Perpetuated Fallacies of Ghost Hunters

[Jose Collado]

Would love some feedback on perpetuated fallacies from ghost hunters in general. Devices, techniques and theories involved.

Examples:
- Uncalibrated devices
- Stating assumptions as fact
- Theories that come from thin air

I'll throw a few more in when I get time.

Interested in what skeptical eyes can see is wrong with this scene. Would be cool to get some help to highlight these

 

[CapnG]

Hastily imposed ideologies- ie "it's demonic!"

 

[urkotic]

- Stating assumptions as fact

The "assumptions as fact" thing is a big hot button for me with spook chasers. Related I think, one I can't sum up real well is, I really think a lot of ghost hunters just cast a wide net and then claim anything that might (might, maybe, just possibly) be anomalous as evidence. Witness: 'orb' photos.

 

[Raevenskye]

i get irked with the EVP collecting and thermo readings when they're waving instruments around, and generally acting silly. I know that my digital voice recorder is ultra sensitive, and would probably pick up "voices" if i waved it around, too (i haven't tried it, but i plan to).
I also hate the whole "demonic" aspect that's thrown out, esp. in "Paranormal State". Just b/c someone is afraid doesn't make an entity demonic....and don't even get me started on the Warrens!
I also think "provoking" a spirit is generally a silly concept. It appears (in GH), that the hunters get bored or tired of waiting on a response, so they get confrontational to see if they can get a response. In some cases, maybe this would work, but in a general, non-angry haunting...why do it? What's the purpose of trying to taunt some poor old lady (or child) who can't seem to cross over? I find it personally annoying.

 

[Poi]

I get bugged at all the labels everyone gives their particular and very favorite entities too, but we have this habit of trying to attach meaning to everything. That we question everything makes us great. That we settle for labels makes us human. When we're real human, we begin to assign levels to energy that cause interference in our reality. Ghosts! Ufos! Demons! Faeries! (I do suffer an attachment for the Boogeyman. Used to tell my kids he'd climb in the window to get 'em if they got out of bed. Anyway, he's a favorite because he has no distinguishable face!)

IMO, it's really just interference that occasionally happens for reasons we may never understand. I think it may have a lot to do with varying frequencies which manifest in repeatable fashion, information bleeding through and perceived in whatever manner the observer is attuned. I haven't seen a ghost for instance, but a couple of ufos have crossed my path. I'm attuned to them. I've labeled them. Probably my first big mistake in that those craft are not so different from the automatic writing I experienced in my youth. All I can really say is that there has been an information exchange in which I was the receiver, one with no real understanding for what I've experienced.

But that's the same kind of box I rail against. I'll design a new box in the future. It's what we do.

 

[Jose Collado]

I have issues with the whole scene. I started off all wide eyed and eager and not too far into the whole paranormal thing I was more skeptical that ever.

The fact people lay claim to this scene being scientific is questionable. I've heard shows on TV claim to use scientific method but fail to see any. I've also questioned people who claim to use scientific method and they also fail to highlight how they use it. You don't need to be a scientist to implement scientific method.

When I see people waving EMF meters I often ask if they're calibrated and to what level. Then I ask why they use the device. Entities produce EMF...says who? Where is the research? Where did the theory come from?

People tend to take every bit of info and run with it without stopping to ask why.

I saw one show where a guy was wearing a barometer wrist watch. Shortly after, someone posted a huge topic on the barometer and how a drop in air pressure is a sign of possible paranormal activity. I asked why. The topic ended in a barrage of scientific terms. Then I asked again...why? A barometer is great for it's intended purpose...but why would it be a great way to detect paranormal activity? Does a drop in air pressure actually result in activity? Where is the research? Who researched this? How many peers have veiwed this research? Are they qualified? My pen is running low on ink...is that a sign of paranormal activity? We have a water cooler, it's low on water so I assume low in pressure. Is our water haunted?

Thermal imaging is great for a lot of things but is it suitable for "Ghost hunting"? Honestly, almost everything in the scene is based on speculation and assumptions that aren't effectively followed up. I'm sure scientists make assumptions and speculate about things, but they make sure they let people know. They don't profess to something being a fact if it isn't.
I'm more interested in the psychology of the scene rather than chasing "orbs". I started off wanting to find "ghosts" and ended up renting Ghostbusters...because there's more ghosts and far less comedy value than the real deal.

