the best of people, too, except when I am reading email from Nigeria asking me to believe $7M is mine for the asking. :)

I was a bit curious about what level of knowledge was involved in those video edits myself. Obviously upper level editing would be obvious to TAPS as CLD pointed out. The actual video was produced from TAPS owned equipment and presented to management. It is at least theoretically possible SCIFI was duped by TAPS but definitely not the other way around, at least not once it aired. If SCIFI new then it was agreed by all involved. TAPS is discredited regardless.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 10:20 AM

cj.23

26th July 2007, 10:23 AM

If "editing" and other deceptions are being perpetrated by a TV show staff, why do not these "sincere stars" complain? Or even mention it?

And they do - myself, Ciairan O Keefe, Matthew Smith, Phil Whyman, Richard Wiseman, and yes Karl & Yvette have all questioned publicly and denounced different things they regarded as blatant fraud at various points connected with Most Haunted for example? These public statements are extremely well known, but I will be happy to point you to them if you like?

cj x

my_wan

26th July 2007, 10:36 AM

And they do - myself, Ciairan O Keefe, Matthew Smith, Phil Whyman, Richard Wiseman, and yes Karl & Yvette have all questioned publicly and denounced different things they regarded as blatant fraud at various points connected with Most Haunted for example? These public statements are extremely well known, but I will be happy to point you to them if you like?

cj x

I would be happy to see to see references to these disclaimers. Regardless of what I signed perpetuating a fraud at the expense of my credibility IMO would invalidate any nondisclosure agreement. I would be so adamant on this point I wouldn't even bother with talking to a lawyer first. I would restrict my disclosure to the fraud itself.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 10:46 AM

I would be happy to see to see references to these disclaimers. Regardless of what I signed perpetuating a fraud at the expense of my credibility IMO would invalidate any nondisclosure agreement. I would be so adamant on this point I wouldn't even bother with talking to a lawyer first. I would restrict my disclosure to the fraud itself.

OK, I shall point you to some. Note each deals with specific situations or people. :)

And yes, that is pretty much how it works. We tell the truth and sod the implications. To do otherwise would be to risk ones reputation

He is Ciairan on the show
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16303507&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=spooky-truth--name_page.html

Yvette on Derek
http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=235

and a look at Bad Psychic, Double Exposure, and the Skeptical Express should show you plenty more.

I rather like Derek as a person actually, but that's another story. :)
cj x

CLD

26th July 2007, 10:52 AM

Based on real life experience of paranormal programming, I can honestly say

1. NDA and contractual clauses may well prohibit non-approved statements. I was never asked to sign one, and posted critical comment throughout my employment, but most people of any importance are in my experience.

2. On MH some staff were eventually actively prohibited from posting to Bad Psychics or even the MH forum, even to justify ourselves, for "our own protection". This never applied to me and was somewhat ignored anyway

3. I have no knowledge of how the show in question is put together,
and have never even seen it, so any speculation on my point is worse than useless.

4. I will note however that some members of any group may be honest and possess integrity, and that fraud does not in any way invalidate all those members reliability. I hope not anyway, or i'm shafted. :)

cj x

I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding this explanation.

Theoretically, let's say the production company of the TV show I am appearing in is engaged in fraud and deception to make it appear as if paranormal events are routinely taking place on camera.

My response is simply shrug to shrug my shoulders and say "Sorry, I can't say anything. NDA's and legal contracts prevent it"

The above behavior seems inconsistent with someone who is"reliable", "honest" and "possessing integrity".

cj.23

26th July 2007, 11:24 AM

I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding this explanation.

Theoretically, let's say the production company of the TV show I am appearing in is engaged in fraud and deception to make it appear as if paranormal events are routinely taking place on camera.

My response is simply shrug to shrug my shoulders and say "Sorry, I can't say anything. NDA's and legal contracts prevent it"

The above behavior seems inconsistent with someone who is"reliable", "honest" and "possessing integrity".

Point 4 of my previous post was not related to points 1-3. It is entirely conceivable based on my own certain knowledge and experience for some members of the production (which might involve 20+ individuals) to not be aware of fraudulent or dodgy behaviour. I know this happens.

Points 1-3 merely demonstrate the problems for some who do possess such evidence in voicing those suspicions, in face of possible legal repercussions. You are welcome to review my entire history of posts on Bad Psychics or the Most Haunted forum (same user name) to see that internal critique and speaking out is by no means unusual, or the posts I referred to above.

Hope this clarifies?
cj x

CLD

26th July 2007, 11:37 AM

Point 4 of my previous post was not related to points 1-3. It is entirely conceivable based on my own certain knowledge and experience for some members of the production (which might involve 20+ individuals) to not be aware of fraudulent or dodgy behaviour. I know this happens.

Points 1-3 merely demonstrate the problems for some who do possess such evidence in voicing those suspicions, in face of possible legal repercussions. You are welcome to review my entire history of posts on Bad Psychics or the Most Haunted forum (same user name) to see that internal critique and speaking out is by no means unusual, or the posts I referred to above.

Hope this clarifies?
cj x

Yes, and thank you for the clarification. I submit that your example illustrates the difference between a skeptical perspective, and a credulous perspective. As a skeptic, if I were a cast member of a TV show that was regularly showcasing "unexplained" "paranormal" events, I would automatically suspect fraud and deception was taking place. ;)

cj.23

26th July 2007, 11:49 AM

Yes, and thank you for the clarification. I submit that your example illustrates the difference between a skeptical perspective, and a credulous perspective. As a skeptic, if I were a cast member of a TV show that was regularly showcasing "unexplained" "paranormal" events, I would automatically suspect fraud and deception was taking place. ;)

Well obviously we did, from the very beginning. Everyone suspected everyone of faking stuff -- and I specified on my employment that if I found any fraud I would immediately go to the papers and publicise it. They hired me nonetheless, but then I was hardly ever near the filming (see below).

In my experience i don't think I ever encountered anything on the show that struck me as remotely paranormal, but I was only on location twice. Actually not true - I saw a Snickers bar fly off a shelf, in front of Phil, myself and David Wells, and we were "back stage" and off camera. Unfortunately Phil ate the "evidence", and time did not permit any investigation of the cause as we were then hauled on shot for our bits, but it was odd! Amusingly we told Yvette who said "the viewers won't buy that" and it was never mentioned on the programme, despite being the only interesting incident in the time we were there. :) It was a live show though - it seems our "phenomena" made the mistake of threatening to disrupt the running order... :( Might have been vibration, or that the shelf was somehow wonky -- I'll try and return there and experiment one day.

