Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Does TAPS Fake Their Evidence?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ghosts, Hauntings & The Paranormal
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
bankai26
QUOTE (Pluto-x @ Jun 6 2008, 03:02 PM) *
I'm not that desperate! tongue.gif

Thats funny neither am I. prs sucks too, but its not as bad as most haunted which is basura. Regardless what happens taps is still the only one i can watch and it still intriuges me. All others are so obviously bogus. GH definitely makes you think. I mean i don't accept it totaly but at lease it gets you to ponder the posibility.
Shankpin
QUOTE (Jason KB @ Jun 5 2008, 08:22 PM) *
If it's true that the Moss Beach Distillery told the Sci Fi production crew, but the crew didn't inform TAPS, that kind of goes along with what a few people here have been saying all along. That TAPS might not be faking anything, but the network is definitely doing its best to tamper with things in order to produce more exciting television.


I've just watched the program- I have to say after reading up on all the claims, plus their (TAPS) reaction in response to the found hoaxes, I have to agree with you. It's really disappointing- I'm assuming they were probably more disgusted than what they let it be known to the viewers.

(That dude made me sick with that smirk on his face when being confronted.) Hope the clientèle drops drastically, as I think it may.







Mabon
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 6 2008, 03:29 PM) *
Prof. Auerbach took the words right out of my mouth.


Hello Hamlyn.


QUOTE
Investigation of a location, especially one with decades of history of reported paranormal encounters, involves interviewing witnesses, historical research, reviewing prior media coverage of the place, and contacting (if possible) other investigators who have gone before (or at the very least reading their published reports of their investigations).
http://www.mossbeachdistillery.com/loydaue...ersepisode.html

Interviewing witness would be difficult in this instance. Since the case goes back approximately 65 years. No one was shown on behalf of the restaurant offering personal experience. What would be left (including written accounts) is second or third hand information. It would be anecdotal at best unless there was supporting evidence. The potential usefulness of it would be to look for possible sighting points or areas of activity.


QUOTE
It would appear that none of this was done for the Moss Beach Distillery. At least, there was no indication of it on the show. Of course, the producers cut the segment from many many hours down to less than 30 minutes, so there might have been some of this done. But there was no indication of this.
http://www.mossbeachdistillery.com/loydaue...ersepisode.html

In this Auerbach answers his own question or statement. He admits that the many hours of prep is never shown in the final footage, so why would the production staff indicate that if it is known? The only reason for him to bring it up in the manner he did is to cast a bad light on a competitor.

QUOTE
...Much has been written about the Moss Beach Distillery in books, magazines, newspapers and on the web.

...Dozens and dozens of TV shows and segments have featured stories on the Moss Beach Distillery and its resident ghost, the Blue Lady. I have been the person/investigator most associated with the restaurant, with psychic Annette Martin a close second (and often featured in segments with me). Many of these repeat endlessly on A&E, the Travel Channel, Biography, the History Channel, etc.
http://www.mossbeachdistillery.com/loydaue...ersepisode.html

And how often is it mentioned there are special effects present? Auerbach in the article does state the information can be found but no one thinks to look for it. He's right and that is what unscrupulous people count on, the honesty of others. I also noticed how in the article he attempts to justify the special effects being there.
Note the part in bold.

QUOTE
...The week before the TAPS team visited the Distillery, I got a call from a producer identifying himself as with the show... he mentioned the Distillery. I offered to provide him with any info about the place and folks experiences there, and specifically mentioned my book. He indicated they had what they needed.
http://www.mossbeachdistillery.com/loydaue...ersepisode.html

So if you go back to the beginning and tie all this together Auerbach is complaining that no one mentions his part in prior investigations and he can't hock his book on someone else's show... or did I miss something?

QUOTE
That's a detailed version of the complaint that sprang to my lips as I was watching the episode. In an academic setting, investigators in any field have to acknowledge previous research, and there are several reasons for that. One is that we should give credit where credit is due.

Auerbach by his own admission helped set up the special effects in the restaurant. I think he gave himself all the credit he needs. Why would TAPS, bring someone on who admits that they had a hand in orchestrating a hoax? Would you trust their evidence? I wouldn't. TAPS reputation is for being honest. Mistakes happen and these guys are human I'm sure they've made several, from learning about their equipment and everything else that a human can make a mistake over. But I do not suspect them of intentionally faking evidence, if they do it's the end of them and I think they know it. Even having a person on who admits to enhancing a purported paranormal site would make them look fraudulent by association unless that was also disclosed. And that would have to be from Auerbach's own lips otherwise it could be actionable since it would probably separate him from his book deal, TV interviews and other appearances he makes due to his investigative work.

QUOTE
But more importantly, the way that the state of knowledge advances in any discipline is by building on previous research. No investigation occurs in a vacuum, and no investigator starts from scratch. Otherwise, progress in the sciences would be impossible.

The research can only be built on if the research can be proven or trusted, otherwise it can be used as what not to do.

QUOTE
The unnecessary dead end at which TAPS found itself in this investigation illustrates the point nicely.

Or it could be said that there was nothing there to investigate.

QUOTE
Auerbach addresses some other evident shortcomings of TAPS's methods, but this is the main one that got my attention this week. I enjoy this show a lot and do my best to never miss it, and in my judgement, it's yielded some footage worth thinking about. But it is an entertainment product first, and it shouldn't be presented as serious research.


I enjoy the show too. I agree with you that they do provide some thought provoking footage.. I stated in post #540 my thoughts about the show. Any sarcasm is directed toward Auerbach and no one else.

Regards,
Mabon.
Hamlyn
Mabon, Loyd Auerbach did not perpetrate any hoax.

Back to the subject of research. It is your option whether or not to take the point seriously, but it is a fact that in academic research, investigators are required to conduct a survey of the literature and cite what has gone before. TAPS did not do that, and in fact several people on GH implied that no investigation had occurred before. Perhaps you see no problem with this. I do agree that it makes fine entertainment. But what I am pointing out is that this is the difference between research and what TAPS does. Well, one of many differences.

I don't want to just badmouth TAPS. I want to alert readers here that there exists a scholarly journal literature of this field, and I'd like to encourage people to get involved with it and even contribute to it. Doing so can only raise the quality of investigations and remove them from the kind of criticism that GH and TAPS subject themselves to.
Mabon
Hello Hamlyn.

I disagree with your point that Auerbach did not help perpetuate a hoax. In my first post in this thread I quoted him from his article and in my last post gave reasons why I think that if TAPS did know of his investigations why they didn't use it. It's the reason I wouldn't use it. Especially the evidence collected after 90-91.

