My problem with ghost hunters.

[Drago]

So I was watching some ghost hunters on MysteryQuest. It claimed to be an episode about the Amityville Horror, but I honestly saw maybe thirty seconds devoted to the actual Amityville stuff. The rest was about a 'new, similar case' somewhere else in an abandoned sanitarium.

Okay. Large building. Check. Uninhabited. Check.

They of course bring in thermal gear. They demonstrate that any warm body that touches a surface for any length of time leaves behind a 'warm spot' visible on the FLIR for some time.

They then proceed to freak out over a warm spot on a column that nobody would admit to having touched.

A short time later they note a warm spot on a wall. They cut the power to the building and immediately go back in and film the spot. It's still warm.

They start freaking out completely. They found proof, look, it's right there, a temperature variation that has no physical reason for existing, it's PROOF!

Yes you morons, it's proof that if it was an electrical device, it can take a while to cool off, and that you're so fixated on finding proof of demonic spirits (Seriously. They say warm or hot spots are demonic and to avoid them,) that you never stop to ask yourselves "Could that perhaps be a hot spot caused by vermin, considering this house is uninhabited and large? Do we have proof of a demon, or do we have proof there's a rats-nest in that wall?"

They didn't jump to conclusions - they Evel Knievel'd to a conclusion. They saw a conclusion and jumped a canyon on a rocket-powered motorcycle to get to it. >_>

And that is my problem with ghost hunters.

[667-Neighbor of the Beast]

I agree completely. That was what I used to enjoy about TAPS, is that they seemed to be the only ones that did not jump to conclusions, and used to only grudgingly admit if they thought a place was haunted, which lent credibility to their team. However, that seems to have wained away over the last few years. PS is still the worst at jumping to incredible conclusions at the slightest hint of anything, although I have not even watched them in a long time to know if they still do so.

[sinewave]

So I was watching some ghost hunters on MysteryQuest. It claimed to be an episode about the Amityville Horror, but I honestly saw maybe thirty seconds devoted to the actual Amityville stuff. The rest was about a 'new, similar case' somewhere else in an abandoned sanitarium.

Okay. Large building. Check. Uninhabited. Check.

They of course bring in thermal gear. They demonstrate that any warm body that touches a surface for any length of time leaves behind a 'warm spot' visible on the FLIR for some time.

They then proceed to freak out over a warm spot on a column that nobody would admit to having touched.

A short time later they note a warm spot on a wall. They cut the power to the building and immediately go back in and film the spot. It's still warm.

They start freaking out completely. They found proof, look, it's right there, a temperature variation that has no physical reason for existing, it's PROOF!

Yes you morons, it's proof that if it was an electrical device, it can take a while to cool off, and that you're so fixated on finding proof of demonic spirits (Seriously. They say warm or hot spots are demonic and to avoid them,) that you never stop to ask yourselves "Could that perhaps be a hot spot caused by vermin, considering this house is uninhabited and large? Do we have proof of a demon, or do we have proof there's a rats-nest in that wall?"

They didn't jump to conclusions - they Evel Knievel'd to a conclusion. They saw a conclusion and jumped a canyon on a rocket-powered motorcycle to get to it. >_>

And that is my problem with ghost hunters.

I saw that and those guys are indeed morons. The Evil Knievel reference is pretty funny. That is my pet complaint about ghost busters, they don't do science. They just fake it well enough for some to be convinced their irrational beliefs have been validated by science. In the end the investigators accomplish little or nothing because they never employ controls for obvious variables. Electronic gadgets and acronyms can easily impress some people but when the methods are analyzed critically, it is all just eye wash. No amount of equipment can make up for poor method and lack of understanding of the underlying physics.

Edited December 18, 2009 by sinewave

[hipockt]

So I was watching some ghost hunters on MysteryQuest. It claimed to be an episode about the Amityville Horror, but I honestly saw maybe thirty seconds devoted to the actual Amityville stuff. The rest was about a 'new, similar case' somewhere else in an abandoned sanitarium.

Okay. Large building. Check. Uninhabited. Check.

They of course bring in thermal gear. They demonstrate that any warm body that touches a surface for any length of time leaves behind a 'warm spot' visible on the FLIR for some time.