That's my problem - Most Haunted never showed anything that struck me as that mysterious, or remotely "paranormal". Admittedly I have not watched many episodes, as I can't hack it.

I was researcher for episodes which made up series 4 and 5, and before that for the "Lives" (different production company). I was therefore only present in the audience (once), and present on set once when I appeared as an "expert" and was probably inadvertently as it turned out set up with an "experiment". I had no connection with the show by the time series 4 screened.

EDIT: that was also the show where I went straight on the forums after the event to explain the mysterious "hissing" sound - the team and crew reactions of amazement and fear etc were genuine, as they had no reason to realise it was us next door making tea and hot chocolate etc with the water boiler. :) Yvette actually realised it was us lot eventually - we were fairly oblivious , and say on air - "oh there are people in the tearoom". It was entirely accidental, highly comical, and shows that at time phenomena were nto staged but often just misinterpreted normal events. I must say I found Karl & Yvette who I have no reason to speak well of (being a rather disgruntled ex-employee) completely sincere and honest, and paranoid as anything them,selves about fakery by crew. I suspect everything may have changed later though...

cj x

cj x

CLD

26th July 2007, 12:41 PM

My personal observation: while someone who participates in a "paranormal" TV show can say they never saw anything remotely paranormal happen on it, it does not remove doubts about the integrity of such a show or its participants.

Most TV shows of the paranormal genre use a form of "plausible denial" to manipulate the audience:

-BOOK FALLS OFF SHELF. SPOOKY MUSIC "STING" ADDED.

-Investigator1: Did you see that???!!

-Investigator2: Interesting. It seemed to fly off the shelf. As if some unseen force was moving it. And none of our crew was near it at the time.

-SLOW MOTION REPLAY OF BOOK FALLING. MORE SPOOKY MUSIC.

-Investigator1: Well, we can't prove it was paranormal. It could have just fallen.

-Investigator2: Right, let's keep going.

-SPOOKY MUSIC.

As far as I am concerned, all such TV shows are designed to play to the gullible, and "integrity" is not a word I'd ever associate with them.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 01:04 PM

Yes, but your example is rather forced surely? Is most paranormal programming like that? I might have to watch some now. :( Anyway even the appalling stuff results in good - a whole generation of British sceptics were forged and their critical thinking developed on the Most Haunted forum.

Many are members of this forum, or run their own forums, which I am sure you are aware of. I'll give honourable mentions to Druid, Bujin, Stumpy, Blackpit, Baldrickk69, Armitage Shanks, Jon Donnis and the Bad Psychics crew and the Double Exposure team, but there are many, many more. I suspect on a cultural level MH caused a big shift towards scepticism as well.

I actually worked on a show called Ghosthunters (Discovery) years before, which I regard as far superior. The "real time" ghost hunt shows never appealed to me, though not for the reasons you give, but because they decontextualise the alleged haunt, and try and render it immediate by vigil, which I see as problematic for reasons I outlined in my "types of ghosthunter" post, as well as bringing the whole subject in to disrepute.
(Something you may personally consider impossible!)

j x

Minarvia

26th July 2007, 01:28 PM

CLD

26th July 2007, 01:36 PM

Yes, but your example is rather forced surely? Is most paranormal programming like that?

That was a rather mild example. Usually they don't even bother to suggest a "non-paranormal" possibility.

I might have to watch some now. :(

It makes money. There's a lot more on it's way.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 01:45 PM

Minarvia, if you ever come to the UK I will cheerfully show you round a few of them, and discuss the bona fide history. :)

cj x

cj.23

26th July 2007, 01:48 PM

That was a rather mild example. Usually they don't even bother to suggest a "non-paranormal" possibility.

I've not seen enough to judge but was that not the point of Matthew Smith/Louie Savva/Ciairan O Keefe etc? I thought critical comment was a crucial part of each show? I know those chaps and certainly would regard them as sensible hard headed guys.

It makes money. There's a lot more on it's way.

I don't think it does much anymore. Viewing figures are in steep decline, and the majority of such shows do not seem to last beyond their first series over here? Ghost TV was last years woo. I'm not sure what is next!

cj x

CLD

26th July 2007, 03:01 PM

I've not seen enough to judge but was that not the point of Matthew Smith/Louie Savva/Ciairan O Keefe etc? I thought critical comment was a crucial part of each show? I know those chaps and certainly would regard them as sensible hard headed guys.

The individuals you named promote themselves as "parapsychologists" and members of The Society For Psychical Research, etc. Although they may profess to be skeptical, they're not representative of scientific skepticism.

I don't think it does much anymore. Viewing figures are in steep decline, and the majority of such shows do not seem to last beyond their first series over here? Ghost TV was last years woo. I'm not sure what is next!

I was referring to the programming here in the USA, which is fairly booming.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 03:12 PM

The individuals you named promote themselves as "parapsychologists" and members of The Society For Psychical Research, etc. Although they may profess to be skeptical, they're not representative of scientific skepticism.

I strongly suggest you take this up with Louie who is a member of this forum - psp02ls- joined in March 2006. DrB is incidentally also a parapsychologist as I recall, and i'm gladly accept the title.

The people I mentioned are represented as Parapsychologists on the show sure, but all three are perfectly normal Psychology lecturers in "real life" with an interest in parapsychology. Membership of the SPR which holds no corporate opinions means absolutely nothing - many first rate scientists have been members of the SPR as I am sure you are aware, and many continue to be so. They hardly "promote" themselves as such - they publish in the peer reviewed parapsychological literature, which is as scientific as any other discourse, unless i badly misunderstand the meaning of science?

Unless you believe the paranormal is a priori impossible --I am a process sceptic -- I see no objection. Even if you did the work of Richard Wiseman, Sue Blackmore, Chris French and Ray Hyman demonstrates the value that can come from immersion in the parapsychological discourse, as does our own Ersby's critical work in that field checking Radin's apparent errors.

cj x

CLD

26th July 2007, 03:38 PM

Personally, I don't think parapsychology is much of a science. They start from the assumption that there actually is something there, often contrary to evidence. And decades without any accepted results doesn't speak well for the validity of their pursuits. In my opinion, proponents attempting to separate "good" parapsychologists from "bad" parapsychologists are ignoring these larger implications.