TAPS has rarely talked about other/prior investigations by other teams on their show. Why would this one be any different from the standard formula? The only time they've discussed prior investigations/investigators is when they are following up on a lead or in cooperation with another group. They do disclose evidence of research in fact the first segment of the show they told the owner of the establishment the difference between some of the legends, the real age and number of the children who passed there (verses conjecture) as well of the age of the person who hung themselves in the widows watch.

Please point out the standard that paranormal investigators are supposed to follow. What criteria of research or discovery are they expected to adhere to when there isn't a standard definition of what a paranormal investigator is? PRS (paranormal research society) is also a team of paranormal researchers as well as any person with a camera and a notebook can call themselves one.

And you're preaching to the choir about raising standards. Trust me on that one!

Regards,
Mabon.


Hamlyn
Mabon,

Auerbach did not perpetrate a hoax, period. It is simply a false accusation. None of the funhouse gimmicks were offered by him or anybody as evidence of anything.

I understand your point that TAPS rarely acknowledges previous investigations. That is exactly the difference between what TAPS does and real research. That is exactly the point.

You are also correct that there are basically no widely-practiced or enforced standards of research or discovery in the field of paranormal investigations or ghost hunting. There is no credential, either. That is another difference between what TAPS does and actual research.

There is, however, an academic field that studies the paranormal according to academic standards. It's called parapsychology. People who are interested in the paranormal as more than entertainment might want to have a look!

Scholarly journals are where you find primary research. We can't expect to find it on a reality show for the SciFi Channel. Know what I mean?
ESPeter
My intuition tells me these TAPS members of which you speak have manipulated or embellished evidence in the past.
bankai26
QUOTE (ESPeter @ Jun 7 2008, 02:26 AM) *
My intuition tells me these TAPS members of which you speak have manipulated or embellished evidence in the past.

thats the thing we will never know for sure. Its speculation on wether its taps or sci-fi. Wether or not taps knows of these things or if stuff is forced through from the network. How much stuff do they know that they deny to either look better or eleviate the responsability, and to have to explain. Its much easier to deny any knowledge of something...
Mabon
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 6 2008, 08:58 PM) *
Mabon,

Auerbach did not perpetrate a hoax, period. It is simply a false accusation. None of the funhouse gimmicks were offered by him or anybody as evidence of anything.

I understand your point that TAPS rarely acknowledges previous investigations. That is exactly the difference between what TAPS does and real research. That is exactly the point.

You are also correct that there are basically no widely-practiced or enforced standards of research or discovery in the field of paranormal investigations or ghost hunting. There is no credential, either. That is another difference between what TAPS does and actual research.

There is, however, an academic field that studies the paranormal according to academic standards. It's called parapsychology. People who are interested in the paranormal as more than entertainment might want to have a look!

Scholarly journals are where you find primary research. We can't expect to find it on a reality show for the SciFi Channel. Know what I mean?


Hamlyn,

If someone helps set up a condition that leads people to a false conclusion that person is party to a hoax or fraud. The customers of the Distillery, who if they can not detect the hoax think that they had a paranormal encounter with the blue ghost, which is a false conclusion. The stories get circulated as if they are real by the owners and staff then collected as research. This is why anecdotal evidence must be substantiated. Recounting anecdotal evidence is not discovery.

If I had made up the information you would be right stating that Auerbach had not helped or been party to a hoax. However, the information came from him in his own article. I cannot stress enough that I find it even more disturbing that he, as a researcher, attempts in his article to soft sell it as an enhancement or does not see how it changes the situation.

The reports from people after 90-91 were influenced and the evidence is tainted. Auerbach being a person who knew of the existence of the effects (because he helped set them up), collecting the data and promoting the haunting of the establishment is not credible. Penn and Teller revel in their act how a trick is done then after showing it pull it on the audience again but it's still a trick. This is equal to what Auerbach is doing. Just because he was honest in reveling the special effects at the Moss Beach Distillery doesn't mean he is above reproach. He was a party who admitted tampering with evidence so I am suspicious of his collected evidence. That is being scientific and looking at what is there, not seeing just what I want to see. No scientist or investigator worth their salt would accept that evidence.

QUOTE
Scientists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community as establishing the existence of the paranormal. Active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research[3], and science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience.[4][5][6][7][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

The reason mainstream science is critical of parapsychology is the methodological flaws. Agenda of the researcher is an example of why. Ghost stories sell and capture the imagination of people because we are trained to be less observant in matters that may fringe on spirituality. We are taught that with belief there is no need to examine and look for evidence. The lack of repeatable results is another. These things might be overcome but not without a concerted effort on the part of people in the field. Using critical thinking skills is extremely important.

Regards,
Mabon.






MUM24/7
QUOTE (Shakezulah @ Jun 5 2008, 01:21 PM) *
The Atlantic Paranormal Society


Thanks sweetie...... thumbsup.gif
Hamlyn
QUOTE (Mabon @ Jun 7 2008, 08:24 AM) *
Hamlyn,

If someone helps set up a condition that leads people to a false conclusion that person is party to a hoax or fraud.


Only if he intends to deceive. Auerbach made no attempt to deceive. In fact, he publicized the funhouse gimmicks as such in numerous places. The accusation of fraud is therefore deeply ridiculous.

QUOTE
The customers of the Distillery, who if they can not detect the hoax think that they had a paranormal encounter with the blue ghost, which is a false conclusion.


Such people might also be fooled into thinking they were under siege by scurvy sea dogs on the Pirates ride at Disneyworld.

QUOTE
If I had made up the information you would be right stating that Auerbach had not helped or been party to a hoax.


You just leave out the information that completely exonerates him from your accusation.

Auerbach is also a performing mentalist, something like a stage magician. Are his performances as an entertainer also a hoax and a fraud? Of course not.

You can continue with this if you want, but it's absurd. Take a poll on how many here are convinced. That's my last remark about it.

QUOTE
The reason mainstream science is critical of parapsychology is the methodological flaws.


Sadly, the same is true of many disciplines. The quality of research in general needs to be raised, and keeping it at a high level requires a continuous stream of questioning and criticism. That is how academic research works.

Do you know who is most critical of parapsychology research? Parapsychology researchers. This is as it should be. Pick up the journal literature in parapsychology if you don't believe me. Indeed, pick it up anyway.

I'd also encourage you to be just as questioning of CSICOP stalwarts such as James Alcock. You might find them to be hardcore believers, not in the spiritual but in materialistic monism. There is a difference between being critical and being dismissive.

