John’s Paranormal Blog

Case #1: Paddy Reilly’s Bar, NY
Case #2: Harriet Beecher Stowe House, CT

This was an unusual episode. Much of it came across as a standard low-activity episode, the kind that doesn’t come around quite as much as they used to, and usually that means that the clients are told that no paranormal activity was found. Client management is what it is, and sometimes that message has to be massaged to the needs and expectations of the client. To some, that sounds dishonest, but in some situations, it’s more a question of psychology.

In both cases, I thought TAPS went to unusual lengths to offer up potential paranormal sources of reported activity, even when the collected data didn’t support such a conclusion. This was far more evident in the first case, where it seemed like Grant was tossing out possibilities of residual hauntings when the investigation itself suggested nothing of the kind. I got the distinct impression that there was a bit of client management at work, but even so, I felt that a line had been crossed.

I know it sounds like a broken record, but this is a perfect example of why critics and even longtime fans say that TAPS has changed since the beginning of the series. Grant has always been more willing to turn to the paranormal explanations, but Jason would keep him in check. Where was the oft-touted skepticism? If all the data points to the “fear cage” effect in the basement, why would Jason toss out the possibility of strong EM fields facilitating paranormal activity? Especially when nothing was captured to suggest any activity in that area at all?

This is what people are talking about when they harp on consistency and the lowering of standards. It’s not just something that critics of the show and TAPS have conjured up on their own to justify their arguments. It’s something many fans and supporters have noticed, and like me, many of those fans continue to feel that this is just a symptom of a larger problem with the direction of the show in recent years.

(Now, to be fair, many other fans dispute the idea that the team has softened their standards or changed their ways to appeal to a wider audience, and point to the usual editing issues as the culprit. Here’s the problem, at least in this case. If Jason and Grant don’t offer paranormal explanations when there’s little or no data to support it, then the editors can’t insert that footage into the scene. The editors can be blamed for playing up the paranormal angle, but they can’t be blamed for introducing it in the first place!)

I also thought I would share an interesting recent experience. While investigating with a local group, I ran into a strange situation. While my partner and I were in the basement, we heard what sounded like shuffling and running up on the first floor. We ran to the sound to investigate the cause of the sound, but no one was on that floor and nothing was out of the ordinary. (There were no pets or children in the building, just to be clear.) We moved to the first floor to see if it would happen again, but it was silent.

Another team rotated into the basement as video cameras and audio recorders were adjusted to cover the space where the footsteps/running would have originated. Sure enough, the same sounds were heard again. This time, they were captured on the camera and digital audio, and heard by the investigators in the basement. Video was able to show that the room was empty. Video and audio on the second floor confirmed that it was not a sound coming from above.

The building does make settling noises, and these were remarked upon and easily noted during review. These sounds were much louder, and only came when investigators were in the basement. We were able to replicate the sounds by running through the first floor room itself, but as mentioned, the video shows the room was empty. At this point, it is a point for further investigation; I am in no way saying that this is a paranormal event. It’s simply unexplained at this time, having defeating our initial attempts at debunking.

But during discussion on the subject, it did occur to me that this is not unlike the “footsteps” that are regularly encountered on this show (and others, for that matter). It’s easy enough to offer debunking theories based on what we see and hear, but to be fair, this kind of “evidence” is actually encountered. And if one is predisposed to assume a paranormal origin for unusual sounds, I can definitely understand how certain conclusions would be drawn.

Case #1: Paddy Reilly’s Bar, NY

I don’t think that it comes into play with this particular case. Nothing in this case seemed remotely paranormal, and the reported activity was awfully hard to swallow. As thematically pleasing as it was to have a familiar Irish pub featured on the St. Patrick’s Day episode, this didn’t seem to have much going for it. Although we did learn that Steve doesn’t know how to execute a proper Guinness pour.

I did think it was pretty funny that Jason and Grant took the “he looked kinda like Gene Hackman” line and ran with it. And I want to thank Dave Tango for apologizing for Steve’s anti-Irish behavior!

I’m not sure I liked the debunking by Steve and Tango in this case. It seemed just a little too convenient an explanation. I know that clients have a tendency to overlook the obvious sometimes, but wouldn’t someone have noticed if the traffic outside was causing bottles, glasses, or an old water pump handle to move?

Case #2: Harriet Beecher Stowe House, CT

Much like the previous episode, where we got to see the team work without Grant, we have an investigation without Jason. And once again, it seemed like the forced change in dynamics was to the benefit of the entire team and investigative process. The only thing that really bothered me was the emphasis placed on the K-II/Melmeter session. At this point, without some kind of information on the frequency at play, it’s hard to take these EM spikes seriously. It’s just too easy for the devices to be triggered by RF sources. (Like, for instance, someone with a walkie-talkie.)

This is why I brought up the point about my recent investigative experience. Kris and Amy heard a solid “bump” coming from above, and could not find a source. There seemed to be other odd noises also captured. My point is that this sort of “evidence” is encountered in the field.

But, to my earlier point, it’s hard to make a connection to paranormal activity. I think they were right in largely downplaying the “bump, but I was a little taken aback at how much importance they seemed to place on the second recording. I understand the client wanting to link that to someone playing checkers, but why not try to explain that the recording doesn’t actually support that kind of conclusion?

Of course, in this case, it could have been an editing issue, because this half of the episode felt incredibly choppy and off-kilter. Kris and Grant seemed to stumble through the scripted introductory segments, and keeping in Steve’s comment about getting to catch up with Grant during the investigation seemed out of context. (It’s a reference to his time away on the first season of “Ghost Hunters Academy”, but I fully anticipate critics running with the ball and twisting that around. Along with endless commentary on Kris’ supposed implants and how she and Tango were “obviously flirting”.)

I thought the debunking of the “bearded man” was good, at least to a point. Did the client say that the lights were on when the reported activity took place? I think they were doing their best to replicate the reports, but in this case, I wasn’t convinced that it was a slam dunk. On the other hand, it beats having to make a convincing case that lights from street traffic with Floating Gene Hackman.

A lot of my response to the sixth season premiere was a reaction to the Syfy event that dominated it, and how it emphasized the entertainment aspects and the franchise over everything else. I felt it overshadowed the investigation and justified many of the long-standing criticisms of TAPS and “Ghost Hunters”. Thankfully, this episode took the series back into more familiar and less sensational ground.

I noticed the use of the “full spectrum” camcorder in this episode, which was a nice touch. I did, however, think it was odd that Jason seemed a bit skeptical of it. The technology has been in use on GHI for quite some time, and while there are questions surrounding it (as with the use of all this tech), it seems a lot more reliable than, say, the K-II meter, which Jason and Grant use on a regular basis. I’d love to know what Jason’s concerns are.

But this brings up the ongoing debate of “technical” vs. “scientific”. Like I’ve said before, just because someone uses technical instrumentation doesn’t mean that the basis for use is scientific. It goes well beyond the “television” version of paranormal investigation, where concessions are regularly made in terms of visual presentation. The vast majority of paranormal investigative groups seem to rely too much on their assumptions about the technology and devalue the science.