They then proceed to freak out over a warm spot on a column that nobody would admit to having touched.

A short time later they note a warm spot on a wall. They cut the power to the building and immediately go back in and film the spot. It's still warm.

They start freaking out completely. They found proof, look, it's right there, a temperature variation that has no physical reason for existing, it's PROOF!

Yes you morons, it's proof that if it was an electrical device, it can take a while to cool off, and that you're so fixated on finding proof of demonic spirits (Seriously. They say warm or hot spots are demonic and to avoid them,) that you never stop to ask yourselves "Could that perhaps be a hot spot caused by vermin, considering this house is uninhabited and large? Do we have proof of a demon, or do we have proof there's a rats-nest in that wall?"

They didn't jump to conclusions - they Evel Knievel'd to a conclusion. They saw a conclusion and jumped a canyon on a rocket-powered motorcycle to get to it. >_>

And that is my problem with ghost hunters.

[hipockt]

Why dont you go to a place like Indonesia and go with one of their Ghost catchers. It would be an ideal opportunity to make your own movie and it does not get more real.

So I was watching some ghost hunters on MysteryQuest. It claimed to be an episode about the Amityville Horror, but I honestly saw maybe thirty seconds devoted to the actual Amityville stuff. The rest was about a 'new, similar case' somewhere else in an abandoned sanitarium.

Okay. Large building. Check. Uninhabited. Check.

They of course bring in thermal gear. They demonstrate that any warm body that touches a surface for any length of time leaves behind a 'warm spot' visible on the FLIR for some time.

They then proceed to freak out over a warm spot on a column that nobody would admit to having touched.

A short time later they note a warm spot on a wall. They cut the power to the building and immediately go back in and film the spot. It's still warm.

They start freaking out completely. They found proof, look, it's right there, a temperature variation that has no physical reason for existing, it's PROOF!

Yes you morons, it's proof that if it was an electrical device, it can take a while to cool off, and that you're so fixated on finding proof of demonic spirits (Seriously. They say warm or hot spots are demonic and to avoid them,) that you never stop to ask yourselves "Could that perhaps be a hot spot caused by vermin, considering this house is uninhabited and large? Do we have proof of a demon, or do we have proof there's a rats-nest in that wall?"

They didn't jump to conclusions - they Evel Knievel'd to a conclusion. They saw a conclusion and jumped a canyon on a rocket-powered motorcycle to get to it. >_>

And that is my problem with ghost hunters.

[Black Hound]

The problem with GH/GHI is that they are still on tv. The sell of t-shirts, caps, equippment, has got to be making somebody a good penny. J&G bought an in now a B&B, supposeddly haunted, no idea if tours come free.I enjoy watching for the comic relief and see who will get angry with who this week. Not as good as HOUSE but you can get a good laugh from them.

[Yiehtk]

I think that someone who absolutely does not believe in ghosts would be absolutely beneficial to an investigation. They would be more likely to look for scientific explanations for a haunting. You should always have a critic with you if you want to look credible.

Oh, and they always look in big old buildings, never in regular houses as much. Regular houses are probably the hotspots. And that they never stay long enough for definitive proof. You should stay at least a week.

[sinewave]

Why dont you go to a place like Indonesia and go with one of their Ghost catchers. It would be an ideal opportunity to make your own movie and it does not get more real.

or any less fake?

[sinewave]

I think that someone who absolutely does not believe in ghosts would be absolutely beneficial to an investigation. They would be more likely to look for scientific explanations for a haunting. You should always have a critic with you if you want to look credible.

Oh, and they always look in big old buildings, never in regular houses as much. Regular houses are probably the hotspots. And that they never stay long enough for definitive proof. You should stay at least a week.

You are correct. Truly scientific explanations are essential and scientific methods should be enforced. The duration of tests should not be artificially limited and should be long enough to establish scientific repeatability. The problem is, ghost busters are sloppy and random so repeatability is never really established. Not to mention the fact they are not staring on firm scientific ground in the first place.

