RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
Sooo, you think they faked faking it?
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
Most of the time is the operative phrase in your quote.
In this specific case we have:
1) scenes taken directly from the TAPS show (Ghost Hunters Live it looked like to me) which can be verified by viewing the show as broadcast to make sure there was no digital manipulation or even editing trickery if need be.
2) no extraordinary claims on behalf of the claimant. The only claim which is being made in the TAPS video shown is that it's apparent that the guy in the coat (sorry didn't catch his name) has his hood/collar pulled down, and that by the way he is positioned that he has some sort of apparatus to do this.
The ability to do this is well within the bounds of scientific knowledge, thus viewing the video as supplied COULD supply enough evidence to either confirm or deny the claim of TAPS cheating
3) No one has supplied any rational counter to the fact that the coat pull looks exactly like someone with a bit of fishing line(example only, it could be something else) pulling on his own collar/hood that does not invoke some utterly improbable scenario.
4) the footage is clear.
With regards to Youtube in general I do not believe any skeptic would have a problem with evidence provided on Youtube just because it was on Youtube, but because the video itself does not hold up.
Look at the Downwind Faster than the Wind Device in the Science & Mathematics section, at first it appeared that the evidence was insufficient and trickery may have been involved due to the nature of the device, but after an explanation from Spork & Co, along with new videos that showed experiments designed by it's skeptics, it is now thought to be an actual (if counter-intuitive) working device, even though most (all?) of his videos were posted on Youtube.
***
Sorry Chillzero, the majority of my post is in regards to the TAPS video and I hadn't seen your post prior to submitting mine.
***
Last edited:
stephenenelson
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 65
(Sorry to revive a dormant thread, but I think it's an interesting topic.)
As Audible Click said a while ago, we've documented a few suspicious cases where TAPS is concerned over at Skeptical Viewer. Others (such as DreamSinger over at darkrealmlabs.com-- sorry, still getting to the link-posting stage) have done so as well.
First, let me acknowledge that we have never quite reached the smoking gun level of the Most Haunted outtakes available on YouTube, where you can see Yvette Fielding fake a ghost moan or Derek Acorah proclaim himself a liar in anagram. TAPS has been, in my opinion, far more careful. Still, there are plenty of cases that are hard to explain any other way. We may not have a smoking gun, but we have a hole in the wall and a strong smell of gunpowder.
The first well-known case is the moving chair at the Race Rock lighthouse. Dark Realm Labs has done the best analysis I've seen here. There's an unexplained black patch on the stairs and something (or someone) blocks the light as the chair gets pulled.
Next, of course, there's the Jacket Tug. FORMERGHFAN is rightfully famous for doing his 3D analysis. Of course, the analysis doesn't prove anything in itself, but it calls attention to a number of strange things about the clip. Why does Grant keep his hand hidden the entire time? If he's being pulled backward, why does he kick his leg out to counterbalance as he leans backward, rather than stepping backward as one normally would?
When Ghost Hunters came to the Mount Washington hotel, Grant and Jason were investigating a dark hallway. There was the sound of a small piece of glass clattering off the wall. Jason says, "What was that?" and finds a piece of glass on the ground. Just an ordinary episode of GH, except that during a panning camera move immediately before the sound, we can see a shadow that looks like Grant's arm flinging something.
I'm just an ordinary viewer without any unusual knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes, but after the collar tug I was unable to suspend disbelief any further. TAPS claims to be a skeptical organization, but it seems to me that they're not above enhancing the show with cheap tricks.
As a reward, they've just been renewed for a seventh season.
As Audible Click said a while ago, we've documented a few suspicious cases where TAPS is concerned over at Skeptical Viewer. Others (such as DreamSinger over at darkrealmlabs.com-- sorry, still getting to the link-posting stage) have done so as well.
First, let me acknowledge that we have never quite reached the smoking gun level of the Most Haunted outtakes available on YouTube, where you can see Yvette Fielding fake a ghost moan or Derek Acorah proclaim himself a liar in anagram. TAPS has been, in my opinion, far more careful. Still, there are plenty of cases that are hard to explain any other way. We may not have a smoking gun, but we have a hole in the wall and a strong smell of gunpowder.
The first well-known case is the moving chair at the Race Rock lighthouse. Dark Realm Labs has done the best analysis I've seen here. There's an unexplained black patch on the stairs and something (or someone) blocks the light as the chair gets pulled.
Next, of course, there's the Jacket Tug. FORMERGHFAN is rightfully famous for doing his 3D analysis. Of course, the analysis doesn't prove anything in itself, but it calls attention to a number of strange things about the clip. Why does Grant keep his hand hidden the entire time? If he's being pulled backward, why does he kick his leg out to counterbalance as he leans backward, rather than stepping backward as one normally would?
When Ghost Hunters came to the Mount Washington hotel, Grant and Jason were investigating a dark hallway. There was the sound of a small piece of glass clattering off the wall. Jason says, "What was that?" and finds a piece of glass on the ground. Just an ordinary episode of GH, except that during a panning camera move immediately before the sound, we can see a shadow that looks like Grant's arm flinging something.
I'm just an ordinary viewer without any unusual knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes, but after the collar tug I was unable to suspend disbelief any further. TAPS claims to be a skeptical organization, but it seems to me that they're not above enhancing the show with cheap tricks.
