Dr. Peter Venkman said:

Best case would be the analysis being done by members who were NOT involved in the investigation, afterwards corelating what they catch with what the team experienced.

Long ago I suggested they do distributed analysis. After the investigation, make all the evidence available for download and review. You'd have a myriad of people looking over every second of footage. Would sure add some transparency to their "investigations" A much needed transparency, I might add.

They used to do this. "Let's put it up on the site and see what people think" When was the last time you heard Jason say that! Been a while, hasn't it!

For a team that has supposedly been involved this long, their techniques are third-rate and amateur. After multiple misses, they don't change their styles and continue to miss. Walking around randomly waving equipment? Come on! At least set up a grid of recording thermometers and EMF detectors and synchronize them. It's not that hard!

Heh, just thought of something.  If the string were taken into the stairwell and draped over the light, to keep it out of the way of foot traffic, etc, when it was pulled it would move the chair and the light at the same time.

Found this interesting……………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohfocjCX2sc

CreatureFeature said:

what if said:

Found this interesting……………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohfocjCX2sc

---

OUCH…

Here's that videos' creater addressing Grant's blog directly.  It is apparent that what Grant wrote was in direct response to the video Fraud-O-Rama listed above.  This guy was a big former fan and his anger and disgust are really apparent.  WARNING: strong language.

FYI, is it just me or is the Digital Recorder kontera link in Dr Peter Venkman's post (#61) above giving alerts to anyone else's virus scanner. Trend Micro is having a field day with it. (note…this is nothing that DPV posted, it's just the kontera link that shows up _in_ his post)

Yeah Random, I 100% agree with you.  Some of the miscues really dont bother me that much, but biggest for me was the audio in the earpiece, and just how FAKE that voice sounded. And the collar blunder. But overall, I really, really like(d) this show. And most likely I will continue to watch.  (My son is done with it though lol)  But itll be hard to not look at it the same as I did before. It is very unfortunate, the had a great thing going, if only they couldve kept their integrity. Damn $$.  LOL

PS No probs with Kontera here….using Avast btw

Dr. Peter Venkman said:

To add to your #3 -

S02E13 The Cresent hotel - Grant is to stay in room 419, where people's bags are found propped up against the inside of the door.

During the setup, Dustin goes to put a camera in that room and Grants computer bag is found to be propped up against the inside of the door.

Forgot about that one.  Yup, Grant is involved once again and we have only his word to take for it.

Grant's behavior is more then a trend.  It seems to be his "stock in trade".

Nosfer said:

 What in particular is suspicious about this, other than it being in Grant's room?

---

Something's gone strange with the quoting  below is my comment - Dr.V

---

Other then if it was not paranormal that he was the one person who could set it up with basically no effort and effectively zero chance of being caught since it WAS his room ?

WHOEVER had this room would be the prime suspect if we smelled a hoax - it just happened to be Grant in this case.

I agree with Nosfer — when Grant is standing right next to a faucet and it turns on, that's circumstantially suspicious but if we're going to take paranormal claims seriously (and that is somewhat of a tenet of this site) then it really doesn't prove anything. Given the same two options (ghost or Grant) the jacket pull at least shows us that Grant is acting in a highly suspicious manner during the incident (right hand near pocket, etc). 

Conversely, the luggage in the hotel room doesn't even necessarily place Grant in the right location at the time the activity occurs — partly because we don't know exactly when the activity occurs, but ultimately this means we don't just have two possibilities (ghost or Grant) but now we also have to consider it could have been done by many different people in the building up to and including hotel staff. If we can't narrow it down to "ghost or Grant" then it's Tier-3 in my book — which means I wouldn't include it on the list because it dilutes the strength of the "Grant List's" argument.

Keep in mind that Tier-4 (on my scale) is for incidents where Grant cannot reasonably be suspected. This includes the door slamming in the McKeehan House investigation, but very few other noteworthy incidents. Certainly this luggage example does not qualify: as you pointed out, it is clear that Grant would have to be included (and perhaps head) any list of suspects.

For any who care, but don't care enough to go back to page 2 of this thread, the tiered system I suggested was basically this:

Tier 1: Incidents which seem suspicious, and where Grant is the only reasonable suspect. (e.g. Jacketgate)

Tier 2: Incidents that don't immediately seem suspicious, but if it were hoaxed then Grant is the only reasonable suspect. (e.g. Faucet)

Tier 3: Incidents that may or may not seem suspicious, but if hoaxed could have been pulled off by a number of different people, including Grant. (e.g. K-II interviews)

Tier 4: Incidents that may or may not seem suspicious, but if hoaxed Grant could not reasonably be included in the list of suspects. (e.g. McKeehan Door Slam)

Dr. Peter Venkman said:

OK then … so the candle going out in Ft. Delaware rates a tier 2 ?

It appears to be almost the exact criteria as you apply to the faucet.

I would think so. I don't think I gave it a ranking when I first suggested it, but Tier 2 is where I would put it.