I rarely watch ghost-related TV shows. They’re entertainment. They’re produced, edited, and sometimes scripted to convey something about hauntings, in a way that will capture the viewers’ attention and (hopefully) loyalty.
Most shows don’t represent what ghost investigations are really like. Even the live/event shows are clearly staged and far more fast-paced than what goes on in real life.
Though I’ll watch those shows now & then, to see what results they’re getting with certain techniques and equipment — and to see why I’m receiving questions about one particular topic — I’m not a regular viewer.
GHOST HUNTERS: BETSY ROSS
I’ll confess that I’ve watched only about five episodes, total, of Ghost Hunters (starring the TAPS team) from the research lead-in to the reveal.
I’ve seen clips from the shows, and of course commercials for them, more often. (Generally, when someone asks me about a particular show, I watch a few clips on YouTube or a similar site.)
So, when I watched the Betsy Ross Ghost Hunters episode for the first time last night, I realized that my original Betsy Ross article (responding to emails) was off-base. The flag issue didn’t seem to affect the investigation or its conclusions in any way at all.
My summary? If anything, it looked like a hasty investigation. However, that’s the problem when you’re filming at TV show; you have to work with the production crew’s schedule, and — too often — someone else’s agenda.
I’m not sure that the house is profoundly haunted, but its history suggests enough likely residual energy to be interesting.
I think the Betsy Ross House is worth visiting multiple times, with more complete access to the site (such as the attic) to determine what’s going on.
In addition, I’d delve far more into the history of the building and its occupants. But, if you’ve read my articles or met me in person, you know that I place a high priority on historical research. (I’ll add an article about the history of the Betsy Ross House, later.)
To answer the hoax questions: To me, it looked like a legitimate investigation. I didn’t see anything that explained the flurry of questions I received when the show first aired.
GHOST HUNTERS: STAR ISLAND AND KIMBALL CASTLE
Watching these two shows, I’m glad they’re braving the elements and not me. Cold and/or rainy weather…? I prefer to stay indoors where it’s warm & dry.
That said, I liked seeing the TAPS team use a level on the “haunted” stairs at Star Island; for over 10 years, I’ve been recommending a carpenter’s level to check several phenomena, including:
- Stairs with a high level of accidents (check each tread)
- Rooms in which people feel disoriented (check the floor)
- Doors that seem to swing open and/or closed on their own
- Windows that swing open or closed on their own
I thought the EVP was startling, as well. (From my experience, it was almost predictable after Jason’s “creepy baby” comment. Say something thoughtless in a haunted location — even if it’s funny — and some spirits are likely to object.)
The provoking… well, in a recent podcast, I’ve explained why I don’t like provoking. Of course, since I don’t usually watch the show, I was chagrined to see Jason and Grant use provoking as a technique. But… well, it’s a TV show. They’ve always been polite when I’ve been around them, and no two investigators will agree 100% on any research techniques.
The Kimball Castle segment intrigued me. The castle has a certain “Fall of the House of Usher” quality that makes it a great place to visit. I’ll probably check it out myself, since it’s within driving distance of my home.
EXTREME PARANORMAL
I watched Extreme Paranormal and winced. My initial reaction was irritation. What they’re doing is often silly, and sometimes dangerous.
However, when I thought about it later, I realized that it’s a new show and I think it’s supposed to be campy. They just haven’t pushed it quite far enough for that to be obvious.
It looks like they’re selectively mixing fact and fiction to create a juicy ghost story, and a show that’s a can’t-look-away train wreck. (If anyone thinks that “blood rituals” or burying someone alive in a coffin are part of ghost hunting… they’re not. I generally object to summoning circles, as well.)
To get an idea of the fact/fiction balance, I researched the history of one of their investigation sites. To read about it, see Bonito City – The Real Story.
DESTINATION TRUTH
Though I’ve seen just a couple of episodes of Destination Truth, I liked it. Oh, it doesn’t accurately portray serious ghost investigations, but I don’t think it’s really a “ghost” show.
