The Critical Myth Paranormal Blog

Watching this episode, I was left with an uneasy feeling. It’s the same feeling I’ve gotten in several locations that they’ve featured on this show, especially since they’ve been frequenting public and landmark establishments that can certainly profit from being “haunted”. When they find a lot of “evidence” that seems too good to be true, one has to wonder if it is. So I was comforted by the fact that others, in various forums, had the same suspicion over the course of the episode.

I certainly can’t prove anything, and there’s always the possibility that it’s more complicated than that. Fans remember the case where they investigated a bar that was rigged to the gills, and to this day, still point the finger at the client, given that TAPS was visibly annoyed at the apparent deception. (That the establishment’s rigged effects and such were a matter of public record, and known to local groups, adds some interesting layers to the debate.) And then there was the incident on the Queen Mary. Needless to say, there are people who would get a kick out of getting one over on the famous ghost hunters.

As the audience, we’re left with the decision to accept or question what is presented to us, and since TAPS forged its reputation on skepticism and debunking (how well earned is a matter of subjective interpretation), we’re often inclined to question things when they seem off-kilter. I have to agree with those who say that the “evidence” didn’t quite ring true, and the reactions of the clients gave me further pause. As I said, there’s nothing definitive to put my finger on, so it’s just an opinion, but then, that’s true of everything I say in relation to this (and any other) show. (Though I suppose any suspicions about the client might be best answered by their own actions: http://www.ghosthuntweekends.com/ghw/thomas-house_main.html.)

First, there was the whistling. It was very, very loud. Almost louder than the investigators at times. It’s not unheard of, certainly, but since I always take issue with the frequency of AVPs on this and other shows in the subgenre, this was glaring. I also noticed that the first instance was unusual in that Grant heard it coming from the room in front of him, while Jason heard it coming from the completely opposite direction.

That could have been an effect of acoustics, but that brings up other considerations. The problem with any AVP is that, by nature, it is a physical sound wave. Otherwise, the human ear and microphones wouldn’t mutually pick it up; something must cause the displacement of air necessary to generate the sound. Theoretically, one could use that to figure out a point of origination. (I’ve actually worked with a team where we did just that, and the origination point was the exact spot where the activity had been primarily reported.)

This is not an idle exercise. Since an AVP is an actual sound, tracking down the source can allow a team to conduct the necessary experiments to isolate a natural cause, human or otherwise. Or, in this case, two potential sources. Either the same sound traveled from one point to two different directions to confuse Jason and Grant, or there were two identical points of origin. Which, to me, is suspicious.

There was also the “child’s voice” AVP, and that one definitely raised some red flags. Perhaps it’s a matter of how the sound was filtered through the various layers of production, but every time it was replayed, it reminded me of a low-quality recording. As Grant mentioned, it was very reminiscent of a greeting card recording, though it wouldn’t need to be something to that effect. And with the amount of knick-knacks throughout the house, it would be next to impossible to track it down, if it only happened every so often.

Since the majority of the “evidence” was audio, and contributed greatly to the psychological tone of the investigation as a whole, I can’t shake the feeling that the questionable nature of the audio becomes the lynchpin of one’s opinion of what took place. (And yes, I’m aware that some contend that it was not the client, but rather, everyone involved, that could/would have set things up, but those opinions tend to apply to the show as a whole.)

Not everything can be attributed to the clients or, more charitably, items in the home that are giving off unexpected sounds. Take the supposed “really high” EMF readings, for instance. I have come to the conclusion that Adam doesn’t have a clue how to interpret EMF readings, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the two “experts” who supposedly trained him on “Ghost Hunters Academy”. And that covers half the current team, in terms of fundamental technical ignorance.

Readings of 0.5 – 2.0 mGauss are not high. Not even remotely. In fact, in many locations, that’s the baseline level of EMF in every nook and cranny of the house! We are regularly bombarded with much higher levels each and every day. That Adam (and Amy) interpreted readings at that level as unusual and potentially mind-altering is absolutely incorrect by any scientific measure. It’s not a matter of personal opinion; just take a look at older episodes of this show, and you’ll see that they don’t even comment on levels higher than what they measured in this location.

But therein lies one of my biggest criticisms of TAPS. Steve and Tango consider spikes or changes of less than 1.0 mGauss as significant, when they are not. As I always note, without knowing the frequency, man-made sources cannot be eliminated. This lack of technical understanding of one of the most basic instruments in their arsenal does not reflect well on their methods or conclusions. If anything, they seem to be getting worse with these interpretations, not better, since they weren’t making these ludicrous claims about minor background levels and fluctuations in the past. If it were just one investigator, I would point to some lack on that person’s part, but it’s becoming obvious that it’s a systemic weakness of the group.

While I continue to take note of the efforts being taken to make the “flashlight test” more acceptable, with the use of multiple flashlights and more specific questioning protocols, I still have little faith in the results. Fundamentally, when the design of experiment (slightly unscrewing the flashlight) points to an existing scientific explanation for why the flashlight would go on or off at random, the results cannot be claimed to be significant or anomalous.

Amy seems to be the champion of this “test”, and she mentioned on Twitter as the show was airing that this session went on for 30 minutes with clear, indisputable results. From her perspective, I’m sure that’s true. She also said in the episode that there was never an “early response” or lag. Unfortunately, she’s said the same things before, even when the footage itself completely disputes that claim. I’m not saying that she’s intentionally misrepresenting the situation, though. Confirmation bias is, after all, a subconscious activity. For that reason, I default to, “show, don’t tell”, and with something like this, they’d need to show me the entire session for me to see enough of a trend to make it convincing.

All of which leaves me feeling oddly about this episode. On the one hand, it had something interesting aspects about it, and one way or another, the audio that was captured would demand a much closer look on any follow-up investigation. But I’m left cold by the ridiculous errors with the EMF meters and the never-ending use of the “flashlight test”.