I have my opinions about why this is the case. Paranormal investigators come into the field with an intense desire to find results. When that desire overcomes the necessary detachment and objectivity of scientific endeavor, then it becomes all too easy to accept unsupportable “tradition” and gimmicks when they seem to deliver. Devices like “radio sweepers” and the Ovilus are perfect examples. Scientifically, there’s a solid reason why they can’t produce defendable results. Plenty of investigators still swear by them because they seem to deliver something tangible. (And some, like Chris Fleming, make a killing by selling these devices that they know don’t work as advertised.)

In the premiere, Steve and Tango were using a “Bumblebee tablet”. The idea seemed to be this: if one suspects that EVPs originate at a frequency below the threshold of typical human hearing, then the tablet would theoretically detect the waveform and alert an investigator to a potential EVP.

First, I’d like to address the logical fallacy of the theory itself. Based on how they are captured, EVPs cannot originate at a frequency below the range of human hearing. EVPs are regularly recorded on digital voice recorders. Setting aside common factors such as pattern recognition and noise contamination, these recorders often include filters that prevent noise at frequencies outside the typical audible range from being recorded. So if something is audible upon playback, it must have originated within the audible frequency range.

Never mind that if it can be heard upon playback, it has to be within the audible frequency range. I’ve seen the notes on the screen saying that the EVP is recorded very low in the frequency range, or sometimes just below the typical auditory frequency range, but it’s usually still audible. If it wasn’t, how would the investigator even know it was there to analyze it? Especially since they are often buried in the background noise floor in the waveform display? On simple logical principle, this “infrasound” theory doesn’t hold water. (Yes, I know that there are harmonics and “beat frequencies” to take into consideration, but even then, it doesn’t quite work.)

From a technical perspective, the Bumblebee tablet also doesn’t have the capability to detect frequencies below the audible frequency range. The Bumblebee is an RF spectrum analyzer made by Berkeley Varitronics in Metuchen, NJ. According to the information forwarded to me by one of my engineering colleagues, the frequency response of the Bumblebee doesn’t go below 50KHz, which is significantly above the audible frequency spectrum. While it will provide a survey of the most common frequencies encountered in the RF band in the location being investigated, at best this provides a basis for debunking audio anomalies as an RF artifact through correlation with the raw audio recording. (And it would also be potentially useful for debunking K-II meter spikes, since it’s known that common RF frequencies can product false positives.)

To sum it up: the Bumblebee tablet does not have the technical capability to detect a frequency in the “infrasound” range. Therefore, even if the “infrasound” theory were logical and correct, the instrument itself would be the wrong thing to use to gather supporting data. I would be interested to know why they suspected that such a device would be valuable in an investigation.

Beyond an attempt to educate and elevate the practices of the field, there is a reason for bringing this up in relation to this episode. Frankly, I thought the most impressive moment in the episode had nothing to do with technical data collection. It was simple human response to the unexpected.

Before I get to that, a few words on the rest of the “evidence”. I’ve mentioned before that the “evidence de jour” lately has been footsteps and disembodied voices. After years of seldom getting either, it seems to show up constantly now. Not just on “Ghost Hunters”, but nearly every other paranormal television show on the planet. I don’t discount either phenomenon, because I’ve encountered both in my own investigations, but those were isolated incidents.

Usually I find it easy to be skeptical of the footsteps. This time, I heard the rhythmic sound rather clearly. I know the team thought it could have been footsteps, but I thought it sounded like a drum or other intentional pattern. And since it was Britt and Amy that captured the sound, I’m less inclined to question the veracity of the recording itself. I’d definitely want to investigate further.

I was also intrigued by the light that Jason, Steve, and Tango reportedly saw at the same time from different locations. It was Tango’s remark that he saw a light, caught on camera, that caught my attention. Granted, as presented, there’s not much to it. No flash of light was caught on camera, and one could assume that the various reactions were pre-planned so that the necessary footage could be available. But there’s no proof or even evidence for either extreme interpretation. The only thing that seems evident is that they all reported seeing a flash of light at the same time.

I will note that Britt mentioned the geology in the region, which could have produced an energy discharge similar to ball lightning as per the piezoelectric effect. Some minerals are capable of storing energy and releasing it under applied mechanical stress or temperature change. This sort of discharge often looks like floating balls of light, and will even travel along railroad tracks for miles under the right conditions, producing the “ghost light” effect reported in some areas. This investigation took place in upstate New York in November 2009, so it’s quite possible that the team observed a natural energy discharge.

What I found most impressive was the sound captured by Steve and Tango. Now, I know this one will be controversial. It could have been a natural noise that sounds like a voice or response, and it could have been a surprisingly good acting job on Steve’s part. But in my opinion, Steve actually thought he heard someone disagree with his story about the gunpowder smell. I say this because when he looked up and asked for confirmation that he was wrong, I also heard the sound and thought that someone was trying to correct him!

Just like Steve, it took a moment for me to realize that he wasn’t looking in the direction of the production crew. I’m not even sure that the sound guy could have been standing where they were looking. But I was struck by how genuine Steve and Tango’s reaction appeared to be. Steve looked over as if expecting someone to be standing there, and it took just the right amount of time for him to recognize that no one should be there. I’m sure others will disagree with me on this interpretation, but paranormal or not, I honestly think Steve was reacting to something he heard. As I said, I heard the sound as well, and leapt to the same conclusion.

I even found myself agreeing with Jason’s summary of the investigation. While I’m not sure anything was paranormal in origin, I do agree that the logical next step would be further investigation over a long period of time. I know they say it often, and that it never seems to materialize on-screen (I suspect the locations are passed off to TAPS Family teams if at all), but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the most responsible approach to take. Anomalies from one investigation shouldn’t be considered evidence of anything.

I think it helped that Grant’s absence in this case forced the team to break out of the normal routine a bit more. The mixing of investigative teams seemed to help mitigate most of my usual criticisms. And this time, the bulk of the interesting “evidence” was captured by investigators other than Jason or Grant. It all boils down to a solid episode that left me entertained and thoughtful.

As much as I wish I could separate the actual investigation from the massive PR machine behind the 100th episode, the format of the event made it almost impossible. I found that the constant stream of Syfy cross-promotion and TAPS glad-handing made it very difficult to get into the flow of what had happened on-site. While there were a couple of interesting tidbits that did shine through, I thought the overall effectiveness of the footage was lost in the constant interruptions.

I’ll start with the “event” first, because I think it speaks volumes. I certainly understand that Syfy wants to celebrate and promote one of its current flagship franchises. For better or worse, “Ghost Hunters” has gone from the niche show that might never have made it to a phenomenon that has spawned an entire reality sub-genre.

But success often comes with a price, and I think many fans and detractors would agree that TAPS is not approaching the show the same way they did in the beginning. On a fundamental level, they recognize what Pilgrim Films is going to do on a business level: edit for entertainment, integrity of the team and reputation of the client be damned. Jason and Grant have signed enough contracts by now to share in the responsibility for everything the production company does related to “Ghost Hunters”.