Now. Researchers in every field are prone to bias, or what you call "agenda," as well as other kinds of error. This is why certain protocols must be abided by in order to infer anything from analysis of results. It is probably the case that numerous studies in parapsychology proceed by flawed protocols. (The same is true of James Alcock's field, psychology, which has been called "not a science" by many scientists!) But correct protocols and analysis are the norm to which parapsychology aspires, and the field is at least headed in the right direction here.

The same cannot be said of the methods of groups like TAPS.

Indeed, if parapsychology can be criticized for widespread methodological flaws, then how much more can TAPS be criticized for the same thing when they observe no protocols to hedge against bias and proceed by nothing resembling a research design?

If parapsychology is subject to criticism on methodological grounds, then the work of TAPS begs for outright dismissal. This is a serious problem for claims of the paranormal that come from such investigations, and it can only be addressed by aspiring to academic standards of intellectual rigor.

I gather that this is a point you will refuse to take, so let this be my last word on it. I don't know why you would criticize academic researchers for things like "agenda" and "lack of repeatable results" while excusing TAPS from any such standard. It doesn't make sense to me. We should be encouraging more rigorous investigation, not holding up a reality show on the SciFi Channel as the model to emulate. That is, if we want the results of our investigations to persuade any reasonable person of anything.
Hamlyn
QUOTE (ESPeter @ Jun 7 2008, 12:26 AM) *
My intuition tells me these TAPS members of which you speak have manipulated or embellished evidence in the past.


If they proceed by no protocol to guard against it, then you can rest assured that they have manipulated or embellished results, perhaps not consciously, but manipulated all the same. Human beings cannot seem to help it.

That doesn't make the show worthless, but it does make their results extremely dubious, as we're seeing in this thread.

I think your intuition is right on this one!
Shakezulah
Jason's new blog. Should put an end to most of the debate on here.


QUOTE
Saturday, June 07, 2008

Response to Loyd Auerbach’s statements on Moss Beach!

I figured I would respond to most of Loyd Auerbachs letter on our investigation at Moss Beach seeing he posted his feelings on their web site.
Loyd claims he spoke with a producer at Pilgrim, I have checked this and can not find any person who spoke with him. I am in no way calling Loyd a liar, but I am not even sure this person who he states he talked to works or even worked for Pilgrim.
Even if someone was spoken to, it was never passed down the line about the place being rigged. 
It is not Pilgrims responsibility to inform us on that even if they were told, it is theirs "Moss Beach"!
He states a visit does not an investigation make, well that visit made the investigation. 
They did not inform us of the fakery going on and after that how can you truly trust anything you catch. 
Even if you caught a spirit on film, how do you know it is not some projector hidden somewhere else?
Nothing against Loyd, I like the guy. 
I would not be assisting places in faking paranormal activity though, like his statement says.
As for the place having so called paranormal activity since the 1930's, well at this point I wonder if any of the claims were even true, or was it just things that have been said to get people through the door?
As for us not doing enough research before the case, like we have always said, we wait till after the case so we do not contaminate ourselves with the claims, history or anything else of the case. 
Why read up on a place prior and find out so and so died in the back room and then go there and focus mostly on the back room?
Give the whole place a clean slate when you walk in!!
Go in uncontaminated!!
As for Loyd's statement about Grant getting hurt and it automatically making him not friendly to the place. 
We found the evidence before he got hurt so we already were not that friendly to the place! 
Not going to deny that!!
Nothing personal but Loyd seemed to be doing nothing but pushing his books with these statements. To each their own but I saw 3 to 4 things about his books in this letter.

Like I said, I like Loyd, we have talked as two people in the same field. We have debated as two people with two different styles of investigating and he has my respect.

That being said, I stand by my statement that Moss Beach had more then enough chances to tell us about the stuff they had rigged and chose not to! 

Who should have told us? Moss Beach should have told us!
As for stating "It's a show!
Yes it is Loyd, but it is a show about what we do and what we have been doing since around 1990. Just because it is on TV does not take away the truth of the investigation it just makes it appear a hell of a lot shorter then it really is!
We have investigated some places for 5 days straight just to see production turn it into a one night investigation for the TV show.
I honestly feel that Moss Beach barely deserved the time it took me to walk through the door after finding what we found.
We do tons of personal cases where people need our help Loyd, it is up to Scifi and Pilgrim to air them. That part is out of our hands.
You also state that we make more in one episode then you have made on your books,lol, you seem to have no idea what your talking about on that and I hope your books are a bit more accurate!


There is no leading authority in the field of the paranormal though many out there want to think they are.
That their words are the words that all other investigators should follow and live by.
Each person needs to be their own person.
Find what way works best for you when investigating and stick with it.
We all need to work together in this field. It is truly the only way it will get ahead.

I have nothing to hide so I am posting Loyd's statement here under my answers. 
I wish him the best!
Here is Loyd's statement!

