Great stuff, nosfer! I have one concern about determining where the camera person is standing. If the camera uses zoom (which it may not in the dark, depending on how good the camera is) then the camera person can stand out of the way of the hanger's flight path. Also, if there is more than one camera and one is still, then the still camera might have been the one filming the hanger's appearance, which would allow the camera person to be out of the way. You never know… just playing devil's advocate again. But I certainly agree that the whole thing is suspicious. Does the hanger appear to be in two different spots, with the top right photo seeming to show the hanger being further away from the edge of the rug than the bottom left photo shows? Ehhh- I think I'm nitpicking now. I hate that I can't trust these guys.

Thanks worldharmony. Nothing wrong with devil's advocate, need more of them! I had been back and forth on the zoom possibility and tried resolving whether or not it was a factor by looking at the footage when they cut BACK to that camera. It appears to be taken from the same place (at least judging by the view of Jason in both segments) It then pans to Grant and once we see Grant, he moves the flashlight around saying where he thinks it may have come from and then says "it's a hanger." There is some zooming towards Grant and the cameraman takes some actual steps but I can't get it to place the cameraman too much farther back from where the hanger is. To me the steps seem to be in a direction perpendicular to the couch, ie stepping out from it towards the hanger wall.

It's when Grant finally starts to get up off the bed that the cameraman actually moves some and then swings the camera back to where the hanger is.

I find it very odd that they switch to the camera on the chair at the exact instant that the hanger impacts and then cuts back to the view from the cameraman after things settle down.

Pick away at the above analysis. Debunk it as you would a GH episode. If it can stand up against scrutiny here, it becomes stronger. If it falls apart under the scrutiny, that is good, too, because we only want strong evidence, regardless the source.

I think the "zoom" is an excellent point — one which I hadn't thought of, but the camera pans that Nosfer just mentioned do answer that question fairly well. If there was a zoom engaged then the camera would not seem to pivot in-place as it pans, it would be more of a wide arc. The shot where he pans to the floor is particularly useful for this as well. If he is zooming in his regular shot, I don't think it's by enough to make a difference for the purposes of Nosfer's theory.

Wow, this is getting ridiculous. I'm not saying they haven't faked things, and I'm not saying this is or isn't faked, but man ever since that Live special people are sure taking the extra mile to try to prove its a hoax.

It could have been a zoomed in shot, the panning would still be similar. The biggest problem with all these "proofs" is that no one is actually there. There could be a hundred other variables that we don't even see. It pretty much makes it impossible to try to prove things as fake. It's all based on assumptions. Soon as someone brings up zoom, then people start saying the panning wouldn't work like it did… what?

Q, I agree that certain theoretical proofs rely on unknowables, and therefore cannot be proven, but I disagree with the premise that being "actually there" has any strong bearing on what we can or cannot know. It was pointed out on another thread that Jay & Grant are "actually there", but neither of them can see as well as we can through the eye of the Active IR Cameras.

In this particular case there is a fair amount of speculation, not the least of which is the entire premise: the suspicious reaction. It is just that: suspicious, but in itself doesn't actually prove anything even if we could be certain of all the other facts (where the camera was, zoom level, etc).

In other cases, there are far more facts and far more variables are knowable. In the case of the "coat tug" the only thing that's missing is a glint of light reflecting off a piece of thread, or something similar. We may not have the absolute "smokingest" of smoking guns in that case, but it's pretty darn close and if that string *was* clearly visible at any point then the reasoning that we can't really know because weren't "actually there" would be looking thin indeed.

I'm with Q. Was it fake? Maybe. But this analysis is trying way too hard to claim it is a setup. No mention of a possible camera zoom, and when someone did mention it, the claim that panning wouldn't work that way…dumb. It's clear you want to show something as fake just for the sake of saying it is fake.

Darth, how about an actual counterargument, rather than just saying "dumb"? If we wanted to just claim something was fake for the sake of it, we could have done that a long time ago. (And in a galaxy far, far away, I guess.)

It's too bad that initial daylight shot of the room is taken with a fish-eye lens. The angle that the cameraman swings to when he shows Grant is approximately 45 degrees, that is, straight into the corner. With standard sized pillows that would be about a 3 foot by 6 foot bed with the long side of the rug starting at about 7 feet from the wall. My hangers have a bottom that is 18 inches (1.5 feet) and that appears about the dimension between each of the vertical separators on the rack of which there are three, plus I think two that are half that width. So let's say about a five foot rack, maybe a bit more. The rack is flush to the door so that can be used as a marker. It's only approximate because of the fish-eye but when projecting that line back I can't get the shot being any further than the end of the sofa which is barely two feet from the hanger…and that's if the cameraman were standing with his legs touching the sofa, which he wasn't, so that brings him even closer in.