Terms like Matrixing annoy me. I got a visual of a guy running up walls when I heard this. The way it was described could make sense, but there are terms already out there to represent "matrixing". It simply shows people don't have the ability to research effectively...or that they care to.

I can use a feather duster and claim it's an effective tool to find "ghosts". If it catches on, everyone will be waving the feather duster spouting my theory. How long until someone stops and asks..."Hang on...how do we know this Jose dude isn't full of shit? Where the hell is his research reports?" I put my money on....it'll be a really mildly cold day in hell.
What REALLY gets to me is the fact people say "Scientists don't want to get involved in the paranormal so we have to do the work ourselves". Hmmmm...I dunno...last engineer I spoke to laughed at the whole EMF thing and pointed out all the flaws. I consider that information VERY helpful. People just want to believe no matter what.

I do believe...I just find it extremely hard to maintain the belief.

 

[urkotic]

I'm probably just abusing the idea of this thread at this point but... a specific thing, where did this notion that "ghosts manifest themselves by drawing energy from the environment, thus making cold spots" come from? I'm sort of paraphrasing a theory there I've read or heard expressed many times many different ways, but with that basic idea. This is an idea that I think sort of sounded interesting the first time I encountered it, then raised questions I couldn't answer upon thinking about it for two seconds (not that I'm a physicist or the like, you understand). Where does the heat go? Are ghosts less active in cold weather and more active in hot weather? Do ghosts in fact cause the seasons? I believe I've heard ghosts blamed for draining batteries too, with this same energy-drain reasoning behind it.

It is likely I am just cranky at the moment and never thought about how this power drain stuff is supposed to work before.

 

[TClaeys]

I'll have to agree with most of the criticism of GB. However, it is a TV show after all. People watch it. Grant and Jay probably make some decent money. Maybe they are in a situation where they need to soup it up techno-gadget wise. Wave EMFs, lots of thermo cam shots, EVP's that play, ... something, even though it isn't likely to from late Aunt Betty. So for one thing we can take it as it is.

On the other hand, this sets precedent with a lot of newer groups following the "experts" lead. EMF sales are good. Ghost hunters are following the correct protocol so to speak. Is there any evidence to support their use?? Thermo-imaging is difficult to interpret from what I understand. Which still makes me still question the Flir video on the latest UFO Hunters( but thats another topic) Anyway it is complex. These devices also seem to "spike" (ooohhh, whoa dude I got a 4). EVP's seem to contain enough gibberish to continue their existance in the ghost hunting world. I get sick of it too.

But it leaves us with what? What do you do to try to gain evidence that ghosts exist?? It's definitely not a scientific endeavor. There is no repeatability. There is no apparent cause and effect. There isn't any consistent interaction with matter and energy that we can collect data on. It isn't a problem that a scientist can solve. So I wish people would quit trying to do it in a pseudo-scientific way. That certainly doesn't mean ghosts don't exist. Just that it's probably an unsolvable thing. And the only pieces we can really build on are credible experiences. We can, perhaps at best, know something is going on, but having no idea why or how. And that probably doesn't make that great of TV.

 

[urkotic]

What do you do to try to gain evidence that ghosts exist?? It's definitely not a scientific endeavor. There is no repeatability. There is no apparent cause and effect. There isn't any consistent interaction with matter and energy that we can collect data on. It isn't a problem that a scientist can solve. So I wish people would quit trying to do it in a pseudo-scientific way. That certainly doesn't mean ghosts don't exist. Just that it's probably an unsolvable thing. And the only pieces we can really build on are credible experiences. We can, perhaps at best, know something is going on, but having no idea why or how. And that probably doesn't make that great of TV.

Well I like those words, TClaeys.

I've been watching some episodes of Ghost Hunters and A Haunting recently. Ghost Hunters seems like a good example of reality TV, although even with the good reality TV craft in evidence, editing a story together, my attention usually wanders some during an episode. A Haunting just seems to want to take a story and turn it into a little horror movie, and goes pretty over the top along the way.

But to your point (I think)... it struck me with Ghost Hunters, they're not going to find 'proof'. If they ever captured any 'evidence' that was even really impressive, it seems like it would be larger news. The show, actually both of those shows, prove to me one thing about ghosts, which is that people certainly believe in them, and really believe that they experienced something supernatural.

 

[TClaeys]

I guess I think we get stuck between 2 things. One being the experience itself, the subjective kind. Someone experiences a ghost, a shadow, a noise, a full blown apparition. This, of course, is pure subjectivity. Again, something happened from the view of the "experiencer". What it is may be different from person to person, but to the "experiencer" it is just that, a ghostly encounter.

