woohoo 47 minutes! Awesome guys!

(Report comment)

A "Glen or Glenda?" reference…..

ED WOOD DID NOT DIE IN VAIN!

It's sad that GH has turned into a show we watch NOT to discuss alleged paranormal 'evidence' anymore, but to catch the next hoax. Of course, SciFi doesn't care WHY we watch; just so we're watching.

(Report comment)

Just my NSHO but I think the smoking gun is the jacket itself.

In order to be pulled back, you must tighten and compress the front against the body. We don't see this.

In the back, all the force of a tug is applied to the jacket at the neck. We see the some folds of the neck of the jacket move outward, but they are still expanded … there is simply no compression as there would be if something actually grabbed them with enough force to stop Grants forward motion and pull him back.

(Report comment)

L and S

Thank you again. Very enjoyable.
A few notes:

1. The Jacket Tug/pull or whatever we are calling that. When watching the show live, i was more impressed with Grant's attempt at doing a Goose-step on live TV.
His body language is damning and it was the first thing that really caught my suspicion.
Watching it again on youtube is almost comical and i have toyed with the idea of looping that moment while adding the Benny Hill theme song music.

2. "Subtle Smoking Gun" - Album title. I called it first.

(Report comment)

Once again a logical rational pod cast very professionally done.

You also talked about the obvious Hoaxes we have become accustomed to seeing on the show, and the main source of suspicion leads us to point fingers at Grant. You both agree and I certainly agree with everything said to justify the suspicions.

What I did not agree with. Both of you Said, and agreed, you did in fact suspect other members are also in on the Hoax, and Jay was specifically named as having direct knowledge of the Hoaxes. But, Grant is the only one you can say with certainty is responsible for hoaxing.

This is where I have a problem understanding why you would not question why Jay should not be equally responsible in creating the hoaxes. Lets assume he knows it, Lets assume he does not agree with it, and lets also assume he has seen it. It’s not a crime to deceive the viewers it’s more of amoral and obligation issue.

Shouldn’t we look at Jay as a co-conspirator, if he knows what’s going on then he has a secret agreement, he would knowingly be conspiring with Grant to join in on the secret?

A conspiracy is two or more people in agreement to commit a crime. Although ghost hunting is not a crime and neither is deceiving people into believing in ghosts.

A dedicated true believer of the show being aware of such dishonestly could very well consider this to be, a hanging offense.

(Report comment)

Well first off, Grant is the only one whom we've had reasons to actively suspect — ever, from my recollections. Sure, there are things that couldn't have been hoaxed by Grant and things that could have been hoaxed by other people, but every time there was something that seemed suspicious and only one person we could reasonably suspect, that person was Grant.

This obviously led us towards a wider narrative that we feel Grant is definitely hoaxing but weren't (until recently) able to prove it, but it also lent to the credibility of the rest of the team since no one else had really come under suspicion this entire four years (and we certainly had our eyes open).

Now, it's a fair assumption to suggest that if Grant has been hoaxing this entire time other TAPS members must know or at least suspect. Certainly Jay above anyone else falls into this category, but until "You're not supposed to be here" during the Halloween Live 2008 investigation we really only had a working hypothesis that Jay "should probably" know or suspect.

With his reactions during that investigation — along with some of his reactions from earlier, like insisting that Grant's sheets moving might just be his other leg despite Grant's repeated denials that it couldn't have been — we now have a fair amount of evidence that suggests our hypothesis may be correct, but that same evidence suggests he isn't on-board with Grant's hoaxing and might possibly be actively trying to counter it (at least sometimes).

Then the question becomes: is Jay an honest guy who wants to run a show with 100% integrity but can't rock the boat too much because the other producers love Grant (and what he does for the ratings)? Or is Jay mostly on-board but he just thinks Grant is too careless sometimes? We really can't "prove" Jay knows anything at all, but like the "Grant List" we've got a lot of good reasons to suspect.

…and much like Grant, even if we can prove our case we still can't prove intent — in other words, even if we could prove Jay knows we can't prove whether he's for or against it. If you're surprised to hear me say we can't prove intent with *Grant*, well we really can't. He might very well be throwing hangers because he thinks it gives people hope and strengthens their beliefs in an afterlife. Hypothetically, his hoaxing could have absolutely nothing to do with fame or money.

The remaining issue which I didn't really touch on is whether Jay has a moral responsibility to "out" Grant if he found out Grant has been hoaxing. That's a difficult question. Not to turn this into a political discussion, but people suggested Colin Powell should have resigned when he found out the case for WMDs in Iraq was over-inflated. Other people said it was far more noble for him to stay on and try to steer the foreign policy back to sanity. Obviously one of these situations is far more important than the other, but the Iraq war was pretty important too. j/k. What I want to illustrate is that there isn't always one clear path to what is "moral", and if Jay knows and puts up with it that could still potentially be a moral decision, IMO.

(Report comment)

I'm another newby to the forum. I was made aware of it several months ago, and had a peek around, but didn't come back looking for it until after the Live Halloween Episode.

