Ghosthunters

Cyphermage · 15th May 2006, 11:09 AM

Hi Everyone,

I don't know if this has been previously discussed here, but I caught an interesting little program on the Sci-Fi channel the other day called "Ghosthunters." I wouldn't normally watch something which purported to find ghosts, but they were having a marathon of an entire season of the show, and through the miracle of TiVo and fast forward, I was able to rapidly review many programs in a short time.

The show features a couple of plumbers from Roto-Rooter, who try to debunk paranormal phenomena in their spare time under the auspices of The Atlanta Paranormal Society, or TAPS. They go into a place where paranormal activity is suspected, and fill it with cameras, microphones, thermal imaging devices, and other high tech gadgetry. Then they record overnight, go back and analyze the data, and render a pronouncement of whether paranormal activity is present.

Now, they are very professional, and try to find ordinary explanations for what people have observed. They do a great deal of debunking, and comforting of people who are frightened by events they can't explain.

Unfortunately, there are two big problems with the show. One, the investigation is accompanied with a lot of voiceover editorializing which presupposes the existence of various Woo-Woo things. Two of the cast bill themselves as "Demonologists." There is constant discussion of what ghosts supposedly do, or how we can detect their vibrations, and they run around saying things like "Give us a Sign" in empty rooms.

Second, these folks have far too low a level of disbelief. They will listen to days of background noise in audio footage, find the two seconds that sounds vaguely like a voice saying something, and pronounce it a paranormal event. Apparently, they've never played rock music backwards.

They do the same thing with their video footage, and stare at distant random pixelation and changing shadows for endless hours, until they find something that "looks like someone peeked over the railing way over there."

I haven't seen anyting on the program that looks in the least paranormal, and yet TAPS has given their official blessing to several places as examples of legitimate hauntings.

The TAPS crew seem like nice people, but they definitely need a visit from a professional skeptic to clue them in.

Anyone else here watch the show?

gfunkusarelius · 15th May 2006, 11:50 AM

have caught little bits, was too boring, even for me, haha. i have a feeling the TAPS crew arent really trying to debunk anything more than just enough to convince some teetering fence-sitters to think "well, they are skeptics, and they believe, and they are much more technical than me, so it must be real."

i think i would rather they just fictionalize these shows a bit to make them more interesting.

thaiboxerken · 15th May 2006, 12:04 PM

This is a show that started out skeptical but is getting just plain woo-woo crappy. I think they figured out that woo-woo attracts more ratings, that proving those "evil skeptics" wrong makes for more money.

Beady · 15th May 2006, 12:20 PM

I saw a preview for an episode that really bothered me, so much so that I didn't watch the actual show. Apparently, they were going to investigate the case of a little toddler that was being victimized, ie scratched, by a poltergeist. The preview had one of the TAPS guys saying something like, "When it's one of your kids, you take it seriously."

So, how did this turn out, if anyone saw it? Whatever happened, I'll bet no one asked any awkward questions about child abuse by a more-corporeal being.

Serenity · 15th May 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Beady

I saw a preview for an episode that really bothered me, so much so that I didn't watch the actual show. Apparently, they were going to investigate the case of a little toddler that was being victimized, ie scratched, by a poltergeist. The preview had one of the TAPS guys saying something like, "When it's one of your kids, you take it seriously."

So, how did this turn out, if anyone saw it? Whatever happened, I'll bet no one asked any awkward questions about child abuse by a more-corporeal being.

I think you might be referring to the episode where the brother & sister shared bunk beds so the crew set-up a camera to monitor them while they slept. The camera nabbed the little boy climbing out of bed, poking at his sister until she was half-roused, upon which the boy would then rush back to bed as if nothing happened.

Beady · 15th May 2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Serenity

I think you might be referring to the episode where the brother & sister shared bunk beds so the crew set-up a camera to monitor them while they slept.

Nope, that doesn't sound like it. I don't recall that the preview showed a little girl, only a boy, and scratches were definitely involved.

Hindmost · 16th May 2006, 06:09 AM

I use it as an example of Bad Science in my class. I tell my students that it would have credibility if they looked at 10 separate haunted places--without being told what to expect--and see if they could get statistically reasonable results. Even then, it would need more refinement. I use it to show applications of scientific method,..data taking...etc.

The ghost meters are fun. How are they calibrated? Unless you have a captured ghost to use as a traceable standard, any meter is useless.

It's always fun in class

glenn

Miss Whiplash · 16th May 2006, 08:31 AM

It's complete woo. Even though people view it as a reality show and think every scene is seamless, most things are staged. After all, it's entertainment, production deadlines must be met, etc. Notice that many of the "unexplained" phenomenae ( blury footage of 'ghosts') look an awful lot like stage hands in dark blankets?

A recent episode investigating a baby being "scratched" was ludicrous. The house was such a jumble of junk, I don't see how anyone could move without being scratched by something. The sump-pump banging and the loose light bulb being mistaken as a ghost was just sad. Are people so credulous about the paranormal they can no longer think of simple solutions to mechanical problems?

My own expericence with a TAPS Family of ghost hunters was not pleasant. They pay lip sevice to scientific skepticism by quoting the first law of thermodynamics when challenged, but have already concluded every 'orb' or EMF fluctuation is proof of "the unexplained." And the hangers on that orbited the group were complete woo-woo.

I guess I watch the show just to torture myself and laugh at the gulliblility of people.

atari24 · 16th May 2006, 09:52 AM

I've watched the show a couple times, and I was happy in one episode where they pretty much stated that "orbs" in photos aren't paranormal. Orbs have to be one of the biggest grasping of straws.