The second thing we get in to is the people that say "Hey, I know people have these experiences. Hell, I've even had one myself (not me personally), I wonder if we can get some type of proof?" Lets get all the gadgets and go to known places where these encounters have occurred and see if any of them go off. So then we get all these, sort of, meaningless (Well, OK... inconclusive) things that are captured by these devices. Now begin sprouting theory upon theory like a huge mangled, twisted tree of marketing.

So then we end up with the same 2 things, experiences and jumbled up "data". Now if we could ever cross the two together I really wonder what might come of it. When I think of Biedneys ghost experience I wonder what if a camera was there. Would it show anything? Is the experience something that you can actually capture? Because even though I've never seen a ghost I am interested by the compelling stories. Something is happening, even if it is a siezure or a projection or brain fart or a ghost. And I'd like to know what it is. However I'm going out on a limb and saying I'm probably not going to get it from two Roto-Rooter guys.

 

[Poi]

This thread got me interested in watching more of those shows. I've never been much interested in ghosts even though I did have one strange experience a few years ago. Still, the plausibly subjective experience has me less convinced there was a ghost but maybe some sort of settling of a lifelong mental/emotional process instead. In other words, I think I rewarded myself with a night time visit of someone I loved/hated. The hate end of that relationship was gone and I got myself a happy visitor. My understanding of that episode morphs on occasion though. Just guessing.

Having watched many "A Haunting" on Stage 6, which has now shut down its video viewing site, and a large number of TAPS as well as Ghost Hunters, I find the reality shows hugely entertaining if only for the way in which the hunters scare themselves silly. I'm not discounting that some are genuine weirdness, but mostly those guys are jumpy as a box of cats so anything of ordinary occurence can set them off. Great fun.

 

[Ankhes]

I also enjoy these shows even tho I don't believe them. Well, maybe there is something genuinely strange going on in a small percentage of them, but I am troubled by the same old same old such as -
-portals to hell in every other house or so
-people buy a home, a few weird things happen so it HAS to be a dead person moving about
-a kid sees or hears something (gee, how weird)
-they need a religious blessing
-they need a religious exorcism
-psychics are real so use them as much as possible
-orbs are high level demons according to Mrs. Warren
-someone died in the house or on the land at one time so they have to haunt the place
-9 times out of 10 it isn't a "human" haunting but a "demon." (Man, demons must be bored silly to get their jollies out of scaring ordinary people and/or targeting a college kid)
- ghosts can't ever write down something useful or say something really useful, instead they scratch people and toss tape dispensers across the room
-christianity is the only way to get rid of such problems as outlined above

But I still can't help but enjoy these shows. Yes, great fun as Poi says. I do love to kick back for an hour or so and just plain enjoy.

 

[Jose Collado]

I'll admit I love watching these shows as well. I could watch and argue till I'm blue in the face as to why a lot of what is show is false. But it's much more fun to just sit back and enjoy it for what it is...entertainment.

 

[Raevenskye]

Ankhes, you're right on the money! I get so tired of everything being a "demon" I can't see straight! Most of the time, all the "bait" is on the previews is someone screaming at a spider!

 

[Ankhes]

Ankhes, you're right on the money! I get so tired of everything being a "demon" I can't see straight! Most of the time, all the "bait" is on the previews is someone screaming at a spider!

Heh, I'm glad I'm not the only one! I've seen that same show but I'll admit that I think I would have jumped or yelped at a spider, too. One of my unfortunate phobias...:redface:

It would be fun to wander around interesting locations at night and wave equipment around and make money off it (in one way or another.) But at least we can sit back and enjoy the antics these shows provide.

Speaking of "A Haunting" it is on right now and there is a scene in "The Forgotten" where the "psychic" opens a door and gusts of wind and light come out and there is this big drama as the alleged spirits were finally able to leave the house. Yeah, right. : That was too funny!

 

[Jose Collado]

Hey guys. I was involved in a TV show in Australia. We visited 15 locations and aired 13 episodes on national TV. I have to admit one thing, it was a long, painful process. I went from being an tame skeptic to being a hardcore skeptic. I'd sit and watch shows like Ghost Hunters when they got EMF spikes and claimed there was no one in the room with them at the time and shake my head. No one in the room with them? Apart from the camera men, gaffer, sound guy, execs etc etc. Yeah, not a single electronic device in the room apart from the "ghost" radiating EMF. EMF is about as plausible as me waving a feather duster in the air claiming it opens a doorway to hell.

