Ghost Hunters Forums

Wednesday 10:00 PM on SyfyBetween Seasons

******** on the Scientific Process?

  • Avatar of Temporaryscars

    Temporaryscars

    [1]Jul 3, 2007
    • member since: 08/17/05
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 70

    I just started watching the new season of Ghost Hunters after a long and painful wait, and I think the wait has actually made me more of a skeptic when it comes to the show. Maybe it's because I had forgotten how painfully obvious some of the staged stuff is on the show (not the actual ghost hunting mind you, but the stuff that happens between that), but what gets to me the most is that after claiming how scientific they are with their hunting, they refuse to release their footage and data so that it can be reviewed by a third party.

    Still love the show though, I just find myself rolling my eyes a bit more.

    Edited on 08/03/2007 9:00am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Lynnie_Lyn

    Lynnie_Lyn

    [2]Jul 3, 2007
    • member since: 05/11/07
    • level: 12
    • rank: Evil Bert
    • posts: 338
    Yeah, I find myself feeling the same way at times. Although I don't think this season (so far) isn't going as well as other seasons. I just keep reminding myself that this is basically a "reality show", and although the cameras might be shooting non-stop during investigations, sometimes there's something happening that might require hours for the viewers to really comprehend. So they have to have the guys "stage" a scene where everything is explained in a matter of minutes. It's painfully obvious that these scenes are staged, and it can get really corny. But I try not to judge them too harshly. I think they're doing agreat job on the show as it is, and when trying to please as many viewers as possible, there's just little more they can do.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Temporaryscars

    Temporaryscars

    [3]Jul 3, 2007
    • member since: 08/17/05
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 70
    Well what bothers me is the un-necessary crap that they stage. Like that episode where the woman comes into the office, and Donna acts like they've never met before, yet they flash the womans name on the screen, so obviously they knew she was coming in and who she was and her problem already. What happened to when Donna would just read off of a clipboard and inform the rest of the team about a case? That was perfectly fine. Maybe they felt as though they weren't getting any use out of having a HQ in a building in town and they wanted it to look like people could just walk in with problems? Give me a break. I liked the trailer in grants backyard better. Made it seem more authentic. And i'm not even going to talk about that stupidly staged stunt where they had some guy take off with their gear right off the street in broad daylight. Just hunt the ghosts, and let some third party verification take place when it comes to footage.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of General_01_Lee

    General_01_Lee

    [4]Jul 6, 2007
    • member since: 10/30/06
    • level: 9
    • rank: Door Number 2
    • posts: 369

    it seems as if this season, nothing really good (and true) has happened.
    i suppose thats why they gone & staged some stuff.
    & i agree with the thing about the lady coming in to talk to donna. it was just stupid.
    the trailer was better to. lol. i miss it. :[
    maybe the rest of the season will be better...
    *prays*

    -coop

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of SnowLiger09

    SnowLiger09

    [5]Jul 18, 2007
    • member since: 03/15/07
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 85
    Temporaryscars wrote:
    Well what bothers me is the un-necessary crap that they stage. Like that episode where the woman comes into the office, and Donna acts like they've never met before, yet they flash the womans name on the screen, so obviously they knew she was coming in and who she was and her problem already. What happened to when Donna would just read off of a clipboard and inform the rest of the team about a case? That was perfectly fine. Maybe they felt as though they weren't getting any use out of having a HQ in a building in town and they wanted it to look like people could just walk in with problems? Give me a break. I liked the trailer in grants backyard better. Made it seem more authentic. And i'm not even going to talk about that stupidly staged stunt where they had some guy take off with their gear right off the street in broad daylight. Just hunt the ghosts, and let some third party verification take place when it comes to footage.


    Keep in mind that the show was pre-recorded and that they want to let the viewers know who the person is because sometimes you can't hear what they are saying. . .I hate it when they flash the EVP thing explaining the thing when most people know what it is
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Minarvia

    Minarvia

    [6]Jul 18, 2007
    • member since: 06/07/05
    • level: 39
    • rank: Fonzerelli
    • posts: 1,965
    SnowLiger09 wrote:


    Keep in mind that the show was pre-recorded and that they want to let the viewers know who the person is because sometimes you can't hear what they are saying. . .I hate it when they flash the EVP thing explaining the thing when most people know what it is


    Agree, I think they should put it up as text that a person can read it and it dose take away from watching an episode.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of grailwolf

    grailwolf

    [7]Aug 3, 2007
    • member since: 04/22/05
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 4,578

    1) The use of profanity is not allowed anywhere on the forums. I chose not to delete the thread because it had a conversation going, but I did edit the title.

    2) The fact that a person's name is displayed on screen has nothing to do with whether the film crew has seen that person before. They don't do that real-time, they go back in and insert the titles later in post-production.

    3) They've been interviewed before about this, and Jason & Grant have said that occasionally the film crew will ask them to "re-enact" a conversation or event that just happened (though, never during an investigation or in any way which misleads viewers). This is usally done because the camera wasn't in place or the microphone didn't pick up part of the conversation, etc.

    4) Since this is not about the investigations this has nothing whatsoever to do with the "scientific process".

