This can be done very easily with photo shop and simple video editing software available for all computers.  This method also allows a person to make it appear that the light is responding to questions without relying on vibration or extraneous stimuli. 

How it works:

1. Turn the flashlight on and place on the ground.

2. Photograph the flashlight while it is on.

3. Turn the flashlight off without moving it.

4. Film a sequence with the flashlight off.

5. Photo shop the photo of the flashlight turned on so that a minimum amount of the surrounding area is present(some area is needed to properly line it up within the video).

6. Edit the photo into the frames you need to create the illusion.

With this method an individual can even walk through the frame and make it a more convincing hoax as long as they don't pass through the area that the photo will be edited into.  There is a video of this on YouTube.  If I remember, I will provide a link to it when I get home from work.  YouTube is blocked on my work computer.

Stephen said:

Because in this case I don't think they're particularly trying to do a hoax.

I disagree and will explain further down.

Remember, when they first did the flashlight trick, Grant mentioned something about them having done this "many, many, many times before."

This is circumstantial and holds 0 relevance in regards to the outcome and evidence at hand.

Normally they don't get results, so it doesn't appear on the show.

My memory may be faulty, but it seems to me that it became much more common after the first time.  I seem to recall them getting results fairly frequently after the first time.  Furthermore, like above, it is circumstantial and holds 0 relevance in regards to the outcome and evidence at hand.

We've got to be careful with the "it worked, so it must be a hoax" idea, seductive though it is.

I disagree and don't understand this separation you try to make between yourself and a 'hardline' skeptic.  I draw my skepticism from an understanding and love of the scientific method.  For as long as I can remember I have loved science and in turn have become skeptical of any claim until presented evidence.  I am then skeptical of the evidence until it is properly analyzed(read:peer reviewed).  I believe most skeptics draw their skepticism from similar origins.  This idea that the 'hardline' skeptic is too close-minded is laughable.  If the skeptic is truly forming his opinions based on the evidence at hand it is impossible for his own bias to play a role in that opinion.  A very good example of this is in the creationism v. evolution debate.  Less than 1/10 of 1% of all scientists in the US(this % is smaller over seas) believes in creationism, yet we can safely assume, based on the 2000 census, that at least 65-70% or more of US scientists are religious.  Are these close-minded individuals?  No, they have just formed their opinion based upon the evidence at hand.  If the evidence supported creationism they would be creationists.

I see Ockham's Razor butchered to death on this site fairly frequently(I am guilty of this as well).  I think this lack of understanding of Ockham's Razor is a big contributor to this misunderstanding of 'hardline' skeptics.  When Ockham's Razor is applied to this situation it will only leave 2 possibilities from the options provided in this thread.  Digital Editing and Fishing Line.  To realize this we must understand what Ockham's Razor means.  Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.  An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way.  But the speculative examples of light breezes, vibration, etc. does not rule out any alternatives since no data or recreation using these methods has been provided.  Because of this, these examples add nothing to any argument.  Thus, these examples are an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

Yes, it would be fairly easy to make the flashlight light up with digital effects, but it would involve a coordinated effort between TAPS and Pilgrim.

It wouldn't take as much coordination as you imply.  Furthermore, the level of coordination holds 0 relevance on the discussion at hand.  The complication of the situation does not eliminate it from consideration unless said complication makes it impossible.  I think it is safe to assume that, while complicated, it is not impossible.  In fact, because it has been shown to be possible; it(along with the fishing line) should be held in higher esteem than any other example until evidence of the speculated possabilities is presented.  We must hold any possibility with supporting evidence in a higher esteem than theories lacking supporting evidence.

They could rig it up with string, but conditions aren't the same as other string tricks, since Grant doesn't have any kind of special access to the flashlight.

I don't understand why you mention Grant here.  The question at hand isn't "Did Grant rig this?" and is in fact "Could TAPS have rigged this?"  Weather or not Grant has access has 0 relevence on the facts.  Grant isn't mentioned at all in this thread until you bring him up.