I will "grant" that it could have crossed in front of him because of the troubles doing angles with the curved room, but it would still have been close enough for an immediate reaction (probably not more than inches to a foot or so).

Can we make it a rule that someone has to spend at least 15 minutes reading previous comments on previous posts before they can comment using this ridiculously stupid "you weren't there so you don't know" argument?

I'm sorry. In all honesty, Q, I don't mean any offense toward you at all. Really, it's just I feel like I've read this 2,000 times on this Website alone…and every single time, Logisti or someone else has to come and calmly re-explain everything and re-explain how it is fundamentally a flawed argument.

Of all the people I personally know who watched GH and I discuss the show with, only one of them argued with me when I pointed out how Grant was obviously hoaxing the hanger and the jacket tug.

Her argument, of course, was "Well you weren't there, so you don't know what really happened."

A wife is doing laundry one day and finds a shade of lipstick she doesn't own on her husband's boxer shorts, on his shirt collar, and the smell of a perfume she doesn't own is all over his wardrobe. I'm sure the wife will say "Well this looks damning, but I wasn't there, so I really don't know what happened to cause this."

~Jack The Skeptic

It's clear you want to show something as fake just for the sake of saying it is fake.

What people want has no bearing on what is (in this case). I can want a million dollars but that doesn't mean I'll find it in my pocket. Conversely, if I wanted (which I don't) Jason and Grant to go away, then wanting it wouldn't mean their findings suspicous.

The biggest problem with all these "proofs" is that no one is actually there.

Incorrect. There are a great many things that people can evaluate without being physically present. Were you at the World Trade Center when it came down? How do you know it actually came down? You saw the videos on tv, for sure, but by your logic, you can't argue that you *know* the buildings fell…you weren't there.

We all set a standard for what we'll accept as evidence. Further, we've all got individual theories. While none of those is undeniable evidence of what happened, our theories are just as relevant as your theory that this was paranormal. In fact, we may actually have an edge on your because there has never been incontrovertible proof of the paranormal.

I don't want to believe that Grant manufactured evidence. I don't have a desire to see Ghost Hunters go down. I do, however, respect people who are honest. TAPS response to the jacket pull and the hanger throw is unacceptable. How easy would it be for them to say, "We have read about the theories being floated by some and maybe we should revisit the home and make the room's dimensions more concrete for our viewers to help bolster our claims?" or "We acknowledge that there's a possibility that this isn't paranormal and we'll go back and do another episode investigating the theories posted by viewers/fans." That option allows them to keep their reputation respectable.

They don't do that. They say "If you're not with us, then you're against us."

[Edited by ADMIN for clarity & uncalled-for jib jabbery.]
[Please help us keep our high standards for polite discourse by not being mean.]

I've been, at least tangentially, involved in paranormal research, investigation, discussion, writing, etc. for 20-plus years, and such discussion inevitably devolves as two sides are drawn: those who look at things skeptically and generally become full-fledged doubters and the true believers for whom no contrary evidence matters. It's a no-win argument for either side. Believers can come up with any rationale: "How do we know that a prankster ghost didn't attach a string to the inside of Grant's jacket?" … "How do we know a ghost didn't throw a hanger to make it look like Grant threw it?" etc., etc.

That's the beauty of this site: reasonable debate by people whose eyes are open … and for the other side, the TAPS board offers comfort (not to mention racist jokes and episode watch discussions centering for post after post on who brought the Cheetos …).

Just as many of us abandoned the TAPS site because of its tone, I'm guessing anyone who doesn't believe in questioning GH under any circumstance has probably picked the wrong forum. In any event, that sort of debate is as pointless as arguing with a pickle … In any event, God Bless America — a nation where we can freely debate the probability of a ghost repeatedly tugging on a man's jacket collar on live national television!

The biggest problem with all these proofs IS that you weren't there. I'm real sorry, guys, but that IS a fundamental truth(and the WTC comparison was asinine–the buildings are gone–either they fell, as we saw or…what?)

See, because GH is alleging paranormal activity, normal explanations don't neccessarily apply. Thus, this could have happened or that could have happened can all be answered with an answer that is basically 'yes, but in this case, a ghost did it'

Thus every debunk hits the you say/they say wall. It's a function of having the 'paranormal' explanation on the table. And it HAS to be on the table–or there's no show.

The only way something can be factually debunked is if you are there and you SHOW what really happened to make the purported paranormal event happen. Jay and Grant used to do this all the time–which is why suspicions started to surface as they got more 'good' investigations and fewer 'bad' ones.

They used to do a lot more factual debunking–the dearth of that factual debunking has resulted in a lot more conjectural debunking–and a lot more allegations of trickery.

But, it's a simple fact that WE cannot factually debunk unless we're there–all we can do is get to that wall that we are unable to tear down because we rely on analyses of videorecordings.