I also need to disclose that I am a full-fledged member of the skeptical community. However, I am not a close-minded type of skeptic, although I must admit that a large part of the skeptical community bears a great deal of responsibility in the fact that "skeptic" and "close-minded" have become synonymous to many outside of that community. I personally would love nothing more than to see or be presented with irrefutable evidence of a phenomenon that, either due to our relatively primitive understanding of the natural world or for other reasons, we currently refer to as "paranormal".

I also write because of my 13 year-old daughter, to whom I introduced the GH show 4 years ago (math would indicate that she would have been 9 at the time). I introduced the show to her specifically because of the early stance taken by GH, and espoused by J, namely that they looked at their job as one of disproving hauntings. I thought this was refreshing - finally a show devoted to paranormal activity with people who were trying to come up with rational explanations for what many might interpret as paranormal, but were really every-day occurrences. Also, I would have the opportunity to show my daughter the benefit of critical thinking and analysis, through a subject she absolutely loved. As the seasons have gone by, and the "hauntings" have become more frequent, the methodology has become more sloppy, and the reality of some of those early, really interesting occurences has come into question, my daughter still is very much enamored of the team, and still truly believes what she is seeing. She even subscribes to the TAPS magazine. I have gently tried to dissuade her from her stance, often to hear the rebuttal of "Dad, you're such a skeptic!" I don't want to kill Santa Claus for her, but I do want to provide her the tools to see that Santa Claus doesn't exist, to use a rather lame analogy. What one learns for oneself is a better-learned lesson than what is taught to you through rote dogmatic representation. So, I come to this forum with more than a little guilt on my shoulders.

Rather than turn this comment into an "all about Steve" session, I thought I'd bring something up that I think was alluded to, but what has not yet been specifically documented. Actually, it may have been, but I could have missed it. This comment also could have been placed in the GH: Halloween Live thread, but that has become a bit unwieldy in length.

Specifically, I would like to raise again the prospect of why J and G had such a panicked reaction when Steve Valentine described "the hair on the back of his neck" being raised when he "heard that voice come over his earpiece". Several have commented that as they did not know the reason for this display of what we have interpreted to be panic or discomfort upon Steve Valentine's mention of it, that it was not necessarily relevant to the probable perpetration of a hoax.

Here's my guess. Please note that this is nothing more than conjecture, but the video evidence and the reaction of J and G are certainly consistent with this conjecture. I realize that I have no proof of any of what I propose.

The ghostly (albeit tinny) voice, being from a disembodied spirit would have come from somewhere–interpreted to be within the tunnels, or somewhere that was somewhat removed from the investigators, typically some distance away. But not right next to a remote microphone located on the person of an investigator. A hoax perpetrator would rather that the disembodied voice be picked up from the sound guy, or a digital recording device held by someone else, not through his or her own microphone. Not to presume anything, but it seemed obvious that all the investigators had battery-powered mics. A hoax perpetrator would have probably turned off his or her mic, then played the recording to be picked up by someone else. If that hoax perpetrator neglected to turn off their mic, or failed to somehow shield their mic during a playing of a ghostly recording, or alternatively, actually thought they turned off their mic, but failed to do so, then the recording would transmit through the mic, into the sound board, and depending on what peoples' individual ear-pieces were tuned to, through their earpieces. That, and it would be really loud. Too loud, in fact. Typically ghostly voices don't "step up to the mic". Much of Js and Gs reaction and comments seem consistent with them trying to find a way to ignore what had happened (J), rationalize the loudness (G–"that was loud", "it was right there"), and realizing that what was caught may have sounded incredibly fake to the people viewing at home. Again, conjecture on my part. My feeling is that they were worried specifically about the fact that a device playing a really fake sounding ghostly recording was way too close to a live microphone.

When Steve Valentine brought up the incident as coming through his earpiece, I'm sure that the thought of a hoaxer and a (somewhat unwilling) accomplice might be one where they knew that the recording was accidentally played over a live mic, would have been heard by anyone who was listening to that live mic, and any reference to hearing over the earpiece would point out that uncomfortable fact. That's my wholly unobjective opinion. Their thoughts might be–"crap, you weren't supposed to hear that over your earpiece, it was supposed to be remotely heard, and subtle, not broadcast as if through a megaphone!" Or something to that effect.

Thanks very much for this site. I appreciate the civil discourse, which is lacking on other sites. I also like the fact that "believers" and "skeptics" can find common ground for discussion, and do not alienate one another. This is a great model for what I think the skeptical community should aspire to.

(Report comment)

steveb101 -

Great Post and welcome aboard!

(Report comment)

Hey guys great Podcast, I was wondering why the 4th tug (After jay pats Grants back) wasn't mentioned in the podcast? why didn't grant react to it at all. It looks like it was pulled in the same way as the others. Anyway your podcasts are great keep it up.

(Report comment)

Long time lurker, first time poster.

To follow up on ryan1977777's comment

According to Jay's myspace blog

"5. Grant's jacket tugged another time after I patted him on back.

