• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghost Hunters

I wasn't aware that the TAPS boards (which is how I got into skepticism) banned skeptics. I've been an insufferable skeptic there, and have yet to be banned. Did have a warning once for stuff with a moron playing with contrast levels in tight locations and saying it wasn't drawing. (oversimplification)

TAPS does stuff wrong. They use their equipment wrong. They come to unsupported conclusions. That said, they aren't all that bad. Want bad? The Warrens (though one of them is dead now, so not so bad.) Paranormal State. Most Haunted. A Haunting.

I like Ghost Hunters. Mostly the beginning of each show where the history and stories are told that is.
 
I wasn't banned from there, but saw MANY posts disappear that were, in the eyes of the moderators, too critical of TAPS. And their die-hard fans are/were really pissy to people who showed too much critical thinking, imo. But the disappearing posts were creepy to me. I recall seeing one where someone actually stated that Skeptics have NO right to question TAPS even if they went out murdering babies in the streets. It went poof. That one I could understand, tho. But there were many others so I just stopped going there.
 
Last edited:
I used to love that show. I thoroughly enjoyed debunking their research and guessing which "researchers" were manufacturing fake evidence and which were hired as "straight men". For instance, in the first season of the series, I suspected Brian Harnois, the equipment manager, to be behind many of the "paranormal" incidents. I noticed that after he left temporarily, there were fewer such incidents, and those that did happen were less showy than the ones in previous episodes. When Brian Harnois returned to the show, the spectacular events kicked up again.

I've also always suspected Grant, since so many of the events seem to center around him. In one episode, while the camera was pointed directly at a table where Grant was sitting, the table seemed to "jump", and of course the team went wild. This scene was an obvious set-up from the gate. Grant called the cameraman over and made him focus the camera on the tabletop, claiming he needed the light from the camera in order to change the batteries in a piece of equipment. Not only does each cast member have a flashlight, Grant has enough experience working in the dark that he should have been able to change the batteries without any light at all. I've worked in a darkroom before, and I can load and unload a camera, change batteries, change reels on negatives, flip the film, load it into any type of carrier you want, and pour myself a glass of water without spilling it in pitch-darkness, and I don't have near the "years of experience" that Grant Wilson claims. Grant distracted the cameraman, and when his camera was directed away from the rest of the room, he kneed the heck out of that table, making it "jump".

There are a few other incidents focusing on Grant Wilson, such as the collar pull. There was one when a faucet "turned itself on" in another room. Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, using their elite Roto-Rooter skills, swore it was the type of faucet that could not engage itself due to a buildup in water pressure and gases. However, the camera was focused on Jason, who was standing on a ladder in an attic at the time the water went on, and Grant was supposed to be at the bottom of the ladder, near the bathroom where the faucet was. Of course we couldn't see past Jason to determine where Grant was when the water went on. We just had to take his word for it, naturally. There was another incident where a mysterious piece of glass materialized out of nowhere, and of course it didn't match the nearby broken windows. That's because Grant Wilson tossed it when the camera was turned away. You couldn't see him, but his shadow was visible in the shot.

Jason Hawes is aware of the fakery and helps plan it, but he does less of the actual work of faking "evidence". Early on in the first season, he established himself as the "tough boss" and was less likeable than Grant Wilson. A lot of the show depends on the likeability of the cast, as it adds to the overall credibility of the show. I believe that due to Grant Wilson's gentle, "nice guy" persona, he's the natural person to perform a majority of the hoaxes.

An interesting thing about the show is the cast turnover. There have been so many people who have been in an episode or two, never to be seen again. Some of the older cast members have disappeared or been transferred to Ghost Hunters International. A lot of these started out as low-level "investigators" on the main show. I believe that the franchise (Ghost Hunters + Ghost Hunters International) needs a constant influx of new cast members who aren't aware of the hoaxing in order for the shows to survive. For instance, members such as Dave Tango, Dustin Pari, and Andy Andrews were very gullible when they first started on the show. As they became more experienced and learned how to set up hoaxes themselves, they were moved to GHI and new novice investigators were brought in, so that there's always someone who's scared out of their wits when something "paranormal" happens. Remember Keith and Carl Johnson, the twin "demonologists"? It's my belief that they are rarely on the show because either one would blow the whistle if they saw any fakery whatsoever, especially considering that Keith is a former priest. You'll also note that in the few episodes where they appear, the "paranormal events" are of the less flamboyant variety, and never center around either of them. Even though I personally feel like demonology is a load of crap, there's no doubt in my mind that the Johnsons believe in it deeply, and are honest men who want to help those that are afflicted by "demons".

