Most Haunted a Fraud?

Well, it has not been a favorite here at my house because it all felt so staged and sensationalized, we really didn't take it too seriously. (We prefer Ghost Hunters.) Most Haunted's trick is letting the viewer believe what they want to believe, without the show itself really making any claims. BUT, I thought they bill themselvesto be a reality show and for real?

This is interesting, because I just saw my first episode yesterday! It featured a haunted Scottish castle. I found the camera work quite frustrating from a viewer standpoint, because the camera would cut from the evidence JUST as things got interesting and do a weird strobe sort of thing -- flashing from face to face like some demented Blair Witch scene. I didn't come away all that impressed. There was probably eight minutes of decent footage in an hour program. I was willing to give them 50/50 or even 70/30 of build-up to "evidence," but it wound up feeling like I was watching the Geraldo Rivera "Al Capone's Vault" special.

JMHO!

Show

sthrnwriter said:

I was doing a little research for a post on my blog and came across this article:

Viewers complained that the Living TV show, featuring "psychic" Derek Acorah, deceived the public by claiming to find evidence of paranormal activity.

But Ofcom ruled that Most Haunted was an entertainment show, not a legitimate investigation into the paranormal, and should not be taken seriously.

I know many have said it, including myself, but apparently, after an investigation, we aren't the only ones.

Click to expand...

Pretty much all such shows must be labelled as "entertainment only." Even if every last thing on the show is completely real and above board, only an idiot would say it's anything other than "for entertainment purposes only."

This is why novels have the line "Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely conicidental." It prevents lawsuits.

But in this case, it's wise to remember it's just a show, and they're after ratings.

Does anyone on the whole planet believe this dross is real? Or, for that matter, even entertainment?

Dross

Mike Coombes said:

Does anyone on the whole planet believe this dross is real? Or, for that matter, even entertainment?

Click to expand...

I believe some of it may be real. I do try to keep an open mind, and I've seen enough weirdness personally to make me believe there's more to the world than most believe. And, yeah, I find much of it entertaining.

I try to keep an open mind. However, when paranormal research grinds on, year after year, without ever proving anything, and yet the progam makers don't seem to be able to leave their homes without tripping over an apparition or 3...

Bunkum and fraud, basically.

Mike Coombes said:

I try to keep an open mind. However, when paranormal research grinds on, year after year, without ever proving anything, and yet the progam makers don't seem to be able to leave their homes without tripping over an apparition or 3...

Bunkum and fraud, basically.

Click to expand...

Some things can't be proven through science. By the very definition of the scientific method, it just isn't likely to ever happen. And there's also teh problem that just how much proof do you need? For science, something must be both falsifiable and reproducable. This is as it should be for mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

But let me ask you this. After fifty years, science says there is zero proof that flying saucers exist. Fine, I'll go along with that. But just suppose a flying saucer scooped you up, took you on a quick flight, then sat you down safely.

How much proof would there then be that flying saucers exist? The answer, accoridng to science, is zero proof. If this same thing happened to a hundred people, or a thousand people, there would still be zero proof because their flights are neither falsifiable nor reproducable.

Photos aren't proof, videos aren't proof, a bazillion eyewitnesses aren't proof, and tripping over things everytime you leave the house isn't proof. Only falsifiable and reproducable at will is proof.

The scientific method works extremely well with the boundaries its set up to test, but there have always been, and will probably always be, areas where it doesn't work at all because it isn't meant to work.

Some things you just have to see for yourself, experience for yourself, and believe or not believe for yourself.

Jamesaritchie said:

But just suppose a flying saucer scooped you up, took you on a quick flight, then sat you down safely.

How much proof would there then be that flying saucers exist?

Click to expand...

If I was a redneck called Bubba, that would probably happen to me on a regular basis. But flying saucers are only ever seen by unverifyable sources, and aliens only ever choose to reveal themselves to hicks, never, say, to a world leader or on TV.

My actual point is that if apparitions show up on TV for every show, it should, theoretically, be verifyable. But it's just thinly disguided junk for undiscriminating viewers (no offence!)

I'm not saying that maybe there aren't real supernatural phenomena going on; I'm just saying they never show up on supernatural TV shows.