Also of note: The swinging lamps were pretty professional, but there was no evidence that they were actually switched on during TAPS' investigation.

The only effect that we know was switched on was the laughter in the women's bathroom, and that might have just been an oversight. It certainly wasn't anything that was going to fool anyone; as I said, it sounded tinny, it wasn't very subtle and it went off the moment the door was opened.

I think it's fairly obvious that no one (at the restaurant) was hoping to put one over on our favorite Ghost Hunters. At Pilgrim, I'm not so sure.

I guess tonight, we get to feel sorry for Grant! I didn't like the fact that someone had to get hurt over the ridiculous antics at the Moss Beach Distillery. Though you would hope that next time Grant would think to bring a latter rather than relying on Jason's hands to give him a "lift"!

But on the flip side, what did Grant have to prove tonight? After almost breaking his angle and then being determined to put himself at risk again in order "to expose" the pranksters. Maybe he's trying to redeem his name and save face!

There's so much that could be said about this episode, and I look forward to reading what everyone has to say. As for me, I couldn't help it: I felt sorry for Jay and Grant.

Okay, so they didn't do the research on the place ahead of time. They were fooled and, in some sense, made to look like fools. Sure, they discovered the rigged "hauntings," but then, why wouldn't they? It didn't help them look good, even though that *might* have been Pilgrim's thinking here . . . are we viewers somehow meant to better appreciate Jay and Grant's scientific ghost-hunting skills? If so, Pilgrim blew it because our ghost hunters seem to have been ill-used–becoming a joke at their own expense.

Spencer's amusement at it all was apalling, really–he didn't take their anger seriously (you could really see that anger in Jay's and Grant's eyes) and seemed to anticipate both their reactions and their words, putting it all off with a merry wink, smile, or laugh. He seemed to see it as an elaborate joke.

I appreciate Jay's comment at the end that it was a waste of time–that the time would have been better spent investigating for someone who actually needed help. And hey, did they DRIVE all the way to the west coast (given that Steve doesn't fly)? Now THAT would have truly made it all a colossal waste of time.

June, I think Spencer just couldn't believe that they didn't know about the effects going in and also I don't think he quite understood they were accusing the restaurant of deliberate trickery — at least not until towards the end of the conversation.

Okay, thanks Logisti. He seemed to be smirking, but then, if he had made the assumption that Jay and Grant had known going in what they subsequently "discovered," well, that would explain some disbelief and later, some discomfort on his part, both of which could have been expressed in his constant smile.

Also, I can't help but wonder: what if Pilgrim *wanted* us to feel sorry for Jay and Grant? What might be accomplished in that? (Just wondering about the ways in which we viewers are being manipulated with this episode . . .)

If it weren't deliberate, why would Spencer, who seemed to be repressing laughter the entire time, say informing them of the wiring "slipped his mind" since he "doesn't spend a lot of time in the women's bathroom." Puleeeez! This place has NO integrity and you question Jay and Grant's? The TAPS people do have lives and families who might want to see them occasionally. Believe or not, there may be people who want TAPS services. What this restaurant did what rude, juvenile, condescending and the customers who might seek this place out will now know what kind of people they're dealing with.

Response to Ghost Hunters' Moss Beach Distillery Episode

(1) It's widely known that Moss Beach Distillery is rigged to simulate haunting and poltergeist phenomena that have been reported there over the years. This can be determined by a one-minute search on Google. It's also been discussed by parapsychologist Loyd Auerbach in several publications and television programs. Auerbach has been the central investigator of the Distillery since 1991. The nature of and motive for the rigged effects have been widely documented. There's simply no reason why TAPS should not have known that the Distillery was rigged. They simply didn't do their homework.

(2) Jay mentions at the very beginning of the episode segment that TAPS has heard *a lot* about the Distillery from TAPS family members in California. Interesting. Are we to conclude from this that TAPS family members didn't know about these effects or they knew about them but they chose not to tell Jay or Grant. If these TAPS family member groups are from the Bay Area, they should have known about the rigged effects.

(3) The suggestion, made by both Jay and Grant, that there's "no evidence" that the Distillery is haunted, is misleading and unwarranted. The episode wrongly gives the impression that there's nothing at all to the claims of paranormal activity at the Distillery, despite the fairly extensive material on this. Loyd Auerbach and other researchers have documented haunting and poltergeist phenomena at this location for many years. If people are interested in learning about this, they should consult Loyd Auerbach, A Paranormal Casebook: Ghost Hunting in the New Millennium (Atriad, 2005), pp. 140-175.

(4) Jay says several times during the episode that the rigged effects at the Distillery undercut confirmation or verification of genuine phenomena there. Even if there's something to this point in general, it doesn't apply so nicely to the Distillery. If TAPS had done their homework, TAPS would have known precisely how the Distillery was rigged. They would have also known that the rigged effects were deliberately installed in specific locations (or with specific objects) that were not implicated in earlier claims of paranormal activity.

On the whole, this episode demonstrated TAPS' shoddy research skills and grossly misrepresented the Distillery. The attempt to blame the Distillery, its management, owner, or executive chef for this is frankly astonishing and silly. And the repeated statement in the episode (by Jay and Grant) that the Distillery is deliberately trying to deceive people is simply false.

Michael

From Loyd Auerbach's MySpace Blog (with permission to repost from author).

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

A Visit Does Not an Investigation Make

I just got finished watching tonight's episode of GHOST HUNTERS on SciFi Channel. The second half of the episode was their "investigation" of the Moss Beach Distillery, and her long-time apparition, most often referred to the Blue Lady.

The episode did a great disservice to the restaurant, but more importantly, to the hundreds of people over the years who have experienced something paranormal/psychic at the Distillery since the early 1930s.

Keep that in mind – phenomena has been reported since the early 1930s, through multiple owners, including some who lived .., and through a complete teardown and rebuild in the late 1990s (for seismic retrofit).

No disrespect to Jason, Grant, Steve and Kris — all very nice people –but "investigation" includes MUCH more than merely going to the place, checking it out, setting up tech, and reviewing the "evidence" caught (or not caught) by the tech.

Investigation of a location, especially one with decades of history of reported paranormal encounters, involves interviewing witnesses, historical research, reviewing prior media coverage of the place, and contacting (if possible) other investigators who have gone before (or at the very least reading their published reports of their investigations).

It would appear that none of this was done for the Moss Beach Distillery. At least, there was no indication of it on the show. Of course, the producers cut the segment from many many hours down to less than 30 minutes, so there might have been some of this done. But there was no indication of this.

Nor was there any indication of this when Jay & Grant talked about the lamps, etc. at UNIV-CON in October 2007. They indicated there had been an attempt to fool them – they were less than thrilled that neither the chef (who appeared on camera) nor the owner warned them about the special effects – though I got no indication that they'd actually spoken to John Barbour, the owner.

I spoke with Kris Williams at Ghost Rush in February. She, too, expressed her displeasure with the restaurant for not indicating there were special effects before they arrived or when they were there.

However…

1) Much has been written about the Moss Beach Distillery in books, magazines, newspapers and on the web. Many articles since the late 1990s mention the special effects.

2) Dozens and dozens of TV shows and segments have featured stories on the Moss Beach Distillery and its resident ghost, the Blue Lady. I have been the person/investigator most associated with the restaurant, with psychic Annette Martin a close second (and often featured in segments with me). Many of these repeat endlessly on A&E, the Travel Channel, Biography, the History Channel, etc.

3) Several segments have mentioned the effects, and there's been one that prominently featured the effects and my discussion of them. This show recently reran yet again.

4) I've discussed the Distillery on hundreds of radio (broadcast mostly, and internet lately). In a majority of the interviews since the late 1990s, we've talked about the effects.

5) There were NO effects at the restaurant prior to that (other than the occasional effects at performances by magicians and mentalists for entertainment.

6) My 2005 book A PARANORMAL CASEBOOK: GHOST HUNTING IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Atriad Press) contains the longest write-up of the case to be found. It's nearly a sixth of the book. It extensively discusses the experiences of so many witnesses (myself included), and the history.