THe other stuff they do, however, geez... They should spend a day walking around with an EMF meter in "non-haunted" places like walmart, an open field, whatever, and check out the fluctuations they'll pick up all damn day.

blutoski · 16th May 2006, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by glennmr78

I use it as an example of Bad Science in my class. I tell my students that it would have credibility if they looked at 10 separate haunted places--without being told what to expect--and see if they could get statistically reasonable results. Even then, it would need more refinement. I use it to show applications of scientific method,..data taking...etc.

The ghost meters are fun. How are they calibrated? Unless you have a captured ghost to use as a traceable standard, any meter is useless.

Well, you've identified a key problem: lack of baseline examples. If we had a ghost in a box, we could all calibrate our ghost detectors, but unfortunately, it's a very subjective thing.

re: sending ghosthunters to random houses. Tried that; doesn't prove anything. Consider: how would you select 'unhaunted' houses? They find ghosts at all the houses, so they're telling us which ones are haunted.

What *might* work is sending different teams to houses, and seeing if they locate different 'hot-spots', but this is also unreliable, since hot-spots could just be chosen for their creepiness. Creepy to one guy is creepy to another, and they'll all choose the same rooms, graves, whatever.

This is actually the basis of some magic tricks: "Pick a random number between one and 10" (90% of respondents will say: "seven") "Pick a random number between one and a hundred (about half will say "50") "Pick a random vegetable" (about 90% will say "carrot" - see P&T's "How to play with your food" on how to deal with that ucooperative 10%)

Unfortunately, the same works for "Pick a random creepy spot in this house." I guarantee if there's a tree outside with a sturdy limb that had a swing on it and dug rope scars into the bark, 90% of intuitives will say somebody was hanged there, and is still schlepping around.

Cyphermage · 16th May 2006, 04:01 PM

There was something in one episode that made me suspect that at least some of the show is scripted and performed, much like professional wrestling. One of the investigators was knocked to his knees by an unseen force, and when he lifted up his shirt, he had a big red blotch on the left side of his lower back, with scratches on it.

He spent the rest of the show "selling" the injury, which left me wondering if they had incorporated some bruise he had gotten elsewhere into the storyline.

Another aspect of the show which shows signs of being professionally written, is the conflict the crew is having with a member named Brian, whom they seem to scapegoat for every minor problem. This looks like an attempt to spice up ratings, for those who find trying to hear voices in random hissing noise a tedious exercise.

sat556 · 16th May 2006, 04:23 PM

I think the biggest give away that ghost hunting shows are scripted and/or rigged, is that they have something happen. The problem is, if they show what real ghost hunting is like (and I don't mean the kind done by fun seekers and woos), they would find a very boring program with scenes of people becoming increasingly cold and bored.
It's no wonder ghost hunters end up clutching at straws. I get kind of excited when I have one coming up, and on the day I am hoping so much that something might just happen, even though I feel sure it won't, then about two hours in I start to think it might just be nice to go home

Miss Whiplash · 16th May 2006, 04:34 PM

I know of two scenes that were scripted when they visited North Carolina:

1) The scene where they were sitting around eating hot dogs supposedly in downtown Raleigh was scripted and shot elsewhere.

2) When people began falling ill at Mordecai House, it was left more or less unexplained. Some the viewers thought it was the effect of the haunting. In reality it was food poisoning. The cast and crew sent out food and got a bad batch of buffalo wings from Dominos Pizza.

Hindmost · 16th May 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Well, you've identified a key problem: lack of baseline examples. If we had a ghost in a box, we could all calibrate our ghost detectors, but unfortunately, it's a very subjective thing.

re: sending ghosthunters to random houses. Tried that; doesn't prove anything. Consider: how would you select 'unhaunted' houses? They find ghosts at all the houses, so they're telling us which ones are haunted.

What *might* work is sending different teams to houses, and seeing if they locate different 'hot-spots', but this is also unreliable, since hot-spots could just be chosen for their creepiness. Creepy to one guy is creepy to another, and they'll all choose the same rooms, graves, whatever.

This is actually the basis of some magic tricks: "Pick a random number between one and 10" (90% of respondents will say: "seven") "Pick a random number between one and a hundred (about half will say "50") "Pick a random vegetable" (about 90% will say "carrot" - see P&T's "How to play with your food" on how to deal with that ucooperative 10%)

Unfortunately, the same works for "Pick a random creepy spot in this house." I guarantee if there's a tree outside with a sturdy limb that had a swing on it and dug rope scars into the bark, 90% of intuitives will say somebody was hanged there, and is still schlepping around.

I must learn to put in more details. I agree it would be very difficult to remove subjective data from any test. (unless we calibrate with our ghost in a box.) I would think a reasonable test would be to select about 10-20 separate haunted houses, castles, etc with specific legends and repeating patterns of ghosts. Without telling anything to the ghost hunters, see if they can find the repeating patterns. Throw in a house or two or three that definitely is considered ghost free and see what happens. I am betting random acts of ridiculous outcomes.

I recently watched a show on the science channel where a ghost hunter was purportedly able to identify a ghost in a huanted house and determine what had happened for the person to become a ghost and the characteristics of the particular haunt. The science channel dragged him to another state to look in a specific house that he was not aware of the details of the haunting. Needless to say, the ghost hunter was unable to determine anything specific correctly...if I recall he even got the gender wrong.

glenn

Serenity · 16th May 2006, 09:11 PM

Orangotango was telling me a new member in the welcome thread awhile back knew someone that had the TAP's crew film a mock plumbing repair for the camera. A segment sometimes starts with them supposedly at work (as plumbers) discussing their upcoming investigation. Wouldn't surprise me.

steve s · 17th May 2006, 07:32 PM

I just flipped past this show and could only stomach about 15 seconds worth. Two guys in a dirty basement. One guy says "Something that felt like a web just brushed my arm." Second guy says "Some people believe that ectoplasm feels like a web. It means something was here."

