The Critical Myth Paranormal Blog

As someone who grew up just outside of Philadelphia, I completely understand the nostalgic factor that was referenced endlessly in this episode. It certainly brought back memories. Granted, certain areas look a bit different now, but it’s not so different that it lost the resonance.

One thing I don’t remember is any mention of the zoo or related buildings being haunted. That’s not necessarily meaningful; most of my visits to the zoo came early in life, so it’s unlikely that I would remember such details. I was far more interested in the exhibits! I wonder if any readers did hear such stories before, or if this seems like an attempt by a struggling institution to get publicity and semi-notoriety.

My biggest concern about the location, however, is the potential for audio contamination. Setting aside the usual concerns with wireless audio and what not in a fairly metropolitan area, where the likelihood of capturing stray signals is much higher than usual, it seems obvious that this would be a location rife with unusual animal noises. And while one might suspect that the sounds wouldn’t travel into the areas being investigated, that’s hard to say definitively without first-hand knowledge of the nighttime conditions. Even TAPS couldn’t logically make such a blanket statement.

I really don’t have too much to say about this investigation. Most of the usual observations apply. I noted that KJ pointed out the relative lack of convenient power in some areas, but that doesn’t explain why there was a dearth of useful handheld devices. A few dataloggers focused on the right parameters could yield useful information, even in the most mundane of investigations.

For example, Brit and KJ reported cold spots in the Penrose building. But where was the independent verification that it happened? I’ve noted before that the format of the show and the formula now used with the investigations relies on the audience to take the investigators at their collective word, but there’s just nothing to substantiate the claim.

This is the second episode in a row with the sound of doors slamming and other similar noises. This does happen on investigations, but without some basis to identify the source, it’s hard to determine whether or not it’s paranormal. And as they say, when in doubt, throw it out. The only reasonable example, in my mind, was the sound captured in the Shelley building, where Jason and Grant were systematic in testing the various doors. Taken as presented, it seemed to exclude the nearby doors well enough.

Might I suggest, at this juncture, retiring the silly practice of using “Shave and a Haircut” as some kind of test of intelligent paranormal interaction? I’ve never been all that happy with it, because it’s all too easy to take any two noises that come right after that “test” as confirmation of communication. Much like the flashlight test, it is a simple sign of confirmation bias.

(To be clear, I’m not entirely against asking for a sound or sign of presence. But it should be the beginning of a systematic process to establish a clear pattern of call and response, with enough variation and complexity to eliminate the vast majority of random sources. I have yet to see that happen in the field.)

As far as the thermal camera incident goes, it’s hard to take seriously. For one thing, those units can easily be knocked off balance (at least the ones I have seen). So in the absence of anything else to suggest something unusual about the incident, it should have been logically dismissed. However, I would also point out, as others undoubtedly will, that this happened off-camera and very close to Grant. Most investigators would want some kind of independent video that could eliminate any inadvertent action that might have caused the camera to roll and fall.

The “evidence” is largely personal experiences and some very questionable audio. Many of the supposed captured voices and EVPs were not at all discernable, and sounded more like static or environmental noises that were misinterpreted. Certainly, none of them were clear and distinct. It’s so subjective that Jason and Grant have to tell the client what is supposedly being said, which automatically invalidates the interpretation. EVPs shouldn’t rely on coaching to be heard.

(Which makes this claim in the official Syfy.com summary even more laughable: “The footage caught lots of audio that puts even the most seasoned scientist back on his heels.” As a scientist and engineer, I can say with full confidence that the audio is not remotely that compelling!)

I don’t doubt that it was an awesome location to investigate, and it seems very clear that the client was eager to have the team find something compelling. But it’s equally clear that the location was often creepy, and even the most seasoned investigators (to borrow an adjective) can fall prey to psychological effects. Whether or not that, and the nostalgia, factored into the final conclusions, I cannot say, but this wasn’t nearly as airtight a case in the presented form as they made it sound.

John Keegan
Reprinted with permission
Original source: c. Critical Myth, 2010
All rights reserved
Link:  http://www.criticalmyth.com

“Ghost Hunters” returns after taking a break for a disastrous run of “Ghost Hunters Academy” and a frustrating run of “Ghost Hunters International”. The GHA episodes were particularly bad in terms of how they reflected on TAPS and the flagship of the franchise. Many of the technical shortcomings of the team were laid bare on GHA, even more so than usual, and it made Jason, Steve, and Tango look hypocritical in many instances.

The changes in the lineup on “Ghost Hunters International” only served to remind me (and many other fans and critics) of the questionable aspects of the franchise, particularly the attitude of Pilgrim Films towards the team members who don’t enjoy a producer’s credit. As always, part of the criticism of TAPS and the various members of the extended GH franchise family is the fact that they choose, year after year, to agree to the contract terms that they acknowledge are often disingenuous towards the cast, clients, and public.

As a result, I wasn’t looking forward to the return of “Ghost Hunters” all that much. I already mentioned, during the spring run of episodes, that I was experiencing a bit of franchise fatigue. Part of that was my involvement in the field, and how often I’ve found myself (and my colleagues) dealing with the problems and challenges created by the popularity of these shows. It’s hard enough to live up to unrealistic expectations, but it’s even more annoying when you also have to “deprogram” clients who have bought into the bad science and specious conclusions rife in the paranormal investigation genre.

