Ghost Hunters 2.12: "14 Oct 2005"
Case #1: Reformatory
Case #2: Lizzie Borden House
I think I finally realized why I don’t have a problem with Jason and Grant and the rest of the TAPS gang. It’s not just that we all live in the Northeast and share a similar regional frame of mind. It’s more an appreciation of a certain personality type. As an engineer, I use a lot of the same equipment, and quite often, I’m interacting with the hard-working, hands-on personnel in the trenches. So basically, I work with people like Jason and Grant all day long. What some perceive as a bad attitude is, simply, making sure that things get done.
I mention this only because I have read many comments over the past few months about Jason’s attitude in particular, and I simply wasn’t seeing the problem. I think I’m just used to that kind of thing. The way I see it, if Jason was really a jerk, why would people devote their time and energy to put up with that for free? It doesn’t make sense to think that he’s just some unhinged ass.
Anyway, another episode filled with contrasts. One case with some interesting evidence and an investigation finally covered in some relative depth. And then, another case where style seems to be winning out over substance. Coming on the heels of an episode where the client might have faked something to use for promotional purposes, I think it’s clear where the downside of the business lies. It has to be hard when a client wants TAPS to show up to validate a historical haunting, when there’s a stake in the answer and comments will be spun for marketing.
So, first case:
I really liked this one. And it wasn’t just because I thought Paula was really cute in the pink top! It was actually the amount of footage devoted to the investigation itself and how it all played out. I know the naysayers will claim that some things were a little too convenient, but I’m not playing their game this time. Jason and Grant both noted that the layout made it very easy to see shadows where none should exist, and there is something to be said regarding the power of suggestion when the team members hear the stories beforehand, but other things happened that are very suggestive of activity. I wasn’t spooked, but I was definitely intrigued…more than I was for Eastern State, to be honest.
Second case:
Well, I had a feeling this would be a wash, and sure enough, it was. Like Steve said, any place with a gift shop is probably not haunted! OK, it’s not so simple as that, but I think the investigation itself said quite a bit. There wasn’t even a hint of activity. Sure, the client was right in saying that activity isn’t always going to happen on cue, but even including this felt more like a contractual obligation than a substantial investigation worth covering.
Chill Factor: 7/10
Case #2: Lizzie Borden House
I think I finally realized why I don’t have a problem with Jason and Grant and the rest of the TAPS gang. It’s not just that we all live in the Northeast and share a similar regional frame of mind. It’s more an appreciation of a certain personality type. As an engineer, I use a lot of the same equipment, and quite often, I’m interacting with the hard-working, hands-on personnel in the trenches. So basically, I work with people like Jason and Grant all day long. What some perceive as a bad attitude is, simply, making sure that things get done.
I mention this only because I have read many comments over the past few months about Jason’s attitude in particular, and I simply wasn’t seeing the problem. I think I’m just used to that kind of thing. The way I see it, if Jason was really a jerk, why would people devote their time and energy to put up with that for free? It doesn’t make sense to think that he’s just some unhinged ass.
Anyway, another episode filled with contrasts. One case with some interesting evidence and an investigation finally covered in some relative depth. And then, another case where style seems to be winning out over substance. Coming on the heels of an episode where the client might have faked something to use for promotional purposes, I think it’s clear where the downside of the business lies. It has to be hard when a client wants TAPS to show up to validate a historical haunting, when there’s a stake in the answer and comments will be spun for marketing.
So, first case:
I really liked this one. And it wasn’t just because I thought Paula was really cute in the pink top! It was actually the amount of footage devoted to the investigation itself and how it all played out. I know the naysayers will claim that some things were a little too convenient, but I’m not playing their game this time. Jason and Grant both noted that the layout made it very easy to see shadows where none should exist, and there is something to be said regarding the power of suggestion when the team members hear the stories beforehand, but other things happened that are very suggestive of activity. I wasn’t spooked, but I was definitely intrigued…more than I was for Eastern State, to be honest.
Second case:
Well, I had a feeling this would be a wash, and sure enough, it was. Like Steve said, any place with a gift shop is probably not haunted! OK, it’s not so simple as that, but I think the investigation itself said quite a bit. There wasn’t even a hint of activity. Sure, the client was right in saying that activity isn’t always going to happen on cue, but even including this felt more like a contractual obligation than a substantial investigation worth covering.
Chill Factor: 7/10
posted by John Keegan | 16:37
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home