7) The week before the TAPS team visited the Distillery, I got a call from a producer identifying himself as with the show. He was asking for names/contacts for witnesses for the Presidio Officer's Club in San Francisco, which he'd learned I'd investigated. Before we got off the phone, I asked him where else they were going in the Bay Area. He mentioned the Distillery. I offered to provide him with any info about the place and folks experiences there, and specifically mentioned my book. He indicated they had what they needed. I asked him if they were aware of the special effects. HE SAID THEY WERE AWARE OF THE EFFECTS!!!

That the producer at least tacitly acknowledged his awareness of the effects, my book, etc., and yet by all indications none of the team were informed of them points ANY finger of blame at the production staff, not the restaurant.

The folks at the Distillery don't go out of their way to tell people about the effects, that's true. The fact is (and yes, it's a fact) that it's so easy to find out that there are special effects there before visiting that no one thinks to do so. Had the chef been allowed to stay while they "investigated," the outcome would have been very different.

As to no phenomena happening while they were there, guess what? Ghosts, if we define them as people essentially hanging around after death, have free will too. Perhaps the Blue Lady (who we have known as Cayte for several years) was someplace else, or was annoyed by the attitude of the folks.

By not speaking with any prior investigators, or witnesses, there's no way to find a pattern, to find out what's been going on or try to learn what would be the best times to experience things, and under what conditions. There are certain things we've done prior to visiting and when there to encourage Cayte to "come out."

Just reading my book would have given them everything they needed to know.

But here's an important note: Cayte's hardly ever there lately, based on the decline of good reports and my own (and Annette's) experiences when visiting.

Now for a few more specific comments about what aired.

At the beginning, it was mentioned there was a "Guy who washed up on shore all dismembered." NEVER heard that in all my years of research, interviewing witnesses, etc.

Steve mentioned he had not heard much about the MBD? So….he doesn't watch other paranormal specials/TV shows?

The chef is not the person who has kept really good track of past events or even special effects. What chef is? WE (and locals) have been collecting info, getting responses from people, hearing experiences, etc. Had they spoken with anyone associated with longer term investigations (me, Annette Martin, always on TV with the place), they would have had a full report on what's gone on, what's going on lately, and the effects.

I'd love to have seen/heard all that the chef reported had gone on. So little was mentioned on the show, it's hard to know how informed/uninformed he is.

Yes, in the Torres room (main/original dining room), the apparition has been seen and felt in room.

It was mentioned when in the bar area that her husband stabbed her. We're actually not at all sure who did it, but the general feeling is it was the husband due to him having shown up earlier in the evening she was killed. (Note: she had left him a while before and it took him some time to track her down; in the meantime she'd begun an affair with the piano player). When he showed up, he caused a ruckus and was ejected from the place (it WAS a Speakeasy at the time). We assume he was the killer as when she and her boyfriend were on the beach, he was conked over the head and she was stabbed.

"We really want to be able to capture/catch her on the bluff"

Nope – She used to be seen on the bluff, but it's been many, many years since this was the case. However, folks have seen her on the beach below.

Steve's attempts at communicating with Cayte were actually a good try. Always worked for folks to be friendly and light with her rather than serious. His attempt to scare Tango (for fun) was good. Cayte likes having fun.

Bathroom area: While the ladies room was a primary focus for experiences for so many decades (including her image seen in the main bathroom mirror many times), no real sightings or experiences have been reported since place was torn apart and rebuilt – the ladies room is in a different location from where it was for most of the place's existence. This is one reason there's no problem with the effects in ladies room.

"Look for projectors."

Hey, various folks have tried to come up with a good projection system for the place (I worked with a few several years ago), but no one's had any luck designing something to project the apparition that's not incredibly expensive.

Grant got hurt – that certainly wasn't going to make him "friendly" to the place. It was also no fault of the restaurant, as no restaurant in their normal course of business expects people to attempt to get into the ceiling.

It was mentioned that this was "fake evidence." Nope. Not evidence of anything paranormal at all, or even evidence to do anything but give the patrons a more reliable (though non-paranormal) experience.

Hey, but what about places that make up stories? I've known of numerous historical locations that have either inflated the "haunting" or flat out made up a story, which is believed. Impact of this is even more pervasive than physical special effects.

At the end of the show, Jason mentioned "People who truly have problems" and "wasted time on a place like this."

This leads me to ask, WHO chose the place to begin with???? Who did the due diligence research on the place? Spoke with witnesses? Watched video/read interviews with past witnesses? With the local historian? With ANYBODY other than the chef who's only been there a couple of years?

Yes, there are lots of people with problems and yes, they should spend their time on such cases. Yet week after week we see the TAPS team going to places like the Distillery, where no one needs "help" or has problems.

Folks … It's a TV SHOW! On the SciFi Channel.

What is the "Fi" short for, anyway???

A bit more…For the full skinny on the paranormal experiences/happenings at the Distillery, read the section of my book A PARANORMAL CASEBOOK.

[Before you ask, I'm not posting the write-up on the web/MySpace. Just like Jason & Grant et. al. are making $$ with their TV show, I sell my books. Yes, I said it. I am trying to make a buck from selling my books. Wish I could say I've made as much money on that book since its release as either Jason & Grant make on a SINGLE episode of the show. I haven't.]

Visit the web page on my site dealing with some of the encounters at the Distillery at http://www.mindreader.com/fav_mossbeach.html

I was involved in the initial set up of the special effects at the Moss Beach Distillery in the late 1990s — which are computer-controlled/recorded recreations of some of the reported phenomena at the Distillery, phenomena which began in the early 1930s.

The effects were deliberately set up with specific lamps that were not

previously reported as moving (it was other lamps). In fact, I've witnessed the lamps NOT rigged moving (and not as a consequence of the others moving).

In the ladies room, the effect is in a different mirror (different from the main mirror where the ghost's image has been seen multiple times before the place was rebuilt). The laughter of the woman that plays when the door to the ladies room opens (only sometimes) is a clear indicator that this is an "effect."

The effects are computer controlled. The computer records all simulated effects, and individual activations. In that way, if there's any question as to whether 'the ghost did it' or not, there's a record to check.

No effort to hide the effects has been made. Run searches on Google. Find recent articles on the place. As every prior TV crew that's visited since the effects were installed already knew about them (they did research), and it's SO easy to find out that they're there, it's no surprise that the chef didn't go out of his way to let them know about the effects.

Finally, the reported phenomena has been occurring since the early 1930s. The effects were installed starting in the late 1990s.

I got involved in 1991 and have conducted numerous investigations there before any special effects were installed. There have been real, documented physical phenomena at the Distillery prior to the installation of the effects.

I have personally had numerous experiences there — something I can't say about a lot of places I investigate.

To be clear: I helped with that installation (consulting, helping to get the initial contractors, and more). The phenomena is real. The phenomena went on for over 65 years before the effects were even conceived of. The effects are fun, to add to the "experience" of the restaurant.

And the effects are no secret.

It's a shame that there was a pronouncement that the place is not haunted. Even if they had not had the experience they had with the effects, what happens when they don't experience anything IN A SINGLE VISIT?

Does this invalidate the hundreds of witnesses who had experiences? Does it invalidate the prior investigations and conclusions?

If so, you would likely have been among the scientists who stated emphatically, on hearing of the Wright Brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk, that such a thing was flat-out impossible, that it was fraud.

Or amongst the scientific community that denied the origin of meteorites as falling to Earth from outside the atmosphere.

Or amongst the scientific community which denied the existence of Gorillas.

And so on…

No disrespect to Jason and Grant. The producers are going to do what they

want, regardless of them and their desires. Including not warning them about the effects which at least one staff member knew about. [Note: Yes, it is possible that the person who called me was not a member of the production staff, or even connected to the show. But highly unlikely given the conversation and timing]

Jason and Grant need to be honest and up front on this one — just admit they were not informed, that due diligence was not done on the place. Perhaps they researched the history of the place and had not checked into what other investigators had to say (or restaurant reviews, which generally mention the effects as well).

But clearly, this is a mistake, and a lesson learned for future investigations – whether televised or not. It's a lesson for ALL who call themselves "ghost hunters."

Remember: The operative word here is "investigation."

I encourage you to visit the Moss Beach Distillery. Not because you might experience something paranormal – most people don't (which is partly why the effects are there to begin with).

It's a great place, with an incredible view of the coast and Pacific, and absolutely terrific food (though upper-end prices). It is, without a doubt, my favorite haunted place.