So I was a bit surprised when I got to the end of the episode and discovered that I was actually left with a fairly positive impression. Other than one glaring instance, I couldn’t really complain. I was quite entertained. I thought the reactions and actions were all understandable under the circumstances.

I will acknowledge, for the more skeptical readers out there, that the vast majority of the “evidence” was based on personal experiences, and therefore should have been dismissed. There were a couple of interesting audio examples that go a step beyond that, of course, but it was all very subjective. The caveat I want to put on that is the synchronicity between the reported activity and what the TAPS team experienced. The case may have fallen well short of physical or tangible evidence, but in terms of validating the client’s stories, it worked.

This was partly facilitated by the fact that the activity was more specific than the typical public/historical location. Efforts could be focused on investigating specific, detailed claims. And that list was relatively short, so the teams could spend more time in key locations, rather than waste time casting a wide net. Just from my own experience, I can attest to how that helps the logistical and tactical elements of an investigation of a large site.

(One could argue that the apparent validation of the client’s claims had more to do with good research and scripting. However, as I have said before, I believe that the majority of the team members are sincerely trying to investigate. Even Jason and Grant, despite some obvious attempts to play up mundane events as paranormal in origin, are still going through the motions. So for now, I will continue to grant the selective benefit of the doubt.)

My favorite moment had to be when Kris was doing her little interview, and then the camera just lingers, and you see her starting to get more and more uncomfortable as Amy and a crew member start talking in the background. Nothing was seen on camera, of course, but those few seconds of silence were wonderfully unnerving. And it doesn’t hurt that it was very similar to something that happened during one of my recent investigations, where something odd was happening right behind one of our female investigators. Her reaction was exactly the same!

Part of my contentment with the episode is that the “evidence” combined in interesting ways. It’s one thing to see shadows and chase after them, especially when there is no tangible proof that there was anything to see. It’s another when each of the main areas where that activity was experienced also had apparent audible voices recorded when a team member was present. It makes sense of the conclusions eventually reached.

As for the audio itself, I was less impressed. The apparent “Amy” recording was another instance of something buried in the noise, and I thought it was a stretch to assume it was “Amy” in the first place. I heard something a lot close to “Hailey”, but definitely something with a heavy “h” sound at the beginning. In room 585, the noise that Amy heard and they caught on the recording sounded less like a whimper than some sort of animal noise. That could very well explain the sounds coming from the roof or attic space, too.

As far as the rest of the technology goes, I don’t have much of a problem with the laser grid, other than some concerns that if it’s visible to the naked eye, it could affect night vision and cause lots of false positives. I really liked the datalogging setup they had on the laptop, though I wish they could have given a more thorough overview of what it is measuring. If anything impressive is ever going to be found on this show, it’s more than likely going to be buried in that data, not caught on audio or video.

Of course, there always seems to be something, and in this case, it’s an old foe: the infamous flashlight test. I’m sorry, Grant: no, it does not work, and this episode clearly illustrates why. Much is made of how the flashlight came on and turned off on cue, but if one watches and pays attention, it’s obvious that this is just confirmation bias. Amy asks for the flashlight to turn on repeatedly, and then later, requests again and again for it to be turned off. Since the light will naturally cycle on and off (as scientifically explained in many previous reviews), sooner or later it will appear to do so “on command”.

It’s just another one of those “causation vs. correlation” items. The fact that the request seemingly comes in conjunction with the action of the flashlight is not in and of itself meaningful. Further experimentation is needed to prove out that the request is the cause of the effect with the flashlight. Since there are plenty of instances (just in this on-screen footage) of requests with no effect, it doesn’t even meet the correlation test, let alone begin to prove causation!

But even with that frustration (especially how they framed it to the client and perpetuated the error), I thought this was one of the best episodes of the show in quite some time. I was thoroughly entertained. Perhaps it was lowered expectations, but whatever the reason, it worked for me!

The pattern for this show has now been firmly established, and I doubt that anything is going to change it appreciably moving forward. The investigation style is going to be as questionable as ever, and the conclusions are going to be as specious. Sadly, many people are taking this as an example of good science, and it boggles the mind.

The first case, at least, involves an interesting video. Not necessarily because it is some kind of spectral form caught on film or anything, but because there are several avenues that could be taken in terms of follow-up investigation. I think the team only touched on a handful of the possibilities, and as usual, wasted time with experiments that didn’t match the conditions described.

This is one problem I have with a lot of theories tossed out by skeptics. The “explanations” often ignore inconvenient details of the reported activity. If the reports say that there was no noise at the time of the recording, and all the video evidence supports that, why in the world would you think an ATV would provide a good explanation?

My first impression was that it looked like some kind of image that was added to the video after the fact. While I couldn’t get a good look at the video frame by frame, I thought it looked vaguely familiar. I just couldn’t put my finger on it. So I wonder why the team didn’t conduct that sort of video analysis themselves. It seemed like the logical first step.

But even assuming that, why couldn’t it have been something as simple as a spider web that just happened to be in the right position for the IR light on the camera to illuminate it while the person holding the camera moved? Granted, that might be hard to replicate, but again, this is something that a close frame-by-frame analysis should be able to identify.