Funny thing is...I get absolutely attacked over my skepticism. I mean really, viciously attacked. If I were to make speculative claims that EMF meters measured EMF which is generated by "ghosts" then people have no problem with me. On the other hand, when I actually state there is zero proof of anything, theories simply "exist" with little or no genuine research into its origins, EMF spikes are due to the electrical architecture of buildings and fluctuations could be as simple as an air conditioner turning on somewhere, EMF meters aren't calibrated and poorly manufactured...etc etc....that's when I get the entire paranormal community jumping down my throat.

When I hear the words "scientific method" being thrown around I cringe. I have challenged many people who claim to use it to expose their methods. None use scientific method because scientific method doesn't simply mean "walking around in the dark with useless equipment". It means having a hypothesis, doing research, asking questions, testing the hypothesis, repeating the experiment over and over and most importantly, using equipment that is properly calibrated and fit for the purpose. I could honestly slap people when they mention scientific method. Where is their research material? Why isn't it being presented for peer scrutiny? Then finally, you can sit back and review the results. It the hypothesis is found to be true then great, if not, repeat the experiment. One thing I highly doubt is people's ability to accept the facts.

"In search of the truth". Truth? Truth is subjective to opinion. Are people actually seeking truth or are they simply looking for people to reinforce their belief? If people are in search of the truth then they must be prepared to accept the truth. I have been asked to present facts supporting a recent argument. I presented them and the people who requested it simply ignored it. They were allegedly in search of truth. The argument I made was a famous psychic had made false claims in her book. The facts were, I presented her book, noted the page and line. Right there, in front of them, in black and white. A book written by the person I was making a point against. Their response "Show me your FACTS". HUH? You wrote it dumbass! Fact.

Anyway...I have major issues with a lot in the paranormal. When I hear the word "paranormal" it simply translates to "bullshit". Things like EMF, EVP, Frank's Box, ITC, ORBS ETC DRIVE ME INSANE.

Ok here's one thing that recently had me come under fire. The Frank's Box. It is essentially a broken radio. Nothing more. It has no new technology because I have the exact same device in my car. It's called a radio with a seek function. Problem is this...they claim the device is an exact replica of the device being used by an engineer on "the other side". So my argument...well, one of them....ONE OF MANY...is, ok so you have a receiver on this end and the "engineer" has a receiver on the other end. None are equipped with a transmitter...so who the hell is transmitting? You are talking to a radio so how does the engineer hear you and how do you hear the engineer? Man...I swear...I could totally strangle people who believe this tripe.

One thing is certain. It takes a lot more work to be skeptical than it does to be a hardline believer. I can research and present facts till I'm blue in the face but a true believer always has the typical safety net excuses on hand. No proof is ever good enough for a skeptic. Which is total BS. If you present genuine evidence, then a skeptic has no choice to acknowledge it as fact.

Arrrrggghhh!!!

Saw Ghost Hunters and some dude was wearing a barometer watch. People went insane trying to buy them down here so they too could have the latest gadget. A barometer on a watch? Thats an expensive way to tell the time and avoid a storm. Now allegedly, "evidence" has shown that spirit activity is greater during a storm. Really? Evidence? Soooo...where exactly is this "evidence"? Ohhhh...no they must have meant "theory". Another theory that someone plucked from thin air.

I agree that scientists work with theories all the time. Thats a common argument. Unfortunately, there's a difference between someone who has spent some time in school, scored some decent creds, faced with stringent peer scrutiny on a daily basis and actually have something to back a theory as opposed to someone who simply has a theory because....I dunno....they just have one.

Oh man..."in theory" kills me. There's just WAY too much "in theory" and not enough research into these theories.

Skeptics aren't welcome. A lot of people make claims they are skeptical in hopes of it helping their cause with their next "orb has a face" photo. I question whether they understand the meaning of the word "skepticism". A lot of skeptics don;t even understand it. Some skeptics are nothing more than cynics. I don't waste my energy with hardline believers or cynics. They're both blind in my opinion. People label me as negative and I guess I can appear that way. I just want a big shovel to dig a deep hole for all the BS that seems to have a nice price tag attached.

 

[~Foo Fighter~]

Would love some feedback on perpetuated fallacies from ghost hunters in general. Devices, techniques and theories involved.

