[NOTE FROM ADMIN: SPOILER ALERT!!! This post contains inside-info concerning the investigation airing in next week's episode of Ghost Hunters. And it's good!]

In the coming week, Ghost Hunters will air TAPS' investigation of Moss Beach Distillery in California. There is some controversy brewing about this episode because TAPS didn't know that the Distillery was rigged to simulate haunting and poltergeist phenomena. However, it's a widely known fact that the Distillery is rigged to recreate the ostensible paranormal experiences people have reported over the years (e.g., swinging lamps). And this information can be Googled in under a minute. It has also been discussed in numerous television programs on the paranormal. Loyd Auerbach, the central parapsychological investigator of the Distillery since 1991, has mentioned it in numerous publications and television appearances. Apparently the Pilgrim producers also knew about the rigged effects but didn't inform TAPS about them. So TAPS was initially fooled.

Some Ghost Hunter fans are already accusing the Distillery of fraud. This is flatly mistaken! While it remains to be seen how this episode was cut and so how the Distillery, its history and owner, and TAPS come off, these rumors about the Distillery intentionally trying to deceive TAPS are absolutely false.

I have included below a statement from Loyd Auerbach which clearly explains the history of alleged genuine phenomena at the Distillery and the origin and motive for the rigged effects.

Dr. Michael Rhodes

—————————————————–

From Loyd Auerbach:
"I was involved in the initial set up of the special
effects at the Moss Beach Distillery in the late 1990s –
which are computer-controlled/recorded recreations of some
of the reported phenomena at the Distillery, phenomena
which began in the early 1930s. However, the effects were
deliberately set up with specific lamps that were not
previously reported as moving (it was other lamps), a
different mirror in the ladies room (different from the
mirror where the ghost's image has been seen multiple
times), etc.

"The computer records all simulated effects, and individual
activations. In that way, if there's any question as to
whether 'the ghost did it' or not, there's a record to
check.

"No effort to hide the effects has been made. I (Loyd
Auerbach) have discussed the effects in several televised
and print interviews, on multiple radio shows, and in his
extensive write-up of the Moss Beach Distillery case in his
book A PARANORMAL CASEBOOK (Atriad Press, 2005). In one
major cable show (which constantly repeats) detailing
haunts in the Bay Area, the Distillery was featured and the
segment included the special effects.

"Googling the Moss Beach Distillery brings up articles that
mention the special effects.

"I spoke with a producer identifying himself as working on
GHOST HUNTERS several days before the team was to go to the
Distillery. While the conversation was about the Presidio
in San Francisco, the subject of the Distillery came up –
I asked specifically if they were aware of the special
effects. I was told they were.

"The likely reason neither the owner nor the manager
mentioned them is because there are SO many places where
the effects are mentioned. Anyone doing even light
research on the phenomena in sources less than 10 years old
can hardly help but run across discussion of the effects.

"Finally, the reported phenomena has been occurring since
the early 1930s. I got involved in 1991 and have conducted
numerous investigations there before any special effects
were installed. There has been real, documented physical
phenomena at the Distillery prior to the installation of
the effects. I have personally had numerous experiences
there — something I can't say about a lot of places.

"I helped with that installation (consulting, helping to
get the initial contractors, and more). The phenomena is
real. The phenomena went on for over 65 years before the
effects were even conceived of. The effects are fun, to add
to the 'experience' of the restaurant. And the effects are
no secret."

Wow. I, for one, don't mind *this* "spoiler." When it comes to making rational judgments based upon what's at hand, information is preferable to ignorance. Thanks, Dr. Rhodes, for the "heads-up" on this episode.

Hey Dr. Rhodes, thanks for posting this.

Research on locations seems to be hit and miss with TAPS. There have been times that the research alone can debunk the site (see Palace Theatre). However there are glaring research holes in other spaces (i.e. The Distillery, but also the Myrtle Plantation from an earlier episode).