The second case was a bit of an oddity. While the team did pick a very specific video and incident related to cattle mutilation, it seemed like they were using this as an excuse to discuss the phenomenon as a whole. Which, all things being equal, is not a valid logical process. Using one example to draw conclusions about thousands of reports is like going on a single “ghost hunt” and presuming that it is representative of every claim of paranormal activity.

Not only that, but this is a topic that has been studied at length for decades. Not unlike the case with the car being “pushed” over the train tracks, this is something the team could have prepped for by conducting a quick Google search. Every test they conducted has been conducted (and documented) before, and the same conclusions reached. So it wasn’t particular ground-breaking. (Though I’m not even going to comment on the idea of testing laser cutting with a laser pointer. Someone’s science degree needs to be taken back.)

Had their conclusions been limited to the video at hand, that would have been fine (if a bit self-serving). But there were undertones that suggested this was meant to be a statement regarding the phenomenon as a whole. And while I’m not inclined to believe there’s anything abnormal about the cattle mutilation claims, I do take note that there are reports of unusual properties of the corpses in some cases. And that is where the real skeptical inquiry should be focused.

I see the cattle mutilation question as being very similar to the crop circle mystery. Yes, the vast majority of crop circles can be explained by mundane means. That has been discussed and explored hundreds of times by now. But there are those odd examples of crop circles where the properties of the plants themselves are altered in strange ways. Taking the easy route doesn’t help explain any of that, so the mystery persists. A good skeptical treatise on the subject would forego the smarmy satisfaction of simply declaring it all fake and would explain how those unusual properties might emerge.

I recognize that these episodes were all filmed and on the shelf long before they hit the air. They are now scrambling to film new episodes to air later in the year. So it’s quite possible that the many criticisms and suggestions for improvement may have filtered down to the production team. That said, the show has been enough of a success that there’s probably little desire on anyone’s part to make adjustments. So I predict the show will continue to offer questionable scientific methodology and shoddy logic when it returns. But time, as they say, will tell.

I still say that Skunk Ape video was just a guy in an ape suit, though.

There are a lot of rumors flying around, so I’ve tried to dig into the various stories and get a sense of the facts. Unfortunately, as has always been the case with the Ghost Hunters franchise, Pilgrim Films and Syfy play things very close to vest. And the cast members, often caught in the middle, don’t necessarily have all the answers (or the legal ability to provide them).

For those not aware by this point, this is supposedly Robb’s final episode as leader of the GHI team. As of this point in the series, Brandy, Ashley, Dustin, and Robb are all out of the picture. Some by their own choice, others not so much. And one also gets the distinct feeling that some of those who openly state that they left of their own accord are putting a good face on a bad situation.

This is actually not that shocking a turn of events. Unlike “Ghost Hunters”, which took an established team and transferred it into the reality TV world, with the organization’s leaders as producers on the show, GHI was conceived and constructed by Pilgrim Films. Let’s be clear on this: despite what was shown on-screen, Jason and Grant had nothing to do with the creation of GHI. It was clear when the show began that it was all about the production company wanting to expand the franchise. The same is true with “Ghost Hunters Academy”.

Why does this matter? Well, for one thing, it means that they get to decide who is on the show and under what circumstances. Robb didn’t get to decide who was in GHI; that was all Pilgrim Films. Those invited could accept or decline, and that’s about it. At the end of the day, while Pilgrim Films can’t directly control who shows up on “Ghost Hunters” (the key word being “directly”, of course), they have absolute control over GHI.

This is why I always made a point of demonstrating how GHI was staying the course and exceeding expectations. For a while there, the team was stable and had a very strong sense of direction and chemistry. They were solid believers, but they were also trying to be more and more thorough and scientific. They were operating from a consistent set of principles, and they were more than willing to take criticism and defend their choices.

But let’s be honest: GHI repeatedly set an example that TAPS and the GHA candidates couldn’t match. None of the shenanigans from “Ghost Hunters” or GHA has ever been seen on GHI. And because of that, GHI has given critics and skeptics an easy point of comparison. More to the point, even early critics of GHI have become aware of that key difference.

From a business standpoint, GHI has also slipped in the ratings. The very thing that makes it more enjoyable to serious investigators (the lack of sensationalized “evidence” and consistency of approach) also makes it less popular to the casual audience. A lot of fans of the genre claim it’s “boring”.

So from that perspective, it makes sense that Pilgrim Films would want to make changes on GHI. Making a position on the team the prize for “winning” GHA is one step. Controlling the leadership and composition of the team directly is another. The drawback, of course, is the loss of the consistency of leadership, and thus a loss in the consistency of approach.

(As for the rumors that GHI is being cancelled, I don’t see that happening. First of all, these decisions were all made months ago, and kept quiet until the episodes aired. Second, all of the materials related to soliciting candidates for the next round of GHA all make it very clear that a position on the GHI team is the prize. And from a Syfy perspective, if GHI had been canceled, it would have been announced by now. Things can change, but until I see something official to change my mind, I’m assuming the show is still going.)

One thing I should be very clear on: I am not, in any way, questioning the integrity of the investigators that will be team members of GHI going forward. My understanding is that Britt Griffith will be taking Robb’s place as team leader for at least the next production cycle. I have yet to have any reason to question Britt’s intentions. Joe Chin is solid enough, and I’ve liked Scott, Paul and Susan so far. I assume Barry will be staying, and I’ve enjoyed his technical ideas, even when I question the basis of his theories.