I like Destination Truth because they’re doing something different, and there’s an appealing informality. I’m also amused by the suspenseful moments, which are likely to be very non-paranormal (for example, the quicksand) and add to the realism of the show.
I’ve always been fascinated with the King Tut legends, so I especially liked that episode. The doll island one was downright creepy; from my experience, dolls often contain residual energy, and a few are the homes of spirits.
The Romanian episode provided some great scenery; I’d like to take photos there, and I’d like to see what Barry Fitzgerald‘s pictures would look like, as well.
I’m not sure that I’ll continue to watch Destination Truth. As I’ve said, I don’t watch much TV. It will probably depend on what they’re investigating that night, and how quickly this becomes a formula-style show.
In general, I check ghost-related shows about once every six months. I don’t want to be totally out-of-touch with what’s popular. However, I’m so involved in my own research and writing, I generally don’t have time for anything else.
That said, if I had more time, I’d probably watch more of these shows… just for fun.
Ghost Hunters–the popular television show–aired an episode entitled “New Hampshire Gothic” on November 11 featuring their controversial visit to the Amos J. Blake House Museum in Fitzwilliam, NH.
The Amos J. Blake House Museum is a wonderful example of a New England historical society museum. Having been part of at least three investigations of the location I was pleased to see that TAPS results correlated with my experiences at the location, and not the exaggerated ‘evidence’ that I have read about the location in the past.
Concerning the ‘evidence’ that TAPS did gather, I believe that the ‘ghost cat’ could be debunked by assuming that a stray cat had recently made its way into the basement due to the advent of the cold weather. However, I can’t confirm this hypothesis and having been in the basement on multiple occasions, it appeared to be fairly secure. Still, you have to assume that this is more likely then the existence of a ghost cat.
As far as the chain moving and the pitchfork falling over, I found this suspicious. Having been in the location many times, all the furniture, etc. was placed pretty much as I remember it. One thing that I certainly don’t remember is the chain and the pitchfork. It seemed out of place to me. It appears unusual that these objects were in the location and placed as they were. I am unsure why, with many valuable artifacts around, one would stand a pitchfork on end and lean it against the wall where it could easily fall over.
In addition, considering the way a board could be stepped on in an old house, and something moves–the door latch upstairs did this earlier and Jason clearly points out that shifting boards can cause things to move–I propose that the investigators walking by could have triggered the movement by this principle. I’d have to see the footage analyzed by a physicist before I was really convinced that the event was paranormal in origin. It all just seems a little too convenient or coincidental to me. I do try very hard to debunk phenomena and believe that too often people resort to ‘ghostly’ explanations for phenomena with environmental causes.
Finally–and perhaps the most interesting–is the fact that the curator of the museum and the ‘volunteer’ that was interviewed are both members of a paranormal investigation team that formed after it was discovered TAPS was going to investigate the location. It was shortly after the group was formed that reports of multiple apparitions and conscious spirits haunting the location were reported and I suspect that the ‘evidence’ was highly exaggerated–or at least not thoroughly debunked–in an effort to pique TAPS interest.
Both the curator of the museum and the ‘volunteer’ are both former members of Sights Unseen Paranormal, but quit and formed their own group shortly after learning that TAPS was set to investigate the museum. This seems suspicious to me, especially when combined with the ‘explosion’ of paranormal activity reported at the location by the curator’s team of paranormal investigators shortly after it was formed in the lead up to the television episode featuring the locale.
To sum up, I do firmly believe that there may be something is going on in the museum and would rate it a 2 out of 10 regarding possible paranormal activity. I’ve recorded a disembodied voice and had a cold spot sit on my shoulder while investigating the Amos J. Blake House Museum.
TAPS did do a good job debunking. For me, the smell of cat urine and a pitch fork falling over (even with the chain moving) aren’t enough for me–nor TAPS–to consider the place really haunted.
Bobby, that’s a great review and summary, thanks!