I think this is where we part company. But thanks for the interesting conversation.

cj.23

26th July 2007, 03:43 PM

Yes, enjoyable! Still good luck resisting the tides of woo TV, but I hope you have as many gains from the backlash as we did in the UK. :)

take care
cj x

CLD

1st August 2007, 09:29 AM

Just saw this:

Wednesday August 1, 2007: JAMES RANDI

Join us for our biggest show ever @ 6PM EST!

We will be talk to Mr. Randi about the "challenge" and finding out about some of the attempts to win the prize thus far. We will also be talking to him about Sylvia Browne and other self proclaimed "psychics", as well as a bevy of other controversial subjects. Best of all, we will ask him how he feels about TAPS and the Ghost Hunters show!

http://paranormaltruth.org/tfr/tfrhome.html

Dr B

1st August 2007, 03:24 PM

I strongly suggest you take this up with Louie who is a member of this forum - psp02ls- joined in March 2006. DrB is incidentally also a parapsychologist as I recall, and i'm gladly accept the title.

Just a small point. I am not a parapsychologist. I hold no qualifications in parapsychology, have never worked in a parapsychology department and hold no aspirations in that direction.

I am a mainstream cognitive neuroscientist with qualifications, training and experience in the fields of, Cognitive Psychology / Cognitive Science / Neuropsychology / Neurophysiology / some cellular biology / and brain-imaging techniques.

As an 'applied' interest I do look at - what i call - instances of anomalous cognition - but this is from the perspective of brain science - not parapsychology. I try to build scientific models for strange experience that make (hopefully) scientific sense (can be tested, examined, extended, refuted, explain findings / makes predictions)

Neither my methods nor my interpretations could be described as representative of parapsychology.

It's just a small point, for clarity, but an important factual one.;)

laalaa41

1st August 2007, 03:39 PM

Miss Whiplash

1st August 2007, 05:19 PM

CLD

1st August 2007, 05:33 PM

You aught to give the show it's own thread. Buried here, no one will see it.

It doesn't deserve its own thread. It was a scam.

I listened to their podcast (thank god for the FF button). TAPS FAMILY RADIO ("Bringing unity to the paranormal community") spent 25 minutes asking Randi about his background, how he got into magic, how he exposed Geller, how The Challenge attracts kooks, and how Sylvia dodged the Challenge. They conspicuously steered clear of asking Randi his views about "ghost hunting", TAPS, Ghost Hunters TV show, etc.

laalaa41

2nd August 2007, 11:54 PM

Do debunkers routinely claim that folks who claim to have a gift are all either a) fakers or b) seriously deluded? Is there any room for a third category?

Dr B

3rd August 2007, 03:06 AM

Yes - honestly mistaken (but mistaken nontheless) ;)

JoeEllison

3rd August 2007, 04:25 AM

Do debunkers routinely claim that folks who claim to have a gift are all either a) fakers or b) seriously deluded? Is there any room for a third category?

You say "seriously deluded" like it is some sort of insult!:p

The reality is that it only takes deep desire, wishful thinking and just a little bit of denial to create this sort of "delusion". It doesn't mean that they are fakers, or that they are bad people, or that they're insane. They are just wrong, and stubborn in the way they cling to being wrong in the face of the evidence.

cj.23

3rd August 2007, 04:46 AM

Just a small point. I am not a parapsychologist. I hold no qualifications in parapsychology, have never worked in a parapsychology department and hold no aspirations in that direction.

(snip)

It's just a small point, for clarity, but an important factual one.;)

You do however have an extensive publication record in the peer reviewed parapschological literature, and a very respectable one at that,
which was the criteria I was using - involvement in the discourse.
I don't think many folks actually took degrees in "parapsychology", I certainly didn't!

cj x

Big Les

3rd August 2007, 05:04 AM

I'm "new blood" apparently - with no bona fide qualifications to compare to you guys but a life-long interest in complimentary "issues". Psychology, sociology, philosophy. Complimentary to my love of all things "woo" - purely as entertainment - amongst all the other stuff that makes my cookie crumble. What's wrong with woo unless it takes over your life? I try not to miss an episode of Most Haunted - since it started. I think Derek Acorah was once an amazing psychic but I think he got carried away with the fame thing which diluted his ability considerably. I've had some experiences myself which Ive analysed ad nauseum. Ive seen bad and gifted psychics at work - but Ill go have a wander over to that forum to see what's occuring there. Of all the so-called ghost-hunting programmes, videos on YouTube etc that Ive seen, amongst the dross and obvious set-ups; I've seen things that are not so easy to explain away too cj.23. I want to be a parapsychologist when I grow up - Im 50 btw.

What's wrong with it depends upon how much stock you place in reality. If you're investing any amount of time and effort in it, and there's no reason at all to believe it's real, then you're wasting both your own time and that of others, as well as contributing to the prevalence of credulity, magical thinking and lack of critical thought that does individuals and society at large a disservice (in my view).

If you want to live in a fantasy world, I can't say I blame you, but it's arguably a healthier way to go about it to have an awareness of just how likely it is that you're peeing in the wind. CJ 23 and people like Wiseman seem to have that awareness but choose to pursue their interests regardless, perhaps more for what belief in such things can tell us about how our minds work, as well as looking into what might actually prompt a given "paranormal" experience (infrasound etc). That side of it, given a critical approach, is absolutely fair enough in my book. Fannying around in the dark on the other hand, scaring each other and allowing wishful thinking to twist what your senses are picking up into ghosts and psychic experiences is less so. But still nothing to get too agitated about as long as said fanniers are not misrepresenting this as evidence of other realms. Unfortunately because many have firm beliefs guiding their methodology, that's exactly what they do. And that's where your average sceptic draws the line - specific claims which have serious consequences if true, for which we demand adequate evidence.

Dr B

3rd August 2007, 05:11 AM

You do however have an extensive publication record in the peer reviewed parapschological literature, and a very respectable one at that,
which was the criteria I was using - involvement in the discourse.

Then your criteria are flawed and you should revise them for clarity.

I don't think many folks actually took degrees in "parapsychology", I certainly didn't!
cj x

They did and they do.

99% of my funding and publications are mainstream on cognition and consciousness and have little to do with parapsychology. My interest in parapsychology is an 'applied' interest from a mainstream cognitive neuroscientist.