By the way, Cayte (the Blue Lady) says "Hi." J

moss beach distillery, although a nice place to visit as a patron, is NOT haunted. stories passed down through the ages do NOT prove a haunting. psychics do NOT prove a haunting (does sylvia brown or john edwards come to mind?). details from your book do NOT prove a haunting. NOT telling an investigative team, amateur or scientifically professional, that a case site has "enhanced phenomena" is deceitful. plain & simple. clearly, "dr"michaelrhodes, you have ample time in your life to blog your long-winded opinion on a tv show and to promote your book.

taps is awesome and what the moss beach distillery did to them was not cool and I hope everybody avoids that place

Whoever this guy is….

"moss beach distillery, although a nice place to visit as a patron, is NOT haunted. stories passed down through the ages do NOT prove a haunting. psychics do NOT prove a haunting (does sylvia brown or john edwards come to mind?). details from your book do NOT prove a haunting. NOT telling an investigative team, amateur or scientifically professional, that a case site has "enhanced phenomena" is deceitful. plain & simple. clearly, "dr"michaelrhodes, you have ample time in your life to blog your long-winded opinion on a tv show and to promote your book."

TAPS should have known. Plain and simple. You can twist
and turn and bitch and moan all you want. Maybe….just
maybe you'll get to an argument every now and then.

In the meantime, disabuse yourself of your circumstantial ad hominem fallacy: I'm not promoting my book. What book would that be?

Michael

The thing that bugs me the most about this episode: a simple mention of the "enhanced phenomena" could have stopped all this ridiculous speculation and debate. If it's widely known that the place is rigged, then it wouldn't be at all unusual for the chef/client to mention it. Typically the show reviews the history of an investigation, and this is apparently a "widely known fact," so why didn't he mention it?

The whole episode makes EVERYONE look bad. TAPS, Moss, and Pilgrim. I won't defend TAPS because maybe they should have googled this place, but I do have to say that if you're calling someone to "investigate" and you're not 100% honest about the situation, then you look like a complete ass when you get called out. TAPS made a common mistake, one that I'm sure we've all made: they trusted someone to be honest about something. It's unfortunate that all three parties aren't working together and communicating, because we end up watching a whole bunch of crap when a few honest words from the chef could have helped the TAPS team focus their energies in a way that could benefit the place and help solidify their claims.

Also, it's easy to claim that the Moss Distillery disclosed the enhancements to Pilgrim, but it really appears it's one group's word against the other. Again, if it's common knowledge, there's no reason that Mr. Cheffy wouldn't mention it in the beginning. It's sad that a group of guys that are willing to crawl around in nasty crawlspaces and fumble around in the dark to help a family that's experiencing odd things are put in this difficult position, and I don't blame TAPS for being frustrated.

One more thing… Dr. Rhodes? Your dissertation above attacks the chef that was on the show; you seem to be attempting to discredit him, or at least question the validity of his representation of the case. Who signed the release to allow him to appear on the show? A person who is not an investor/owner of the space cannot allow a camera crew and production to take place without the permission of the people who own/operate the attraction. Sure, he could be interviewed as a witness, but he couldn't host an investigation of this caliber without permission. I couldn't invite a show into my place of employment without "corporate" approval, so we all need to remember that this guy was a representative of the establishment… and why weren't you chosen as a representative instead of an employee that you claim hasn't been nearly as involved as you have? If the owners are allowing TAPS to "investigate," why didn't they offer you up as an expert, that could work with the TAPS team to further promote your claims and experiences?

Also, darling, you mentioned your book at least three times before I got tired of reading your entry, so yes, you are promoting your book. I don't hold that against you, but you need to be honest about the fact that you're promoting it, and not try to dance around it. Moss Distillery = dance hall? You seem so focused on placing the blame solely on TAPS, when in reality all three parties (Moss Distillery, TAPS, and Pilgrim) are equally to blame.

Instead of wasting an episode Jason & Grant should've explained what the case was about, showing quick clips of what they found. They should've DEMANDED to speak to the owner,if not in person, then by phone & NAILED him for being dishonest. I was waiting for Jason to really let that lyin' manager know just how he felt, but he didn't raise his voice until after he was in the car. This should've been a 6 minute highlight reel.

Ohh! I forgot. One more thing. Will ya' please delete the long winded self serving Dr's post above. It's more a CLASSIFED than a post. I'm going to write a book too about a distillery. I'll title it Drunk & Debunked.

Here's the problem with all this "TAPS should have done their research"/"They ought to have known" stuff: the tour guide specifically mentioned EACH of the effects' "effects" as a bona fide spiritual "happening." He said, in response to the usual questioning, that people experience "women's laughter in the bathroom," for example.

Any failure to state AT THE SAME TIME "Oh, by the way, we capitalized on that with this rigged motion detector and a speaker - it's up there, but, since we want you to do a real investigation and we're not trying to trick you or pull a prank, we disconnected it before you came so that you'll know we're on the up and up, and so that anything you DO catch, you'll know it's not us" — well, that's on the restaurant. NOT on TAPS, or the producers.

Bottom line: There are THREE bad actors here: whoever on the production team knew about the effects and didn't tell Jay and Grant; TAPS, for not performing adequate background research — without a doubt, yes, they shoulder a portion of the blame.

But the restaurant had what we in the law business call "the last opportunity to avoid" the incident and didn't take it. That makes them more culpable than most. It's not just bad form. It's deceptive. There's no reason for it, except to "test TAPS." Makes for interesting TV, though, you have to admit.

And THAT, folks, is what's at the heart of this whole mess.

HOLD ON A MINUTE:

First off, Dr. Rhodes had TWO posts back-to-back, one was his own words and the second is clearly labeled as "From Loyd Auerbach's MySpace Blog". The latter contains references to a book.

Rhodes is NOT selling a book. Auerbach is. And Auerbach is not posting on this forum, Rhodes just copied and pasted Auerbach's side of the story here.

I hope that clears up the confusion on that front.

SECONDLY: Of course all of the things they mentioned are similar to the effects that were rigged. The effects were designed BASED ON the reports. The difference is that, for instance, the lamps that were reported to move were NOT the same lamps that were rigged, as I understand it — and so on.

THIRDLY: As far as I can tell, no one is claiming that any of the effects were actually TURNED ON except the laughing in the women's bathroom. Now, if you own or work for the restaurant and you told the Ghost Hunters' producers about the effects AND you (thought you) turned all of the effects off, why would you feel the need to bring it up again?

You wouldn't, because you would not be expecting it to be an issue at all. The guy admitted he forgot about the women's bathroom, maybe he was supposed to turn ALL of the effects off and goofed. The point is, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE on the part of the restaurant.

I will drive that home with these points:

1) No one would seriously mistake the women's laughing from the speaker (rigged tot he bathroom door) or the face in the mirror as a real phenomena. It seems fake to begin with, but then you can replicate it and study it and figure out what's going on in under a minute.

2) The swinging lamps were on a timer so there would have been no way for TAPS to even suspect what was really going on (if they hadn't been suspicious from the bathroom), but that rig seems to have been turned off. If the restaurant was trying to trick TAPS, that's the one rig they would have left ON because it's the only one that could fool anyone.

FOURTHLY: NO ONE IS INSULTING OR BLAMING TAPS. We are, however, pointing a finger at Pilgrim for not properly informing TAPS and pointing out that if TAPS had done thorough research they would have known what everyone else did.

I am not blaming them for how this went (I'm mostly blaming their Producer's, who KNEW and didn't tell them) but I think if you're going to start saying the restaurant bears some of the blame then it's only fair to acknowledge TAPS themselves bears at least as much — since the restaurant at least told the show's producers (and turned most of the effects off), and since TAPS really should have known from their own case research.

Let me clarify my position on this a little better:

Yes, it would have been the responsible thing to do for the restaurant to mention the effects during the tour, but since they already told the show's producers and since they (thought they) turned all the effects off, I have to say it's perfectly correct to claim they could have PREVENTED this misunderstanding, but it's completely unfair to BLAME them for it — the blame rests with the show's producers.

Secondly, Yes, the restaurant's due diligence probably should have included mentioning it during the tour (as I just acknowledged) but TAPS' due diligence probably should have included turning this up during their research.

Neither one of these ommissions CAUSED this misunderstanding, but it's less troubling to me that the restaurant flubbed since they don't do this all the time.

