34 replies to this topic

[mastermind73]

Laurie Ann, on Apr 28 2011, 06:54 PM, said:

I do enjoy watching Ghost Adventures. It's just them 3 for the most part (won't watch it when they bring others in...sorry) and alot of their evidence seems pretty good. EVP's have always been hard for me to understand, but when i hear alot of theirs, I always hear something else...but thats cool.

I haven't actually tried Ghost Adventures yet, but I probably will check it out this weekend just to see.

The interpretation of EVPs is a big problem, especially on TV. I do not hear anything most of the time there's a supposed EVP being played. Even through headphones. But then they start telling you "sounds like "bite me", listen!" and they loop 1 second of highly manipulated background noise over and over and over and before you know it you're hearing it too.

[mastermind73]

CaveRat, on Apr 28 2011, 07:18 PM, said:

A voice clearly states, "Leave me alone". It is as clear as someone speaking into a recorder. It was caught using high gain amplifiers and a stereo recording system.

But there was more. At the same time a lamp was thrown from a dresser about 6 feet and smashed onto a wall above a child who was sleeping at the time. The child was the only one in the room and sesnitivity on the amplifier was sufficient you could hear her breathing as she slept so clearly she did not hoax it. (Besides, she was only 6 at the time.)

See, THIS would be an interesting listen. A controlled environment with sensitive equipment tuned properly. Imagine that!

[Shadowperson]

Ghost Adventures is ok in my book. Sometimes I want to slap them, sometimes I want to high five them. It's a love hate relationship but they made up for it in their original documentry to me with the evidence they had, and the scenes of them running and screaming like girls instead of bad BAD_WORD men made me LOL out of my bed at 4 am and woke all the neighbors up in my apartment.

Where was I? O, yeah. Ghost Hunters sucks. I'm not even going to find a way to sugar coat it or make myself seem witty.

[BLACK SHUCK]

I think you answered the question when you ask it...or maybe came close to it.

[Laurie Ann]

Yeah, Ghost Adventures is pretty cool as far as their evidence (minus the EVP's)...but that Zack. Can't put my finger on it but he just gets on my dang nerves. But other than that minor thing, the show is great.

Mastermind73, did ya get a chance to watch it yet? If so, what did you think of it?

[mastermind73]

I actually DID get to check it out. Saturday, I believe, there was a mini-marathon on and I watched 3 or 4 episodes. I gotta say I enjoyed it quite a bit. I like how they analyze evidence on the fly, and they did capture some pretty interesting things.

You're right about them being sort of obnoxious, but hey, it's TV and that adds to the entertainment value. Overall I liked it, although I don't agree with some of their methods, they do have a nice little show there.

As far as comparing it to Ghost Hunters goes, I think they both have their own qualities. I will not say that either one of them sucks.

Honestly, I get the distinct feeling that there are people around these boards that say they don't like these shows BUT they actually watch them and are entertained. Which is their purpose.. to be entertaining and fill a niche, while making the network money. :-)

Our job, as viewers, is to make sure we question everything they do instead of taking it as fact right off the bat (while being entertained, of course).

Also, possibly even more important IMO is the second job we have as EDUCATED viewers: Making sure our (friends/family/whomever else) doesn't take it all too seriously by letting them know that the methods used are not necessarily the greatest, but that there IS a right way to do things... and that we are willing to fill them in if they desire.

[BLACK SHUCK]

Why? Lack of anything intelligent to debate them over. They just hate GH because GH are successful and no one has been able to punch a hole in any of their investigations or procedures, as of yet, if ever.

[CaveRat2]

BLACK SHUCK, on May 3 2011, 05:09 PM, said:

Why? Lack of anything intelligent to debate them over. They just hate GH because GH are successful and no one has been able to punch a hole in any of their investigations or procedures, as of yet, if ever.

It's been done here on several fronts. It does require some research though. Watch an episode, most any will do and watch what equipment is used and how it is operated. Then go into various thread related to that equipment and see if it in fact should be used in that manner and for that application. Take a look at recorders for example. What make / model? Then ask, does it meet minimum specs related to sample rate and conversions? What type of file was used? Stereo or Mono? (I have posted these specs several times elsewhere so I won't repeat them here.)