But we’ve also seen how the GHA candidates were being molded in the latest round of that contest, how they were pushed to use bad science and poor critical thinking skills, and how fame was emphasized. And we’ve seen how more and more of the locations are being chosen for their sensational connections to people like Hitler, Robin Hood, and even (in this case) the Pirates of the Caribbean. And I can’t help but wonder if Pilgrim Films is going to start rigging the table, so to speak. Will Britt be the permanent new team leader, or is Pilgrim just putting him in charge until they find someone more amenable to their demands?

It comes down to this. With Robb as leader, and with a fairly consistent team at his back, I and many others never had a reason to question whether or not GHI was operating with sincerity and integrity. This new team is going to get the benefit of the doubt (at least from me), but that relative sense of trust is going to have to be re-earned. And with Pilgrim Films and Syfy pulling the strings more directly, there’s a reason to be concerned. After all, there is direct evidence of Pilgrim Films altering footage in the past.

All that said, this was an interesting case. I like the fact that they showed the team having some fun together. And it was also nice to see them tie the last couple episodes into Susan’s family background. I liked how they were incorporating the frequent use of the native language into the investigation.

The idea of projecting images to elicit a response is intriguing. It’s very similar to the notion of playing music from a given era. I wouldn’t personally do it unless the reported activity was connected to the images or music, but if one assumes that the activity is caused by the spirits of the dead, I understand why the method would be used.

The team did seem to capture noises of movement, but as a viewer, it was hard for me to take too seriously. It was an exposed site, there was storm activity during part of the investigation, and nothing was actually verified as having moved. There’s a lot that could be considered circumstantial.

The EMF meters were a bit more interesting. Some may question the use of EMF meters in a lightning storm, but it’s not at all clear whether or not this would cause false positives. Lightning is generally considered to be DC in nature, but it also can have properties not unlike a single-cycle of AC current. Even so, as simple experimentation can attest, most EMF meters don’t react to the weather, even during strong thunderstorms.

With essentially no ambient EMF sources on-site, and little or no chance of the thunderstorm causing the EMF meters to spike, it’s hard to know exactly what was causing the meters to react. One problem is that the tri-field meter has two different scales available for magnetic field detection. One is 0-100 mGauss, and the other is usually 0-3 mGauss. I didn’t notice which scale was being used, but if it was the 0-3 mG scale, then the spikes weren’t particularly high. With no means of identifying frequency, to rule out RF interference, it’s difficult to assign any real significance.

I’m also not so sure about this EFP device. What I’ve read about it seems to indicate that it gives a quick and dirty visual representation of the amplitude of the sound captured by a recording device. This seems to be based on frequency. So I have to ask the question: what frequency is being used as the basis of the visual display? For the most part, this is claimed as “proprietary”, which raises all the usual red flags. (Remember when Chris Fleming claimed that the K-II was specially calibrated to detect paranormal energy?)

As it happens, I do believe, based on experiments conducted in recent years, that genuine EVP does exist (though I make no assumptions on source), and that it is the result of an EMF at a frequency in the audible range. For this reason, it is not heard in real time, but recorded and heard on playback.

Assuming the frequency was properly selected, the EFP would be able to detect the rise in amplitude caused by an EVP, especially if it was well above the noise floor. Unfortunately, it would also react to any sound-generated signal in exactly the same way. So there’s no way to be certain, unless an area is properly controlled and locked-down, to know if a spike on the device is really due to an EVP being recorded.

The EVPs that were captured were all fairly typical: buried in the background noise, barely audible, and therefore subject to interpretation. It’s been a while since we’ve seen a truly impressive EVP out of the “Ghost Hunters” franchise. But then, I see that as realistic; great EVPs are far and few between.

Thus ends this summer run of GHI, and Robb’s three-year tenure as its team leader. Of the original lineup, only Barry remains. I suppose we will find out if the show can retain its core identity as a result.

As frustrated as I am with this show, which continues to fall short of its supposed intentions, it does provide a rather convenient excuse to discuss some of the logical and practical issues that come up in paranormal investigation. Most of them pertain to a certain degree of confirmation bias and sloppy thinking, but sometimes it’s a reaction to the realities of the reality television world.

In the first case, I think it’s more a matter of limited scientific knowledge. I’m not going to pretend that I have a firm grasp of every nuance of the sciences. I have my knowledge sets just like anyone else, and I try to expand that as best I can when necessary. In this situation, I’ve happened upon enough scientific analysis of “ghost lights” in my regional area (thanks to the Hookerman Lights story) to see a correlation.

What the team missed is a somewhat subtle scientific principle called the piezoelectric effect. Now, part of the problem is that this is a very specific example of that principle. Certain geologic properties of an area or region will, during a shift in mechanical stress, release energy. This can express itself as a ball or balls of light. If there’s a conducting material in the area that can keep the energy in this state, then the ball of light can persist for hours. And yes, something as simple as regular temperature changes from day to night can trigger enough of a subsequent change in mechanical stress to trigger the effect.