Fiona
[...] Recent TV Shows – My friend Jade Walker recently posed an interesting question to me on Twitter regarding TV ghost shows. Specifically, she wondered if I felt they help or hurt paranormal investigating overall. I think ultimately they may hurt it. Yes, they’ve definitely spawned a lot of interest in the paranormal. And paranormal tourism? I’ve written before about the Oprah-esque boon Ghost Hunters alone has had on non-profits like museums and such. However, as evidenced by a comment one of the Ghost Hunters Academy recruits made during the debut episode of that show (as noted in this post on Ghost Hunting Theories), some mistakenly believe you can actually ghost hunt for a living. (Well, the Ghost Hunters guys have certainly made it profitable for themselves, but they are the exception not the rule.) And then there’s the whole matter of which techniques are best, credible evidence, fraud in the “industry” (because can you really trust any show that’s “produced” for TV?)…Fiona Broom noted all of this and even more in her post about ghost TV shows. I thought it was very insightful and I shared a lot of her sentiments. (Though, like I confided to Jade, ghost hunting shows are my guilty pleasure!) [...]
Your insight to ghost hunting televisions shows I found to be valuable. I have recently started para normal investigations in the mount washington valley and am planning to start a local access tv show with some of my local investigation results. Your imput would be invaluable and invited. I would like to present impartial scientific data to the viewers. This may not be entertaining television but it is public access so I don’t have to impress sponsors.
Gary, I’d be very interested in participating in a show like yours. Local access is one of the very best ways to present what paranormal investigations are really like. The lack of sponsors is exactly what allows local access show producers to be honest in their shows, and I’m delighted that you’re doing this!
Fiona
I used to be a big fan of Ghost Hunters. Then after a while, it seems like the grass roots foundation ultimately became a business. It started when Jason and Grant purchased a Haunted Inn where they then shot an episode about it. To me, that was basically a 1 hour commerical for all those ghost seekers looking to spend a night in a haunted location. We all know haunted inns attract business due to it’s alleged hauntings and I’m sure they generated a lot of business due to it.
The problem with TV shows is that there is a conflict of interest. To keep the show on air, you need to generate good ratings. To generate ratings, you need to keep the audience interested. My wife and are were hooked due to many unexplained encounters on the show (and due to some instances where nothing happened at all). They also debunked a lot of occurrences and they really seemed like genuinely honest guys. But as the more recent shows came on, I started noticing a change in their style. More and more minor occurrences became supernatural (where when the show first started, Jason would have just blown it off). Halloween episode, Meatloaf episode (where someone obviously moved the bottle to open the window behind), and finally Donna Lecroix’s admission that there was funny stuff going on behind the scenes.
Basically, Jason and Grant command the highest rated show on Scifi, where these contracts can possibly generate more money in a year than some people make in a lifetime. When this income supports your family and provides a lifetime of financial security, you will do what it takes to protect this. I truly believe Jason and Grant are now into ghost hunting for the business aspects and no longer into finding out the truth about life after death.
Tom, thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns, and appreciate your insights. Since I rarely watch ghost-related TV shows, I’m not always current on what’s said on them.
However, I want to correct a couple of points.
The episode about the Spalding Inn was not a Ghost Hunters TV show. It was a Ghost Hunters International investigation. Though that may seem like a fine point to viewers, it was significant, especially at the time of the filming.
Ghost Hunters International was developed as a completely separate TV show, without the involvement of Jason & Grant. I’m not sure that they’d actually met the GHI team, or spent much time with them, prior to the episode filmed at the Spalding Inn.
I do know that the investigation was set up so that Jason & Grant would have minimal contact with the GHI team. Jason and I talked about the show before it aired (and I’ll confess that I still haven’t seen that episode) and it was very important to him that the GHI investigation be completely unbiased.
More than most people, I think that Jason is very aware of what happens when a business owner wants an investigation to confirm a site’s ghosts.
I also investigated the Spalding Inn twice before it opened. Both times, Jason and Grant provided no hints or clues about what to expect or where to look for anything paranormal. In fact, I was a little uncomfortable because I felt like I was talking on & on about ghosts and… well, it felt like a one-sided conversation. (I’m a little embarrassed that it still didn’t deter me from talking on & on!)
