| User | Post |
|
8:56 am
July 19, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2874 |
|
|
Stephen made a comment in the thread for the Robin Hood episode that I'd like to take a further look at. He said:
The trouble with GHI is that they seem to have dropped the fakery of the original GH but not replaced it with anything interesting.
Prior to that statement I had mentioned that there can be no credible evidence of paranormal activity captured by GHI since it is produced by the same people who brought us GH and GHA. And while no obvious fakery has been detected that I know of in GHI, I still stand by that. Now…
Why has there not been any? There is documented and provable deceit/faking that has taken place in GH and GHA. There are further acts that are very suspicious but which have not been proven. Why have we not seen any in GHI?
Also, though, what constitutes fakery or deceit? I think there are a few levels, the main ones being:
- Staging an incident with intent to deceive
- Taking advantage of something captured and passing it off as paranormal
- Showing something as paranormal through incompetence (unintentional deceit)
In the first category we have things like the GH Manson episode and the GHA Stanley episode (as well as a few other flashlight conversations which have been shown to contain substantial editing.
The second and third are a little harder to differentiate between. Belcourt Castle could be one or the other. (See http://www.skepticalviewer.com/forums/ghost-hunters/belcourt-castle-mr-tinney-bedroom/page-1 starting at about Post 4) In this case they used the thermal reflection as evidence. Was this intentional or do they truly not understand the principles of their equipment? Since they harp on reflections so much, I have to assume they knew, but still used it as evidence. Thus it falls into the second category.
Now to bring in GHI (since that's where I've posted this!) While I don't think we've seen any Type 1 fakery, I have to wonder about Type 2. The reflection of the boy in the display case. And then there are numerous "personal sightings" for which there never seems to be any evidence. But now that I think about it, what about the disappearing sneakers at LaGorce? Type 1? Passing off probable sleep paralysis in the same episode as paranormal is probably a Type 2 or 3. Some of the EVPs they (all three parts of the franchise, in fact) show fall into Type 2 or 3. Recall also that they investigated the Spalding and there were some strange (and I don't mean paranormal) happenings there that fall into at least Type 2 or 3, with the camera going off (it was TURNED off, not a dead battery as they claimed) bordering on Type 1.
|
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.
|
|
|
9:51 am
July 19, 2010
|
darkeyes
| | Arlington, TX | |
| Investigator | posts 91 |
|
|
Personally, I haven’t watched GH or GHI for a very long time. They once were my favorite shows, but now I’ve fell so far out of favor with them that I just can’t watch any episodes anymore. So I’m not familiar with the last couple seasons. But, if I remember right, when I did watch them there seemed to be a much different ‘feel’ between the two shows. Here’s a couple thoughts.
Perhaps Jason and Grant demand more evidence because they understand that’s what the general audience enjoys and they don’t want risking GHI to overshadow their popularity.
Perhaps GH has more control over stateside investigations than the GHI crew does, and they feel more comfortable or have better opportunities in faking evidence.
Perhaps members of GHI are more sensitive to risking their reputations than Jason and Grant are, so they try to keep their evidence more grounded. Although, based on programs like Most Haunted, it seems those audiences don’t mind programs with a heavy entertainment angle to them.
|
|
|
12:30 pm
July 19, 2010
|
Bobarino
| | Valencia, CA | |
| Investigator | posts 181 |
|
|
Nosfer said:
Stephen made a comment in the thread for the Robin Hood episode that I'd like to take a further look at. He said:
The trouble with GHI is that they seem to have dropped the fakery of the original GH but not replaced it with anything interesting.
I have to agree with the above, but a point was previsouly made and debated here somewhere regrading this and goes something like this:
By "interesting" we mean to say the didn't find any evidence. So either they DO find evidence and we are mad because they are faking it, or they DON'T find evidenece or anything and we are mad because it's boring.
Now, I agree with the sentiment, but this is one of those things as to we have to realize it is a TV show first. It has to be entertaining or they lose viewers (hence the faking). If they went from house to house and it was always "Not haunted, it was a fear cage" no one would watch.
|
I've found that being AWESOME is a full time job…
|
|
|
12:55 pm
July 19, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2874 |
|
|
Yep, that IS the line they walk. I can't remember which episode it was in but some of the first Comments in the review section were things like "snooze fest" "boring" "nothing happened" "there was hardly any evidence not worth watching" That last one was in response to the first(?) GHA episode of this half-season. See the second part of Post 22 here:
http://www.skepticalviewer.com/forums/ghost-hunters-academy/s02e01-waverly-hills-sanatorium/page-2
The "average tv viewer" is somewhat at fault here, maybe passively if not actively. Producers know the mentality and what sells. There are a few of us who would be pleased to watch a show that found nothing but made serious and well-thought debunking techniques and used and explained their equipment. And when I say used, I mean CORRECTLY and CONSISTENTLY. I'd enjoy a show like that. I know a handful of others who would, too. The other 99.93%, though, would be bored, and there go the ratings.