As I was watching this episode, I began thinking a lot about one of the recurring drawbacks of paranormal investigation. It’s a problem that is actually compounded when teams become booked to the hilt over a year-round schedule. How can one be certain that conditions in a given location are anomalous, if one only spends a relatively short time in any given location?

It’s not always a major factor. While every home has its particular ambient conditions, most houses tend to have similar characteristics, and so it’s easy enough to tell when something unusual is taking place. Even a lot of businesses and such are familiar enough to keep the variation down. But what about spaces like Hales Bar Dam and Marina, where the conditions are anything but typical?

There were several scenes in this episode that brought this question to mind, as the investigators reacted to things that, logically, they just wouldn’t have experienced very often. The main question that came to mind was acoustics. The buildings in question are large, wide open, and sitting right in and around running water. It’s open to the wildlife in the area, including the fish, birds, and insects featured in the episode. In other words, it’s a location that seems primed to produce unusual sights and sounds, so how does one come to the conclusion that something is paranormal or not?

It’s easy to point to experience in the field as the natural answer, but that may not be the advantage that it appears to be. We all know that running water can generate noise that sounds like talking, and without spending a considerable amount of time in that location, how can one be sure that an apparent AVP wasn’t just an auditory illusion? A lot of the sounds recorded in this episode seemed to fit into that category.

There were also a few examples that could have come from birds or other wildlife in the area. “Ghost Adventures” is guilty of this all the time; they record a strange sound, call it evidence, and then viewers from the area point out that it’s absolutely normal. I have no idea if that is the case in this situation, but I would love to hear from someone who lives nearby to get their take. (In fact, at least one local has commented that some of the noises were typical “fish rolls”, and therefore not at all paranormal.)

The episode also played up the “whirlpool”, and I’m not entirely certain as to why that was supposed to be so ominous in the first place. If there is any validity to the folklore that running water can fuel paranormal activity (something that has never been verified in any widespread study, I might add), then why would the “whirlpool” be any more potent than the massive amounts of water rushing past them at any given time?

I will say that the unusual location did provide for some fun deviations from the formula. The inspection of the headstones was actually a bit creepy; certainly, it’s not something many of us see on a regular basis. But that speaks to my point: when investigators get worked up over seeing a fish in the water, it’s reasonable to question if they have the time to get comfortable and knowledge enough with the location to distinguish between normal and paranormal.

I’m not knocking TAPS at all with this; I see it as a pitfall that every investigator must recognize. We only have so much time to gain a thorough understanding of a location and its peculiarities before reviewing the data and parsing through “evidence”. It has to be that much harder when they really don’t get too many opportunities to return to a location before moving to the next case, which might be several states away. At least local groups can visit a site multiple times, if necessary, to gain experience and perspective on the location’s quirks.

As such, I’m not sure what to think of a lot of what they captured. I think a lot of it was just a function of the location itself, and not necessarily evidence of anything paranormal. Some of the noises would be worth investigating further, but I certainly don’t get the impression that they had enough “evidence” to say that it was haunted, even in a residual sense.

Case #1: Naples Hotel, NY
Case #2: Gardner Mansion, MA

More than any recent episode of “Ghost Hunters”, this installment managed to convey just how long the franchise has been running. The second case featured in this episode brings the team back to a location that they investigated at least five years ago, now with different owners. I can only assume that they weren’t fans of “Ghost Hunters” before, since they had no idea that there was activity in the home. (And I’m sure it didn’t help the first time someone said, “Hey, we’ve been to that place before!”)

I know, there is a counter-interpretation; some hardline Skeptics maintain that the clients in this episode were well aware of the history of the house, and that TAPS was previously involved, so that this is nothing more than a setup. Considering that some of these same Skeptics also believe that everyone on the show is just an actor, following a script, this is hardly surprising.

But cases like this really do represent the greatest moral quandary. We know that shows like “Ghost Adventures” are easier to dismiss, because as ridiculous as the claims on that show are, they focus on businesses and landmarks. Contrast this with how “Paranormal State” quickly gained a negative reputation for questionable treatment towards private residential clients, and certainly how their conclusions (regardless of how they were drawn) affected those clients after the fact.

Since many critics and fans both acknowledge that many of the locations in recent seasons have been selected based on the clients’ desire for PR, it’s easier for many to dismiss or downplay any claims that TAPS, Pilgrim, clients, or any combination thereof might play up the “evidence”. But in cases like this, where both situations involved people who were apparently quite frightened by the activity that seemed to be taking place, it’s a lot harder to reconcile.

This is why I have always defaulted to the notion that TAPS operates with largely good intentions, with the occasional concession to the demands of the medium and audience expectation. If we were to learn that “Ghost Adventures” was faking everything, who would it harm, in the end? We can’t say the same thing with situations like this. It would take a diabolical personality to willingly capitalize on the fears of clients like this, and I just don’t see that being the case with TAPS.

Case #1: Naples Hotel, NY

This was a baffling case. There was a lot happening through the investigation, and few of the incidents produced the typical sort of “evidence” that we’ve become a bit accustomed to seeing. Beyond the fact I don’t agree with jumping to conclusions about the source of phenomena while still collecting data, some of the incidents were unusual.

The “scream” is probably the easiest to reconcile. It didn’t sound like a scream to me at all, but rather, some kind of animal noise from outside. The conversation was probably the more interesting audio “evidence”, but they didn’t show the waveform produced for the analysis (which is atypical), so it’s hard to know if the voices rose above the background noise.

I’m on the fence about the picture. As much as everyone swore up and down that the picture was secure on the two hooks, that’s the sort of thing that is awfully subjective, so I’d want to see it for myself. Besides, since it happened off-camera, it’s just not that convincing. That’s an easy way for someone on the production end to “help things along”.

The light fixture is a bit more difficult to explain. The video footage makes it clear that the fixture wasn’t launched across the room; it pretty much fell straight down. But why would it do so? I suppose that it could have been partially removed to make it easy for normal vibration from movement in the room to make it fall, but it could just as easily have been loose in the first place. And once everything else was going on, how else would it be interpreted?

