Ghost Hunters

[blue sock monkey]

You might want to spend some time here, with an open mind: http://www.skepticalviewer.com/

Then we'll talk.

 

[Minarvia]

I'll agree with that, but that alone doesn't prove fakery.

No, but it certainly shows they are more than capable of it, have indeed faked evidence, and the rest just doesn't back up the premise that ghosts exist at all. I'm not a hater of them or there show, I actually kind of like them and enjoy the show, but I feel that they have done the ghost hunting field more harm than help, intentionally (to make money) or unintentionally.

 

[The Lone Bolt]

No, but it certainly shows they are more than capable of it, have indeed faked evidence, and the rest just doesn't back up the premise that ghosts exist at all. I'm not a hater of them or there show, I actually kind of like them and enjoy the show, but I feel that they have done the ghost hunting field more harm than help, intentionally (to make money) or unintentionally.

Um . . . at first you agree . . .

"No" (that doesn't alone prove fakery)

. . . and then you disagree . . .

". . . but it certainly shows they . . . have indeed faked evidence . . . "

Which is it?


And yes, the TAPS evidence is far from conclusive. All I'm suggesting is presumed innocence until proven guilt. Until the evidence of fakery is conclusive I think TAPS deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And I'm looking over your link now BSM, and while they bring up some suspicious items I don't see how anything they present proves conclusively that TAPS has faked evidence.

 

[blue sock monkey]

And I'm looking over your link now BSM, and while they bring up some suspicious items I don't see how anything they present proves conclusively that TAPS has faked evidence.

Um...that's Ms. Blue Sock Monkey.

I'm glad you visited the site. I don't hope to "convert" you to my viewpoint with one or two postings here. What matters is that you are willing to look at evidence, sift through it, consider. Because for me that's the best part of skepticism--exposure to different ideas that challenge my too-easily-solidified memes, and then learning to intelligently choose amongst options.

And that matters. I know it sounds like overkill to critique a cheesy cable TV show featuring a bunch of budding Hans Holzers. But the way our brains manage information is a method built up gradually, every time we process a new experience. If we are too inclined to accept everything as true (and I think most of us are nice people who expect other folks to tell the truth), if we fail to learn to discriminate--then we simultaneously lose the ability to appreciate good information, and people of integrity, and things that are deserving of our awe.

That phony tug on Grant's collar is not deserving of our awe or our respect. It is an act of contempt for us as thinking creatures.

 

[Minarvia]

Um . . . at first you agree . . .

"No" (that doesn't alone prove fakery)

. . . and then you disagree . . .

". . . but it certainly shows they . . . have indeed faked evidence . . . "

Which is it?


And yes, the TAPS evidence is far from conclusive. All I'm suggesting is presumed innocence until proven guilt. Until the evidence of fakery is conclusive I think TAPS deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And I'm looking over your link now BSM, and while they bring up some suspicious items I don't see how anything they present proves conclusively that TAPS has faked evidence.

There shouldn't be confusion. The "no," was in answer to your statement answering mine that they never find good evidence that can't be explained by other means. Then I addressed them faking. You somehow blended that remark with me speaking of them being caught faking.

If you read my entire posts (only 2 I think?) my meaning is quite clear, I hope. My reply in that one sentence was pertaining to two statements. I thought that was understandable. Sorry if I was wrong. But when I re-read my posts here I don't see how. Sorry. Maybe my English is terrible?

Also, I think "collargate" is pretty conclusive faking, imo. But maybe that's just me. : )

 

[The Lone Bolt]

Just saw the "collargate" video.

Notice first of all the debunker doesn't completely reproduce the incident. You can never see the placement of his right hand, so he never illustrates how long a tug would be needed and that it could be done without making his hand movement apparent. I'd find this debunking more convincing if he had actually shown that what he is proposing is possible.

Otherwise I'd say this video suggests a lot but doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying Grant is innocent, just not proven guilty.

