Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Thoughts on TAPS


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#16 krcguns

krcguns

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,213 posts
  • Location:Keewatin, Minnesota USA
  • Interests:Well....investigating ghosts and finding out what lies beyond this life of course!

Posted 16 June 2006 - 04:28 PM

the show is ok. the only thing that is corny is that no matter what house they go to (even the one where grant got burned on his back) they say "we're her to help!" but then at the end of the show all they say is "yeah you got a ghost but everyone is safe, gotta go, bye!" i would be like "well yeah of course" you could tell that hester from the myrtles felt that way too.

well and its lame when jason flatters himself into thinkin that his saying something is haunted in like god came down and said it. lol.


Your points are some of the things that drive me nuts about the show too. I also hate how Jason and Grant will not go through evidence or set up equipment. Going through evidence is tedious but when you get that wonderful capture it is awesome.

I would want a show like this but only if my contract allowed me to have some production power. I would have to be able to certify that nothing was tampered with in any way before it went on the air. I will always keep my integrity with my evidence no matter what.

I occasionally watch the show, it is entertaining and even fun some times but I have a very difficult time taking it seriously.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#17 Banned

Banned

    Junior Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:55 PM

^^^I feel you. Sometimes they also dismiss evidence because one of them has a hair up there booty to debunk the place, lol. wutever, they're cool if you're bored

#18 fuzzyghost

fuzzyghost

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Location:bartonville, USA

Posted 17 June 2006 - 11:40 PM

I really like watching Ghosthunters. I am the type of person who likes everybody and all these guys and gals on the show are no exception. I was really glad when Brian came back to the show. I know, so much drama. Crap happens, that's life.

I think that Jason and Grant should probably be doing some of the reviewing of the evps and tapes but, that's the way their team has been set up I guess to appoint certain people for that so that's how they like it. But I know that when we do an investigation we just see who has the most time to review are evps and tapes and photos. We all work and have kids so we take turns and it just works out like that for us. Then when whoever reviews everything we get together and talk all the findings over and sort things out. Sometimes if we have the time and are really excited about what we think we might have caught we just get together and sort of make the time to, as a group, review everything.

I won't stop watching them, you never know what might happen. Maybe something will get caught on tape or in photos or on an evp that will be just the proof that will change a lot of peoples minds on the paranormal world.

#19 jakob493

jakob493

    Very greedy and not happy with just one tag

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Dakota

Posted 17 June 2006 - 11:44 PM

I think Ghosthunters is a fine show, but I personally dont like the scientific aspect of paranormal investigating. I know, its best for documentation and viable "proof" for today's society, but I personally like more.. traditional, or esoterical means of paranormal investigating. The show is alright though. I just wish the episodes were longer so we could see more.

#20 RickDalrymple

RickDalrymple

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 18 June 2006 - 10:50 AM

[font=Arial][size=6]

I love Ghost Hunters and Most Haunted :weeee: , and don't believe for a moment that either program is "staged." But then, having seen full-body apparitions and witnessed other ghostly phenomenon most of my life places me in the enviable position of knowing these things exist. I'm also quite certain that if I hadn't had these experiences over the past forty years, I'd probably question the sanity and/or honesty of these people ... or accuse them of doing nothing more than faking a good television program. I say this because I sometimes find myself questioning those who report alien abductions. When I catch myself thinking this way, I always try to stop, remember how I feel about people who poo-poo ghosts, and seriously reconsider what abductees have to say. If I had to criticize anything, it would be what I call the "one night stand" procedure used in these shows. Ghosts don't give command performances ... not even for royalty ... and I'd like to see Ghost Hunters make it a bit more clear that rarely can one proclaim a place to be "not haunted" (or "haunted" for that matter) based solely on the amount of evidence gathered in a single night. I'm aware that they already understand this premise ... I only wish they'd make it clear for those in the television audience who are "ghost virgins." One other small criticism would be Ghost Hunters' revulsion to the use of spirit mediums during their investigations. I know they're seeking evidence which can be scientifically analyzed, but ghosts were once human and retain the same personality, motives and emotions they had during physical life, and can often be reticent about revealing themselves (indeed, many ghosts want their privacy and isolation, and resent intrusions). It wouldn't hurt Ghost Hunters' methods, results or reputation in the least to present the thoughts of a medium, for whatever those thoughts and impressions might mean to the individual television viewer.

