The Amazing Meeting 2014

Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Ghost Hunter Tells All in Exclusive Interview PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Alison Smith   

mrxRecently, I was granted an interview with “X,” a paranormal investigator from a television show. X could only speak if given total anonymity, as the contract X signed for the show states that giving an interview of this nature would result in litigation. 

Because most of the individuals who read Swift are skeptics, it’s understandable to additionally be skeptical of the existence of X. I can only promise that X does exist, and was able, during this interview, to give a unique point-of-view of television paranormal investigation. 


X: I am talent on a paranormal television program as a paranormal investigator. I utilize technology to try and document paranormal activity at the locations we investigate.

Alison: How does production get in your way?

X: I am granted extremely limited access to the locations that we investigate because we are always on a tight production schedule. I am typically only granted a couple hours at each location, and in my opinion, that is barely enough time to set up, let alone to investigate. I'm never allowed to choose the locations that I want to investigate. This is always predetermined by production.

Alison: Can you tell me what a shooting schedule is like? What kind of information it contains?

X: I'm presented with information for the cast and crew… A shooting schedule of what locations we were going to visit, at what time. The production notes contain a synopsis of the episode and what the objectives are at each location.

Alison: Like what?

X: We will go to such and such location and X will attempt to record an EVP session. X will go to the next location and take photographs. 

Alison: Did you have information on why the location was supposedly haunted from the production book?

X: I was given details about the locations ahead of time, but never a reason why the location might be haunted.

Alison: Tell me about editing.

X: I feel that my true role and many of my most notable contributions to the show are always cut out of the final product. There are several techniques that I described in detail that I believe would give more credibility to the program – if people could see in-depth what I’m hoping to accomplish, and how things work. Nearly every instance of that; every bit of footage that has been gathered of me showing what I truly do is edited out.

Alison: So the show was going for drama?

X: I would have to say that the drama factor seems to outweigh the technical or science of investigation in the eyes of production. Yes.

Alison: Have you ever felt you were edited to say something you didn’t?

X: I think I’m edited out when nothing is occurring. I don’t think I've ever been edited out of context. I believe that when I was contributing anything noteworthy to the production (in their eyes), I was simply edited out and given less screen time because it wasn’t dramatic enough.

Alison: Have you ever voiced skepticism of something and had it not make it into the show?

X: Always. I've explained why orbs are considered, even amongst my peers, to be some of the weakest evidence of paranormal activity. I've gone into detail as to what would cause someone to get an ‘orb anomaly’ in a photograph. I've explained that electromagnetic fluctuations can be caused by other sources, including man-made sources. I feel that I really could bring a great deal of skepticism to the show, and I feel that if they would show that angle; if they would show a more skeptical side to our investigations, that it would lend more integrity to the show. But it seems that’s never part of the agenda of the program.

Alison: Has the show ever intentionally lied about your investigations?

X: Yes, but if I describe in detail, it would give away who I am. I'm contractually ‘gagged’ and I'm taking a huge risk just talking to you. This is why my identity is concealed. 

Alison: Have you ever been encouraged to present something as paranormal when it wasn’t?

X: Once a production manager alluded that it might be good for me to make something happen on a quiet night. I flatly refused.

Alison: Has the production team treated your investigations as though they might have been of real hauntings, or of real value?

X: No. My role is to validate the claims. Not to question or conduct a true investigation.

Alison: Tell me about your contract. Are you allowed to talk badly about the production team? Are you allowed to give this interview?

X: No. And no.

Alison: What is the phrasing that keeps you from doing so? What are you prohibited from doing?

X: It generally says that I am expressly prohibited from talking in a manner that may be deemed damaging to the show’s integrity or to the network. And that if I do so, I face possible litigation. The way I read it, I'm not allowed to even offer up constructive criticism of anything I don't like about the show.

Alison: How would you summarize your role?

X: I don't feel I'm accurately portrayed as to who I am as an investigator. I'd welcome the chance to do that on screen one day, but I don't see it happening with this program.

Trackback(0)
Comments (63)Add Comment
...
written by CasaRojo, February 27, 2009
Excellent interview Alison! One of the best I've ever read. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by KingMerv00, February 27, 2009
Great job as always. Nice to see you back after your brief hiatus.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, February 27, 2009
I'm not surprised that entertainment trumps honesty. The sad part is paranormal investigations are fine with me if they are done in a legitimate way. I'll go even further, I'm glad ghost hunters exist. The ghost phenomenon is so widespread that it demands an explanation. I happen to think the explanation is a not supernatural but I'd be willing to change my mind with enough evidence.

Bad behavior like this makes the very idea ghost hunting seem insincere from the start.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +14
...
written by Willy K, February 27, 2009
If the show in question is "Ghost Hunters" on the SciFi network then it's a perfectly acceptable topic for that network.

After all, SciFi is short for Science FICTION. I'm sure though that many people are ignorant of that fact and some others are too mentally deficient to understand the difference.

I do get irked when I see supernatural themed shows on other networks such as the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.

I was reading someone's comments on another web site discussing how they saw a "documentary" on the Discovery Channel about the new movie "The Haunting in Connecticut." I live in the area and I've found out that it's really just an extremely crass exploitation of a family's troubles by one of Randi's (non)favorite shysters, Lorraine Warren. smilies/cry.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by Mully410, February 27, 2009
Interesting post. Yes, I am skeptical of the existence of X but the story sure seems plausible. Perhaps when the show gets canceled we'll get more openness. Regardless, I think the true believers would not be convinced even if X went public. I've watched the show Ghost Hunters and feel their "investigations" are very weak. They always seem to prime the audience with scary background stories and spooky music. Then they play audio clips over and over again while telling you what you should hear. That's the audio version of Pareidolia.

http://mully410.blogspot.com/2008/08/pareidolia-anyone.html

I wish someone would ask them, on camera, something that Jeff said in a previous post: How do you know those ghosts aren't aliens?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
...
written by kodabar, February 27, 2009
Tch. This is nothing remarkable. Any reasonable person understands that a programme about ghosts expects to film ghosts, whether real or illusionary. That's the production staff's job. I was once asked to film a ghost show (just as a cameraman). They asked me what equipment I needed. I asked them whether they wanted nicely ambiguous ghost images or not. They said they did. I refused to do it.