What I noticed, in this situation, was the legend of a railroad conductor, almost identical to the Hookerman lore. I didn’t see railroad tracks (a fairly obvious conducting material), but I did see the power lines running towards the apparent location of the light, which supports the theory. Also, a quick cursory Google search reveals limestone as a feature of the local geography, and which consists of the right kind of minerals to exhibit the effect. So the piezoelectric “cocktail” exists.

(On a sidenote, I know there are those who swear that it’s just car headlights/taillights. To me, that doesn’t quite add up. First, the anecdotal reports appear to go back before the existence of the roadway seen from the observation point. Second, just on the video shown, the light persists too long and steady for it to be typical car traffic. Third, my understanding is that the preferred observation point is not the only such point, and others don’t have the potential for cars to be a reasonable source. That said, some of the accounts are obviously traffic-related, and if the information I read was inaccurate, my conclusions would obviously be wrong.)

I really can’t blame the team for not thinking of this natural explanation; it’s simply not all that well known. But I can blame them for poor design of experiment. When the light first appeared and was persistent, they apparently went looking for the source. They drove to the point where the light was supposed coming from, and didn’t see anything. So they just went back to the observation point and shrugged.

But why not split up, triangulate the position of the light from three distinct observation points, determine the rough source location on a map, and then slowly converge on that point, maintaining line of sight verification throughout the process? It might take a little more time, but it would resolve the issue easily enough. Even if they didn’t want to triangulate the source location, why not approach the apparent location in a stepwise fashion, so they can identify when and where the light becomes “invisible”? There were just too many holes in the design of experiment for my taste. Almost as if it was intentionally so, to ensure an inconclusive result.

In the second case, I was just baffled by the lengths to which the team went to find an explanation for something that has been adequately explained on countless occasions. The little celebration at the end was particular hilarious. “We explained gravity! We’re so awesome!”

Just about every state has its example of this urban legend, and in every single case, someone has done the homework and figured out that it’s just an optical illusion. It really takes about ten seconds to prove this out. Take a simple contractor’s level and put it on the ground, and see for yourself that the road is on a slight decline. Case closed!

This isn’t even like the “ghost car” situation, where it’s instructive to go through the various theories and show how one can prove which one is correct. Sure, it was fun to see them show how it works for different vehicles, right up to the school bus, but why bother with testing the idea that it could be weird magnetic fields or talk about spirit children when the perfectly logical and natural explanation is staring you right in the face?

I get the distinct feeling that this video was chosen because it was so easy to debunk. It makes the team look good and thorough, and that lends more credibility to the cases where they drop the ball. I’m sure others will say I’m giving them way too much benefit of the doubt, and would conclude that it’s all just designed and packaged for entertainment, with all participants aware of the con. I must concede, based on the episodes thus far, that they may be right.

Case #1: Coyotepe Fortress, Nicaragua
Case #2: Leon Museum, Nicaragua

When it was first announced that the “winners” of “Ghost Hunters Academy” would be working with the GHI team for further training, I was wary of the consequences. As I said many times then and recently, the strength of the GHI team has been their relative consistency. After a rough start, the team had settled into a solid core with a clear and understandable approach and rationale. It was never a question of integrity with GHI; it was simply occasional disagreement with their conclusions and assumptions (as is common with many groups and investigators in the field).

The structure of GHI makes change inevitable. The filming requires an exhausting whirlwind tour of various international sites in one long and grueling production schedule, the team members get paid with nominal compensation, and this places a great deal of pressure on those with family and similar personal obligations. The filming is not year-round, yet taking this much time to film a show internationally makes keeping a steady day job difficult at best. There’s a damn good reason why GHI team members are staples of the convention/conference circuit.

But even when there are new team members, it can work if there is strong leadership and a dedication to the field over personal gain. GHI has never been afraid to tell it as they see it, and Robb has ensured that the principles of the core team (now he and Barry) are preserved. Even when Pilgrim Films has brought in investigators to fill slots that were open on the team, Robb has made it work.

I mention all of this because it appears that the consistency of the team is breaking down. Dustin left for personal reasons (to be with his family and start his Christian ministry). Ashley’s eventual departure was mentioned months ago, shortly after her engagement. Joe Chin comes and goes as the apparent pitch hitter for the “Ghost Hunters” franchise. And now there is the apparent loss of Brandy Green.

I’ll be honest. I never had a problem with Brandy, but she reminded me of Joe Chin to a certain extent. She is the kind of investigator that gets the job done, but ultimately doesn’t bring anything unique to the table that makes it on-screen. This is a necessary part of the equation, however, and a staple of the field. Some are leaders, some are self-obsessed fame-chasers, and the rest are just trying to do their best as they know how.

But it all comes down to team leadership, as any investigator can tell you. The lack of a command presence can undermine an investigation before it even begins. And one of the most important roles of a team leader is the selection of personnel. The leader has to have the ability to either pick who will be on his or her team, or have the option of removing someone who doesn’t fit the organization.

We’ve all seen the effect when this is not the case, even if we don’t realize it. After the second season of “Ghost Hunters”, Pilgrim Films all but told Jason and Grant that they wanted certain members off the show and others in the spotlight. As producers, they at least had some say in the final casting, but recent years have also suggested that they relented on other questionable requests from Pilgrim Films and Syfy as well. So it’s perhaps not too surprising that there was compromise.

