This show is annoying. I admit I'm a sucker for paranormal type things—but I have to say I'm more of a skeptic due to, you know, my ability to be a critical thinker.
But this show drives me nuts. It is by far the worst program I am actually willing to watch. I enjoy it because they present a lot of videos I haven't seen. I despise, however, the extremely overstated "objectivity" or "scientific approach" to their bunking/debunking process. There is no objectivity or science here whatsoever.
In short, these people are either idiots or pretend to be. The first really annoying attribute of the show is the video presentation at the beginning. No matter how professional these people pretend to be, they always over-react to every video. "OH MY GOD!!!" or "THAT IS SO CREEPY!!" Usually, these melodramatic reactions are followed by a sensible explanation of why the video is fake by the same person who just freaked out, which means they are basically admitted their reaction was fake. For ex FBI agents and other "professionals," they sure lack any decorum.
The next most annoying thing about the show is the format. First, they tell you what they plan to do, then they set up the experiment, then they explain what they just did, then pretend like they are going to perform the experiment—but dramatic cliffhanger! Cut to commercial. Come back from commercial, explain what they JUST DID AGAIN, lead up to the actual result—ANOTHER CLIFFHANGER! Cut to external shot of the home-base, cut to interior, REHASH YET AGAIN the whole case, re-explain their methodology, the set up for the experiment for (if you're following along) the fourth time without disclosing results, and finally show the result.
My point is they stretch maybe 3 minutes of actual content out over 20 minutes. Perhaps they should just make the show a half-hour affair and cut the b.s.
Next, the methodology for how they bunk/debunk each case is ludicrous in both directions. Confirming something as unexplained is often just as stupid and over-sighted as their method for "proving" something is fake.
Basically they simply try to replicate the video, often using hare-brained or extremely overly complex method. In every case, the method of re-creation is limited to a handful of more-often-than-not inadequate or completely off in the wrong direction ideas. This is where the "we're either idiots or pretending" part comes in—keep in mind these are the people who confirmed a ghost video as "probably paranormal" when it was, in reality, A SPIDER ON A WEB. In every ghost video case, they can find easy explanations for each video (unless it's a spider on web, which totally eludes them) but in spite of the fact they can explain away the video as natural, they run a series of dubious and unscientific "tests" and do "night investigations" of the "haunted facilities" and always find something "probably paranormal." Usually this evidence is something along the lines of their camera monitors flickering off or batteries dying or a reflection on a wall from a de-silvered mirror giving a pareidolic effect.
Apparently, ghost hunting electronics are extraordinarily unreliable. At any rate, the failure of properly working electronics might be odd but does not a ghost make.
What makes their claims more dubious is they get accounts from "witnesses" about which part of the facility is "most haunted" and are told things to look for, specifically—in which cases they nearly always find "something."
I am convinced I could take these loons to a place that has never had a single report of anything weird happening—tell them specifics about how haunted said place is (someone died in this bathroom and you can see them in the mirror, this 5th step leading up to the attic is haunted, etc) and they will, without fail, manifest some "evidence" of my claims.
Nothing they have found has been conclusive. Nothing they have found has even been hard to explain in at least ten simple natural ways. Occam's razor doesn't apply to these people.
The method of debunking something requires them either being able to replicate or fail to replicate a video. Basically they can replicate nearly everything (which is why this isn't a very good methodology). Even if you CAN replicate something, it doesn't mean it was faked. If you show a video of someone actually dying, anyone can replicate it using special effects or make up. That doesn't make the first fake.
In short, this show is just wrong in every direction. It's fun, and I watch it, but I have to be careful—my doctor says if I roll my eyes any harder I'll go into epileptic seizures.
But this show drives me nuts. It is by far the worst program I am actually willing to watch. I enjoy it because they present a lot of videos I haven't seen. I despise, however, the extremely overstated "objectivity" or "scientific approach" to their bunking/debunking process. There is no objectivity or science here whatsoever.
In short, these people are either idiots or pretend to be. The first really annoying attribute of the show is the video presentation at the beginning. No matter how professional these people pretend to be, they always over-react to every video. "OH MY GOD!!!" or "THAT IS SO CREEPY!!" Usually, these melodramatic reactions are followed by a sensible explanation of why the video is fake by the same person who just freaked out, which means they are basically admitted their reaction was fake. For ex FBI agents and other "professionals," they sure lack any decorum.
The next most annoying thing about the show is the format. First, they tell you what they plan to do, then they set up the experiment, then they explain what they just did, then pretend like they are going to perform the experiment—but dramatic cliffhanger! Cut to commercial. Come back from commercial, explain what they JUST DID AGAIN, lead up to the actual result—ANOTHER CLIFFHANGER! Cut to external shot of the home-base, cut to interior, REHASH YET AGAIN the whole case, re-explain their methodology, the set up for the experiment for (if you're following along) the fourth time without disclosing results, and finally show the result.
My point is they stretch maybe 3 minutes of actual content out over 20 minutes. Perhaps they should just make the show a half-hour affair and cut the b.s.
Next, the methodology for how they bunk/debunk each case is ludicrous in both directions. Confirming something as unexplained is often just as stupid and over-sighted as their method for "proving" something is fake.
Basically they simply try to replicate the video, often using hare-brained or extremely overly complex method. In every case, the method of re-creation is limited to a handful of more-often-than-not inadequate or completely off in the wrong direction ideas. This is where the "we're either idiots or pretending" part comes in—keep in mind these are the people who confirmed a ghost video as "probably paranormal" when it was, in reality, A SPIDER ON A WEB. In every ghost video case, they can find easy explanations for each video (unless it's a spider on web, which totally eludes them) but in spite of the fact they can explain away the video as natural, they run a series of dubious and unscientific "tests" and do "night investigations" of the "haunted facilities" and always find something "probably paranormal." Usually this evidence is something along the lines of their camera monitors flickering off or batteries dying or a reflection on a wall from a de-silvered mirror giving a pareidolic effect.
Apparently, ghost hunting electronics are extraordinarily unreliable. At any rate, the failure of properly working electronics might be odd but does not a ghost make.
What makes their claims more dubious is they get accounts from "witnesses" about which part of the facility is "most haunted" and are told things to look for, specifically—in which cases they nearly always find "something."
I am convinced I could take these loons to a place that has never had a single report of anything weird happening—tell them specifics about how haunted said place is (someone died in this bathroom and you can see them in the mirror, this 5th step leading up to the attic is haunted, etc) and they will, without fail, manifest some "evidence" of my claims.
Nothing they have found has been conclusive. Nothing they have found has even been hard to explain in at least ten simple natural ways. Occam's razor doesn't apply to these people.
The method of debunking something requires them either being able to replicate or fail to replicate a video. Basically they can replicate nearly everything (which is why this isn't a very good methodology). Even if you CAN replicate something, it doesn't mean it was faked. If you show a video of someone actually dying, anyone can replicate it using special effects or make up. That doesn't make the first fake.
In short, this show is just wrong in every direction. It's fun, and I watch it, but I have to be careful—my doctor says if I roll my eyes any harder I'll go into epileptic seizures.