So here we have X who knows they are prostituting themselves and failing to advance their cause, be it sceptical or believer. They understand how the show works and yet they still choose to do it, knowing it is a fake. How can I have any respect for them? They fail to investigate and they know they are whoring themselves for money. And yet they still do it. Sod them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
What is he doing the job for?
written by rjh01, February 27, 2009
X is part of the system that tries to show that EVP and the like is real. If he does not like this fact then he should get out of the show and get another job. Otherwise he is as guilty as the other people on the show. If enough good people have that attitude then the quality and number of the these shows would decrease.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by nelson650, February 27, 2009
The show is just as lame as Monsterquest and UFO Hunters. Asking loaded questions, ridiculos assumptions, parading out one expert after another. Yet never any conclusive results--ever! The producers fail to make the shows even halfway interesting. Phooey, I say!








a
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Can I call BS?
written by GhostDivaTonyaH, February 28, 2009
I find it difficult to realize why someone would hide their identity with this "confession". It's a fun little article, and about a week past due knowing that Allison participated in one of the most exploited and ridiculous "paranormal" TV shows shown on American TV networks.

This forum is for those that are rational thinkers, giving this interview any credit is the most irrational thinking I have ever read.

"Poor TV ghost hunters"- Cry me a river why don't ya? We should not feel sorry for people involved in TV pilot and that the Big Bad TV producers are to blame for phony TV evidence. Get real. These shows are NOT authentic, they are produced and packed full of fluff to sell commercials. These people are not victims. Sure, TV editors are creative, but the bottom line is these people are in control of what they do, say and how they react. Just like Allison was.

Allison stated she was a "practicing skeptic" on the Door to the Dead TV show. Practicing? So she has yet to master her skill of critical thinking and common sense? I wonder how long she has to go in her training? I am not punking on Allison, I am simply shocked that people are giving "kudos" to an article like this.

First- This person is a coward. If they really "cared" they would put their name behind everything they say. What are they afraid of? Never getting another TV gig? Being rejected from the "paranormal community" because they told the TRUTH? I don't get it.

Second- The rumor is that this is actually Allison herself creating a bogus interview to redeem her reputation as a "skeptic", linked with the nations top skeptical & educational foundations. The Amazing Randi, I doubt would find this to be amazing. It's awful and is has nothing to do with rational thinking.

Third- This is not "news". Anyone that has been in front of the camera, even on local news for subjects of the unexplained are at a disadvantage. The cutting room only uses what they have. It's easy to bypass, really it is. Don't give them something stupid to share on the show! People that compromise ethics for personal gain aka fame and paranormal celeb status, well, they get what they deserve.

and Last- Allison is a writer/representative of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I am a huge FAN and supporter of James Randi but I am appalled at the recent representation from Allison. Why? She is a representative of truth, common sense, critical thinking and exposing fraud. (well, she's supposed to be) But she has stood side by side and has worked with what most consider Public Enemy #1 in the paranormal field. The biggest charlatan in our generation of paranormal research. Chris Moon is boasting about the money he is making because of the "Door to the Dead" pilot premier on A&E this past Friday the 13th. His TTTD is a scam but for some reason Allison, the "practicing skeptic" is oblivious to his scam and rip off efforts. It is a reflection upon the James Randi Foundation and it shows that they endorse the TTTD. If she wanted to do an "expose'" she should have came out and told the truth about the TTTD, and signed her name to it. Instead this article is manipulation for her personal gain. It does not matter "who" the person is behind the curtain, it's the timing. The JRF should reflect upon this show and take off the blinders and analyze the TTTD and those that endorse this gadget. Instead, they are allowing Allison to present a mockery of truth.

The problem is not how researchers are victims of TV producers. The problem is that one of the Nations biggest and most practical groups of skepticism are putting up blinders all of a sudden with the Door to the Dead because one of their own was a cast member. Honestly, as a paranormal researcher AND a skeptic, the showcased skepticism was by far the worst. Perhaps the phrase "practicing" was fitting. No matter what, I am not impressed with this article. It's cowardly and the truth is, it's not a secret to how TV producers/editors are. This is not a "tell all" mainly because the person is hiding.



report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by CasaRojo, February 28, 2009
>>and about a week past due knowing that Allison participated in one of the most exploited and ridiculous "paranormal" TV shows shown on American TV networks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by CasaRojo, February 28, 2009


I agree that the past two weeks have been trying on the patience of more than a few people and I'm at the top of the list. I'd like to think that there is something in the works that will blow these BS paranormal religious shows out of the water, that there are people associated with these shows that are interested in maintaining their integrity.

I find that this interview shows that Alison did not sell out. And I'm anxious to see how the whole thing plays out. I feel hopeful and encouraged.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Cuddy Joe, February 28, 2009
Ahhh, SWIFT's new direction reveals itself..... soap opera.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by bosshog, February 28, 2009
None of this stuff is real. A person whose career is "investigating" the obviously not real is an outright fraud from the get-go. I just don't get why television programs are treated on this web site as anything more than the canned electronic illusions they are.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by iiwo, February 28, 2009
@ghostdivatonyah

I have to run to work in a few, but just a quick note: litigation for breaking a contract is usually not limited to the time that person is a crew member, it may last months or years. Whether or not they are currently in the industry has nothing to do with whether or not they can break that contract.

If they are still in the ghost show industry, I would encourage them to get out as quick as possible as you said, but it's not always that easy.

Additionally, some of us can't reveal ourselves for various reasons--multi-million dollar lawsuits, harrasment, etc. For me it is my job(s) and current living situation which I am not able to remove myself from at the moment. Four, well, five people I guess are privy to know I am an atheist AND know my real identity. Two are trusted friends (who don't live nearby), two others are circumstantial, and one was an accident on my part (though they've so far been trustworthy).

That is life, sometimes! I see where you are coming from but the goose (your opinion) is not the gander (other people's reality) in this case. I may write more later, but I've got an appointment in a few minutes I can't miss.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by BillyJoe, February 28, 2009
I find it difficult to realize why someone would hide their identity with this "confession".

How about fear of litigation?

giving this interview any credit is the most irrational thinking I have ever read.

Is this an example of hyperbole or this seriously the most irrational thing you've ever read?

Get real. These shows are NOT authentic, they are produced and packed full of fluff to sell commercials.
The point is that many people believe they are real

Allison stated she was a "practicing skeptic"...So she has yet to master her skill of critical thinking and common sense?