My approach is similar, in essence, to that of Richard Bentall (who is a clinical psychologist in the UK - and one I rate highly). he has applied some of his ideas on hallucinations / delusions to the paranormal - but that in no way makes him a parapsychologist.

As I said before - its only a small point and I dont want to de-rail the thread - but some statements above were slightly factually incorrect. ;)

bujin

4th August 2007, 06:07 AM

Many are members of this forum, or run their own forums, which I am sure you are aware of. I'll give honourable mentions to Druid, Bujin, Stumpy, Blackpit, Baldrickk69, Armitage Shanks, Jon Donnis and the Bad Psychics crew and the Double Exposure team, but there are many, many more. I suspect on a cultural level MH caused a big shift towards scepticism as well.

Woohoo! I get an honourable mention before I even join the forum! :D

I was a member of a paranormal investigation group based in North Wales between July 2003 and June 2005 (when the group closed down). As a group, we were certainly nothing like Most Haunted or many other groups we had contact with who seemed to find ghosts coming out of the woodwork everywhere they went. I have experience of around 50 investigations at various locations around the country and on only one of those did we have anything happen that remains unexplained - and that's only if the one person was really right about where she put the piece of paper, or that no-one else moved it without our knowledge!

There have been the odd other unexplainable phenomena that have occurred over the past few years not associated with NWPR investigations, but I remain highly sceptical.

As for our methods, I suppose the closest thing to CJ's descriptions would be the "safari" one. We tried to catch things on film, but not just by wandering around with a video camera, and interpreting every little fuzzy artifact on the film as a ghost, as I've seen from many of the YouTube clips.

We would find out which room at the location had reports of the most activity, then cram it with as much equipment as possible. We always used at least two video cameras which (a) were time synchronised, (b) covered as much as the room as possible, including any entrances to the room, and (c) covered each other, to try to rule out any tampering at record-time. We'd also have one or two audio-recording devices in the room, IR beam sensors across entrances and motion sensors within the room.

Unfortunately, the only unexplained thing that I half-mentioned above occurred before our group had access to enough equipment to follow these protocols! (In fact, our protocols were set up as a result of that experience!)

So, needless to say, we obtained nothing of any note in any of our investigations. And we weren't afraid to say so. As far as I remember, the only time anything like a "light anomaly" got into any of our reports was when the media got involved - they wanted results, and those were the only things we ever got! We did always try to point out the real explanation for them, but knowing the media, they didn't always quote that bit... Sometimes, they made our group look like a complete bunch of gimps, and much discussion ensued in our meetings about how to handle the media in future!

TAPS Brent

7th August 2007, 12:25 PM

It doesn't deserve its own thread. It was a scam.

I listened to their podcast (thank god for the FF button). TAPS FAMILY RADIO ("Bringing unity to the paranormal community") spent 25 minutes asking Randi about his background, how he got into magic, how he exposed Geller, how The Challenge attracts kooks, and how Sylvia dodged the Challenge. They conspicuously steered clear of asking Randi his views about "ghost hunting", TAPS, Ghost Hunters TV show, etc.

CLD,

If you listened, you would have noted that Mr. Randi needed to go on his own behalf. We planned on having him on for a full hour, for a barrage of friendly questions regarding the specifics of paranormal research. We could not change the fact that his schedule didn't permit this. There is no ridiculous "scam" in which you so unkindly suggest.

Mr. Randi enjoyed his time on our show and we are still in contact with him and his staff regarding future visits. In fact, HIS staff recently approached one of our other shows about bringing him on to be a guest. Its all friendly on our end. Until one visits a message board. What may I ask do you find scandalous about his appearance on our show?

Brent Fair
The Atlantic Paranormal Society
TAPS Family Radio

CLD

7th August 2007, 02:16 PM

This can't be the first time you've heard the word "scam" associated with "ghost hunting".

TAPS Brent

7th August 2007, 03:31 PM

This can't be the first time you've heard the word "scam" associated with "ghost hunting".

Oh absolutely not. Who would ever deny THAT?
However it still doesn't answer my question. You called him being on my show a "scam". I'm not here to debate "ghost hunting" either. Lord knows I'm not dumb enough to come onto a JREF forum and do that. I'm just here to figure out why you would label a friendly effort to have Mr. Randi on our show, a "scam".

It would be really cool if you could explain yourself. If not. I will simply drop it and go away. No biggie.

CLD

7th August 2007, 03:44 PM

You called him being on my show a "scam".

Wrong. I characterized the failure of the show to reflect its heavily promoted premise ("Best of all -- we ask him what he thinks of Ghost Hunters and TAPS!") a scam. I don't see the problem here. In your business you should be used to hearing the word "scam" by now.

TAPS Brent

7th August 2007, 04:18 PM

Wrong. I characterized the failure of the show to reflect its heavily promoted premise ("Best of all -- we ask him what he thinks of Ghost Hunters and TAPS!") a scam. I don't see the problem here. In your business you should be used to hearing the word "scam" by now.

Hilarious. We did ask him JUST before HE told us that he had to go. We were just beginning that line of questioning for Mr. Randi. Perhaps you should listen to it again. You keep forgetting that he left on his own, before we could get into the nuts and bolts of things that we promoted for the show. To call it a "scam" is absurd. However, I can understand coming from someone who knows NOTHING about anything that went on. Furthermore, I don't hear anyone else complaining or supporting your statement / label. There was nothing "scamming" about it. Your just disappointed because you didn't get to hear what YOU wanted to hear, which AGAIN, was beyond our control.

**Edit: Mr. Randi did comment on Ghost Hunters and critiqued it due to the fact that everyone does NOT see everything pre edit.

Miss Whiplash

7th August 2007, 05:52 PM

Hilarious. We did ask him JUST before HE told us that he had to go. We were just beginning that line of questioning for Mr. Randi. Perhaps you should listen to it again. You keep forgetting that he left on his own, before we could get into the nuts and bolts of things that we promoted for the show. To call it a "scam" is absurd. However, I can understand coming from someone who knows NOTHING about anything that went on. Furthermore, I don't hear anyone else complaining or supporting your statement / label. There was nothing "scamming" about it. Your just disappointed because you didn't get to hear what YOU wanted to hear, which AGAIN, was beyond our control.