On the other hand, TAPS does — in fact, they were given a TV show because they're supposed to be really good at it — so when they make mistakes on things that directly relate to their investigations that should at least make their fans sit up and take notice.

Did they tell the shows producers? Other than references to a 'leak' I really haven't seen anything that proves that. Given Loyd Auerbach's self serving twaddle it seems likely that someone was trying to drum up publicity for his little known restaurant. And I say 'little known' with a bit of authority.

I had a similar idea a few years ago and started pieceing it together. Props, mechanisms, how-tos(I found several easy to use cheap things that could project an image that would appear to be on that bluff BTW). One of the most extensive things I went after was who would be my competition in the field and I found surprisingly few. More specifically, I did NOT find the distillery.

So they are NOT known as a place with 'enhanced' hauntings.

Further, to add to the idea that they were deliberately deceptive I point to the admission that the laughter that purportedly actually happens in the ladies room DOES NOT, by Loyd Auerbach's admission, refer to the current ladies room.

"the ladies room is in a different location from where it was for most of the place's existence"

So what was the point in telling TAPS that it did if not to decieve?

I think someone was desperate for publicity–and it backfired.

An actual haunted site owner who trades on the haunting knows that 'enhancing' anything detracts from the idea rather than helping.

I agree completely that everyone involved is to blame. TAPS, Pilgrim, AND Moss Beach. I don't think you can say safely that one is to blame more than the others. It's equal blame on all three parties. TAPS should have conducted better (or at the very least, SOME) research on Moss Beach. Pilgrim should have informed TAPS of the riggings if they knew about it beforehand (and I think we're all in agreement that they did). And the chef should have said during the tour that these rigs were in place, as well. I thought it was very clear that he knew he'd been caught during the reveal. His cheeks turned crimson red. He had that "Alright, so ya caught me" grin on his face the whole time. And how about when he said, "Oh, and I think…yeah…I think the lamps may have something rigged to them, too." Give me a break. He knew and tried to get away with it. I thought that was obvious. But I do not want to place all of the blame on him or Moss Beach. They are as much at fault as everyone else involved.

I think that what Pilgrim was trying to do with this episode was restore some shred of credibility to the TAPS team. The first half invovled some pretty good debunking (the best of the season so far) and the second episode was them "debunking" a restaurant's claims. Pilgrim definitely failed at that in the second half by showing TAPS' shoddy research efforts. What I wouldn't give to meet a member of Pilgrim in a dark alley…

I live in the area.

People are not going there for the food so they need something to drum up business. If nobody was trying to pull a fast one, why didn't the chef talk about the effects when they did the walk through? Easy enough to point out the switch for the ladies room and the lights swinging - instead he talked about the lights as something reported by patrons as evidence of the paranormal.

FYI: Read before writing or your post gets deleted. It's unfair to expect people to explain the same thing eight times simply because some people can't be bothered to read.

In response to Kate: "If nobody was trying to pull a fast one, why didn't the chef talk about the effects when they did the walk through?"

I would say, "If SOMEONE was trying to pull a fast one, why would they turn all the effects off (except the ones they forgot because men generally don't go into the women's bathroom)?"

Yes, they probably should have mentioned it on the walkthrough, but if they were trying to pull a fast one those lamps would have been swinging on their own.

There seems to be alot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" in this episode. I'm sure at the end of the day, everyone is asking themselves what needed to happen differently.

In the forums there was a spoiler release regarding this episode several days ago. In that release it was indicated that Pilgrim was alerted to the presence of machines to help "reenact" paranormal phenomena. If people want to attack Auerbach and challenge his credibility, that's your choice. However, we don't know him. We don't know how honest he is or anything. So people attacking him do so after 1 post. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't, but that's a seriously slanderous generalization to make.

That said, we DO know a little about our friends at Pilgrim. TAPS and fans have no problem blaming the infamous FLIR image on editing done by the Pilgrim crew. So we do have at least 1 case example of Pilgrim tampering with the evidence and circumstances to their benefit. I personally have little reason to doubt that 1) Pilgrim knew the place was rigged going in and 2) They intentionally lied to both the restaurant and the TAPS crew to create a confrontational situation.

The question I have in all of this is "Why?" Obviously its television, so it's about profit margins. Was it to create sensationalism and therefore promote ratings? Was it to demonstrate that TAPS can't be tricked and reinstall confidence in them? Was it to "spice up" a relatively dry 4th season? I have no idea, only the bigwigs at Pilgrim do.

Regardless of your love or hate for Auerbach, there are a couple of points he made that are very true:

1) TAPS makes money from this stuff. I have a friend who walks around in a TAPS fan shirt. It's not a non-profit organization. It's not a charity. They are not a government supported agency. That Auerbach is willing to admit he's pushing his book is at least naming the demon it is: marketing. But I guarantee TAPS has made more money from their exploits than Auerbach has his. I don't fault TAPS for this, but they're not the benificent anthropists that some label them as.

2) TAPS drew a conclusion [whether you agree with it or not] in 1 night. This is of course a complaint that I have had for a LONG time. TAPS makes an individual visit to a location, investigates and pronounces their determination. Auerbach rightly determines that TAPS hasty pronouncement invalidates the experiences of those who have come before. If you wish to challenge those experiences, so be it. But there's a longer history with the location than 1 night can deal with.

3) Ignorance is an issue. Whether TAPS shoulda/coulda been informed aside, as self-labeled professionals, its fair to expect more from them that walking into a site withou knowledge. From the underground railroad experience with Steve, to the "slave shack" on the Myrtles plantation (which didn't even exist during the civil war), research into a location before investigation wouldn't hurt, and as we've seen before can often lead to debunking itself (see palace theater).

quick follow up on my post:

I decided to do a quick little research. The following link is 1 url that identifies the restaurant as having special effects
http://www.thecabinet.com/darkdestinations/location.php?sub_id=dark_destinations&letter=m&location_id=moss_beach_distillery

I timed it and it took me about 10 minutes to find. That said, I did have to dig a little bit, and I knew what I was digging for. Now granted I had to dig on google (no personal interviews or anything), but it is possible to find it on the internet. So from MY perspective, here's what I conclude: 1) 10 minutes research on my computer with google. Not the best research, but gave me basic background; 2) a few restaurant reviews, but didn't see any mention of the special effects in the reviews; 3) frequent appearances on paranormal sites, including specific mention to their appearance on Unsolved Mysteries (so that much is true: they've been on OTHER television programs with exposure); 4) 1 mention to rigged effects that annoy paranormal investigators. Since my research stopped there, that's all I'm going to say with certainty.

Oh please–

"2) TAPS drew a conclusion [whether you agree with it or not] in 1 night. This is of course a complaint that I have had for a LONG time. TAPS makes an individual visit to a location, investigates and pronounces their determination. Auerbach rightly determines that TAPS hasty pronouncement invalidates the experiences of those who have come before. If you wish to challenge those experiences, so be it. But there's a longer history with the location than 1 night can deal with."

You can't be serious.

On the show, TAPS goes in, does their investigation and shares their results with the people who called them in. When they don't find anything they say so. And what they say is usually some variation of this–"Well we investigated the claims and didn't come up with anything, so we can't say that there's anything paranormal going on at this time. That's a very fair determination.

Auerbach didn't get that. Perhaps it was all the fakery that led them to such an abrupt determination.

Speaking of that, their determination was quite mild under the circumstances. They simply pointed out that the fakery put any investigation and any results into the realm of being fakes

"I would say, "If SOMEONE was trying to pull a fast one, why would they turn all the effects off (except the ones they forgot because men generally don't go into the women's bathroom)?"

Based on the chefs comments–he specifically mentioned the laughter, the apparition, and the shaking lights, and based on the fact that TAPS turned things off with the breakers–while the laughter and the 'apparition' stayed on(though the apparition was broken). I think it's pretty clear that the chef thought that ALL the effects were wired to other power sources.

Hey D, great find–AND put up 3 days ago. Pretty good. And, if TAPS had time traveling abilities they could have found out about it before they taped that show.

Did some looking and found reviews. So far back to 2005. I've only found one prior to the show that mentions the 'haunting' and that one seems to have been written by an employee/owner and makes no reference to 'enhancements.

Logisti - no disrespect intended. I love this site and have told other people about it. Grant is a piece of work but I think on this one I agree to disagree.