Neither of these objections are proof that it didn't happen that way– more like explanations on why my mind isn't going in that direction.

Nothing in this thread is proof that it happened one way or another, however, it is an exploration of what is most likely to be the case.  As I believe I have shown, Ockham's Razor only allows for 2 of the possibilities discussed in this thread until further evidence can be provided.

The flashlight trick is one of those cases where I could see TAPS fooling themselves, and involves no photoshop or string to accomplish it.

This is your personal opinion based on what you want the case to be, not what the evidence suggests.  I would also prefer this to be the case, but I wont allow myself to form my opinions based upon anything except the evidence.  Understand that I would be quick to change that opinion if the evidence supported something other than my opinion.  Until more evidence can be provided I will believe that we are being hoaxed concerning the flashlight.

A Adams said:

This is not an attack on your comment Sovalis but a sincere comment.

I didn't take it as such.  There are no personal attacks in your comment.

And I admit you are all way out of my league on this logic stuff but to me I feel that your argument based on "rules" of logic still does not mean that me, or a ghosthunter, a flashlight, a discussion thread, a film crew necessarily will or has to play by some logistician's "rule"?

I think you misunderstand the query.  We are not discussing some one's intent, but weather or not what we witnessed was paranormal.  Ockham's Razor isn't concerned with weather you adhere to the logic of Ockham's Razor or not; it will still apply.  Furthermore, we must use logic when analyzing any evidence brought forth.  Using logic is one of the only ways we can guerentee that we are on an equal footing when debating our points of view.

 I just seems to me that the uncertainty of it all (none of us were there on the GH film set or afterwards in the editing room, etc) and so that would allow for any and every possibility. Especially when you factor in almost "limitless" special effects possilbilities that cannot completely be left out because we just don't know- none of us having been there.

This is flawed logic.  Just because we weren't there doesn't mean we can't apply the scientific method and produce evidence one way or another.  This would apply to evolution and the big bang the same way.  None of us were around billions of years ago to witness either the big bang or evolution, but evidence of both remain.  Scientists have formulated theories and tested those theories to the conclusion that these are widely excepted in the scientific community.  We can apply these same principals to the flashlight situation.  We were presented something that appeared abnormal.  We were told it was paranormal.  We have formulated theories as to what we believe is going on.  Some of those theories have been tested.  All of those theories have been provided for peer review(these message boards).  We have made our conclusions based on the evidence.

We work with what we have and what we don't have (firsthand account experience of the GH incidents in question) and so I see us (or rather our speculations) all on equal playing field.

As long as logic and the scientific method are used then we are all on an equal playing field.

 We can debate and dismiss those that don't make sense to each of us individually but we can't be expected to speculate or rather find the answers, based on the rules of some "rule" in this situation. 

Ockham's Razor and other elements of logic are not rules that only apply to someone if the subscribe to them.  Logic forms the backbone of the scientific method.  They are interconnected; you can't have one without the other. 

Applying logic rules (THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES TO THE FLASHLIGHT INCIDENT, ETC) to third hand quarterbacking discussions of a filmed and manipulated show  is kinda of like applying the rules of physics to a magic show or action movie. Does that make any sense?

First of all, I never said that there are only 2 possibilities to the flashlight incident.  I said that only 2 of the theories presented in this thread stand up against Ockham's Razor at this time.  The other theories in this thread maybe what is really going on, but if we applied Ockham's Razor at this time they would be disregarded because they don't rule out any alternatives.  The other 2 have been shown to be possible so they would be included as possibilities.  Ockham's Razor isn't a magical rule of logic that will give us answers.  It will only give us a list of options that are possible and a list of things that are not possible given the current evidence.  When additional evidence is presented these lists will change.  There are only 2 possibilities within this thread that have provided evidence, hence Ockham's Razor cuts everything else out.  As far as applying the laws of physics to a magic show or action movie; while we may get presented something different from the production, it all still has to adhere to the laws of physics.