**Edit: Mr. Randi did comment on Ghost Hunters and critiqued it due to the fact that everyone does NOT see everything pre edit.

Do you care to elaborate a bit more without the bold text?

TAPS Brent

7th August 2007, 06:46 PM

Do you care to elaborate a bit more without the bold text?

Unless that violates the TOS here, I will post in bold. I was thinking that it didn't go against the grain of message board etiquette either. I like posting in bold but if its not allowed. I will go away kindly.

And elaborate on what?

Miss Whiplash

7th August 2007, 07:51 PM

Elaborate on a few points and clarify:

1) What did we miss because of editing? What advice did Randi give to TAPS on your methods?

2) What protocols are you using in your investigations now?

Flashy posting styles are not a violation of the TOS, but rather useless when presenting an argument. It was like David Farrant's ramblings in blue text. It never accomplished anything.

JoeEllison

7th August 2007, 08:03 PM

Unless that violates the TOS here, I will post in bold. I was thinking that it didn't go against the grain of message board etiquette either. I like posting in bold but if its not allowed. I will go away kindly.

Are you saying that if posting in bold is not allowed, you will stop posting?

CLD

7th August 2007, 09:47 PM

TAPS Brent

8th August 2007, 09:31 PM

Hey TAPS Brent, I apologize for judging your show to be a "scam" so quickly. I need more information here. What do you feel that TAPS and Randi have in common, and on what issues do you differ? And what protocols are you using in your investigations now?

CLD, I certainly appreciate the apology and its accepted gratefully.
The information you seek, I cannot provide however. I am not on the investigative end of the organization. I am the Manager of the TAPS Family and the General Manager of the TAPS Family Radio show. I can answer any questions pertaining to the show or the structure / inner workings of the TAPS Family. I just cannot provide details of the protocols used by TAPS investigators because I am not involved in that process. I hope you understand. :)

Do you have any questions about the show? Or the TAPS Family?
I'd be more than happy to answer them... (am even leaving the annoying bold text off of here lol)

and CLD, again, I appreciate the apology sir.

TAPS Brent

8th August 2007, 09:37 PM

Elaborate on a few points and clarify:

1) What did we miss because of editing?

You would have to ask James Randi that. He made the point and mentioned it. I was merely using that as an example in this forum.

What advice did Randi give to TAPS on your methods?

He made no comments about the specifics about TAPS methods. He had to go right after that line of questioning began.

2) What protocols are you using in your investigations now?

As I stated kindly to CLD, I'm not involved in that end of TAPS.

CLD

8th August 2007, 11:09 PM

You would have to ask James Randi that. He made the point and mentioned it. I was merely using that as an example in this forum..

What did Randi say was edited: The Ghost Hunters TV show or your podcast?

He made no comments about the specifics about TAPS methods. He had to go right after that line of questioning began.

When you asked him what he thought of Ghost Hunters, Randi suddenly said he had to leave?

I can answer any questions pertaining to the show or the structure / inner workings of the TAPS Family.

On the TV Show, I assume they portray investigations. What protocols are they using on the TV show?

Skeptic Guy

9th August 2007, 03:47 PM

CLD, I certainly appreciate the apology and its accepted gratefully.
The information you seek, I cannot provide however. I am not on the investigative end of the organization. I am the Manager of the TAPS Family and the General Manager of the TAPS Family Radio show. I can answer any questions pertaining to the show or the structure / inner workings of the TAPS Family. I just cannot provide details of the protocols used by TAPS investigators because I am not involved in that process. I hope you understand. :)

Do you have any questions about the show? Or the TAPS Family?
I'd be more than happy to answer them... (am even leaving the annoying bold text off of here lol)

and CLD, again, I appreciate the apology sir.

TAPS Brent, would it be possible to get someone from the TAPS group that is responsible for setting protocols for the investigations to post here? I think it would be very interesting and instructive to know more.

TAPS Brent

9th August 2007, 04:31 PM

What did Randi say was edited: The Ghost Hunters TV show or your podcast?

Neither and we can't edit our podcasts BTW (BlogTalk hosted). Listen to the radio show at 33:40. He says, "In order to asses the value of that show, you have to see everything that goes on and what sort of preparations would have been made." You can hear this by dDLing the show again. And I'm not 100% sure he was talking about Ghost Hunters either because he mentions something about psychics helping out the police, just prior (same sentence).

When you asked him what he thought of Ghost Hunters, Randi suddenly said he had to leave?

I don't think he left because of that. He stated that he had another interview that he needed to do from home and that he only had a couple more minutes. Also, when we mentioned it, we included the name Ghost Hunters but made it about all paranormal shows in General.

On the TV Show, I assume they portray investigations. What protocols are they using on the TV show?

Again, I don't have anything to do with the show or the investigative aspects of the organization. I can really only elaborate about the structure of the radio show and the TAPS Family.

TAPS Brent

9th August 2007, 04:33 PM

TAPS Brent, would it be possible to get someone from the TAPS group that is responsible for setting protocols for the investigations to post here? I think it would be very interesting and instructive to know more.

Skeptic Guy, hello. Thats not something I can expedite. I am here on my own accord to answer questions about the radio show and TAPS Family only.

Miss Whiplash

9th August 2007, 04:51 PM

Skeptic Guy, hello. Thats not something I can expedite. I am here on my own accord to answer questions about the radio show and TAPS Family only.

Fair enough. Can you discuss what protocols are used in your own TAPS family investigations? If I recall correctly you are part of the paranormal group in Ohio. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Skeptic Guy

9th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Skeptic Guy, hello. Thats not something I can expedite. I am here on my own accord to answer questions about the radio show and TAPS Family only.

Hello, back at ya. Wouldn't hurt to ask though?

Or as Vampire suggests, maybe there is some insight you could provide as far as TAPS Family is concerned?

TAPS Brent

9th August 2007, 09:00 PM

Fair enough. Can you discuss what protocols are used in your own TAPS family investigations? If I recall correctly you are part of the paranormal group in Ohio. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

No corrections. You are correct. However, as I stated, I'm here to answer questions about TAPS Family structure and the radio show. I didn't come here to discuss protocol, yet this is like the 4th request for it (except this time from my own group). I have the distinct feeling that I am being baited to see if I will dodge the question. I am assuming that I am correct. Assuming...

