The Skeptic's Cliff Notes
Here is a brief rundown on some of the more controversial pieces of footage TAPS has claimed potentially paranormal. While there may be some chance a few of these are paranormal, chances are much better that they are not. Read on for details.
1) ESP Apparition footage: Even Jason says it looks like a guy in a cloak, but Brian does a terrible job attempting to reproduce it and somehow that qualifies it as real. There is a lot of minutia about how fast the figure moves or whether or not it bobs up and down like a human, but most suspicious is a what appears to be a large sheet hanging a few feet beside where the "spirit" enters and leaves the camera's view. Some claim this was used as a marker so the hoax-ster could see how far he could go before the camera would see him.
We know for sure that it sways noticeably when the "spirit" passes by but the thing that REALLY makes it suspicious is that we were shown a different recording from that area just an hour before and the sheet WAS NOT THERE. This means that someone went up there and hung that sheet, and it also means TAPS would have to have caught this person on camera, but no mention of this was ever made by TAPS.
2) Chair moving in the lighthouse attic: Forget about people who have cleaned up the footage and see what appears to be a string tied to the chair. It's grainy footage and what looks like a string might just be noise in the video. The fact that the chair seems to move slightly TOWARDS the stairs also seems a little suspicious. Certainly if the chair moved AWAY FROM the stairs, that would have been a lot more convincing. But the real suspicious part is that during the investigation we see that Grant comes down from the attic in the middle of the investigation and he is CARRYING the folding chair.
During the analysis we see Grant get up and walk down the stairs WITHOUT the folding chair, yet when he explains this departure he doesn't say "I just got up to go get a soda". He says he was cutting his attic investigation short because of the heat. The disconnect between Grant leaving the attic WITH the chair and Grant leaving the attic WITHOUT the chair certainly isn't enough to pass judgment, but it *is* enough to cast suspicion. If he was leaving for good, we would expect him to have taken the chair with him, not come back for it later.
3) The lamp moving during the season 2 opener: We see (before the lamp begins moving) that the power cord runs off the back of the table, under a frame of some sort and down to the electrical outlet right next to the table. Later in the investigation we see footage which shows the power cord has been removed from under the frame and now hangs off the side of the table closest to Grant. Furthermore, we see that rather than hang loosely down (as it was before) the power cord is clearly taut as if being pulled by either Grant's left hand (tucked under his right arm) or someone (or someTHING, granted) behind Grant's chair.
Again, this isn't PROOF of a hoax, and also not PROOF that Grant is a hoaxer, but we know for sure that the power cord from the lamp was being manipulated during the evening. Jay and Grant filmed a "debunking" which purportedly shows the lamp could not have been pulled by the cord without moving the tablecloth, but they showed us 2 attempts, neither one of which matched up with what we see in the footage of the taut power cord. Of those 2 attempts, the tablecloth only moved the first time and that was when they were trying to pull the cord straight down towards the floor while the cord was still pressed between the frame and the tablecloth (which we know is not the angle at which it was at when seen last). Also of note: the following day, when they walked into the room to "debunk" the cord being pulled, the cord had been miraculously replaced underneath the frame.
4) The FLIR Footage from the Mason Murders episode has been proven to be doctored. At no time during the analysis or reveal did the audience see TAPS in posession of the doctored footage, so TAPS may be entirely innocent and this may have been done by the post-production company. Some speculate it was not meant to be fraudulent, simply to add a visual aid of sorts to the program but others decry the failure to properly label is as a DRAMATIZATION if that were the case. In any case, innocent or not, TAPS's credibility is on the line and they need to respond to this in a big way. So far Grant has only said he was looking into the matter.
Read more about this on the Doctored Manson FLIR page.
Comments on The Skeptic's Cliff Notes »
Emmy @ 10:10 am
Glad to see this.
Sadly it's needed as there seems to be a lot of dodgy stuff coming from TAPS.
It would be great to see each written up in its own article.
Oh yes, and what about that alleged full body apparition caught on a locker door? To me, it appears to be a heat reflection of Grant, right down to showing the monitor of the FLIR he's holding.
But I could be wrong, it'd be interesting to see a discussion/examination of those claims.
Dianna @ 2:34 am
If TAPS is confident about their findings, why not have someone like yourself appear on the show after a controversial "find"? If there is no doctoring of evidence the show's producers shouldn't mind.