(And this is not my personal indictment; this is taking their own words to the logical if unflattering conclusion. They’ve openly said that if Pilgrim Films ever asked them to do or accept anything against their morals, they would walk away. As such, since they keep signing contracts, they must feel that the occasional poor treatment of clients and questionable editing/post-production practices are acceptable.)

I point to Jason and Grant because they are the co-producers and ultimately the keystones to the franchise. I still firmly believe that the majority of TAPS, GHI, and even GHA members are legitimately trying to investigate, even under the evidence-crushing conditions of television production. And for the most part, I think Jason and Grant are doing the same. But about 95% of the truly questionable evidence and subsequent interpretations either originate or filter through Jason and Grant. By now, I can’t help but feel that some of those conclusions, especially when the conclusions point to paranormal activity where alternative explanations exist, are geared towards serving the franchise rather than the field.

From my position, that doesn’t really make much of a difference in the long run. As I’ve said many times, the edited nature of the footage and “evidence” reduces everything on the show to anecdotal status. None of it can be pointed to as “proof”, because there’s no chance for independent review of the untouched data. So it’s really a question of whether or not one can fully trust the presentation of the “evidence” and the conclusions drawn.

That slow but steady conversion from the much more skeptical approach in the first and even second seasons to the current status quo has culminated in the entertainment-driven mess that was the 100th episode event. It’s the same thing that forces Josh Gates and the rest of the gang to praise the ridiculous and reputation-killing antics of Steve and Tango, which I still think is a response to pressure from the production company. (Consider this: if the “recruits” on GHA had acted like Steve and Tango, how quickly would they have been berated?)

Many detractors of TAPS have accused them (and specifically Jason and Grant) of “going Hollywood”. This event only feeds into that impression. I actually feel bad for a lot of the less-prominent members of TAPS and GHI who had to fly in for the event, and had barely a moment on-camera. They weren’t there for their substantive contributions; they were there to promote the franchise.

When GHI was introduced, the franchise question came into play. Was this the proof that it was less about investigation and more about the entertainment business? Many critics definitely felt it was. Thankfully, GHI has become a strong show on its own merits, and the team itself has often outshined TAPS in terms of consistency. As I’ve said many times, while they are not perfect, GHI tends to highlight many of the legitimate concerns surrounding TAPS.

Part of what irritated me about the event was the constant promotion of “Ghost Hunters Academy”. I wasn’t expecting anyone to denounce the show for its many shortcomings; this was, after all, about celebrating the franchise. But the enthusiasm that went into the description of the next season of GHA was astonishing. It sounds like everything that was wrong with the first season is going to be emphasized in the second season. Even worse, Jason is getting into the act with Steve and Tango. How can they not see how this will be perceived, and how this feeds into the impression of entertainment and money over integrity? (That said, I must admit that I will give them the benefit of the doubt and see how the second season has changed things. Maybe the initial impressions are deceiving.)

My discomfort with the promotional side of the event crystallized in the final moments, when the founder of Pilgrim Films, a production company that has been at the source of many of the issues surrounding the show and the franchise, including the mistreatment of former cast members, came out to give a toast to the success and health of the franchise. It was clearly all about the money. I have to wonder how many of the people on the stage really wanted to share a drink with him.

****

As for the investigation itself, the location was once again the star. This reminded me of those episodes of GH and GHI where the anticipation is so high that it seems impossible that the team could contain the natural hysteria that comes with the territory. In this case, given that the investigation took place over several nights, I would think that such an initial thrill would eventually give way to routine.

I was intrigued by a couple of the new devices that they were using during the investigation. It’s been a long time since TAPS brought anything new to the table. The laser grid device seems like a gimmick, but in terms of debunking value, it’s actually not a bad idea. That is, as long as the lasers aren’t visible to the naked eye; visible laser beams would destroy an investigator’s night vision. But consider how often investigators think they see shadows moving in the darkness; if a laser grid visible to the IR cameras could demonstrate that there was nothing actually there. Unfortunately, the operation of the laser device was never discussed in the aired footage, so my initial impression may not be valid. I would need more information on the device itself.

I’m less certain about the “Bumblebee tablet”. It certainly looks slick. My impression is that the oft-mentioned finding that EVPs are found in frequencies below the threshold of human hearing is the basis for using this device. I’m skeptical of that conclusion as it is, but setting that aside, the data would only be valuable if it could be recorded and correlated with an audio recording with potential EVPs.

A quick search on the device suggests that it would be very good for identifying, in correlation with audio, instances where RF and other common false positive sources were at work. It does have a sizable hard drive, so I would assume that there is a data-logging capability. That’s assuming, of course, that the people using the device were trained on interpreting the output data. I would have to defer to my audio engineer group members to weigh in on the applicability and utility of the device.

I liked how the unusual size and circumstances of the investigation forced many of the team members to mix into unusual groups. I only wish that could have been the case with Jason and Grant, and Steve and Tango. The disembodied voice saying “No” early in the investigation was very clear, as was the voice that talked over Kris’ voice later in the episode.

At this point, capturing footsteps is almost becoming a cliché. It rarely happened in the past; now it happens all the time. (This can be added to the list along with EVPs, thermal hits, and disembodied voices.) Most of the time, I think it’s a case of natural noises and selective interpretation. I’m not so sure in this case. Those footsteps were very clear in the audio, and louder than a lot of the supposed footsteps caught in the past. I definitely think they’d be worth a closer look.

The highlight, of course, is the EVP, captured over Jason and Grant’s own voices, apparently saying “Harry Brunette 374”. Combined with the research, that’s the kind of thing that any paranormal researcher would love to find. Taken on its own merits, it would certainly demand further investigation.

Case #1: Duran Sanatorium, Costa Rica
Case #2: Rose Hall, Jamaica

Almost as soon as it begins, another short but sweet run of “Ghost Hunters International” comes to an end. There’s a part of me that would rather see more GHI and less TAPS at this point, but I can appreciate the rationale behind the scheduling. I don’t know if the GHI team could handle a longer production schedule, considering how rough it is already!

This has been a really good run for the show and the team, with some great insight into their techniques and comfort as a unit. There has been a core set of investigators at the heart of the team for a while now, operating from a clear and well-communicated investigative philosophy, and I think that has given the team a bit more credibility. Sure, there are those who outright refuse to give any televised team a shred of credit, and those who deify other groups at the expense of others, but objectively, they are a lot more consistent.

Watching the episode, I noted the abundance of photographic “evidence”, and wanted to share some thoughts on the subject. I’ve long been of the opinion (and I’ve said this before) that photographic “evidence”, taken on its own, is not sufficient proof of paranormal activity. While this is technically true for any data source, it is especially true for photographs for a number of reasons.

The problem is that digital technology is such that it is all too easy to fabricate a photograph or make subtle alterations to “enhance” what may or may not be there. Moreover, the nature of photographic (and even video) technology is such that there are several different ways that anomalies can be generated without realizing it.