Just know, when I refuse to talk about protocol, it is ONLY because I stated that I was here for specific purposes, which (one more time) is not protocol.

Any questions about the radio show OR TAPS Family structure? Or should I just excuse myself from this forum? It matters not to me because I feel the air is clear about the Randi promo being a scam. CLD apologized and we seemed to have that under the bridge. That was the original reason I came here. I stuck around to answer questions about the radio show and the TAPS Family structure. If there are no questions or comments about those things, I shall not post anymore.

Miss Whiplash

9th August 2007, 09:44 PM

No corrections. You are correct. However, as I stated, I'm here to answer questions about TAPS Family structure and the radio show. I didn't come here to discuss protocol, yet this is like the 4th request for it (except this time from my own group). I have the distinct feeling that I am being baited to see if I will dodge the question. I am assuming that I am correct. <snip>

No one is baiting you. We are simply asking questions. Please enlighten us, then, about the TAPS Family structure. What exactly is this? Is this another office of TAPS? You have mentioned it several times, but I'm not clear on the definition.

I accept you are not dodging questions. As you are not here to discuss protocols and that interests many of us, to whom may we address these questions? Is there someone in the TAPS Family who fields inquires? If so, will you send that person this way?

Please understand this is not baiting. We are the JREF. We only seek to understand and all discussions will be civil. This is not an the Spanish Inquisition.

Beausoleil

10th August 2007, 03:38 AM

CLD

10th August 2007, 11:40 AM

TAPS Brent: do come back here and let us know when Randi is again scheduled on your podcast. Since I don't think Randi has ever even seen the TAPS TV show "Ghost Hunters" (as evidenced by his comments about 'psychics') I will make sure he receives a link to a sample episode of it for review.

Skeptic Guy

10th August 2007, 03:56 PM

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of the hardened skeptic sitting watching Most Haunted, feeling superior to the vast heard of credulous people lapping it all up.

I think that most people who watch MH either do so in the same way that they might go on a ghost train at a funfair (for titillation), or view it as a sort of situation comedy or soap opera (my wife and I used to have bets about what absurd behaviour Mr Acorah would exhibit next - I remember the onset of possessions, then there was the table tipping epidemic) - or watch it for the easy victories it accords skeptics. It's entertainment - that's what tv provides. If you don't find it entertaining, don't watch it.

I think the correspondent who thought it had fostered a new generation of skeptics more than a new genearation of spiritualists probably hit the nail on the head.

I don't know. Have you gone to the TAPS forum? It seems to attract a lot of people who think that the show is "real". Many people, when they see something on TV, think it is real. There is another thread where we are having a discussion on psychics and their ability to solve crimes. There is a person posting on this thread that thinks that the show "Psychic Detectives" is valid evidence that pychics routinely solve crimes.

I believe the same can be said of these ghost hunting "reality shows".

Miss Whiplash

10th August 2007, 04:33 PM

I don't know. Have you gone to the TAPS forum? It seems to attract a lot of people who think that the show is "real". Many people, when they see something on TV, think it is real. There is another thread where we are having a discussion on psychics and their ability to solve crimes. There is a person posting on this thread that thinks that the show "Psychic Detectives" is valid evidence that pychics routinely solve crimes.

I believe the same can be said of these ghost hunting "reality shows".

So true Skeptic Guy. It's been about a year since the infamous, "Is My Autistic Child Possessed By Demons?" topic popped up on the TAPS forums. There was not a whole lot of reason in that post or the equally deluded posts that followed.

If TAPS Brent has left, again I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a clarification on this TAPS Family topic. I've been asking the question for a year now to various ghost clubs sporting the "TAPS Family" badge and have still not been given any info. I've always been met with the immediate "us vs. them" line of thinking from the pro-TAPS people anytime I ask any question. I was hoping for a change.

Skeptic Guy

13th August 2007, 08:46 PM

Yes, it has become rather silent here. It is disappointing. I was hoping for a serious discussion on ghost hunting methodology. It was hard doing so on the TAPS forum.

Minarvia

14th August 2007, 07:18 AM

Yes, it has become rather silent here. It is disappointing. I was hoping for a serious discussion on ghost hunting methodology. It was hard doing so on the TAPS forum.

So was I. Especially so since I listen to the "Dead Science" podcast and the host has taken to hanging around with local "ghost hunters" and is even going on investigations with them. I would really like to know the methodology and the reasons why the methodology is supposed to be effective. TAPS Brent perhaps could have shed some light on this.

cj.23

14th August 2007, 07:42 AM

Miss Whiplash

14th August 2007, 08:18 AM

I'm completely up for a discussion, but posted rather extensively in the first couple of pages. If you have issue or questions about anything I wrote I'll cheerfully discuss it. And it's good to see bujin here! :)

cj x

My question is protocols for investigations. Looking at a plethora ghost hunting websites, their protocols range from the pretty pedestrian ( don't do drugs, no horseplay) to the incredible (don't emit negative energy, don't challenge spirits).

Cj, when you go on an investigation, what protocols do you use? If you've stated that before would you give just a brief recap or link?

I do have to remind myself not to make sweeping statements and lump all ghost hunters in the same category as TAPS and MH. Both Joe Nickell and Benjamin Radford investigate supposed hauntings. They do not investigate to simply disprove the paranormal. They investigate to collect evidence and base conclusions on the evidence.

cj.23

14th August 2007, 08:55 AM

Ah! Well I think I have a rather heretical attitude to protocols. I have two main approaches

The night I first met the Most Haunted bunch I was sitting drinking coffee in a pub with Andy, and was was musing as follows... to establish a reputation as "haunted", a building only really needs say three "paranormal experiences" in a fifty year period. Once three people have claimed to have seen something, the reputation might well be expected to endure and enter local legend.

So 365 times 50 = 18,250 divided by 3 = 6083.
So as I remarked to Yvette, if there was an honest to goodness chain rattling spook in a building, the chance of a "sighting" struck me as 6083 to 1 against. :) Of course I was just bring playful, but...

I have never had a great deal of enthusiasm for sitting up all night trying to see spooks, straining every nerve to see something. It strikes me as a rather strange idea: I will just interpret every single thing i see as being somehow "ghostly", no matte how careful I am. Every creak is potentially a spook - whereas normally I would just ignore it as the building settling.