The point is that Robb is not a producer on GHI, and he does not have the choice of who comes onto his team. So far, Paul and Scott seem to be working out fine; they both come from solid enough backgrounds with compatible approaches and goals. But all things being equal, Pilgrim Films has and does bring in new investigators, and Robb has to make it work. (Though I vaguely recall that Paul was a colleague of Barry’s, or at least someone he knew.)

Susan Slaughter may be a capable investigator, but let’s be honest about her reason for being on the show. She was a “winner” of a contest. A contest that largely consists of candidates looking to cash in on the “fame” of being on a popular cable franchise. That’s not a smear against the candidates; that is an accurate description of the thrust of the promotion surrounding the hunt for future candidates for “Ghost Hunters Academy”. It’s very clear: “Wanna be a ghost hunter on TV? Win GHA and be a part of GHI!”

I’m not going to pretend that everyone on GHI now or previously was in it for the right reasons. But this has been a growing epidemic in the field since the paranormal investigation genre exploded in recent years. Otherwise rational and capable investigators are scrambling to get a piece of the action, and the integrity of the field suffers as a whole. And let’s face it: there are enough issues within the field in terms of confirmation bias and poor technical understanding. This additional layer doesn’t help!

One thing is clear: Pilgrim Films has decided to use GHI as the prize for future iterations of GHA. And since we know that the candidates on GHA are being taught junk science (and even blatantly incorrect science), these impending GHI members are coming in with assumptions and training that is incompatible with the current GHI approach.

In effect, Pilgrim Films is turning GHI into a clone of TAPS. How long will it be before Robb is no longer the leader, and the amount of “evidence” goes from what is normal in the field to something closer to the oft-debated TAPS level? My own paranoia leads me to suspect that this is the inevitable consequence of GHI’s indirect role in demonstrating, by comparison, how questionable TAPS’ “evidence” and methods really are.

It all comes down to the bottom line: this is exactly what I was afraid of when Karl and Susan were told that they were joining GHI for “winning” on “Ghost Hunters Academy”. The dismantling of GHI may be happening slowly, but it is certainly happening.

Case #1: Coyotepe Fortress, Nicaragua

All the bangs and various sounds in this location were interesting enough, but given the nature of the site, I’m not sure how much of that can truly be pinned down on the paranormal. This is one of those situations where the reported activity and the assumption of “demonic” activity plays against team composure. Barry, in particular, has always shown a tendency to let his beliefs about such things affect his investigative style and conclusions. (This is fairly apparent from his books, so it’s not an unfair assessment of edited footage.)

The EVP was, in my opinion, questionable. As with many of the EVPs that have been captured of late, it is buried deep in the background noise, which makes it hard to argue as something paranormal in nature. Random noise will produce familiar sounds, and context only counts if it eliminates that factor.

Of course, the real draw of this case was the apparent figure caught in the “laser grid”. Now, to be fair, I know almost nothing about the grid apparatus itself. I can only assume it works like any other such device. As such, this particular image is pretty damn weird. Note that the apparent figure is causing distortion of the lasers on one side of its “body”, but not at all on the other. The distortion is what draws the eye, in fact.

Now, I’m not saying this is paranormal. I’m simply not familiar enough with this sort of equipment to identify reasons why there would be that sort of effect within the grid. It may be something fairly obvious to those who are more familiar with such things. I haven’t played around with lasers in more than 15 years. So all I can say on this one is that there is something obvious taking place, but I just don’t know what it is.

Case #2: Leon Museum, Nicaragua

This one was similar to the first case, in terms of the unusual sounds and the questionable EVP, but there was one investigative technique that really got under my skin.

I’ve mentioned before that the problem with excessive background noise is that more and more of it produces sounds that, especially in terms of the English language, can result in recognizable words and even phrases. Replacing city noise with the apparent steady hum of a blaring house fan doesn’t eliminate that problem; it simply changes the nature of it.

More to the point, sit in an otherwise empty room, turn on a nice loud metal propeller-style fan, and just listen to the white noise that is generated. Or, for that matter, listen to any mechanical fan in any HVAC or similar system for a long enough period of time. Eventually, nearly everyone will admit that they start hearing what sounds like whispering of conversation within the noise. It’s one of the most common examples typically given to novice investigators for aural pattern recognition.

This is why I’ve never liked the idea of recording EVP sessions with intentional addition of white noise or similar factors, such as running water. It’s just a more natural expression of the same principle behind the fallacy of the “ghost box” nonsense. Introduce sources of the same fundamental sounds that comprise human language, and sooner or later, you’ll hear what you want to hear.

I’m a bit surprised at the level of positive response being given to this show. Not because the concept of the show is flawed or that the team lacks a certain chemistry; those elements have thus far been the draw. But the execution leaves much to be desired, and I’m shocked to see so many people who ought to know better praising the quality of the investigations taking place.

This episode is the perfect example of two troubling trends I see developing on this show. The first is sloppy design of experiment. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not perfect when it comes to this; very often, especially in the field, paranormal investigators overlook opportunities to eliminate doubt or strengthen data collection methods. Even the best of us miss flaws in the plan.

But I thought it was fairly obvious that the first attempt to debunk the creature in the first case by using a local breed of horse was right on the money. The problem was that they tried to compare a pony trotting around at low speed to the creature, which was running very fast. Had the pony been galloping at top speed, I think the comparison would have been a lot closer to the actual footage.