[MDeacon]

Please change the title of this topic to "Some Ghost Hunters"... not all of us are completely way too open minded with our evidence... I have been told that I can be too aggressively skeptical in an investigation, but I look at it as the "Not Enough" factor example:

"Hey look at this orb I captured?"...Not Enough

"Hey look at this drop in temperature?"...Not Enough

"Hey look at this spike on the EMF Meter?...Not Enough

Now here are examples of "Proof" Evidence:

"Hey look at this apparition of a Man who states that he is a spirit that I got on video?"...Proof

"Hey listen to this Audio I got when I asked questions in a room and all the questions were answered?"...Proof

So please do not hate us all......there are some sane ones of us out there!

[sinewave]

I don't think anyone is hating you just not taking the methods and assumptions seriously. If there really was proof, we would not be having this conversation.

[eqgumby]

I think that someone who absolutely does not believe in ghosts would be absolutely beneficial to an investigation. They would be more likely to look for scientific explanations for a haunting. You should always have a critic with you if you want to look credible.

Oh, and they always look in big old buildings, never in regular houses as much. Regular houses are probably the hotspots. And that they never stay long enough for definitive proof. You should stay at least a week.

Watch this space...

I plan on becoming involved, and I believe something is up, but I don't believe in any real "ghosts" as most define them.

[-Harbinger-]

I've seen that kind of behavior in Destination Truth when they had ghost-y episodes. It made me facepalm.

Some of the ghostly sitings at museums/historical reenactment places seem to happen at broad daylight. So...why don't they do an investigation during the day?

Yiehtk has a good point. These shows should bring in someone who thinks ghosts are bullsh*t. It would add more credibility...then again, it is t.v. and there are actors. =/

[MDeacon]

I don't think anyone is hating you just not taking the methods and assumptions seriously. If there really was proof, we would not be having this conversation.

That is exactly why a lot of these so called TV shows *cough*ParanormalState*cough* have fake evidence because 99% of all investigations come up with not "Enough" evidence to define the Proof of a Ghost. This also leads to "open-minded" or "medium" investigators to reach for the slightest grain of Proof to satisfy that adrenaline enriched hunger to find "something".

My methods and assumptions differ from other "Paranormal Investigators" so when I hear that someone has a problem with the community of Ghost Hunters, I must acknowledge thus opinion by stating that we all do not have General Methods and Assumptions.

Much like yourself Sinewave who I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) likes to research through scientific means, I too like to research with scientific intentions using scientific equipment. My goal is to try to find that "Proof" that we all seek... will it ever happen?... who knows? That is why I continue to search for my 1%.

Edited January 6, 2010 by MDeacon

[Black Hound]

There are some "valid ghost hunters", if that isn't a conflict in terms,that have some merit. See how various groups do what they do, evaluate what you see and where you saw them "investigating". Some do a good job, for what they do, others, well, I wonder. Please just don't lump them all together, as of yet.

[Black Hound]

Please change the title of this topic to "Some Ghost Hunters"... not all of us are completely way too open minded with our evidence... I have been told that I can be too aggressively skeptical in an investigation, but I look at it as the "Not Enough" factor example:

"Hey look at this orb I captured?"...Not Enough

"Hey look at this drop in temperature?"...Not Enough

"Hey look at this spike on the EMF Meter?...Not Enough

Now here are examples of "Proof" Evidence:

"Hey look at this apparition of a Man who states that he is a spirit that I got on video?"...Proof

"Hey listen to this Audio I got when I asked questions in a room and all the questions were answered?"...Proof

So please do not hate us all......there are some sane ones of us out there!

[/quote

Valid points. Some valid groups get bashed about because of the way other groups do their investigations. Each group should be evaluated seperately. Praised for the way they do their jobs or laughed out-of-town for being so incompetent(?)

[Drago]

There is a difference between an investigator and a ghost hunter. I described the ghost hunters and their amazing acrobatic skills when it comes to leaping tall buildings in a single bound to reach their foregone conclusion.

If you're not like that, you're not a ghost hunter and it doesn't apply.

[Black Hound]

I don't know anything about performing "superhuman things" but frankly I don't see much differences. Ghost Hunters, Paranormal Investigators, Qwellers of Restless Spirits, just to name some that came to mind, without my coffee of Starbucks Double Shot(no financial plug intended). The investigations I have been on have rnged from very scientific to a version of "let's scare Mary". Splitting hairs, which is no easy task for anyonre between "ghost hunting" and "ghost investigators", I think lies in the field of semantics, how they do their investigations/hunts, how professional they are and so on. to me they are pretty much the same, fun to watch but if weird stuff was going on over here, I know the difference in which group(s) to call.