I therefore long ago decided that the "vigil" was a very flawed method. If i am dealing with a supposedly active poltergeist, amybe - but my normal method --

Seeing the beastie is not where it is at. I start not by looking for the ghost, but by examining carefully the witness statements. What did they see? Where where they? Can I replicate it? I try to map where everyone was, and think through all possible explanations. I carefully and independently interview each witness, an usually use a sheep/goat test to give me a handle on their personal belief structures, and ask for a completely "off record" discussion of their relationships, issues and current situation. Until I understand the witnesses, i can not hope to gain much insight in to the "phenomena"

Then I go about a series of careful recreations, a filmed walk through with the original witnesses, a "re-enactment". Does it actually match up with what they said happened? Further questions invariably arise. If possible I try to do this at the same time as the original incident, in conditions as close as i can manage.

Then I hit the local records -- all too often Most Haunted etc decontextualise the events, for dramatic flare. Has the building underground water courses nearby? Are there any any obvious environmental features? What was the weather on the occasion of the sighting? Are there any earlier accounts?

I talk to absolutely everyone i can, and pay as much attention to those who rubbish it as those who believe. They may have good reason!

One example I often give involved a grey lady who walked down a stair case. The actual grey lady was caused by a fire - wjhen the owner lit the fire, a puff of wood smoke went up the chimney, and was drawn through a hole in a blocked off chimney just above. The heat then drew it back down the stairs. It's hard to explain, but the effect was excellent - unless oyu noticed the grey mass descending smelt of woodsmoke. We recreated it and filmed it.

Another classic one often gets, often in September October here is "I have footsteps every night upstairs at the same time." Yes, you have just put your central heating back on, and the building is drying out! Reset the heating, and the ghost moves, as the joists expand or contract and the floor boards settle.

Of course the most common reason mistake ghosthunters make is something like this

*objects move
* a misty figure was seen
* a door opens and closes
* strange banging is heard
* there are odd smells
* people feel strangely uneasy.

Now that sounds like a ghost - if you add it all together. Yet in fact normally these events are all unconnected - each has its own quite rational cause, which we might hope to identify. The only connection is in the minds of the "haunted" who have built up a misleading picture from the utterly unrelated and mundane "symptoms".

I'm not sure that makes any sense, but hey, feel free to ask!

So in short - I think vigils are deeply flawed, and i would much rather concentrate on the experiences which have led to the story of the haunt, rather than sit around waiting fr ye olde spook to manifest itself. It's not very exciting to many I'm sure, but it means one can work mainly in daylight, and at least get a real feel for the property and people.

Maybe I'm just a really crap ghosthunter!

My second experimental methodology I have posted elsewhere on here before i think, so I'll just paste it here as it is possibly worth critiquing! It involves using "psychics", and I recently tried it again at a haunted UK castle -- with almost totally negative results - though there was one interesting feature...

"The idea was first developed by NY parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler, in her paper on Quantative Assessment of A Haunted House. I don't have the paper or the reference to hand, but the proposed protocol has been developed quite a bit since then, though to almost universal disinterest. A few UK groups I have been involved with have tried it, with varying levels of success, but surprisingly positive results... Note positive here means a high degree of agreement between the "psychics" and the witnesses - but that in itself tells us nothing about the nature of the "phenomena" -- I'll get back to that shortly...

Here is my current version thereof. I still refer to it as the Schmeidler Protocol, as it is clearly based entirely on that, and because The Schmeidler Protocol sounds like it should be a cool 70's thriller or a Quatermass episode. Feel free to critique my methodology --

Now firstly, you are going to need an experimental team. Let us assume you are the Investigation Coordinator. Firstly, locate your haunted property. Interview your witnesses - being careful not to ask leading questions - and get the main facts. A case with multiple witnesses and visual apparitions, preferably where the witnesses have not conferred is ideal. However any multiple attested ghost case where you can record primary accounts from the people concerned is cool. Obviously one with no published history, where events are currently occurring, but are known to very few people works well.

Secondly you need to have a set of good clear accurate maps. These are issued to your psychics or their "buddy" (see next).

Now, take your "witness testimony", and select words relevant to the phenomena for each account. Just a list of words which constitute a hit. How improbable that hit is is really really problematic to work out - word frequency tables won't work in my opinion, because the nature of the ghost narrative predisposes certain words more than in normal usage, and ghost books are edited and hence not reliable as a source. Also some words simply go together in conceptual blocs - young, pretty, talented, sexy, actress, singer. Cliches! Cliches bugger up your probabilities no end. Still you need to know what constitutes a "hit" for the Word Challenge! ( I might not be a rich and famous ghosthunter, but I might have made it as a gameshow host...) Also get your witnesses to draw on your map exactly where they saw things. Take measurements if need be. Then produce a composite master map, showing all witness reports.

OK, next up - find your psychics. I'd personally try and get them from 30 miles or more away (I'd also drive them to the location hooded, blindfolded under the hood, wearing head phones and playing loud music by a very circular route, just in case. In the past this has provoked severe motion sickness, but has not actually resulted in me being sued or arrested - to date.) Many psychics might prefer you just don't tell them where they are going till the day, and some properties location or function is obvious once inside and the blindfolds taken off anyway.

Now you need five psychics, and 5 buddys - fellow investigators, with no knowledge of the building,and who are kept apart from each other, and have never met the witnesses. The buddys should each have a VCR and record all testimony. They should hand the map to the psychic.

Now the psychics and buddy are sent in, independently, to the empty building. Each records on their map where and what they are experiencing, marking exact locations if possible. I usually use small squares which can be filled in. Record all the walk through.

Thank your psychics. Give them a filmed ten minute debrief after they left the building, asking of extra impressions etc. Make it clear they have everything they want to say recorded, and have no" I was going to says". When they have agreed that on tape, end the interview and film.

Now this is pretty hard work. Why five people to walk the psychic round? Why can't you just do it?

Because you know what happened and where. Even if you are incredibly careful with what you say, your body language breathing or even sweat might be giving them clues. So someone who does not know the stories or witness testimony is needed to do this. Also, as we are going to test the mediums/psychics/sensitives statements for consistency, well if you have just heard Madame Arcana say this room is filled with an invisible demonic menage a trois, when you take Fluffy the Vampire Boffer in the same room 5 minutes later you might give off clues... So you need independent walk rounds.