I live in the Bay Area and know both Auerbach and Annette Martin personally through their appearances on local radio stations I have worked at. To hold Jason and Grant to a higher standard than you are holding Auerbach to says more about your bias than anything - and seems to contradict your mission statement on the homepage.

I've "dined" at the restaurant and know first hand the kind of people we are dealing with - and I'd put Auerbach/Martin in the same "credible" box that you'd put Sylvia Brown in…….in case you don't see it that last post is dripping with sarcasm.

Kate said: "To hold Jason and Grant to a higher standard than you are holding Auerbach to says more about your bias than anything - and seems to contradict your mission statement on the homepage."

Kate,

I don't see that Logisti's argument requires holding Jay and Grant to a higher standard than he's holding Auerbach.
Perhaps you can show why this is required by Logisti's argument.

Other than that, I'm just happy at this point that people are no longer under the impression that I'm selling a book. Thanks for clarifying that, Logisti.

Michael

Nothing about this investigation makes sense.

Are we supposed to believe the TAPS team traveled across the country to do an investigation and didn't spend a few minutes on a Google search, which would have revealed the special effects?

Are we supposed to believe that Jason and Grant really took the deception with such calm and acceptance instead of screaming heir heads off and getting lawyers involved? (After all, they spent a lot of time and money as a result of the deception.)

Are we supposed to believe Jason and Grant wouldn't immediately interrupt the investigation after discovering he fraud and not confront the chef, owner, or whoever was supposed to lock up the place after they left??

Are we supposed to believe the owner(s) of the property didn't fire the chef for being so deceptive? An employee like that is a lawsuit magnet.

Are we supposed to believe the Moss Beach Distillery wouldn't benefit from some free publicity, bad or otherwise?

I get this feeling last night was an elaborate hustle involving TAPS, Pilgrim, and the Moss Beach Distillery. Everyone except the viewers "won." TAPS got to demonstrate their bona fides by "exposing" a "fraud," while the business got a free ad.

Maybe last night was the episode when "Ghost Hunters" finally jumped the shark.

Using Kate's referrence to Annette Martin, one of the people who have claimed to research the place (and you're right Kate, she does NOT inspire much hope with the skeptics in her approach to studying the paranormal), I dug up her website.

http://www.annette-martin.com/ghostbusting.htm

Scroll to the bottom Jack. There you will see an article supposedly published by a local newspaper talking about the special effects. Dated October 5th, 2000.

I don't think Jay and Grant knew about the fake stuff ahead of time, and I don't think that the research on finding out about the fake hauntings was as easy to accomplish as everyone claims it was. Furthermore, I would bet that the owners of the MBD did some major damage control after that episode was taped (and they knew they were going to look like a**holes on national TV) and tried to disingenuously claim AFTER THE FACT that they had warned TAPS about the fake haunting equipment ahead of time. Mostly I thought that the MBD people just thought they would get away with this stuff and it would boost their business. What a bunch of jerks.

Well, I live in SF, and I've dined at the Moss Beach Distillery a few times over the past decade. And I've never heard about the "effects," although the proprieters do make much of the place's haunted reputation.

Then again, I'm not a ghost hunter. If Kris Williams did her homework, she should have turned up existing public information about the effects. You'd expect that searching for material about hoaxes would be a part of any background check on a site that's reported to be haunted, especially a commercial establishment like the MBD (or the Colonial Inn, for that matter).

Could it be that Pilgrim/SciFi is setting up all these investigations, selecting the sites and providing the research — and all TAPS does is show up? It sure is starting to look that way.

Nobody comes out of this one looking good. Jason and Grant need to take back TAPS from Pilgrim, the same way they advise families to take back a haunted residence from ghosts.

Why wouldn't Pilgrim tell TAPS about the effects? Neither Pilgrim nor SciFi would allow TAPS to be embarassed in any way. They're not going to go to the trouble of filming an investigation that would never air on TV, and there is no way SciFi would air the episode if TAPS believed the effects were real paranormal events. Maybe the Moss Beach Distillery people promised Pilgrim the effects would be turned off? Or maybe Pilgrim knew the effects were so bad and cheesy that any child could tell they were fake. I can't imagine anybody being fooled.

Well, after looking at the MBD site, I find that the only reference to effects was added AFTER the show aired.

Then again we have this thing written by Auerbach in 1998 that 'announced' the effects–but that was also added to the MBD site AFTER the show.

I put 'announced' in quotes up there, d'y'know why? Because I get the feeling that he was caught then and that was his first ass covering move.

Based on what I've seen, prior to the airing of the show(not even the filming) it would have been very easy to do a google search without ever encountering the few mentions of the fact that this is fakery. If I go to the website D put up and read down the page I'm going to get article after article about how the place it actually haunted. There's a small article way at the bottom of a very long read. After six or so pieces confirming the haunting, Kris can be forgiven if she doesn't go to the bottom–particularly since the MBDs site also made no mention of effects on their website prior to the airing of the show.

Given the pissy reaction of Auerbach, I don't think Pilgrim, TAPS or Scifi were 'in the know'.

Okay, now my take on this. Has anyone bothered to goto the restaurant's website: (besides Jack)

http://www.mossbeachdistillery.com/ghost.html

The big post, from Lloyd Auerbach, that some seemed annoyed by, is referenced as a link there in direct response to this controversy, as of 6/4/08.

So maybe someone, connected with MBD, is playing their antics on this site to do some "Damage Control" or at least detour the speculation of their involvement in this fiasco, since this was "egged on" almost from the start.

Hmmmm….just curious

I agree everyone looks bad, but the MBD looks like it was trying to deceive people. The chef looked like he was purposely trying to deceive Jason and Grant by showing them the areas that he knew were rigged but it slipped his mind to tell them of the "special effects" during the tour. Give me a break. The chef acted like he knew full well Jason and Grant did not know these things about the place. He looked more like he wanted to see if he could fool them. The chef didn't even give the correct history of MBD. Why was that? Not good either that TAPS didn't research the place.

I will never believe that MBD is haunted. This is just as bad as that episode of GH where Grant more likely than not pulled the lamp shade cord. I already don't trust them because of that and other episodes. All in all, this is really bad business for MBD. They should have never went on GH if they wanted to continue trying to trick the average person with the "special effects" they have in place. With people that go out of there way to fake things, just like crop circles, how will you ever really know what the real deal is.

I really don't "get" this whole thing. Yeah I guess TAPS should have done their research, but I am on the east coast like TAPS and I know nothing of this place and its "effects", Yes I realize that they should have probably known.

Anyways as mentioned above during the tour all of this stuff is mentioned as "paranormal" reports (such) as the moving lamps and that's the stuff thats rigged. Like I say I just don't get the point of the whole thing. These commercial locations are just getting ridiculous. I don't even believe most of their passed down stories. Even TAPS has found out sometimes that children that supposedly died somewhere either never existed or lived till they were 99.

Then as also mentioned above, why didn't J & G just stop right there and confront whoever would be hanging around. It was probably the guy they talked to at the end there, who didn't seem the least bit surprised they found everything (and like I said never mentioned it during the initial interview).

The entire thing and everyone involved just confuses me…

"Could it be that Pilgrim/SciFi is setting up all these investigations, selecting the sites and providing the research — and all TAPS does is show up? It sure is starting to look that way."

Hooray, someone is finally getting it.

"Why wouldn't Pilgrim tell TAPS about the effects? Neither Pilgrim nor SciFi would allow TAPS to be embarassed in any way."

Because Pilgirm doesn't get embarrassed, they are a company that makes TV shows. And Pilgrim doesn't care about TAPS beyond their profitability. It's a business, Jay and Grant are PAID by Pilgrim films. That is why they went, because they got PAID to. They didn't waste their time, their time was PAID for. It's a TV show they get PAID to perform on. Pilgrim sets it up, TAPS shows up, does their Ghost Hunting routine and takes home their checks.

And that is how it is and will continue to be until the ratings fall too low to sell the show. When the show runs it course, Jay and Grant go their own way and Pilgrim develops more shows.

Why is this concept so hard for so many to accept?