 

[dropzone]

Damn my ethics. My house was built in 1849, and in the course of the research Mrs. JHunter1163 and I did to get it on the state historic registry, we found out that someone had died in the house back in 1890.

Given the medical history of the 19th century, it took FIFTY YEARS for someone to die there? Where did the other 12 or 24 (ETA: or 96) go to die, the Elephants' Graveyard?

The advantage of anonymity on this board is that, by your own name (or one you created for business purposes, like "Madame Zelda") you can operate your tourist trap while, by night, you can be somebody else laughing at the rubes you fleeced. I think even Randi would agree. That is the basis of both the Magic and Spirituality scams businesses.

 

[Audible Click]

Um . . . at first you agree . . .

"No" (that doesn't alone prove fakery)

. . . and then you disagree . . .

". . . but it certainly shows they . . . have indeed faked evidence . . . "

Which is it?


And yes, the TAPS evidence is far from conclusive. All I'm suggesting is presumed innocence until proven guilt. Until the evidence of fakery is conclusive I think TAPS deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And I'm looking over your link now BSM, and while they bring up some suspicious items I don't see how anything they present proves conclusively that TAPS has faked evidence.

Did you even bother to read this? http://www.skepticalviewer.com/doctored-manson-flir/

BTW after that was debunked Sci/Fi/Pilgrim Production changed the FLIR to reflect the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Just saw the "collargate" video.

Notice first of all the debunker doesn't completely reproduce the incident. You can never see the placement of his right hand, so he never illustrates how long a tug would be needed and that it could be done without making his hand movement apparent. I'd find this debunking more convincing if he had actually shown that what he is proposing is possible.

Otherwise I'd say this video suggests a lot but doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying Grant is innocent, just not proven guilty.

I don't think you're doing this quite right.

Are you really saying that the debunker hasn't shown (you) that faking the collar pull effect is possible?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Just saw the "collargate" video.

Notice first of all the debunker doesn't completely reproduce the incident. You can never see the placement of his right hand, so he never illustrates how long a tug would be needed and that it could be done without making his hand movement apparent. I'd find this debunking more convincing if he had actually shown that what he is proposing is possible.

Otherwise I'd say this video suggests a lot but doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying Grant is innocent, just not proven guilty.

There have been a couple of threads lately about shifting the burden of proof. You may want to review those first.

 

[The Lone Bolt]

Did you even bother to read this?

BTW after that was debunked Sci/Fi/Pilgrim Production changed the FLIR to reflect the truth.

Yes I read that. I don't think I have the expertise in video to confirm their interpretation of the evidence. They assume that the video is tampered with based on changes in color, the fact that the decimal seems "too close" to one of the numbers, alleged "jiggling", etc. Not being an expert in video I can't say if these claims mean anything.

Are you an audio/video expert?

In any event even the debunkers admit it doesn't prove Grant and Jason are the culprits (assuming there was foul play).

 

[The Lone Bolt]

There have been a couple of threads lately about shifting the burden of proof. You may want to review those first.

Well the skeptics here are claiming that TAPS are faking evidence. The burden of proof is on them to present conclusive evidence to that effect. I have not yet seen such conclusive evidence, so I don't see how your post is relevant.

 

[The Lone Bolt]

I don't think you're doing this quite right.

Are you really saying that the debunker hasn't shown (you) that faking the collar pull effect is possible?

In the TAPS footage we can see that Grant's right hand doesn't seem to move in his pocket at the time of the alleged string pull (and his arm doesn't seem to move either). The debunker fails to reproduce that effect, so I am saying that his debunking is not compelling. IMO he needs to reproduce the effect in its entirety, not just partially by showing only the collar pull but not the hand that allegedly is pulling the string.

In fact he really should not only reproduce the entire effect, but do it in a jacket that is similar, if not exactly the same, as the one Grant was wearing.

 

[John Jones]

Has there ever been a haunted hospital? It seems like more people die in hospitals than die at home.

