Great sumation and review, Oubliette! I don't know if it matters much but FYI- Amy Bruni produced the radio talk show that J&G used to host. So she was on-board a long time before she started getting screen time as a ghost hunter.
She was kind of introduced into the show as being a California TAPS family member and that was all but that was not the case- there's more history there than that. Why they wouldn't want folks to know that she produced their radio show is anybody's guess…
The radio show, although currently on 'hiatus', has a myspace page: http://www.myspace.com/beyondrealityradio which seems to be another vehicle used to promote their training conferences or fleece-ings or whatever you want to call them.

(Report comment)

Oubliette,

Excellent review. This "aw shucks" and "we're here to help" mentality has worn very, very thin. The fact that they presented the points you listed as their best work to present on this "special" show is really quite sad.

I also found it interesting when they showed "a very rare piece of TAPS history, the original presentation reel used to sell the show that you now know as Ghost Hunters to the Sci Fi Channel." Isn't it interesting they said they turned down 5 different production companies before they accepted (Pilgrim)? Amazing that 6 different production companies, all in the same time frame, wanted to film them specifically with actors "playing" them and the one they chose was the "reality" show pitch by Pilgrim? And, by the way, he was the "founder" of TAPS and he "founded" TAPS from 1990 to 1992? Huh? 2 years? I've never heard of taking 2 years for anyone to "found" a company. I'm guessing he's saying that to give Grant his co-founder status. What a bunch of bs.

I still laughed when I heard Josh ask J & G "Is there a line that you won't cross in your investigations?" to which Grant says "we don't want to summon a ghost that wasn't there before". Huh? I just wanted the camera to pan over to their faces because I'm sure there were grins on everyone's faces from ear to ear but instead it stayed locked in on Josh. Guess I missed that at Boot Camp. Supposedly they don't even know if there is a ghost let alone who they are going to supposedly "summon up".

Here's the status of the "crew" that had "experiences". None of them are still working on GH:

Brian Hodge, Camera Operator - Pilgrim Films employee working on Greensburg
Kendall Whelpton, Camera Operator - Pilgrim Films employee working on Greensburg
Dave Hobbes - camera operator yet not on crew list - but listed as a "cast" member
and "worked" only on this episode - NO other credits
Steve Blanco - "sound man" - cannot find him credited anywhere
Frank DeAngelis - Sound Man on numerous reality shows - no longer on GH either

Here's a suggestion since they said they have no way to thank everyone for what they "do for us": Instead of showing some of the items they send you, go ahead and charge them regular rates at the Inn when you have your Boot Camp and not charge them for the ridiculous packages.

Now I'm going to borrow a closing line from Josh Gates, "and there you have it folks, the humble beginning of Ghost Hunters."

(Report comment)

Nice summary! Didn't they also showcase the pool table figure at the Moon River Brewing Company in Savannah? Another case where it has been shown that what was said (regarding no way to get back there) was not quite true!

(Report comment)

@Alicat: Oh yes, that "rare promo". I'm still on the fence, regardless of what they say, as to whether this happened or the idea first originated with Pilgrim, who then conducted a search for the proper group. There are posts elsewhere on the Internet that TAPS was not the first choice, but then again rumors have always followed this show around.

@Nosfer: As for Moss Beach–thanks for mentioning it. I later realized that it was left out of my review because you are correct about the exit. There is one out of camera range on the right hand side. Someone has put up a pic of it and I'll try to find it and post the link.

Why would they lie about something that people can go there and see for
themselves? Pretty foolish of them.

(Report comment)

At the Pilgrim web site, there's a page about Ghost Hunters:

http://www.pilgrim-films.com/show.php?title=Ghost%20Hunters

"TAPS, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, is a group of fairly ordinary people - office managers, factory workers, teachers and even psychic-hotline gurus - moonlighting to understand seemingly unexplainable disturbances."

Oddly, they don't mention plumbers, cops, web designers, or any other profession we've seen on the show.

Not sure what it means. Just a mistake by some intern at Pilgrim? Or is part of this blurb left over from before they signed the TAPS we know?

(Report comment)

Stephen,

I've seen this description before but can't remember where exactly. I think it's just a PR blurb. Here is Sci Fi version in the "About" section of GH. It actually has a bit more of a description and the link is below.

