I agree– it's pretty impressive, although it doesn't give the visceral chills that I get from the "moving chair".

There are some odd bits, though. (Going by memory here, so please let me know if I'm off the deep end.) Jason puts the camera down precisely so we can't see the handle, but can see the door open. When it comes open again, we have no idea whether the handle turns (ghostly or human activity) or if it stays level (the door was left slightly ajar). It could be chance, but it seems suspicious.

The breaking glass is very interesting. I'd love to see a scientific analysis of the audio recording and the breakage patterns in the glass, but that's not likely to happen. As you point out implicitly, there's no way of being sure that that sound is actually of that glass breaking. The elevator shaft being nearby is interesting. Not only is there the normal effect of the elevator, but the shaft might kick up some interesting standing acoustic waves under wind. Enough to break a glass? Doubt it, but I'd love to find out.

So it's not proof. In fact, no video put out by an effects house could be proof. I'd really like to believe that the Ghost Hunters are honest. Little things like that camera placement make me doubt (and also bigger things discussed elsewhere).

While I am a fan of the show and what TAPS does, I do agree some of the footage could be faked – not that it is, mind you, but it could be. But some of these are a bit farfetched. I guess my question – and feel free to respond via e-mail – is why this site is so convinced TAPS is not a real ghosthunting venture, and if you don't believe in it, why do you continue to watch the show? Seems weird to me…

In response to Reservoir_Writer, I think there are four basic types of viewers who watch this kind of show.

1) Viewers who are interested in the paranormal because they want to believe.

2) Viewers who have a more scientific interest in the paranormal and aren't going to go out of their way to believe it, but think it would be pretty cool if someone had proof.

3) Viewers who don't believe in paranormal phenomena but enjoy the "spookiness" of the show much like they might enjoy a creepy horror film.

4) Viewers who don't believe in the paranormal and basically align with Houdini, who spent many years exposing mediums and mystics as frauds because he felt it was dishonest and wrong for them to profit by pretending to have supernatural abilities, proof of an afterlife, etc.

Personally, I fall into category #2 but I've got a lot of respect for those in category #4. I watch because I want to be "wowed" with some incredible piece of evidence that I cannot easily dismiss. On the other hand, when I'm shown easily dismissed evidence and told how amazing it is, it does not help the show's credibility in my eyes.

Hope that answers your question.

I'm going from memory here too…but doesn't the video (Jason's room) not show the bottom of the door as it's opening? I can't remember. I do remember that the glass is not seen until he turns the camera on it at which point it is broken (which seems a little shady to me).

Also…to correct what was said in the original post: None of the scenes or the stories from The Shining are true…nor did they come from personal experience at the Stanley. Stephen King and the Stanley both say that it is entirely fictional. King stayed a weekend at the Stanley and was inspired by the off-season solitude he experienced and from there came up with the the story of the Shining.
The supposed ghost children on the 4th floor are said to be children of the lower-class workers who lived on that floor during the Stanley's hey-day.

I've personally been to the Stanley many times, stayed there and was also married there and I can't say I've had one experience that was paranormal. I also notice that the ghost stories change based on who is heading up the ghost tour that day.

Right, Cristy, that's what I meant by my ramble about "camera placement"– you can't see the bottom of the door, and you can't see the handle. Normally, I'd just chalk it down to bad luck, but Jason had just put that camera down specifically to catch that door opening– why didn't he check its field of view? Still probably just carelessness, grogginess, and bad luck. Maybe I'm being naive.

Logisti, I think I have a dash of #2, a heavy dose of #4, and maybe just a hint of #3. If someone showed me valid evidence that ghosts exist, I'd be blown out of the water– but I'd accept it. Plus, I have to admit to a bit of #3– I don't think that a show about Loch Ness Monster sightings would keep me quite so riveted.

[...] The Stanley Hotel: There was of course the incident in Jay's room that is certainly intriguing — and another one of those moments where you really feel either [...]

I guess I'm kind of with sneaker98 on this one. I think it's a little overboard to call anything Jay did in that scene "suspicious". It would have been nice to catch the bottom of the door, yes, but not only is it entirely plausible that Jay just made a mistake — it's the middle of the night and he just woke up and repositioned the camera so I would *never* expect him to have set up some perfect angle.

I'll happily retract the word "suspicious". As I've said elsewhere, I'm not trying to figure out whether or not Grant and Jay are hoaxers. I'm interested in whether the things they show us start to approach the level of evidence.

Without seeing the handle, I can't see if it turns– so I can't see if what we're seeing is a latched door opening, or an unlatched door blowing open, or something else entirely!

We hear that they latched it, but if I could simply take their word for things, I wouldn't need to analyze the footage. I could just listen to their verdict at the end.

Unfortunately, what's "overboard" is subjective. Which is more likely– that an opening door is caused by the disembodied spirit of someone who has died, or that perhaps the door wasn't latched as well as they thought (or any other non-paranormal explanation)? Our estimates of likelihood are personal, and so evidence like this isn't objective evidence.

I'm still curious about the glass, though. That could be something interesting.

I don't think "overboard" is as subjective as you think. "Suspicious" may be objective to an extent but saying the door was manipulated by dead spirits is completely unprovable as therefore even more "overboard".

As for the door handle, we don't see the door open — just the door closing. There would be no need for the handle to turn at any point, whether or not it latched. The only time that might be useful would be if we actually saw a supposedly latched door open by itself.