(we need a barfing smiley.)

Steve S.

Scott Haley · 17th May 2006, 07:43 PM

The Sci-Fi channel keeps putting on shows about people investigating things that aren't real. When the fiction pretends not to be fiction, it's not as entertaining. What makes the program directors think that their audience wants to watch this stuff? Series like "Ghosthunters" are on for a while, then they're cancelled.

--Scott

Outhere · 17th May 2006, 08:06 PM

I watched the first season of "Ghosthunters" and found the most entertaining thing about it was the apparent conflict among some of the team members; who screwed up, who lost the equipment, who didn't pull his weight, etc. From what I've seen this season (can't bear to watch an entire episode) they've tried to make it interesting by fabricating woo incidents.

Has anyone seen Char Margolis on the same channel in Psychic at Large? Or should it be Still at Large? I watched the other day when she gave the perfect cop-out to a young man who asked for a reading. She said the dead contact her through "energy" because the dead have problems with verbal communication. I've noticed that too.

Miss Whiplash · 17th May 2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

I just flipped past this show and could only stomach about 15 seconds worth. Two guys in a dirty basement. One guy says "Something that felt like a web just brushed my arm." Second guy says "Some people believe that ectoplasm feels like a web. It means something was here."

(we need a barfing smiley.)

Steve S.

The really dumb one came the second half hour. A man who restores old houses felt "oppressed" living in his new old house. His personality changed. He had headaches, felt depressed and sometimes dizzy. After 20 minutes of mumbo-jumbo, the team of plumbers found mold growing all over the basement, toxic chemicals stored near the heating intake, and a mis-wired breaker panel ready to burn the house down at any time. Very rational causes for all the man's symptoms, but it took a team of ghost hunters to point out the obvious? Talk about gullibility!

Cyphermage · 18th May 2006, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by The Vampire

The really dumb one came the second half hour. A man who restores old houses felt "oppressed" living in his new old house. His personality changed. He had headaches, felt depressed and sometimes dizzy. After 20 minutes of mumbo-jumbo, the team of plumbers found mold growing all over the basement, toxic chemicals stored near the heating intake, and a mis-wired breaker panel ready to burn the house down at any time. Very rational causes for all the man's symptoms, but it took a team of ghost hunters to point out the obvious? Talk about gullibility!

Yes, that was pretty pathetic. Clearly they were using their plumbing skills more than their ghost hunting skills in that one.

Beady · 18th May 2006, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Vampire

A recent episode investigating a baby being "scratched" was ludicrous. The house was such a jumble of junk, I don't see how anyone could move without being scratched by something. The sump-pump banging and the loose light bulb being mistaken as a ghost was just sad.

I think that's the one I was talking about earlier. What were their "conclusions" at the end? The promos seemed to scream "child abuse."

Miss Whiplash · 18th May 2006, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

I think that's the one I was talking about earlier. What were their "conclusions" at the end? The promos seemed to scream "child abuse."

If I remember correctly, they told the woman to check the child's nails and keep them trimmed and be sure to check the crib for foreign objects. Again, common sense most people should possess without calling in "ghost hunters."

Beady · 18th May 2006, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Vampire

Again, common sense most people should possess without calling in "ghost hunters."

And I thought 'Seinfeld' was supposed to be a show about nothing at all.

sat556 · 18th May 2006, 01:33 PM

I think that the problem can be that people want to think they have a haunted house.
I go into places, and can often tell within a short time that the banging is the heating system and the odd draughts are from a badly sealed window etc. Most of the time when I explain this, the owner starts with the "oh yes, but..." lines, and the story gets embellished over and over.
The only job I have ever refused was a woman who kept on about these orbs she had caught on video. She even showed me the tapes. Funny thing was they appeared more just after she had walked across the shot. She wouldn't have it that they were anything else but spooks, and got visibly annoyed when told the real cause, so I refused the job. What would have been the point in doing it? She knew that her house was haunted.

Dr B · 18th May 2006, 01:39 PM

Why dont any of these so called ghost hunters ever look at the witnesses in detail (i.e., belief systems, biases, neurological factors, suggestion, expectation, perception, etc)....instead of wandering around a house. I always get the feeling they are looking in the wrong place!!!!

I know some good work has been done - but it is not on programmes like this!!!!

ExitDose · 26th May 2006, 10:55 AM

On their "best of" episode, that aired recently, there was a disturbing scene where they played an EVP for a distraught homeowner. The woman broke down in tears in response to what she thought the voice of the "ghost" was saying. Her face showed a mixture of sadness and anxiety. They made no mention of how suspect this technique is. They made no mention that, even if a tape or digital recorder could record the voices of dead people, they take no countermeasures to control any possible environmental contamination of the audio; which might give false positives. Nor that there is no evidence which supports the supernatural interpretation of the phenomena.

They helped make this poor woman more uncomfortable with her home armed only with the flimsiest of rationales. For that, they are awful, awful people.

sat556 · 26th May 2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dr B

Why dont any of these so called ghost hunters ever look at the witnesses in detail (i.e., belief systems, biases, neurological factors, suggestion, expectation, perception, etc)....instead of wandering around a house. I always get the feeling they are looking in the wrong place!!!!

I know some good work has been done - but it is not on programmes like this!!!!

