Ghosthunters

[Cyphermage]

Hi Everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone else here watch the show?

 

[gfunkusarelius]

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Beady]

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

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

 

[Serenity]

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

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

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

 

[Beady]

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

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

 

[Hindmost]

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

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

It's always fun in class

glenn

 

[Miss Whiplash]

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

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

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

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

 

[atari24]

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

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

 

[blutoski]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyphermage]

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

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

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

 

[sat556]

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

 

[Miss Whiplash]

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

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

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

 

[Hindmost]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

glenn

 

[Serenity]

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

 

[steve s]

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

Steve S.

 

[Scott Haley]

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

--Scott

 

[Outhere]

SciFi Channel Aptly Named

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

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

 

[Miss Whiplash]

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

Steve S.

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

 

[Cyphermage]

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

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