For this reason, in my group, we are very careful when discussing any photographs. We seldom go further than mentioning or pointing out potential anomalies. Even so, in the past, we have noticed how zealous skeptics have claimed that just posting a photo, in the interest of discussion, is tantamount to claiming evidence of the paranormal, regardless of our direct protests to the contrary!

In another situation, we posted an odd photograph that had an unusual shadow; we weren’t sure what it was, so it was posted in the interests of peer review. Months later, claims of fraud started pouring in, much to our surprise and consternation. When we confronted our critics, they sent the exact picture that was at the center of the accusation. We were shocked to discover that someone had taken the original photo, altered it to make the shadow look darker and more like a human figure, and then claimed that it was something we produced! It took quite some time to set the record straight, and to this day, we still don’t know who altered the photo or why they would bother. Worse, there are those who still find the altered photo and jump to conclusions.

As one can imagine, we are now wary of posting photographs from investigations as a result, even when they are purely for reference. Also, I try to be very careful when parsing my words regarding photographic “evidence”. While some may not understand or appreciate the distinction, there is a world of difference between saying a photograph is interesting and worth further analysis and claiming that it is proof of the paranormal.

But this reveals something about the paranormal investigative community that I deeply dislike. Too many investigators take questions about their potential evidence as a personal affront, and they respond in kind. And the worst accusations come from those with “evidence” that doesn’t pass muster as genuine. When many outspoken skeptics have no problem with the notion of accusing paranormal investigators of outrageously filthy and disgusting things, often without basis in fact, I don’t understand why members of the community are just as willing, if not more so. I have to give GHI credit for being open to constructive criticism.

As I said, this pertains to this episode, because so much of the “evidence” was photographic in nature. It will be interesting to see the reaction. For my part, I don’t believe there is any fabrication involved, for reasons I’ve stated many times. Nor do I see this as a matter of willful misinterpretation. The analysis of the photographs was consistent with past interpretations by GHI.

Case #1: Duran Sanatorium, Costa Rica

This was quite the interesting case, and there were a number of “full spectrum” hits worth noting. Lest I forget to mention it, there was also an EVP, though I personally felt that it was buried in the background noise (especially in the waveform), and there may have been some pattern recognition at play.

One thing I like is how GHI takes multiple photographs in quick succession. Having those reference photographs is a big plus. That said, not all of the “evidence” was equally good. The “streak” of light wasn’t particularly impressive, because it really could have been anything. Granted, it was an anomaly, so it was worth discussion, but I’m not sure why it would have been considered potentially paranormal in origin.

The odd “figures”, on the other hand, were plain as day, and hard to rationalize. I suppose some will say it was some kind of lens flare or similar light phenomenon, unusually rendered due to the nature of the “full spectrum” camera itself, but it’s hard to draw that kind of definitive conclusion without technical review. I wouldn’t say this is proof positive, but I would say that it’s worth a much closer look. (I will also say that I’ve seen a similar form in a “normal spectrum” photo taken by a colleague some years ago, and to this day, I still haven’t heard a solid explanation for it. It stands as an unexplained anomaly.)

The photo of the figure of a girl, however, was a lot harder to discern. Frankly, even when it was pointed out in the enhanced version of the photo, I had a hard time seeing the shape as described. While I see the difference between that photo and the reference photo, I just don’t see the shape as clearly as GHI. I don’t know if that’s solid evidence of anything.

But I think it’s clear why GHI felt that the location was haunted, based on their conclusions.

Case #2: Rose Hall, Jamaica

I loved this case because of all the debunking. It would have been very easy to assume that there was something to the story about the mirror, and I know a lot of groups would have missed the point about the reflection of the vase (even if they wouldn’t admit it). In fact, I like how Robb stood up for the team’s stance and specifically walked the client through the logic process.

I also like the fact that they acknowledged that the audio was all but ruined by the constant keening of the local insect life. Like GHI, I’ve tried to do audio sessions under such annoying conditions, if only to see if the results would be remotely useable. (After all, if clients say they hear voices or other noises, capturing the conditions is part of the investigation and evaluation of the claim.)

I’ve always liked the cases with a good amount of debunking, so for me, this was a great way to end this portion of the second season: one case with compelling “evidence” to ponder, and another with solid debunking. If nothing else, it presents a firm challenge to TAPS and “Ghost Hunters” to rise to the occasion.

A few people were worried after the previous episode, thinking that Brandy’s absence from the second case was a sign that she was no longer on the team. This episode should calm those fears. It should also give the audience a sense of when this investigation took place, because Dustin’s absence is directly related to his return to TAPS as Steve’s replacement during the filming of “Ghost Hunters Academy”.

Hopefully this will turn out to be a temporary turn of events. Dustin is one of the strongest members of GHI, in my opinion, and while the team did a fine job in Costa Rica, Dustin’s absence was felt. Besides, considering how much of an atrocity “Ghost Hunters Academy” was on so many levels, it’s galling to think that GHI would have to bear the brunt of the franchise impact. (It’s bad enough that they are going to have two “investigators-in-training” forced on them.)

There was remarkably little chatter about GHI over the past week. Well, apart from those chiding Robb on his grammar or complaining that there isn’t a staff linguist on the team. Frankly, while I agree that it’s still an ongoing weakness, there’s clearly been an effort over time to incorporate more and more of the native language at each site. And I suspect that the production company considers it a necessity to do most of the talking in English, for the sake of the audience. That’s something the team members would have to confirm or deny.

Maybe it’s the general lack of controversy. For better or worse, TAPS and “Ghost Hunters” have become the functional equivalent of a perpetual motion controversy machine. Every episode renews the cycle. Even the most mundane episodes seem to spark off the usual claims of fabrication. Without that, the audience is left to discuss the “evidence” and the methodology, and frankly, a good chunk of the genre’s audience has little interest in that sort of talk.

In terms of this episode, I can’t particularly disagree. Sometimes episodes of this series are most notable for the location itself, not the “evidence” collected. In my opinion, that was the case with this location. I know the client was impressed, I know the team was proud of what they did and what they captured, but the location was the real star.

And that’s because the location looked like it put the team through the gauntlet. They looked exhausted by the time all was said and done, as if every ounce of energy had been sweat out of their bodies. Add to that a location that constantly kept them on their toes, and it had to be memorable, not even accounting for the “evidence” or the personal experiences. It’s the kind of place that sounds great on paper, but leaves you wondering what the hell you were thinking as soon as the boat pulls away. And I’m saying that from the comfort of my snowbound home.

This location seemed to bring up all the usual concerns that come with outdoor locations in general: noise pollution. There was a ton of it. Storm activity, animal movements and sounds, everything but the kitchen sink. At least one of the EVPs sounded like a potential animal call to me, and I couldn’t help but wonder how many of the disembodied voices were ambient sounds that were just unfamiliar to the team.