Hey? Critical thinking and commonsense are almost antithetical. And I suppose you are a Master of critical thinking and no longer have any need to improve.

This person is a coward.

Compared to those who have said nothing? Or compared to you? Please share your heroic deeds with us. Or are you speaking from the ivory tower?

The rumor is that this is actually Allison herself

Is passing on rumour an example of your Mastery of critical thinking skills?

People that compromise ethics for personal gain...get what they deserve.

You are the judge and jury it seems.
People sometimes find themselves unintentionally in situations from which they find it difficult to extract themselves. This person seems to be trying at least to do something.

she has stood side by side...with...the biggest charlatan in our generation of paranormal research.

Is the phrase "side by side" and "endorse" an example of your Mastery of critical thinking skills? Do you really believe that Allison stood "side by side" with a charlatan and that the JREF "endorse" his show? Or just more hyperbole?

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +17
Sorry, that was in reply to GhostDiva.
written by BillyJoe, February 28, 2009
My last post that is.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
about the diatribe
written by tctheunbeliever, February 28, 2009
ghostdiva--your manner makes it obvious that you have some kind of axe to grind, and it doesn't help your case.

"Honestly, as a paranormal researcher AND a skeptic, the showcased skepticism was by far the worst."

Even more hyperbole--sounds like hysterics

And you seem to be confused about the word "practicing". A "practicing surgeon" is not a doctor who is cutting into people to hone his skills, it's a physician who performs surgery professionally or on a regular basis. If you were making a pun, it was a bad one.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
...
written by KingMerv00, February 28, 2009
Ghostdiva,

I'm a skeptic and I probably will be till the day I die but I try my best to keep my beliefs on the supernatural in perspective. I think you should too.

Ghost hunting shows are not worthy of such histrionics. You are willing to sow rumors, accuse other people of cowardice and fraud, encourage breach of contract, and spread panic over JREF's reputation. To quote MST3K: Repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

Skepticism is important. It can save lives and save money. But some people treat it like it is the focal point of every conversation and that the paranormal community is composed of heartless bastards who are corrupting all that is good and holy (so to speak). Sit back, read a book, have a cup of hot chocolate and reconsider the scale of the issue. (Hint: It is a molehill.)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
Wow. I sit in disbelief...
written by Baxter, March 01, 2009
The Ghostdiva brings in some very good points and yet many of you are too busy defending Alison to see reality. How many of you actually saw the show or are too busy just saying "it's just a show, I should really just relax?" If the role of John Oliver was played by Sylvia Brown and the role of Chris Moon was played by Uri Geller, and maybe if the role of Alison was played by James Randi himself, would we expect a different outcome? Would James Randi just go along with everything those two vomit forth? If he was censored, would he worry about litigation? Most of us know that those contracts are purely scare tactics and can't be upheld in court. Yes, I have researched that and found it to be true. You can't make someone sign away their right to tell the truth about fraud. American Idol makes their contestants sign non-disclosures for a purely different reason. That one can actually be upheld in court. One that covers up the truth about a show that has already aired is not legally viable. If James Randi were in that position, would we think less of him if he behaved like Alison? Well, we'd better! We should hold these people up to some pretty high standards because they are the ones that we look to when it comes to providing us with their views on critical thinking. Alison represents someone who will go to battle over what we hold dear. Oops. I guess we got the wrong girl.

There are a lot of you that think this is no big deal. Well, it is. It is no joke to those of us that work damn hard to educate people about the frauds in the paranormal world. These people are actively causing a lot of pain and grieving while reaping all kinds of monetary gains and notoriety in the process. Alison just stood up and also lended credence to that.

I guess all you critical thinkers would rather pay attention to titles. I suck and deserve to get attacked by you because I am a paranormal investigator. It doesn't matter that I investigate in the style of Ben Radford and Joe Nickel. On the other hand, Alison is a "practicing skeptic" and can do no wrong. It doesn't matter what she does because you like her. Please, wake up to how wrong this is!

Now it is your turn. Ignore my overall message and pick apart little things I said in this post. Maybe even jump on some improper use of grammar or spelling to make yourself seem like more of an expert. Ready....go!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Roo, March 01, 2009
I thought this interview was very interesting. To all those who are knocking 'X', I would say that s/he no doubt has a mortgage to pay and a family to support. Perhaps s/he was initially deceived and believed they would have more of a scientific input into the programme. By the time they realised the truth, the contract could have been signed and it was all too late. Personally I don't feel it's fair to slate anyone until the FULL facts are known. And it was brave of this person to give their albeit anonymous honest views.

I was especially interested to see what X said about "orbs" - the most pathetic, ludicrous "proof" often offered up, in my opinion. Orbs are truly the b*ll*cks of ghosts and ghost-hunting phenomena.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by iiwo, March 01, 2009
Baxter:

I'm not trying to defend Alison because I like her--I've never met her.

I was trying to explain to GhostDiva that some of her attacks were off target. I agreed with some of them, I tried to make that clear though I didn't get a chance to respond in full.

A few thoughts now:

1) If non-disclosure aggreements are not legally binding, what good are they? How do you know this? And even if some are not, have you seen the one's X had to sign?

2) I happen to agree X should get out of the business if they are still in it and feel so strongly about it. This is not the easiest thing to do today, though. Maybe in another year? Maybe they got into it, felt guilty, but kept making money thinking things would change. When they didn't, they did something about it--made a small reveal to the public.

3) I agree the show (and yes, I did watch it!) was far from a good portrayal of skepticism in any sense of the word. It was not a shining moment in the history of debunking. It is not, however, the first (nor the last) time a person in the skeptical movement has been involved in these sorts of situations. As I discussed with a friend earlier (about this very show, in fact), sometimes you see an opportunity that looks good, and go for it. And sometimes you get played!

Maybe Alison got played. Maybe she played you. Maybe she played everyone. That is another discussion, though. Moving on...

4) Were I in charge of making the go/no-go decision on whether or not to put Alison on the show, I might have made a different decision. I would have asked for more stringent wording in the contract as to the exposure she got. I don't know the future--maybe she'll turn down chances, maybe she'll take them, maybe she'll ask for the contract to state that she gets so many minutes to do the skeptic thing, maybe it's none of my business.