On a side note, while I'm excited to see the episode, I wonder about the logic Pilgrim used to send TAPS in here with no knowledge. Was it a test to see if they'd catch it? Were they curious to see if the TAPS crew wouild actually do the research? From a production side of things it seems to be a setup. If the episode actually does demonstrate glaring flaws in the TAPS methodology more the better as long as TAPS actually LEARNS from the event rather than propogating the same error over and over. Or, they could circle the wagons and become defensive.

Whatever the case, it should be a wizbang episode!

I don't think Pilgrim would ever allow TAPS to be embarassed in any way. Whatever happens, I'll bet TAPS comes out looking good.

Now that the episode has aired…..

Sherrie, I have to disagree. Knowing the producer's of the show had been informed, and believing the effects had been turned off, I don't see why the topic should need to be brought up during the tour. It's like rehashing something that doesn't even matter.

That being said, you might argue that it's such a sensitive issue that it bears beating the proverbial dead horse and mentioning it again just in case, but frankly that's a secondary fault, as is the fact that TAPS didn't do very good research.

Primary fault lies with the producers, and after that we can say, "By the way, the restaurant ALSO could have avoided this if they'd follow-up and mentioned it during the tour" and I'd agree, but frankly that has less long-term impact on my opinions than the other, "By the way, TAPS kinda isn't very good at part of their job" that comes up when we address their poor research.

So yeah, I agree it would have been responsible for the restaurant to mention it to TAPS, but it was IMPERATIVE for their producers to mention it to them. It also would have been responsible for TAPS to turn it up during their background research, which is part of what they're supposed to be good at for this show they've been given.

Because the restaurant either (thought they) turned all the effects off, or they assumed when TAPS cut the power it would turn all the effects off, therefore the effects would have zero bearing on the investigation.

And as I just pointed out in the main discussion on the blog, most people do not realize TAPS does NOT cut all the power, because they need to plug their equipment in. Likely, TAPS is the reason that the bathroom effect was still on.

So yes, mentioning the effects (which everyone assumed would be off) doesn't seem imperative, although that may well be why Pilgrim neglected to mention it to TAPS as well. Either way, the restaurant's role was fumble, not sinister.

As for the effects (which were installed 10 years ago) being the "EXACT SAME THINGS" the there *IS* a good explanation, and it's straightforward and simple: The reason why the effects exist in the first place is to simulate some of the REAL things that have been reported since the 1930's.

Just to drive that point home, because it's important: The reason the effects match the reports exactly is because the effects were designed to simulate the reports — and the actual reports are real and date back half a century of more before the effects.

ALSO IMPORTANT: The effects do not *ACTUALLY* match the reports exactly. For instance, the mirror with the face is not the mirror that was rigged up with a face. The lamps that supposedly move are not the lamps that were rigged.

Wow, That is wierd. Aurbauch's response to TAPS wasn't the most flattering. And some people are going so far as to essentially label him a hack because of his response. But here he is presenting for a TAPS event. That just adds a whole new level of crazy to the thing.

AND I just saw, they mention the book that he wrote, which according to him documents the Moss Beach Distillery haunting. It's even referred to as "noted" and "respected." In fairness a personal publicist probably typed it up for the event.

D said:

Wow, That is wierd. Aurbauch's response to TAPS wasn't the most flattering. And some people are going so far as to essentially label him a hack because of his response. But here he is presenting for a TAPS event. That just adds a whole new level of crazy to the thing.

AND I just saw, they mention the book that he wrote, which according to him documents the Moss Beach Distillery haunting. It's even referred to as "noted" and "respected." In fairness a personal publicist probably typed it up for the event.

That is interesting!

Jason responded at his Myspace

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=11408348&blogID=403692272

I think its funny that people are saying that Auerbach just wants to sell his books-including Grant. I mean its one thing to say that you wrote a book and are selling it for 19 or so bucks and another to declare a place haunted-then turn around and offer a tour for a couple of hundred bucks.

I have now responded to Jason Hawes' response to Auerbach's response to the Distillery episode. See my blog at:

http://www.myspace.com/drmichaelrhodes

Folks, I'm hopeful that in the coming days we'll more information disclosed about this whole thing.

Michael