#21 krcguns

krcguns

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,213 posts
  • Location:Keewatin, Minnesota USA
  • Interests:Well....investigating ghosts and finding out what lies beyond this life of course!

Posted 18 June 2006 - 11:09 AM

yep, I have had these experiences to but I am also a paranormal investigator and my opinion comes solely from that about the show. I know that ghosts exist for sure...no doubt in my mind at all but I have to question the methods and evidence as a paranormal investigator, that is what it is all about.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#22 randystreu

randystreu

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 18 June 2006 - 01:30 PM

Okay, Most Haunted is crap, but I actually enjoy ghost hunters.

I have to disagree with KRC (which is not a thing i usually do on this board) regarding the debunking idea. If you'll note, TAPS doesn't always debunk everything. That they try to, though, makes the evidence stand up that much better.

I posted a couple months ago about standards for evidence, and I think the TAPS guys have it about right: You cannot allow wishful thinking to pollute your scientific mind. This is how we get shots of dust being called "Dad" and cigarette smoke or lens refractions giving way to lengthy discussions about how a vortex could have opened up in the basement of your house.

I apologize if what I said sounds mean, but if investigation is really somebody's goal, and not just hobby-hunting, then I think there needs to be a willingness to be a little incredulous about your own evidence.

Now I know that KRC will agree with parts of what I said ( :whoohoo: ), but where we disagree is in the idea that we should try to debunk all evidence. Again, I think it actually makes the evidence better if you have tried to debunk it; have tried to offer mundane explanations, and nothing else but the supernatural will fit.

That is convincing evidence.

But without first running it through that filter, IMO, you're just left with dust and wishful thinking.

:)

#23 jakob493

jakob493

    Very greedy and not happy with just one tag

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Dakota

Posted 18 June 2006 - 04:16 PM

If I may ask, randystreau, why do you not like Most Haunted? I think its entertaining, but I just dont like how they're always screaming. It doesnt seem really professional, but they get by. (Sorry if this is off topic!)

#24 krcguns

krcguns

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,213 posts
  • Location:Keewatin, Minnesota USA
  • Interests:Well....investigating ghosts and finding out what lies beyond this life of course!

Posted 18 June 2006 - 04:50 PM

Okay, Most Haunted is crap, but I actually enjoy ghost hunters.

I have to disagree with KRC (which is not a thing i usually do on this board) regarding the debunking idea. If you'll note, TAPS doesn't always debunk everything. That they try to, though, makes the evidence stand up that much better.

I posted a couple months ago about standards for evidence, and I think the TAPS guys have it about right: You cannot allow wishful thinking to pollute your scientific mind. This is how we get shots of dust being called "Dad" and cigarette smoke or lens refractions giving way to lengthy discussions about how a vortex could have opened up in the basement of your house.

I apologize if what I said sounds mean, but if investigation is really somebody's goal, and not just hobby-hunting, then I think there needs to be a willingness to be a little incredulous about your own evidence.

Now I know that KRC will agree with parts of what I said ( :whoohoo: ), but where we disagree is in the idea that we should try to debunk all evidence. Again, I think it actually makes the evidence better if you have tried to debunk it; have tried to offer mundane explanations, and nothing else but the supernatural will fit.

That is convincing evidence.

But without first running it through that filter, IMO, you're just left with dust and wishful thinking.

:)


Randy...I think a clarification is in order here...perhaps I didn't explain what I meant...

I don't believe that you should have your mind set on debunking a haunting...that is just as bad as running in to prove a haunting. If you set out to debunk everything, then no matter what you will come up with an explanation no matter how lame it is..."ummmmm well some guy in South America lit up a smoke and it caught the wind currents and then some light reflected off ov venus and caused this anomaly." Ok you can't go in either and say just because its raining..."look at all the ghosts in this area." You go into an investigation with a neutral attitude...neither to debunk or to prove. You let the evidence speak for itself when you are done. Now, when you look at evidence after it is all over with, you go through the process of eliminating the mundane things that could have caused the anomaly...a debunking if you will. If you cannot find a mundane reason for the anomaly, then you are left with the paranormal.

If you go into the investigation saying "I am going to prove this place isn't haunted," you will do just that no matter how lame your reasons for saying it isn't paranormal. You have to remain neutral going into the investigation.

I hope that clarifies what I meant in my earlier statement.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#25 randystreu

randystreu

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 18 June 2006 - 04:56 PM

Host Haunted is, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with the way the Paranormal is treated in the media.

The "psychic" is essentially a charlatan, who they give an occasional "miss" to, just to dupe people into thinking he's for real. I've seen not a shred of evidence come out of that show that isn't repeatable, and can usually even be done "live", such as the moving table trick. The host, meanwhile, is the worst kind of falsely credulous sham actress, who clings like a kitten in a tree to every word the "psychic" utters.

And then we have the screaming. Look, if I want to see a bunch of twenty-somethings get scared of nothing, I'll rent re-runs of MTVs Fear.

The show wouldn't irritate me so much if they would just admit it's fake and get on with it, but their insistence on putting it on as if it were somehow adding to the field is sickening.

Man. That sounded mean. Was that mean?
:whoohoo:

#26 jakob493

jakob493

    Very greedy and not happy with just one tag

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Dakota

Posted 18 June 2006 - 05:49 PM

Naah, wasnt mean. You have a lot of good points. :whoohoo:

#27 Grim Undertakings

Grim Undertakings

    Voted most likely to be a janitor in Highschool

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 18 June 2006 - 06:40 PM

I don't believe that you should have your mind set on debunking a haunting...that is just as bad as running in to prove a haunting. If you set out to debunk everything, then no matter what you will come up with an explanation no matter how lame it is..."ummmmm well some guy in South America lit up a smoke and it caught the wind currents and then some light reflected off ov venus and caused this anomaly." Ok you can't go in either and say just because its raining..."look at all the ghosts in this area." You go into an investigation with a neutral attitude...neither to debunk or to prove. You let the evidence speak for itself when you are done. Now, when you look at evidence after it is all over with, you go through the process of eliminating the mundane things that could have caused the anomaly...a debunking if you will. If you cannot find a mundane reason for the anomaly, then you are left with the paranormal.

If you go into the investigation saying "I am going to prove this place isn't haunted," you will do just that no matter how lame your reasons for saying it isn't paranormal. You have to remain neutral going into the investigation.



Exactly. :whoohoo:

#28 Stacked

Stacked

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 18 June 2006 - 07:50 PM

I think Ghosthunters is a fine show, but I personally dont like the scientific aspect of paranormal investigating. I know, its best for documentation and viable "proof" for today's society, but I personally like more.. traditional, or esoterical means of paranormal investigating. The show is alright though. I just wish the episodes were longer so we could see more.



Okay, while I do have my "thoughts" on the Ghost Hunters...I really enjoy Most Haunted.

As a matter of fact they (the Most Haunted team) visisted Drum Barracks in Wilmington, Ca. I was a volunteer at this location for a brief period. I call tell you by personal experience, this location is very haunted. One of the ghost is a little boy who died during the 1918 Influenza outbreak. He only interacts with people he likes. His method of contacting you is by bouncing a ball on the stairs! :ghost:

#29 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,835 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 18 June 2006 - 07:55 PM

:ghost: THere is a thread for Most Haunted on this board, so let's keep the majority of the comments for that show over there rather than here.

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#30 randystreu

randystreu

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 19 June 2006 - 05:49 AM

Right you are, vamp.

KRC: I think we probably agree, and at this point are into semantics. See for me, when I say debunk, I mean somebody complains about banging in the walls, you check the plumbing; flickering lights, you check the electricity; the sound of a bucket dropping, you see if there's an open shutter; you catch a bit of light, see if there's a mirror or a window... attempting first to debunk before counting your evidence.

But I mean this scientifically; I think (as we bring this back to TAPS) that this particular group holds more to this idea, rather than denying supernatural evidence, however improbable the mundane.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users