Jack, it comes down to probabilities. You may not be able to debunk to 100% (though I disagree) but you can assign a probability to the results. My analysis above wouldn't be 100%, obviously, but there are some definite suspicions that need to be reconciled.

Yes, the buildings are gone…does one have to have visited the site to know that, though?

Jack, Nosfer … as if to prove my point … 1,000 pickles, a slightly used K-II meter and 400 feet of fishing line to the first person to convince the other side they are wrong.

Crime investigation rests solely on the possibility of proving events, without having been there at the the time of the crime. Taking and comparing statements, eyewitness reports, technical investigations and so on. With the logic that jack proposes no crime would ever be solved, since the police would never be able to prove what happened since they weren't there. And still they do, even when the people who were there are lying, misremembering or whatnot. And often with much less than actual video footage of the event as it unfolded. Any detective, and prosecutor, would jump twice backwards in joy to have access to the kind of footage we have concerning GH. Yes, there is need for circumstantial evidence AND technical evidence to back that up to get a strong case, but circumstantial evidence is crucial and in no way less evidence than technical evidence. And actual video footage is about as good technical evidence you can get.

I am pretty sure that most courts would, with able detectives and prosecutors behind the wheel, find Grant guilty of hoaxing. It goes beyond reasonable doubt and especially with that amount of video footage, and good video-analysis as the one Formerghfan has done, the case is very strong.

Furthermost, nothing indicates anyone else than Grant was in any position to throw the hanger. The physics of the toss don't lie. Could it have been a ghost, sure, but that does not free Grant from suspicion, and the cold, hard facts point to him being the culprit. Until the evidence against him is refuted there is no room for adding unknown variables as ghosts. First we must atleast be able to separate, explain and understand what Grant did during this incident before we can even begin to ponder what a ghost might have done. Otherwise we're building a house of cards.

jack, the WTC example is actually right on target. You weren't there, how do you know? I was actually in midtown Manhattan that day, I saw fire trucks racing down 8th Ave but I didn't actually see the towers. Are you going to tell me that I can't know because I wasn't actually there? You're clearly not, and this illustrates a double standard on your part, which is why the example is apt.

To use an apt example someone mentioned in another thread, criminals are prosecuted all the time based on evidence collected by people who "weren't there" when the crime occurred [Ack! Beaten by Bullerspoke]. Are you going to convince the prosecutor that s/he has no case without an eyewitness? There are people who spend their careers tracing bullet trajectories to find out where a shot was fired from, it wouldn't be a very useful way to spend their time if the evidence never led conclusively to the person who fired the gun. Here we're doing the same thing, except we're tracing hanger trajectories so it's a lot easier.

As for the argument that normal explanations may not apply, you're absolutely right but that's been given due consideration. If the hanger rack was over Grant's head then he'd have a defense. If he put the hanger in his lap to keep an eye on it, he'd have a defense. We'd be extremely suspicious, but he'd have a defense. Neither of these things was the case. He both tells *and* shows us roughly where he put the hanger and that spot cannot be reconciled with the angle we see the hanger coming from in the video footage.

If you're going to suggest perhaps the ghost tried to frame Grant, that's certainly possible. It's also possible that the ballistics people got the wrong guy because he was framed by another shooter standing right behind him. You can make that case but I don't think you'll find many people buying it. That is the nature of "reasonable doubt", it has to be reasonable.

I think it's important to consider that while a person being accuse of a crime may be innocent until proven guilty, evidence does not benefit from the same arrangement. Evidence MUST be proven for it to be accepted as reality. The evidence in the case of the hanger simply does not stand up to objective scrutiny, therefore it cannot be accepted as reality. When you remove the offered explanation for the event because it's no longer plausible, then the event begs to be explained by some other means and in our situation the most likely alternative happens to be somebody in the room threw the hangers.

Again, I'm sorry, guys, but you're just not getting it.

Everything your're saying would be true but for the 'paranormal angle'. And you may not like that, but it's the sad reality.

As far as circumstantial evidence goes, well this isn't a court, but there's 3 eyewitnesses against your 'here's how it could have happened if….'.

And no, Logisti, the WTC attack does not apply at all–because there's no question, The towers fell, it was withnesses by thousands live and millions on television–it never got to 'well it looks like/they say the towers fell, but HERE'S what could have happened'….there's no one questioning that the Twin Towers fell–plenty on HOW they fell(and a whole bunch of those questioners ignoring the eyewitnesses, ignoring the video, and abandoning common sense–with all sorts of theories–and, hey, money and corruption come in there, too) but there is NO question that they fell.

Now, if what was being alluded to was truther nonsense, then you have a point–the HOW is in question, in both cases. But the truthers are crazy, and I wouldn't consider ANY of their skepticism valid–whereas I have pointed out that I think Grant WAS positioned perfectly to carry this off as a hoax, if it turns out to be one(and that's WITH my disagreement with you over angle).

