EMF meters are designed to detect electromagnetic pollution. Not Ghosts. Dictaphones are designed to record Vocals and Sounds. Not Ghosts. Cameras are designed to take images, or record Footage. Not Ghosts.
There is no equipment specifically designed to dectect, record, or interact with ghosts. To make such a piece of equipment, one would have to understand what a ghost actually was. What parameters it operated under. What were its ranges adnd limitations. Nobody has even been able to establish a ghost exists, so how would you design equipment for that?
So I guess you'd trust a guy going around saying "Thank you Sam" more than guys that says that 80% of all acclaimed Hauntings can be debunked
That seems an incredibly odd thing so say on the badpsychics forum when you take into consideration just what the website is about.
So I guess you'd trust a guy going around saying "Thank you Sam" more than guys that says that 80% of all acclaimed Hauntings can be debunked
NO WE WOULDN'T thats the whole point of BP and you of all people should know that.
I personally like Ghosthunters, however in recent seasons the show has gone the route of MH, and because of that I cant support it any more.
Also there is an issue with the 20% of cases where they say a place is haunted, this 20% claims comes from unscientific, uncritical and sometimes faith driven perspectives.
How can anyone support such a position when their position comes from waving useless pieces of equipment around
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
So I guess you'd trust a guy going around saying "Thank you Sam" more than guys that says that 80% of all acclaimed Hauntings can be debunked
80% of all acclaimed hauntings can be explained? Where do those statistics come from? Who collected and compiled the data? Who peer reviewed this claim? If you do not know, then why use that information and believe it is true? I would posit that 99.999999999% of all alleged hauntings are explainable.
I do not trust derek acorah, because the man is an entertainer. His waffle about spirits is purely to line his own pockets. I do not trust jason or grant, because they are also entertainers. They use psuedoscience to "prove" their claims. It is not real science, but TV and marketing science. If there is a choice about which person I would believe, I think it would be better to choose neither. Ghosthunters is just as duplicitious as the fraudulent psychics and mediums.
Have you noticed how they distance themselves from the idiotic theories that allow them to find what they consider to be "proof"?
Typical example:
someone will mention EVP,
cut to jason, grant, or whomever.
"some people believe that EVP or electronic voice phenomena is yadda yadda yadda"
They do not explicitly state "we believe", yet it is them using the dictaphones to collect this data that they then use as their "evidence".
Im sorry but that is just sly, they are absolving themselves of responsibility of their own claims. This is a distancing ploy so they themselves cannot be questioned about their methods.
At the end of the day, this is an entertaining TV program. If you or anyone else believes GH are doing a "good job" then you are sadly mistaken. They contribute nothing to the field of scientific research, but they do contribute to sci-fi channels ratings. Science vs ratings, now you choose for yourself what you will believe.
I would posit that 99.999999999% of all alleged hauntings are explainable.
I agree. Have done a few 'ghost hunts' with a team. Basically very little happens and if something happens 99.99999% of the time it can be put down to natural explanations. Pipes, drafts, crappy floors, expansion/contraction of buildings and windows with the temperature changes etc
All the equipment used with the exception of camcorders, cameras and dictaphones measure the environment....nothing more.
A couple of things HAVE happened to me that I could not explain, but whether they were of a paranormal nature, I don't know. More likely psychological than paranormal.
So I guess you'd trust a guy going around saying "Thank you Sam" more than guys that says that 80% of all acclaimed Hauntings can be debunked
80% of all acclaimed hauntings can be explained? Where do those statistics come from? Who collected and compiled the data? Who peer reviewed this claim? If you do not know, then why use that information and believe it is true? I would posit that 99.999999999% of all alleged hauntings are explainable.
I do not trust derek acorah, because the man is an entertainer. His waffle about spirits is purely to line his own pockets. I do not trust jason or grant, because they are also entertainers. They use psuedoscience to "prove" their claims. It is not real science, but TV and marketing science. If there is a choice about which person I would believe, I think it would be better to choose neither. Ghosthunters is just as duplicitious as the fraudulent psychics and mediums.
Have you noticed how they distance themselves from the idiotic theories that allow them to find what they consider to be "proof"?
Typical example:
someone will mention EVP,
cut to jason, grant, or whomever.
"some people believe that EVP or electronic voice phenomena is yadda yadda yadda"
They do not explicitly state "we believe", yet it is them using the dictaphones to collect this data that they then use as their "evidence".
