117 replies to this topic

[krcguns]

Grim Undertakings, on Aug 7 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

Hey!
Dont' forget about Grim Undertakings for this is also our mindset when it comes to investigations!

Whaaa......

Sorry Grim...I didn't mean to leave you out of that!

[Grim Undertakings]

Well, okay, I'll let it go this time. I'm just kidding, I was just being a nuisance!

[greenman]

Ditto all the comments about them being unprofessional. I just think they spend too much time trying to debunk everything and i doubt if some of the people they have visitied cared much for their attitude. Just as few thoughts.

[Prometheus]

It is impossible to be a nuetral postion as a paranormal researcher,as much as we would like to convince ourselves of that.We are biased just by the fact that we do have a belief in the paranormal , therefore the only way to approach the issue is scientifically.To methodically look at the evdience and except or reject ideas based on what the facts tell us.It has been said that the most reaonable way of approaching the issue is " Examine the evidence and exclude what is known to be false and what is left must be the truth ".So it stands to reason that a paranormal investigator who reasonably follows this philosphy would not be prone to unduely dismiss valid data, just a skeptic would not give undo creedence to his ,if both are acting in good faith.As in all things , there is a balance and the truth is always the truth.You may present a slanted bit of evidence but rarely will it hold up to independant scrutiny.

[SPIRIT66]

Prometheus, on Aug 10 2006, 02:33 AM, said:

It is impossible to be a nuetral postion as a paranormal researcher,as much as we would like to convince ourselves of that.We are biased just by the fact that we do have a belief in the paranormal , therefore the only way to approach the issue is scientifically.To methodically look at the evdience and except or reject ideas based on what the facts tell us.It has been said that the most reaonable way of approaching the issue is " Examine the evidence and exclude what is known to be false and what is left must be the truth ".So it stands to reason that a paranormal investigator who reasonably follows this philosphy would not be prone to unduely dismiss valid data, just a skeptic would not give undo creedence to his ,if both are acting in good faith.As in all things , there is a balance and the truth is always the truth.You may present a slanted bit of evidence but rarely will it hold up to independant scrutiny.

And if you don't take the effort to debunk stuff you will be presenting evidence that is not truthful. It give everyone else bad names. I don't know how many websites I have reviewed where the "paranormal photos album" is merely dust orb photos. I hate that. The only way to logically approach this is to debunk and if you can't determine a logical explanation then it's worth looking at closer. Just like you don't go into a clients home and tell them "Yes your home is haunted, let me prove it!" You go into their home thinking, "Ok, this is happening so lets find a logical explanation for that, etc..." Why lie to the clients!

[Axman]

First, if you are debunking everything before you even go into a situation that's where the problem is. The neutral approach is to go into and gather information that will explain the haunting by natural or supernatural. The "evidence" may disprove or support. Therefore you are being neutral.

For an investigator to simbly want to debunk every haunting is like a TV repairman who only works on Sonys. You just don't want that. The repairman may have a preference for Sony, but will work on all equally.

Edited by Axman, 10 August 2006 - 12:09 PM.

[SPIRIT66]

Axman, on Aug 10 2006, 01:08 PM, said:

First, if you are debunking everything before you even go into a situation that's where the problem is. The neutral approach is to go into and gather information that will explain the haunting by natural or supernatural. The "evidence" may disprove or support. Therefore you are being neutral.

For an investigator to simbly want to debunk every haunting is like a TV repairman who only works on Sonys. You just don't want that. The repairman may have a preference for Sony, but will work on all equally.

I think you are misunderstanding my post. You have to have the evidence before you can dedunk it. You can't go into a private home and tell the owners they have something going on definitely. There are alot of frauds in this business. I have dealt with a few that make things up! If you don't obtain your evidence and then reviewing it don't debunk stuff then you are misleading people. Yeah, you see an orb in a photo but when you take into account the weather or the wind etc...you can debunk it as possible dust or dirt in the air. That is what I am talking about. Why would an investigator go into a situation thinking that a place is haunted? That makes NO sense to me. You can't assume anything until you review your evidence.