Examples:
- Uncalibrated devices
- Stating assumptions as fact
- Theories that come from thin air

I'll throw a few more in when I get time.

Interested in what skeptical eyes can see is wrong with this scene. Would be cool to get some help to highlight these

I've been trained to use a thermography camera...here is my rant about their use in "Ghost Hunter" shows.

http://theparacast.com/forums/paranormal-researchers-and-thermography-cameras-t-1794.html

~Foo Fighter~

 

[Jose Collado]

EXACTLY! I highly doubt anyone in these shows is qualified to operate these devices and make assumptions about what they capture with them. I have said it time and time again, thermal cameras are great when you use them for their designed purpose. I have seen them being used on machinery, pest control and by the fire brigade and every simple person that uses the camera has been trained to use it.

We used one not long ago. Not to find "ghosts" but to show just how flawed these devices are when they're being used for a purpose they aren't designed for. We spoke with an engineer who uses them professionally and he pointed out so many problems with them in regard to "ghost hunters".

To put it simply, this is just another gadget being pimped by the paranormal community that is absolutely useless.

I have been hitting many speculative theories hard and the response is almost the same..."How do we know if the device isn't relevant if we don't test the theory?" Easy...don't test the theory. Question it. Find out where the theory came from, who came up with it and why. Do some real research and leave the testing of the equipment till the very end. I can almost guarantee if people bothered to look into these theories and the devices being used to support them, then they'd realise that testing the theory by simply walking around with a thermal camera, EMF meter etc, it virtually useless.

I recently saw a clip where a cast member of Ghost Hunters was speaking with a psychic and recording it with a thermal camera. All of a sudden, a huge heat signature passes from the psychic to the cast member. That was almost instant;y taken as proof of a psychic aura. The claims were "There's only two people on camera and there's a wall behind them so there's no chance it was fake". Not fake? Really? Hey, last time I checked, there was a broadcast camera filming these guys, a sound crew, lighting, gaffer etc etc. Probably 10 people standing behind the camera. The shape of the "aura" was rectangular. Not sure if there are many natural perfectly rectangular shapes on this planet. The wall can reflect a heat signature and chances are, even if this wasn't staged, then someone behind the camera may have accidentally reflected some light when they were moving something. There is more going against the "psychic aura" theory than there is for it.

Thermal cameras proof of the paranormal...or just a waste of time? I have tried to steer people away from them and my grind my teeth when I hear people are forking out $10k for one. All I know is, you're better off donating the $10k to medical research or your local animal refuge because you aint capturing jack with a thermal camera and at least the money will be put to good use.

 

[Jigoku Bosatsu]

Well, I have to say that I love the show Ghost Hunters. It's fun, my g/f likes to watch with me, and I can pretty much suspend my disbelief the entire time. Wait, should I have to suspend disbelief on a reality show?

I think as far as the evidence is concerned, there are some fascinating things that we see... apparitions mainly. Really only a few explanations come to mind... they are completely making up the most dramatic shots, they have terrible experimental control and the production staff are intentionally or unintentionally bunging things up, or they have lucked out and caught some cool paranormal action on tape.

My main problem is with their methodology. Every time I hear one of them say "Did you see that?" followed by a clumsy camera swing, I cringe. Why isn't every man, woman, and child on that show wearing a head-mounted camera? Why aren't there cameras covering every spot in their locations, recording audio and video at all times? They have enough money and people to do it. I question their sincerity on this matter... they claim to want to find good evidence but don't really go far enough to do it.

If the Rolling Stones came to your studio and gave you a million dollars, and said that they might create their best song ever at some point in the course of a session, you would be a fool not to record every second, right?

 

[digigeek]

...Things like EMF, EVP, Frank's Box, ITC, ORBS ETC DRIVE ME INSANE.

Ok here's one thing that recently had me come under fire. The Frank's Box. It is essentially a broken radio. Nothing more. It has no new technology because I have the exact same device in my car. It's called a radio with a seek function. Problem is this...they claim the device is an exact replica of the device being used by an engineer on "the other side". So my argument...well, one of them....ONE OF MANY...is, ok so you have a receiver on this end and the "engineer" has a receiver on the other end. None are equipped with a transmitter...so who the hell is transmitting? You are talking to a radio so how does the engineer hear you and how do you hear the engineer? Man...I swear...I could totally strangle people who believe this tripe.

Hello? Are you at the beach?

Great video, Jose. Loved it!