Stephen said:

Hi Sovolis–

(These comments refer to Sovolis' first post, #11.)

I *AM* a hardline skeptic, and proud of it. I have never said that hardline skeptics are too closed-minded, since I am one. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

All I said was, "I don't think they're particularly trying to do a hoax." Not that they definitely weren't hoaxing. They've been caught hoaxing elsewhere. I have no vested interest in this not being a hoax, and if you could give me evidence that this was a hoax, I would love it.

I bought the flashlight. I did the experiment. I duplicated the effect. So, for me, existing principles provide an explanation just fine. The simplicity of the explanation– that these flashlights, properly prepared, will turn on by themselves– appeals to me. I've proven it by experiment, and hence have evidence that I find compelling and verifiable. In addition, the flashlight flickers on in precisely the manner depicted in the video– with an initial stutter, and staying on at about half intensity.

Your counter to this one is that you believe that flashlights have been turning on with more regularity after Wright-Patterson. That would indeed be interesting, but an impression isn't enough. Can you give me, at least, episode titles where this happened? Are you sure that this is an independent variable, or did they perhaps increase the frequency of flashlight experiments after Wright-Patterson?

Now let me explain my comments regarding coordination between TAPS and Pilgrim and Grant, since those comments probably didn't make any sense without context. For that I apologize– I was dashing off the previous comment as I was running for work.

Most of their more evident hoaxes, or at least the ones done with string, have been in areas where Grant had some special access. See "The Grant List" thread for details. That's what I meant by "conditions aren't the same as other string tricks." As I said, I was not advancing this as evidence. I was not using this fact to argue that it was not a hoax. I don't see why I need to do so, or why I would, since hoax hunting is one of the main points of this place, and certainly of my participation here.

So in the end I just don't see why the Ghost Hunters would bother to fake an effect that would happen anyway. I'm not basing this on theory or supposition, but on actual, tangible evidence. I've been there, done that, bought the flashlight. Could they have hoaxed it? Yes, and if you can provide me with evidence of that I'll be a happy man. Until then, I'll hang on to my opinion, as you may certainly do with yours.

Hi Stephen-

Good to hear you are a hard line skeptic.  So am I however I am sure everyone here already knows that;)  I meant no offence by the statement, but let me clarify.  The statement was not directed at you as a person, but you as a representative of skepticalviewer.com.  When I first found this site I read the home page and a statement about "hardcore skeptics who dismiss as worthless any evidence short of three simultaneous videos from divergent angles showing the same flying saucer gassing up at their local Exxon station." left a bad taste in my mouth.  I understand that it is made as an example of an extreme case, however I have never experienced a skeptic of this caliber.  I decided to stick around and have not experienced an attitude against hard line skeptics.  When I read your statement "We've got to be careful with the "it worked, so it must be a hoax" idea, seductive though it is." I interpreted that as an attitude against hard line skeptics.  I see that I misinterpreted your statement and will assume that I misinterpreted the statement made on the home page.  I apologize for misinterpreting and any offence toward you or skepticalviewer.com.

I am not saying one way or the other that they are hoaxing.  What I am saying is the evidence in this thread only supports the 2 theories regarding hoaxing.  This isn't to say evidence to support the other theories can not be provided.  I think they can; however no evidence has been provided.  I would be very interested in seeing evidence to support these theories.  In fact I am confident I haven't officially stated which theory I subscribe to, but instead have stated which theories should be held in the highest esteem given the current evidence.  "Current evidence" is an important distinction.  As new evidence is revealed; the esteem each theory is held in must be re-evaluated.  I can not provide evidence that this was a hoax beyond the evidence that has already been provided.  If I could I would provide it; however I have never stated that this is undeniable a hoax.