Now, this has actually happened at least twice on the show and now that you mention it I'm going to pay close attention to the door handle the next time I see those clips, but this Stanley Hotel clip is not one of those times — Jason has the camera aimed at himself on the bed at the time that the closet door opens.

Reviewed the footage. I stand corrected; the door was indeed closing. We hear a couple of clicks, and then we immediately cut to Tango telling us that it latched, and that that's paranormal.

I'm a little unclear on that bit. Let's say that something non-paranormal (e. g. air currents) closed the door. Why is it paranormal that the door would latch itself?

I'm afraid you lost me somewhere in the suspicious/overboard sentence. If what you're saying is that claiming the door was manipulated by spirits would be "overboard", well, yes, I agree. My point simply is that I can't use "overboard" in an argument and still play fair. Otherwise I'm using my belief that spirit phenomena are unprovable to prove the unprovability of spirit phenomena. And I'd hope nobody'd let me get away with that.

I have no explanation for the glass breaking. Doesn't mean that it's evidence for the paranormal. It may simply mean that I'm not bright enough to think of one.

Stephen, there isn't anything unfair about "overboard" — I'm just saying let's keep speculation to a minimum and focus on what we can see. What we *didn't* see was a latched door *opening* and that would have been significantly more impressive (although we still couldn't be sure of the cause).

As for the door latching itself when closing — I agree wholeheartedly. No matter how excited they get about the door latching, the fact that it did really doesn't mean anything.  If there was any breeze at all in that room then we might not be able to explain a latched door opening (which we have to take Jay's word for) but we could easily write off the door closing (and latching) on it's own as an entirely natural occurance.

Essentially, this incident is one of those times when we have to rely heavily on what Jason says happened — so even if you trust 100% that he is on the level and that no one was hiding in the closet and helping him stage this, because we're relying on an eyewitness we can't really *prove* anything anyway.  I like to categorize incidents like this as "raising questions".  As you say, just because you cannot explain it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly normal explanation — but it's still intriguing.

Darn. And here I thought we disagreed.

Here's a question: what would you consider undeniable evidence for the existence of haunted houses? (I'm afraid I've been technically misusing the term "proof" above.)

I'm trying to formulate what my standard of belief would be. I'm not sure that anything that TAPS could offer me would suffice.

Stephen, i know your question was aimed at Logisti, but i have thought about what it would take for me to believe in evidence as "undeniable proof" and i'm afraid i would have to agree with you. i think anything could be discounted from this show.

but i would like to be wowed in some way. for instance, the St. Augustine lighthouse episode was fairly impressive to me. i can't say that it is beyond a doubt paranormal evidence, but i do believe in it to a certain degree.

the only evidence that could convince me would be a personal experience. for example, if i heard footsteps in my house when i was alone. or if i saw a figure go into a room when i was the only one at home. other than that, it is pretty darn hard to prove, i think. i keep hoping for that awesome piece of evidence, though…

I'm going to take a stab at answering this as best I can. I'm going to change "Haunted Houses" to "Paranormal" and define paranormal as something that cannot be plausibly explained using current scientific knowledge.

I also like the St. Augustine episode and I would say that that if TAPS had gone in there with a group of independent, skeptical observers tagging along, several of which were known to me as serious, reputable scientists and professional magicians/illusionists — if that group of observers was able to confirm that all of the audio/video evidence was captured properly and that none of the cast or crew was involved and that the environment was not compromised in any way (no hidden closets for someone to hide, etc) *THAT* would convince me that *something* not explainable by traditional science occurred.

Actually, scratch that.  It would have to be independantly verified to convince me — and by independantly verified I mean a completely different group of people (no TAPS) investigating a completely seperate (but similar) location and coming up with similar results.  By similar location I mean only that the lighthouse is one large room, only one way to move through it and only one entrance/exit — so it's almost an ideal controlled environment.  Anything like that would do for the second investigation but the location couldn't be somewhere complicated because the more rooms/floors/etc the more chance someone is tampering with the environment.

i posted that your show is rateings only and guess what you took my posted off i us the truth about yourself and your show is a little hard to see just like your paranormal con. a true paranormal investagator

I took your posts off because 1) your english is absolutely terrible to the point where it's nearly impossible to understand what you are trying to say and 2) it's not *my* show — in fact, if you bothered to read any part of this site it should be immediately obvious to you that I have nothing to do with the show beyond the fact that I watch it.

first of all the comments I made was not aimed toward you It was aimed at taps and what a con job that they put on the air.[2} i do not understand how you can say my english was terrible just because i told the truth. And from a paranormal position this makes us all look like con artist If TAPS is going to do this at least try not to make us look stupid.

Besides come on the ball rolling across the floor, the lamp on the table, the chair in the attic,all i am saying is that they need to think out how it looks before they say that a house or anything is paranormal. Logisti I have read some of your comments and you have the same observation that I have had

Well I don't think anyone from TAPS spends a lot of time on this website, so you'd be better off not directing comments to them.  This website is run by people who watch the show like you and me.

Also, I didn't say your English was terrible "just because you told the truth". I said your English was terrible because I couldn't understand what you were saying, but it sounded angry and on this website everyone is expected to be cool, like little Fonzies.

Your last two posts were much better English, but just remember TAPS does not have anything to do with this website and all conversation here is requested to be civil and polite.

Sorry if I sounded angry I did not mean to. And your right I will leave sorry I made that impression. thank you

oookaaayy….that was a bit strange. not sure i understand this whole interaction, but it was highly entertaining!