Whatever the case, I don’t think that evidence of a haunting was in any way “overwhelming”, but it was enough that, in the same situation, I would want to follow-up on a laundry list of items.

Case #2: Gardner Mansion, MA

This was unusual, because how often do we get to see them go back to a previous location? Not that often, and especially not when it’s a residential case. This episode scores points for this reason alone!

I’m wary of the K-II footage, for all the reasons that I’ve given previously. Was it interesting that the meter was only going off in that specific location? Maybe a bit, but even if it had been a regular EMF meter, I’d still want to know the frequency of the EM field being registered, if only to exclude the usual suspects.

But the highlight here is the hilarious AVP that they captured. My first instinct was a bird of some kind, because I agree with them: it sounded like a damn chicken! Alas, the “laughter” was buried in the background noise, and when repeated, it sounded vaguely mechanical. But that “chicken” sound was really bizarre.

What really struck me at that moment, though, was Grant’s expression. Sure, after Jason asked him about the noise, he was just as bewildered by it, but his initial reaction was just plain weird. It’s literally impossible to describe. I’m not suggesting anything negative about it; it was just the sort of expression that is hard to read. I would really love to know what was going through his head!

Case #1: King’s Island, OH
Case #2: Salamy Home, NH

As the eighth season of “Ghost Hunters” begins, I’m not quite sure what to think. If it wasn’t for the fact that there was a bit of time taken at the top of the hour to introduce the basic premise of TAPS and the show, I’m not sure this would have felt like a premiere. Certainly, it didn’t start off the season with the fanfare that accompanied the return of the show in previous seasons. While it does mitigate unrealistic expectations somewhat, it also makes this feel like just another entry.

I’m essentially past the point where I expect them to do anything different. They’ve teased the introduction of new and innovative equipment and techniques enough times, with little or no payoff, for me to assume its just a PR ruse. The team has also been much more aggressive in their attitudes on social media, dismissing any and all critics, constructive or otherwise, in fairly negative fashion. In other words, they have no intention of changing their ways or improving their game, and if you think they should, that’s your problem.

All things being equal, it’s probably something that has evolved with success. By the time you get to eight seasons, pushing well over 100 episodes, maybe there’s a justification for a bit of arrogance. As someone who came into the paranormal investigative community because of TAPS’ influence, however, I wish they’d regain a bit of the humility that they possessed earlier in the series. Even diehard fans mention how their “rockstar Hollywood attitude” can be tiresome.

My other observation during the intro, before the cases began in earnest, was how disingenuous it sounds when Jason says that 80% of reports turn out to be something other than paranormal. Why disingenuous? Looking back at recent seasons, they seem to find something each and every location they visit, with a few occasional minor exceptions. Both locations in this episode had some sort of activity, for example.

It’s often said that other investigators criticize TAPS for these apparent discrepancies and attitudes out of jealousy. I think that’s a specious argument. As I’ve mentioned many times, I don’t think there’s a group that has existed for more than a year that hasn’t been contacted by some television producer trying to jump on the bandwagon. My own group has been contacted at least a dozen times. We usually drop out of discussion when it becomes clear that we will be required to compromise our principles for the sake of the medium, regardless of initial promises to the contrary. The point is, the opportunities aren’t scarce; a lot of investigators just prefer not to go there. Or, they only want to do so if the terms and conditions are a philosophical match.

Ironically, there are a lot of investigators and fans that continue to watch “Ghost Hunters” because, despite serious and well-founded disagreements regarding method and “evidence” evaluation, TAPS has remained a fairly personable and likeable group. This is why this latest shift in their attitude on social media has been troubling. The show remains on the air, but the ratings have suffered over time. While I’m sure there will always be a loyal, devoted fan base, placing oneself above criticism is a good way to see that shrink.

Case #1: King’s Island, OH

This was a rather odd case. I’d say that the bulk of the investigation served to debunk a lot of the reported activity, and even some of the research was used to dispel some of the myths and legends that have grown out of past tragedy. As I’ve said since the very beginning, that’s the sort of thing that I love to see, because I think that discussing how reports of paranormal activity can emerge out of natural events and the persuasion of misconception has great value.

For that reason, I think it would have been instructive if the possibilities presented by the apparent sighting of “balls of light” could have been explored. After all, it was a dark and stormy night, with tons of lightning, and this can (and does) lead to unexpected effects. Keeping in mind that there’s a lot of metal and electrical wiring in an amusement park, could Amy and Adam have seen the random discharges that can take place under strong storm conditions? The conditions were out of the ordinary, even for them, so I’m not sure one can point to their experience as a reason for not considering that over paranormal origins.

Regardless, there was enough debunking taking place that the audio “evidence” was a bit surprising. While most of it was unintelligible, I must admit that the final EVP was quite clear. Even better, the waveforms were distinct from the background noise in all cases. That’s pretty rare for TAPS to find these days, so I would definitely agree that it would be worth a closer look.

I also appreciate that while the client certainly noted the possibility that the EVPs came from the spirit of the little girl, TAPS didn’t make an enormous production out of how that must be the logical interpretation, like we would have seen on “Ghost Adventures”. Given some of the unfounded assumptions rampant in the seventh season finale, it’s good to see that absent this time around.

Case #2: Salamy Home, NH

These cases are always so tricky. We’ve gotten used to this show focusing on public venues where the consequences of any given conclusion are minimal at best. Private cases? A whole different story. I know a lot of investigators and groups that are increasingly wary of taking these cases anymore, because it’s all too easy to leave things in a worse situation, even (or perhaps especially) when it’s less paranormal and more psychological.

The growling sound was interesting, but it led me to wonder if there wasn’t an animal hiding somewhere. It looked like they were going to explore that possibility, when they tracked the noise down to a particular spot in the basement, but things were left a bit more open than that. Perhaps the editors figured that the audience would assume it was considered, if it wasn’t stated?