That is why I cannot turn to a TV show for definitive evidence of anything really. You have to consider that there could be ulterior motives for what you see. Viewership being a big one.
|
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.
|
|
|
1:08 pm
July 19, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Nosfer said: "Now to bring in GHI (since that's where I've posted this!) While I don't think we've seen any Type 1 fakery, I have to wonder about Type 2."
Not so fast, my friend. You have defined "Type 1" fakery as "Staging an incident with the intent to deceive."
Let us not forget Joe Chin's "ghost bite." (Sorry, I would link that particular show but for the life of me I can't remember which one it was.) There are only two possibilities with this "event." Either ghosts are real, they bite, and GHI found the smoking gun of the paranormal….or…Joe Chin intentionally faked that event.
Your "Type 2" is taking advantage of something and passing it off as paranormal. So…something actually "did" bite Joe? An unseen cat? An unseen dog? MonsterQuest is awfully fond of unseen large cats like black panthers and leopards. Maybe one of those? All very, very doubtful. Beyond a bug, what have you ever been bit by but haven't seen? And if it was a bug bite…passing it off as a "ghost bite" or anything even remotely paranormal would be one giant, mega, super, incredible stretch. I mean, even Rob on the staircase at the time seem to have doubted that anything actually happened.
Your "Type 3" involves incompentence and I will concede that Joe Chin is the poster child for this. How many episodes has Joe Chin been "touched," "poked," and/or "grabbed?" I am willing to bet that he has been touched more by ghosts on his short stint with GH and GHI then any other member COMBINED outside of J&G. Yet, I cannot see how the ghost bite can be categorized as "unintentional deceit."
So, I ask you…how is Joe Chin's "ghost bite" not considered Type 1?
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
2:04 pm
July 19, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2874 |
|
|
Well if you read the post thoroughly :) I do step back from the "No Type 1s" when I bring up the disappearing shoes incident, there is definitely something amiss there which calls a few things into question.
But now that I think about it, what about the disappearing sneakers at LaGorce? Type 1?
Like Stephen, I have not seen all the episodes (at least not thoroughly), although I do vaguely recall the Chin one of which you speak. It apparently didn't register very strongly with me, though, since I didn't recall the bite incident when I wrote the post. I couldn't tell you which one it was, either…was that the Devil's Chair one or something like that? I don't recall any of the details of the bite (size, configuration, freshness, etc) It's probably at least a Type 2 with heavy leanings toward Type 1.
I'm not sure I would go all the way to Type 1, though, since nothing is proven. Highly suspicious, but not proven, unlike a few other Type 1s.
Edited: If anyone else has candidates for a Type 1 from GHI, please post them for discussion.
|
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.
|
|
|
6:32 pm
July 19, 2010
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 588 |
|
|
Re Bobarino's point: I agree that, with ghost hunting shows as we have them today, we're constrained to either having faked evidence (which angers us), nothing (which bores us), or real evidence (which should be submitted to the Nobel committee, not shown on SyFy). However, that's because the format they've shown us depends on evidence for the paranormal to provide its thrills. If the format were changed to provide something else of interest, such as an interesting debunk, an explanation of human perception, or even going into the actual history of a place, then that might give us something more interesting. I don't think that any of the Pilgrim productions will do it, though.
I'll have to look into ghost bites and disappearing sneakers. They might fall into the general category of type 2, mixed with 3, and a heck of a lot of confirmation bias thrown in.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
1:11 am
July 23, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
…"Confirmation bias"….on whose part?
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
5:03 pm
July 24, 2010
|
ginrog
| | ginrog | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 9 |
|
|
I don't agree with finding nothing is boring. Since, in the broadest definition, paranormal research is a science (more a pseudoscience but I digress) then finding no evidence of paranormal is not nothing. It would be considered a fine reult. Especially if your mission statement is to disprove claims of activity and to show that a high percentage of claims are not paranormal.
So for those of us who are watching this show in the hopes that these investigators either find something or not then a lack of evidence just proves the other side of the theory. I find a hanger toss or a jacket pull not quite as exciting as nothing. They don't fake nothing and nothing is evidence.
|
|
|
6:14 pm
July 24, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2874 |
|
|
ginrog said:
I don't agree with finding nothing is boring.
I sure don't, either. If they find nothing in a rational way, methodically eliminating things until nothing paranormal remains…I'd be pleased. Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of the audience may want "something" or at least the execs THINK that's what their audience wants…especially when you see posts even here sometimes and certainly elsewhere (even on the TAPS board back when I was there) stating "yawn, ho hum, etc" when nothing is found, a few things debunked, and the place declared to have no evidence of paranormal activity.
You're right, finding nothing is still "evidence" that can go toward making a decision. It's unfortunate that that is not seen the same way by the average TV goer or the average TV producer.
|
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.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