5) You make a big deal out of how the JREF is represented. I understand the JREF has done a lot to promote critical thinking, especially in Randi's work with debunking Popoff and Geller. A lot of people have seen his work and been affected by it. Know how it was done? Not by James Randi making a TV show about "How to do Geller's tricks in your Living Room".

He did it by going on the stage with him and challenging his claims. Alison sounds like she tried to do that with Door to the Dead--and failed. Or got edited. Or got played. Or played someone, depending on your view. Without full disclosure, I don't know which. I hope she gets more exposure and opportunity to do a more skeptical approach to the show for her sake, her project, the audience's sake, and the JREF's too.

The guy/girl X in this interview? Yep. They were involved in similar programs. They felt guilty. They DID something? As KingMerv00 said--that's more than a lot of us have done.

If their non-disclosure agreement is no big deal, write it out clearly and ask Alison to send it to X so they can come out more fully. X referenced a number of things in the interview I am very curious about but would give away which show was involved if the details were revealed. If their NDA is just a bully tactic I suspect they would come out even further.

BTW--being sued for breaking a major contract like this can ruin one's reputation in the industry, so by coming out a cast or crew member is risking not only a small fortune in cash, but a job or career as well. (This is not to say they *would* suffer careerwise, but it would put a mark on their job history).

6) I really would like to see how you come to the conclusion that NDA's are just scare tactics or bullying. If that is the case there is a lot more room for disclosure in the entertainment industry.

7) It is 1:45am and I should have been in bed a while ago, but I'm not sure when I will have the next chance to respond. You mentioned grammar and spelling in your post--mine is probably full of it too. Feel free to critique mine too. In fact, please do address some points directly--whether from my responses or someone elses. Doing this enables succinct discussion, where as posting generalities requires anyone responding to pussy-foot responses they think may be related and wastes several posts by responders until ideas are defined to the point they can actually be hashed out and discussed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by BillyJoe, March 01, 2009
Now it is your turn. Ignore my overall message and pick apart little things I said in this post. Maybe even jump on some improper use of grammar or spelling to make yourself seem like more of an expert. Ready....go!

Someone else tried this same tactic on another thread. Right from the start, you're damned if you do reply and damned if you don't reply. Well, this time I think I'll just wait for a reply from GhostDiva against whom my post was actually directed.

regards,
BillyJoe

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Roo
written by BillyJoe, March 02, 2009
Well said. smilies/smiley.gif

To all those who are knocking 'X', I would say that s/he no doubt has a mortgage to pay and a family to support. Perhaps s/he was initially deceived and believed they would have more of a scientific input into the programme. By the time they realised the truth, the contract could have been signed and it was all too late. Personally I don't feel it's fair to slate anyone until the FULL facts are known. And it was brave of this person to give their albeit anonymous honest views.

I have known a person who was in the exact same situation to the one you describe here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by CasaRojo, March 02, 2009
"1) 1) If non-disclosure aggreements are not legally binding, what good are they? "

People sign agreements regularly are are deemed to be unreasonable at some point and some are simply illegal from the getgo I suspect. IOW the framers fully realize that the contracts are not enforceable. They are useful in the sense that prevent many people from disclosing fraud, suing, whatever, because they don't know any better. It's a game.

"BTW--being sued for breaking a major contract like this can ruin one's reputation in the industry, so by coming out a cast or crew member is risking not only a small fortune in cash, but a job or career as well. (This is not to say they *would* suffer careerwise, but it would put a mark on their job history)."

What is one's personal integrity worth? Everyone has their price?

"We should hold these people up to some pretty high standards because they are the ones that we look to when it comes to providing us with their views on critical thinking."

Yes and they, hopefully, know this. I have confidence that they do. Perhaps a bit more patience is in order? Patience is not my strong suit BTW and I strongly dislike being disappointed when I've dedicated some much energy into something I find so difficult to muster.

Alison states "We debunk 'em... so you don't have to" at the top of her myspace blog. I, for one, am going to give her the opportunity to do just that. Either she'll stay true to her statement or she will not. I'm sure that Alison is being courted by some of the best BS artists around. What is truly important to Alison? I hope that I know the answer to that question and I hope that I am not disappointed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Alan3354, March 02, 2009
Is he a priest?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Roo, March 02, 2009
written by BillyJoe, March 02, 2009

Well said.


Thank you, Billy Joe. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Cuddy Joe, March 02, 2009
The problem with an "X" claimant, an anonymous whistleblower, is that I find no more reason to believe his or her claims than I do those who claim to find ghosts.

Some guy says he can find ghosts but can't prove it. So what? Some guy says a ghostie show is fixed but won't prove it. So what? What exactly are we to do with empty claims?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Cuddy Joe
written by BillyJoe, March 02, 2009
The problem with an "X" claimant, an anonymous whistleblower [says a ghostie show is fixed], is that I find no more reason to believe his or her claims than I do those who claim to find ghosts.


I'm not sure if you realise what you are saying here.
Would you say that the following claims are equivalent:
1) Ghosts exist.
2) Ghost shows are faked.
If not, then you could not possibly give equal credence to someone who claims (1) and someone who claims (2).

