| User | Post |
|
3:38 pm
July 3, 2010
|
hyacinth
| | |
| Investigator | posts 122 |
|
|
New show on the Bio channel starting this month . They state " everybody has a ghost story " well I don't and I don't plan on watching theirs. But I'll certainly read the reviews here .
My Ghost Story : Hauntings Revealed
Search for other upcoming episodes
Everybody has a ghost story. But how many people have filmed theirs? Hear true and unbelievable stories of the paranormal as told by the people who lived through them–and actually captured their hauntings on tape. These harrowing eye-witness accounts of the unexplainable are transformed into more than tales with terrifying visual evidence. You'll have no choice but to believe your eyes.
|
|
|
3:43 pm
July 3, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2959 |
|
|
Let's see…I will have no choice but to believe my eyes. Well, my eyes are connected to my brain and my brain considers what it sees so it looks like I have choices afterall. I don't get this channel but the actual footage would be interesting to see.
Wonder why the visual evidence is going to be terrifying? Aren't there pleasant ghosts anymore?
Hear true and unbelievable stories. Unbelievable, yet I will have no choice but to believe. I see a paradox emerging…
Looks like there's still room on the bandwagon. I guess until the well is dry, more and more producers are going to be chucking their bucket into the depths to see what they can pull out.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
6:10 pm
July 3, 2010
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
Got through the beginning of Belinda Carlisle telling the story of a bird tapping on her window at the same time her mother-in-law died. Then a few years later she told the story to Rupert Sheldrake, who helped her identify it as a jackdaw, which is a harbinger of ill omen and death! Except, thinking about it, it seems like almost all birds are harbingers of ill-omen and death.
Except robins, I guess. Unless you're a worm.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
3:49 pm
July 5, 2010
|
hyacinth
| | |
| Investigator | posts 122 |
|
|
Damn ! I guess that will teach me to pay any attention to ads for tv shows . I thought this was a new show but apparently its in a series of " specials " . One of those that have pictures of orbs and blurry images they tell you show a demon or something or other and people claiming to be scratched by " ghosts " etc . So nothing new after all . Supposed to be on July 10 if anybody wants to waste another hour .
|
|
|
6:17 pm
June 11, 2011
|
Buffy
| | |
| Investigator | posts 93 |
|
|
So I've been watching a few episodes of this, and there was one episode that I was impressed by the amateur ghost debunking attempt. It starts at 8:38. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..fAK8awE8
If only the experts would do nearly as much to try and debunk a phenomenon! FOF needs to watch this episode for a few tips!
|
|
|
10:34 am
June 13, 2011
|
Milli
| | Chicago, IL | |
| Investigator | posts 73 |
|
|
Buffy said:
So I've been watching a few episodes of this, and there was one episode that I was impressed by the amateur ghost debunking attempt.
I actually watched a few episodes as well, following the link you posted. Thanks for that! Well, I think the difference is, these are normal people, working in a normal office building, just trying to do their jobs. Their job isn't ghost hunting/paranormal extravaganza. They aren't on the lookout to capture paranormal phenomenon, but they did, and at first they didn't think of it, and just kept trying to remedy the problem to carry on with their jobs. For a paranormal investigator (read: TV entertainer), debunking attempts will make your show less dramatic and less interesting. You watch a lot of those old Ghost Hunters episodes, and they were BORING, because they wouldn't declare many places 'haunted' and would come up with rational explanations for a lot of things.
but I agree, I would like to see more intense debunking attempts on some of these shows. I think it would make the skeptics/skeptical believers happy, and also show the sheep that not everything is to be taken at face-value.
|
and I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
|
|
|
1:38 pm
June 13, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2959 |
|
|
Milli said:
I actually watched a few episodes as well, following the link you posted. Thanks for that! Well, I think the difference is, these are normal people, working in a normal office building, just trying to do their jobs. Their job isn't ghost hunting/paranormal extravaganza. They aren't on the lookout to capture paranormal phenomenon, but they did, and at first they didn't think of it, and just kept trying to remedy the problem to carry on with their jobs. For a paranormal investigator (read: TV entertainer), debunking attempts will make your show less dramatic and less interesting. You watch a lot of those old Ghost Hunters episodes, and they were BORING, because they wouldn't declare many places 'haunted' and would come up with rational explanations for a lot of things.
but I agree, I would like to see more intense debunking attempts on some of these shows. I think it would make the skeptics/skeptical believers happy, and also show the sheep that not everything is to be taken at face-value.
I watched the two "stories" in the link above. St Augustine. I have to disagree with quite a bit here. First, working in a place of that nature that has a reputation from shows etc is naturally going to set a person up for thinking of such things. Second, these people may not be ghost hunters, but they are ghost story tellers. It's part of their job. They are conditioned somewhat by that. Also, it makes for good business considering the rates that St Augustine charges 
Third, in the first story I saw nothing that indicated that these folks were aware of the term pareidolia when it came to the "faces" in the "orbs". Not impressed.
Second story featured some debunking. But these folks did not impress me too much, either. This had the classic marks of a bug/bugs walking on the globe of the camera. Out of focus because of it's relative distance to the other parts of the room, thus making it transparent.