Well it's not going to make interesting telly. I know a lot of ghost hunting groups, and not many of them do things like this. It just isn't of interest to them to do it, all they want is some photos of orbs and some speck of dust in front of the camcorder. Having said that, I don't do it all the time, as there just isn't the time to fit it in. We tend to do that kind of thing afterward from video tapes as much as we can.
If I were to make a tv show out of what I do, it wouldn't get past the pilot stage. It's just not entertaining. Who wants to see a couple of sceptics telling people that they are deluded? It'd be a one-off debunking show, and there are some of those already.

Psiload · 26th May 2006, 11:43 AM

My interest was peaked when I first heard it claimed that the "Ghost Hunters" were supposedly a scientific investigative team.

Ten minutes into the one(and only) show I watched and I see dowsing rods and a demonologist.

Thank you. Please drive through.

Anti_Hypeman · 26th May 2006, 11:53 AM

I saw the first season and it boggles the mind that there is a second one. The best evidence after the entire season was the sound guy falling on his booty.

They lost all credibility when they brought in a reki master and a wiccan with dowsing rods. Big shock her rods detected the same spots as the EMF meter. A simple test would have proven her dowsing powers beforehand, how do they know she was a real wiccan?

They make the assumption that ghosts create EMFs. Sorry guys I need more dots connected than that. Show me proof that ghosts create EMFs before you use EMFs as proof of ghosts.

sat556 · 26th May 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

They make the assumption that ghosts create EMFs. Sorry guys I need more dots connected than that. Show me proof that ghosts create EMFs before you use EMFs as proof of ghosts.

I hate to say it but... I heard an interview with one of the investigators from this program, and he was saying that they use EMF meters because of the Persinger experiments.
Maybe they have changed their tune of late.

Miss Whiplash · 26th May 2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by sat556

I hate to say it but... I heard an interview with one of the investigators from this program, and he was saying that they use EMF meters because of the Persinger experiments.
Maybe they have changed their tune of late.

Please explain. I'm not familiar with that. I can always use information.

The biggest evidence of flim-flam with Ghosthunters is their association with Ed and Lorriane Warren and the Warren's crowd of "Demonologists." I was booted from the Ghosthunter's website discussion for daring to bring this up. My question was: "If TAPS is a 'scientific' ghost hunting group, why are they using quaisi-relgious notions like 'demonology?'" Cyber-vases were hurled immedately and I was called a "sad, empty, atheist skeptic" among other things.

ExitDose · 26th May 2006, 12:43 PM

I find it comical that they constantly parrot the idea that ghosts draw on the ambient electricity in order to manifest, yet the first thing they do is to cut off the power in the area under investigation.

The most depressing thing I've heard on the show was when one of their investigators said that the only book he had ever read was The Parapsychologist's Handbook. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Meffy · 26th May 2006, 01:16 PM

The idea of a captive ghost -- used purely for scientific instrument calibration, of course! -- interests me. Since ghosts can pass through ordinary solid walls, I recommend constructing the ectoplasmic containment vessel of mime walls. You know, the invisble ones mimes push against with their hands. Those ought to work fine.

Miss Whiplash · 26th May 2006, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by ExitDose

The most depressing thing I've heard on the show was when one of their investigators said that the only book he had ever read was The Parapsychologist's Handbook. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Do you have a link? Is this the same book Rosemary Ellen Guiley is gushing about on Amazon?

ExitDose · 26th May 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by The Vampire

Do you have a link? Is this the same book Rosemary Ellen Guiley is gushing about on Amazon?

I have no idea. The guy with the tattood arms(Brian?) was the one who said it. I believe they were investigating a library at the time.

Beady · 26th May 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by ExitDose

The most depressing thing I've heard on the show was when one of their investigators said that the only book he had ever read was The Parapsychologist's Handbook. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

There's no functional difference between the man who won't read and the man who can't read.

Miss Whiplash · 26th May 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ExitDose

I have no idea. The guy with the tattood arms(Brian?) was the one who said it. I believe they were investigating a library at the time.

I remember it now. He said reading was "boring" or something along that line. It was quite sad!

talldave · 26th May 2006, 03:10 PM

After a friend told me about the show, I decided to take a look to see if I could use it for my Science and Nonsense class.

The thing I found most troubling was the use of pranks. If they are known to do pranks every once in a while, then if they are ever caught faking then they can just play it off as another one of those pranks. To me, that was the icing on the complete-lack-of-credibility cake.

While watching I had in my mind the question "how easy would this be to fake?", the answer I had in every case was "pretty damn easy".

-David

ExitDose · 26th May 2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by The Vampire

The biggest evidence of flim-flam with Ghosthunters is their association with Ed and Lorriane Warren and the Warren's crowd of "Demonologists." I was booted from the Ghosthunter's website discussion for daring to bring this up. My question was: "If TAPS is a 'scientific' ghost hunting group, why are they using quaisi-relgious notions like 'demonology?'" Cyber-vases were hurled immedately and I was called a "sad, empty, atheist skeptic" among other things.

Are they associated with the Warrens? I seem to remember them suggesting that they weren't reputable in one of the episodes. Winchester Mansion?

The TAPS forum is one of the most painful experiences I've ever had on the internet. I recall arguing with someone who claimed the government was covering up the existence of Bigfoot. That place isn't pretty.

Miss Whiplash · 26th May 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by ExitDose

Are they associated with the Warrens? I seem to remember them suggesting that they weren't reputable in one of the episodes. Winchester Mansion?

John Zaffis is Ed Warren's nephew. He was in on a couple of investigations. TAPS also investigated one house previously investigated by the Warren's.

John Zaffis

TAPS does have a resident demonologists Carl and Keith Johnson.

Originally Posted by ExitDose

The TAPS forum is one of the most painful experiences I've ever had on the internet. I recall arguing with someone who claimed the government was covering up the existence of Bigfoot. That place isn't pretty.