I think everyone is missing something quite obvious!! TAPS knew about the effects and was using this episode as a "see, we can't be fooled" statement. Come on - they happen to first investigate the only room where the rigged effects are on? And then Jay immediately looks behind the mirror - even though the effect was broken. He says the mirror looked "out of place" - so his natural reaction is to start tearing it apart … Please. Then they happen to find the other main effect - the swinging lamp mechanism. Gosh, it's almost like they knew what to look for. To believe TAPS had no knowledge of the effects, had done no real research on a place they traveled across the country to investigate, and that Pilgrim decided to "set up" its own cast for some unknown reason is laughable.
Do ya honestly think Pilgrim would have wanted TAPS to investigate, declare it haunted and then have it splashed across the Internet that their cash cow TV stars were fooled by American Legion Haunted House special effects????

Did TAPS travel to the West Coast specifically to visit MBD, or was this investigation part of the same trip where they visited the Presidio in SF?

I do watch GH as a TV show for entertainment. I laugh frequently at some of the things that they try to make people believe, whether it be a sheet, a lamp, or a fixture on a table, but I did not know MBD was rigged. Does this mean that GH is also educational too?

MBD is the loser here no matter were you stand with TAPS. Bad business. Big mistake for MBD.

Haze, my point is that Pilgrim wouldn't allow TAPS to be fooled on the air because the embarassment of that would probably cause a loss of viewership, which would in turn force a cancellation of the show. Pilgrim and TAPS would lose a lot financially if that happened.

Of course they wouldn't, nor did they. Pilgrim edits the show, so they will always spin it in TAPS best interest. The show was meant to reenforce TAPS debunking abilites, and it was clear the whole thing was staged, on everyones part. TAPS and the MBD people simply followed the script and everyone got what they wanted. TAPS looks like great detectives and the MBD gets some free publicity.

My thought watching the show was, "Grant must be laughing at all the computer controlled stuff, since he fools the fans with just a bit of fishing line, a tug on a lamp cord, or a piece of glass and a flick of the wrist."

CURRENT THEORIES AND STATUS:

MBD WAS BEING DECEITFUL: FALSE, unless they are too stupid to realize their effects need to be TURNED ON in order to deceive anyone.

TAPS KNEW ABOUT THE EFFECTS: FALSE, there's no evidence for this and no one at MBD has claimed this.

PILGRIM KNEW ABOUT THE EFFECTS: (PROBABLY) TRUE, MBD says they spoke to Pilgrim about the effects and this issue has been building over the past week before the episode even aired, Pilgrim has not denied it.

Listen folks, the basic truth you can't get around is that all of those effects — including the HIGHLY sophisticated pneumatic system to swing the chandeliers — were turned off except one in the ladies' bathroom the guy forgot. That ALONE proves there was no intent to deceive, which means they're also probably telling the truth about mentioning it to Pilgrim.

Yes, they've recently added stuff to their website, but there WAS information on these effects available on the web since 1998. Whether or not TAPS *should* have turned this up, the fact remains that the effects were *never* secret and MBD talked openly about them since they were installed over a decade ago.

ALL-IN-ALL you can divvy up blame a number of different ways but there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that MBD was being deceitful. In fact, there is a LOT of evidence that indicates they were NOT being deceitful.

FINAL NOTE: Some people still don't seem to "get" why the effects were rigged in a way that seemed to correspond with what Spencer told TAPS about the hauntings. It's because THEY DESIGNED THE EFFECTS TO MIMIC THE REPORTED HAUNTINGS.

However, aside from the effects being turned off, the effects do not correspond *exactly* with the reports — for instance, the lights that are rigged are NOT the lights that TAPS was told sometimes swing.

[NOTE FROM ADMIN: Once again, read before posting. Dr. Rhodes was NOT promoting a book]

WES has hit it dead-on: they used this to show us skeptics that IF there were rigs in previous hauntings, they most certainly would have found them! "See guys? We're the real deal!" That's my thought also, anyway. It makes them look like "Super Ghost Hunter/Skeptics."

That episode was a waste of damn time.

I agree with Haze and Wes on this. There is no such thing as "Reality" TV, which I guess they bill GH as. Everything is staged and spun to however the producers want. I've spent the past 6 years working in TV production and I know this to be true! Pilgrim and GH is loving all the press this is getting right now, trust me.

The only thing I am certain of is that there are many ruins in Mesopotamia.

MBD did not turn ANYTHING off. TAPS did, when they went dark–at the breaker box. They showed it as they always have that 'going dark' sequence.

The bathroom effects worked ANYWAY. This implies a seperate power source–a seperate breaker or a battery auxiliary. The chef SPECIFICALLY pointed out the fake effects. The bathroom, the lamps, the sounds, and the image of the blue lady–and he pointed them out as real.

He expected them to be working, not off–that's why, after Grant and Jason exposed the bathroom fakery he quickly tried to 'expose' the lamps himself–HE thought they'd gone off.

Was it deliberate deception? Of course. Anyone who works in the administration of that restaurant knows that the bathroom was moved.

Anything MBD says about their interactions with the show is suspect–and a 'skeptic' should see that easily with one simple fact–

There was nothing on MBDs site about fake effects until the airing of the TAPS episode.

Any attempt to lay 'blame at the feet of any part of the show isn't rational skepticism–it's bias. The restaurant has clearly lied–even their mea culpa tries to extend their initial lie by making claims that TAPS didn't do a good job because they couldn't sort the 'real ghost' from the funhouse effects. They come into this already having struck out–who can rationazlly accept THEIR word that Pilgrim knew anyhthing?

Jack, let's talk procedural stuff: When TAPS goes into a site they turn MOST of the power off, but they have a lot of equipment, IR cameras, laptops, etc to power and not all of it is in the van.

In fact, if you watch the setup montage for this particular investigation, YOU SEE THEM PLUG THEIR EQUIPMENT INTO A POWER OUTLET INSIDE THE RESTAURANT.

Yes, just moments before we see them flip those breaker-box switches, we see Kris plugging an orange extension cord into an outlet inside the restaurant.

But… breaker-box SWITCHES? Plural? Yes, they did not use the SINGLE SWITCH at the top of the breaker that turns EVERYTHING off at once. Why not? Wouldn't that make more sense? Die-Hard TAPS fans know they actually tried that once and it didn't work out too well for them. THEIR EQUIPMENT NEEDS POWER. So TAPS leaves some of the breakers ON.

So if you want to assume the bathroom was hooked up to a 9-volt battery go ahead — it wouldn't make any sense though because you'd be replacing it three times a week. I'm going to go ahead and assume it was on a circuit that TAPS left on.

And while we're assuming, if you're going to assume the restaurant did NOT turn off the effects and TAPS did, I fully acknowledge that is a real possibility. Here's another real possibility: This show has been on the air for four years and EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ALWAYS TURN THE POWER OFF BEFORE AN INVESTIGATION.

In fact, most people (like yourself) think they turn ALL of the power off, so no one "trying to deceive" would have left those effects plugged into the electric.

What is more likely is that either the restaurant assumed or Pilgrim assured them that TAPS turns the power off, therefore the effects wouldn't be a problem.

It is more likely…except for the fact that the MBD engages in blatant deception.

Even in the article where the effects were 'announced' Auerbach does not say WHEN the effects went in.

Just read their reviews, read what they say. I spent some time researching them over the past few days–those 'announcements' about effects were not readily available.

And no, I do not believe that TAPS always turns all the power off–they can't–especially in a restaurant. Which is why I noted that the chef clearly expected the effects(all of them) to be on.

Based on the negative reviews prior to the show I think the whole thing is a farce. I think that the people at MBD were trying to drum up publicity that would make people overlook their high-priced crappy food.

And I don't think it was orchestrated by the show because it was done so poorly.

Jack, your assertions make no sense: Why would ANYONE expect ALL the effects to be ON when EVERYONE knows TAPS shuts off nearly all the power in the building?

Also, the only effect that *was* on, was so obviously rigged and so obviously a recording being played through a cheap speaker that it was clearly — as Grant himself said — a "Funhouse" effect. It was never designed to "fool" anyone, much less professional Ghost Hunters.

For crying out loud, it went off every time you opened the door! Out of all the effects, that's the one you TURN OFF. Instead it was the ONLY one powered up.

Why? Because TAPS accidentally foiled MBD's plans when they suddenly decided to, completely out of nowhere, do the exact same thing they always do and cut most of the power? Or are we to believe that the people at MBD are just really, really stupid and incompetent (besides also being greedy and evil)?