"Enter Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, plumbers by trade who head up The Atlantic Paranormal Society. TAPS is a group of fairly ordinary people — office managers, factory workers, teachers and even psychic-hotline gurus — moonlighting to understand seemingly unexplainable disturbances."

http://www.scifi.com/ghosthunters/about/

If you look at the members of the RI TAPS group on the TAPS website today versus the archived TAPS site, membership changes quite frequently.

(Report comment)

@Oubliette: Post number 18 in this thread:

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/forums/ghost-hunters/has-anyone-else-had-their-groups-raided-for-personnel-by-taps-affiliates/page-1

(Report comment)

Nosfer, thanks. That's what I was thinking of. Have memory problems, can't you tell?

This is just so ridiculous of them. Do they think no viewers will visit any of these places? How can we trust anything they say?

And that "plumbers by trade" really galls me. Every search on licensing, whether R.I. or nearby states, turns up nothing. Makes for a good premise for the show, though, I must admit. And now they're coming out with that ghost story/plumbing book. When will it end?

(Report comment)

I'm not sure if this has been posted before or not, but according to SAPS, Jason and Grant were employed by Roto-Rooter.

I don't know if they are still employed by them, but perhaps we should ask them.

That would get at least one question answered.

(Report comment)

@J: This has been done in extensive detail.

(Report comment)

Oubliette- As always, nice review.

You said: "The passage of time can sure make a difference. I would have had more respect for Jay and Grant if they were to admit that some of the evidence (i.e., the locker figure) was simply misinterpreted by them at the time. As far as the more dubious bits–well, we have certainly addressed these numerous times. A lot of things just don't wash."

So true. They didn't have to say anything was hoaxed (which some things might have been). They didn't have to say that they were wrong (which many of their evaluations of the evidence might have been). Just saying that a couple of things may have been "misinterpreted" at the time would have at least been something. It would have been honest. It would have meant "You know, at the time, we were really excited about this one piece of evidence. But, after looking at it and LISTENING TO SOME OF OUR VIEWERS…it may not be what we originally thought."

Yet…we don't even get that. We get the typical, on-going arrogance of "it is what it is, so deal with it" attitude. Great. Not being able to objectively look at your own evidence isn't exactly a key ingredient in scientific methodology. So much for furthering the pursuit of the paranormal in a scientific manner…

(Report comment)

Interesting if you go here -
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com

and go to the first page listed in each year and then click to the TAPS Members.

Just how many of their "good friends in the TAPS family" have fallen by the wayside.

(Report comment)

Link above dosen't work … you need to cut n paste the whole line

(Report comment)

Great review as always, Oubliette. After watching a few of the re-runs, I have to admit that everything they present as evidence is suspect to say the least. It's just amazing how things went from o.k., to downright unbelievable after the first season. All places they visited after the first go' round seemed to be hurting financially or otherwise needed publicity. You hardly ever see a home investigation anymore. I wonder why that is? Hmmm. No Dough, No Show! That's why. It's also befitting to mention that Craig Peligian, (sp), produces the show. If you go have a look at some other shows he produces you will see that the things that happen on those shows are VERY suspect too. Shady is as Shady does.

(Report comment)

The plumbers thing? Does that REALLY upset you all that much? Even when they explicitly state that they don't do it much?

And they work for Roto-Rooter, they may not have an independant plumbers license–they may not need it in RI.

They've also stated that the staged plumbing segments are part of the way they maintain their jobs with Roto-Rooter. They're ads. Product placement.

Are you all really saying that you don't get that? Even after they've said so?

Likewise the office crap–surely you understand that they're not going to film constantly–that they're going to HAVE to restage the set-up calls because the film crew wasn't there–so they re-enact it–cheesily, because they're not actors.

(Report comment)

Jack, it's a credibility issue. If such and such is staged, how can we be sure about this or that? If this was recreated, how do we know that something else isn't being recreated.

No real difference between staging a plumbing shot for an intro to make an interesting tie in and staging some piece of evidence to make something interesting. Not saying that's what happens (except in a few cases) but the precedent for them showing something not real has been established, so I have trouble trusting any of it.