This case largely came down to the “flashlight test”, and I just don’t know what to say about this nonsense anymore. I’ll give Amy and Adam credit for adjusting their technique so they clearly note which flashlight is “yes” and “no”. But despite strident claims to the contrary, it still strikes me as random. At least three times, a flashlight goes on or off before Amy has finished asking her question (or getting out more than a couple words), yet it’s interpreted as a definitive responsive action. It doesn’t make sense to interpret that as clear communication, especially when there is a perfectly good and well-known scientific explanation for why the flashlights go on and off!

And it’s just this sort of neo-Spiritualist technique that I think it’s fair to criticize, as it flies in the face of their repeated claim that they follow the scientific method to evaluate claims of the paranormal. When they increasingly dismiss criticism, they give the impression that success has blinded them to their own faults.

Case #1: Sun Inn, PA
Case #2: Hanoverville Roadhouse, PAi

So here we are, at another season finale for “Ghost Hunters”, which is coming back for an eighth season in 2012. If nothing else, there’s now a regularity to how the seasons parse out along the annual schedule, so we can be certain that the seasons will end right around the year-end holidays. And I suppose “Christmas City” is as good a place as any to film a season finale, given the timing!

This episode set a questionable stage right at the beginning, when Jason launched into a short commentary on how TAPS applies an objective, scientific approach to get to the truth…and then starts talking about how they hope to find the ghost of the little girl that’s haunting the location. The entire monologue is a perfect example of why they are not scientific. If you’re already assuming a haunting, you’re presuming the result.

But that’s been a growing trend in this seventh season, as they seem to incorporate more and more from the much-maligned (and rightfully so) playbook from “Ghost Adventures”. We see Jason and Grant provoking more than they have in the past, we see them listening to audio recordings right in the middle of the investigation (a terrible practice), and the entire team has been assuming context much more than I can ever recall.

I’m not even sure this is a conscious trend, because I’ve seen it spread pervasively throughout the paranormal investigative community. Some of these elements have always been a problem, of course: when a group goes to a location to encounter ghosts, provoking is the predictable next step when things aren’t happening. And who hasn’t run into investigators who will, upon getting the most vague EVP, will build up an entire rationale for why it ties into the reported activity?

The scientific paranormal investigator has to set those tendencies aside. The data must speak for itself. That’s one reason why I continue to disagree with the trend of reviewing audio while still in a given location, even if an AVP was heard and confirmation is desired. It’s a question of objectivity. When one is engaged in an EVP session, there’s an active desire to get a response or engage in direct communication. It’s part of the psychology of the exercise. As a result, simple noise or otherwise questionable recordings, that might be screened out in the typical post-investigative review, are taken more seriously. And, of course, it leads to more assumption of contextual meaning.

It’s often said that the nature of the paranormal is such that any theory has the potential to be true. That’s only true to a very specific point. All the theories (even those that are little more than firmly-stated opinions) are potentially correct up until the point that data is collected and conclusions can therefore be made. The data becomes the determinant of the viability of a given theory. If the recorded observations don’t match the theory, and the data collection methods are valid, then the theory is wrong.

Case #1: Sun Inn, PA

My comments above pertain directly to the FLIR footage in this case. I’ll be perfectly honest right from the start; I’m not sure what caused the activity that was captured in the footage, off the top of my head. But I do question the immediate conclusion that the chair footage was the result of a little girl spirit sitting in the chair, and that the figure was definitely the girl who was killed.

First, the chair footage. Recalling that FLIR cameras do not register air temperature, all we know is that there was a portion of the back of the chair that was warmer than the rest, and that part of the seat appeared to grow warmer shortly thereafter. The back of the chair has many explanations; for instance, if someone had been holding on the back of the chair at some point, the residual heat would linger for a while. But the seat also suggests that the surface was partially reflective.

If it had been a spirit, then there is actually a way they could have gotten more information to support the notion. The data shows that the two spots on the chair (the back and the seat) were several degrees warmer than the baseline for the rest of the chair. Simple thermodynamics requires that if something were contacting the chair in those two spots, it would need to be warmer than both the baseline temperature of the chair and the recorded temperature of the “warm spot”. So measuring the air temperature very close to the back of the chair (or the seat) should yield a warmer temperature, if there is something there giving thermal energy to the chair.

So, if we can buy into the assumption that the “warm spots” were caused by the little girl spirit, then the spirit is warmer than the baseline temperature of the chair, and consistently so, since the seat apparently rose in temperature very quickly. (Again, going by the footage as presented.) We can see that by the temperature/color range provided on-screen.

Unfortunately, the footage of the supposed spirit captured just after the examination of the chair appears to show a figure that is roughly human in shape, though half the normal size, and most importantly, the same general temperature as the rest of the background. And the temperature/color scale is not provided in the footage, so we don’t know how large a variation is being indicated by the color differences. From what I could tell, the figure also didn’t seem to move; meaning, the figure itself was a static figure (the shape didn’t change). The camera, however, was moving significantly at the time.

Tying this all together, the assumed context doesn’t make sense. If a spirit caused the chair to warm up in certain spots, it needed to be warmer than the chair. Since the figure was no warmer than the rest of the background, that strongly suggests that one did not cause the other. And the nature of the “figure” seems more like classic “pattern recognition” than an actual, moving person roaming through the room. The movement of the camera leads me to think it was an object closer to the camera than the rest of the background, which looked like it was moving due to the camera movement. There is nothing definitive to lead one to assume that they caught a little girl interacting with them, as they later claim.

Of course, Jason and Grant weren’t the only ones making questionable assumptions based on tenuous technical data. Steve and Tango once again made a mountain out of a molehill by claiming that EMF readings going from 0.0 mG to 0.5 mG were highly significant. I can say with absolute assurance: that is not a significant spike by any means. In fact, depending on the type of meter, it’s very close to the tolerance of accuracy of the instrument itself. Meaning, the meter may not have the capability of discerning between 0.1 mG and 0.2 mG; it’s within the margin of error.