I commend you for doing the experiment and gathering your own data.  I am very interested in seeing this data, and I am sure you will provide it if you are able.  Until that data is provided only you can accept it as evidence and allow it to frame your opinion.  This is not a statement against your capacity to perform the experiment and collect data.  It is a statement about the consistency of the evidence we review. I understand you have no reason to dupe me, but if we consider your statements without evidence then we must consider TAPS' statement it is paranormal with equal credibility. 

My statement about flashlight experiments after Wright-Patterson was to suggest that either they increased the frequency of the experiment(in turn increasing results) or the frequency remained the same but the occurrences of results increased.  Both of these cases would result in more of this activity being broadcast unless increased frequency of the experiments didn't directly increase results.  In my own defence, I did state that my memory of this may be faulty(I haven't watched much GH in the last 6 months to a year) and that it was irrelevant anyway.  The frequency of the anomaly has no relevance on weather the anomily is paranormal or mundane.

For the statement about Grant I accept that you were not advancing this as evidence.  The point I was trying to make was 1) Grant is not directly implicated and 2) other cases involving Grant or string are independant of this event unless a link can be determined.  Those points being made I agree these cases can not be advanced as evidence.

In the end I believe that you are basing your opinion on evidence and not a supposition however you are privy to evidence that I don't have access to at this time and can not base my opinion on the same evidence.  Could they have hoaxed it?  Yes, unfortunately I can't provide irrefutable evidence to support that claim.  Could it be mundane sources?  Yes, unfortunately evidence of this has not been made available to everyone on this board so I am forced to form my opinion on the evidence I have access to regardless of what I believe the case may be.

I hope that I have clarified my position.  Again Stephen, I meant no offence to you or the entity known as skepticalviewer.com and apologize if any was taken.

I just saw the previews for the upcoming GH season starting in March and its baaack. Regardless of how they make it come on I think its totaly ridiculous and embarrassing to try to use a flashlight with the back unscrewed as a scientific tool for proving that a ghost is present,  and  exactly how many turns do they unscrew the back to make this tool work 1/8, 1/2, 3/4,  at least the K-II looks more scientific.

Still trying to get the hang of posting comments here but thank you for bringing this topic up!!!

The first time i saw the Flash Light Trick (yes it's a trick) I thought it was interesting, but after the second or third time it became laughable.  How these "ghosts" know to put the EXACT amount of pressure on the back of the flashlight to light the bulb but NOT move the entire light is beyond me.  Not to mention that if said "ghost" has the ability to light the bulb, how come they don't ask it to roll the flashlight from side to side?  It's a tiny, round object, one would think that it can simply be rolled with from side to side with the same amount of pressure it takes to actually light the bulb.  Eventually one of these ghost will move the entire flashlight right?  I mean, they open doors, attack the investigators, move bed sheets, you mean to tell me they can't move a tiny flashlight?  The simple fact that they go back to this method for evidence is beyond me, it's easily debunked and just looks like a crock! 

Obviously I'm interested in these types of shows but Ghost Hunters has really let me down…like another commentor wrote, if I watch it, I watch the reveal and that about it.

Revenant said:

andiamo said:

Eventually one of these ghost will move the entire flashlight right? 

---

First off, hello and welcome. 

So to answer that question, I believe that it has already happened.  I don't remember the name of the show, but I distinctly remember Jason laying on a couch with the flashlight in his hands and it "mysteriously" flew into the center of the room.

Revenant,

I appreciate your response.  I'm not familiar with the episode you mention…but its refreshing to hear that the flashlight did more than just simply turn on.  It really is a shame that the flashlight moved whilst in Jason's hand…if it were on the floor it would have really been something to see.  Funny how these ghosts operate right? If you can't tell by now, I'm obviously a skeptic, but I'm also a fan of the show.  Call it a fascination with the unknown if you will.  I watched what I thought was a new episode last night and man was Jason giving it to his underlings…I think the lack of evidence is getting to them…and one can't help but wonder if they are manufacturing some of these paranormal occurances.  After doing some research I've found that pretty much anything is possible with the help of a camera and a good hoaxer (which is pretty disheartening).