This may have been posted before, but I find it interesting that GH/GHI/GHA are doing exactly the opposite of what Grant believed before the show started.  From 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20020606093011/the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/arthunters/research.html

"

If you are simply ghost hunting, you need to do research in order to know where to go and when. But if you are on an investigation, then you need to do your research afterwards. Here are a few reasons why:

- When you visit a house you want to start off with a clean slate. You don't want to let the stories about the home limit what you feel there. For instance, if you read that a little girl was killed in the home 100 years ago, you'll subconsciously have that little girl in the back of your mind, and it will taint your investigation. This forces you to be true to your feelings, therefore being true to the homeowner.

- If you log every event and detail for later study, you can then compare those notes with what you find when researching the history of the home. Not only is your mind free of predeterminations but you get the satisfying reward of having your theories match closely with fact. This is a good way to determine how advanced your sensing capabilities are coming along.

"

Nosfer said:

When they are setting up so few cameras compared to what they could/should…they pretty much HAVE to do advanced research, ie, The Tour so that they have a better chance of capturing something.

Comparing the amount of times they get something on a DVR camera vs. the amount of times they "see something out of the corner of their eye" that is not caught on camera, they would be better off pointing cameras randomly.

Seriously, when do they ever have someone say " it appeared right there "  so they point a camera there and actaully get something like what they were told ?   I think they are pretty much zero for 300 camera setups so far.

Nosfer said:

When having the option between random and where someone says something has been seen, I'm going to pick the location where someone says something has been seen. It's probably no worse than random, and if there's any chance….

Plus, what do you expect for ONE night's investigation?

From Grant's definition, it is not an investigation, it is a ghost hunt – and I can see his point, they are hunting for the ghost that the client believes is there. 

 In many cases they have debunked and found what the client had assumed was Casper, but in which episode have they actually found the ghost they were lhunting for – the one that the client tells them about ?

ONE night ?  Consevatively 100 episodes @ 2 hunts per  -  at least 3 cameras -   That's 600 "camera-nights" pointed exactly where the ghost hunters feel the best chance to catch Casper would be based on the clients story.

Egg-scuse my ignorance of American places, but don't you have a number of ghost towns there in the once wild west? How come they are not investigated, or does it need to have business potential?

600 camera nights at different locations where clients pointed them to is much better chance then 600 nights at a single location a client pointed them to. As I said if the single client is wrong, you are 100% screwed.

So far, the client locations have not given us results, yet random eye placement has produced unexplainable results in almost every episode.

I don't know current procedures, but if the crew cameras were left rolling at all times, including when the cameraman enters the area before the hunters and then turns around to film them, we should be able to duplicate the randomness. We should be able to catch some of the Caspers that Jay and Grant see around the corner or "over there" that we are simply not getting now aiming where the client says.  

If they are telling the truth, thier randomness is providing much better results then the fixed cams.

Doc,

If you are going to take the time to go to a client's location because they contacted you for an investigation and then you arrive, hear their story, and then choose not to believe what they saw and where they saw it, why even bother to go at all?  It's simply pointless.  I don't get it.  I'm not seeing your point here other than this just being an exercise in being contrary.

Nosfer said:

Three other cameras placed – may or may not have been per client but nothing found.

Not exactly something to gloss over. If they weren't, then they were random and produced no results which hurts the "much better claim"

Presidio?

I don't recall where exactly the bucket was, but placing the camera at the base is aiming it in the general direction where activity took place, maybe not at EACH item but could capture things moving toward each.

If you want to compile a list of all their camera setups, whether they were random or client suggested, and whether or not anything was captured, I'll run the numbers.

They don't mention the other cams at all. If they were placed based on clients statements they were " ghost hunting", if not they were "investigating" we have no way of knowing … either way they got nothing.

The client said nothing about "things moving towards" the bucket ( or lock ) , it was the sound of the bucket dropping. Since the bucket could have simply levitated up and dropped it would be foolish for them to assume that something must have "moved towards it".

We can start now – how do you think we should count hotspots the client points out, but we never see that they put a camera there ?