Ghost Hunters 6.3: “Shamrock Spirits”
Case #1: Paddy Reilly’s Bar, NY
Case #2: Harriet Beecher Stowe House, CT
This was an unusual episode. Much of it came across as a standard low-activity episode, the kind that doesn’t come around quite as much as they used to, and usually that means that the clients are told that no paranormal activity was found. Client management is what it is, and sometimes that message has to be massaged to the needs and expectations of the client. To some, that sounds dishonest, but in some situations, it’s more a question of psychology.
In both cases, I thought TAPS went to unusual lengths to offer up potential paranormal sources of reported activity, even when the collected data didn’t support such a conclusion. This was far more evident in the first case, where it seemed like Grant was tossing out possibilities of residual hauntings when the investigation itself suggested nothing of the kind. I got the distinct impression that there was a bit of client management at work, but even so, I felt that a line had been crossed.

I know it sounds like a broken record, but this is a perfect example of why critics and even longtime fans say that TAPS has changed since the beginning of the series. Grant has always been more willing to turn to the paranormal explanations, but Jason would keep him in check. Where was the oft-touted skepticism? If all the data points to the “fear cage” effect in the basement, why would Jason toss out the possibility of strong EM fields facilitating paranormal activity? Especially when nothing was captured to suggest any activity in that area at all?
This is what people are talking about when they harp on consistency and the lowering of standards. It’s not just something that critics of the show and TAPS have conjured up on their own to justify their arguments. It’s something many fans and supporters have noticed, and like me, many of those fans continue to feel that this is just a symptom of a larger problem with the direction of the show in recent years.
(Now, to be fair, many other fans dispute the idea that the team has softened their standards or changed their ways to appeal to a wider audience, and point to the usual editing issues as the culprit. Here’s the problem, at least in this case. If Jason and Grant don’t offer paranormal explanations when there’s little or no data to support it, then the editors can’t insert that footage into the scene. The editors can be blamed for playing up the paranormal angle, but they can’t be blamed for introducing it in the first place!)
I also thought I would share an interesting recent experience. While investigating with a local group, I ran into a strange situation. While my partner and I were in the basement, we heard what sounded like shuffling and running up on the first floor. We ran to the sound to investigate the cause of the sound, but no one was on that floor and nothing was out of the ordinary. (There were no pets or children in the building, just to be clear.) We moved to the first floor to see if it would happen again, but it was silent.
Another team rotated into the basement as video cameras and audio recorders were adjusted to cover the space where the footsteps/running would have originated. Sure enough, the same sounds were heard again. This time, they were captured on the camera and digital audio, and heard by the investigators in the basement. Video was able to show that the room was empty. Video and audio on the second floor confirmed that it was not a sound coming from above.
The building does make settling noises, and these were remarked upon and easily noted during review. These sounds were much louder, and only came when investigators were in the basement. We were able to replicate the sounds by running through the first floor room itself, but as mentioned, the video shows the room was empty. At this point, it is a point for further investigation; I am in no way saying that this is a paranormal event. It’s simply unexplained at this time, having defeating our initial attempts at debunking.
But during discussion on the subject, it did occur to me that this is not unlike the “footsteps” that are regularly encountered on this show (and others, for that matter). It’s easy enough to offer debunking theories based on what we see and hear, but to be fair, this kind of “evidence” is actually encountered. And if one is predisposed to assume a paranormal origin for unusual sounds, I can definitely understand how certain conclusions would be drawn.
Case #1: Paddy Reilly’s Bar, NY
I don’t think that it comes into play with this particular case. Nothing in this case seemed remotely paranormal, and the reported activity was awfully hard to swallow. As thematically pleasing as it was to have a familiar Irish pub featured on the St. Patrick’s Day episode, this didn’t seem to have much going for it. Although we did learn that Steve doesn’t know how to execute a proper Guinness pour.
I did think it was pretty funny that Jason and Grant took the “he looked kinda like Gene Hackman” line and ran with it. And I want to thank Dave Tango for apologizing for Steve’s anti-Irish behavior!
I’m not sure I liked the debunking by Steve and Tango in this case. It seemed just a little too convenient an explanation. I know that clients have a tendency to overlook the obvious sometimes, but wouldn’t someone have noticed if the traffic outside was causing bottles, glasses, or an old water pump handle to move?
Case #2: Harriet Beecher Stowe House, CT
Much like the previous episode, where we got to see the team work without Grant, we have an investigation without Jason. And once again, it seemed like the forced change in dynamics was to the benefit of the entire team and investigative process. The only thing that really bothered me was the emphasis placed on the K-II/Melmeter session. At this point, without some kind of information on the frequency at play, it’s hard to take these EM spikes seriously. It’s just too easy for the devices to be triggered by RF sources. (Like, for instance, someone with a walkie-talkie.)
This is why I brought up the point about my recent investigative experience. Kris and Amy heard a solid “bump” coming from above, and could not find a source. There seemed to be other odd noises also captured. My point is that this sort of “evidence” is encountered in the field.
But, to my earlier point, it’s hard to make a connection to paranormal activity. I think they were right in largely downplaying the “bump, but I was a little taken aback at how much importance they seemed to place on the second recording. I understand the client wanting to link that to someone playing checkers, but why not try to explain that the recording doesn’t actually support that kind of conclusion?
Of course, in this case, it could have been an editing issue, because this half of the episode felt incredibly choppy and off-kilter. Kris and Grant seemed to stumble through the scripted introductory segments, and keeping in Steve’s comment about getting to catch up with Grant during the investigation seemed out of context. (It’s a reference to his time away on the first season of “Ghost Hunters Academy”, but I fully anticipate critics running with the ball and twisting that around. Along with endless commentary on Kris’ supposed implants and how she and Tango were “obviously flirting”.)
I thought the debunking of the “bearded man” was good, at least to a point. Did the client say that the lights were on when the reported activity took place? I think they were doing their best to replicate the reports, but in this case, I wasn’t convinced that it was a slam dunk. On the other hand, it beats having to make a convincing case that lights from street traffic with Floating Gene Hackman.