They are normal people perhaps, and their jobs may not deal with the paranormal, but it's typical of what you see of the masses out there who want to believe. They will. I think there was a lot in those two segments that was taken at "face-value" and shouldn't have been. The guy in the second one offered the challenge that if there was anyone who didn't believe, he would let them look at the evidence. It's not the "evidence" that is the problem in most of these cases, it's how it's interpreted. And I think in both of these cases, it was interpreted just as poorly as some of our favorite shows like GH, GA, GHI, etc.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
12:36 pm
June 14, 2011
|
Milli
| | Chicago, IL | |
| Investigator | posts 73 |
|
|
Nosfer said:
Milli said:
I actually watched a few episodes as well, following the link you posted. Thanks for that! Well, I think the difference is, these are normal people, working in a normal office building, just trying to do their jobs. Their job isn't ghost hunting/paranormal extravaganza. They aren't on the lookout to capture paranormal phenomenon, but they did, and at first they didn't think of it, and just kept trying to remedy the problem to carry on with their jobs. For a paranormal investigator (read: TV entertainer), debunking attempts will make your show less dramatic and less interesting. You watch a lot of those old Ghost Hunters episodes, and they were BORING, because they wouldn't declare many places 'haunted' and would come up with rational explanations for a lot of things.
but I agree, I would like to see more intense debunking attempts on some of these shows. I think it would make the skeptics/skeptical believers happy, and also show the sheep that not everything is to be taken at face-value.
I watched the two "stories" in the link above. St Augustine. I have to disagree with quite a bit here. First, working in a place of that nature that has a reputation from shows etc is naturally going to set a person up for thinking of such things. Second, these people may not be ghost hunters, but they are ghost story tellers. It's part of their job. They are conditioned somewhat by that. Also, it makes for good business considering the rates that St Augustine charges
Third, in the first story I saw nothing that indicated that these folks were aware of the term pareidolia when it came to the "faces" in the "orbs". Not impressed.
Second story featured some debunking. But these folks did not impress me too much, either. This had the classic marks of a bug/bugs walking on the globe of the camera. Out of focus because of it's relative distance to the other parts of the room, thus making it transparent.
They are normal people perhaps, and their jobs may not deal with the paranormal, but it's typical of what you see of the masses out there who want to believe. They will. I think there was a lot in those two segments that was taken at "face-value" and shouldn't have been. The guy in the second one offered the challenge that if there was anyone who didn't believe, he would let them look at the evidence. It's not the "evidence" that is the problem in most of these cases, it's how it's interpreted. And I think in both of these cases, it was interpreted just as poorly as some of our favorite shows like GH, GA, GHI, etc.
True that, Nosfer. I'm not saying I believed their evidence, or that their 'normalcy' made their evidence more credible. And it's true, humans are by nature gossipers and story tellers. That's one thing I always wondered about while watching these shows… they're all good story tellers. Even the kids! I have a vendetta against orbs, so I know where you're coming from with the 'faces' on the orbs.
I'm not saying these people were top-notch at debunking, but at least they showed some effort.
|
and I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
|
|
|
12:27 pm
June 21, 2011
|
Buffy
| | |
| Investigator | posts 93 |
|
|
I mainly meant the office building portion, Nosfer, which is why I posted the time stamp. Sorry for not making that clear. I totally agree with you on the other stuff. Sometimes, they get just as crazy with their interpretations of the events as the paranormal shows and I think that has a lot to do with watching the "pro" shows interpretations. They see "demons" in mists and Milli, I'm right up there with you on the orbs, most of the time they look like bugs to me. My point being was that the attempts seemed more logical in trying to debunk than we see on the professional shows. Would the pros think to change office chairs or the furniture around? Would they think to swap cameras, clean the cameras, bring in the company that makes the cameras, etc.? It could have very well been bugs on the camera and maybe they should
have called in an exterminator as well to rule out the insects. The pros like to say "there is no official explanation for this" without much effort in the debunking. I've seen statements on SV, especially about FOF, not going further with their debunking. The office people at least went a little further then most, heck, you can even say the St. Augustine people went further than most "pros". Although, I would say "allegedly" further for the St. Augustine peeps because you don't actually see them turn off the power or check the windows and you don't see if there are vents near the papers that blew.
|
|
|
2:28 pm
June 21, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2959 |
|
|
I think I'm going to still have to look at these videos with not as much exuberance as some others are as regards the participants debunking or their methodology.
I recall a GH episode where items were looked up (specifications during the firehouse episode) to determine rational reasons for their going off, I don't believe they went quite as far as contacting the manufacturer, but they did do some "research". Determining a walkie-talkie was what was causing a television to go off was pretty good, too. Failing to determine that a walkie could set off an EMF…not pretty good 
The camera episode mentioned above was also the only one of the stories that attempted any real serious debunking, too, though I confess that I have not watched very many of the others to see if that was anomalous, of the ones I saw, it was the only one that mentioned anything approaching a real attempt.
I was glad to see them make the effort of debunking, but they did not really do any more or less than what GH has done during some of the earlier episodes at least. Their (GH's) debunking of the soccerball-sized orb at the Mishler (or Palladium?) theater was quite impressive, even. As was the phantom door during the Converted Church episode during the first season.
The St Augustine people also really did no more than what GH did when they were there as far as effort. GH during the first episode did consider the window noise as being misinterpreted as the oil bucket, and GH has at least debunked orbs as being dust or bugs whereas the people at St Augustine were seeing faces and pipes and sideburns  Given that, I'd say it was a wash between the two, no better, no worse.
Look at Belcourt Castle, though, for an example of the other extreme where they've completely botched it (thermal hit on the floor)
The only real difference I see between GH, for example, and the participants of these stories is that GH does multiple places and has multiple stories whereas these people are just telling the one story.
These might be "everyday" "real" people just "telling their stories" but the ones shown have been chosen for a reason. They, like GH, GHA, GA, etc, are meant to entertain, and what can we really get out of 8 minutes?
If you want to compare their efforts to those of GA, you'll find me much more inclined to agree
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