The most painful for me was my very short association with the area "TAPS Family" ghost hunters. After debunking several very bad photographs from the hysterically gullible, I recieved one from a mother who had lost a child in an accident. Before the child died, a picture was taken in a smokey room. Some fans of the show and self proclaimed psychics saw an "angel" in the illuminated smoke and pronounced it as a "sign that the girl was now in the arms of angels." The mother asked my opinion. Of course I told her it was nothing but the flash illuminating passing smoke from candles in the foreground. The woman thanked me for being honest and regretted listening to the "ghost busters" in the first place. I could tell it brought back painful memories of losing her daughter.

What I can't stand about these self proclaimed paranormal investigators is they forget they are using, and many times hurting other people, while attemping to support their pet pseudoscience. While they are running willy-nilly with EMF meters and digital cameras, they scare the gullible out of their homes and prolong grieving of those who have lost someone dear. Fortunately for the world, a few days after this incident, this group of ghost hunters self destructed over some childish in-fighting.

15th May 2006, 11:09 AM	#1
Cyphermage Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 359	Ghosthunters Hi Everyone, I don't know if this has been previously discussed here, but I caught an interesting little program on the Sci-Fi channel the other day called "Ghosthunters." I wouldn't normally watch something which purported to find ghosts, but they were having a marathon of an entire season of the show, and through the miracle of TiVo and fast forward, I was able to rapidly review many programs in a short time. The show features a couple of plumbers from Roto-Rooter, who try to debunk paranormal phenomena in their spare time under the auspices of The Atlanta Paranormal Society, or TAPS. They go into a place where paranormal activity is suspected, and fill it with cameras, microphones, thermal imaging devices, and other high tech gadgetry. Then they record overnight, go back and analyze the data, and render a pronouncement of whether paranormal activity is present. Now, they are very professional, and try to find ordinary explanations for what people have observed. They do a great deal of debunking, and comforting of people who are frightened by events they can't explain. Unfortunately, there are two big problems with the show. One, the investigation is accompanied with a lot of voiceover editorializing which presupposes the existence of various Woo-Woo things. Two of the cast bill themselves as "Demonologists." There is constant discussion of what ghosts supposedly do, or how we can detect their vibrations, and they run around saying things like "Give us a Sign" in empty rooms. Second, these folks have far too low a level of disbelief. They will listen to days of background noise in audio footage, find the two seconds that sounds vaguely like a voice saying something, and pronounce it a paranormal event. Apparently, they've never played rock music backwards. They do the same thing with their video footage, and stare at distant random pixelation and changing shadows for endless hours, until they find something that "looks like someone peeked over the railing way over there." I haven't seen anyting on the program that looks in the least paranormal, and yet TAPS has given their official blessing to several places as examples of legitimate hauntings. The TAPS crew seem like nice people, but they definitely need a visit from a professional skeptic to clue them in. Anyone else here watch the show?

15th May 2006, 12:04 PM	#3
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	This is a show that started out skeptical but is getting just plain woo-woo crappy. I think they figured out that woo-woo attracts more ratings, that proving those "evil skeptics" wrong makes for more money.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

15th May 2006, 12:20 PM	#4
Beady Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 4,969	I saw a preview for an episode that really bothered me, so much so that I didn't watch the actual show. Apparently, they were going to investigate the case of a little toddler that was being victimized, ie scratched, by a poltergeist. The preview had one of the TAPS guys saying something like, "When it's one of your kids, you take it seriously." So, how did this turn out, if anyone saw it? Whatever happened, I'll bet no one asked any awkward questions about child abuse by a more-corporeal being.
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women, leave me alone! -- Badlands Beady

15th May 2006, 02:40 PM	#6
Beady Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 4,969	Originally Posted by Serenity I think you might be referring to the episode where the brother & sister shared bunk beds so the crew set-up a camera to monitor them while they slept. Nope, that doesn't sound like it. I don't recall that the preview showed a little girl, only a boy, and scratches were definitely involved.
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women, leave me alone! -- Badlands Beady

16th May 2006, 06:09 AM	#7
Hindmost Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 2,666	I use it as an example of Bad Science in my class. I tell my students that it would have credibility if they looked at 10 separate haunted places--without being told what to expect--and see if they could get statistically reasonable results. Even then, it would need more refinement. I use it to show applications of scientific method,..data taking...etc. The ghost meters are fun. How are they calibrated? Unless you have a captured ghost to use as a traceable standard, any meter is useless. It's always fun in class glenn
	__________________ Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Carl Sagan

15th May 2006, 11:50 AM	#2
gfunkusarelius Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 437	have caught little bits, was too boring, even for me, haha. i have a feeling the TAPS crew arent really trying to debunk anything more than just enough to convince some teetering fence-sitters to think "well, they are skeptics, and they believe, and they are much more technical than me, so it must be real." i think i would rather they just fictionalize these shows a bit to make them more interesting.

15th May 2006, 01:02 PM	#5
Serenity Serenity Now! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: CT Central Lowlands Posts: 862	Originally Posted by Beady I saw a preview for an episode that really bothered me, so much so that I didn't watch the actual show. Apparently, they were going to investigate the case of a little toddler that was being victimized, ie scratched, by a poltergeist. The preview had one of the TAPS guys saying something like, "When it's one of your kids, you take it seriously." So, how did this turn out, if anyone saw it? Whatever happened, I'll bet no one asked any awkward questions about child abuse by a more-corporeal being. I think you might be referring to the episode where the brother & sister shared bunk beds so the crew set-up a camera to monitor them while they slept. The camera nabbed the little boy climbing out of bed, poking at his sister until she was half-roused, upon which the boy would then rush back to bed as if nothing happened.