regards,
BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by tctheunbeliever, March 02, 2009
Just to beat the dead horse a little more:
I don't see any petty comments about grammar or spelling--words and their meanings are important, and misunderstanding (intentionally or not) a word like "practicing" can lead to misunderstanding, even hostility. And hyperbole can be, and often is used as a method of persuasion. This is not nitpicking, and it's not one-upmanship; it's clarification.
And I don't want to get personal, but when I hear Alison's name (I've never met her), I don't think of her devoted friends, I think of all the people who have been ripping her apart in here every week-no kid gloves here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
(Aimed mostly at Baxter)Let's consider some of the possibilities of what is going on here (I could never list all of the options):1.  Alison now believes in ghosts, honestly thinks the show is a valid experiment, and took no part in fraud.Result: While I would disagree with her assessment of the show, I wouldn't find her morally at fault.  2.  Alison does not believe in ghosts, does not think the show is a valid experiment and suspects fraud but cannot do anything out of fear of a lawsuit.  She took part in the show originally hoping to have a positive impact by being a vocal skeptic.Result: She has my sympathy because sometimes there is no way of knowing how a show will turn out or how the show will be edited and now she would be trapped in a bad position.3. Alison does not believe in ghosts, knew the show would be unscientific from day one, and intentionally  took part in fraud.Result:  Fraud is bad but consider the scale the here.  Complaining about this ghost hunting show is the equivalent of complaining how about "In God We Trust" on money.  Further, bringing up Sylvia or Uri is a non-sequitur because they feed much more directly on their victims and do more damage than taking part a mere pilot episode.What annoys me about people like Baxter and GhostDiva, is that they are so ready to judge but not praise.  Alison has done a lot of great work for the JREF and for skepticism in general.  She has run the MDC with integrity and efficiency, I literally watched her work herself to exhaustion at TAM6, and runs a private website that looks skeptically at ghosts and psychics.  Even with all of that on her side, people are ready to throw her under the bus at the first sigh of perceived “woo”.  Who the hell are YOU Baxter and GhostDiva?  What have YOU done for skepticism lately...aside from brandish your "internet muscles"?
I personally believe in option #2 above.  The least you could do to thank her for "battling for what you hold dear" is to give her the benefit of the doubt.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
Ugh...formatting is awful. Sorry bout that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
1. Alison now believes in ghosts, honestly thinks the show is a valid experiment, and took no part in fraud.
Result: While I would disagree with her assessment of the show, I wouldn't find her morally at fault.

2. Alison does not believe in ghosts, does not think the show is a valid experiment and suspects fraud but cannot do anything out of fear of a lawsuit. She took part in the show originally hoping to have a positive impact by being a vocal skeptic.
Result: She has my sympathy because sometimes there is no way of knowing how a show will turn out or how the show will be edited and now she would be trapped in a bad position.

3. Alison does not believe in ghosts, knew the show would be unscientific from day one, and intentionally took part in fraud.
Result: Fraud is bad but consider the scale the here. Complaining about this ghost hunting show is the equivalent of complaining how about "In God We Trust" on money. Further, bringing up Sylvia or Uri is a non-sequitur because they feed much more directly on their victims and do more damage than taking part a mere pilot episode.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
cont. from above
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
Result: Fraud is bad but consider the scale the here. Complaining about this ghost hunting show is the equivalent of complaining how about "In God We Trust" on money. Further, bringing up Sylvia or Uri is a non-sequitur because they feed much more directly on their victims and do more damage than taking part a mere pilot episode.

What annoys me about people like Baxter and GhostDiva, is that they are so ready to judge but not praise. Alison has done a lot of great work for the JREF and for skepticism in general. She has run the MDC with integrity and efficiency, I literally watched her work herself to exhaustion at TAM6, and runs a private website that looks skeptically at ghosts and psychics. Even with all of that on her side, people are ready to throw her under the bus at the first sigh of perceived “woo”. Who the hell are YOU Baxter and GhostDiva? What have YOU done for skepticism lately...aside from brandish your "internet muscles"?

I personally believe in option #2 above. The least you could do to thank her for her hard work is do the same and recalibrate your outrage sensor.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
There, much better. Sorry about the wall of text before.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by KingMerv00, March 02, 2009
Oh one more thing,

I'm no expert on non-disclosure agreements but I'd like to see a cite for your claim about enforceablility.

Even if you are right and the NDA is not-enforceable, that would not protect Alison from LITIGATION. She could still be hauled into court and maybe forced to pay for a lawyer.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Seems a fair analysis, KM00
written by BillyJoe, March 02, 2009
Even if you are right and the NDA is not-enforceable, that would not protect Alison from LITIGATION. She could still be hauled into court and maybe forced to pay for a lawyer.
...and no one would have her on their show ever again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by CasaRojo, March 03, 2009
"and no one would have her on their show ever again."

She runs that risk now. I think the point here is that we're not going to see a paranormal tv show that presents a realistic skeptical POV. It just ain't gonna happen. The skeptical angle totally negates all of the paranormal "researcher's" claims. No critical thinkers allowed!

"I'm no expert on non-disclosure agreements but I'd like to see a cite for your claim about enforceablility. "

If you're talking to me, I was speaking to contracts in general including rights that we sign away and the implied responsibility we take when we put something in for repair or put or accept something on consignment etc. I am not a lawyer however, knowing what I know, I would *never* knowingly -grin- sign a NDA especially if I was going to be involved in a controversial business endeavor. I think I'd take a look at the current whistle blower laws and their relationship to NDA's. That said, I think that there's a tremendous gray area in regards to the paranormal industry and fraud from the legal standpoint. I can see where a judge may say that one simply should have known better and I can see where a judge might be tired of the overwhelming BS and be sympathetic to skeptics. Lotsa variables I think. Some skeptics have won their battle in court I am happy to say--->http://www.amindformurder.com/Present2006.htm
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by CasaRojo, March 03, 2009
>>Complaining about this ghost hunting show is the equivalent of complaining how about "In God We Trust" on money.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by CasaRojo, March 03, 2009
"Complaining about this ghost hunting show is the equivalent of complaining how about "In God We Trust" on money."

That's arguable as there's huge differences. Maybe we can do something about the way that these fantasies are portrayed on tv. I'd be happy with a thirty second disclaimer maybe. Gotta draw the line somewhere and I choose now/here with these BS tv shows.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
You're so right KingMerv
written by Baxter, March 03, 2009
I never like to get involved in these comment wars because everyone spends so much time (including myself) being right that they can't step back and just listen. Instead, we look for ways to deconstruct what the other is saying without hearing them. Fine. Call my comparison to Sylvia and Uri a non-sequitur. I can't see how you make that statement. Chris Moon charges incredible amounts to give readings with his Telephone to the Dead and those requests have gone through the roof since the show. There is no harm there, right? You clearly have not had to deal first hand with the damage Chris Moon is causing. Ok, that's not your fault. I HAVE. I see the damage and there is quite a scale to it. I stand by my comparison even if only ONE person was hurt by this thief.

I have also participated in shows and documentaries where I was subject to editing. I never had to worry too much because I didn't give them much to work with in terms of twisting my position. Alison gave them all they needed and she should know better. She is no naive dummy. I have been praising her for some time for her outstanding work. That is why I am so shocked with what I saw on this show. I am in the industry and I know what editing looks like.