As a reward, they've just been renewed for a seventh season.
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
Would you mind explaining that a bit more and pasting a link if you have one? I never watched TAPS so I have never seen that vid and I would love to see them get hoisted by their own petards.
[/QUOTE]
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2,207
But...but...ORBS!
Explain THAT, Mr. observes evidence man!
Explain THAT, Mr. observes evidence man!
stephenenelson
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 65
There have been many questionable events on Ghost Hunters, but the standout is their 2008 Live Halloween show. They were investigating Fort Delaware, an old military base, and had already gotten a very fishy-sounding disembodied voice saying "You're not supposed to be here."
Grant (the smaller, non-bald one) was walking down a hallway when suddenly the back of his jacket collar crinkled up, and he leaned backward as though he had been grabbed by the collar. "Something grabbed onto my jacket," he claimed. This happened twice more.
There are a number of YouTube entries analyzing it. You can find some links in the top post. Some of my favorite analyses are from a user named FORMERGHFAN:
And, of course, we discuss it over at Skeptical Viewer.
stephenenelson
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 65
You have me there. I have no explanation of why someone would think that random specks in their handheld camera photos would be ghosts.
Sorry if this backtracks a little but when someone cites Joe Nickel as a “credible paranormal investigator” I can only shake my head in awe at the blind faith of a belief system that could have produced such a statement.
I simply think people should be made aware that there are actually investigators out there conducting applied science in the realm of paranormal investigation (eg: http://www.spinvestigations.org/research.html) - (as opposed the opinionated pseudoscience spouted by Nickell or the TV-land trickery of TAPS).
Nice link. I especially like their "definition" of a ghost; hardly makes any assumptions at all, other than being all supposition.
Cainkane1
Philosopher
This shows going from bad to worse. These days they have a box that lights up when a ghost touches it.
Last edited:
"There are many sites that attempt to define “ghost”. From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth. In other words, scientifically, there is no such thing as a ghost, by this definition. So let’s redefine what we are researching.
I propose that a “ghost” is a term applied to any non-ordinary phenomena that manifests itself in the physical dimension upon which we exist with out
appreciable physical properties, but which leave markers in the environment that can not be readily explained. I am sure we could build upon this basic definition to flesh it out more, but you get the idea. So we are charged with a mission, should we choose to accept it, of further defining this phenomena we have labeled a “Ghost”. In order to do this, we must understand everything that is going on surrounding the event. (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)
I propose that a “ghost” is a term applied to any non-ordinary phenomena that manifests itself in the physical dimension upon which we exist with out
appreciable physical properties, but which leave markers in the environment that can not be readily explained. I am sure we could build upon this basic definition to flesh it out more, but you get the idea. So we are charged with a mission, should we choose to accept it, of further defining this phenomena we have labeled a “Ghost”. In order to do this, we must understand everything that is going on surrounding the event. (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)
To what precise suppositions do you object?
The ones in the preamble to the nonsense you quoted. Like "soul" or "spirit" or "apparition." Talk about other "planes of existence." Quoting other pararnormal nonsense from other paranormal groups as an introduction to your own nonsense is still nonsense.
stephenenelson
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 65
Rramjet: Basically, that definition fits any cluster of anomalies. For example, the Pioneer spacecraft is moving slightly faster than it should according to the known laws of physics. Is that extra acceleration a ghost? It's non-ordinary. It leaves markers in the environment that cannot be readily explained.
I would be less concerned about definitions if the evidence were stronger. For example, I don't really have a good definition of a smile or a river, but people can show me these things. For ghosts, all I have is a collection of interesting anecdotes and some video taken under uncontrolled conditions.
Rramjet: do you consider TAPS to be "credible paranormal investigators"? If not, what makes them not credible, and what are your criteria for credible paranormal investigation?
I would be less concerned about definitions if the evidence were stronger. For example, I don't really have a good definition of a smile or a river, but people can show me these things. For ghosts, all I have is a collection of interesting anecdotes and some video taken under uncontrolled conditions.
Rramjet: do you consider TAPS to be "credible paranormal investigators"? If not, what makes them not credible, and what are your criteria for credible paranormal investigation?
Strange ...I could have sworn the passage I quoted contained the following statement concerning such things as you mention:
"From our perspective, however, they all have one major flaw; they are metaphysical opinions of a source for specific phenomena rooted in folklore, with no scientific supporting evidence to enrich the definition with truth." (http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_is_a_ghost.pdf)
..oh, wait...it DID contain that sentence...huh.
...and I could have sworn that the only thing of "mine" in the post you reference was a single, small question:
"To what precise suppositions do you object? "
...so according to you such a question is "nonsense"? Huh.
Perhaps you would care to actually answer the question?
I think the incredulity of TAPS has been well outlined in this thread so far. As for my criteria for credible paranormal investigation …well perhaps you would care to comment on the methodology of this group (http://www.spinvestigations.org/)?
Learjet
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 173
I'm still reading through it, but I don't think the purists would like it. There's a mountain of speculation amongst the research and some of the ideas are quite bizarre, yet thought provoking.
Better than the average paranormal group anyway. I'll keep reading...
...so according to you such a question is "nonsense"? Huh.
Perhaps you would care to actually answer the question?[/url]
Yes, the link you provided was nonsense.
You mean this link (http://www.spinvestigations.org/)?
How so?
(I must also note that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true)