16th May 2006, 08:31 AM	#8
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	It's complete woo. Even though people view it as a reality show and think every scene is seamless, most things are staged. After all, it's entertainment, production deadlines must be met, etc. Notice that many of the "unexplained" phenomenae ( blury footage of 'ghosts') look an awful lot like stage hands in dark blankets? A recent episode investigating a baby being "scratched" was ludicrous. The house was such a jumble of junk, I don't see how anyone could move without being scratched by something. The sump-pump banging and the loose light bulb being mistaken as a ghost was just sad. Are people so credulous about the paranormal they can no longer think of simple solutions to mechanical problems? My own expericence with a TAPS Family of ghost hunters was not pleasant. They pay lip sevice to scientific skepticism by quoting the first law of thermodynamics when challenged, but have already concluded every 'orb' or EMF fluctuation is proof of "the unexplained." And the hangers on that orbited the group were complete woo-woo. I guess I watch the show just to torture myself and laugh at the gulliblility of people.

16th May 2006, 09:52 AM	#9
atari24 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 105	I've watched the show a couple times, and I was happy in one episode where they pretty much stated that "orbs" in photos aren't paranormal. Orbs have to be one of the biggest grasping of straws. THe other stuff they do, however, geez... They should spend a day walking around with an EMF meter in "non-haunted" places like walmart, an open field, whatever, and check out the fluctuations they'll pick up all damn day.

16th May 2006, 09:55 AM	#10
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,401	Originally Posted by glennmr78 I use it as an example of Bad Science in my class. I tell my students that it would have credibility if they looked at 10 separate haunted places--without being told what to expect--and see if they could get statistically reasonable results. Even then, it would need more refinement. I use it to show applications of scientific method,..data taking...etc. The ghost meters are fun. How are they calibrated? Unless you have a captured ghost to use as a traceable standard, any meter is useless. Well, you've identified a key problem: lack of baseline examples. If we had a ghost in a box, we could all calibrate our ghost detectors, but unfortunately, it's a very subjective thing. re: sending ghosthunters to random houses. Tried that; doesn't prove anything. Consider: how would you select 'unhaunted' houses? They find ghosts at all the houses, so they're telling us which ones are haunted. What might work is sending different teams to houses, and seeing if they locate different 'hot-spots', but this is also unreliable, since hot-spots could just be chosen for their creepiness. Creepy to one guy is creepy to another, and they'll all choose the same rooms, graves, whatever. This is actually the basis of some magic tricks: "Pick a random number between one and 10" (90% of respondents will say: "seven") "Pick a random number between one and a hundred (about half will say "50") "Pick a random vegetable" (about 90% will say "carrot" - see P&T's "How to play with your food" on how to deal with that ucooperative 10%) Unfortunately, the same works for "Pick a random creepy spot in this house." I guarantee if there's a tree outside with a sturdy limb that had a swing on it and dug rope scars into the bark, 90% of intuitives will say somebody was hanged there, and is still schlepping around.
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,401

16th May 2006, 04:01 PM	#11
Cyphermage Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 359	There was something in one episode that made me suspect that at least some of the show is scripted and performed, much like professional wrestling. One of the investigators was knocked to his knees by an unseen force, and when he lifted up his shirt, he had a big red blotch on the left side of his lower back, with scratches on it. He spent the rest of the show "selling" the injury, which left me wondering if they had incorporated some bruise he had gotten elsewhere into the storyline. Another aspect of the show which shows signs of being professionally written, is the conflict the crew is having with a member named Brian, whom they seem to scapegoat for every minor problem. This looks like an attempt to spice up ratings, for those who find trying to hear voices in random hissing noise a tedious exercise.

16th May 2006, 04:23 PM	#12
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	I think the biggest give away that ghost hunting shows are scripted and/or rigged, is that they have something happen. The problem is, if they show what real ghost hunting is like (and I don't mean the kind done by fun seekers and woos), they would find a very boring program with scenes of people becoming increasingly cold and bored. It's no wonder ghost hunters end up clutching at straws. I get kind of excited when I have one coming up, and on the day I am hoping so much that something might just happen, even though I feel sure it won't, then about two hours in I start to think it might just be nice to go home
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

16th May 2006, 04:34 PM	#13
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	I know of two scenes that were scripted when they visited North Carolina: 1) The scene where they were sitting around eating hot dogs supposedly in downtown Raleigh was scripted and shot elsewhere. 2) When people began falling ill at Mordecai House, it was left more or less unexplained. Some the viewers thought it was the effect of the haunting. In reality it was food poisoning. The cast and crew sent out food and got a bad batch of buffalo wings from Dominos Pizza.