Ironically, the team brought up the speed issue when it came to the lion. So why dismiss the pony as a potential suspect based on the same principle, when it is logically a much more reasonable guess? It’s similar to my problem with the experiments conducted to debunk the “night crawlers” and “Raystown Ray”. In all these cases, the experiments go down the most logical path, but stop short when the results are clearly getting closer to the mark…only to conclude that the events are unexplained!

The second case was a bit better in terms of design of experiment, but the final conclusion involves a common logical fallacy of skeptical analysis. I thought it was quite interesting how well the weather balloon/flare combination worked. And perhaps that does explain what was captured in the video. But the team came to the quick conclusion that this was evidence that the incident was a hoax, and that is just plain wrong.

At most, the team found evidence that the previously unexplained video could be explained. But there was no evidence whatsoever that there was an intentional attempt to create a fake UFO video or fool anyone into thinking that they saw a UFO. They didn’t trace it back to the source, for one thing, and they didn’t get any witness testimony to suggest that someone was playing a prank. In essence, they took a potential explanation for unexplained footage and leapt to assumptions regarding motive.

This is no different than offering a potential explanation for, say, an object that moves on its own by saying it was done with fishing wire. It’s wonderful that a reported or filmed event could have been the result of someone using fishing wire, but that’s not the same as actually proving that it was done using fishing wire. Supposition does not automatically equal reality.

Frankly, this is disappointing because I would expect a former FBI agent to know how to build a case properly. In both instances, there were some serious lapses in the overall logic. Considering that this has been true more often than not, I am rapidly losing any hope that this show will live up to its potential.

Case #1: Fredricksten Fortress, Norway
Case #2: The Old House, Estonia

I love episodes like this. Don’t get me wrong; I’m just as intrigued by the possibility of a really interesting piece of potential evidence as the next investigator. But I really love it when there’s a good amount of logical debunking taking place, and this episode had two great examples of that. Quite frankly, it’s more debunking than we’ve seen out of TAPS in recent years.

It’s a skill that is, unfortunately, a bit lacking in the field these days. Not that it was ever a major part of the typical paranormal investigator’s arsenal. Historically, why would a self-proclaimed demonologist, for instance, take such a critical look at what seems to be compelling evidence? The field is so chock full of assumption and tradition that it sometimes feels like one is taking a dull axe to a petrified tree when chopping away at the unsubstantiated.

One would think that there would be a growing awareness in the field of the need to analyze any “evidence” with a critical eye. In other words, the more impressive something seems, the more closely it needs to be examined. There’s a huge difference between a genuine anomaly and genuine evidence of paranormal activity. Even context can be misleading.

I’m not going to be ridiculous and expect that every investigator is going to step back and assume that an exciting photograph, video, or audio recording might be a false positive. Anticipation will lead one to draw conclusions. But good investigators will line up the “evidence” and try to look at it objectively. They will get other opinions and, when necessary, solicit professional advice. Or, in the absence of definitive answers, admit that it is simply unexplained and leave it at that (at least, until more information is available).

I’m happy to say that the people I work have worked with in recent years have developed these skills. We regularly discuss how assumptions and subjective bias might play into interpretations, and do our best to explore other possibilities. Sometimes I may disagree with what a group I work with puts forward as potential evidence, but I respect that there is an ever-strengthening process of review.

At the same time, there are countless groups that I’ve run across (in the real world or online) where they seem to accept anything as evidence of a ghost or even demonic spirits. There is little or no evidence of debunking, and they take any questions about alternative explanations in a less than constructive fashion. If nothing else, it leaves one wondering what kind of message they are sending to their clients, who often have no basis for questioning the veracity of the “evidence” presented.

My point is that I liked a lot of the practical debunking taking place in this episode. Beyond the video and audio analysis tips that one could take away from it, there was also the in-field actions that were taken. Some of it probably seemed obvious to the more experienced investigators, or those already of a skeptical bend, but sometimes the obvious is not so obvious to the novice. (In my own field, I see incredibly intelligent and experienced people miss very simple things because they just never thought to look at a problem in certain ways.)

This comes to mind (in perhaps a more didactic manner that truly necessary) because I’ve noticed that other shows, like “Fact or Faked”, claim to unleash all kinds of debunking skills on claims of paranormal evidence. Unfortunately, they fall short of that promise, and the paranormal investigative genre still lacks that “Mythbusters” analogue that is so needed. In the meantime, I’ll applaud an episode of GHI that gets that job done.

Case #1: Fredricksten Fortress, Norway

The video of the face was played up a bit in the editing, but I thought Robb did a very good job of explaining how it was just a combination of the equipment malfunction and pattern recognition. I was also appreciative that Barry was able to identify the “screaming” as the sounds of local wildlife. Yes, the editors played that one to the hilt, but it was clearly an animal, regardless of how creepy the sound was.

I also liked the fact that the EMF meters were primarily used to determine sources of high EMF, which could then explain the reported sense of presence in that area. Paul and Brandy did a nice and efficient job of working out the various sources, which is a key part of any thorough investigation.