(Report comment)

Addition:

Couple THOSE issues (staged plumbing shots etc) with known incorrect statements such as the description of the Pool Room at Moon River Brewing, or incorrect (and uncorrected) statements by Steve when he is describing a scene at Fort Mifflin (and knowing that the video footage sequence was altered to match HIS story) or seeing camera timestamps that don't match Program timestamps such as at ESP and the whole trust thing goes down the tube so far it creates a clog even J&G couldn't unplug!

(Report comment)

Jack,

Obviously you have a case of selective reading and haven't checked your facts. As Nosfer has said, it is a matter of credibility. To me it is also a matter of integrity which, unfortunately, is not a strong suit of either Jason or Grant's.

You base your opinion on hearsay from media reps and newspaper articles. If you do your research, you will find that neither Jason or Grant are licensed in RI, CT or MA. CT and MA require the same as RI - to be a plumber you MUST BE LICENSED and that license must be issued by the State where you are working. I have previously posted an email from the State License Department in RI explaining this as well as links to the respective State License Departments. There is no such thing as an "independent license" in RI.

Jason and Grant do advertisements for Roto Rooter. That's it. They do not work as plumbers for Roto Rooter which was confirmed by Roto Rooter itself to the State of RI. That, my friend is "acting" as plumbers not being an actual plumber as they would like you to believe. So, yes, it does make a difference as to whether their claims on GH are legitimate because it is a matter of credibility and integrity. If you don't have that - you have nothing.

(Report comment)

"No real difference between staging a plumbing shot for an intro to make an interesting tie in and staging some piece of evidence to make something interesting."

Of course there is. No sane person really thought that the GH cameras were following them around on their plumbing job. People are not that stupid. Only the most mentally deficient could not see that these were staged/re-enacted to highlight their staus as non-professionals, as 'real people'.

I think this attitude about the plumbing and set-up scenes coming from so many skeptics really calls into clarity where many of those skeptics are coming from–and it's not a good place.

And what description are you talking about with the brewery? You seem to take this description as invalidating the footage. Mistakes are made in descriptions all the time–hell, sometimes I think Steve does it deliberately so that fans can 'catch' him. But what is this invalidating description?

(Report comment)

Jack: No access to the pool room…check out the link above to three photos which shows that very access very clearly. That's not only a description issue, but the description difference makes the difference in whether or not someone could get back there and out of there. The description given indicates that would not be possible, the photos show otherwise, thus invalidating the claim that no one could get back there. That's not a "description mistake" someone is going to accidentally make. That "no access" was used as supporting evidence. If that evidence is false….

Okay, so shots are staged to show something ie, "real people" Yes, I agree that most people would not expect that they were followed daily. The point I'm trying to make is that if they stage that or recreate that, where is the line drawn.

If Steve makes mistakes directly so his fans catch him, what difference is there between that and maybe faking evidence so fans can catch them?

"Mistakes are made in descriptions all the time" Yes, maybe so (well, not ALL the time), but when those mistakes are made, it makes you question RELIABILITY of the other things they present.

(Report comment)

There is also a difference between making a quick mistake for fans to catch and making a mistake which also has video evidence CHANGED to support that mistake.

(Report comment)

"They do not work as plumbers for Roto Rooter which was confirmed by Roto Rooter itself to the State of RI."

When? When you ask Roto-Rooter they say that Jay and Grant work for them. So who are you asking? Or are you focusing on the fact that they're not doing plumbing work right now?

You are so hung up on this–all of you. Jay and Grant's loyalty to and continued association with the company that was paying them before they ever got noticed by Scifi is commendable. And it's sad that none of you can see that.

(Report comment)

Nosfer, I didn't say that Steve was making mistakes deliberately–I said it happens so often that SOMETIMES I THINK that he's doing it deliberately.

But they are pretty common–it happened here–instead of where he was shown, 'he' instead of 'she', this kind of noise–instead of that kind of noise.

And the description you talk about doesn't invalidate what was caught–it AT BEST– suggests that there might've been something else going on.

I mentioned this before in talking about the things GH holds up as interesting caeses–they don't seem to act as if any of your 'debunking' means anything. And, given Classicmans' posts, other ghost hunters seem to agree with THEM and not you–even one who'se had his membership plundered by TAPS. Interesting, no?