And if you look at the effects they had there — ALL of the effects were of the "Funhouse" variety with the exception of the swinging chandeliers. So for your accusations to be plausible MBD must have forgotten to hook the ONLY effect that might fool anyone up to a power source that wasn't getting shut off.

You sum it all up quite nicely in that opening line, "It is more likely…except for the fact that the MBD engages in blatant deception". That sounds an awful lot like, "What you say makes sense, but it's wrong because I say so" — there is no evidence of any intent to deceive WHATSOEVER, much less any "fact" that "MBD engages in" BLATANT deception.

OF NOTE: The effects went in during the mid-90's. It may not say it in that one article but I've seen it in several other places.

I'm wondering if it is time for Logisti to set up a Moss Beach Distillery fan site……and I'll set up one called The Skeptical Diner.

The zeal to defend the restaurant and damn TAPS is a little over the top.

I liked the long winded post. I believe he was very honest about promoting his book. I am a GH fan but was very disappointed with this episode.

Kate, look at what you just wrote: "The zeal to defend the restaurant and damn TAPS is a little over the top."

A good look at that sentence should provide more than enough proof that you're looking at this from a severely skewed viewpoint. How on earth do you associate defending someone against unfounded accusations with "damning" TAPS?

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Even if Spencer was an evil goblin, determined to trick our valiant heroes, TAPS still could have turned this up in their research — it's a completely independent point and even then I don't *blame* TAPS, I just think it reflects poorly on skill they're supposed to be good at.

AND as another independent point: The circumstantial evidence making the case that MBD was deliberately being deceitful is about the flimsiest thing I've ever seen people so anxious to rally behind. If MBD was really trying to fool anyone then they'd have to be the stupidest, most incompetent hoaxsters ever to exist because if that was their goal they basically did nothing right.

Look at the potential theories:

#1 - MBD thought they turned off all of the effects and had already mentioned them to Pilgrim so they thought it was a non-issue.

#2 - MBD and Pilgrim discussed the effects and both assumed they would go off when TAPS cut the power, so they thought it was a non-issue.

#3 - MBD never mentioned the effects to Pilgrim and was hoping TAPS would mistake the effects for real phenomena and make their restaurant look haunted and get them unearned publicity.

The first two theories fit all the available evidence (Not even Pilgrim has denied it), while the third makes absolutely no sense unless the plan was being carried out by [insert comically stupid cartoon sidekick here].

My "zeal" has nothing to do with the restaurant, my zeal is for taking facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. With the available facts, "MBD engages in blatant deception" doesn't even come close to being a reasonable conclusion.

Here's a theory: Could it be that Pilgrim deliberately kept the "effects" info from TAPS because the company knew Jay and Grant wouldn't want to investigate the place if they were aware it contained ghost-simulating devices? Pilgrim might have assumed that, since the effects would be off, it wouldn't become an issue. But they weren't, and it has.

Whatever. I've eaten there a few times, and believe me, people don't go to MBD for the food. Like so much of Kalifornia, the place amounts to a theme park.

We're all criticizing TAPS for poor research, but we really shouldn't be surprised. These guys are PLUMBERS, after all. Regular working stiffs with expensive equipment who chase ghosts for fun. Yeah, they're getting paid for it now, but that still doesn't imbue them with any sort of "professional" credentials.

For that matter, ARE there any accepted professional qualifications for ghost hunting? Gary — I mean, Dr. Rhodes — might know. BTW, "Sixth Sense" was my favorite TV show during the winter of 1972. If that really is you, Gary Collins, then bravo! You sure scared the crap out of me when I was ten years old.

Logisti, on the MBD website, in the hastily added additions to their ghost info, there is an article from Fate Magazine written by Auerbach in which he claims he is announcing the effects. Yet what he announces is that they added the effects 'recently'–but doesn't say when.

The article sounds a lot like the ass-covering one posted here

BUT, until the fifth of this month, the restaurants site said NOTHING about effects.

I'll say again that references to the effects prior to the airing of the show are not easy to find–and in the rare cases that they can be found they are buried in long stories about the 'real' ghost, that the effects are meant to 'help'.

As a show, it would have worked if the effects were on and TAPS debunked them OR

If the effects were off, and TAPS got something else/nothing/found them and debunked them.

But we got neither.

Based on what I saw, and the chefs commentary and responses the restaurant expected the effects to be on. What I think happened is that someone turned off a breaker that was supposed to stay on. It's clear that the effects breakers are not marked. They're probably wired in with things that stay on–the freezer, the lot lights, so that the place can 'go dark' and still be 'haunted'.

The Unsolved Mysteries show does not mention the effects. Theory Three is looking pretty good.

Sully, you say you've been there–where does the restaurant advertise the effects?

Like everyone else, I agree that you could have found out about the hoaxes online and such, BUT that does not excuse the fact that during the walkthrough, the bartender mentioned it as a fact, when knowing full well that it wasn't.

Even if Pilgrim or the bar expected TAPS to know about this ahead of time, that does not explain why they were given the tour and told that these gimmicks were truthful and happening as actual events when the bartenders and owners knew full well that it was not the case.

Even if they thought the gimmicks were turned off ahead of time, how could they expect credibility if TAPS had found them on their own? It seems to me that the laughter may not have been found if it was turned off, but the mirror probably would have and by the way the chandeliers were setup outside the bar, they definitely would have figured that out.

My problem with the Distillery is why even bring TAPS there? This is an obvious attempt to get some publicity and if they can discredit TAPS in the process, even better for them.

I have read that people giving theories about the gimmicks and whether Pilgrim knew or not but the hollowed out mirror cannot be turned off with the power, which was found by noticing how off the mirror looked and not by seeing the face in the mirror.

But if I was exposed like this and knew how bad I would come off, I would be saying someone knew and didn't tell Taps too, but the evidence really denies that. Especially when your best excuse for the ladies room laughter and face is ummm…I don't go in the ladies room. Does that even sound innocent or like they knew it was setup ahead of time?

Well I have to say TAPS got what TAPS has been giving for years which is tricks and fantasy! Can't be pissed about that huh Jay!

Got to tell you they had every opportunity to do a indepth research on this place and they didn't. Whether the place wanted publicity or not Taps has been pulling their tricks so they got some payback I enjoyed them being pushed around for a change.

Jack, I'm sure there is some ass covering going on by ALL parties involved. As has been pointed out, a thorough walkthrough probably should have included mentioning the effects; but not being as thorough as they should have been is a long way off from attempting to deceive.

I'll say it one more time: None of those effects could fool a five year old EXCEPT the chandeliers. If they were trying to pull something, they would have made sure the chandeliers were ON and the laughing in the bathroom was OFF. Rather than give the benefit of the doubt, you would have me believe that TAPS accidentally turned OFF chandeliers and at the same time accidentally turned ON the laugh-box rigged to the bathroom door. I'm not buying it.

PS: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Unsolved Mysteries show was probably taped BEFORE the effects went in during the mid-90's.

Mark, I said I'd delete posts for people who clearly didn't read through but I'll make an exception since your post was well written and very even keel — I've said this a number times now though: The effects (installed in the 90's) were designed to emulate actual events that have been reported since the 30's.

So, the place *DOES* have a real history of reported supernatural activity and the effects happen to be extremely similar, however they are slightly different from the real phenomena.

Jack, I've lived in SF for over a decade, and dined at MBD two or three times. The special effects might be well known among local paranormal enthusiasts, and they might have been written up somewhere, but personally I've never heard of them, nor has anybody I know. They're not common currency with Bay Area diners.

MBD doesn't advertise the special effects, so far as I can tell. I just pulled out a copy of the souvenir brochure they distribute, called *The Distillery Times.* It's four pages of ghost stories and advertisements. There's an entire page devoted to the *Unsolved Mysteries* episode, but not a single mention of special effects.

And there's really no motivation for MBD to promote the special effects. After all, that might ruin the, um, "effect" for patrons. The decor is tacky, the service is slow, and the food is forgetable. All MBD has going for it are the view and the haunting. Why spoil one of its major attractions?

In my opinion, the Moss Beach investigation on Ghost Hunters showed how despicable and dishonest people can be. When I googled the Moss Beach Restaurant, most of what I saw was the hyped up claims by the restaurant about the 'Blue Lady', the focus on 'their' ghost, and their so-called paranormal events.