I watch the show, but you certainly have raised some questions in my mind. Too bad TAPS won't respond to your inquiries. Before reading through your site, I was slowly becoming a believer.
Boo @ 9:47 pm
I think the ghost on the locker is caused either by bumps/defects on the locker, or maybe even something exotic, like a 'painting' of a soldier under the final coat of pain on the locker.
The reason I think this is if you look carefully at their recreation attempt, you can see some features of the 'soldier' reappear in the exact same spot they were originally. Jason & Grant missed it because they were looking down and left too far for the image, and only parts of the image reappeared.
My 'painting under the paint' theory is based on an idea that different colors under the final coat may cause the locker to reflect heat a certain way, causing the image to show throw to topcoat.
I don't think it was Grant's reflection b/c it doesn't seem to move (only changes color), and it appeared in the same spot the next day.
It would be interesting if someone reinvestigated this locker with a similar camera if they can get it.
If you want to see the footage I'm talking about, watch the recreation attempt, and look to the upper left above the #2, you should see parts of the soldier reappear in the same spot (but not the full apparition)
FearTurtles @ 7:13 am
First to the author of this web site. I enjoy how you keep such an even tone to your articles. You simply state your observation and opinions. Thanks.
As for the FLIR locker footage opinion above. The FLIR camera does not capture and record heat; it captures and records the IR light that is associated with heat. So all of the rules of reflection apply. Now if we go back to when we were in grade school we can remember that a blue object absorbs all the colors of the visible spectrum except the color blue. That color is reflected and is what we see. So many objects might be able to reflect IR light we just can't see it with our eyes. A good experiment is to take a camcorder with nightshot and look at a closet full of cloths. You will notice that even some black items will appear white to the camera. So in the end it is more likely that the locker was able to reflect IR light. One thing your theory missed is that the solder moved.
One thing that I will add is that a viewer visited the locker after the show and noticed that the top portion of the locker had been wiped clean. This would make it a better reflector. Just food for thought.
C.L. @ 12:35 am
How about tonight's episode with the 'big man' they caught on with the IR camera in the master bedroom? Upon first seeing it, I'm thinking "reflection", only then they go to great lengths to prove it wasn't, regardless of the large mirror in the room. When they were recreating the shot in the mirror, I felt the images looked VERY similar to what was caught on film originally…only closer to the camera, therefore allowing you to see more detail.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Grant originally say that it couldn't be reflection in the mirror because they "hadn't gone that far" with the panning of the camera? only later in the reveal they point out the mirror as they pan by it, then seem to come back TOWARDS it right about the time the head and torso appear (which would be consistant with a reflection in a dresser mirror).
Seems they spent most of their time talking everyone out of thinking it was a reflection and barely showed the footage enough for you to judge on your own.
Logisti @ 10:57 am
C.L. - I'll be posting an analysis of that episode shortly.
tracy @ 11:30 am
Logisti, do you look at older episodes as well? i ask because i watched the repeat from Savannah the other night and was reminded of what i think is the most faked footage from TAPS i've seen. the "apparition" that goes back and forth behind the pool table in the pub? it looked so stupid!
Logisti @ 4:34 pm
I've been thinking about going back through some classic episodes but I guess I needed a little help choosing which episodes. Do you remember the specific name of this episode or the name of the location they were investigating? If I can dig it up to re-watch I'll definitely give it a write-up.
J. @ 8:01 pm
Logisti, it is the episode titled Ghost Hunters Halloween Special… and the date for it is October 31 2005. It's the one where Brian becomes part of TAPS again.
And the review of that episode by "entil2001" saying that the "ghost" in the basement looked super-fake is right on the money.
It's weird, the Eastern State Penitentiary episode was on November 3rd 2004, and almost exactly a year later, in the Halloween Special, the person-in-a-cloak thing happens again. It sure looks like that anyway. Coincidence? I don't think so.
mark @ 11:04 pm
Ghost Hunter's Halloween Special i think, first aired 10/31/2005
Keep up the good works guys, awesome stuff!
mark @ 11:20 pm
What do you guy's think about the *slave in distress voice* in the Bader's House investigation? If that was legit…*WOW*
but i would question this since it is so clear like it was just someone speaking, most evp's i have heard so far on the show never sounded like that, but again they claim none of them heard it, came from inside, etc. etc., i dont see how this could be paranormal it is so frickin human distinct! Still it sounded disturbing. Again this investiagtion really caught nothing so it makes you wonder if they dont want the episode to be a complete bust and threw this in.
