Ghost Hunters 3.4: "Whispers and Voices"
Case #1: Veau’s House, MA
Case #2: Bucksteep Manor, MA
(This particular review only covers the regularly scheduled episode; commentary on the recent “live” episode will be included along with the review of the recap/reveal episode, which airs 08 Nov 2006.)
This episode focuses on a couple of locations that fall between the typical “tourist trap” cases and the more interesting “private home” cases. Both sites in this episode seemed to have a reputation for being haunted, and in one case, hosted a haunted house every year. Also, both clients were looking for validation of their experiences, which is a tricky proposition.
TAPS does try to debunk the unexplained phenomena encountered in a location, but at the end of the day, they believe in the paranormal and they have certain subjective interpretations of events that creep into the process. It’s one thing to say that the goal is correlation of data in the hopes of determining a cause or validating phenomena in general (as Donna and Lisa discussed). It’s another to speak in terms of certainties or what a spirit does or does not do (as Steve does all episode long).
It may seem like an odd distinction, but it’s really just following through on what they say at the top of nearly every episode. If they want to debunk a haunting, they can’t think of it as a haunting, and they can’t tailor the use of equipment based on assumptions of what spirits would do. After all, none of the equipment they use could ever demonstrate that the cause of something unexplainable is definitively “paranormal”.
Case #1: Veau’s House, MA
In this case, I had the feeling that this was a shot at publicity. The owner sounded like a game show host, not a concerned homeowner. Also, a lot of what he mentioned sounded like the effects of high electromagnetic field exposure (feeling threatened, auditory hallucinations, headaches, etc.). Beyond Steve flipping out about the spiders, which is always fun to watch, the investigation seemed rather simple.
They did, however, run into a couple of EVPs. Neither of them were particularly convincing, even if one sounded like a creepy laugh. I personally assumed it was some kind of electrical effect from interference (especially if it was the wireless audio). The camera situation was even less convincing. For one thing, it may have been secured, but it was hanging on a folding shutter, which could have jostled or moved with a little wind. It wouldn’t take much for the camera to move just enough to get that kind of effect.
Case #2: Bucksteep Manor, MA
Two things immediately came to mind as this investigation started: Donna looks great with glasses, and Heather, the client, was very easy on the eyes. It helped to distract from the fact that there was very little worth talking about in this case. Everything was effectively debunked. I was a little surprised when they reacted to the thermal images during the outside tour. I always have a hard time taking any outdoor thermal evidence seriously, and that immediately looked like a finger moving in front of the camera.
Chill Factor: 7/10
Case #2: Bucksteep Manor, MA
(This particular review only covers the regularly scheduled episode; commentary on the recent “live” episode will be included along with the review of the recap/reveal episode, which airs 08 Nov 2006.)
This episode focuses on a couple of locations that fall between the typical “tourist trap” cases and the more interesting “private home” cases. Both sites in this episode seemed to have a reputation for being haunted, and in one case, hosted a haunted house every year. Also, both clients were looking for validation of their experiences, which is a tricky proposition.
TAPS does try to debunk the unexplained phenomena encountered in a location, but at the end of the day, they believe in the paranormal and they have certain subjective interpretations of events that creep into the process. It’s one thing to say that the goal is correlation of data in the hopes of determining a cause or validating phenomena in general (as Donna and Lisa discussed). It’s another to speak in terms of certainties or what a spirit does or does not do (as Steve does all episode long).
It may seem like an odd distinction, but it’s really just following through on what they say at the top of nearly every episode. If they want to debunk a haunting, they can’t think of it as a haunting, and they can’t tailor the use of equipment based on assumptions of what spirits would do. After all, none of the equipment they use could ever demonstrate that the cause of something unexplainable is definitively “paranormal”.
Case #1: Veau’s House, MA
In this case, I had the feeling that this was a shot at publicity. The owner sounded like a game show host, not a concerned homeowner. Also, a lot of what he mentioned sounded like the effects of high electromagnetic field exposure (feeling threatened, auditory hallucinations, headaches, etc.). Beyond Steve flipping out about the spiders, which is always fun to watch, the investigation seemed rather simple.
They did, however, run into a couple of EVPs. Neither of them were particularly convincing, even if one sounded like a creepy laugh. I personally assumed it was some kind of electrical effect from interference (especially if it was the wireless audio). The camera situation was even less convincing. For one thing, it may have been secured, but it was hanging on a folding shutter, which could have jostled or moved with a little wind. It wouldn’t take much for the camera to move just enough to get that kind of effect.
Case #2: Bucksteep Manor, MA
Two things immediately came to mind as this investigation started: Donna looks great with glasses, and Heather, the client, was very easy on the eyes. It helped to distract from the fact that there was very little worth talking about in this case. Everything was effectively debunked. I was a little surprised when they reacted to the thermal images during the outside tour. I always have a hard time taking any outdoor thermal evidence seriously, and that immediately looked like a finger moving in front of the camera.
Chill Factor: 7/10
posted by John Keegan | 16:14
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home