I believe that the reason that the show has such a high turnover rate is because some of the former straight men are true believers, and they are so offended when they discover the fakery that they simply quit the show. The participation of other members, like the Johnsons, is kept to a minimum if it seems like they would disclose the hoax if they saw it happening. Those that discover the hoax and willing to stay are taught to do their own hoaxing, promoted, and transferred to GHI.

It's possible that TAPS began as a genuine hunt for paranormal activities, and the Ghost Hunters show forced the members of TAPS to begin faking evidence. After all, who would still be watching, if they never "found" a single thing? As it is, they have a hardcore following: people who believe in ghosts, and skeptics who want to catch them faking. 95% of their "evidence" comes from misusing the equipment or simple mass hysteria; only 5% of it needs to be actively faked. That 5% is enough to keep both the believers and the skeptics on the edge of their seats.
 
No, what skeptics here are doing is presenting evidence that Grant is faking evidence. I see the evidence that Grant fakes evidence as more compelling than Grant's evidence of the paranormal.

Sure, the natural explanation is the more plausible one. But the paranormal explanation has not been eliminated.


I think you meant to say that you're skeptical of skeptics. In context, that makes much more sense.

IMO a skeptic is not someone who is rigidly fixated on one view, but questions both the believers and the debunkers.

"Apology" (above) strikes me as more of a believer than a skeptic. (S)he starts with a belief (TAPS is faking everything) and then selectively attends to evidence that supports that belief. Beliefs should be driven by the evidence, not vice-versa.
 
Last edited:
Sure, the natural explanation is the more plausible one. But the paranormal explanation has not been eliminated.

IMO a skeptic is not someone who is rigidly fixated on one view, but questions both the believers and the debunkers.

I think we're in agreement on these points then. For the record, I enjoy watching the show, I'm just really disillusioned after so many instances of easily debunked faked paranormal events, the moving chair, the collar tug, the Eastern State blanket figure.

But still, it looks as if to your mind, nobody will ever definitively debunk anything TAPS does. What would convince you of faked events?
 
"Apology" (above) strikes me as more of a believer than a skeptic. (S)he starts with a belief (TAPS is faking everything) and then selectively attends to evidence that supports that belief. Beliefs should be driven by the evidence, not vice-versa.

I do believe that they are faking evidence because they have yet to produce a single scrap of "evidence" that couldn't have been produced by simple sleight-of-hand.

The only acceptable evidence of paranormal events will be evidence that cannot be reproduced through terrestrial means. The only evidence that will be acceptable will be evidence that does not rely on taking the "investigator's" word for it that they didn't tamper with the evidence.

Name even ONE incident on the show that couldn't be reproduced by sleight of hand or cast tampering and also doesn't rely on cast statements that "there was no one else in the room/on the floor/nearby that could have done it" and we will discuss that bit of evidence. A youtube link would be nice, so that we can all watch the clip for discussion purposes.

When Ghost Hunters premiered, I was very excited about the show because they promised to use scientific means to investigate these reported "hauntings" and promised to investigate with a skeptical approach. However, after only a few episodes, it was clear that they were misusing their equipment and suffering from pareidolia on a regular basis in order to support their own beliefs of paranormal activities. After a few more episodes, it was clear that they were using trickery to create even more spectacular "paranormal" episodes.

I gave them an honest chance to prove their case. They did not do so. If you would like to direct us to some more compelling evidence than what has already been discussed in this thread, feel free to do so.
 
I think we're in agreement on these points then. For the record, I enjoy watching the show, I'm just really disillusioned after so many instances of easily debunked faked paranormal events, the moving chair, the collar tug, the Eastern State blanket figure.

But still, it looks as if to your mind, nobody will ever definitively debunk anything TAPS does. What would convince you of faked events?

Video or audio evidence of faking which permits no other plausible explanation, e.g. Grant and/or Jason caught confessing to faking the events or perhaps the mechanisms of their faking caught on camera (rather than just the results, e.g. if Grant's jacket were taken off and we could actually see the string running from his pocket to the collar).

Credible documentation, such as a written confession with Grant and/or Jason's validated signatures.

Multiple, credible eyewitness accounts of persons who witnessed faking of evidence and/or confessions by Grant and/or Jason.

Granted such conclusive evidence would be hard to come by, but the fact remains that until such evidence is produced the paranormal explanation cannot be completely dismissed.
 