Since then, when I’m at the Spalding and either of the guys are there, we don’t “talk shop.” Oh, I can tell you all kinds of interesting trivia about plumbing, snowmobiling, and where to go for the best whale watch cruises. What I’ve never heard from either Jason or Grant is what they’ve encountered (if anything) that might be paranormal at their hotel.
Regarding changes in the show: Generally, ghost hunters — including me — reach a point where our initial questions have been answered. Both Jason & Grant have been fairly circumspect about what initially drew them to paranormal research. But, consider the possibility that they’ve found their answers, and that’s why their focus isn’t as intently about life after death.
(Personally, I’m more interested in how people respond to what they think is paranormal. I’m looking at the patterns of reports of ghosts, hauntings, and other unexplained phenomena. I’m interested in what the newer tools can show us about what’s causing the EMF spikes, and so on. To some people, my ho-hum attitude towards “just another cold spot” might be disappointing. Though I cannot speak for them, maybe Jason and/or Grant have experienced a shift in their curiosity, as well.)
Also, we’re all dealing with a different audience now.
(I mean that as a general observation. I rarely appear on TV, so that’s just a guess. And, for the record, I’m not sure that anyone could pay me enough to give up my privacy and be a regular on a TV show.)
Anyway… it seems to me that the production and editing of the show — both of which are aspects completely outside Jason’s & Grant’s control — reflect the entertainment orientation of current programming. That’s not just about Ghost Hunters, but other Syfy programming, as well.
It’s not the same show that it was when it started. Even the newer shows, including GHI and Ghost Hunters Academy, are evolving rapidly to meet the needs of an ever-changing audience.
When you add the changing interests of the cast and crew, I’m sure the focus is very different from the early days. In some ways that’s an improvement, and in some ways the raw & enquiring energy may seem diminished.
However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that anyone is paid massive amounts of money for any reality show. Reality shows aren’t covered by the same industry rules as other TV shows. A year’s contract on a sitcom and a year’s contract for a reality show… well, there’s often a huge income gap between them. Add the industry equivalent of a publisher’s “first refusal/option” clause and some reality show stars could probably earn more taking fast-food orders.
Hi, Fiona. It’s Teenie again.
As I was growing up, my parents had always told me that demons will lie and decieve. A couple weeks ago, I was watching Ghost Adventures with Zak. I really don’t trust that show, and he annoys me but he claimed that ghosts can not lie. Is this true?
Hi,
I have never met Zak. To me he looks like a nice guy on TV, but I’ve only watched a couple of his shows. His approach seems very different from mine, so I’ve declined to appear on Ghost Adventures, along with many other TV shows.
(I just don’t watch them enough to know whether or not the show portrays something real or something contrived to appeal to an audience. Ghost Adventures might be fine… I simply don’t have time to watch it enough to decide. So far, Extreme Paranormal is the only show I recognized as utterly fake within the first 10 minutes.)
Regarding ghosts and lies, I have no idea what Zak is talking about. Ghosts are people, and — in my opinion — can behave the same as they did when they were in bodies in this world. They don’t become saints just because they’ve died. It seems to me that ghosts can lie or tell the truth, be nice or act like bullies, or almost any other personality quirk that they found useful in life.
Demons seem to be consistently deceptive. However, we’re using labels for kinds of entities based on behaviors, so “demons” could actually be a mix of entities — all with similar characteristics — or there could be sub-categories within the broad term, demons.
If something seems to be telling lies consistently and you have a sense of danger, get out of there immediately.
If something seems to be telling a lie now and then, be on your guard, but it could simply be a ghost who’s accustomed to lying.
Remember, a lot of ghosts are still here due to mistakes they made in life. If those mistakes included lying… well, the ghost could take awhile to break old habits.
I can’t think of any reason why a ghost couldn’t lie, if it wanted to. If I see Zak, I’ll ask him where he found that information. To me, it sounds pretty strange and unlikely.
Thanks for asking!
Cheerfully,
Fiona