J. @ 11:26 pm
I agree mark, that EVP did sound too clear which immediately made my skeptic sense tingle.
tracy @ 11:33 pm
yes, it's the halloween special from '05.
i also think that voice was a real live person. and not one in a good situation either.
tracy @ 11:52 am
J., i really liked entil2001's review, and i think it's funny how s/he wants to blame SciFi for the suspected hoaxes and not the TAPS team. people really like them, and i can see why. maybe s/he is right, though - maybe SciFi producers push finding evidence for ratings and TAPS must follow along. maybe it is not entirely willing on their part and they have to sell out a bit in order to have their show.
J. @ 7:01 am
tracy, entil is a guy. If you click on his name it will take you to his user profile and in the about me section on the right it tells you a bit about him. He gives good reviews of GH.
If they do have to sell out a bit and then push bad evidence, or hoaxes for that matter, on us like it is good evidence — due to pressure from Sci Fi and maybe others to maintain or increase ratings — it would only hurt TAPS reputation and credibility even further.
The pressure thing seems to make sense though — why else would they promote such weak evidence as being paranormal that leaves us scratching (or shaking) our heads? Surely they are not gullible enough to believe some of it themselves. It raises the question: What the heck is going on here?
Of course not helping TAPS credibility is some of the stuff they do on their own, some of which is mentioned in this article (The Skeptic's Cliff Notes). Stuff like that only increases skepticism of them, their claims, and their evidence — and rightfully so.
I hope Ghost Hunters International doesn't suffer from the same problems as its predecessor.
I.G. @ 4:14 pm
I love watching the show, but have always done so from a skeptical point of view. As the paranormal, UFOs, Big Foot, etc. go I'm like Agent Mulder - I want to believe! The hard reality of the physical world keeps me planted firmly in the skeptics corner however. Still, it is fun to watch.
Ghost Hunters is much better at least than Travel Channel's Most Haunted. That one is fun to watch for the laughs it provides and I think they were proved fake a while back.
All that said, I hope Ghost Hunters isn't faking things on a large scale. I suppose Sci-Fi wants sightings and perhaps TAPS is under pressure to provide them.
Does anyone have thoughts on the tech guys who was ran over or run through by something? I forget where they were.
Meanwhile - Dude, Run!
mark @ 2:37 am
New Bedford Armory I.G. as Logisti pointed out in his post on revelations. Frank, one of TAP'S camera people got assaulted by his equipment bag.
This in one of the most interesting things i have seen taken place on this show so far. A funny thing about this is that this guy was a big skeptic before this happened to him. Its hard to believe this was staged, but i am not an expert.
Kbro @ 11:16 pm
Found a good site that tries to debunk the "ghost in the locker door" footage. After seeing this site, I'm convinced it is a reflection of Grant. Keep in mind the footage you see during the show is slowed down in post-production. Go here:
http://www.ultimatetechlinks.com/CrescentHotelAnalysis.html
Dave @ 1:09 pm
Re: Moving Chair at Lighthouse
Actually, I don’t believe it was deliberately faked or pulled by a string or something.
But when I first watched that episode I immediately rejected it as the paranormal, and for good reasons.
It should be understood that lighthouses, by the sea, are very windy places. As a point, the windows in a lighthouse typically have to be made small so the glass wont break due to the wind and differences in air pressure.
The door to the attic was open. I believe the light, portable chair was moved by a strong air current caused by someone opening a door to the outside, somewhere in the lighthouse, causing the air to whip around and moving the light chair.
At least, that’s my take on it.
– Dave
Logisti @ 2:10 pm
Dave, I like the way you think. That sounds entirely plausible. On the other hand though, Grant said the reason he got up and left was because he couldn't stand the heat — so that would seem to rule out the room being very drafty *OR* we have to call Grant's story into question (again).
Either way, it's a great hypothesis but if that really is what happened then Grant doesn't come away looking much better.
