Local Version of Ghost Hunters Coming Soon?

<< < (2/5) > >>

mdg (August 19, 2009, 16:54:29 PM):
Here are the comments on their reply............

HI SPITSA Team,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'd just like to comment on your replies.

1.With regard to your investigations being scientific.....

From your reply it seems to me that you only go on anecdotal evidence and investigate the story, so this doesn't make it a scientific investigation.I was under the impression that an investigation would begin with eliminating all other possibilities such as electrical faults, engineering faults, and perhaps possible mental health conditions of the client, before looking at the possibility of a paranormal explanation. Please understand that I am not saying that all your clients are mentally unstable; even an overactive imagination could be one of many other possible explanations. That said, doing a more thorough investigation would make it more "scientific" and lend more credence to your findings. I also think it would be better for your client to know that what they're experiencing may have a natural explanation instead of a supernatural one.

2.Orbs.....

As you admit, orbs cannot be relied upon as evidence of the paranormal. It has been proven time and again to be things such as dust or moisture as you pointed out.

3.Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity......

Like orbs, this is a phenomenon that has not been proven. Surely if someone was experiencing ES, they would experience everywhere they go and not just in the area where paranormal activity is happening? We are surrounded by technology, so it doesn't make sense that someone sensitive to electric fields would only experience it in a particular place. If you are referring to geopathic stress, where "negative" waves escape from faults in the Earth, there is absolutely no evidence that these "negative" waves exist. The only thing that could possibly escape from faults in the Earth are gases, which would be a scientific explanation and not a paranormal one.

4.Skeptics on your team......

You say that each member of the team is a skeptic in their own right. With all due respect, each member on your team - on your site - says that they have had a paranormal experience, therefore they cannot be skeptics. Each one is investigating as a believer in the paranormal. A skeptic on your team would be looking at the paranormal claim and searching for every other possible explanation before saying that any findings are possibly paranormal.

5.Skeptics observing an investigation......

Please refer to my previous points at 1. and 4. I appreciate that you would welcome people to observe your investigations. However, perhaps I'm misreading your reply, but you seems to think that anyone (i.e.a skeptic) would be observing solely to "tarnish" your reputation. This is not my intention at all. I have read extensively, over many years, on the paranormal and my belief is that mysteries should neither be fostered nor dismissed. Instead, they should be carefully investigated with a view toward solving them, preferably using a more scientific approach.

Mefiante (August 19, 2009, 17:41:27 PM):
Very good, mdg!

Quote from: WELCOME TO SPITSA
Spitsa has had a phenomenal strike rate in terms of successful investigations, which means that the group has come away from investigations with undisputable evidence of paranormal activity in at least one form or more, where the evidence that was captured cannot be explained scientifically, physically or in any other logical way.
Right, now I’m really convinced… ::)

Here’s a suggestion: First, look at how many of the 30-odd “investigations” reported on at the SPITSA website find in favour of the paranormal. If the fraction is high (as I suspect it probably is) then it may be worth approaching the SABC (or the production company) with this fact as well as the suggestion of extending the show’s format so that each episode in effect consists of two halves involving the same site of alleged supernatural activity. The first half presents SPITSA’s investigation and findings, and the second those of a team of sceptics. The selling point would of course be the resultant controversy, which most people love – as evidenced by the popularity of “Reality TV.”

I think the show should be called “Survivor Spiritland.”

'Luthon64
mdg (August 19, 2009, 18:15:11 PM):
Thanks Mefiante/'Luthon 64 - not sure which nym to use, as you use both ;)

I am going through each investigation, and you're right, the strike rate is high. I'll come back with the numbers later on - I've been working on the discrepancies of the orbs.

I think that it's a good idea to offer the people a sceptical investigation. As I said in my reply, clients should be given the natural explanation of the activity instead of a supernatural one, as that's the explanation in 99% of the investigations.

Another point I'd like to bring up....., they research the locations before and after an investigation to check up on it's history, so any interesting titbit of history is related to the activity in the house and shoehorned into the explanation.


Something else interesting......
When I was reading the bio's on the team, Art Long's one jumped out because I saw he was a member of the Makomati community. I had received an email last week inviting me to support the Makomati community as the sender knows that I support preservation of archaeological sites. A bit of digging (pardon the pun) on my part revealed that the committee is made up of pseudoscientists and other flakes. Two stand out - Michael Tellinger who wrote Slave Species of God, and Dr. Cyril Hromnik who thinks the Makomati site is "proof" of his theory that Indians settled in Southern Africa thousands of years before Europeans. They assert that the Makomati site is 75 000 years old, with Adam's Calendar as their prime piece of "evidence".

The mind boggles.

P.S. I Like the Survivor Spiritland idea! ;D


Jane of the Jungle (August 19, 2009, 21:58:33 PM):
Quote
The first half presents SPITSA’s investigation and findings, and the second those of a team of sceptics. The selling point would of course be the resultant controversy, which most people love – as evidenced by the popularity of “Reality TV.”

Very good idea Luthon, except I don’t think the Ghost hunters would agree to something like that, maybe because they know chances are that they would be proven faked in such investigations. Pity though, because this could be a nice way to proof to the nation that they WANT to see the Supernatural in every natural occurrence! Maybe

Maybe a program like “Supernatural Investigate” where people who experience such events report it to you and base your program on investigating facts, but on the other hand ......don’t think people would like to feel like a$$es when proven mentally unstable on National Tv ;)
Rigil Kent (August 20, 2009, 08:40:19 AM):
...don’t think people would like to feel like a$$es when proven mentally unstable on National Tv ;)

Quite. Maybe the reason why the S.P.I.T.S.A. team comes over as very open to the idea of paranormal happenings is to encourage people coming forward with their stories in the first place. Imagine, for example, that you are convinced that you've just seen a ghost. You have the option of reporting the sighting to either a bunch of hard nosed scientists, or a group of sympathetic specialists. Who you gonna call? Perhaps its a bluff. ;) Dare we hope?

One thing that I've always found especially amusing is the reported use of "technology" to locate spiritual activity. If the technology responds with a positive reading, it means that it measured a change in something physical, right? It has to be, because the technology would have been invented for that purpose, and has to rely on some physical stimulus. Therefor, whatever it measures must be of a known nature. So the spirit must presumably either emit something physically recognizable, or cause a disturbance in something physically recognisable. Either way, this means the spooktechnician must have knowledge of spirits' physical nature. This seems oxymoronic.

Mintaka

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page