GHI would hardly be the first team to deal with this. It happens quite often on shows like “Ghost Adventures”, where the investigators jump at every unusual sound as evidence. (They also have a love affair with “orbs”, but that’s a discussion for another time.) The point is, it’s hard for anyone watching the episode to take the “evidence” without a grain of salt, because the audience just doesn’t have the right context to conclude that the recordings weren’t a case of “mistaken identity”.

That’s not to say that everything could be so easily dismissed. A couple of the context-appropriate whispers were intriguing, having captured similar EVPs myself. It’s always odd when there is a definite whisper, above the background noise (even if only slightly), and it seems to react to a specific statement or question. How that meshes with the oft-repeated counter-argument of “captured RF transmissions”, I have yet to be convinced. (In other words, I haven’t been able to replicate the recordings to my satisfaction using RF sources.)

I was also interested by the movement of the chained door, which took Robb and Joe by surprise. I’ll be honest’ with storm activity in the area, my first thought was some kind of subtle air flow. Of course, that assumes that the two investigators standing right in front of the door wouldn’t have noticed that at the time, which while possible, doesn’t quite work for me. I’m not saying it’s definitive in any respect, only that it was something worth noting.

What really caught my attention was the truly loud moan/voice captured on one of the static cameras. That didn’t sound like an animal, and I think the client would agree with that assessment. I suppose it could have been one of the crew, if Pilgrim Films was trying to play the kind of game they’re known to play on “Ghost Hunters”, but it’s impossible to tell. It’s certainly something that would be worthy of further investigation.

Case #1: Supreme Courthouse, Tasmania
Case #2: Kellie’s Castle, Malaysia

After a couple of episodes with semi-controversial “evidence”, GHI takes a bit of time to focus on some of those bread-and-butter cases that inevitably come with the paranormal investigation territory. I say semi-controversial, by the way, because there was remarkably little discussion. At least, to some degree, it sparked some conversation about what could truly be determined from photographic “evidence”.

In short, there is always the debate as to whether or not it’s enough for investigators to record or prove the effect. Does the EVP, video, or photograph really prove that an anomaly is a ghost? Does it expose anything new about the nature of the phenomena, so as to point towards the next advance in research? I would argue that it all depends on how the information is collected, interpreted, and used.

As much as I may prefer that all paranormal investigation be geared towards scientific methodology and strict interpretation of data, to the point of factoring out “ghosts” from the equation completely, until strong evidence warrants that conclusion, I know that’s not the case. Different groups focus on different things. I happen to think a lot of them leap to unwarranted and even dangerous conclusions. I also think that there are a lot of people out there using the interest in the paranormal to commit fraud, either by selling gadgets that they know don’t work as advertised (one individual recently comes to mind), or by misrepresenting investigations through fabrication or creative editing (and I’m not just talking about television).

This is why I try to judge a group by their stated intentions. Some of the groups I work with as a technical consultant don’t follow my preferred methods. On the other hand, they’re not focused on researching the cause; they want to document the effect as reported by the client. Sometimes it’s a somewhat uneasy mixture between the two. And as much as it may infuriate or disappoint some of the more vocal skeptics, I think there’s validity in those approaches, so long as everyone is honest about their intentions and assumptions. At the end of the day, the client has expectations, and the investigator has to keep that in mind.

Usually this sort of episode would generate some skepticism because of the lack of activity and the ease of debunking. It’s an oft-repeated criticism that “Ghost Hunters” will intentionally produce such episodes to make cases with questionable “evidence” more credible. The difference here is the small matter of detectable chronology. On “Ghost Hunters”, it’s usually rather obvious that the low-activity cases are shelved until desired, sometimes for months, and then mashed together into an episode.

But in the case of GHI, their unfortunate rate of turnover and travel considerations make it easy enough to recognize that the cases are less juggled. In fact, when they shuffle cases out of order, it’s usually very easy to recognize. It makes it easier to accept the ebb and flow of “evidence” as genuine.

What I really liked in this case, however, was the direct link between the previous episode’s case at Port Arthur, and the first case in this episode. The team made a specific effort to draw on the experiences and context of that previous investigation in an attempt to draw out activity. Say what you will about whether or not those personal experiences should have been the basis or not, but I thought that was a very nice touch. It makes me wonder if that kind of thing is considered unnecessary by the editors, because I imagine it happens quite often.

And it’s something that a lot of the audience would love to see, especially if it would carry over to “Ghost Hunters” as well. Not just occasionally pointing back to previous investigations at a given location or some highlight of “evidence”, but showing how the team adjusts tactics based on recent findings or experiences. Of course, in the case of “Ghost Hunters”, that would break the format, because ever since they chose to abandon the idea of weaving “storylines” into each season (as they did with the Brian Harnois mess in the second season), they’ve packaging episodes to maximize the ability to air out of order.

Maybe that’s the hidden benefit of how GHI must be made. Because they have to reconfirm the team members before every filming period, there’s a built-in narrative of time and personnel. There’s a greater sense of the continuity from case to case. If that means that the editors are more willing to show the team in a more holistic light, then I certainly won’t complain.

Case #1: Supreme Courthouse, Tasmania

There’s a definite theme to this episode, and it starts with this case. Everything that the team encountered could be explained by mundane circumstance, and GHI did a good job of presenting the alternatives to the client. I particularly liked the analysis of the reported activity surrounding the clock and the analysis of Robb’s picture. And it’s not like they didn’t try: I already mentioned how I enjoyed Robb’s attempt to draw out the same entity that apparently bothered Ashley at Port Arthur. (And the look on her face was priceless.)

But the interesting thing was the reaction of the client. He didn’t seem at all pleased with the conclusions drawn by the team, and he pretty much indicated that he was going to consider the place haunted, evidence or not!

Case #2: Kellie’s Castle, Malaysia

I liked the fact that the team members recognized the likelihood of audio contamination from the various animal and environmental noises. In this case, it was pretty easy to do, but other teams (“Ghost Adventures”, anyone?) have a bad habit of mistaking natural ambient noise for something paranormal.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much time passed between the previous case and this one, but it doesn’t seem like it was a long period of time, since Paul and Ashley are still with the team. At this point, it really feels like the team is coming together very well, and there is a confidence that comes with a shared vision. In other words, there’s probably very little time left before the team changes again!

The previous episode seemed to generate a lot of controversy, particularly the “full spectrum” photo that seemed to have a figure standing by a fence. A lot of critics claimed that there was nothing in the photograph to see; it was all a matter of suggestion. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I went back to my HD recording a couple times, and I thought it was plain as day. I wouldn’t ever say that it was definitive, but I think there’s clearly a difference between the reference photo and the photo with the anomaly.

To be fair, some critics were measured in their opposition, noting that it’s never been made clear what the “full spectrum” camera produces, so it could all be a matter of unusual lens flare, shadow, and so forth. I noted that GHI members have a lot more experience with such photographs by now, but even they quickly qualify that they are not experts. They feel they can trust the output of the camera at this point, but they admit that it all comes down to their interpretation.