16th May 2006, 07:23 PM	#14
Hindmost Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 2,666	Originally Posted by blutoski Well, you've identified a key problem: lack of baseline examples. If we had a ghost in a box, we could all calibrate our ghost detectors, but unfortunately, it's a very subjective thing. re: sending ghosthunters to random houses. Tried that; doesn't prove anything. Consider: how would you select 'unhaunted' houses? They find ghosts at all the houses, so they're telling us which ones are haunted. What might work is sending different teams to houses, and seeing if they locate different 'hot-spots', but this is also unreliable, since hot-spots could just be chosen for their creepiness. Creepy to one guy is creepy to another, and they'll all choose the same rooms, graves, whatever. This is actually the basis of some magic tricks: "Pick a random number between one and 10" (90% of respondents will say: "seven") "Pick a random number between one and a hundred (about half will say "50") "Pick a random vegetable" (about 90% will say "carrot" - see P&T's "How to play with your food" on how to deal with that ucooperative 10%) Unfortunately, the same works for "Pick a random creepy spot in this house." I guarantee if there's a tree outside with a sturdy limb that had a swing on it and dug rope scars into the bark, 90% of intuitives will say somebody was hanged there, and is still schlepping around. I must learn to put in more details. I agree it would be very difficult to remove subjective data from any test. (unless we calibrate with our ghost in a box.) I would think a reasonable test would be to select about 10-20 separate haunted houses, castles, etc with specific legends and repeating patterns of ghosts. Without telling anything to the ghost hunters, see if they can find the repeating patterns. Throw in a house or two or three that definitely is considered ghost free and see what happens. I am betting random acts of ridiculous outcomes. I recently watched a show on the science channel where a ghost hunter was purportedly able to identify a ghost in a huanted house and determine what had happened for the person to become a ghost and the characteristics of the particular haunt. The science channel dragged him to another state to look in a specific house that he was not aware of the details of the haunting. Needless to say, the ghost hunter was unable to determine anything specific correctly...if I recall he even got the gender wrong. glenn
	__________________ Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Carl Sagan

16th May 2006, 09:11 PM	#15
Serenity Serenity Now! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: CT Central Lowlands Posts: 862	Orangotango was telling me a new member in the welcome thread awhile back knew someone that had the TAP's crew film a mock plumbing repair for the camera. A segment sometimes starts with them supposedly at work (as plumbers) discussing their upcoming investigation. Wouldn't surprise me.

17th May 2006, 07:32 PM	#16
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	I just flipped past this show and could only stomach about 15 seconds worth. Two guys in a dirty basement. One guy says "Something that felt like a web just brushed my arm." Second guy says "Some people believe that ectoplasm feels like a web. It means something was here." (we need a barfing smiley.) Steve S.
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513

17th May 2006, 07:43 PM	#17
Scott Haley Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 284	The Sci-Fi channel keeps putting on shows about people investigating things that aren't real. When the fiction pretends not to be fiction, it's not as entertaining. What makes the program directors think that their audience wants to watch this stuff? Series like "Ghosthunters" are on for a while, then they're cancelled. --Scott

17th May 2006, 08:06 PM	#18
Outhere Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 145	SciFi Channel Aptly Named I watched the first season of "Ghosthunters" and found the most entertaining thing about it was the apparent conflict among some of the team members; who screwed up, who lost the equipment, who didn't pull his weight, etc. From what I've seen this season (can't bear to watch an entire episode) they've tried to make it interesting by fabricating woo incidents. Has anyone seen Char Margolis on the same channel in Psychic at Large? Or should it be Still at Large? I watched the other day when she gave the perfect cop-out to a young man who asked for a reading. She said the dead contact her through "energy" because the dead have problems with verbal communication. I've noticed that too.

17th May 2006, 09:16 PM	#19
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	Originally Posted by steve s I just flipped past this show and could only stomach about 15 seconds worth. Two guys in a dirty basement. One guy says "Something that felt like a web just brushed my arm." Second guy says "Some people believe that ectoplasm feels like a web. It means something was here." (we need a barfing smiley.) Steve S. The really dumb one came the second half hour. A man who restores old houses felt "oppressed" living in his new old house. His personality changed. He had headaches, felt depressed and sometimes dizzy. After 20 minutes of mumbo-jumbo, the team of plumbers found mold growing all over the basement, toxic chemicals stored near the heating intake, and a mis-wired breaker panel ready to burn the house down at any time. Very rational causes for all the man's symptoms, but it took a team of ghost hunters to point out the obvious? Talk about gullibility!

18th May 2006, 12:17 AM	#20
Cyphermage Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 359	Originally Posted by The Vampire The really dumb one came the second half hour. A man who restores old houses felt "oppressed" living in his new old house. His personality changed. He had headaches, felt depressed and sometimes dizzy. After 20 minutes of mumbo-jumbo, the team of plumbers found mold growing all over the basement, toxic chemicals stored near the heating intake, and a mis-wired breaker panel ready to burn the house down at any time. Very rational causes for all the man's symptoms, but it took a team of ghost hunters to point out the obvious? Talk about gullibility! Yes, that was pretty pathetic. Clearly they were using their plumbing skills more than their ghost hunting skills in that one.

18th May 2006, 02:53 AM	#21
Beady Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 4,969	Originally Posted by The Vampire A recent episode investigating a baby being "scratched" was ludicrous. The house was such a jumble of junk, I don't see how anyone could move without being scratched by something. The sump-pump banging and the loose light bulb being mistaken as a ghost was just sad. I think that's the one I was talking about earlier. What were their "conclusions" at the end? The promos seemed to scream "child abuse."
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women, leave me alone! -- Badlands Beady

18th May 2006, 07:56 AM	#22
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	Originally Posted by Beady I think that's the one I was talking about earlier. What were their "conclusions" at the end? The promos seemed to scream "child abuse." If I remember correctly, they told the woman to check the child's nails and keep them trimmed and be sure to check the crib for foreign objects. Again, common sense most people should possess without calling in "ghost hunters."