A VISIT DOES NOT AN INVESTIGATION MAKE
Comments on the Moss Beach Distillery "investigation" by GHOST HUNTERS,
which aired June 4, 2008.
Loyd Auerbach
June 4, 2008
I just got finished watching tonight's episode of GHOST HUNTERS on SciFi Channel. The second half of the episode was their "investigation" of the Moss Beach Distillery, and her long-time apparition, most often referred to the Blue Lady.
The episode did a great disservice to the restaurant, but more importantly, to the hundreds of people over the years who have experienced something paranormal/psychic at the Distillery since the early 1930s.
Keep that in mind – phenomena has been reported since the early 1930s, through multiple owners, including some who lived .., and through a complete teardown and rebuild in the late 1990s (for seismic retrofit).
No disrespect to Jason, Grant, Steve and Kris, but "investigation" includes MUCH more than merely going to the place, checking it out, setting up tech, and reviewing the "evidence" caught (or not caught) by the tech.
Investigation of a location, especially one with decades of history of reported paranormal encounters, involves interviewing witnesses, historical research, reviewing prior media coverage of the place, and contacting (if possible) other investigators who have gone before (or at the very least reading their published reports of their investigations).
It would appear that none of this was done for the Moss Beach Distillery. At least, there was no indication of it on the show. Of course, the producers cut the segment from many many hours down to less than 30 minutes, so there might have been some of this done. But there was no indication of this.
Nor was there any indication of this when Jay & Grant talked about the lamps, etc. at UNIV-CON in October 2007. They indicated there had been an attempt to fool them – they were less than thrilled that neither the chef (who appeared on camera) nor the owner warned them about the special effects – though I got no indication that they'd actually spoken to John Barbour, the owner.
I spoke with Kris Williams at Ghost Rush in February. She, too, expressed her displeasure with the restaurant for not indicating there were special effects before they arrived or when they were there.
However…
1)
Much has been written about the Moss Beach Distillery in books, magazines, newspapers and on the web. Many articles since the late 1990s mention the special effects.
2)
Dozens and dozens of TV shows and segments have featured stories on the Moss Beach Distillery and its resident ghost, the Blue Lady. I have been the person/investigator most associated with the restaurant, with psychic Annette Martin a close second (and often featured in segments with me). Many of these repeat endlessly on A&E, the Travel Channel, Biography, the History Channel, etc.
3)
Several segments have mentioned the effects, and there's been one that prominently featured the effects and my discussion of them. This show recently reran yet again.
4)
I've discussed the Distillery on hundreds of radio (broadcast mostly, and internet lately). In a majority of the interviews since the late 1990s, we've talked about the effects.
5)
There were NO effects at the restaurant prior to that (other than the occasional effects at performances by magicians and mentalists for entertainment.
6)
My 2005 book A PARANORMAL CASEBOOK: GHOST HUNTING IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Atriad Press) contains the longest write-up of the case to be found. It's nearly a sixth of the book. It extensively discusses the experiences of so many witnesses (myself included), and the history.
7)
The week before the TAPS team visited the Distillery, I got a call from a producer identifying himself as with the show. He was asking for names/contacts for witnesses for the Presidio Officer's Club in San Francisco, which he'd learned I'd investigated. Before we got off the phone, I asked him where else they were going in the Bay Area. He mentioned the Distillery. I offered to provide him with any info about the place and folks experiences there, and specifically mentioned my book. He indicated they had what they needed. I asked him if they were aware of the special effects. HE SAID THEY WERE AWARE OF THE EFFECTS!!!
That the producer at least tacitly acknowledged his awareness of the effects, my book, etc., and yet by all indications none of the team were informed of them points ANY finger of blame at the production staff, not the restaurant.
8)
The folks at the Distillery don't go out of their way to tell people about the effects, that's true. The fact is (and yes, it's a fact) that it's so easy to find out that there are special effects there before visiting that no one thinks to do so. Had the chef been allowed to stay while they "investigated," the outcome would have been very different.
As to no phenomena happening while they were there, guess what? Ghosts, if we define them as people essentially hanging around after death, have free will too. Perhaps the Blue Lady (who we have known as Cayte for several years) was someplace else, or was annoyed by the attitude of the folks.
By not speaking with any prior investigators, or witnesses, there's no way to find a pattern, to find out what's been going on or try to learn what would be the best times to experience things, and under what conditions. There are certain things we've done prior to visiting and when there to encourage Cayte to "come out."
Just reading my book would have given them everything they needed to know. But here's an important note: Cayte's hardly ever there lately, based on the decline of good reports and my own (and Annette's) experiences when visiting.
Now for a few more specific comments about what aired.
At the beginning, it was mentioned there was a "Guy who washed up on shore all dismembered." NEVER heard that in all my years of research, interviewing witnesses, etc.
Steve mentioned he had not heard much about the MBD? So….he doesn't watch other paranormal specials/TV shows?
The chef is not the person who has kept really good track of past events or even special effects. What chef is? WE (and locals) have been collecting info, getting responses from people, hearing experiences, etc. Had they spoken with anyone associated with longer term investigations (me, Annette Martin, always on TV with the place), they would have had a full report on what's gone on, what's going on lately, and the effects.
I'd love to have seen/heard all that the chef reported had gone on. So little was mentioned on the show, it's hard to know how informed/uninformed he is.
Yes, in the Torres room (main/original dining room), the apparition has been seen and felt in room.
It was mentioned when in the bar area that her husband stabbed her. We're actually not at all sure who did it, but the general feeling is it was the husband due to him having shown up earlier in the evening she was killed. (Note: she had left him a while before and it took him some time to track her down; in the meantime she'd begun an affair with the piano player). When he showed up, he caused a ruckus and was ejected from the place (it WAS a Speakeasy at the time). We assume he was the killer as when she and her boyfriend were on the beach, he was conked over the head and she was stabbed.
"We really want to be able to capture/catch her on the bluff."
Nope – She used to be seen on the bluff, but it's been many, many years since this was the case. However, folks have seen her on the beach below.
Steve's attempts at communicating with Cayte were actually a good try. Always worked for folks to be friendly and light with her rather than serious. His attempt to scare Tango (for fun) was good. Cayte likes having fun.
Bathroom area: While the ladies room was a primary focus for experiences for so many decades (including her image seen in the main bathroom mirror many times), no real sightings or experiences have been reported since place was torn apart and rebuilt – the ladies room is in a different location from where it was for most of the place's existence. This is one reason there's no problem with the effects in ladies room.
"Look for projectors."
Hey, various folks have tried to come up with a good projection system for the place (I worked with a few several years ago), but no one's had any luck designing something to project the apparition that's not incredibly expensive.
Grant got hurt – that certainly wasn't going to make him "friendly" to the place. It was also no fault of the restaurant, as no restaurant in their normal course of business expects people to attempt to get into the ceiling.
It was mentioned that this was "fake evidence." Nope. Not evidence of anything paranormal at all, or even evidence to do anything but give the patrons a more reliable (though non-paranormal) experience.
Hey, but what about places that make up stories? I've known of numerous historical locations that have either inflated the "haunting" or flat out made up a story, which is believed. Impact of this is even more pervasive than physical special effects.
At the end of the show, Jason mentioned "People who truly have problems" and "wasted time on a place like this."
This leads me to ask, WHO chose the place to begin with???? Who did the due diligence research on the place? Spoke with witnesses? Watched video/read interviews with past witnesses? With the local historian? With ANYBODY other than the chef who's only been there a couple of years?
Yes, there are lots of people with problems and yes, they should spend their time on such cases. Yet week after week we see the TAPS team going to places like the Distillery, where no one needs "help" or has problems.
Folks … It's a TV SHOW! On the SciFi Channel.
What is the "Fi" short for, anyway???
A bit more…For the full skinny on the paranormal experiences/happenings at the Distillery, read the section of my book A PARANORMAL CASEBOOK.
[Before you ask, I'm not posting the write-up on the web/MySpace. Just like Jason & Grant et. al. are making $$ with their TV show, I sell my books. Yes, I said it. I am trying to make a buck from selling my books. Wish I could say I've made as much money on that book since its release as either Jason & Grant make on a SINGLE episode of the show. I haven't.]
Visit the web page on my site dealing with some of the encounters at the Distillery at http://www.mindreader.com/fav_mossbeach.html
I was involved in the initial set up of the special effects at the Moss Beach Distillery in the late 1990s -- which are computer-controlled/recorded recreations of some of the reported phenomena at the Distillery, phenomena which began in the early 1930s.
The effects were deliberately set up with specific lamps that were not previously reported as moving (it was other lamps). In fact, I've witnessed the lamps NOT rigged moving (and not as a consequence of the others moving).
In the ladies room, the effect is in a different mirror (different from the main mirror where the ghost's image has been seen multiple times before the place was rebuilt). The laughter of the woman that plays when the door to the ladies room opens (only sometimes) is a clear indicator that this is an "effect."
The effects are computer controlled. The computer records all simulated effects, and individual activations. In that way, if there's any question as to whether 'the ghost did it' or not, there's a record to check.
No effort to hide the effects has been made. Run searches on Google. Find recent articles on the place. As every prior TV crew that's visited since the effects were installed already knew about them (they did research), and it's SO easy to find out that they're there, it's no surprise that the chef didn't go out of his way to let them know about the effects.
Finally, the reported phenomena has been occurring since the early 1930s. The effects were installed starting in the late 1990s.
I got involved in 1991 and have conducted numerous investigations there before any special effects were installed. There have been real, documented physical phenomena at the Distillery prior to the installation of the effects.
I have personally had numerous experiences there -- something I can't say about a lot of places I investigate.
To be clear: I helped with that installation (consulting, helping to get the initial contractors, and more). The phenomena is real. The phenomena went on for over 65 years before the effects were even conceived of. The effects are fun, to add to the "experience" of the restaurant.
And the effects are no secret.
It's a shame that there was a pronouncement that the place is not haunted. Even if they had not had the experience they had with the effects, what happens when they don't experience anything IN A SINGLE VISIT?
Does this invalidate the hundreds of witnesses who had experiences? Does it invalidate the prior investigations and conclusions?
If so, you would likely have been among the scientists who stated emphatically, on hearing of the Wright Brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk, that such a thing was flat-out impossible, that it was fraud.
Or amongst the scientific community that denied the origin of meteorites as falling to Earth from outside the atmosphere.
Or amongst the scientific community which denied the existence of Gorillas.
And so on…
No disrespect to Jason and Grant. The producers are going to do what they want, regardless of them and their desires. Including not warning them about the effects which at least one staff member knew about. [Note: Yes, it is possible that the person who called me was not a member of the production staff, or even connected to the show. But highly unlikely given the conversation and timing]
Jason and Grant need to be honest and up front on this one -- just admit they were not informed, that due diligence was not done on the place. Perhaps they researched the history of the place and had not checked into what other investigators had to say (or restaurant reviews, which generally mention the effects as well).
But clearly, this is a mistake, and a lesson learned for future investigations – whether televised or not. It's a lesson for ALL who call themselves "ghost hunters."
Remember: The operative word here is "investigation."
I encourage you to visit the Moss Beach Distillery. Not because you might experience something paranormal – most people don't (which is partly why the effects are there to begin with).
It's a great place, with an incredible view of the coast and Pacific, and absolutely terrific food (though upper-end prices). It is, without a doubt, my favorite haunted place.
By the way, Cayte (the Blue Lady) says "Hi." 