Dave @ 4:28 pm
To: Logisti,
Re: Chair and Hot Attic
Low pressure inside (hot) - high pressure outside (cold). It wouldn't be constant draftyness but a fast rush of air if someone momentarily opened a door to the outside. True, occasionally Grant would feel something, if he was up there long enough and if, from time to time, someone opened a door. But it's still my hunch that's what's happened.
Of course, Grant may have figured it out and didn't say anything because it looked good on video? But it's that business with the Slave Shack Lamp (see other thread) that's really damning.
– Dave
Dave @ 10:06 pm
Re: Prison – Figure Running Down Walkway.
Here’s the YouTube version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ModpBhMkEM&feature=related
After playing this over and over again (the first 5 seconds), what you’ll notice is that the dust floats around at normal speed, and when the figure backs up and begins to move forward, the dust starts moving at about twice as fast as it was moving.
It’s as if the figure walked backward until illuminated then ran forward, except that the video was sped up at this point. All of which suggests that the fast motion trick was to make the figure appear to be moving faster, and also to make it harder to get a proper look at it. Did I miss something - or is there something fishy going on here?
– Dave
Stephen @ 1:30 am
I think Dave's explanation might work. Just because there are no drafts from outside doesn't mean that someone else opening a door inside the lighthouse can't cause a pressure shift. Not definitive, but possible.
There's something very strange about the chair footage. Not paranormal-strange, not even necessarily hoax-strange. Half the time I swear that the chair never moves, but that the light shifts. At the very least, there's an autofocus event at the very worst time.
Dave @ 11:30 pm
Re: Moving Chair
Ya, Steve, your right.
I’ve just got a cheap copy of it (about as good as the YouTube one).
I can’t actually see the chair in its original position (too dark and a lousy copy on my end). But something’s also funny going on with the camera’s auto focus. [Just to mention, I can never figure out why they just don’t put the camera on wide angle and at a single focus point so you don’t get that distracting in and out of focus effect.] It also looks like someone’s either fiddling with the light, on the other side of the door, or the light is shifting (because of a breeze?). It all could be due to a shift in lighting? – but I originally figured the GH’s had a sharper copy and saw the chair move, and I took their word for it.
Here, another fault in their methods appears to be a lack of ability to brightness/contrast correct the image in postproduction, or blow up the frame, etc. — Pity.
– Dave
Logisti @ 8:37 pm
The dust in the prison speeding up is easily explained thusly: Whatever we saw on the camera (a guy wearing a sheet) stirred up the air as it moved. It doesn't take much air movement to turn "calm" dust into "crazy" dust. There is no need to overcomplicate things by presuming someone messed with the film speed.
Dave @ 1:25 am
Hi Logisti,
Re: Dust Moving Faster: Prison Figure (also see: Skeptic’s Library, Why All The Distrust)
First, the camera isn't that close to the figure.
Second, person running away would have created, if anything, a slipstream effect. This would, in principle, cause a suction of the dust moving “away from” the camera. But the footage shows the dust speeding up “into” the camera – the same direction it was going before sighting the figure.
Speeding up the footage up is, of course, an old Hollywood, special effects trick. You see it in things like fight scenes (sword play, gun play, running, etc.).
The footage still appears to me to have been clearly tampered with, sometime before showing it to the public audience.
– Dave
Logisti @ 9:47 am
Having worked in some very dusty places with sunlight streaming in to give a good (better than I would like) view of all the dust in the air I have to disagree. We're not talking about a wind tunnel here, we're talking about a huge wide-open room. The air currents do not behave in a simple, predictable manner and something as large as a man could easily disturb dust in the air twenty or thirty feet away.
Secondly there is the hanging sheet on the left (the one that wasn't there when they set the camera up), which we *see* move as the figure moves away. This is several feet from the figure and it sways visibly. This not only confirms the air disturbance created by the figure, but it also potentially creates a disturbance of its own, which could potentially not only further disturb the air, but would be pushing it in the opposite direction as it swings back.
Thirdly, and this is perhaps the most important point, there is no motive for anyone to go through the trouble of speeding up the film. It's clear from later episodes (Moon River Brewery, Northern State Hospital)that they don't have any trouble labeling a guy in a sheet as paranormal and asserting that it can't be reproduced by a human.
No matter how suspicious (or outright stupid) a piece of film looks, if it can't be proven "normal" they say it must be "paranormal". I'm not saying the film *definitely* wasn't sped up, but really there is no reason why they would even bother. If they were trying to reinforce their "debunk" they needn't have bothered. Brian was about as incompetent as it gets. If he were to be believed, once it gets dark you lose all sense of balance and can't even *walk* properly.