Im sorry but that is just sly, they are absolving themselves of responsibility of their own claims. This is a distancing ploy so they themselves cannot be questioned about their methods.
At the end of the day, this is an entertaining TV program. If you or anyone else believes GH are doing a "good job" then you are sadly mistaken. They contribute nothing to the field of scientific research, but they do contribute to sci-fi channels ratings. Science vs ratings, now you choose for yourself what you will believe.
So just because they're has a show they can't be real Paranormal Investigators?
So up untill a year ago Penn State Paranormal (PRS to some) was a real group but when the started doing Paranormal State they quit?
Is that what you're saying?
So in other words about six years TAPS was a real group because now GH is fixing to go into their 5th season
It would depend on a) their methods, and b) their ethics.
Unfortunately pretty much all groups out there cannot possibly be defined as a 'real paranormal investigator'. You know the kind - they're worryingly common. They all have their 'resident medium' and sceptic, then all go into a place, sit in a circle and 'communicate with spirit'. They sit there and just say random things that come into their head which is then presented as 'evidence' afterwards. What is it evidence of exactly?
The woefully tiny number of groups with any brains behind investigation all endure the same thing investigation after investigation; a long time of nothing and a numb arse. That isn't what TV companies want to see. They want to see possessions, stone throwing, screaming, shouting, fear etc etc. Not a group of people sat around a TV screen for 7 hours doing absolutely nothing.
These groups on tele invariably sell out. They get zero results so the TV company doesn't pay them any more. Oh, if only they started getting stuff then they'd be kept on and continue to get big, fat pay packets....
So just because they're has a show they can't be real Paranormal Investigators?
Having a TV show not preclude you from being a "real" paranormal investigator, I just havent seen a real paranormal investigator on TV yet. Have you?
So up untill a year ago Penn State Paranormal (PRS to some) was a real group but when the started doing Paranormal State they quit?
Is that what you're saying?
Are you saying PRS were working differently then than they are now, using real scientific methodology rather than pretending to be hunted by a demon since childhood, and telling emotionally confused teenagers that they have a special psychic gift?
So in other words about six years TAPS was a real group because now GH is fixing to go into their 5th season
Please, dont try to state what you imagine I must really mean, you do not know me. If TAPS were conducting serious scientific, peer reviewed work in the field of the paranormal before they landed a TV show can you provide evidence of this? I know I havent seen any, have you?
You see when I watch PS, GH, GHI, MH ect ect, all I see is a whole bunch of people acting like children. I have yet to see one single experiment performed (and no,talking to a flashy blinking box doesnt count). I have yet to see a single shred of evidence, or indeed a single shred of possible evidence, or potential evidence. If these groups insist that the drivel they "discover" should be classed as evidence of anything, then I think we would need to redo the rules of evidence to allow this to be possible.
Dont you class the EVP's as evidence ? i dont think ghost hunters is like most haunted at all, they do try to debunk most hauntings.
EVP is evidence of what? Spirit communication? How does that work? You see you take a dictaphone or other recording device, you set it down and ask questions. At some point you will record a noise that you cannot identify, and because you cannot identify it it is attributed to a ghost? That is not evidence, that is opinion, and unfounded. The noise may be perfectly natural, but you may have a lack of experience with the equipment, or technology to explain it.
There is also the issue of aural pareidolia, you can imagine sounds as easilly as you can imagine images from chaotic information. Just because something sounds like a word, does not mean it is anymore than seeing a face in the bark of a tree means it must be a face.
This is nothing but confirmation bias based personally convincing evidence.
I will not even bother to mention they use the least shielded devices to record this information, and usually on purpose.
The only difference between GH and MH as far as I can see, is that GH debunks some cases, but MH attempts to wring the most from their cases. Let us not forget though that is they debunk some, the viewer is left with the impression that whatever is left must be genuine. This is a logical fallacy, and intended.
I like watching GH, its very entertaining. I think jason and grant are good TV personalities and they provide an interesting program. However, I do not believe for one moment that they are helping the field of paranormal research in anyway apart from helping to generate an interest in it. Unfortunately the people that believe GH to be genuine and emulate their techniques on their own investigations, also contribute nothing. They will only be as good as their tutors, and their tutors are showing them how to achieve false results via the overabundant use of psuedoscience.
I know numerous people who believe they are scientific investigators simply because they copy cat the methods used to GH when as a matter of fact more than half of the methods, facts and statistics used on that show are based on nothing much more than hearsay and theories. Yet because the guys and girls on GH present themselves in a much more professional manner than the guys on MH people are more tempted to take their word for it.