Loyd Auerbach, M.S.


puridalan
In all honesty I find it rather for the most part disrespectful for even having a show in which you are locating ghosts. I don't like tv in general for that reason, because all of you want to be entertained instead of entertaining now a days. It is highly annoying to watch that 'phase' people are in through that state. If you do see ghosts you deal with them in a manner just as you would a human, not putting them on a tv show doing yes or no questions as if they were a two year old...but that's just me.
Hamlyn
Just a couple of issues with what Jason Hawes says about this.

QUOTE (Jason Hawes @ Jun 7 2008, 10:10 PM) *
As for the place having so called paranormal activity since the 1930's, well at this point I wonder if any of the claims were even true, or was it just things that have been said to get people through the door?


The claims can be evaluated by reading the published accounts of investigations done there. Whether a person finds the claims weak or convincing, he doesn't have to take the staff's word for it or simply be left wondering. And such an evaluation should never hinge on the team's judgement of one person's honesty and candor (the head chef, in this case).


QUOTE
As for us not doing enough research before the case, like we have always said, we wait till after the case so we do not contaminate ourselves with the claims, history or anything else of the case. 
Why read up on a place prior and find out so and so died in the back room and then go there and focus mostly on the back room?
Give the whole place a clean slate when you walk in!!
Go in uncontaminated!!


At least three issues are raised here.

First, Jason is correct that TAPS observers should "go in uncontaminated," and so should the staff who evaluate the recorded evidence, which is to say that TAPS should observe "blind" protocols. But they do the opposite, as far as can be seen on the show. The team frontloads their observations every time by interviewing witnesses and going on a guided ghost tour of the place. So they never "give the place a clean slate" in any way that could help avoid confirmation bias.

Second, each episode spans several phases of the investigation over time. There is nothing stopping TAPS from assigning a member to review previous, published investigations during this time so that they can be acknowledged, and the results can be compared. There is no reason for such a literature survey to taint any observations as long as the observers and background researchers are kept separate. Again, this is to say that they should follow a blind protocol. Or at least they could conduct their survey after the investigation phase. Neither would prevent acknowledgement of previous research on the show, and yet TAPS not only failed to acknowledge it-- they implied that there was none.

Blind protocols and literature surveys are two things that make the difference between ghost hunting and evidence-based research. Again, ghost hunting makes fine entertainment, but it is not very persuasive on a rational basis.

Third, how is it that an organization like TAPS is not aware of previous investigations such as Auerbach's? I've seen him lecture once and read one of his books, and in both instances heard much about the Blue Lady. Jason says he likes the guy, implying that he's met him, and that makes sense. They've probably been panelists at the same conferences. IIRC, Steve has stated that he doesn't like to read, and that the only book he's read on the paranormal is one of Loyd's. The Distillery is one of the two big cases with which Auerbach is synonymous, and he always seems to mention it. Can it really be true that no one on the team was aware of this? Either they are dramatically failing to pay attention to their own field, or they are deliberately avoiding any mention of other investigative efforts.

As entertainers, TAPS are under no obligation to pay attention to findings in their field, but as investigators, how can they not? It could only help them "help people," not to mention strengthening their own findings. Furthermore, it is just the honest thing to do, to acknowledge previous research.

Jason comes across as a stand-up guy in this letter, but his personal integrity is no protection against bias and other kinds of avoidable error. That is why investigations in any research field proceed according to certain methods. As interesting as GH may be (and I never miss it), it does not proceed according to such methods. That's the source of all the criticisms outlined in this entire thread, including outright accusations of fakery. Not a big problem for an entertainment product, but a big problem for an investigation team who wants its findings taken seriously.