I also am not in this to be a big star. My integrity is paramount. If I was spun to be the opposite of what I truly am, I would not worry about whether or not I would ever be invited to be on another show like this. I would stand up for what I believe in. I have been giving her the benefit of the doubt and she (and others around her) are only giving me reason to doubt. I'm so sorry for accusing the golden girl of wrong doing. It hurts me to do so because I was a big fan of hers. Now I feel like I can't trust anything she says.

What have I done for skepticism? Is this a trap question? Do I need to have a list like Alison's or just one bigger than yours? Talk about a non-sequitur. Ok, here is a short list:

I am an active member of Mile High Skeptics. I am a skeptic paranormal investigator who spends an incredible amount of time trying to educate the public about fraud and misunderstandings in this field. I am an organizer Denver's SkeptiCamp and have been a participant for the last two years. I have a weekly radio show and podcast where the focus is critical thinking education with guests such as James Randi, James Underdown, D.J. Growthe, Brian Dunning, Dr Joe Albietz, Ben Radford, and many more. I publish a magazine that educates readers about critical thinking in paranormal investigation and exposes more frauds. I am currently filming a local tv show that is basically a paranormal version of myth-busters. I lecture quite frequently about the "science" of paranormal investigation. I have appeared on Larry King Live disputing the claims of a UFO abductee that we have been investigating for years. I have been dealing with threats of lawsuits by many of the frauds we expose. I am in the trenches of all of this and it gives me a slightly different perspective than what you may have but my perspective is of no less value than yours. I know that the most important asset I have is my integrity and the same applies to Alison. If she looses that, she looses far more than the opportunity to "star" in another crappy woo-filled pilot. It is worth defending ever if it requires a lawyer.

I have a lot more to say about your comments addressed to me but I just don't have the energy to write and post so much that will just be ignored because you all have to be right. You all may now either support my position or attack it without me. Hanging out on this board hoping to make a difference was a fool's dream. I do much better working in the real world.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Cuddy Joe, March 03, 2009
BJ:

"I'm not sure if you realise what you are saying here.
Would you say that the following claims are equivalent:
1) Ghosts exist.
2) Ghost shows are faked.
If not, then you could not possibly give equal credence to someone who claims (1) and someone who claims (2)."

Her entry is titled "Ghost Hunter Tells All" , but the ghost hunter tells nothing, not even his name, other than implying the show is fixed.

"X's" claims are totally unsupported. Claims that ghosts exist are equally unsupported. They are each unsupported, meaningless claims.

Here's my 'claim': X is full of crapola and is lying. How much value can one place in my claim if I offer nothing to support it?

I couldn't care less how it compares to other claims. To think that my claim is likely more 'true' than, say, claims that bigfoot or ghosts exist, is idiocy. One can't make any assessment of any claim that bears no supportive evidence.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Oh, and...
written by Baxter, March 03, 2009
I might also add that ghostdiva has also worked her ass off to contribute to skepticism from within the paranormal community. This is why we are so offended by this. We deal with this crap daily and get zero respect from most of you. As soon as many of you on these JREF boards get wind that a paranormal investigator is posting, we can say nothing right. Good use of your supposedly open minds. Keep in mind that I am painting with broad strokes here. Not all of you act like this but I will say that many consistent posters share the same lemming mindset that plagues the believers of the paranormal boards. Some of you need to take a step back and look at the whole picture. There is some major hypocrisy going on here. We are not expecting to make friends by pointing it out. We just hope that a few of you will see what we are talking about.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by CasaRojo, March 03, 2009
"I'm so sorry for accusing the golden girl of wrong doing. It hurts me to do so because I was a big fan of hers. Now I feel like I can't trust anything she says."

Yes. Feeling that one has been deceived by someone we trust is not a pleasant feeling. Hopefully it will play out differently.

I hope to see more of your (Baxter) posts.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by KingMerv00, March 03, 2009
Baxter,I've never met you and these the first comments of yours I've ever seen.  You claim you've been ignored are referring to the people here as a group.  That is not fair.You are taking this exactly the wrong way.  All I'm saying is that considering her past hard work for skepticism, I'm inclined to look at the situation in the most favorable light.Imagine you found yourself in this situation.  You did skeptical work in the past so I'd be willing to believe something went wrong, not that you were a "coward" or a "sellout".  I'm just trying to apply common courtesy before applying insults.  If I saw this as a big deal (I don't), I'd assume error before malice.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Error before malice
written by Baxter, March 03, 2009
I can only go off of what I see and what I see is a BIG mistake. I don't really care how well meaning the mistake is. My concern is with the damage being done and what is being done to correct it. What do YOU see being done? All I get from anyone associated with JREF (those who didn't sign anything) is silence and dodging the issue. No one seems to be taking this little mistake very seriously other than those that are watching the damage unfold. Everyone else seems to want to cross their arms and close their eyes. Oh, and these just happen to be the first of my comments under this name. You're right, you don't know me. It doesn't change the facts that are easily looked up.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by GhostDivaTonyaH, March 03, 2009
I'm still waiting for people to explain why they are ignoring the fact that the JREF seems to be endorsing Chris Moon and his fraud box, just because "one of their own" was on the show.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Cuddy Joe, March 03, 2009
Um, why don't you ask the staff of the JREF instead of those who comment on these articles? It appears to me Baxter and Ghostdiva both keep using the word "seems" because they don't know, but their not knowing has not stopped them from drawing conclusions and casting aspersions any way. I will not be lectured on skepticism by people who proceed thusly, nor do I appreciate being lumped in with their perceived enemies under the huge tent called the James Randi Educational foundation, as if we all march in lockstep and we all share the guilt of any 'crime' as perceived by the Baxters and Ghostdivas in the world.

This whole thread is a good example of the cautionary topic I have written on recently involving the dangers and problems that emerge when skeptics tale themselves more seriously than they do skepticism, that is, when they begin to place their skeptical personalities above skeptical principles.

What I'm hearing is, "Hey! We're Big Time Skeptics, we've been offended, and we demand satisfaction!"

Get a grip and go back and read bosshog's post far above. It's televison, fer crissakes, a paranormal reality show, which combines the two worst aspects of modern 'entertainment' for the masses. Did you expect you or anyone else could climb into that pig pen and re-emerge without pig shit on your boots?



report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by GhostDivaTonyaH, March 03, 2009
Um, why don't you ask the staff of the JREF instead of those who comment on these articles?