 

[Akhenaten]

In the TAPS footage we can see that Grant's right hand doesn't seem to move in his pocket at the time of the alleged string pull (and his arm doesn't seem to move either). The debunker fails to reproduce that effect, so I am saying that his debunking is not compelling. IMO he needs to reproduce the effect in its entirety, not just partially by showing only the collar pull but not the hand that allegedly is pulling the string.

In fact he really should not only reproduce the entire effect, but do it in a jacket that is similar, if not exactly the same, as the one Grant was wearing.

The bolded bits are important.

Perhaps the debunker felt that he had done enough to demonstrate the plausibility of his proposal, without need for the further investment of time and effort needed to perform the trick as "convincingly" as Grant.

Alternatively, the debunker could easily have re-created the effect of the right hand not seeming to move simply by not using his right hand, thus double-fooling us all!

Who knows where all this trickiness might end?

 

[The Lone Bolt]

Has there ever been a haunted hospital? It seems like more people die in hospitals than die at home.

Well that assumes that there is such a thing as "hauntings." But TAPS did investigate Eastern State Hospital and Waverly Hills Sanitorium and came up with some interesting evidence.

But if you're asking me why all hospitals aren't hotbeds of paranormal activity I wouldn't know.

 

[Wolrab]

Has there ever been a haunted hospital? It seems like more people die in hospitals than die at home.

I am a RN (just got my NCLEX results today!) in a rural hospital. When I worked the night shift, the nurses and techs were telling me that room 214 had some wacky stuff happening in it. The door would shut by itself, things would be found on the floor, and weird noises would sometimes be heard. Many people have died in this room as it is one of two private/isolation rooms on the floor. If someone was dying and the room wasn't needed for isolation, we move the patient there for the family's convenience and privacy.

The door(s) closing is easily explained and replicated by leaving the window open, a common practice with dying patients (a woo belief unto itself, it allows the soul to escape, it seems). Pressure differences and wind whistling through the window easily explains all the reported events (all the things on the floor are small, lightweight items) yet some of the staff still believe the room is haunted. So I would not be surprised that there are many claims of hospitals being haunted. It would be kind of tough to film an "investigation" in a working hospital because of possible HIPAA concerns.

 

[Audible Click]

Yes I read that. I don't think I have the expertise in video to confirm their interpretation of the evidence. They assume that the video is tampered with based on changes in color, the fact that the decimal seems "too close" to one of the numbers, alleged "jiggling", etc. Not being an expert in video I can't say if these claims mean anything.

Are you an audio/video expert?

In any event even the debunkers admit it doesn't prove Grant and Jason are the culprits (assuming there was foul play).

No I'm not a video expert, however there are some on that forum that are. I read the information posted, applied critical thinking, and came to my own conclusion. As to the debunkers on that forem re "Collargate", of course they're not going to say that Grant faked the collar pull. The information on that whole incident is posted for the members to see, discuss, use their thinking skills, and make up their own minds.

 

[not daSkeptic]

A large part of what hurts TAPS credibility is their poor research methodology. They have claimed on many occasions to be employing a scientific approach to the subject, but their actions are not consistent with this.

The scientific community generally considers the paranormal to be a hypothesis of last resort, owing to it being at the very bottom of the probability scale. As such, it is improper for a researcher to claim something is paranormal without first demonstrating why it cannot be anything else. Unfortunately, TAPS has a tendency to test only a few things and then declare a place haunted. To be thorough, they would need to check everything that is known to modern science. They simply are not qualified, equipped, nor sufficiently funded to do this.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well the skeptics here are claiming that TAPS are faking evidence. The burden of proof is on them to present conclusive evidence to that effect. I have not yet seen such conclusive evidence, so I don't see how your post is relevant.

No, what skeptics here are doing is presenting evidence that Grant is faking evidence. I see the evidence that Grant fakes evidence as more compelling than Grant's evidence of the paranormal.

I'm a skeptic myself, but let's keep an open mind.

I think you meant to say that you're skeptical of skeptics. In context, that makes much more sense.