(edit: added a sentence and changed 2 words.)
ROGER
The posts are getting longer , but whats said is becoming repetitive. You will not change any ones opinion doing this.

A post should be like a mini skirt : Long enough to cover the subject , yet short enough to keep interest. IMO.
Shankpin
Nice way of putting it, Roger! wink2.gif
NoahJaymes
Honestly, why can't people investigate like they want? THERE is no SET standard for how to investigate only but what people in the field say to do. I don't care if someone has a degree in Parapsychology (Bullcrap) or what, I will continue to investigate the way I feel it needs to be done.

Hamlyn, you are getting repetitive and quite honestly, boring. Your obvious biased point of view and obsession with Auerbach is leading your argument no where.

Why investigate off of someone elses "published results?" A tour of the place isn't about hearing of claims, its about where to set up the equipment and to hit harder than most. If you notice, only a few of them go on the tour, not the entire team. So who is to say the team knows about the history? Jason and Grant may, but they more than likely don't disclose such information, "all the time."

Seems like Auerbach wants recognition and that is it.
bankai26
Thats trues wolf. Everything is still experimental, no one really has definite answers. Its about building up enough evidence that you think you can state a good arguement, even then people are still going to turn a blind eye. I think you just have to approach objectively, there are some things people claim as paranormal, that frankly just won't hold up to most. So how do we get that quality evidence? Comes only by experimentation and diferent methods to come together i think.
Hamlyn
QUOTE (CryWolf @ Jun 9 2008, 10:15 AM) *
Honestly, why can't people investigate like they want? THERE is no SET standard for how to investigate only but what people in the field say to do. I don't care if someone has a degree in Parapsychology (Bullcrap) or what, I will continue to investigate the way I feel it needs to be done.


People can do whatever they like. There is nothing wrong with ghost hunting. But there is a difference between ghost hunting (as done by TAPS) and scientific research. And I think that is why this thread exists. People can ask if TAPS is faking it because they see that there is no protocol.

Again, as I said before, I agree that there are no standards set for "paranormal investigation." That is the problem. But applicable standards do exist. It's just a question of who is willing to apply them.

QUOTE
Hamlyn, you are getting repetitive and quite honestly, boring. Your obvious biased point of view and obsession with Auerbach is leading your argument no where.


Apparently not repetitive enough, as you still hadn't got the point. You seem to think it has something to do with telling people they can't "investigate like they want."

I don't know or care to know why you take criticism of TAPS so personally as to start with namecalling and personal attacks. I have no interest in that.

QUOTE
Why investigate off of someone elses "published results?"


I've said why literature surveys are a part of academic research. If you still don't see the point, then feel free not to review any previous work in the field. The whole scientific and scholarly world works that way, but not everything is science or scholarship.

QUOTE
A tour of the place isn't about hearing of claims, its about where to set up the equipment and to hit harder than most. If you notice, only a few of them go on the tour, not the entire team. So who is to say the team knows about the history? Jason and Grant may, but they more than likely don't disclose such information, "all the time."


Yes, Jason and Grant (and often other team members) go on this tour, thereby frontloading their observations. Jason recognizes in his editorial that they should go in "uncontaminated," but that is not what he does. He is not even abiding by his own standards.

This is what leads to threads like this one, where they even get accused of fakery.

If they don't like it, and they want their results taken more seriously, then there are methods they can follow to make sure their results are robust.

If, on the other hand, they are satisfied to provide entertainment and a little food for thought, then they are doing fine. They all seem like swell guys, and I never miss the show. There's just very little that is scientific or evidential about it.
louie
we just started to get the show here an . its lame. trying to make nothing happening look exciting.
like watching paint dry.
bankai26
QUOTE (louie @ Jun 9 2008, 01:08 PM) *
we just started to get the show here an . its lame. trying to make nothing happening look exciting.
like watching paint dry.

you being from ireland right? i would suppose your no stranger to claims of paranormal. What is it like over there? isn't it supposedly pretty active?
Rahela_Pricolici
I was a long time member of their forum, and got to speak to them many times. I was also good friends with a woman that did end up seeing a certain, earlier member of their group. I know for a fact, from a few horses mouths that they did in fact fake a few episodes.

1.The Lighthouse, and the moving chair
2.The Queen Mary, where they supposedly found evidence that some random person tried to doctor up some of their tapes. Truth was that they were caught by another paranormal team there, try to fake their own video.
3.The episode where they drum kit supposedly jumped out and attacked Jason.
4. And who could forget the episode where they camera guy was "pushed." Yes, that one too.

Pretty much stopped watching after the second season.
Hamlyn
QUOTE (Rahela_Pricolici @ Jun 9 2008, 05:15 PM) *
4. And who could forget the episode where they camera guy was "pushed." Yes, that one too.


Wow. I mean the equipment bag hit the guy right in the face, and both his hands were up at the time. How'd they fake that?

Added: I want to make it clear that I never thought they faked it, but if someone can show that it was faked and demonstrate how, then I'd like to see it.
Rahela_Pricolici
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 9 2008, 07:45 PM) *
Wow. I mean the equipment bag hit the guy right in the face, and both his hands were up at the time. How'd they fake that?

Added: I want to make it clear that I never thought they faked it, but if someone can show that it was faked and demonstrate how, then I'd like to see it.


I have watched the aired version and the 3 full (yes, there was more than two cameras on that guy) unaired versions of that scene. His bag did not go up in the air until his own stomach pushed it up upon falling. From one of the tapes, I really couldn't tell if it was his stomach or knee, but it was a part of his own body that pushed it up. And on another one, when you slow it down, you actually see the camera guy crouch down and then push back with his legs, giving the appearance that his bag was higher than his head. You put a large bag over your shoulder and cinch it up near the center of your body, now jump/fall backwards. Tell me it doesn't go up before it goes down. Now I am not saying that the phenomenon of a spirit energies pushing a human being isn't possible. I am just saying that I know, from those that knew first hand, that this one episode in question was staged.
eqgumby
QUOTE (Rahela_Pricolici @ Jun 9 2008, 06:15 PM) *
I was a long time member of their forum, and got to speak to them many times. I was also good friends with a woman that did end up seeing a certain, earlier member of their group. I know for a fact, from a few horses mouths that they did in fact fake a few episodes.

1.The Lighthouse, and the moving chair
2.The Queen Mary, where they supposedly found evidence that some random person tried to doctor up some of their tapes. Truth was that they were caught by another paranormal team there, try to fake their own video.
3.The episode where they drum kit supposedly jumped out and attacked Jason.
4. And who could forget the episode where they camera guy was "pushed." Yes, that one too.