So I think your skepticism is valid, and founded in what we see–my only disagreement, really, is with the assertions that your(your is inclusive here) theory is fact.

@ Croda, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why can the video evidence of the hanger being thrown not be accepted as reality? What about it doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny?

@ jack, two of those eyewitnesses weren't looking in the direction the hanger was thrown from at the moment it was thrown — and frankly even if they had a clear view we have every reason to believe they'd cover for Grant if we was guilty, and in that same case every reason to believe Grant would lie. I'll take the video footage over Jay's eyewitness testimony any day of the week, and so would a jury.

As for your assertion that the WTC example isn't valid, no one was suggesting it was a perfect parallel for Grant throwing a hanger — it was intended to illustrate that "you can't know because you weren't there" is an invalid argument, and it accomplishes that very well. If the video actually showed Grant throwing the hanger with his own hands I don't think you'd be saying, "You can't know because you weren't there" so let's just agree to dump that argument by the side of the road.

Your main point of contention seems to be that we have an additional factor to consider: the paranormal. Agreed. Still, with paranormal there are things that are reasonable and things that are unreasonable. That might vary from person to person, but most people would probably agree that if we were to take paranormal possibilities seriously then it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that a hanger was thrown off the rack by a ghost. Except, we can see from the angle the hanger is thrown that it did not come from the rack, and it definitely didn't come from the part of the rack where we know there were hangers and where Grant motioned/said he put the hanger back.

That leaves us with a quandary. We're considering "reasonable" "paranormal" theories, but anything we consider absolutely *MUST* jive with the angle of the hanger in that video footage. Hangers flying off the rack don't jive with the angle seen in the video, so what other paranormal explanations can we explore? The hanger flew over to where Grant was sitting before throwing itself at Jay? And it did this without Grant noticing? I'd bet that the vast majority of people who thought it was reasonable to consider a hanger flying off the rack by itself would find this new proposal more than a little unreasonable.

The other tack is to suggest maybe the hanger came off the part of the rack closest to the bed. This successfully creates *some* doubt, but again I suspect the vast majority would agree it doesn't create enough doubt to be considered "reasonable" even by paranormal standards, because of two things: 1) We have every reason to believe there were no hangers on that part of the rack. The video shows three times there are none and Grant himself says he put the hanger back "with the others" and motions to a spot we can reasonably estimate is near where the "known" hangers are — roughly above the chair-camera. 2) Even if there *was* a hanger at the very end of the rack closest to the bed, it still doesn't look like that would match the angle we see the hanger come from in the video.

Basically, you seem to be suggesting that because we're open to "paranormal" possibilities that means any doubt at all is reasonable doubt. I completely disagree. 'Hanger flies of hanger rack from spot where hangers are known to exist' is a fairly straightforward possibility, but it doesn't jive with the hard video evidence. Every possibility that *does* match the video evidence relies on a complex series of assumptions, except one: Grant did it.

Are there other "paranormal" possibilities? Yes, but none nearly as simple as 'Hanger flies of hanger rack from spot where hangers are known to exist'. I'm not going to entertain the possibility that a ghost was trying to frame Grant (and he didn't notice a hanger floating right in front of him) just as I'm not going to consider the possibility an Alien teleported in, did the deed and beamed back out in the blind of an eye.

I might consider the possibility that the angle of the camera makes it difficult to conclusively prove whether the hanger came from the bed or the very edge of the rack (I do think it *is* conclusive, but it's certainly less straightforward) but not in concert with *also* having to assume the existence of hangers where I have every reason to believe no hangers exist. Likewise, I might consider that somehow we're just wrong about there not being any hangers there — but not in combination with accepting my interpretation of the angle in the video is also erroneous. I don't think I'm infallible, and while I don't believe I'm wrong on either count it's possible I am wrong on one of them, but highly unlikely that I'm wrong on both.

So that brings us back to the point about "reasonable" doubt. Even when dealing with the paranormal, it still has to be reasonable.

Logisti @ 2:37 pm

@ Croda, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why can the video evidence of the hanger being thrown not be accepted as reality? What about it doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny?

—-

Sorry, I meant that for GH to present 'evidence' of the paranormal, they must present a case that leaves no clear cause other than paranormal activity. Their case falls apart under a simple cross-examination. If their goal is to provide us with evidence of paranormal (or at least unexplainable) activity, then they should be providing evidence that doesn't disintegrate under the slightest scrutiny.

Bottom Line: The onus is on the person making the argument, and the arguments they are making are awful right now. To use the example mentioned above regarding forensic scientists, imagine if one of them went into court stating the bullets came from 'over there' without any actual science, math, diagrams, or simple facts to support that claim. They can't do that because such claims need to be supported. GH is doing EXACTLY that: making loose claims based upon poor investigation (at best) or blatant parlor tricks (at worst).