The chef's response to the review was vile. No conscience! What a blatant example of dishonesty! I will not be visiting that horrible place!

What the restaurant accomplished was to show how dishonest and incredibly deceitful they are. It wasn't funny! What a waste of time and energy! Omitting information is the same thing as a lie!

Entertainment is one thing but this was presented as true but ended up being fraudulent and shameful!

Not to belabor a point but exactly what evidence do we have that TAPS producers knew about the effects?

Auerbach was called by 'some producer' to get names/contacts of witnesses for the PRESIDIO (so presumably they didn't even want his opinion of the phenomena there and it appears they didn't stay on the phone long enough to exchange names).

By his own admission it was at the tail end of the conversation and only at his prompting that the Distillery even came up and it sounds to me like the producer was more interested in getting off the phone with the information he'd recieved than discussing the Distillery.

Is there any evidence to suggest Auerbach contacted the Distillery to let them know he'd disclosed the information about the effects to the TAPS producer? If not, then how could the chef possibly presume the TAPS team would know about them?

On the travel channel this morning the MBD was featured in America's Most Haunted. The employees of MBD discussed the special effects openly. I did not know about the special effects until the GH show, but they did openly discuss these effects on the travel channel show.

I don't understand why the Chef didn't tell TAPS during the tour like they did on the travel channel. This entire thing is confusing. It seems more like MSB was trying to fool TAPS because the Chef did the tour and pointed out the rigged effects as real. There is just no way around it that the Chef was trying to deceive Jay and Grant. If they did end up fooling TAPS, wouldn't someone come out about the special effects since some claimed they new about them. The Travel Channel show discussed them. Again, this entire thing is confusing.

I must say Jay really looked pissed about this. I don't think he was acting and the Chef came across as very deceitful. Maybe MBD was trying to test TAPS so they did not tell them. I don't know if the travel channel show is before or after TAPS visited MBD. Maybe the travel channel show was a damage control show so to speak. I had never seen a show that discussed these effects until this morning. All the ones before never mentioned the effects. It would have been much better for MBD if they told TAPS and mentioned that these effects would be turned off before they investigated. I am sure many people try to fool TAPS and I am sure TAPS tries to fool us as well.

Logisti, I do apologize for not catching the fact that Dr. Rhode's post was from Auerbach's blog, and Dr. Rhodes, I also apologize for wrongly accusing you of promoting a book. I didn't read the post properly, so now I feel like an ass! I guess I got caught up in my disappointment over this whole thing, and the blatant unprofessionalism that took place.

I agree with the multiple posts that the whole situation was confusing. But ultimately, no matter how this happened, they've gotten what they've wanted: publicity.

MMark, Sully, thanks for that input.

I stand by my point that the effects are not advertised–nor are they easy to find mentions of.

For that matter, I have seen a lot about the 'Blue Lady'–but none that predates the 90s–though many of those fairly recent articles CLAIM that there were stories. However, older restaurant reviews mention no 'ghosts' whatsoever.

I am, based on what I've seen and heard, of the opinion that the entire thing was made up to generate interest in a restaurant thast is overpriced and not that good.

I think the restaurant needs to be on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares far more than it needs to be annoying paranormal investigators.

Aurbauch cannot easily be dismissed in all this. shannon posted in the forums a link to the beyond reality program, where Aurbauch is now being featured as a guest speaker at a TAPS program at the Mt. Washington Hotel. His book is even mentioned and described in positive terms. So TAPS has at least by extension endorsed the work he's done in the past.

The whole situation just feels "dirty" to me. In the midst of all this mees it APPEARS (and I am qualifying that), that Aurbauch used the situation to catapult himself into a larger venue.

This then makes me think "who is the supposed TAPS family in California" (the ones who alerted TAPS to MBD)? I'm not willing to make a grand conspiracy thing out of this, but it does appear that the only party to have truly "gained" something from the event…is Aurbauch.

I've been to MBD a few times when I lived in the Bay Area, the last time being 6 years ago. The manager I spoke to said they haven't had any phenomena since the early 90's. I guess that's the reason why the cheesy effects were installed in the first place. Now I don't know if any activity has occurred within the last 6 years, but I would hope that part of TAPS research includes finding currently active sites or they'll be in for long nights.

I'll chalk this one up to a learning experience for TAPS. I think their research department has taken a hit since Donna has left or it's been completely taken over by Pilgrim and of course, if that's the case, entertainment value wins over substance.

I believe that I had read that there had not been any activity since the building had been rebuilt in the 90's. To me it seems that the MBD is trying to claim that it IS haunted not that it WAS haunted.

If I were going someplace to experience a haunting I would not want to go some place "enhanced" if that was what i was looking for I would go to Disney Land!

Hi again, just thought y'all would like to know that Jason has responded to Auerbach's posting on the Moss Beach website.

You can read it here (hopefully the link will work!), and I'll let you all start the debate on what he's said, if there is a debate to be had:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=11408348&blogID=403692272

I'm not taking sides here, but…

During the reveal, the executive chef said something like, "I'm sorry you were caught surprised by those elements."

So I don't know. Perhaps he thought TAPS knew about them. Anyway, I think everyone looks bad. Of course, for the majority of viewers it's just entertainment: Someone tried to trick TAPS, but they were way too clever for that….And now it's on to next week's show.

btw I hope these little 'antics' between Steve and Tango aren't going to become weekly events. The 'crawl under the porch for a few bucks' was kind of funny. But I would think something like poking Tango while you're sitting in the dark waiting for a ghost to respond is very unprofessional (if there is such a thing in ghost hunting).

Logisti,
"PS: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Unsolved Mysteries show was probably taped BEFORE the effects went in during the mid-90's."

Correct.

The effects were installed in 1998, the year Auerbach's Fate magazine article was published. (This article by the way has been on the web for several years now. The Distillery only provided a link to it in the aftermath of the GH episode).

Incidentally, the Distillery hosted a media/news event in 1998 that announced these effects to the general public. Auerbach was present at that event. And this has been done a number of time since 1998.

Michael

They were out here for the Presidio as well.

Michael

Here's my response to Jason's response to Auerbach's response to the MBD episode.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=283852928&blogID=403887548

Please note my follow-up blog posted shortly after I posted the above blog. I received an email from Jason Hawes in which he pointed out that (in his blog) he didn't claim that the Distillery had any "ill intent" or attempted to deliberately deceive TAPS. Technically this is correct, with respect to his blog. But Grant made this accusation three times in the aired episode and this has certainly been the impression left on the vast majority of TAPS fans who watched the episode. I've asked Jason to publicly clarify this.

Michael

I'll claim ill-intent–and a futherebce of the lie.

The Fate article–RECENTLY linked–to the MBD site refers to when the effects were 'announced'–NOT when they were put in. And at the 'announcement'–according to the article Loyd did not say when they were put in.

Here are some highlights from the article–

"The April "show" was held for an audience of reporters to promote a new feature of the restaurant"

April 1998 the effects were already in.

Logisti, this one's for you–

" If that were true, the TV coverage, including reenactments shot by UNSOLVED MYSTERIES and a forthcoming show on the History Channel would have already affected her."

The 'effects' WERE already in at the time of the Unsolved Mysteries filming–as Loyd states in the areticle. He refers to the effects as 'reenactments' in the article. Perhaps drmichaelrhodes was counting on you to do no research.

Even better, the effects were FILMED. But the show makes no mention of them.

And Loyds' notation on when the effects went in –

"There'll be some controversy over these effects, I'm sure." Disbelievers will claim that it's been a hoax all along. To them I can say we know when these effects went into operation, and it's recent!"

Wow–not only no date, but no apparent inclination to let people know if they'd been hoaxed. Sound familiar?

Do we need a 16 ton weight to fall on our heads? These people are hoaxers, plain and simple. Even the initial 'announcement' reads like a CYA piece.

Jason was too kind.

I'm not going to get into an Unsolved Mysteries research-off with you, I couldn't determine when that episode was filmed, but let's say you're exactly right — what would that mean?

They filmed the effects and didn't mention that they were effects — instead, they called them "re-enactments"

And?

So what? They ARE re-enactments. What do they need to do in order for you not to call them liars? Tell you the name of the company that installed the effects?

Oh wait, they actually DO tell you the name of the company that installed the effects. Auerbach says it right there in that same piece you've been quoting. Odd that som