    5) The fact that these guys obviously can't act to save their lives makes me really doubt that they are faking anything during the investigations themselves.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Elliotlvr08

    Elliotlvr08

    [8]Aug 3, 2007
    • member since: 05/12/07
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 131

    HAHA! Thank you!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Temporaryscars

    Temporaryscars

    [9]Aug 30, 2007
    • member since: 08/17/05
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 70
    grailwolf wrote:

    1) The use of profanity is not allowed anywhere on the forums. I chose not to delete the thread because it had a conversation going, but I did edit the title.

    2) The fact that a person's name is displayed on screen has nothing to do with whether the film crew has seen that person before. They don't do that real-time, they go back in and insert the titles later in post-production.

    3) They've been interviewed before about this, and Jason & Grant have said that occasionally the film crew will ask them to "re-enact" a conversation or event that just happened (though, never during an investigation or in any way which misleads viewers). This is usally done because the camera wasn't in place or the microphone didn't pick up part of the conversation, etc.

    4) Since this is not about the investigations this has nothing whatsoever to do with the "scientific process".

    5) The fact that these guys obviously can't act to save their lives makes me really doubt that they are faking anything during the investigations themselves.



    Read my entire post, specifically the bottom to solve your scientific process confusion.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of grailwolf

    grailwolf

    [10]Aug 31, 2007
    • member since: 04/22/05
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 4,578

    Temporaryscars wrote:
    Read my entire post, specifically the bottom to solve your scientific process confusion.

    Entire post read (again) and there is no confusion. At least, not on my end.

    I can see, however, how you would have gotten confused, and that's my fault. I should have explained more thoroughly in my initial reply, but I was trying to be brief. So here's the longer version:

    To start with, "the scientific process" is not a commonly accepted term. There is no strict definition for it (it varies from one branch of science to the next, and even from one laboratory to the next), so they cannot be violating it in any substantive way. What you probably mean by the term is the scientific method. However, the scientific method only deals with the process that is used to arrive at a theory. It does not deal with the dissemination of data afterwards.

    Now, I do have to say that I am unaware of any refusal on the part of TAPS to share data. I have seen plenty of data on the show itself, and more on their website and on scifi.com, and I have heard of people outside the organization analyzing raw footage. However, I may very well just be unaware of such incidents. Have you asked them for raw data and been refused?

    I am also unaware of anyone in TAPS claiming "how scientific they are" but again I may have just missed something. They certainly make a big deal out of all the tech that they use, but IMO there is a big difference between saying that they are "scientific" and saying that they have cool toys.

    In closing I can suggest one possible explanation (in the event that what you say is true). Jason and Grant have stated many times that there is absolutely no data that they could collect which would convince a skeptic. They may well have decided that it's just not worth the effort and expense that would be required in order to make the raw data available to people who are just going to trash it. Alternately, they may be waiting until they have more compelling evidence that is harder to refute.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Temporaryscars

    Temporaryscars

    [11]Aug 31, 2007
    • member since: 08/17/05
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 70

    Thanks for the reply. Yeah, i'm no scientist, so as far as actual definitions for "scientific process" and "scientific method" go, i'll just have to take your word for it. I just thought it was a catchy title. Second, if you're a fan of the show, and i'm going to guess that you are since, well, you're here, then you should know that they claim to take a "scientific approach" to ghost hunting (i.e. not using psychics or chanting or black candles...stuff like that). As for my info, ok, you got me there, I read it off of Wikipedia, which we all know is 150% true about 20% of the time, but whatever. Here's a quote if you're interested: "Criticism Ghost Hunters has attracted various critics and skeptics. Some question the scientific validity of the investigations conducted by the TAPS team, its methodology, and particularly its use of instrumentation, as there is no scientifically-proven link between the existence of ghosts and (for example) cold spots or electromagnetic fields.Of ghost hunting in general, skeptical investigator Joe Nickell says, "...the approach of the typical ghost hunter-a nonscientist using equipment for a purpose for which it was not made and has not been shown to be effective-is sheer pseudoscience." Others contend that the show's claimed evidence of the paranormal could be easily hoaxed, since third party review of evidence collected by TAPS is not encouraged, and those who have contacted the group asking for full footage from everything recorded at the haunted locations have also gone unanswered. With each new season, critics of Ghost Hunters continue to publish skeptical analyses and theories on the Internet, often employing frame-by-frame analysis of episode footage which they believe debunks the show's finding."

    While Wikipedia is the best source, I doubt somebody would have just made that up. I don't know the reasons as to why they wouldn't release the information for third party verfication, but if you look at my posts in some of my other favorite reality shows (i.e. Survivorman), you'll see that when it comes to shows like GH and such, their draw and their level of quality all rest on the realism of the show. If i'm watching GH, and it's supposed to be a show that's real, and if I have no reason to think otherwise, then yeah, it's an awesome show and i'm really into it. But, if I think for one second that the "ghost" is just a guy with a black sheet over his body running around in the dark, the whole thing is down the drain and it's no longer worth watching.

    Oh yeah, and before I forget, you're right, they can't act, which makes it painfully obvious when they do fake parts of the show.

    Edited on 08/31/2007 8:03am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of VeggiHead

    VeggiHead

    [12]Sep 10, 2007
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 504
    On a lighter note,I find myself think that this is not the showI really love to watch.I dont think we are not getting the feel of the whole investigation, and they easily accept things that happen as paranormal and not really take the time to investigate it like they usually do.
    Edited on 09/11/2007 8:09am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.