Apology, as I have said their evidence is not conclusive and lends itself to alternative explanations. That doesn't automatically mean "fake."
 
Sure, the natural explanation is the more plausible one. But the paranormal explanation has not been eliminated.

Plausibility and probability are critical factors when deciding what to research. Anything paranormal is automatically at the bottom of the scale owing to a complete lack of any credible evidence. Such things are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from fiction. It is therefore only proper to tentatively dismiss the paranormal until such time as the more likely explanations have been refuted.
 
Apology, as I have said their evidence is not conclusive and lends itself to alternative explanations. That doesn't automatically mean "fake."

It does, however, mean that claiming a place is haunted, is not justified.
 
Just saw the "collargate" video.

Notice first of all the debunker doesn't completely reproduce the incident. You can never see the placement of his right hand, so he never illustrates how long a tug would be needed and that it could be done without making his hand movement apparent. I'd find this debunking more convincing if he had actually shown that what he is proposing is possible.

Otherwise I'd say this video suggests a lot but doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying Grant is innocent, just not proven guilty.

Here is the choice. A spirit caused the tug, Grant used string or thread to tug the jacket. Nothing happened at all, Grant is mistaken and his imagination leads him to believe he felt something. Or Grant is telling the truth.

For anyone to disbelieve him just because we feel like it would be unjustified. But for anyone to disbelieve him because he has not shown us that a spirit is the only likely scenario, is completely justified. Since there is evidence that string and thread exist it is up to Grant to convince all of us that a spirit was the only way his jacket could have been pulled. The details of the tug are not important, only the possibility that it could have been a trick

We can agree it is impossible to rule out every possible explanation, but any skeptical conclusion is only tentative and is a measure of probability. So using a trick as an example, knowing that string could have been used and looks like string is being used is the alternative explanation. We do not need to rule out every single possible explanation, all that is needed for disbelief is that his explanation does not elevate itself to a status of being the most probable.
 
Me, I'm trying to cash in on a split level built in 1958. Maybe it will explain the squirels in the roof, but the story isn't coming together.


Don't give up! The building I work in (the San Antonio Central Library) is under 15 years old, and there are already rumors of ghosts.
 
I thought it was amusing when they were in some old Romanian castle. They were going around asking the spirits to show them a sign. And they were asking in English.
 
I do believe that they are faking evidence because they have yet to produce a single scrap of "evidence" that couldn't have been produced by simple sleight-of-hand.

The only acceptable evidence of paranormal events will be evidence that cannot be reproduced through terrestrial means. The only evidence that will be acceptable will be evidence that does not rely on taking the "investigator's" word for it that they didn't tamper with the evidence.

Name even ONE incident on the show that couldn't be reproduced by sleight of hand or cast tampering and also doesn't rely on cast statements that "there was no one else in the room/on the floor/nearby that could have done it" and we will discuss that bit of evidence. A youtube link would be nice, so that we can all watch the clip for discussion purposes.

When Ghost Hunters premiered, I was very excited about the show because they promised to use scientific means to investigate these reported "hauntings" and promised to investigate with a skeptical approach. However, after only a few episodes, it was clear that they were misusing their equipment and suffering from pareidolia on a regular basis in order to support their own beliefs of paranormal activities. After a few more episodes, it was clear that they were using trickery to create even more spectacular "paranormal" episodes.

I gave them an honest chance to prove their case. They did not do so. If you would like to direct us to some more compelling evidence than what has already been discussed in this thread, feel free to do so.

Apology,
Were you ever on the SciFi forums? Anything they tried to pull, (anything paranormal) was completely and thoroughly debunked. Especially by one guy, I can't remember his name but his avatar was a muppet scientist.:)
One show had them practically fainting when they "saw" an image on their ridiculous infrared camera. the mupper scientist showed that the image had been tampered with, to actually change the time stamp. It was all very meticulous and well done.
Another episode when TAPS went to Monterey California. They went to a restaurant that is advertised as "haunted" to get the tourist trade. Both of them acted disgusted that their hosts had tried to "trick" them with faces in the bathroom mirror and shaking chandeliers over the bar. Well, when asked why they had traveled across the country to investigate this place, they did not know in advance about these "setups" that are advertised on the restaurants web page. They got all huffy and said the new girl was supposed to research the place, but didn't do a good job. What a load of hooey.