[sinewave]

The fundamental problem here is there is no base science - no established fact. The whole thing rides on some rather large assumptions that do not warrant automatic acceptance. Any hypotheses built on those assumptions are by definition scientifically invalid. Real research in this area, if any are indeed possible, would be attempting to determine if people do in fact have spirits/souls first and not whether the spirit/soul survives death. As it stands, the cart is before the horse.

[Black Hound]

I hate to be seen as a bad apple, but haven't we about beat this topic to death, I know I have. I've said all I can say, others have too, and we still get around, after chasing our tails, to what is GH and investigations Pure semantics,nothing more. Define each, then start a new topic wherethe differences can be debated in the context of more recent comments that have not been repeated and repeated before. Just a thought.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Graveyard Hound

[Drago]

I don't know anything about performing "superhuman things" but frankly I don't see much differences. Ghost Hunters, Paranormal Investigators, Qwellers of Restless Spirits,

Of course it's semantics - if you want to call the organization of paranormal investigators and giving each group an identifiable name 'semantics'.

There is a difference between the two.

Ghost hunters begin with the automatic assumption that the ghosts are there to be hunted. They begin their search already convinced of the reality of ghosts and spirits, usually using pseudoscience or their own lack of understanding of their own equipment and the concepts behind it to build a framework they can use to convince themselves. They arrive at a location and begin a usually shoddy sweep of the place to look for evidence - which they're already sure exists and must be found. When they misunderstand their equipment or the physics behind it, that's it show's over they found evidence that will prove once and for all.

Investigators begin with the assumption that there are no certainties in the paranormal, especially the existence of ghosts and spirits. They use actual science and a thorough understanding of their own equipment and the concepts behind it to build a frame of reference with which they can actually look for genuine anomalous results. Even should they find something, they have a checklist of things to suspect before any paranormal conclusions are even considered, not the least of which are improper use of the equipment, equipment error, or improper reading of the equipment. Most importantly of all when it comes to the difference between the two groups, a genuine investigator will take their results and ask themselves 'Could this be ANYTHING besides a paranormal occurance?' And if their answer is 'Yes,' then they don't claim it's proof of the supernatural.

Or you can go back and read my first post for a good example of the difference between the two groups. Ghost hunters have a conclusion they reach before they even arrive at their destination, and once there, they will go to any lengths to reach that conclusion, even if it entails the logical mental equivalent of jumping the Grand Canyon on a rocket-powered motorcycle. They work completely bass-ackwards to the true process of investigation.

[sinewave]

Drago, you have perfectly described the Everyday Paranormal (Ghost Lab) clowns with your summary. Ghost busters like that are not neutral observers and will stop at nothing to validate fantastic beliefs.

[Black Hound]

Must this go on and on? they have been castigated, yelled at, rumored about,accused of faking stuff, compared with "good ivstigating teams, if there really are some out there, no offense meant if you consider yourself a step aove the norm, and they will be here as long as they mmake some tv channel money. My advice, if you don't like what you see, stop watching.

[sinewave]

Must this go on and on? they have been castigated, yelled at, rumored about,accused of faking stuff, compared with "good ivstigating teams, if there really are some out there, no offense meant if you consider yourself a step aove the norm, and they will be here as long as they mmake some tv channel money. My advice, if you don't like what you see, stop watching.

They and all others who foster those beliefs must be openly challenged. They would have us believe they are using science and doing research so no one should have a problem with a little peer review or criticism of the methods. After all, that is how science works. Yeah, I called them clowns, which is hardly appropriate for peer review. That is because I tend to push my luck with the profanity filters and Mods enough as it is. Clowns is about the nicest thing I could call them.

Edited January 6, 2010 by sinewave

[Drago]

Must this go on and on? they have been castigated, yelled at, rumored about,accused of faking stuff, compared with "good ivstigating teams, if there really are some out there, no offense meant if you consider yourself a step aove the norm, and they will be here as long as they mmake some tv channel money. My advice, if you don't like what you see, stop watching.

:\ I don't watch. And I'm not just talking about the shysters who land TV deals, I'm talking about the entire field.