Pretty much stopped watching after the second season.

I'd be interested to know your connection to them and see some sort of corroboration that these were faked incidents.
Plainbob13
QUOTE (Rahela_Pricolici @ Jun 9 2008, 06:15 PM) *
I was a long time member of their forum, and got to speak to them many times. I was also good friends with a woman that did end up seeing a certain, earlier member of their group. I know for a fact, from a few horses mouths that they did in fact fake a few episodes.

1.The Lighthouse, and the moving chair
2.The Queen Mary, where they supposedly found evidence that some random person tried to doctor up some of their tapes. Truth was that they were caught by another paranormal team there, try to fake their own video.
3.The episode where they drum kit supposedly jumped out and attacked Jason.
4. And who could forget the episode where they camera guy was "pushed." Yes, that one too.

Pretty much stopped watching after the second season.


Donna is that you? Kidding.
Shankpin
Hamlyn, are you not reading what's being said, or you just want to argue for argument's sake? attempt to disagree with the same idea..

QUOTE (CryWolf @ Jun 9 2008, 11:15 AM) *
Honestly, why can't people investigate like they want? THERE is no SET standard for how to investigate only but what people in the field say to do. I don't care if someone has a degree in Parapsychology (Bullcrap) or what, I will continue to investigate the way I feel it needs to be done.


QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 9 2008, 11:57 AM) *
Apparently not repetitive enough, as you still hadn't got the point. You seem to think it has something to do with telling people they can't "investigate like they want."



JustNormal
QUOTE (Plainbob13 @ Jun 10 2008, 02:25 AM) *
Donna is that you? Kidding.


LOL Funny if it was...JN
JackalnChainz
is Ghost Hunters still on?
Phase 3
Yes every wednesday
JackalnChainz
That's when I'm watching Mixed Martial Arts in the octagon!
louie
QUOTE (bankai26 @ Jun 9 2008, 10:30 PM) *
you being from ireland right? i would suppose your no stranger to claims of paranormal. What is it like over there? isn't it supposedly pretty active?

I havent lived in Ireland for over 10 years now, but yeah we have quite a few haunted places, an quite a lot of people belive in the paranormal, personally ive seen some stuff i cant explain but thats diffrent than running around with a ghostbusters pack trying to make nothing happening look intresting for a reality type show.
Veliska
QUOTE (Plainbob13 @ May 29 2008, 11:51 PM) *
OBEY YOUR LORD AND MASTER!

Okay Foamy then I will take you too the bagel shop in like 5 more minutes..lol
Hamlyn
QUOTE (Shankpin @ Jun 9 2008, 08:53 PM) *
Hamlyn, are you not reading what's being said, or you just want to argue for argument's sake? attempt to disagree with the same idea..


You misunderstand. I mean that CryWolf seems to think my point has something to do with telling people they can't investigate however they want.

It doesn't. Investigators can do whatever they like.

But investigating in some ways opens you to all sorts of criticism, such as we see here on this thread.

Investigating in other ways can head off such criticism. We call those ways "research methods."

If investigators want to provide entertainment and some food for thought, then they're doing fine by imitating TAPS or other ghost hunters. If they want their findings to be more "scientific" and taken more seriously, then the way to do it is to adopt certain research methods.

I understand that this is repetitive. Sometimes, a few people don't seem to get it the first, second, or third time. I hope it's clear now.

I don't think there's a lot to argue about here. I would like to see serious paranormal investigators adopt more rigorous research methods. I'd like to encourage them to aspire to academic norms of rigor. Is that a bad thing that should trigger fights and name-calling? I don't see how. But I suppose someone can always take offense at the criticism of TAPS. I mean, I like the guys, too, but they are not above criticism.
Phase 3
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 10 2008, 02:52 PM) *
But I suppose someone can always take offense at the criticism of TAPS. I mean, I like the guys, too, but they are not above criticism.

I don’t know what the argument is about but I agree with the last two sentences.
Hamlyn
QUOTE (Rahela_Pricolici @ Jun 9 2008, 06:51 PM) *
I have watched the aired version and the 3 full (yes, there was more than two cameras on that guy) unaired versions of that scene. His bag did not go up in the air until his own stomach pushed it up upon falling. From one of the tapes, I really couldn't tell if it was his stomach or knee, but it was a part of his own body that pushed it up. And on another one, when you slow it down, you actually see the camera guy crouch down and then push back with his legs, giving the appearance that his bag was higher than his head. You put a large bag over your shoulder and cinch it up near the center of your body, now jump/fall backwards. Tell me it doesn't go up before it goes down. Now I am not saying that the phenomenon of a spirit energies pushing a human being isn't possible. I am just saying that I know, from those that knew first hand, that this one episode in question was staged.


Just the fact that two more camera angles exist would be very important.

Was this admitted in public anywhere?

Is there any way for us to verify that there were 3 angles on this footage?
NoahJaymes
No, we got your point the first, second, third, 36th, 98th and millionth time. I simply said that its pointless to keep posting over and over again because no matter what you imply, people are going to investigate the way they like. This is not about putting TAPS on some pedistle or thinking they should not be criticized because I critisize them greatly. I actually put rigorous research and apply various methods into how we conduct our investigations. After all, it isn't everyday when a paranormal team has a calculator in their inventory....
Hamlyn
QUOTE (CryWolf @ Jun 10 2008, 03:00 PM) *
No, we got your point the first, second, third, 36th, 98th and millionth time. I simply said that its pointless to keep posting over and over again because no matter what you imply, people are going to investigate the way they like.


So what? It's a free country.

bankai26
thats why i freely don't read them
LadyHay
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 9 2008, 09:57 AM) *
People can do whatever they like. There is nothing wrong with ghost hunting. But there is a difference between ghost hunting (as done by TAPS) and scientific research. And I think that is why this thread exists. People can ask if TAPS is faking it because they see that there is no protocol.



I agree with this statement. And I'm sitting here with a mass of journals from SPR and ASPR and I can tell you (I have just come into possession of these and haven't thoroughly looked at them) that there IS valuable parapsychology and psychical research/ paranormal papers in there. Better than anything I've ever written. Better than (apologies) most I've read anywhere on the internet.



QUOTE
I've said why literature surveys are a part of academic research. If you still don't see the point, then feel free not to review any previous work in the field. The whole scientific and scholarly world works that way, but not everything is science or scholarship.


Agreed again. And if I understand you correctly, any scrutiny that has happened before in any studied site is important information. Even if it is simply witness account. In my journal I just picked up, there is a section, Reviews of Scholarly Books. This means that there is reference to a book already in circulation. Which means it can hold important information!