Essentially it comes down to this: We've seen historically that they would have labeled that footage paranormal even if it looked like an outright hoax. If they were the ones perpetrating the hoax why would they risk exposing themselves by running a potentially detectable camera trick? They obviously don't need the extra credibility to make their claims so it's not worth the risk and it would be stupid to do it.
Dave @ 6:04 pm
L.
Well, after watching the Prison-Specter episode again:
I admit the "stirring up the dust" idea is a good theory of yours – but I’m still going for the "fast motion" trick. I believe it to have been edited to get a jump-cut, when the figure stops backing up, and then the "run-away" part was sped up. At that point, the sheet also appears to wobble a little too fast for my liking. So, in my opinion, someone messed with the footage, probably some time before it was analyzed. I mean, the Team must go to get some sleep after the hunt. This would be a good time for someone to mess with the evidence.
Besides this, I really don’t think anyone could have run down that catwalk as fast as the figure did. With the attempt made to duplicate it, where they tried it with Brian, he had some problems with it also. So, what to do? - fix up the footage so you just catch a glimpse of it and so it doesn't look too fake.
– Dave
Kevin @ 11:15 pm
I don't know where to post this and it's off topic, but did anyone watch Paranormal State on A&E? It makes Ghost Hunters look like hard science.
Logisti @ 11:34 pm
I just watched it actually. Going to do a quick post on it.
John @ 5:33 pm
Episode #315
Original Air date: 10/10/2007
The Gibbons House - Seattle, WA.
My girlfriend and I are fans of the show. We were a bit disappointed when TAPS missed out on a pretty obvious debunking. The footage in question is from Steve's hand-held camera that caught a dark female- shaped figure as he was getting up from a couch. They emphasized that it was a solid figure as no light was passed through it and that the background could not be seen through it.
We think it's pretty obvious that it was a beverage bottle on top of a coffee table in front of the couch. When they did the slow motion replay, you can even make out what looks like a label (maybe white or yellow).
We was wondering if anyone else noticed it? We can't believe TAPS overlooked that.
Thanks.
John and Leslie
John @ 5:35 pm
Episode #315
Original Air date: 10/10/2007
The Gibbons House - Seattle, WA.
Please excuse the typos and bad grammar on my previous post- it's been a long day
SEPA @ 6:34 am
I think the saddest thing in all of this is the fact that I thorougly enjoy the show whether they find anything or not.
I've no idea if TAPS actually tampers with the evidence they "find" or if that happens in post-production because the Sci-Fi Channel cannot fathom why people would want to watch a show about Ghost Hunting when they never see any ghosts.
I tend to think it's the latter. I honestly think Sci-Fi is still confused as to how that show became a bonafide hit. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for GHI (Ghost Hunters International) which may fall prey to the same problem.
Again, I would watch because I think it's interesting. I love the Halloween specials and although I've never seen a freaking thing, I still stayed with it for 6 hours. Why? Because it was fun.
That's why I go out and wander around places …it's fun.
At any rate, I love your site.
SEPA
Dave @ 1:19 pm
SEPA,
Your right, it's really about going out and visiting places, and wondering around exploring. Add to this the chit-chat among the group, and you've got the show. The Ghost angle, is more of an excuse to go out there, and tends to make things more fun and adventuresome.
– Dave
FearTurtles @ 6:51 pm
Here is a link to a website that shows that the ESP footage was shown faster then real time. You can use the same method to show that the bat in the Waverly episode was sped up as well I belive. Or atleast both clips where captured as 15 fps and played back at 30 fps.
http://taps-revealed.gq.nu/eastern_state_penitentiary1.html
Kevin @ 11:07 pm
Like Sepa, I enjoy the show whether they find anything or not. As a skeptic I really like a good debunking, but I think Sci-fi Channel and the show's producers put TAPS under a lot pressure to find a "ghost". Somebody posted Grant's Myspace blog in another thread and I think it's so revealing. He talks about the Gibbon's House episode where Steve apparently caught an entity on film which on further investigation appears to be a figurine on the coffee table. They tried to debunk it, but none of the debunking attempts made it into the show. No mention of the figurine is shown nor any doubts expressed. It appears from watching the show that TAPS considered it valid footage of an entity.
The Eastern State Penitentary show was replayed last week. It was the first time I had seen the original episode, though I had seen the guy-under-a-sheet footage many times. I hadn't realized Jason was very skeptical initially, saying it looked like a person wearing a cape and you can see a leg sticking out. I noticed he didn't get much support for his opinion from the other guys. They went back and tried to debunk it. Brian made a feeble attempt to recreate the scene. Jason and Grant discovered a way out of the corridor if somebody had to avoid getting caught. They also kept seeing or thought they were seeing shadow figures.
Sometime between his initial skepticism and the end of the next two days of investigating, Jason seemed to change his mind. He tried to rule out a hoax by pointing out that the TAPS crew, production staff and ESP staff were having dinner during the time the shadow figure was filmed. But what better time for someone connected with Eastern State to get in and perform for the camera? He also said nobody would know where the camera was, but doesn't the camera have a light?
I also noticed there wasn't a "Reveal" segment for this show where Jason and Grant sits down with the clients and go over what they found. Maybe they think somebody from ESP was attempting a hoax? I doubt they would accuse them on camera.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Dave @ 10:53 pm
Re: State Pen Phantom - Sped Up Footage
FeatTurtles, … thanks for the Link:
http://taps-revealed.gq.nu/eastern_state_penitentiary1.html
I thought the footage looked sped up, at some point, myself (see an older post) but Logisti felt that they wouldn't dare go to those lengths; however, I think the link pretty much proves it. So, it makes things look worse for the taps team who are supposed to be the first people analizing the footage (i.e. the footage was manipulated after being shot).
– Dave
Shawn @ 7:19 pm
The footage is definitely bogus, that's for sure. The only question that remains is if TAPS and/or Pilgrim Films had any part in it. If it was indeed sped up and they could prove it without a shadow of a doubt then it would certainly be damning evidence indeed. I would like to think J & G had no part in it, but if it was doctored up in editing, then it seems highly unlikely that they didn't know.
Also, for whatever it's worth, according to what I read on the TAPS board those sheets hanging on the left side of the frame were up there because ESP does an annual haunted house during October (when TAPS first arrived to investigate). When TAPS came back to try and recreate the footage, they had taken the sheets down by that point.
Shawn
Dave @ 10:48 pm
Shawn, … Interesting point about the sheet. At this point, I think it probably had nothing to do with the faking of the shot; however, its quick wobbling also suggests the footage was sped up.
Here again, my own theory is that, after playing this (see link below) over and over again, what you’ll notice is that the dust floats around at half speed, and when the figure backs up and begins to move forward, the dust starts moving at about twice as fast as it was moving. Make special note that there is no comet-tailing (steaking/motion blur) of the dust but there should be, as pointed out in the dubunk link.
It’s as if the figure walked backward until illuminated then ran forward, except that the video was sped up at this point. All of which suggests that the fast motion trick was to make the figure appear to be moving faster, and also to make it harder to get a proper look at it.
Take a look …..
Here’s the YouTube version of the shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ModpBhMkEM&feature=related
Here's the debunk link, again:
http://taps-revealed.gq.nu/eastern_state_penitentiary1.html
– Dave
Dave @ 10:55 pm
Addition: To clarify post above — there was no "additional" motion bluring of the dust "after it speeds up," but there must be, unless the footage was artificially sped up at that point.
– Dave
Shawn @ 6:46 pm
Forget Eastern State, I'd love for somebody to try and debunk this ghost video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8CP9Hhb58&NR=1
Shawn
J. @ 10:30 pm
I laughed hard at that video.
Who knows, the ghost in that video could be Sheetie's (the ESP "apparition") clumsy cousin.
Dave @ 12:03 am
A drunken or wine-o meandering spirit from beyond????
Uhhhhhh …… maybe not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8CP9Hhb58&NR=1
Andy O @ 8:52 am
I too have always thought that that footage was hoaxed. I noticed right away that you could see a leg underneath that sheet. I hope Sc-Fi doesn't get a hold of the tapes before TAPS does. From my point of view the only real evidence that they have ever gotten in when Frank the sound guy gets ran through by something.
Dave @ 12:19 pm
This YouTube'er is pretty funny. Turn up the volume for full effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e26gXsI_Ak&NR=1
– Dave
Kevin @ 6:54 pm
Thanks Dave for scaring the crap out of me! Why do I always fall for that? I should know better by now.
Logisti @ 1:12 pm
Anyone looking for a bunch of missing comments, I've moved them to their own post here:
http://www.skepticalviewer.com/2008/02/09/conversation-with-a-believer/
JoElin @ 1:22 am
If you have ever seen the episode of ghost hunters where the Taps team investigated that haunted church Jason him self in that episode said that you can't diagnose what you weren't there to experience. Personal experiences are not exceptable evidence without visual evidence to back them up. I am simply saying that you can't judge the taps team based on their evidence, and you cant say that things were fixed or they were a hoax because you were not there when the phenominon happend! By the way there was no string tied to that chair it moved on its own there was no one else in the attic when it moved and they never showed grant coming down with the chair until the investigation was over! Get your facts straight! As far as the apprition caught at eastern state I don't know what sheet your talking about because there was no sheet! I believe what they caught was an actual apparition and you can't except that becuase you are a skeptic but one day you will have a paranormal experience of your own and then maybe you will see it the way the rest of us see it!
CrowTRobot @ 10:13 am
JoElin,
I think most people here actually enjoy GH. (I think the verdicts still out on GHI) I really like when stuff happens like the moving chair, the figure in the lighthouse, the apparition in Eastern State, the various EVPs, etc. But at the end of the day, I'm still skeptical. Partially because those things can be hoaxed - not saying they ARE, just saying they CAN be. But I'm also a bit skeptical because of all the made-for-tv foolishness that goes on…..The never ending 'Brian' saga, the constant trotting out of eye candy masquerading as 'investigators-in-training', the background music for suspense that prevents us from hearing the sounds/voices TAPS claims to hear, not to mention how much stuff happens just off camera.
TAPS is looking for ghosts. Most people don't believe they exist. This show is always going to be ripe for criticism. I actually thing this site handles that pretty well.
D @ 11:54 am
I think what Jason means is not that evidence cannot be examined, but you cannot diagnose personal experience if you didn't experience it as well. That's fine. Again, reference what I said about William James.
My problem with this line of reasoning JoElin is that people can go to the same places and experience nothing. Who's experience are we to believe? Which is more valid? What if there are more people who haven't experience anything compared to people who have? Do we call something "paranormal" because 1 person in 100 have experienced something there?
In the end you're left with evidence to prove your case, and evidence can be examined.
Mary @ 1:54 pm
My question is this - if ghosts are dead, then why do they 'appear' on camera as 'hot spots'? Why would they be hot at all, if they are dead? Wouldn't it make MORE sense that they would show up as COLD spots? And how can ghosts make footstep sounds? If they are just apparitions, they shouldn't be able to stomp or shuffle, right?
TOPS Lead Investigator @ 12:11 pm
As a ghost hunter it is our job to go in as a skeptic and try to debunk any thing that may seem paranormal Jason and his team are good at what thney do and they insire me adn my team to do the same. i am young and still lead investigator. even though i am young and most of my team is older dosent mean that we dont know what we are doing i learned how to hunt ghost when i was 6 because my family believes in paranbormal activity and they go out and try to debunk the paranormal as well. so weather jason and his team say it is a haunting or just paranormal i will believe them until i can prove otherwise. thats all i am saying on this site.
TOPS Investigator in training @ 12:20 pm
i would try to find out why and /or try to recreate what i saw in order to debunk it and i dont think that personnal experiance count as evedince unless 2 or more people experiance it a different time. with all the equipment we use not all capture evidence so that is why it is said for the Evidence analyist to go thrugh it.
TOPS Case manager @ 12:30 pm
well mary to answer your guestion apparitions are believed to be unrested entities. adn whay they show up as hot spots is because they manafest energy and energy is known to make heat so they show up as a hot spot. cold spots are a place where the entity has taken energy from and help investigator to search for paranormal activity. apparitions are unrested entities and well it is not really known how they make the noises that they make or why they do it. demonologist and angelologist may be able to help more than i could depending on which type of entity it is.
FearTurtles @ 7:55 am
Some question that I have about the RaceRock chair is that if that chair moved several feet like Jason stated in an interview then why is it that we only got to see a small clip of it moving inwhich you can barely tell it is? The Change of pressure is an interesting theory however the chair would need to be directly in front of the door to be effected in such a manner. Just the fact that the chair was in a corner makes it easy to rule out and sort of natural air movement as being the cause. I also didn't notice any other indications of a strong air current such as the insulation batts relaxing do to the drop in pressure. For that matter just because the attic door was open would equalize any pressure in the building. So the only area that you would notice any air movement would be at the door which is being opened. And even then it would be marginal.
TOPS lead investigator, You stated that the only way you would change your beliefs of TAPS is if you prove them otherwise. Are you attempting to do just that? If not then your statement is kind of hallow isn't it? I'm not intending this to be an attack. I just found your choice of wording to carry a strong tone. I would encourage you and everyone else for that matter to try and debunk any evidence that you think might be legit. If you can't then I would hope that you look at and try to understand what others say about such evidence.
Oubliette @ 9:50 am
This is as good a place as any to relate what happened to me and another woman when we believe we caught missed evidence when they went to the Crescent Hotel and we tried to bring it to TAPS' attention.
There is a scene showing carpeted steps and then a hallway behind. I thought I saw what looked like a long semi-transparent skirt (nothing showed from the waist up) trailing on the floor and moving through a doorway on the right. When I posted this on TAPS' message board, to my surprise another woman stated she had caught this also.
We agreed to try and find out more and then present it to TAPS'. My job was to do further research on the Hotel and her's was to try and contact TAPS. To my surprise, I found out the Crescent had been a boarding home for young women in, I believe, the late 1800s-early 1900s. Then imagine my shock when on a website about the Hotel there was a "ghost" image of someone sitting on one of the steps–with the exact same skirt that we both saw! Now, I'm really skeptical about photos of ghosts but it shocked me because the skirt was an exact match.
I sent the other woman all the info and a picture of what I found (it was on my old computer so I don't have it at hand). She finally got Steve's attention. His response? "That was one of our producers".
We were both shocked and angry. Unless one of the crew goes around in a long see-thru Victorian skirt that trails on the floor, this lame answer angered us. All our research had been for naught. Did they even consider our finding?
IMO, TAPS will never admit that they may have missed something. WE may have been wrong. Then again, maybe we were on the trail of something. But we felt insulted by such a ridiculous reply. Have could we not recognize a solid human being if such were the case?
This ties in with the ESP ghost in a sheet, though it shows the other side of the coin. (BTW, thanks to Logisti for pointing out the tarp or whatever it was on that one. Very telling.) If they don't catch it, or someone other then a TAPS member debunks it, it will never be acknowledged in a definite manner.
This is what angers me when they claim to be open-minded about the evidence they catch. Nobody is perfect, and there is a ton of footage from each location. Anyone can miss something.
Like my friend said after Steve's brush off-"We both know what we saw, and no one is going to convince me it was a crew member". Could we have been wrong? Sure! But it became obvious to us that they would never admit to a mistake–the only exception was the Queen Mary, and Tango's find made for great television.
Anyone else get the impression they do not take audience members' opinions seriously? Or had similar run-ins with them? That makes for bad investigating. Just because they didn't catch it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
CrowTRobot @ 9:56 am
Oubliette,
Interesting. Could you narrow the time down a bit? I'd like to check it out myself without going through the entire episode.
Thanks,
Oubliette @ 10:06 am
I don't think I have the episode anywhere to view. I'll try to find if it's anywhere on YouTube or someplace else.
Meanwhile, here is the URL of the ghost photo: real or not, it did shake me up:
http://www.crescent-hotel.com/ghosts/photos.htm
Veronimica @ 5:14 pm
Hi folks, I found the episode on youtube, but I'm not sure which part your spot's in, Oubliette. Here's the link to part one…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mc2-qq7CqI
I'm assuming the thing you saw was during the actual investigation, right? If you have a chance to look, I'd love to know which part it's in so I can take a peek at it too!
Thanks, Oubliette!
Oubliette @ 8:39 am
Sorry I haven't been posting back but my husband has needed the computer all week for his online course work.
He has informed me that we have that episode on DVD (I know it was on the other night but I fell asleep) and I need to go over it again as it's been a long time since this occurred. Wish I had my old PC as everything about it was on there. Be sure to backup, people! We learned the hard way