That’s what any intelligent paranormal investigator is going to say to qualify his or her conclusions. Let’s all be honest: even distinguished scientists with tons of papers and discoveries under their name must default to making a case for their conclusions based on the limitations of their knowledge, and even the theories with abundant data are open to debate and criticism. In fact, as a graduate student, I am often tasked with reviewing professionally and academically published papers and studies in my field of expertise, and nearly all of them have weaknesses in theory, design, or execution that can be exploited.

Truthfully, most paranormal investigators aren’t making the kind of case that one finds in academic research journals. Most of them know the difference. We all know it comes down to interpretation, and that is often based on a mixture of personal experience, “evidence”, and subjective notions of probability. As often as investigators might claim that something might be “indisputable”, it’s always open to debate.

Yet it astounds me when some critic takes it personally when someone dares to agree that there’s something unusual to discuss. It’s almost as if the possibility of an anomaly itself is an insult to worldwide intelligence. After posting the review for the previous episode, I received a demand that I explain my conclusion that there was something to see in the “full spectrum” photo. This individual wanted detailed screenshots and photographic analysis, from me, to prove what was, in the end, a simple opinion on someone else’s presented data. (Needless to say, he didn’t get what he wanted.)

I’ve said this many times before, but it seems more true than ever, with the glut of paranormal reality television on the airwaves. While there are plenty of people who will blindly accept anything presented on their TV screen, there is an overwhelming arrogance that comes from some of the more strident critics. Namely, those who assume an intellectual superiority from the belief that any and all reported paranormal activity is just evidence of delusional thinking.

Now I’ll be honest; I admit to my own arrogance. I am a reviewer and critic, after all. And I do think there are a lot of valid points to be made in terms of poor methodology, technique, and technical understanding within the paranormal investigative community. I’ve made those criticisms myself in abundance. No doubt, others would criticize my methods as well. I just see a difference between constructive criticism and the majority of what passes for dissent.

And in that context, I can’t wait to see what kind of comments come after this episode. This could very well be the best thing that GHI has managed to produce in their relatively short run. If anyone claims that there is nothing to see in this particular photograph, then I doubt there’s anything that would pass muster. (And to be clear, I’m just saying that there’s something in the photo worth discussing, not making a claim as to the nature of it.)

More on the photo in a moment. I think this investigation had a little something for everyone. Maybe it’s just the editors ensuring that the “evidence” has more impact than in other instances, but there was a lot of basic debunking taking place during this case. I was particularly impressed with Dustin’s observation that the “singing” was possibly an effect of the wind on the exposed pipes. There was really no way to know definitively under the circumstances, but it was a nice touch.

Similarly, they were able to debunk a number of banging sounds, and Paul in particular made a good call on the door that seemed to open by itself. That sort of thing does help to lend credence to their claims that they heard solid footsteps, even when it doesn’t show up on the audio. Is it possible that Robb and Ashley were fooled by natural settling and wood expansion/contraction? Maybe, but the fact that they considered those options and dismissed them satisfies me that they are not playing up the circumstance intentionally.

The other personal experiences were quite interesting. I’m really not sure what to think of Barry’s experiences on the dissection table. For a moment, I was worried that the man was having a heart attack. Frankly, I could say the same for Ashley. She looked genuinely rattled during her experience and pretty much the entire time afterward. This isn’t the first time, so if she’s as new to the field as she seems to be (taking into account the previous run of episodes), I’m impressed that she’s sticking with it.

This is another site with contextual EVPs, and at least one with a recognizable accent. I thought Ashley’s reaction to the “OK” response was quite sincere. When something gets under Ashley’s skin, it’s pretty damn obvious. I also liked the other EVPs that were captured. I know some will question the validity of any EVP when the original audio has been “cleaned up” to that degree, but there’s little doubt that there was something worth analyzing further in the recording.

If GHI was looking to promote anything as paranormal evidence (and that is the claim of some critics), then here is an example of something that a lot of groups would have been very excited about: the bed-curtain video. Dustin and Robb qualified that footage very nicely. It was notable for having happened only once, but there was nothing to suggest it had a paranormal origin. Yes, it’s clear that the client interpreted that as impressive “evidence”, but it was presented as a point of interest.

Of course, everyone is really going to be debating the “full spectrum” photo. I’ll repeat what I said before: I can clearly see what they are talking about in the photo, and I understand exactly why they feel it is potentially paranormal in origin. I thought they did a pretty good job of trying to debunk the photo by showing what a person walking in that space would look like on the 30-second exposure setting.

I suppose it’s possible that someone could technically stand in that position for 30 seconds to produce that image, but given that Barry and Joe were looking right in that direction at the time, it would have been obvious that someone was standing there. And there’s always the possibility of pattern-recognition. And doubtless, some will claim that the photo is simply a fake. As for my own opinion, I agree with the majority of the stated GHI interpretation: there’s something in the photo, it looks like a figure, and taken as presented, it defies simple explanation.

Australia has been pretty good to GHI. The first case, covered in the previous episode, had a great client and some intriguing recordings. Upon realizing that this would be an episode with only one case, I was immediately pleased. I enjoy the depth of coverage that the longer format allows.

I also noted that the semi-controversial static meter was not being used in the last few investigations. After some of my comments in previous reviews, some readers graciously provided some background information on the devices that were featured on the show (or devices of seemingly identical origin). The devices appear to come pre-built, based on a kit, from a company that claims to ensure that the meters are specifically sensitive to paranormal activity. If this sounds suspiciously like the bogus claims about the K-II Meter on Chris Fleming’s website some years ago (“calibrated for ghost hunting!”), that’s because it should.

In a nice bit of synchronicity, as some skeptics pointed out the difficulty in establishing clear controls around the use of a static meter and the questionable readings that can result, I received a comment from a member of GHI indicating that they had already come to the same conclusions back when the cases were being filmed. As a result, according to this source, the viewers would not see the static meter for much longer in the episodes being aired.

This brought to mind another criticism that I was independently countering in recent weeks. Having seen a “full spectrum camcorder” on “Ghost Adventures”, one viewer ripped into GHI for still using the now-surpassed “full spectrum” still camera. Setting aside the fact that photography and video surveillance cover two different aspects of an investigation, I was perturbed by the lack of perspective.

For one thing, Barry had mentioned in a previous episode of GHI, on screen, that he and his research colleagues were working on video version of the “full spectrum” camera. Add to that the fact that the individual who provided the “full spectrum” camcorder to “Ghost Adventures”, Andy Coppock, is directly involved with the behind-the-scenes tech development for TAPS and other groups, and it’s not hard to connect the dots. “Ghost Adventures” didn’t trump Barry or GHI; they benefitted from sharing within the community as a whole. (And, sure enough, GHI is clearly using a “full spectrum” video camera in this episode.)

Most sincere investigators try to share their theories and ideas with the rest of the field, because once ego is out of the equation, it’s recognized that this is a matter of enlightened mutual interest. The more groups that test a theory or equipment, the better the evaluation. My biggest problem is when someone puts a new device on the market with fraudulent claims of success, when the simplest of technical evaluations can show that the output from the device is contrived to appear meaningful. Hence my strident skepticism of flashy, market-driven gadgetry. Give me a quantitative data display and a semi-reasonable design of experiment, and it will trump a bunch of blinking lights any day.