They’ve done this before, but this was an egregious example. And it’s also nothing that couldn’t be understood from the most basic of training on the instrument. Leaving aside the question of EM frequency, which must be known to exclude man-made sources, a significant spike is more on the order of a sudden rise of 10-20 mG. Most meters will fluctuate anywhere below 1.0 mG no matter where you put them! Some locations I’ve investigated had a baseline of 2-3 mG.

The most interesting thing that happened during this investigation was the moment various team members in different locations all heard the same AVP, and there appeared to be no reasonable source from outside or within the location. I’ve been on investigations where that has happened, and it was captured on enough devices to allow us to correlate it to a specific spot, which was under surveillance and showed no presence of a reasonable source. So I found that incident to be intriguing.

I did have to laugh, though, when Jason and Grant spoke with complete authority when stating that it’s impossible for a ghost to have been floating outside the second floor window. Grant was actually rather pompous in his dismissal. They proceeded to say how it was far more credible that it was the reflection of an apparition inside the room. Need I say more?

Case #2: Hanoverville Roadhouse, PA

I’m a bit leery of the interpretation of the AVP. While it does sound somewhat like a child whimpering, it also could be a simple mechanical squeal from some of the equipment. I’m also not entirely sold on the notion that the EMF from the refrigeration unit could trigger hallucinations. The readings weren’t high enough to suggest that sort of response. If someone were that sensitive to it, they should be reacting constantly when exposed.

In addition to the voice, the team also captured footsteps, which leads them to conclude that there is a residual haunting. I’m not so sure that there is enough data to support such a conclusion. I certainly disagreed with them about the so-called intelligent haunting at the Sun Inn. I understand why they came to the conclusions that they did, but I see it more as a case of assumed context based on confirmation bias. They found what they were looking for, not necessarily what was actually there.

Case #1: Hartford Elks Lodge, CT
Case #2: Morse Mill Hotel, MO

Considering that the show took a short late-season break for the US Thanksgiving holiday, I was expecting to have more to discuss regarding the fallout from the whole GH/GA brouhaha on Twitter and Facebook. While some dedicated fans are still debating the merits of both teams and which is best, most have already moved on. I suppose that’s for the best, though it was hilarious to read the passionate defense from GA fans, claiming that GA gets “better and more credible evidence than anyone else in the business”. (Yeah, feel free to pause and laugh hysterically at that one.)

There was some odd activity out there in the social media, however. Grant was intent on making a point about the dangers of using the internet for research purposes. I can only imagine that this was indirectly related to the criticisms of their own research practices during the GH/GA mess, but I think Grant is chasing up the wrong tree. While it’s certainly true that one can be led astray by fabricated or biased information sources on the internet, that’s not necessarily something that is absent from any research source.

But let’s take a salient recent example. Perhaps Grant was responding to the criticism that TAPS continues to perpetuate questionable claims regarding the number of deaths at Waverly Hills, and chastising those who believe “internet sources” over their own sources. What is missing from that black/white condemnation is the simple exercise of vetting your source. The context and provenance of any source is key.

That same principle applies, of course, to the “evidence” presented on websites, TV shows, and during conferences. The data is only as good as the supporting rationale behind it. Assumed context can render useful data all but worthless. Mistaking false positives as useful data is also a major issue. If the goal is digging down to the truth of a matter, then it is necessary to get deeper than the surface.

My point is that verification of the validity of a source of information is the underlying principle. Accepting or excluding a source based on “trust” or “distrust” is quite beside the point. People can state incorrect information with absolute sincerity and not a little authority, and they would still be wrong or misled by preconceived notions!

Case #1: Hartford Elks Lodge

My first thought, when I saw this location, was how in the world they were being allowed to investigate there. Being a member of a roughly similar fraternal order, there is a certain value placed on the “mysteries” therein. Is everyone in TAPS a member of the Elks? If not, why would they let TAPS members have unfettered access, to the point of members openly going through the ritual book? Not a big deal, but I was a bit puzzled by it.

I was also a bit underwhelmed by the “evidence”. The AVP was not at all clear, and even when Jason and Grant kept hearing voices in the boiler room, it was fairly obvious to me that there was a lot of loud equipment running. That sort of scenario is ideal for generating unusual sound patterns that could be mistaken for speech, and the AVP in question sounded like something mechanical. As an engineer who has been in my share of industrial areas, I can’t see how that is definitively paranormal.

I also question the notion of taking the “e-pod” activity as some kind of confirmatory spirit communication. The “e-pod” equipment I’ve seen is just as susceptible to RF signals as a K-II meter, and even if it wasn’t, the device was in a completely different area from where they were talking. It just felt an awful lot like the kind of inflated context that Zak always adds to the flimsiest of “evidence” on GA, which always leaves me cold.

Case #2: Morse Hill Hotel, MO

This case left me with the inevitable feeling that the client was trying to use the investigation to drive business and put his site on the paranormal investigation map. Sad to say, but as we saw with Bobby Mackey’s, a lot of places know that they can charge groups eager for experience a lot of money on the vague promise of a potential haunting.

I can’t speak to Amy and Adam being touched in the same manner. Much like the similar experience that Jason and Grant had on a recent episode, it’s the kind of personal experience that can’t be backed up in any realistic fashion, so it’s not really “evidence”, by their own standard.

I also don’t buy that the doll caught falling over in the video was in a completely secure position. Just judging by the camera footage that we were shown, it didn’t look like it would take much at all for the doll to topple over, and we’ve all had experiences where things just seem to fall over for no apparent reason. Sometimes it just takes a while for gravity to have its way, and in the absence of any other concurrently captured “evidence”, it’s just not that compelling.

At the same time, Jason and Grant came away with little reason to declare the location haunted. More than that, they actually addressed one of the long-running questions posed by the fans: what’s the difference between a site with paranormal activity and a site that is haunted? The answer is still a bit loose and subjective, but at least they clarified the issue!

Case #1: Buffalo Trace Distillery, KY
Case #2: Bobby Mackey’s, KY

This episode was a bit more low-key than some of the other recent installments, so I didn’t really come away with much in the way of an opinion, beyond my usual take on the “evidence” that was presented. If anything, it made me realize that the current season is drawing towards a close, since there’s just a handful of weeks before the holidays are upon us, and “Ghost Hunters” usually ends well before that point.