(Report comment)

Okay, so you have a guy making constant mistakes (says wonders for credibility doesn't it?_. And it goes beyond just he said/she said. You have discrepancies between members of the same group and each side of the story has video that backs it. Impossible. You have:

Grant said - and video supporting that
Steve said - and video supporting that (even though it's opposite what Grant said)
Pilgrim said - Investigation footage DIFFERENT than footage shown when "Steve said"

Interesting, no?

You're missing the point on the Brewery. It was said that there was no access back there. That's not a small point, and when it's shown that that statement was false (and very hard to accidentally be mistaken about that, even for Steve) then you have tainted evidence.

Consider the following: A body is found off to the side in a room and there was a camera running constantly showing the door. The claim is that it had to be suicide because the camera didn't show anyone going in there AND the person making that claim (suicide vs murder) then states that there is NO OTHER ACCESS other than the door in the footage.

Then, someone finds that there is another door. The claim about suicide vs homicide is pretty shaky now, isn't it? First, another means of entry was discovered AND that means of entry was COVERED UP in the description.

(Report comment)

Jack- "I mentioned this before in talking about the things GH holds up as interesting caeses–they don't seem to act as if any of your 'debunking' means anything. And, given Classicmans' posts, other ghost hunters seem to agree with THEM and not you–even one who'se had his membership plundered by TAPS. Interesting, no?"

I am uncertain of what you are finding "interesting." That some people (ghost hunters) in the field of paranormal investigation "seem to agree" with the supposed leaders in the field (Jason and Grant)? I do not find it interesting, I find it typical. That is not intended as an insult to ghost hunters in general. People in any field generally agree with the leaders in that particular field.

As for GH not acting like our debunking means anything, well, it is no act. First, we have no evidence that anyone from GH even knows this website exists. Even if they do, they would never acknowledge it. Why? Because we point out their flaws and their errors. We do so in a logical manner. Logisti created this site after the Manson FlIR episode. Even you, Jack, must concede that there was something very, very wrong with that episode. Intentional deception was proven. And the response? Pilgrim and the producers of the show, Jason and Grant, decided to either "re-frame" certain segments or cut out certain clips of the show. No wrong doing was ever acknowledged. No explanation was ever given. To this day, that altered episode still airs with no disclaimer stating that it has been altered. It is shameful.

So, no my friend. They could care less about our "debunking." The money train rolls on. All we can do is continue to point out their flaws in investigatory methods and their errors in the evaluation of evidence. People who sit on the floor and talk to flashlights must be held accountable for their actions. They claim that they wish to investigate the paranormal. Cool. So do we. The only difference is that we use logic and science to formulate our opinions.

(Report comment)

GH knows this site is here. Or TAPS does.

What I find interesting is the lengths that are gone to in order to 'prove' GH duplicity. And the fact that other ghost hunters back GH–and they do hit the same spots–

Take Moon River–I kept reading that TAPS said that there was 'no access'–but what Jay actually said is that no one could have gotten past the camera, back there, and out again without getting on camera. He didn't say that there was 'no access' at all. There's no 'wrong' description–there's no description at all. No one from TAPS asserted that there was 'no access'.

But, based on that erroneous assumption, and some pictures, you all make the leap to deliberate fakery.

Does it occur to none of you that the reason Jay said that no one could get in there and out without getting on camera might be because the door shown in the pictures was locked?

You can speculate endlessly about whether the door was opened–but you cannot insist that TAPS gave a wrong 'description' deliberately. Where does that staircase lead? upstairs? outside? The same leaps that ghost hunters make that turn dust motes into demons are made by all of you to turn even honest errors into deliberate fakery.

And, like the crazed orb-fanatics, very few of you seem to be able to take a step back and look objectively at the conclusions you're leaping to.

(Report comment)

"What I find interesting is the lengths that are gone to in order to 'prove' GH duplicity. And the fact that other ghost hunters back GH–and they do hit the same spots–"

I missed something, did someone else 'prove' the Manson place haunted and get the same doctored temperature results?

(Report comment)

No one has proved that anything is haunted, Nosfer. If they had, this site'd be out of business.

