Well, as I said, no doubt it could have been faked. Fabricated out of whole cloth, even. So you have to be willing to give them at least that much benefit of the doubt, you know? And as a scientist, of course that’s out of the question. So all I’m saying is, as a viewer, assuming it wasn’t faked, it’s pretty freaky.
Thats a pretty big assumption to make don’t you think? I’ve seen the show and i gotta admit its very entertaining, because even for non believers ghost stories ARE fun and creepy and i love them as much as anyone. But to go from there to thinking a buncha quacks from the sci-fi channel (uh… hello? sci-fi channel people!) have caught a ghost moving a chair on film is a pretty big leap of faith.
Unquestionably, a huge assumption. That’s part of the fun. You get to skip right past the years of peer-reviewed vetting and assume something that you might otherwise find completely unreasonable. I think that’s why science gets its own fiction. It’s a tv show, so as long as there’s no way we’re ever going to know anyway.
Also, I’ve seen them do several places where the owners mention chairs moving and doors closing on their own, and so they set up cameras pointing at chairs and doors. And the show being what it is, nothing ever happens. All night passes and the chair never moves once. So to see an example of it actually happen for the camera was pretty impressive. The fact that it would be so mundane to fake almost lends credence to it in a way. We know SciFi can do better special fx than that
Just because I’m assuming it wasn’t faked doesn’t mean I’m assuming it must have been a ghost. Or even paranormal. But definitely weird.
You’re being dishonest. I said, “If there is no measurable evidence for a thing”, and you deliberately changed it to, “If we lack the means to detect a thing”. That is not the same quote.
I thought of another extremely creepy scene. At one investigation, they are having a bit of a chin wag with the production crew. In the background, the sound guy, holding a boom mike with both hands over his head, is suddenly struck by his (maybe 2 foot long) tape deck flying up into his face.
Sorry, I’m not trying to be dishonest. I was multitasking and skimming the thread. I’ll go back and read it again.
I can think of a perfectly plausible and non-ominous explanation for this. Look, we are talking about 2 guys operating out of a store front. Since they don’t charge for their investigations, they refer to the organization as “non-profit”. Somebody from the IRS notices this, and says “Dudes, you aren’t a 501c(3) corporation. You can’t call yourselves that.” So they stop calling themselves that.
O.K., fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that if there’s no evidence for something, then you can’t say it “exists”, because that’s pretty much the definition of “exist”. But to say we lack the ability to find evidence for something at this point in time is another matter. That’s something you could only say in retrospect, after you found that evidence. To say “X exists but we can’t find any evidence for it” begs the question. That would be a paradoxical statement.
Why don’t you want to stick to the topic?
The guys at TAPS are not looking for Narnia, or trying to invent a time machine or a perpetual motions machine.
Of course, since you don’t watch the show on a regular basis, and you know what happens on the show, then you must has psychic powers, go claim win the lottery every day.
You know - it really galls me to see people polluting their minds with this crap. If you’re watching it for laughs, no problem, but if you think you’re learning anything by watching this show, you’re mistaken. You’d learn more about science watching Road Runner cartoons.
I dunno. How are the ratings going?
Pffft. I’d spent *millions * on equipment if it would result in a tv show that would bring me millions plus a margin. Of course, it is possible that I might get caught red handed faking a “chair moving sideways” shot, but these things tend to be deniable, and anyway TV production companies spend millions on plenty of shows that tank: there’s always risk.
So when the OP said “do they find anything” he was meaning: “does this show feature, as part of the plotline, the apparent finding of evidence of ghosts” was he? Sure, he was.
You’re trying to have it both ways here. You suggest that attacking the veracity of the events purportedly depicted in the show is like attacking the veracity of events in obvious fiction like Buffy, and that this is inappropriate, but at the same time footnoting to say that you appreciate that Buffy is nothing like the show in question because it pretends not to be fiction. You’ve effectively destroyed your own argument.
People watch this show precisely because it purports to be real. Hands up anyone who would actually watch, if the show openly admitted the whole thing was scripted and nothing they showed was real?
… and all the best scary movies heighten suspense by not having the monster jump out from behind *every * tree, and all the best liars tell the truth most of the time, and the Big Lie strategy is highly effective.
How did I fail to stay on topic? I answered the question that you asked – what would happen if they found something that had no possible natural explanation. The answer is that it would be front page news and they would become instantly famous. Obviously, though, they have never found any such thing, nor are they ever likely to.
They’re looking for something equally as absurd, though. That’s my point. Their chances of discovering a real ghost are exactly the same as their chances of discovering Narnia or inventing a time machine.
It is not necessary to watch the show to know that there is no possibility they have ever found a ghost.