But I did have a couple of takeaways, one of them rather ironic. At one point, regarding Bobby Mackey’s reputation, Grant makes a great statement. In essence, he says that the more investigations that take place in a popular location, the more muddled the true situation becomes. In essence, this is the “fact vs. legend” issue that a lot of serious investigators deal with at the more popular sites. (Especially when they start charging huge amounts of money to capitalize on TV fame.)

If Grant had stopped there, it would have been fine. But then he notes that they make a concerted effort to separate fact from fiction and debunk the incorrect historical claims (not his exact words, but that’s the gist of it). I find that ironic, given that they repeated the myth about the number of deaths at Waverly Hills in the previous episode! I was reminded that it was a historian hired by the owners of Waverly Hills that effectively debunked the legendary numbers, which only adds to the irony, since it’s clear that the truth is being purposefully buried to keep that site’s myths alive.

Interestingly, this information is widely available, as many sites dedicated to ghost stories, paranormal investigation, and similar topics have updated their Waverly Hills pages to include the updated, more accurate numbers. So it wouldn’t be hard to find this information, with a little bit of research. Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time that there had been lapses on the research end, as we’ve seen in previous seasons.

The other item that caught my attention was Jason’s claim, towards the end of the Bobby Mackey investigation during the reveal, that pregnant women “give off a different kind of energy” and that this can somehow attract spirits or activity as a result. What struck me is that he didn’t even qualify the statement in any way. Usually, they at least give lip service to the fact that none of these “theories” have much in the way of data to support them. This time, he states it as if it were a proven truth, which of course the client happily accepts.

I know I’m a bit of a contrarian; when someone declares something true, I immediately want to see the evidence and data for myself. One of the most educational aspects of being an investigator is the realization that the vast majority of “truths” in the paranormal community are based in tradition, vague assumption, and technical ignorance. It’s especially difficult when constructive criticism of methods or “theories”, intended to point out false positives, is viewed as outright denial. Considering that most investigators take up the task because of personal experiences, myself included, it’s silly to think that skeptical believers are uniformly dismissive.

All I want (and those of like mind) is good evidence. That means sifting out the bad theories, the technical errors, and the wishful thinking. Pointing those out is not an insult, an expression of arrogance, or signs of jealousy. It’s about doing more than validating our own beliefs and opinions. It’s one thing if that’s all you want to do, but if you’re going to say you’re looking for scientific proof for ghosts or paranormal activity, just tossing out “theories” doesn’t quite cut it.

Case #1: Buffalo Trace Distillery, KY

Yet another investigation where Jason and Grant immediately hear footsteps as soon as they begin. At this point, if this show had a “bingo card”, I’m pretty sure this would be that center square that everyone gets for free. Though I’m fairly sure that simultaneous experiences with “grabby hands” is a bit less predictable. It seemed like a lot of this investigation came down to personal experiences, and a lot of them were presented a bit over-the-top. In a way, that was just fine, because it certainly felt a little less cookie-cutter as a result.

That said, the actual “evidence” was really thin. It amounted to a really sketchy AVP that sounds a lot more like noise than an actual voice. This is often the case in recent seasons; it really does feel like they lowered their standards when it comes to audio evidence.

Case #2: Bobby Mackey’s Club, KY

One thing that struck me right at the start was the massive sign on the side of the building, providing numbers to call to schedule investigations. It’s hard to tell, but maybe there’s a bit of a desire for high publicity when it comes to this site. Certainly “Ghost Adventures” has provided them with a reputation, one way or another.

I find it very hard to take Maddie’s “unusual” behavior as a sign of activity. Just based on the nature of the building and the apparent construction of the “column”, it’s far more likely that she saw a bug or heard a mouse and was looking for it. The EVP that they caught was a huge stretch, once again sounding more like noise than an actual voice.

I think it’s interesting that this is not the first time unusually high EMF readings have been recorded at the site, in the areas where the most activity is reported, yet the conclusions rarely seem to take that into account. Contrary to the opinion of some skeptics, even moderate EMF fields can have a biological effect in a very short period of time. My threshold is pretty high, but when I get near a poorly balanced fuse box pumping out over 120 mG, I can physically feel it. I know the signs well enough at this point to look for the source when it happens! I’ve had others report very similar reactions when near a field of 40-50 mG. So it can and does happen. As such, I appreciate that the team went right to that possibility, even if they stepped right over the logic line from that point to toss out the “fact” that pregnant women attract spirits differently.

But I really question the AVP/EVP interpretations in this episode. In at least one case, the waveform in the analysis had a pattern that any audio engineer would suspect of being an RF capture. That’s the sort of thing that a minimal amount of training on audio analysis could help identify, and that’s one of the reasons why this penchant of presenting noise as viable “evidence” is so troubling. It’s far worse on shows like “Ghost Adventures”, but as the audio “evidence” in this episode demonstrates, they’re not the only culprits.

I’m always on the fence when it comes to investigations of Waverly Hills. Given its reputation, it’s the kind of place that everybody wants to explore, because it seems like there’s always something happening. Very few investigators I know dismiss the site; if anything, the more skeptical want to go to see what they can unveil in natural terms. It may just be one of the Top 5 sites among paranormal enthusiasts.

But all that said, I’m wary, because I have reason to believe that much of the history and activity that has been reported is, to be generous, exaggerated. For example, the historical record does not come close to verifying the more than 60,000 deaths mentioned in this very episode. Nor is there much evidence for the “death tunnel” being used as such, at least not at the rate cited in many sources.

Part of the problem is that Louisville Ghost Hunters Society, in association with the Booth Brothers, is the source of much of this information. Keith Age, the key figure in LGHS, worked with the owners to put the site on the map, running countless tours and public investigations, before working with the Booths on the “Death Tunnel” and “Spooked” films. Former members of LGHS have been vocal in alleging that many of the reports and stories were fabricated; it’s not clear if this is just personal attacks among former colleagues or not, though Keith Age has been found to embellish his personal history and associations.

The irony is that Waverly may be one of the few overpromoted, overpriced locations that actually has the activity to justify its reputation. It’s just near impossible to figure out where the hype ends and the reality begins. For example, the “crawler” was first mentioned, out of nowhere, on an episode of “Ghost Adventures”, a show where every statement must be taken with an entire mountain of salt, given their penchant for inventing context. It sounds far more like something from a horror film than any other credible report from any other site. Is it possible that a location is so active that new and disturbing entities suddenly start showing up? Perhaps it is, but I find it rather telling that this thing is so ubiquitous at the site, when it was never even mentioned just a few years ago. (Interesting observation: the “crawler” sounds an awful lot like the “creature crawling along the ceiling” effect that has been fairly popular in various films and TV shows…especially in just the past few years.)

Beyond the usual demand for proof of wrongdoing, the likely response will be: what does that have to do with this episode? Simply put, it’s very hard for any investigator to separate fact from legend when dealing with a historical site with Waverly’s kind of history. And given the countless number of people who have come through the site, with their own reports of activity and stories, there’s a fair chance that all the trumped-up history and folklore about Waverly is just adding a layer to what is really there to witness.

I’m often of the opinion that TAPS has the resources at their disposal (such as that “home team” they used for the grunt work during the live event) to engage in a bit of research to correct misconceptions. They do it often enough with smaller landmark locations, so why not Waverly? Of course, then they would be contradicting the owner of one of the biggest paranormal tourist attractions on the planet, and might not be invited back, so perhaps it’s not that surprising after all.

But for the sake of argument, perhaps they actually believe that the facts being questioned are, in the end, true (or close enough). Certainly, they feel the same level of heightened anticipation that comes with stepping foot on such a legendary place, ostensibly made more potent by their previous visits. I don’t think they’ve been this excited about a location in a long time.

Now for the real irony: despite all of my misgivings and wibbly-wobbly thoughts about Waverly Hills as a location and tourist attraction, I must admit: this was one rather interesting episode. All things being equal, this had a lot more going on than the typical “Ghost Hunters” episode, that’s for sure. I may have questions about the “evidence”, because that’s practically a given, but it was certainly entertaining!

Probably the most interesting “evidence” is the long string of AVPs that Jason, Grant, and their accompanying production crew recorded. What’s most interesting here is that they heard the sound, and the high-end condenser microphones of the production audio rig captured it as well. This strongly suggests that there was an actual set of voices involved (as in, mechanical movement of the air to create sound waves).

As always, AVPs are a tricky business. On the one hand, it’s daunting to capture a voice (or voices) that you actually heard in real time, when you don’t see or perceive a reasonable source. On the other hand, buildings as open and unusual as Waverly Hills have all kinds of odd acoustics, so it’s not outside of the realm of possibility that someone’s conversation was overheard. Contextually, that would even make sense, given what they believe they heard. (Also, as usual, it’s odd how the voices were buried in the background nose, as seen on-screen in the episode.)

Also problematic (at least, how it was presented) was the activity that affected Amy and Adam so strongly. They seemed to be getting a long stretch of responses to requests for knocking and such, and this led to some poignant Q&A. While it’s certainly clear that Amy and Adam took it all to heart, I’m not convinced, based on what we were shown.

First and foremost, I’m baffled as to why one of them didn’t try to discover the source of the banging and knocking; instead, they seemed intent on hanging back. Granted, the client asked them to focus on communication, but part of communication is verifying that it’s actually happening. For all we know, an animal was responding to the sound of their voice, shifting in the debris.

But also, I’m not convinced that their communication wasn’t laced with confirmation bias. After all, whatever was banging was doing so just about every time they called out (as shown, to be fair). So it seems a bit odd for them to interpret every noise as a “yes”. What would have constituted a “no”? Silence? But then, how can they be sure that the entity in question (as per their assumption) was losing the energy/ability to answer at all?

A bit more impressive, in my book, was the activity that seemed to happen all around Britt during his solo investigating. Setting aside the usual criticism whenever they send (or allow) investigators on their own, there was a lot happening: incredibly loud bangs, unusual moans, the whole nine. And unlike Amy and Adam, he went barreling after the source of the noises each and every time. Perhaps it was all dramatics for the cameras, but that’s been his style for a while, and at least it shows initiative.

The one issue that could be taken (and the one I expect to hear from skeptics) is that it would be all too easy for someone to make those noises and lead Britt on a merry chase. (Skeptics will likely go further down that particular road, I imagine.) That’s equally true of Amy and Adam’s experience. It wouldn’t even need to be the Pilgrim Films crew this time; as we all may recall from the live Halloween event that took place at Waverly, site security is a huge issue. It’s entirely possible that outsiders (or homeless) were contaminating the site.

Regardless, it was one very entertaining episode, and quite possibly the best of the season so far.

This season, the live Halloween event was well and truly a separate entity from the main series. In the past, the reveal of the findings would be relegated to the next episode in the series, with a truncated secondary case tacked on the back end. But this time, they tucked the reveal into the end of the live event itself, so those who prefer just to watch the main series have little reason to consider the live event at all.

I don’t have much to say about the live event, other than it had a few minor improvements and a couple bizarre drawbacks. This event was far less of a Syfy promotional stunt; they only cross-pollinated the event with investigators from other reality programs on the network. The inclusion of half of GHI was fine (if a bit exclusionary), but I could have done without “Fact or Faked”, considering that there is ample evidence that the producers engage in questionable activities. (And, of course, the sloppy investigative and experimental practices.)

They also dispensed with the idiotic background music, something that was even more appreciated when it made its dutiful return in this episode. Past events were particularly bad because of poor real-time mixing; when they weren’t missing their cues, they were blasting the music over the regular audio. This time, there was blessed relative silence, and it made it all the more obvious how it negatively affects the main show when this episode came along.

One drawback was related to an oft-mentioned problem: the K-II Meter. They really have bought into it completely, it seems, because Jason was remarking how it was going off constantly during the beginning of the investigation, during a period when Grant was carrying a huge wireless rig on his back. The wireless was pumping out such a strong RF signal that the interference was leeching over into the audio stream. No wonder the K-II was spiking! Really, this is something they should (and probably do) recognize, so it’s beyond ridiculous for them to still lend credence to sloppy science.

Then there was that whole “reveal at the end of the event” thing. One concern I always have is that there is little evidence that TAPS goes back to a spot to investigate more thoroughly when something comes up in data review. I am often reminded that there is a lot that hits the editing room floor, and it may not be a fair assumption. Which is true, but then we see situations like this. Even if they had a whole crew reviewing the audio and video as it was submitted, to expedite the process, how could Jason and Grant (or anyone else) have enough time to take a second pass at what was captured, before the reveal? It doesn’t add up, so the quality of the “evidence” is more questionable as a result. (This likely doesn’t translate into the regular episodes, but it does bring up the question of how well or often they try to debunk their collected “evidence”.)

Since the live Halloween event took place on Monday night, it was fresh in my mind as I watched this latest episode. All things being equal, the live event didn’t yield very much in the way of “evidence”, convincing or otherwise. It was, in keeping with the realities of paranormal investigation, rather uneventful. And, for all that it was a huge location covered by the entire episode, so was this investigation.

I knew there wasn’t going to be much to speak of when they spent a lot of time on Steve and Tango chasing down some odd EMF. Eventually, after a lot of playing up the excess EMF? Electrical box. Which struck me as odd, since they make a really big deal out of conducting initial EMF scans of each location to establish a baseline before the investigation begins. So how did they miss the electrical box during the initial sweep? Either they didn’t do the baseline sweep, or they were sloppy. (And no, they couldn’t have simply missed it, since they were detecting the EMF all the way down the hall.)

I thought the “death chamber” scenes were a good example of how a location can affect your psychology more than anything else. Britt and KJ were rather honest about how they couldn’t stop thinking about what the prisoners must have been thinking and feeling in those final moments of their lives, and I’m sure that fed into their reactions to a large degree.

Otherwise, much of the episode was what we have all come to expect: the team running about, seeing potential shadows and hearing potential voices, but getting very little in the way of tangible evidence. And given how large the location was, and the relative state of disrepair, it’s hard to know if the sounds were normal or not. I’ve been in very similar locations in the past, and all that debris and unusual acoustics make for an odd and confusing combination.

I was still surprised by how little there was at the actual reveal. The examples of “voices” were well above the background noise, but they were also indistinct enough to have plenty of other potential sources. Maybe I missed a point where they debunked it, but I was sure that Britt and KJ had captured something moving in front of a light at one point (though, the footage may have been a reflection of a camera light, with them stepping in front of it). Regardless, it was rather slim pickings.

I haven’t been paying much attention to where future episodes of “Ghost Hunters” will take place; I find I enjoy the mystery of upcoming locations to be part of the show’s allure at this point in its lifecycle. But I did come across a promo for this episode just after the previous installment, so I knew that this was the Snug Harbor investigation.

That made for an odd sense of relevance, because I had no idea that they were even investigating Snug Harbor, and it just so happens that I work with some local investigators that have spent a lot of time there. I also happened to be over at Snug Harbor just a few days ago, so all of these buildings and locations are very fresh in my mind.

Somewhere along the line, I also missed the news that “Ghost Hunters” has been renewed for an eighth season. Either that, or it happened a while ago, and I’m just coming across it now. Whatever the case, it looks like the ratings are still good enough, comparative to the episodic budget, to keep the franchise going. (Whether or not that will extend to GHI, given their bizarre run schedule, is hard to know.)

This episode also features a guest star: Meredith Viera. This is another one of those guest appearances that I really don’t understand. It’s interesting to see how a newsperson goes from daunted to inquisitive over the course of exposure to paranormal investigation, but much of the time, it just feels like an opportunity for Meredith to heap praises upon the team. Then again, maybe it was designed to prepare the fans for the inevitable onslaught of unnecessary Syfy personalities that will be showing up during this season’s Halloween event.

It was strange seeing them roam the Music Hall at the beginning of the investigation, having been sitting there quite a bit a few nights earlier. I’ve investigated a few theaters over the past few years, and I’m always surprised by how the acoustics and lighting play tricks with you. On the other hand, what they claim to have seen is not too different from the reported activity, so it’s hard to tell if it’s a common misinterpretation or validation.

The less said about the flashlight “conversation”, the better; there’s an effort being made to take some of the random out of the equation, but there’s still not a solid enough protocol there to rule out the typical arcing effect. (At least, not on camera.) There was a lot of clearly audible activity taking place, however, both for Steve/Tango and Amy/Adam.

In terms of the FLIR footage, I’m not quite sure what to think. On the one hand, whatever figure they were tracking in the yard was not showing up at the same temperature as Grant, which is evident in the comparison footage. On the other hand, the footage did not include the color bar on the right-hand side, which typically provides information on the temperature range/gradient. While one can infer some basic temperature differences from the footage, the range is the most useful information. Not including it (or worse, cropping it out, if it was there) makes it hard to verify their interpretation of the footage.

While most of the audio was the usual kind, buried deep in the background noise of each recording, there’s no denying that Jason and Grant heard a woman’s voice in the Matron’s house. I have no idea if it was, in fact, Spanish that was spoken (you’d think that they might ask someone who knows Spanish to listen to it and attempt translation), but it was very clear to me and distinct enough from the noise floor to be notable. It would certainly be worth closer examination.

In terms of the final evaluation, it’s hard to give an episode-only evaluation. While I didn’t have any personal experiences or evidence from Snug Harbor, I saw and heard a great deal of interesting data from other investigators at that location. Certainly the EVP that TAPS recorded adds to that pile, and perhaps even the FLIR footage. So in a holistic sense, I can’t disagree with them. There’s ample evidence that Snug Harbor is an active site.