All of this boils down to two key points in GHI’s favor. First, they are trying new ways of collecting data and making an evaluation of the pros and cons of those methods, and adjusting accordingly. Since we already know that Barry’s technical theories are rooted in a consistent personal philosophy regarding the paranormal, and that the team has aligned to work together along similar lines, this adds to the impression that GHI is making a sincere effort to advance the field. Agree or disagree with the conclusions and assumptions all you want (as I sometimes do); GHI is still adhering to the scientific method than any other group currently on the air.

Second, it has to be remembered that GHI’s episodes air a long time after they are filmed, so many of the things that seem “behind the times” are actually reasonable for the time at which the cases were filmed. These episodes were filmed several months ago, much earlier in 2009. For better or worse, we are used to shows like “Ghost Hunters” and “Ghost Adventures”, where the show is popular enough that the number of episodes every season requires a very quick turnaround. The benefit of social media is that we have a much better understanding of the overall timeline. GHI, by contrast, could see a lag time of more than a year, depending on when Syfy chooses to slide the episodes into the schedule.

As always, it comes down to perspective, and placing things in a well-considered context: both in terms of what we can reasonably conclude from what we see on screen, and what we cannot. Just as it’s fair to recognize that any “evidence” on the show is being shown in edited form, and therefore questionable, it’s important to be fair in criticism. In this case, I appreciate the fact that GHI identified the same concerns about equipment then that we had as viewers today.

All of which is a prelude to some of my comments on the “evidence” from this particular case!

If there’s one curious trend that I have noticed over the past year or so, across the many paranormal investigative shows on the air, it’s the increase in apparent disembodied voices. They used to be fairly rare; now they seem to happen all the time. My main concern is always a question of the nature of the source: if both recording devices and the human ear detect the sound, then it is a physical sound wave. That requires a vibration source to generate the sound wave.

And that would appear to point to a human or otherwise natural source for all disembodied voices, or at least, it would if I hadn’t encountered fairly convincing examples of disembodied voices myself. Even so, I can’t help but wonder if the increase in apparent captured disembodied voices is a function of increased activity or increased expectation.

Most of the “evidence” for this case involved disembodied voices and EVP, and the sheer number just adds to the skepticism. But here’s where the point about context complicates the matter. As Dustin said, it’s not just the number of unusual recordings, it’s the context. Many of the recordings fit the situation. And when that happens, I think it’s a mistake to leap to the immediate conclusion that it’s just a misinterpreted human voice (or, worse, fabricated).

I must admit that we can’t judge the exact conditions based on the footage shown in the episode. It’s entirely possible that a member of the Pilgrim crew was helping things along (they have been caught in the act on past occasions, after all). In the end, I can only say that if I captured those recordings, I’d be scheduling the follow-up the very next night.

Of course, the real prize for this episode was the “full spectrum” photograph. I immediately saw what they were referring to in the picture, and I have to admit that it’s very suggestive of a human figure. I also like the fact that they presented a reference photograph of the same exact location where nothing was captured. It doesn’t rule out pattern recognition, but it does solidify the basis for their conclusions.

This is where I think the benefit of experience comes into play. To be honest, how many people have experience with the output of a “full spectrum” camera? Not many, I would wager. I certainly don’t trust my knee-jerk interpretations of the photo as “expert analysis”! It’s the same reason I was skeptical of the interpretation of the “full spectrum” video on “Ghost Adventures”. That team used a new piece of equipment, with little or no testing or training ahead of time. How, then, can they be sure that the apparently anomalous footage was evidence of the paranormal, and not just a common artifact of the video output?

In contrast, I think it’s safe to say, just in terms of the footage we’ve seen in recent years, that the GHI team has reviewed and analyzed thousands of “full spectrum” photos. Because we know that they evaluate the equipment that they use, one can assume that they have enough trust and understanding of the “full spectrum” camera to give a consistent evaluation. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they wouldn’t misinterpret something as an apparition, but it does mean that they probably have a good basis for their own conclusions. As such, I completely understand why they felt the location was haunted.

Case #1: Eden Hotel, Argentina
Case #2: Monte Cristo, Australia

The previous episode was a solid enough return from hiatus, but there were several elements that proved challenging. Many of them were franchise-related, but others were self-inflicted, such as the focus on Hitler and the over-reliance on the static meter as a “communication device”. As I’ve said before, I’m not keen on the idea of using technical instruments as some kind of modern Ouija board, whether it’s the easily-manipulated K-II or anything else. And in the case of the static meter, the more I read about it, the more questionable it seems. There are too many ways to generate a false positive and draw conclusions from bad data.

On the other hand, I don’t have the feeling that the static meter is something that could be reliably manipulated for effect, as compared to the K-II meter, so my impression of the sincerity of the team remains intact. I’ve often been amused by those who bash GHI for being a terrible team because of a lack of sensational “evidence”. If anything, that has been an ongoing testimony to their honesty and, dare I say it, integrity. Not one thing on the show has suggested fabrication. (And in some ways, the lack of “evidence” gathered by GHI, on par with the level of “evidence” found by most investigators, highlights the more questionable findings on “Ghost Hunters”.)

I think it’s also important to note that consistency is a good measure of sincerity. Dustin, for example, is extremely consistent with his statements over the years, and he’s also very upfront with his religious perspective. This carries through his comments on the show, his portions of “The Complete Approach” (his book with Barry), and even his Twitter entries. His stated desire to prove the existence of life after death, as an affirmation of his personal beliefs, informs his investigative style and his assumptions regarding activity.

This episode reminded me of the other side of the equation: the client’s expectations. In both cases, GHI was brought in to validate the experiences and reports of the clients with hard evidence. That made it twice as likely that anything unusual would be accepted as paranormal in origin, because the client’s wishes aligned with the preconceived notions of the team. Debunking can and does take place under such circumstances, but it’s not going to involve anything elaborate or substantial.

Keeping all this in mind is important to me, because I’m occasionally accused of projecting my own preferences and investigative approach onto these “entertainment” groups and finding them wanting in comparison. Part of that is accepting that the edited footage may be deceptive, and considering it from the perspective of what I would think if I caught that “evidence” myself.

But it’s also an attempt to judge a group by the measure of their stated purpose and approach. I’ve come to criticize TAPS more and more because their actions and interpretations have strayed dramatically from their original stated approach. Similarly, I criticize shows like “Ghost Lab” that don’t live up to their own premise. GHI, on the other hand, has evolved into a group that is very consistent with their mindset, at least in terms of their core investigators, and I appreciate that for what it is.

Case #1: Eden Hotel, Argentina

I find it ironic that this location, which was edited down to only half an episode, yielded a lot more “evidence” than the previous episode as a whole. I would have much rather seen this location for a full hour, rather than the overdone Hitler hunt. I’m not sure about the interpretation of all those EVPs, but they were worth closer examination.