18th May 2006, 08:29 AM	#23
Beady Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 4,969	Originally Posted by The Vampire Again, common sense most people should possess without calling in "ghost hunters." And I thought 'Seinfeld' was supposed to be a show about nothing at all.
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women, leave me alone! -- Badlands Beady

18th May 2006, 01:33 PM	#24
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	I think that the problem can be that people want to think they have a haunted house. I go into places, and can often tell within a short time that the banging is the heating system and the odd draughts are from a badly sealed window etc. Most of the time when I explain this, the owner starts with the "oh yes, but..." lines, and the story gets embellished over and over. The only job I have ever refused was a woman who kept on about these orbs she had caught on video. She even showed me the tapes. Funny thing was they appeared more just after she had walked across the shot. She wouldn't have it that they were anything else but spooks, and got visibly annoyed when told the real cause, so I refused the job. What would have been the point in doing it? She knew that her house was haunted.
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

18th May 2006, 01:39 PM	#25
Dr B Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Location: UK Posts: 364	Why dont any of these so called ghost hunters ever look at the witnesses in detail (i.e., belief systems, biases, neurological factors, suggestion, expectation, perception, etc)....instead of wandering around a house. I always get the feeling they are looking in the wrong place!!!! I know some good work has been done - but it is not on programmes like this!!!!

26th May 2006, 10:55 AM	#26
ExitDose Student Join Date: May 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 49	On their "best of" episode, that aired recently, there was a disturbing scene where they played an EVP for a distraught homeowner. The woman broke down in tears in response to what she thought the voice of the "ghost" was saying. Her face showed a mixture of sadness and anxiety. They made no mention of how suspect this technique is. They made no mention that, even if a tape or digital recorder could record the voices of dead people, they take no countermeasures to control any possible environmental contamination of the audio; which might give false positives. Nor that there is no evidence which supports the supernatural interpretation of the phenomena. They helped make this poor woman more uncomfortable with her home armed only with the flimsiest of rationales. For that, they are awful, awful people.

26th May 2006, 11:28 AM	#27
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	Originally Posted by Dr B Why dont any of these so called ghost hunters ever look at the witnesses in detail (i.e., belief systems, biases, neurological factors, suggestion, expectation, perception, etc)....instead of wandering around a house. I always get the feeling they are looking in the wrong place!!!! I know some good work has been done - but it is not on programmes like this!!!! Well it's not going to make interesting telly. I know a lot of ghost hunting groups, and not many of them do things like this. It just isn't of interest to them to do it, all they want is some photos of orbs and some speck of dust in front of the camcorder. Having said that, I don't do it all the time, as there just isn't the time to fit it in. We tend to do that kind of thing afterward from video tapes as much as we can. If I were to make a tv show out of what I do, it wouldn't get past the pilot stage. It's just not entertaining. Who wants to see a couple of sceptics telling people that they are deluded? It'd be a one-off debunking show, and there are some of those already.
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

26th May 2006, 11:43 AM	#28
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	My interest was peaked when I first heard it claimed that the "Ghost Hunters" were supposedly a scientific investigative team. Ten minutes into the one(and only) show I watched and I see dowsing rods and a demonologist. Thank you. Please drive through.
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	__________________ You're not the boss of me.

26th May 2006, 11:53 AM	#29
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	I saw the first season and it boggles the mind that there is a second one. The best evidence after the entire season was the sound guy falling on his booty. They lost all credibility when they brought in a reki master and a wiccan with dowsing rods. Big shock her rods detected the same spots as the EMF meter. A simple test would have proven her dowsing powers beforehand, how do they know she was a real wiccan? They make the assumption that ghosts create EMFs. Sorry guys I need more dots connected than that. Show me proof that ghosts create EMFs before you use EMFs as proof of ghosts.

26th May 2006, 12:07 PM	#30
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman They make the assumption that ghosts create EMFs. Sorry guys I need more dots connected than that. Show me proof that ghosts create EMFs before you use EMFs as proof of ghosts. I hate to say it but... I heard an interview with one of the investigators from this program, and he was saying that they use EMF meters because of the Persinger experiments. Maybe they have changed their tune of late.
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

26th May 2006, 12:41 PM	#31
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	Originally Posted by sat556 I hate to say it but... I heard an interview with one of the investigators from this program, and he was saying that they use EMF meters because of the Persinger experiments. Maybe they have changed their tune of late. Please explain. I'm not familiar with that. I can always use information. The biggest evidence of flim-flam with Ghosthunters is their association with Ed and Lorriane Warren and the Warren's crowd of "Demonologists." I was booted from the Ghosthunter's website discussion for daring to bring this up. My question was: "If TAPS is a 'scientific' ghost hunting group, why are they using quaisi-relgious notions like 'demonology?'" Cyber-vases were hurled immedately and I was called a "sad, empty, atheist skeptic" among other things.

26th May 2006, 12:43 PM	#32
ExitDose Student Join Date: May 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 49	I find it comical that they constantly parrot the idea that ghosts draw on the ambient electricity in order to manifest, yet the first thing they do is to cut off the power in the area under investigation. The most depressing thing I've heard on the show was when one of their investigators said that the only book he had ever read was The Parapsychologist's Handbook. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
	Last edited by ExitDose; 26th May 2006 at 01:46 PM.

26th May 2006, 01:16 PM	#33
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	The idea of a captive ghost -- used purely for scientific instrument calibration, of course! -- interests me. Since ghosts can pass through ordinary solid walls, I recommend constructing the ectoplasmic containment vessel of mime walls. You know, the invisble ones mimes push against with their hands. Those ought to work fine.

26th May 2006, 01:22 PM	#34
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	Originally Posted by ExitDose The most depressing thing I've heard on the show was when one of their investigators said that the only book he had ever read was The Parapsychologist's Handbook. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Do you have a link? Is this the same book Rosemary Ellen Guiley is gushing about on Amazon?

26th May 2006, 01:46 PM	#35
ExitDose Student Join Date: May 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 49	Originally Posted by The Vampire Do you have a link? Is this the same book Rosemary Ellen Guiley is gushing about on Amazon? I have no idea. The guy with the tattood arms(Brian?) was the one who said it. I believe they were investigating a library at the time.