I'd also ask 5 imaginative ghost sceptics to walk round as a control - but there is a problem here. We can't prove they are not actually psychic. In fact one of our sceptics consistently hits well above chance in ESP tests 9for the first ten minutes till they grow bored at least), and on a couple of runs of this experiment did better than some of the "psychics" - more on this in a moment..

Next, you thank everyone, and play back the testimonies on a big screen, to make sure everyone agrees they were not edited. Then you can overlay the maps on transparencies, and talk through the results, and introduce the witnesses. the press might like this bit too - if the venue wants coverage. Its a nice way to round off the proceedings.

Then, compare
* the psychic testimony versus the "Word Search" lists
* the psychic maps versus each other
* the psychic maps against the witness maps

So what have you got?

Assuming that
* ghosts do not wander around much - a rather large assumption!
* the witnesses are reliable
* the psychics had no foreknowledge of the building

You might have some evidence indicative of the haunting hypothesis.

Of course "haunting" here i use in my usual sense to mean - something makes people think this bit is spooky. You might want to look for mould, damp, lighting oddities, weird angles, etc, etc to see why people all chose the same areas. The fact they agree ultimately tells us nothing about the nature of the "haunt" - it merely tells us there is an objective "haunt" ie. something odd going on in that particular area. Smell may well be important, or magnetic fields, or I dunno. You work that out for yourselves...

So there you go. I've written up a lot more on how this can work, and indeed since '93 when I first tried it in the UK it seems to slowly be becoming more common. Not many ghosthunters pay any attention to it, but I personally think it might be rather useful? Not that anyone on the JREF is likely to listen to a ghosthunter like me! :biggrin:"

Earlier in the thread i playfully described types of ghosthunters -- it's the 23rd post on page 1 of this thread. I do mention my methodology a bit there, and other ghosthunters.

Dunno if this helps, but I have tried to answer as fully as I can!

cj x

Big Les

14th August 2007, 09:40 AM

But without meaningful results, isn't it all just as pointless as Yvette sitting in the dark going "can you please throw something at us so we know you're there?"? (I for one wish they would, just once. Preferably something heavy/spiky).

In seriousness, what results has that methodology produced? Has it enabled you to collect any evidence beyond the anecdotal? Aren't you just piddling in the wind?

cj.23

14th August 2007, 10:02 AM

Which methodology? The Schmeidler one?

I have tried it five times since the early 90's First time the "psychics" and sceptics all identified the "haunted" room out of 12 hotel rooms. Second time we messed up the methodology badly, and were forced to junk it. Third time saw the sceptics and witnesses in almost total agreement as to the locations and nature of the haunt, but the "psychics" at just above chance. Fourth time saw everyone pretty much in agreement, at significance. Fifth time we used maps with labeled rooms, and there was little agreement apart from the fact that a highly significant number of people chose a doorway at the top of a flight of stairs -- which had no known history of hauntings, and was not labeled on the map. Later however we discovered the building had featured on "Most Haunted" - and this door had been chosen by Derek and the team as haunted. Only 20% of those present could recall having seen the episode of the show, but I am pretty much certain that cryptomnesia explained the result entirely.

So does it prove anything? Nope. What it shows me is that people choose certain areas that they regard as "haunted" == which while it in no way proves a ghost, does suggest that environmental/perceptual cues may be very important. I hope by studying those locations ot build up a picture of what leads to "haunt" experiences.

I'm a bloody long way off that yet though. Still I'm trying!
cj x

CLD

14th August 2007, 12:20 PM

Thanks cj.23 for your thoughts. The TAPS people appear to be closemouthed about their protocols, and we were really hoping they would answer some questions.

Big Les

14th August 2007, 02:26 PM

Interesting cj.23. Much as I sometimes wonder why parapsychologists and ghost-hunters bother (where it seems they expect to find evidence of the paranormal at least), it's clear that some interesting things are learned along the way. And hell, the things I waste my spare time on are far less productive!

Normal Dude

14th August 2007, 03:44 PM

cj.23

14th August 2007, 04:07 PM

My former team used a modified form of the Schmeidler Protocol. I grew to very much dislike it because the inevitable result was that the "psychics" would end up dominating the scene and everyone's attention.

Yes, we have all encountered pushy psychics. My advice -- carry a big stick, and if they get smug remember that wonderful old adage "there is nothing like striking a happy medium" - and apply it vigorously. :)

cj x

cj.23

14th August 2007, 04:09 PM

Thanks cj.23 for your thoughts. The TAPS people appear to be closemouthed about their protocols, and we were really hoping they would answer some questions.

I'm sorry I have no idea - never met any of them. Most Haunted published a book in which they set out fairly sensible protocols - but I never got to see them in action, as I was (briefly) the researcher and never allowed near the action! Whether they ever followed them I have honestly no idea - but a few doubts. :)

j x

Minarvia

14th August 2007, 06:40 PM

I'm sorry I have no idea - never met any of them. Most Haunted published a book in which they set out fairly sensible protocols - but I never got to see them in action, as I was (briefly) the researcher and never allowed near the action! Whether they ever followed them I have honestly no idea - but a few doubts. :)

j x

You're probably lucky. If TAPS protocols are just what they do on tv then you would be shocked at how amateurish they really are.

Thanks for your thoughts. You really know what you are doing and are presenting it clearly. You know, if I ever do make it to England I'll certainly take you up on your offer! :)

I also admire your patience with psychics. I don't think I could handle it like you do. Kudos!

patrick767

15th August 2007, 07:50 AM

Interesting... I don't know where I'd find such a thing near me, but I'd be curious to go on a "haunting" investigation just to see what gets people going. It might be interesting to find out what I see from my very skeptical outlook on ghosts compared to what the believers see.

Yes, we have all encountered pushy psychics. My advice -- carry a big stick, and if they get smug remember that wonderful old adage "there is nothing like striking a happy medium" - and apply it vigorously. :)
cj x

:D

cj.23

16th August 2007, 07:59 AM

Sorry chaps, had not noticed replies. I'd be delighted to organise a little ghosthunt in the UK for members of the JREF. It might be rather fun! And if any of our overseas like Minarvia) folks visit, drop me a line. I enjoy history and am reasonably informed about a few sites we could visit. :)

Sorry about not knowing about TAPS -- I don't even know what the TAPS family is. I was not sure if you were talking about Ghost hunters generally, Ghosthunters the UK show, or Ghost Hunters the US show - or is it the other way around? Agggh!

cj x