As it is, they can say X, and you can say Y and both be convinced that you're right.

Please don't imply that I've said anything was 'proven', okay?

(Report comment)

Jack,

Before you pass any judgment why don't YOU contact the State of Rhode Island? That would be good idea wouldn't it? You obviously haven't and that tells me you are afraid of the truth and just want to provoke. So before you say anything more about the subject, which you obviously know nothing about, get your facts straight. You see, I HAVE spoken directly to the State myself and know the truth. If you choose to believe Jason and Grant and the PR BS Roto Rooter puts out, that's up to you. I chose to believe the facts I can see and verify them myself. Stay in your dream world and believe what you want because your opinions are worthless and certainly not worth discussing any further if you don't find out the facts.

It's very interesting here that Jack states: "GH knows this site is here. Or TAPS does." I wonder how Jack could he possibly know this? Is he a "good friend" of Jason's?

(Report comment)

This site would not be out of business as each "sighting" has to be looked at for it's own merits. Just because Team A finds something at site Y doesn't mean that Team B who claims to find something there, too, isn't full of garbage.

YOU are the one who used the word "Prove" Manson footage being doctored was Proven.

(Report comment)

Nosfer,

I'm going to take Logisti's advice from last year when Jack tried to stir the pot. However, in my words: walk away now because he just ain't worth it.

Bye Jack.

(Report comment)

I feel there is a sense from the fans of GH that the answer is black and white. They are right and we are wrong… Skeptics are just trying to tear them down. There is no in-between. It is easy to paint skeptics with a wide brush. But put simply their view of skeptics is not accurate.

"What I find interesting is the lengths that are gone to in order to 'prove' GH duplicity."

This is not the case. We are looking for the TRUTH. I for one hope they catch the ultimate ghost evidence ever. I am fascinated by the subject and hope it comes to be. They definitely have caught some interesting and evidence that I would classify as "unknown". Could it be real? Perhaps. Could there be other explanations? Perhaps.

Once again, since the real world we know to exists, and ghost are not proven to exist, if there are 2 possible explanations I tend to go with the real world one. Does that mean it is right? Not necessarily. But its been the case so far.

Now, when watching and analyzing the evidence that THEY, GH present we find obvious errors are we supposed to ignore that?

The New Moon brewery is a perfect example. I do not recall the exact wording by Jason - I will re-watch that part and transcribe exactly - but the point is it was VERY misleading. When watching it I thought his meaning was that there was no way to get back there - however he happened to word it. Even if it is as Jack says "no one could have gotten past the camera, back there, and out again without getting on camera" that implies no one could back there without being on camera. And they never mention there is a door right there where it looks like it comes from? VERY misleading and the very least, a flat out lie at the worst.

But why mislead us?

Intentionally leaving out information because it would not help your theory is not a scientific approach. That is their claimed method of ghost hunting repeated many time on the show.

(Report comment)

Jason's statement is implying that you had to go past the camera…meaning that was the only way in and out. Quoted:

Client: "And you're sure there was no one down here"
Jason: "There was no way you could get by the camera, get back here, and go back." (he doesn't say "without getting on camera")

It's a true statement, you definitely would be seen on camera if you went in that PARTICULAR entryway, but it's misleading and only half the story. Basically:

"Could someone have come in here?"
"No, no one could have come in THAT door without us seeing him"

But, this is jack who, much like he accuses US of doing, sees only what he wants. So I've said my part and anything more is a waste of electrons.

(Report comment)

sigh.

Alicat, in many states, including the one I live in, companies like Roto-Rooter provide 'plumbing services' using employees that work as plumbers under the aegis of the organization. Those employees very often call themselves 'plumbers'. Many do not have plumbing licenses. Your reference to "the PR BS Roto Rooter puts out", in which the company that J&G claim to still work for says that J&G still work for them shows that it is YOU who have some kind of irrational problem with this.

But, you ARE technically right. J&G ARE NOT plumbers–they are employees of Roto-Rooter who did plumbing work for the company whose job has now shifted to a PR/spokeperson role. Even if they still think of themselves as 'plumbers', they are technically wrong.

Does that make you happy? Jay and Grant, just like the guy who installed my new frainpipe(a Roto-Rooter employee) deliberately decieved us–because I called a 'plumber' and didn't get one.