What you likely will find out in many cases is you can't determine all these conditions because they don't provide the background data related to the audio. Right there is enough to call into question motives and methods used! Any investigator worth his weight knows background data is essential in the investigation! So without even getting into the rights or wrongs about the equipment I have already pointed out a flaw in their procedures! Likely if I had any valid background data to go with I could find more, but that's another story!

[mastermind73]

CaveRat, on May 3 2011, 04:29 PM, said:

What you likely will find out in many cases is you can't determine all these conditions because they don't provide the background data related to the audio. Right there is enough to call into question motives and methods used! Any investigator worth his weight knows background data is essential in the investigation! So without even getting into the rights or wrongs about the equipment I have already pointed out a flaw in their procedures! Likely if I had any valid background data to go with I could find more, but that's another story!

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned "entertainment" before. Television is about entertaining people and making money. If any of these shows spent the kind of time required for someone of your knowledge level to be satisfied, they would just turn into 3-hour-long technical discussions. That's not entertaining, and nobody would watch it.

Paranormal TV has come a LONG way since taking Leonard Nimoy's word for it on "In Search Of..." back in the day, but I doubt with today's attention spans they will go any further than they have.

In my opinion we should be glad we have these shows which at least pretend to show a ghost investigation in a simplified form, and compressed into digestable bits. It IS entertaining and they have millions and millions of viewers on the collective edge of their seats every week.

There is no reason to hate these shows. They are good entertainment, and they have a great side-effect:

They get newbies trying investigations every day, which is a good thing. Maybe someday, someone who watches GH/GHI/GA/what-the-heck-ever will be the one who finally grabs solid proof after becoming interested through watching these shows.

[CaveRat2]

mastermind73, on May 4 2011, 12:58 PM, said:

There is no reason to hate these shows. They are good entertainment, and they have a great side-effect:

They get newbies trying investigations every day, which is a good thing. Maybe someday, someone who watches GH/GHI/GA/what-the-heck-ever will be the one who finally grabs solid proof after becoming interested through watching these shows.

That is precisely their downside. While they may be entertaining they also misinform those newbies. They imply that all one needs do is grab a cheap digital voice recorder and go out and collect valid evidence. This results in more bad evidence that simply feeds on itself.

Of course this why they do this. Most people would not take the time needed to do a serious investigation nor would they have the resources. Thus the TV investigators do it in an amateur way. They use cheap equipment because that is what people can afford. (Can anyone say Product Placement?) Maybe if they actually used quality gear, laboratory standard, etc. they would gain credibility. But how many Saturday night ghost hunters could emulate them then?

But to be fair there may well be that one individual who is spurred on by watching a show. Maybe a 12 year old kid who watches and does actually take what he saw and developed his methods as he matures. I'm sure even Einstein began by conducting experiments at the kitchen table as a kid! So in that regard they may not be entirely worthless as a science project.

But it is clear when one searches the web of current groups that many are pseudo-science groups. They post bad evidence and call it good. They show their equipment and you find a bunch of stuff that one might consider little more than toys. And their methods clearly demonstrate they really have no clue what they are doing. Yet there they are out there passing themselves off as scientific researchers. And using the TV Ghost Hunters as their validation.

[mastermind73]

CaveRat, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand that you are attempting to add some credibility to your work and the field, and I respect that.

However, I see no problem with these shows getting new people into hunting. Sure, they may not do things the "right" way, but who even knows what the "right" way is at this point. There is no established scientific standard.

The internet was full of a bunch of junk before paranormal TV, it is much better now. The discussions now are more enlightened and we are generally moving forward. I say more power to the GH team and all the others.

Don't forget that many great scientific discoveries are made by accident, some by people who are not scientists. Or by scientists who don't follow the "established" methods of their field.

Ghost hunting and paranormal studies are science wrapped in faith. If you lose the faith, and look for ghosts in a sterile lab somewhere, you're not going to see anything. There will always be variables in this field of research that can not be controlled.

Cheers

[OMPRDave]

I disagree completely...nothing is more frustrating than having to sit in a room with people using K2 meters, ghost boxes, and partially dismantled flashlights trying to talk to ghosts all because they saw it on tv. From experience they don't listen to reason when it's explained that all those things are useless gimmicks, and the answers they give are almost always typically supported because this groups uses them on tv, or they paid through the nose to watch these tv stars employ the same junk. There is no distinction for a lot of people that tv and real life are absolutely two different things.