QUOTE
This is what leads to threads like this one, where they even get accused of fakery.

If they don't like it, and they want their results taken more seriously, then there are methods they can follow to make sure their results are robust.

If, on the other hand, they are satisfied to provide entertainment and a little food for thought, then they are doing fine. They all seem like swell guys, and I never miss the show. There's just very little that is scientific or evidential about it.


I think that is a fair assessment. And it's not an issue with many people. Just as long as we continue to take it as entertainment!
Plainbob13
QUOTE (Veliska @ Jun 10 2008, 09:28 AM) *
Okay Foamy then I will take you too the bagel shop in like 5 more minutes..lol



grin2.gif thumbsup.gif
Hamlyn
QUOTE (LadyHay @ Jun 10 2008, 05:39 PM) *
I agree with this statement. And I'm sitting here with a mass of journals from SPR and ASPR and I can tell you (I have just come into possession of these and haven't thoroughly looked at them) that there IS valuable parapsychology and psychical research/ paranormal papers in there. Better than anything I've ever written. Better than (apologies) most I've read anywhere on the internet.


To me, the work being reported in those journals is very exciting. I wish my local university had current subscriptions. The primary literature is where you see how to really get a handle on a research question and what kinds of criticism different studies are subject to. Other research also gives a very clear point of departure for current studies. You can just pick up where another researcher left off, if his question interests you. It gives me a feeling that I can be part of something larger and more important than myself or anything I could think up on my own.

QUOTE
And if I understand you correctly, any scrutiny that has happened before in any studied site is important information. Even if it is simply witness account. In my journal I just picked up, there is a section, Reviews of Scholarly Books. This means that there is reference to a book already in circulation. Which means it can hold important information!


Yes. And an existing body of research makes it unnecessary to keep reinventing the wheel and making the same old mistakes. It's something to build on.

So let's say one researcher publishes a study, and in his discussion, he notes that he only used a small "convenience sample" of subjects, and the next step would be to see if the results hold given a larger and more representative sample. Furthermore, his colleagues write in to say that the study failed to control for this or that intervening variable. So another researcher looking for something constructive to do could say, aha, I'll do a similar study that eliminates these sources of possible error. And this way, paper by paper, a body of knowledge is built. original.gif

In most of those papers you see remarks in the introduction like, "previous studies focused on this but did not consider that." Or similar. So every researcher tries to bring something new, even if he's "only" replicating an earlier study and seeing if the results reproduce.

QUOTE
I think that is a fair assessment. And it's not an issue with many people. Just as long as we continue to take it as entertainment!


Yes, I agree. And GH has certainly produced its share of memorable TV moments.

But I think a lot of people, TAPS and their admirers included, are very earnest and sincere and would like to produce results that can be taken seriously by critical people-- results that can really add to our body of knowledge about this field. I see a lot of frustration among such people. By pointing toward the academic side of things, I hope to point them toward a solution.

BTW, if you see something particularly interesting in the SPR journals, I'd certainly read any summary of it you posted here. original.gif
LadyHay
QUOTE (Hamlyn @ Jun 11 2008, 10:44 AM) *
BTW, if you see something particularly interesting in the SPR journals, I'd certainly read any summary of it you posted here. original.gif



For sure!
Phase 3
One thing I have also noticed particularly on the latest episode was that Jay and Grant have done another thing they preach against and that was using personal experiences as evidence. For some reason they felt it necessary to show the owner footage from when they were supposedly getting tugged on the pant leg. Yet even though nothing can be seen except Grant jumping back the owner swallowed it up and said “I can tell by your reaction something happened.” Grant even says well you can’t actually see the pants tug, I did feel it. HOW THE HECK IS IT EVIDENCE THEN??? They always say personal experiences are nothing without support to back it up, but I guess since its Grant it is deemed worthy of showing as evidence.
~Onyx~
It's always been my assertion that you can judge whether or not a paranormal investigator/group/society is relatively legit and sincere by asking yourself "do you think they would STILL be investigating the paranormal if they diddn't have a show on t.v.?" In the case of Most Haunted(a.k.a. one of the funniest shows The BBC has ever produced) the answer would be hell no, Paranormal State.....possibly....but there is DEFINITE playing-up to the camera and extra theatrics going on there, and while I truly believe that the lead members of the group have a sincere intrest in the paranormal, there is just too much residual crap going on there, IMO. I honestly can't put "fabicating" past ANYONE who has a show to produce and ratings to garner, but I can say this with a modicum of confidence: I honestly believe that if Ghost Hunters wasn't televised, that Jason and Grant and they're friends would STILL be camping out in old houses and investigating claims of the paranormal on they're own, just not on the scale that they currently are. They have legitimate interest in authenticating the paranormal objectively, IMO.
JustNormal
QUOTE (Black_Swamp_Paranormal @ Jun 13 2008, 11:34 AM) *
One thing I have also noticed particularly on the latest episode was that Jay and Grant have done another thing they preach against and that was using personal experiences as evidence. For some reason they felt it necessary to show the owner footage from when they were supposedly getting tugged on the pant leg. Yet even though nothing can be seen except Grant jumping back the owner swallowed it up and said “I can tell by your reaction something happened.” Grant even says well you can’t actually see the pants tug, I did feel it. HOW THE HECK IS IT EVIDENCE THEN??? They always say personal experiences are nothing without support to back it up, but I guess since its Grant it is deemed worthy of showing as evidence.



I wondered the same exact thing. I also thought it was possibly was set up ahead of time, or did they have their 2 way radios on, so Jay knew when to look down at his pants? I wasnt impressed..You are correct, it isnt evidence..JN
LadyHay
QUOTE (JustNormal @ Jun 13 2008, 09:12 AM) *
I wondered the same exact thing. I also thought it was possibly was set up ahead of time, or did they have their 2 way radios on, so Jay knew when to look down at his pants? I wasnt impressed..You are correct, it isnt evidence..JN



Why is personal experience not evidence?
myghostnetwork
QUOTE (LadyHay @ Jun 13 2008, 06:14 PM) *
Why is personal experience not evidence?

personal experience is not considered evidence because there is no way to prove a personal experience, just like hearsay, it is not admissible in a court of law because there is no proof that what someone say's is truthful.

*yay that was my 100th post
Jason KB
If we could have actually seen either Jay or Grant's pant leg be physically tugged on, then I would have been fine with it being considered evidence. But just two videos of two people reporting their personal experience isn't evidence. Fine for the investigative portion of the show, but not right for the evidence reveal, in my opinion.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.