[krcguns]

Axman, on Aug 10 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

First, if you are debunking everything before you even go into a situation that's where the problem is. The neutral approach is to go into and gather information that will explain the haunting by natural or supernatural. The "evidence" may disprove or support. Therefore you are being neutral.

For an investigator to simbly want to debunk every haunting is like a TV repairman who only works on Sonys. You just don't want that. The repairman may have a preference for Sony, but will work on all equally.

That is exactly right Ax. You collect the evidence and don't say "let's see how many ghosts we captured" and by the same token you don't say "lets see how much dust we captured." You evaluate each piece of evidence fairly and see if it stands up to scrutiny and if it avoids falling into any mundane cause. When you are left with something that defys these things you have good evidence. If you are out to debunk or prove your evidence from the get go, you will do just what you want to do with it. You have to remain neutral and evaluate everything on a case by case basis to get to the truth.

[Vampchick21]

Looks to me like everyone is saying the exact same thing in vastly different words. But all come down to the same thing. Evaluate each piece of evidence individually, THEN come to the most reasonable and logical conclusion.

[Axman]

SPIRIT66, on Aug 10 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

I think you are misunderstanding my post.

My reply was directed at no single poster, least of all your post. I was merely reiterating my dislike on how TAPS states that they are going in to debunk, even before they go in. So please, don't feel like it's personal.

Edited by Axman, 10 August 2006 - 05:05 PM.

[myjules]

I found this topic to be very interesting. There was very good debate on the different styles of investigating.

I happen to be one of those people who like TAPS. I like the show. But I think that the thread lost sight of the fact that it is just a show. Sure it has a soap opera like quality to it. Gotta have some drama! I also like the fact that they show cases in which they feel they found evidence as well as cases in which they found nothing. This helps to lend some realism to actual investigating. If I watched the show and everywhere they went was haunted, I would think I am watching Most Haunted. (Did I say that out loud? OOPPPSSS!)

In any case, I have to agree with some of the comment about the web site. Some of the conversations get way off topic or do have a tendency to get weird. I think it is a combination of lack of good moderators and the people who frequent the site.

In cases where people post pictures, I think too many are looking for affirmation that they have caught something and get offended when someone questions it. In my mind, I would prefer skepticism. I would prefer that someone tell me it could be sun flare or a reflection or matrixing than to find out down the road when that my evidence is just that. It helps me to learn and to think of those things for the next time. Ultimately, the decision of whether you have found something paranormal or not is up to each individual person. I personally have reviewed pictures that everyone agrees they could see something and not seen anything. I think sometimes they are like those pictures that you had to stare at for a long time in order to see the image.

In any case, thanks for reading my post and I look forward to reading more!

[squirrelgardens]

Not to dis the TAPS forum......but they are down right mean. This community is fair and balanced.

Besides you have better cookies here.

Edited by squirrelgardens, 30 September 2006 - 08:29 AM.

[beccaluvsghostsntexas]

I would like to ask some questions of some of the villagers. Has anyone ever been on an investigation with TAPS? And, does anyone know how long that TAPS investigates properties & just how much of that time are we seeing on tv?? Last question, do you think that EVERYTHING they get is faked or is it possible that within all of the video tape & audio tapes that they may have gotten something sometime???

I enjoy TAPS for the show that it is. I don't know which of the websites ya'll are talking about since there are 2 of them, one on the SciFi
website & the "official" TAPS site.

I also want to agree with the post from upthread that said that showing all of the "nuts & bolts" of the investigations would bore some people & the ratings would not be what they are. At least they are having success with what they are doing. And, at least it is bringing light to paranormal studies, no matter how much some feel that they are off base. We have to start somewhere......

[powries]

Hi All:

Just a quick comment here.If you think Taps web site is weird has anyone checked out the offshoot site ?In my opinion I think the offshoot is a little further out in the weird zone.

Powries

[greenman]

I stopped watching this show becuase their attitude really turned me off. You would think they wopuld give these people a little bit more respect, unfortunately unless a ghost comes up and bites them in the proverbial rear end, they don't beleive that any of the evidence they collect is real. GRRR