Lesson to be learnt? Don't take anybodies word for anything, anytime. ever.
Post by The Legendary Barb on Apr 6, 2009 8:56:22 GMT
I am hoping this is the right place to post this item, here goes. I caught the last bit of one of their shows last week, in what appeared to be a restaurant, did not catch where it was. The owner had said there was a ghost in the ladies rest room that laughed out loud .and appeared in the mirror, also that the lights over the bar area swung to and fro,when the place was full of people. Grant and Jason duly set about their tasks .and lo and behold,they debunked everything. The owner apparently knew all, but was trying it on with the taps team. He knew that a speaker system was hidden the ceiling, worked by a button on the top of the door, that a piece of the wall had been removed from behind the mirror . A face like mask had been inserted there. The lights over the bar were I think worked by heat rising.
To say that Grant and Jason where not amused, would be I think an understatement. Has anybody seen this episode? do you know where it was?. I really would like to see the whole show. Thanks.
your never too old to set a new goal or dream a new dream[C.S Lewis]
Yes I have seen that show. The ceiling lights were activated by small pnuematic pumps. This show is the fakest ever, and not because of the theatrical ghost house props. Before TAPS investigated this property, Jason? states that the place had been checked out and recommended by another TAPS family member group who had previously inestigated the property. If the ghost apparatus was so blatantly obvious to TAPS, then why did it ellude the previous investigating group?
I posit that it did not, and TAPS used this as merely an excuse to show "how good they are at debunking". It is an obvious red herring tactic to deflect fair criticism of their methods.
Post by The Legendary Barb on Apr 6, 2009 16:29:40 GMT
Well I never .I am flabbergasted. [ tongue in cheek] my flabber has never been so gasted. and here is me thinking that they are the real thing. I am mortified ;D
your never too old to set a new goal or dream a new dream[C.S Lewis]
Ghost Hunters are real barb. Real entertainers. They do not conduct investigations, they conduct what they consider to be investigations, using equipment that is not designed to detect what they are hoping to detect.
Barry Fitzgerald is the only one I have seen even attempting what might be called a real experiment, but the concept and premise was so flawed it was laughable. (full spectrum camera? Barometers? Singapore method?) The results were even more improbable.
OK I know I'm stating the obvious, and not for the first time, but what the hey diddly day.
What most people I talk to don't seem to realise is how much editing goes on. I was talking to a colleague today about The Apprentice and he made a comment about the Boardroom sequence and how it was such a surprise the way the result went. I pointed out that (for all we knew) the whole meeting could have taken 4 hours, and we were only shown the 15 mins edited down and honed to be "surprising".
Same with GH, MH, Devil's Whore, LOTR etc.
Be affable, but have Occam's Razor in your back pocket.
What most people I talk to don't seem to realise is how much editing goes on. OGRE
Having been involved in the editing process a rough rule of thumb is that for every hours footage filmed about four minutes makes the final edit depending on the nature of the programme.
morganp
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Post by tigerlilywhite on Jul 18, 2009 12:55:42 GMT
I remember watching a programme years ago about some labratory experiements into the so called paranormal phenomena being cited. They took infrasound (ultra low frequency sound not heard to the normal ear) and played around with it on human guinea pigs to see what would happen.
One interesting result was that the said guinea pigs claimed they saw apparitions within the lab. Now as this wasn't ever reported within this lab before the scientists decided to look into this further. What they discovered was very interesting. The infrared created vibrations. These vibrations have a very profound effect on the eye. (Remember the eye is made up of fluid and that ripples within the structure of the eye). EVERYTIME they emmitted the infrasound someone within the soundroom would say they'd seen something. The conclusion was that infrasound was causing the structure of the eye to move, but not to the point of being noticable, and that was the cause of the so called apparitions. Eye fluid movement caused the brain to think it was seeing things it wasn't.
Another good experience I had was when I went to see my neurologist, he shone a bright light into my eyes. I could "see" the reflexions of the nerves on the back of my eye in front of me. Now if the brain can be fooled into thinking it can see into it's own eye, then what's the say everything else (visual, audio and physical) isn't the brain being tricked also?
Personally speaking, I'd go with this more scientific version than anything any of these so called "ghost hunters" can offer.
Knowledge is a powerful weapon, dangerous in the hands of the uninformed.
As far as I know, Vic Tandy's infrasound experiment has never been successfully replicated by anyone else. I do not believe it (infrasound) is responsible for spontaneous visual anomaly.