[mastermind73]

OMPRDave, on May 7 2011, 08:49 AM, said:

I disagree completely...nothing is more frustrating than having to sit in a room with people using K2 meters, ghost boxes, and partially dismantled flashlights trying to talk to ghosts all because they saw it on tv. From experience they don't listen to reason when it's explained that all those things are useless gimmicks, and the answers they give are almost always typically supported because this groups uses them on tv, or they paid through the nose to watch these tv stars employ the same junk. There is no distinction for a lot of people that tv and real life are absolutely two different things.

There seem to be a few different opinions out there on what is the right way to do ghost research. That means that like other fields of study in the early phases one of two things will happen:

1. One side will come up with evidence that makes their way the accepted way, or

2. All but one side will suffer from a complete lack of proof that they've found anything, making the remaining the accepted way by default.

I'm not talking about "proof" but PROOF. Good solid evidence that makes non-believers in the paranormal want to conduct their OWN experiments to see for themselves. This is part of the scientific method they taught us in 3rd grade... an experiment must be repeatable.

As I see it now, nobody is performing repeatable, controlled scientific experiments and finding any evidence whatsoever because it's not possible. There are way too many variables involved in doing experiments of this type in the locations that paranormal researchers are working in, and when you take it to a lab you find nothing.

I'm not defending their techniques or the techniques of anyone, that was not the point of any of my posts. My posts were intended to open eyes to the idea that nobody's techniques are scientifically valid in a traditional sense, so to say that one side is "doing it wrong" is absurd.

To completely dismiss the value of these shows in getting new people involved in the field is ridiculous IMO. To roll your eyes when you see those people with their K2's and their Ghost Boxes showing up is ELITISM plain and simple. You "know what you're doing" they "don't" and you are not willing to present any conclusive evidence that your way is the right way.

Anywho, I don't want this to degenerate into an argument so I will bow out now. Just one question, though...

Why would you be researching with people whose methods you don't approve of?
There are literally thousands of places you can go that don't have anyone else at them on a given night...

[mastermind73]

PLEASE don't get me wrong here. I am not assaulting your methods, nor am I assaulting the methods of the TV people. I understand that this is a difficult field, but I think everyone just needs to take a breath and look a what they're doing. When one side says their methods are more valid than another, it just fuels the fires of separation.

Everyone's goal is the same, so everyone needs to do their own thing and see who comes out on top without hating the people who are different.

Edited by mastermind73, 07 May 2011 - 10:37 AM.

[CaveRat2]

I certainly see no problem with someone trying something "outside the box" so to speak. Mastermind is quite right, new methods may reveal new results. These are to be encouraged.

My problem is when these "new" methods don't allow for known weaknesses. It is not elitism to expect those doing research to at least step above the toys that some are using. I don't expect everyone to spend thousands on equipment that is untried, that realm is left to those few who are willing push the envelope in research. They also must have the resources to survive the inevitable failures they will experience trying to capture that one success.

But still there is a requirement that anyone who wants to go beyond the Saturday night ghost hunter tramping around a cemetery take at least a small step toward credibility when it comes to methods and equipment. Forego the KII for at least a Trifield meter. Skip to $30 digital voice recorder for a stereo digital recorder. Learn the facts behind how a ghost box works and learn why they are called paredolia boxes by those who understand electronics. These are small steps within the reach of most people.

When it comes to right or wrong ways to investigate, Mastermind is right in that no one way is producing repeatable results. Thus there is no right way at this point in time. There are however a few wrong ways demonstrated. The wrong ways are those methods that provide results clearly demonstrated as false positives. Take the KII meter for example. One of these can be studied in a laboratory environment and its lack of shielding and unstable operation demonstrated. Based on that how can any results obtained by one be considered as valid? Even if one did obtain something you would be unable to tell what it was you obtained because you couldn't trust the results.

So we have some wrong ways to investigate, and we have no right way. But there is also a third possibility, and that is where research should be today. That way is the undetermined method. It uses equipment and methods that haven't been proven flawed, yet haven't obtained results either. That is the area where any new results is going to come from. A new method or device we may not have even tried yet is eventually going to yield results. But we need to get beyond the state of things as they are today if we ever are to succeed.