Who is to say we have not? As a matter of fact, I have and I am still waiting for a response, once the subject was re focused. I am noticing a trend here.

It seems to me that all those that are declaring "It's only a TV show". Well, not it's not. In the grand scheme of it ALL, Alison and the JREF is now holding hands with one of the biggest scam artists known to day. Christopher Moon.

The JREF has been contacted before and after this show about the recent affiliation and promotion from this scam artist and you are all ignoring it.

So, is it safe to assume that the JREF and it's affiliates support and promote a con artist and hist broken radio? In the meantime, this person is boasting about the money is he making with his bunk telephone to the dead. The bottom line is, and the main problem is that you all are ignoring the subject, the main subject. Sure, it's my opinion that Alison sold out to get on TV, but I have a right to my opinion of course. But the FACT is, with all the dancing that is taking place here and efforts to "clear Alison's name" on this board and via email is pointless. The problem is that there is a huge scam artist on the loose and he's soliciting and marketing a broken radio and utilizing his new found psychic abilities and is charging people THOUSANDS of dollars. Grieving people, desperate people that want nothing more than "answers". So, in turn, the James Randi Educational Foundation, Alison Smith and it's overly "wordy" message boarders are NOW endorsing. If you are not aware of the charlatan behaviors of Chris Moon, be a good "skeptic" and do so damn research on it. Chris Moon should be the LAST person on earth to have endorsement from ANYONE, Much less the JREF.

So, with that said, I'm not here to be a "skeptic" nor am I a "believer". I do not have a title attached to me. As I wait for my responses from the JREF I will sit back and enjoy this thread. I don't want satisfaction, I want to know why Alison and the JREF are endorsing snake oil salesmen. That's it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by iiwo, March 03, 2009
I just wanted to say thanks for the post where you lay out your experiences. I give you the benefit of the doubt that they are real (no personal offense, but this is the internet). It gives your other comments context and they are now much more meaningful. Your work is difficult and sometimes painful, and it is appreciated!

That said, if you were in Alison's shoes, and she were calling you a golden-girl or hypocrite, I would be challenging her accusations about you. I don't appreciate this concept (of the 'golden girl) being put on me, especially when it is coincidence that it is a cute young girl rather than anyone else--the results from me would be the same.

As to the silence from the JREF--I can't speak for them, and neither can you. I take it by your comment that you've asked? That's not a snide question, I'm just checking.

Maybe they have different plans, or maybe they are working on a plan, maybe it's not a big deal to them, maybe they are working on something else. While the subject of your complaint is important--especially to you--what makes you think it is likewise on the top of their list?

They are a group of people like you or I who collaborate and plan events, create resources, promote skepticism, etc--but this hardly makes them subject to us or our demands.

You both (Baxter, Ghostdiva) both express disappointment in the show, and reasonably so. But why is it such a huge deal the the JREF be responsible for it? Or if not responsible, then whatever other word you choose to insert. It's not as if the JREF is an all powerful or magical institution that can poof the world into reality. It's hard work, as you've stated, and sometimes the projects don't work out.

Ah shoot, wasn't watching the time. I have to go to dinner--sorry. Thanks again, will finish my thoughts later if someone else doesn't.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by GhostDivaTonyaH, March 03, 2009
You both (Baxter, Ghostdiva) both express disappointment in the show, and reasonably so. But why is it such a huge deal the the JREF be responsible for it? Or if not responsible, then whatever other word you choose to insert. It's not as if the JREF is an all powerful or magical institution that can poof the world into reality.


As a skeptic community that has done a fantastic job with educating the public with the exposing frauds, they are not focused on the Telephone to the Dead and the scam artist operator.

The JREF has posted on the "about us" portion of this website stating:


# Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.







# Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals.


What is/was scientific about the Door to the Dead TV show that JREF rep Alison Smith portrayed? I did not see any valid protocol that remotely came close to a real "scientific" investigation. Once again, this is being ignored.

Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.


# Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.


Christopher Moon is making a lot of money off his rip off invention. In fact, if the people were not given enough information, it is a fact that he calls them back and solicits them for more money to "release" the message.

Instead, Alison Smith a Representative went on National TV and stood side by side and suggested that this particular fraud was correct. This is a reflection of the JREF. IF, there is some top secret "behind the scenes" investigation taking place to make sense of all of this, I would understand. For now, it seems that because of Alisons involvement, this scam artist is running amok banking as much money as he possibly can because it APPEARS that the JREF has absolutely NOTHING to say about his "telephone to the dead" because Alisons feelings may be on the line.

On a personal level, I had a lot of respect for Alison until she appeared on this show. I have no sympathy for her, she pointed out a "ghostly name in the door" right with the rest of them, it was suggested and she rolled with it. That's not editing, that's wanting a TV show.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by iiwo, March 03, 2009
What is/was scientific about the Door to the Dead TV show that JREF rep Alison Smith portrayed? I did not see any valid protocol that remotely came close to a real "scientific" investigation. Once again, this is being ignored.


Ignored by commenters, or by Alison, or by JREF?

I've said several times that I am well aware she was not given any chance to present any sort of skeptical view. Whether she did anything on set, or not, I don't know. And unless I see the cut footage, I can't. Alison has said her NDA disallows discussion of a significant part of the production, and what is in the gray area she has chosen not to discuss.

She was not there as a JREF rep. She was introduced as "a paranormal researcher and practicing skeptic". As far as I know, the fact that she is involved with the JREF is more coincidental than intentional in this particular case--but I'd have to ask her in order to confirm that.

On legal issues--the JREF statement you quoted says the fund is maintained for the support of those "being attacked for their investigations". No one is being attacked for an investigation or criticism of the paranormal community here--are you suggesting Alison and/or X should intentionally commit a crime and expect to be supported for it?

How much worse would it be for the JREF's reputation if they became known as 'those guys who lie to get into paranormal stuff only to commit a crime and harass the people involved'. If you think it's hard to reach those taken in by woo-woo now, try doing it with that sort of 'elitist/we're so special we don't give a damn' attitude. Whether or not that were the intended attitude, that is how it would be taken by the audience--I guarantee it.