Staunch,
I wanted, really wanted to believe. But if there is anything paranormal to be found in this world, TAPS couldn't find it up their own butts with two hands and a flashlight. They want to stay on TV. That's all. :(
 
Last edited:
I would love to see a bunch of people, especially including TAPS, put into an old house where none of the inhabitants had noted "ghostly" activity, especially if that house had been within the same family for multiple generations.


Don't worry, they bring their own stuff, such as the penlight i.e. small flashlight that magically turns on (or off, I forget which) when set on the floor for awhile, which is not just one with a bent up contact mechanism that disconnects as it cools, which we know because they're honest and on the up-and-up and they'd never lie to us while producing wow moments to help keep the TV show audience ratings up and their income incoming.



And let them "discover" all sorts of "spiritual influences" which none of the residents detected. and result from the psychological problems of the "experts" rather than anything "spiritual.

It's only a psychological problem if they don't know what they're doing is wrong. Given the money and prestige involved...
 
Apology,
Were you ever on the SciFi forums? Anything they tried to pull, (anything paranormal) was completely and thoroughly debunked. Especially by one guy, I can't remember his name but his avatar was a muppet scientist.:)
One show had them practically fainting when they "saw" an image on their ridiculous infrared camera. the mupper scientist showed that the image had been tampered with, to actually change the time stamp. It was all very meticulous and well done.
Another episode when TAPS went to Monterey California. They went to a restaurant that is advertised as "haunted" to get the tourist trade. Both of them acted disgusted that their hosts had tried to "trick" them with faces in the bathroom mirror and shaking chandeliers over the bar. Well, when asked why they had traveled across the country to investigate this place, they did not know in advance about these "setups" that are advertised on the restaurants web page. They got all huffy and said the new girl was supposed to research the place, but didn't do a good job. What a load of hooey.

Staunch,
I wanted, really wanted to believe. But if there is anything paranormal to be found in this world, TAPS couldn't find it up their own butts with two hands and a flashlight. They want to stay on TV. That's all. :(

Dreamsinger. His analyses of several episodes of Ghost Hunters is available on his site: http://paranormal.darkrealmlabs.com/?page_id=234
 
Dreamsinger. His analyses of several episodes of Ghost Hunters is available on his site: http://paranormal.darkrealmlabs.com/?page_id=234

:D Of course, Dreamsinger!
Anyone needing an education on the "paranormal" per the TAPS group should read his website. He analyses were solid, as in real.

:idea: Wow, it would really be fantastic is Dreamsinger would analyze the PGF.

:duck:
 
:D Of course, Dreamsinger!
Anyone needing an education on the "paranormal" per the TAPS group should read his website. He analyses were solid, as in real.

:idea: Wow, it would really be fantastic is Dreamsinger would analyze the PGF.

:duck:

I checked this out. He does some impressive work. I'm sold on at least one debunking -- the statuette that is assumed to be an apparition. I think that one is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Still not convinced that TAPS are frauds, but these debunkings are certainly food for thought.
 
Apology,
Were you ever on the SciFi forums? Anything they tried to pull, (anything paranormal) was completely and thoroughly debunked. Especially by one guy, I can't remember his name but his avatar was a muppet scientist.:)

No, I haven't been there, but I'm reading his work right now and it's fantastic. Thank you so much!

I taught my nephew some of the basics of logic and debunking while watching Ghost Hunters. He went from being a fan of the paranormal to a fan of skepticism over two seasons of watching the show.

We also watched a few other shows that were even worse, and as a result, he positively hates "psychics", because I pointed out to him how they influence everyone else in the room to be frightened, start imagining cold spots and mysterious noises, etc. Once someone points out the suggestive power of the "psychic", it's pretty easy to spot, and becomes an eye-rolling event.

There was an episode of a show (I think it was Most Haunted) where the homeowner's dogs were supposed to be terrified of the home and neighborhood pets "mysteriously" disappeared. We noted that the homeowner was becoming more and more excited, nearly hyperventilating, and speaking more loudly and rapidly as she approached the house with the dog. The faster and louder she talked, the more nervous the dog became. It was obvious that the dog was becoming upset because the owner was upset, rather than sensing any arcane presence in the house. In addition, the home was located on a very busy two-lane road in a semi-rural area, and most of the homes in the neighborhood had split-rail fences, so it wasn't hard to figure out where the local pets were disappearing to---doggy heaven :( Somebody eventually got a good deal on that house, provided that they either properly fenced it in or refrained from having pets that would run into the road.

Good times. :popcorn1
 

Back
Top Bottom