Ghost Hunters International Forums

I agree that most of the so-called evidence must be taken with a big grain of salt, but there are occasionally things that seem to defy explanation. I've never personally experienced anything that I can attribute to a ghost, but I have been touched by something that was not there (I think of it as an angel). That has made me believe that there is something out there which can interact with us, and that it is therefore possible that we may someday get irrefutable proof of it. I look upon ghost hunters like the GHI team and TAPS as medieval alchemists- most of what they are doing doesn't actually work, and the bit that does, they don't really understand why. But those medieval alchemists were the forerunners of the physicists and chemists we have today, and some of the basic principles discovered and used by those alchemists are still useful now. Ghost hunting may follow the same path to eventually become an actual science. As for why I like this particular show, I prefer the techniques of GHI, because they are more experimental, trying new equipment and attempting to correlate data using more than one device at a time. TAPS seems less flexible, though they have begun to experiment a little bit in season six. I'm also more disposed to trust the GHI team- they may exaggerate at times, whether from hysteria/adrenaline rushes, or jump to conclusions, but I don't believe they're intentional faking things. They may heighten their response to things which occur, but I don't believe that they are party to faking the occurrences themselves. Perhaps that's naive of me, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason not to, besides the sour grapes of one or two people who were let go from the show.

I also enjoy history, and the locations they show would almost make it worth watching just to see them and learn some of the history connected to the various places. I appreciate that TAPS was founded to try and help people with their ghostly problems in their everyday lives, but I prefer the investigations that happen in more public places, just because there are a far larger pool of witnesses who are unconnected with each other that often report the same phenomena. When a person claims their home is haunted, they plant a seed in the minds of the rest of the people living there, and that often distorts their own so-called experiences. But in a public spot people are less likely to have their perceptions affected by previous reports. They may know a place has a reputation for being haunted, but they would be much less likely to know specific details, so when two stories match it's far more compelling to me.