Case #2: The Old House, Estonia

I thought this case demonstrated rather well how natural building and resident activity can trick the senses, and when combined with somewhat questionable claims and legends, turn into the psychological for reports of paranormal experiences. It’s encountered enough in this part of the US, where some buildings are a few hundred years old, so it has to be much more common in parts of the world where the stories trace back a thousand or more.

After a ridiculously poor investigation in the previous episode, the team seems to have regained some measure of sanity this time around. Of course, I’m still convinced that there is a production-driven desire to make things look more unexplained and mysterious than common sense would suggest.

Take, for instance, the supposed creature reported in Raystown, PA. I thought that the team did a fairly good job of demonstrating that the “evidence” could be replicated in short order with a little bit of time and effort. In fact, similar to the situation involving the “night crawlers” in the previous episode, this was one where it was clear how someone could have easily rigged up something to match local legend or gain a little fame.

But even when they agreed that they had a very good match, they stepped back from the obvious conclusion. The most likely answer is that someone with a lot more time and a motive (say, increasing tourism and profiting from it) could have figured out an even better way to accomplish the task. Instead, the team used an imperfect match as justification to keep the case open. (Never mind that they took the witness testimony at face value, despite the fact that it was nearly identical to every other report of similar creatures around the world.)

I’m not saying that it was definitely a hoax, and I’m sure they don’t want to court legal action by claiming such themselves. But if there is a reasonable chance that something has been fabricated, why not say so? Especially when they openly ripped into one of the videos at the top of the episode, saying that it was faked. (Maybe they just don’t want it to seem like they wasted their time?)

The “ghost writing” was a lot more interesting. The team pretty much did everything I could think of off-hand to debunk the evidence and reports, and a cursory search on the interwebs failed to produce a definitive explanation. (If anyone else is aware of such, I’d be interested in reading about it.) This is the kind of thing that leaves me a bit puzzled, but the nature of the phenomenon does not quite ring true. But I’m glad that it was featured, because otherwise, I wouldn’t have heard about it.

I’m not sure I like how often GHI is being sent to these high-profile legendary locations. I understand the marketing allure: pick a location with historical or mythological gravitas, and then viewers will come out of simple curiosity. And I’m sure there is some basic interest on the part of the team. But I personally find it very hard to investigate locations where reported activity is just as likely to be based on expectation and folklore as the genuine article.

At least this location makes a certain amount of sense, given that people died there under enormously stressful circumstances. If nothing else, it serves to put various theories related to trauma and activity to the test. But why in the world would anyone expect Hitler to appear there? He survived the assassination attempt! (For the record, I don’t think GHI actually expected to see Hitler. But that was the claim of the client!)

Most of the investigation involved an outdoor set of locations, so the usual concerns applied. Site access control is certainly important, and a lot of groups will automatically dismiss much of what they capture in such a setting. GHI is hardly in that sort of position, but they did keep their wits about them in most situations.

At the same time, Brandy did come across some small evidence that suggests that the security of the area is not quite airtight, and it’s hard not to wonder if some of what they heard was the result of interference by thrill seekers. And there’s the inevitable wildlife issue to take into account. A lot of what they heard and experienced can, unfortunately, be attributed to such things. (And by the end of the episode, a great deal was dismissed.)

The indoor portion of the investigation was a bit more conventional. I once again enjoyed the use of multiple pieces of instrumentation, but I do notice a trend that brought a few things to mind. In particular, I noticed that much of the time spent with the various EMF meters and other handheld devices was spent trying to prompt apparent entities into communicating or otherwise demonstrating their presence. In essence, this amounted to getting the device to light up or otherwise register a sudden increase in whatever parameter they measure.

In the past, I’ve referred to this practice as using instruments as an “electronic Ouija board”, which of course has certain negative connotations. But what is the issue? If an investigator believes in spirit communication, and this is a potential means of doing such, why not?

For me, it’s all about intent and using the right tool for the right job. And as an investigator, I’m also conscious of the financial impact. Setting aside the scientific objections to the logic of using technical instrumentation as a fancy yes/no indicator, why use that kind of instrument for something so simple as that? It effectively ignores the purpose of the instrument in the first place!

I thought the EVP in this case was interesting, because even though it was at the same level as the background noise, the words were fairly recognizable. I’m still not convinced, of course, that this was not a matter of pattern recognition. The nature of the structure of the English language is such that there is a better than 50/50 chance of random sounds forming recognizable words, after all.

But I think it was a little more problematic to link the apparent EVP to a specific individual. I recognize that the client was the one who ran with the ball and made that tenuous connection, but I was a little surprised to see GHI take to it so completely. I suspect this is another instance of selective editing, however. For all we know, they just brought it up as something that would have been very cool, if it could have been proven somehow, and the editors made more out of it.

I say this because the interpretation of the odd “full spectrum” video was a lot more moderate in nature. While Robb did tie it directly to his personal experience (and understandably so), it was not assumed that the apparent figure was a ghost. It was just an interesting anomaly. I would have been just as interested had I been in the same situation, so I appreciated the similar approach.

One thing I did find very odd was the static nature of the team assignments. We’ve seen enough out of GHI to know that this is an unusual turn of events; they rarely fall into the kind of patterns seen with TAPS on the flagship show. It’s unusual enough that some have already speculated that this was a move prompted by Pilgrim Films, either during production or in the editing room. Hopefully this is not a trend that will continue.