Since I already brought up the effect of personal belief, I have to wonder how much that played a role in Dustin’s interpretation of the “child playing” EVP. The intersection between the alleged EVP and Dustin’s personal experience cannot be denied, but to me, it sounds like it could have been an animal outside, perhaps close to the location itself. It’s hard not to understand, though, why Dustin and the others would have drawn the conclusion they did, under the circumstances.

I wasn’t at all impressed with the use of the tri-field meter as a communication device. It’s much better than using a K-II meter, however, because I have a solid reason for dismissing the footage. It’s clear from the footage that the tri-field meter’s audio alarm was set to trigger at a very low magnetic field reading, no more than 1 mG. It doesn’t take much to get that kind of reading, even with a natural tri-field meter.

This might seem, at first glance, to be identical to the behavior of a K-II meter under similar conditions. But this is exactly why I prefer to see them use a tri-field meter in such experiments. The K-II supposedly spikes all the way to red when investigators communicate with an entity. Assuming the K-II is calibrated, this would correspond to a magnetic field on the order of 20-30 mG. On a tri-field meter, that would immediately produce a significant swing of the needle. That didn’t happen in this case, so it’s not at all the kind of extreme shift in EMF that one supposedly gets with the K-II meter.

Part of that could be the difference in sensitivity, or the lack of calibration of the K-II meter. But a lot of K-II meters seem to be close enough to the right calibration for the qualitative nature of its design, so that shouldn’t matter. Even if one meter is more sensitive than another, it shouldn’t result in wildly different final results. If so, then one of the results is wrong. Yet, unfortunately, a lot of people are going to accept both examples as valid, because they want to believe.

I think the same applies to Robb and Brandy’s reaction to the “cold spot”. Without any data to back up the claim, it’s hard to know what they were really encountering. Was it really an anomalous mass of cold air, or was it natural air movement for that abandoned building? I wasn’t shocked by their own interpretation of the event, but I don’t see any evidence to back up the case.

Case #2: Monte Cristo, Australia

I loved the client for this case. I’ve always had a fondness for Australians for some reason (maybe it’s the accent), but I really thought this was a lively investigation. The team seemed to pick up on the energy of the client. Cases like this make me wonder how critics can claim that GHI is less energetic than TAPS, because the difference in overall drive is palpable these days.

Two things strike me as intriguing about the EVPs, beyond the context in which they were recorded. First, to my ear, the recorded voices had a distinct Australian accent. One thing that has bothered me about other EVPs captured by GHI is the lack of regional connection. Not only are many of the voices in English, but they don’t sound “local”. It’s one reason why I agree with the possibility that many of GHI’s EVPs are the result of pattern recognition, despite the many theories offered to explain the apparent contradictions.

On the other hand, I also thought that these EVPs had a very unusual “tinny” sound to them. EVPs often sound distorted as compared to normal speech (which is why many conventional explanations aren’t universally convincing), but these EVPs almost sounded like something from a transmission. To be fair, that could have been the result of Barry’s attempt to clean up the audio, so the EVPs were more easily discerned.

Had this episode aired shortly after the previous episode, in which Paul was introduced and some of the new technology was mentioned, then it might not have felt so out of place. The reintroduction of Ashley, for example, felt more casual than it probably should have been. It really felt like the episodes were edited together all at once, originally intended to air as part of a longer run, and then broken up by a network decision.

The episode suffers a bit for being out of context. Ashley’s previous appearances are well out of mind, so it’s hard to know if there was any progress in her investigative technique. I prefer to give newer investigators the benefit of the doubt, but I’m not sure what she’s bringing to the table, other than a pair of hands. The “rotating sixth member” concept has prevented the team from completing the process of gelling into a solid unit.

Robb does his best to get the team around that problem, ensuring that the teams shift around. Unlike TAPS, the teams are not static, which eliminates some of the monotony that has been plaguing the over-formatted “Ghost Hunters” for a few seasons now. The regulars are all making strong contributions, and while I still think Paul takes credit for ideas that have been around for years, he brings a vitality that does GHI some good. It will be sad to see him go, once the South American run is over.

It should really be interesting once the “winners” from “Ghost Hunters Academy” come into the picture. I hope Dustin’s tenure on “Ghost Hunters” was not a sign that he was absent from GHI for any significant amount of time. Dustin is one of the better investigators on the team, especially given his rapport with Barry, and replacing him with either of the “trainees” would be a disaster.

If they were brought in as Ashley’s replacement, perhaps one after the other in separate short runs, that would work better. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better. After all, the core team is used to adjusting to new members by now. It wouldn’t be as logical as bringing in someone Robb has already worked with (a reasonable solution in the past), but it could minimize the damage. My worry is that GHI might be forced to include “training segments” in upcoming episodes to justify the rationale behind Pilgrim Films’ expansion of the franchise.

Beyond the team dynamic questions raised during this long hiatus, there is the touchy nature of the location itself. Very little in the historical record supports the notion that Adolf Hitler made it to South American, let alone a specific hotel in Argentina. (Nazis? Yes. Hitler? No.) But even as removed as this particular location might have been from true Nazi territory, there’s still a certain stigma to investigating such a site. I can imagine a lot of people finding it tasteless.

That said, it seemed like the team understood that it was a controversial choice, and they adjusted accordingly. And they also did a good job of maintaining perspective, since they acknowledged that nothing in the “evidence” pointed to Hitler or even Nazis. Had they stepped over that line, it would have been the low point for the group.

I’m still not comfortable with the static meter. Without any specifications on the device to give me a better feel for what would and would not trigger a response, it’s hard to see how it’s any more credible than the K-II meter. Using such a device as a communication device (and, for that matter, any technical instrument) assumes that the measurable variable in question can be finely manipulated on command. Unlike the K-II meter, however, I’m not sure how a static meter could be manipulated remotely. (The K-II meter, of course, can be easily triggered by tapping a walkie-talkie nearby.)

I loved the idea of using a remote control rig, and having equipment strapped to the back of a motorized model tank was priceless. (Take the Nazi connection into account, and there was a certain thematic irony at play.) On the other hand, it was a bit disappointing to realize that they had never tested the rig outside of the investigations, to determine what noises are normal during operation. I know the shooting schedule is fairly hectic, but that’s a fundamental error.

The footsteps were nice and easy to distinguish, but that photo was the most interesting piece of “evidence” they’ve had in a long time. It’s hard to tell if this is really as impressive as it seems at first glance. For one thing, the “head” is aligned with a significant bit of lens flare, so combine that with a random smudge in the right location on the bed, and pattern recognition is going to do the rest. But it’s not necessarily that clear-cut, and nothing about the photo leads me to think it was faked. And given that Barry and the others are convinced that apparitions are likely to show up in the UV part of the spectrum, I completely understand how they would draw the conclusion that they did.

If the episode wasn’t so out of context with the previous six episodes of the season, and if the location wasn’t so questionable, this probably would have been the strongest start to a GHI run since the series began. As it is, this had some good points and one intriguing piece of “evidence”, so it is still a solid entry.