This is something we've never done before, but there was a conversation going on in one of the other pages that I thought really deserved its own page. Here it is so far:

February 8, 2008
JoElin @ 11:16 am:

I want to say that I think its awful that you are trying to dicredit such a respected ghost hunting team as taps! They worked hard to gain their credibility and recognition and I am appalled that someone would even try to say that Taps would try to doctor their own evidence! I deffinatley will not be visiting your site in the future and you ought to be ashamed for calling your page a Ghost Hunters fan site! There are those of us who are passionate about the paranormal just as the taps team is and we don't appriciate sites like this that try to make us look bad just because you don't believe. So grow up and realize that this stuff actually happens and it is real and not just a bunch of doctored up evidence!

True to Taps forever!

Andy O @ 11:35 am:

Taps forever man. What is that?

Logisti @ 12:46 pm:

JoElin, you're more than welcome to express your views intelligently, however insults are rather unnecessary and childish, don't you think?

We've laid out evidence and were careful not to jump to conclusions by claiming more than the evidence supports — for instance, in the case of Grant and the moving table lamp we acknowledged that no matter how much the photograph looks like Grant is pulling the power cord to make the lamp move, it doesn't PROVE that's actually what's going on.

In the case of the doctored FLIR footage it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the footage was doctored. There is simply no question about it. Still, we don't know *who* doctored it, and we were very clear that there is no evidence TAPS was ever in posession of the footage in question so the fact of the matter is we didn't accuse TAPS of doing any doctoring.

On the other hand, you come in here with no evidence and just insult us. So which of us really has some growing up to do?

You are a firm believer in the paranormal? That is fine, there are many people on this site who are also firm believers, they just don't believe some of the things that TAPS has put forth as paranormal evidence.

There are also many of us who *want* to believe, but it's important to us that what we're believing is the truth, so we see if we can "debunk" claims, much the same way TAPS says they do — except some of us just don't think they do a very good job of it.

And that brings me back to your assertion that TAPS is "hard working". That may be absolutely true, but it doesn't prove that they do good work.

JoElin @ 2:32 pm:

I am simply saying that there are those of you out there that do nothing but try to discredit those of us who investigate the paranormal and are passionate about it. Before you jump to conclusions and start trying to discredit evidence that paranormal ivestigators capture why don't you investigate these places yourseleves and see if you catch what we catch then you can voice your opinion but don't form an opinion based on something that you were not there to experience yourself. It's not right and makes those of us who do investigate the paranormal and do believe that ghosts are out there look bad.

D @ 3:23 pm:

Hey JoElin

a couple points about your arguements.

1. You assert that people should investigate these places rather than just judge the evidence gathered by other groups. First, isn't that what evidence is for? Isn't that the very proposition TAPS advances? They reject personal experience as a proof of haunting because they want emperical evidence. Emperical evidence means that it can be scientifically measured and evaluated.

Secondly, you say skeptics need to evaluate the places. There are skeptic groups out there that have. I'm providing the link to an article about general ghost skeptics. http://csicop.org/si/2006-05/i-files.html Joe Nickell, the skeptic writing the column has published findings regarding at least one TAPS site, the Myrtles Plantation where the questionable "lamp moving occured." The irony of this particular site is that the skeptic investigated BEFORE TAPS went there, and published his findings in a magazine: The Skeptical Inquirer.

2. I've been watching this forum for a little while, and no one here is shooting down personal experiences. William James the philosopher and psychologist essentially argues that personal experience can't really be disproved anyway, because it's not based on emperical evidence. Maybe we should all go to these sights. On the other hand if we go there and don't experience anything, how can we rationally discuss this with those who have? It's all based on experience, which again is ostensibly what TAPS tries to avoid.

3. No one here is jumping on people because they do or don't believe in the paranormal. But if belief is so fragile that it can't stand up to honest, fair and non-hostile skeptical inquiry, than it's on very shaky ground indeed.

Good luck in your Ghost hunting adventures. I truly hope you find what you're looking for.

February 9, 2008
JoElin @ 12:38 am:

Jason Hawes himself said that you can not diagnose what you weren't there to experience. Therefor you can't sit and say the things that you are saying about taps that you are saying because you weren't there to experience those things for yourself. You can't say that that lamp didn't move on its own because you weren't there when it happend. I saw that episode of Ghost Hunters by the way and there was no cover up on the part of Taps what you saw was Jason and Grant trying to recreate the movement of the lamp to see if it had been tamperd with and not something paranormal.

JoElin @ 12:42 am:

Also you were wrong about taps in point one of your argument you cannot judge other peoples evidence if you weren't there to experience it. That is why Taps doesn't concider personal experiences as evidence because they were not there to experience what that person experienced at that time they first need the evidence to back it up!

Todd @ 9:51 am:

JoElin, we can all appreciate your passion for the paranormal and investigation. But there is a difference between an experience and evidence. When someone records "evidence" it becomes subject to review. Evidence is supposed to be analyzed to determine validity. This forum is about fans who want to take the evidence and analyze it in our own ways and then share. When the evidence appears questionable then you have to ask yourself how can these results be achieved. Sadly, manipulation of the evidence (as in the case of the FLIR readout) becomes a real and possible answer to that question.

As D said there is no effort to tear down experiences of individuals. We may call foul on overuse of personal experiences or get frustrated at the lack of translation from experience to evidence. Jason was talking about personal experience. But even Jason draws a clear line between personal experience and evidence. Evidence is always weighed more heavily in an investigation.

Logisti @ 12:58 pm:

JoElin, the entire point of evidence is that you do *not* need to experience it for yourself.

Do you believe that the Earth goes around the sun? Why? You did not make all the astronomical observations and mathematical calculations yourself. Copernicus did, and decades later his research was enough to convince Galileo to take a closer look.

Galileo's detailed observations and mathematical calculations were enough to convince every reasonable-minded person who understood the science behind it and trusted Galileo's observations to be accurate (This of course did not include the Catholic Church, but that's another story).

Because of Copernicus and Galileo we know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and we did not need to observe it for ourselves because we have been provided with solid, irrefutable evidence that has been examined and confirmed by expert after expert.

So if we can have this kind of evidence to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the earth is round, that it goes around the sun, and even that the earth's crust is broken up into giant plates that drift, why should we not hold paranormal phenomena to the same standard of evidence?

And the fact of the matter is that all of these ideas were laughed at when they were first introduced, and the people who first suggested them didn't have the evidence to back them up — but eventually someone did.

So it may be the same with ghosts, but right now the evidence is not there yet and the people who bear criticism are not those who want the same standard of evidence, but those who insist everyone else lower their standards and simply "believe".