Oh, I have more bad news for you–the analysis scenes are staged, too.

Bobarino, we all want the truth. I will go so far as to note explanations that they didn't touch on, problems with descriptions, and all manner of things that are a skeptics dream. I will not, however, impute motive. I will not suggest duplicity or fakery–even with abominations like the Spalding Inn 'investigation'–though I believe it was clearly done to gin up interest.

Some skeptics go over the line–some believe that their maunderings actually PROOVE something….when they are just theories.

Regarding Moon River. Here is what I don't know. I don't know if that door was locked–or even there when GH did their investigation. Do you? I can think of reasons why Jay would respond as he did if he were being honest, and if he were being duplicitous–so I don't know a clear motive. I don't know the actual duration of the investigation.

Nosfer, you are absolutely correct there–some mention should have been made of that door. Had it been noted as locked this conversation would be much different(not 'better'–you'd all be insisting that someone opened the door, but different).

And here is the difference between us, Nosfer, I try to see all that I can, accept and even offer(occasionally) rational skepticism of GH actions. I begin to argue when I see skeptics move into what I consider irrationality–assigning motive and actind as if an alternate explanation HAS to be the 'truth'. When the skeptics keep themselves to 'here's how it COULD have happened', I have no problem. Because, in those instances, they are right.

(Report comment)

Oubliette,

It is amazing what people want to believe so much that they mangle the facts to turn them into their own little version. Rather childish and very much a bully attitude wouldn't you say? Does this sounds like someone we all know? As we have seen on this thread there are those that choose not to do their own research which is laughable. How hard is it to check this information? Not hard at all. Just email the State or pick up the phone and dial their number. Geeze, isn't that basic 101? You can even read the rules and regulations and find out the requirements. But then again, you do need to have some common sense and a small amount of intelligence which is obviously lacking in those posts. How sad that they feel the need to write on this board instead of writing to the appropriate people who actually do know. If you can post to this thread, it should be easy but, then again, they refuse to do so. What exactly are they afraid of - the truth? I think those that don't should be ignored because they want to further a cause that has been proven to be an absolute lie. A pretty pathetic and low method but typical when you don't have the facts.

(Report comment)

You know, Oubliette(good post, BTW) it's sad to see the lengths that people will go to when a simple search reaps such easy rewards–

"Hi Bobby.

Yes in fact they are employees of Roto-Rooter. Jason and Grant remain on Roto-Rooter's active payroll. Their busy shooting schedules prevent them from working as often as they used to, but we accommodate their shooting schedules.

Enjoy the show!
Katherine Harris
Director of Recruiting
Roto-Rooter Services Company"

That was on another skeptics site. I also found Roto-Rooter referencing Jay and Grant as employess in their press releases and in various other formats.

They even referred to Jay and Grant as plumbers.

Of course, if one is holding on to something to prove to themself that 'these guys were lying to us from day one', it's probably easy to accept the notion that the company would lie to cover up the duplicity of the TAPS founders.

Frankly, I can't understand the obsession with this. THEY say they work for Roto-Rooter, Roto-Rooter says they work for Roto-Rooter. Case closed, right?

No, because then we have the issue of 'they SAY they're plumbers, but they're not licensed by the state of Rhode Island–so they're liars!' But Roto-Rooter calls them plumbers…..are they liars too?

No. It is not uncommon for a plumber to be unlicensed. Sometimes they work under a companys license. Sometimes they're scofflaws(with good reason–plumbing certification is rife with union control and corruption). Our local Roto-Rooter plumber works under the license of the company. Hell, the infamous 'Joe the Plumber' did the same thing.

Oubliette, I wonder if Roto-Rooter is licensed to operate in the state of Rhode Island….hmmm.

Alicat, wasn't that silly? You had to go through all that because you publically stated that you wouldn't talk to me again. To be nice, I included Oubliette as well, so you could respond that way rather than breaking your stated refusal to speak to me. In future I'd just suggest ceasing to answer rather than making a public statement.

(Report comment)

Well Jack, you just took it off another site. Really original. We've already had this discussion on this board and you have been proved wrong. Why not take a look if you are so determined to post here. You know nothing except what you care to know. Not contacting Roto Rooter or the State of Rhode Island? Thought not! We have discussed this on this board a million times on various threads. Get your facts straight. And, by the way, in the State of RI, CT or MA (if you care to check the real facts and not something copied from another site - skeptical or otherwise troll) you will find that you cannot work as a plumber under a company's license. So, why don't you actually check the facts buddy. It might be a rare thing for you. Case closed! I'm done with you. If anyone else wants to debate you that's fine with me. Go back to Jason and Grant and cry a river to them.

(Report comment)

Jack, after finding out just how bad the plumbing is in the rental we are living in (put in by an unlicensed "friend" of the landlady) I advise everyone to check with their respective state's licensing department. Even if Jay and Grant turned up to fix the plumbing here and their credentials were nowhere to be found, I would not let them so much as touch a pipe.

"Regarding Moon River. Here is what I don't know. I don't know if that door was locked–or even there when GH did their investigation. Do you?"

The photo of the Moon River door was uploaded to another website right after that episode aired. If you look at it closely, the archway has quite a few scrapes and signs of age. Sorry I can't give the reference, but soon after the original show aired an ex-employee wrote on a GH board (maybe even the Sci-Fi one; it's been quite a while now) about that door and how could they have missed not seeing it? OK, it might have been dark when they checked and the door closed, but this is something one would want to double check to be sure there was no access to that area.

Alicat is correct in that it is very easy to check up on almost anything that is open to the public. If someone claims to be a member of a certain profession, proof of this claim must show up somewhere.

We've gone round and round with this, and probably we will never know the truth. But why is it important?

IMO the field of paranormal investigation has always been an orphan when it comes to scientific analyses. It has had a hard and rocky path, tainted by charlatans of all types. Serious research is often buried or not even considered because unfortunately it seems to attract all kinds of types ranging from very honest and serious people, through those who haven't the faintest clue what they are doing and finally the worse–those who are in it for the money and are little better than snake oil salesmen. The latter include all those mediums and psychics who still garner a huge following even though there is not one piece of verifiable evidence that any human being can do the things they claim they are doing.

Not that other disciplines have been more pure. Hoaxes, poor research, fudged test results etc. plague archaeology, anthropology and even medicine. Bad enough, but when one takes into account the extreme prejudice against the field of paranormal investigation, any slip up or hint of a hoax plunges the entire discipline back down to the bottom of the heap.

I know that's the reason why I attempt to scrutinize every piece of evidence, every claim, every story. Because I know that there are even harsher critics out there, and I for one want to understand what, if anything, is the source for the belief in hauntings. In the end, I believe that it may have more to do with the make up of our brains and our perception of the stimuli that is constantly bombarding this remarkable organ. But if we are even going to make baby steps towards a theory, sincere and honest evaluation of any evidence is compulsory.

Equally important is the ability to admit that something had been wrongly interpreted, and that evidence set aside. It is human to err, but one must be able to swallow his/her ego and come out with something like "under further investigation, we found that there are other, more rational, explanations for what we recorded/encountered".

And so back to the plumbing. Like a similar thread, it all comes back to that word "integrity". Because of a dubious past and an unknown future, anyone who treads these waters needs to be upfront and honest to the highest degree. To be otherwise is to invite critics to continue to question the validity of a field that is struggling so hard for recognition and acceptance.

(Report comment)

jack, glad to see you're still active on the site!

To everyone who disagrees with jack, whether you engage in the discussion or not I hope everyone takes his points into consideration. Occasionally re-examining the validity of one's own opinions is never a bad thing.

For those that do engage in discussion, consider it good practice at making your case calmly, factually, and without allowing frustration to raise the emotional temperature of the conversation too much higher than "cool Vulcan logic". If nothing else, it's a good skill to practice for corporate meetings, negotiating raises, and other sorts of real-life debates-under-pressure

(Report comment)

Yes, it does come down to integrity. The field of paranormal investigation relies on it. Sadly, skeptics often rely on undermining that integrity at all costs. Even when unwarranted.

I will say it again. Jay and Grant say they still work for Roto-Rooter. Roto-Rooter says they work for Roto-Rooter. Roto-Rooter says that Jay and Grant have supplied plumbing services in the name of the company. Why is any of this even in question?

Because skeptics have latched on to the idea that since they don't appear to be licensed plumbers their calling themselves plumbers is a 'lie' that undermines their integrity.

And showing them as lacking integrity is important to skeptic sites.

But HAVING integrity is also important. The minute you seem angry or vindictive you move from a skeptical site to an 'anti' site. It's a danger that lurks in the background of all skeptic sites. A line that shouldn't be crossed.

The Roto-Rooter thing seems like one of those things to me. The company says they're still employees–end of conversation. They DO work for Roto-Rooter. The nit-picking over their licensed/unlicensed status seems to stem from the fact that the company made the skeptics look foolish.

When I say I can admit that Jay should have made the existense of that door known, that not calling attention to it was a huge mistake, that it makes them look bad we're on the same page, no? It's when I say that the fact that he didn't do this doesn't make the thing an automatic hoax that we part company.

And I think we part company there because too many skeptics have too much invested in proving them fakers–rather than offering alternate explanations for their evidence.

I work, a good chunk of the year, as a makeup arist. I am not licensed, I have very little formal training and I avoid the union like the plague. And I've done some investigation. Would my integrity be called into question if someone asked what I did and I answered 'makeup artist'–if I had no makeup work at the time and was temping to make ends meet(as I normally do)? Would I be a 'liar'? Should I provide a list of jobs that I do? Or am I allowed to use the one that I think of myself as? Can you see where I'm going here?

I'm harping on this because we KNOW the truth–the company made the truth clear–yet you can say "We've gone round and round with this, and probably we will never know the truth" as if that's not crazy.

The questioning if their 'plumbing' job is beyond the pale–it moves you from 'skeptic' to 'crazy who wants to take them down'.

The response to that door should be 'it makes any 'evidence gotten there highly questionable at best–and deliberate fakery at worst'. But it is not 'proof' of anything.

(Report comment)

"The response to that door should be 'it makes any 'evidence gotten there highly questionable at best–and deliberate fakery at worst'. But it is not 'proof' of anything."

jack, jack, jack…I wasn't going to say anything, but I've got a few electrons to spare that I can waste:

Who here has said the other door was PROOF of anything? I'd say now that it's proof that Jason's description wasn't completely accurate, but I wouldn't say that it was proof the figure was a hoax. I would say (and in essence have said), as you do, that "it makes any evidence gotten there highly questionable at best–and deliberate fakery at worst" See, we can agree on something.

(Report comment)

Jack- "But HAVING integrity is also important. The minute you seem angry or vindictive you move from a skeptical site to an 'anti' site. It's a danger that lurks in the background of all skeptic sites. A line that shouldn't be crossed."

A line that shouldn't be crossed? A danger that lurks? A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Yes, we are skeptics, but we are also people too. At times, we do get angry. At times, we also use a great deal of humor. Should that be held against us as well? By what standard are you judging the people here? It sounds as if it's a pretty high standard, which is a compliment, so thank you.

Now, let us discuss that "HAVING integrity" thing. You never addressed the Manson FLIR episode. It seems like you just glossed over that one. Why would this be? Is it because that episode calls into question the integrity of Pilgrim, the Ghost Hunters show, and Jason and Grant themselves and you do not like the answer? Is it because you can not dispute that the episode has been altered? Could it be that this argument is not subjective, but factual, so there is no wiggle room as to what was said or what was done? Or does it simply not provide you the platform from which to insult us with either gross generalizations or personal attacks?

You see, my friend, having integrity means the adherence to moral and ethical principles. It is essentially the state of being whole, entire, and undiminished. To fall away from this, as shown in the Manson FLIR episode, is to call into question any and all evidence and any and all aspects of the show. For example, when Jayson Blair of the New York Times was caught for plagiarizing and fabricating a story, the investigation did not end with that single article. It was then discovered that 36 of the 72 national news stories that he had written were "suspect." He had done it once. It was common sense to look at everything else that he had written. Why should the Ghost Hunter show not face the same sort of scrutiny? I am simply not seeing what your argument is or what exactly you are defending. Please try to apply whatever it is that you have to say using the Manson FLIR episode as your point of reference and maybe we can finish this whole thing up.

(Report comment)