No argument there, I saw it happen in the video when looking at the evidence. I have no explanation, could have been the same thing he was experiencing happening again, or maybe something catching."

The first three times Grant gets his collar pulled, the force is strong enough to slow his body's forward momentum. But the fourth time, he didn't even notice it? How is that even possible? Assuming there isn't a hoax, the fourth tug couldn't be the same as the first three because a force strong enough to slow him up when he is walking forward should pull him either farther back if he was stationary. But the fourth tug looks the same as the other three. And they wonder why people are suspicious?

I hate to give Grant the benefit of the doubt on anything, but just because he is right handed doesn't mean he would use that hand to check the collar. If he has arthritis or some sort of injury in the right shoulder (speaking from experience), putting that arm behind his neck may be uncomfortable. However, you would think that when he used his left hand to check the collar, he would have transferred the contents of the left hand to the right hand before inspecting the collar. Why check the collar with a hand that is holding something versus a hand that is not holding anything?

I would vote for you to start to shift focus away from GH, not necessarily because of the fakery but because of their total lack of enthusiasm. I picture following episodes to go something like this:

Jay and Grant walk in a room

Disembodied voice (louder then theirs) : Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, I am going to eat your souls

Grant (woodenly) : Jay, did you hear that? Boy, I guess he really want to eat our souls.

Jay: Yeah, whatever.

One last thing and this is total speculation, perhaps Jason may be contractually obligated to not release Ghost Hunters “trade secrets”, which would include fakery. So even though Jay may have wanted to say something, it would be considered a breach of contract and not only would Pilgrim want to get back money already paid to Jay, but they would also hold try to Jay liable for damage to any show that contains the Ghost Hunters brand name (GHI, Ghost Hunters: College Edition, Ghost Hunters Go Wild, etc.)

(Report comment)

ryan1977777: Hi! We didn't mention the fourth tug because this was recorded on the Monday after the live broadcast, and I'm not sure that I'd heard about the fourth tug or, if I had, fully appreciated its significance. I probably should have cut in some extra narration talking about it after the fact.

(Report comment)

Jim, good point about Jason's contractual obligation to keep quiet. Verbally, you do what you gotta do; but it's hard to hide body language.

And if I'm not mistaken, J use to say stuff at reveals like, "We've got a chair moving. Is it impressive, sure, is it paramormal….can't say." Looking back, perhaps that was his way of dealing with the possible shenanigans that TAPS was getting pressure to pull.

And I still suspect the Queen Mary episode with the unmaking of the bed was going to be one of those moments; but Tango (not being in on it) surprised everyone by debunking it.

(Report comment)

Most everyone knows I am no fan of Jason's. His bullying and arrogant attitude, coupled with IMO his fear of people smarter then he is (esp. those with higher education) has turned me off from almost the beginning. I note that he has tuned this down, probably at the behest of Pilgrim or whomever.

My belief is that Jason first suspected Grant was up to no good for a while now. But what could he do? Turn in his buddy? Not a chance. It would effect the entire show.

The Live show appeared to me to be either one of two things:

1. Jason realized Grant pulled a fast one and was trying desperately to stop it and turn the attention quickly on the light which kept getting blacked out. Grant kept on, and Jay in disgust (some of his facial expressions are priceless) walked over-first to the FLIR and then to check out Grant's jacket) decided enough is enough.

2. They were asked to come up with something and Grant contrived the device. Jason might have tried to talk him against using it, being that it was live TV and could not be edited out later if needed. Grant decided to go ahead with it, much to Jay's chagrin. This knowledge beforehand may have been responsible for Jason's attitude both before and after the jacket incident.

My guess is the reason that the last pull did not effect Grant is that Jason was the one who pulled the string.

Whatever Grant tried to get rid of, it only partially worked and the remnant of it was what Jason pulled on when checking his jacket. Hence, no reaction from Grant, but a tug in full view of the camera.

Sad, really.

(Report comment)

I totally agree with you here.(1. Jason realized Grant pulled a fast one and was trying desperately to stop it and turn the attention quickly on the light which kept getting blacked out. Grant kept on, and Jay in disgust (some of his facial expressions are priceless) walked over-first to the FLIR and then to check out Grant's jacket) decided enough is enough.)Great post Oubliette.

(Report comment)

Even Fonzie used both hands. Fascinating podcast, guys!

Regarding Jason's awareness of or involvement in hoaxing, I have to mention once again the fake door debunking at the DeVille House. I know there are a lot of arguments against the significance of this incident, but for me it remains the earliest clear indication that both Wilson and Hawes were involved in hoaxing. And I'm with CrowTRobot on the Queen Mary fakery. And I'll shut up now.

(Report comment)

You were talking about how Jason and Grant "dont get into it no more"….Like they are not interested in it as much as they used to be , and it reminds me of how lately have you noticed when they are doing their walk-through with the client , Jason's favorite words lately are " OK whatelse is going on?" or "Ok where we off to next"….Sounds quite like , lets get this over with already..lol..lol

(Report comment)