On the other hand, maybe Alison thought this would be a good way to get some visibility to those she is trying to reach--those taken in by paranormal claims. Maybe there is a bigger strategy arc being plotted by the JREF staff as we speak. Maybe there's not. Maybe they are concerned that by raising cane and trying to distance themselves from the show, they will make a bigger storm than the one you 'see' right now. Whatever it is, we will know what it is, if and when the time is right. Maybe...there are a million possibilities as to why there is no response from the JREF to you.

On the subject of scamming and hurting the families. I agree Moon's methods may be sleazy--I've heard conflicting reports, so I'm not going to judge (though I tend toward critical). As it aired, Alison had about thirty seconds of speaking--and the other guys about 41:30 minutes, a lot of which was voice over added later. You can't tell me that's not editing.

What did they say in conversation with the family? What did Alison say to them? She pointed out Lisa, yes. I asked her about that--she didn't know where it came from, but did explain that they interviewed a number of people and had a plethora of tape on the subject, yet all we hear is "who's Lisa?" I asked her personally. How is that not editing?

As has been said here and in the forums, unless we can somehow view the cuttings and/or Alison decides to share more, we simply don't know.

Several people here (and, again--in the forums) have given a variety of reasons for silence from the JREF. Don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Continuing to post about it is not going to change that. If you are really concerned about it, lay your case and concerns out as clearly as you can.

And in any case, this article was about an interview with a ghost hunter TV person--how did we get to a storm in a teacup about managing large non-profit organizations?

I've explained as much as I can with my limited information. If you want more, take it up with someone else who can actually do something other than speculate in circles.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by iiwo, March 03, 2009
Alison--thanks for the interview. I wish there could have been more, but I empathize on quite a personal level with the interviewee on their desire for anonymity and understand there are some things that simply can't be revealed.

Keep up the work, and hopefully you will get more voice in the next episode or series you are in, sorry you didn't here. (And hopefully this one won't end up as is feared in this comment set).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Cuddy Joe
written by BillyJoe, March 03, 2009
One can't make any assessment of any claim that bears no supportive evidence.

What about plausibility?
And Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The plausibility of "ghosts exist" compared with "this ghost show is fake", is a valid distinguishing characteristic when there is no evidence for either.

BJ

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Cuddy Joe, March 04, 2009
You are comparing .001 with .002 where 1.0 is needed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Cuddy Joe, March 04, 2009
That's weird. I accidently hit some key on my KB and the above post got entered without me hitting Add Comment. Ghost in the machine, heh.

BJ, what I'm talking about is that absolutely no supportive evidence is offered for either claim, and that one claim may be considered even slightly more plausible than another informs us not one little bit. By way of example:

Claim 1: Ghosts exist.

Claim 2: On March 4, 2009, at 5 pm Eastern Time (US), every dog in Pender County North Carolina barked at the exact same time.

In that nothing in psychics or the body of held scientific knowledge prevents Claim 2 from happening, it could be said that Claim 2 is more plausible than Claim 1. Though true, it is worthless to us and does not inform us of anything.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by BillyJoe, March 04, 2009
...except that if someone told you they saw a ghost even you would probably be at least slightly less likely to believe them than if they told you that the ghost show they took part in was fixed (to get back to the original comparison).

All I'm saying is that the two situations are not comparable and the diference is plausibility.

That's my take at least and I think Sagan, Hume and others would back me up on this. smilies/cool.gif

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by KingMerv00, March 05, 2009
This conversation is done.  Everything has been said and it is unlikely new information will be available so I will just give my final thoughts and walk away.

First, I consider the damage, if there is any, to be de minimus and it simply isn't worth arguing over.If I did, I'd still give her the benefit of the doubt.  Considering her past actions and the lack of information, I am going give her some courtesy and trust that her motivations and actions were pure.  We don't know how she was approached or told about the show, we don't know the content of the NDA, or what is on the cutting room floor.

In closing, I don't care but if I did I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt because she has earned it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by GhostDivaTonyaH, March 05, 2009
Well, since you are all so dead set that the Door to the Dead was factual and that Alison was on her "best" skeptical mindset.. listen to this podcast.

http://ghostdivas.mypodcast.com/2009/02/door_of_the_dumb-185033.html

Enjoy.


PS- I hope the new pseudo-skeptic community understands the damages that have taken place with endorsing this particular TV show. Sure, it's just a "tv show". But in the real world, it opens the doors for scam artists and charlatans to rip people off.

Sleep tight.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, March 05, 2009
Well, it's 70 minutes. Any chance of a run down?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Swift response?
written by AndyD, March 06, 2009
When Richard Saunders took part in "The One" on Oz TV, he too suffered at the hands of editors but was not generally portrayed as sympathetic to the supposedly psychic participants and, as weeks went by, stated his incredulity more and more clearly. Each week, Swift published a commentary on the show from a JREF member with additional comments by Randi.

Has there been a hatchet job in Swift for Door to the Dead? I haven't seen one but then, I only just discovered this article. I miss a lot since Swift went random.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by iiwo, March 06, 2009
tonya:

No one is saying TDTTD is factual, that no damage was done, or that it was the best example of skepticism seen on TV. I have said we simply don't have enough information to make a judgment regarding Alison and/or the JREF's response.

I may listen to the podcast later, but except for having words put in my mouth, I have said my piece on this issue and see no further use in conversation unless some new information comes forth.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by BillyJoe, March 06, 2009
listen to this podcast.
http://ghostdivas.mypodcast.com/2009/02/door_of_the_dumb-185033.html
Enjoy.

Well, I listened for 10 minutes, though I forced myself past the 3 minute mark. Apart from the horrible american accents (okay, I'm joking), this was truly horrible. If there is anything in the remaining 60 minutes please let me know.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Sounds like a sweet gig to me
written by whitetrashPeg, December 22, 2010
Some of you are being a bit hard on the guy, aren't you? I have a ghost folklore site, but I'm an atheist - so I take stories about "ladies in blue" and "phantom hitchhikers" as good fun. There are a few remaining paranormal phenomena that have not yet been plausibly explained - that's what keeps it interesting to me. If somebody offered me a tv show to make recordings in attics and crawlspaces and report my findings, as opposed to being a freaking bartender (plus getting to hear hundreds of great ghost stories and travel all over) I would jump all over it.

By the way, my favorite is the celebrity ghosts show. Could those two get any more ridiculous? All the theatrics and running around in faux frantic states of terror... smilies/grin.gif I'd bet you ten bucks this is the bald dude. He always seems just a little pissed off. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy