The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]

Current User: Guest Login Register
Please consider registering


Lost Your Password?

Is FoF some sort of "Red Herring?"

Reply to Post
UserPost

7:41 am
May 10, 2011


Skooter

Investigator

posts 130

Stephen said:

It seems pretty clear to me that the determining factor on what to investigate is based largely on whether they think they can get some flashy footage. For example, why go to Whaley House to do an investigation which could have been conducted over the phone? Why investigate the "ghost train" when it was so obviously a spider?


 

I 100% agree with that. The ones that really irk me are when they are back in the "situation" room and they do their show and tell, but when they are finishing it up they say, "We called [whoever], and they had skydivers with sparklers that night"…to me in that instance it was so obvious that they knew the answer before testing it. They wanted to go out and say try this, no doesn't work, try this, no doesn't work, hey I got an idea!, wow it looks exactly like it AND we found that that is EXACTLY what happened. And people think they are geniuses.

In 3……2……1……!!!!

7:43 am
May 10, 2011


Skooter

Investigator

posts 130

Nosfer said:

"3. 99% of the time have one of 3 outcomes (confirmed, plausable, busted)"

What were the other 1%?


 

and the other 1% is when they are inconclusive, which is really rare but I have seen it

In 3……2……1……!!!!

9:10 am
May 10, 2011


Nosfer

Rotaredom

Moderator

posts 2954

Skooter said:

They do it, and they do it very well, unlike our FoF friends. I don't think you need to flash a science degree or get a certification to actually be an expert at something.


 

Agree completely on the degree or certification.  The thing is, though, that both shows show the actors building things to test this or that.  We've seen the FoFers using saws and hammers and pouring stuff, too.  BOTH shows could be doing montages and then have some crew come in and do the rest.  Unless we see everything, we don't know for sure. 

I will certainly give Adam and Jamie and crew a lot more credit than the FoFers for sure, though.  But anyone can say "we are experts" or have something flashed in front of them that says Photography Expert and we just have to believe what we hear/read.

In fact, I like the "Photography Expert" better than the "We are Experts" route.  At least then you know what the supposed field of alleged expertise is.  That way, if Chi-Lan starts talking about marsupials, we know she's out of her alleged field.  Course, since now they just label her a photographer rather than even an expert… Laugh

Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.

9:46 am
May 10, 2011


Skooter

Investigator

posts 130

Good points…They do show the Mythbusters crew doing a lot of the work too, especially Grant. They seem to focus on his robotics skills a lot but I do see your point of we only see what we see but I do tend to trust that they are doing a bulk of the skill work at least. I just think their past qualifications are at least relevant and they actually use it. I still haven't figured out what Austin's purpose is or how in the world he landed that role.

In 3……2……1……!!!!

Reply to Post


Reply to Topic:
Is FoF some sort of "Red Herring?"

Guest Name (Required):

Guest Email (Required):

Smileys
Confused Cool Cry Embarassed Frown Kiss Laugh Smile Surprised Wink Yell
Post New Reply

Guest URL (required)

Math Required!
What is the sum of:
3 + 12
   



Permalink Print
Copyright 2010 SkepticalViewer.com - The Ghost Hunters Fansite for Skeptics