osty wrote:


I sometimes use a ghost box but take no offense. If everyone in the field uses only the equipment that is approved by everyone in the field I doubt if we can ever expect much advancement.

I consider it a device "still in research". I have personally recorded my first and last name being spoken reasonably clearly. Was it clear enough for someone who was not listening for my first and last name? Doubtful.

Unless I get a reasonably clear answer in the first few minutes of a session, I turn it off. If you listen to one of these things long enough you can hear ANYTHING you want. At the same time my own experience and the experiences I have heard from some of my peers gives me enough pause to continue using it as a communication device on a limited basis.

If nothing else it is a great way to break of the monotony of sitting in a dark room talking to walls for six hours. At this time I consider the results to be a personal experience along the validity of a documented cold spot. Interesting but nothing sturdy enough to hang my hat on.

Okay so exactly HOW does the ghost box work? I heard it was a thing that flips through various am frequencies..

crystalcross wrote:


I'm probably going to need that..thanks for being willing to help me out here.

Amanda_O wrote:


Basically it is a radio that is put on constant scan...it flips through the radio stations quickly with out stopping. Like 1/4 a second on each station. A spirit is then said to be able to collect words from broadcasts or use their own words through this device to speak.

Steven Matrix wrote:


Not directly. Ghost Hunters and GHI never even bother showing orbs any more. In the early episodes they showed them but dismissed them as dust. The problem is that they never really explained to people the phenomena (orbs are not dust...they are digital artifacts, mistakes if you will, caused by out of focus dust, pollen, water droplets, etc). So when people heard them say "most" orbs are dust, it left the door open for people to say "most orbs are dust...but this one is different". The brevity required of entertainment prevents them from getting too wonky I guess. After all, their target audience is not the serious investigator or researcher any more than the target audience of major league baseball is baseball players.

Ghost Adventures? They are guilty of "most orbs are dust..." But then again they rarely bother with dust orbs but have made a lot of insects TV stars.

The point is that I really don't know who decided to proclaim that the science/technology behind the digital orb phenomena can be dismissed at will.

I do wish they would spend more time explaining (cause I think they know) the weaknesses of different equipment. Flir, full spectrum, EMF, digital IR cams...all these devices have their flaws and limits and produce false positives that look really cool on TV but need to be pointed out. People just need to realize that the shows are entertainment and do the research and THINK a little about what they are seeing and hearing.

osty wrote:


Thats interesting. I'd like to experiment with one of those things...

I do wish they would spend more time explaining (cause I think they know) the weaknesses of different equipment. Flir, full spectrum, EMF, digital IR cams...all these devices have their flaws and limits and produce false positives that look really cool on TV but need to be pointed out. People just need to realize that the shows are entertainment and do the research and THINK a little about what they are seeing and hearing.[/quote]

You know..that'd make a good podcast....

Lest one of my detractors (they are out there) quotes me from here and then finds a post elsewhere where I talk about being a fan of the shows let me expand on my criticism.

I am a fan of the shows (to varying degrees of course). Each has good and bad points. Ghost Hunters presents an organized and methodical approach to investigations. Ghost Adventures gain points in my book because they are willing to try any and every new piece of equipment to see if it gets results. However, both are guilty of stating theory and interpretation as accepted fact. I think both have presented evidence that was questionable at best (possibly even faked I accept).

So I will NEVER tell anyone not to watch the shows. Even the biggest fan has to know (because the stars will tell you) that the process of editing hours of investigation time into a watchable entertainment format is a matter of taste, interpretation, and opinion.

I DO love watching all the shows! I think anything that brings attention to the field is a good thing.

But I also spend a lot of time explaining what is wrong with the shows to potential clients and what they should really expect from an investigation

Wes_Forsythe wrote:


Well said. For me, I get most of what not to do from these shows. Yes, you can look at GH and the hundreds of investigations [not crazy about that word, but will use here] they've done compared to the rest of us. Why do I not believe that they're the best or better than many? They come across as paranormal drama queens who make money at creating drama. They are organized, but it is organized drama. From an old school, spiritual way of looking at things, they actually show their lack of understanding of the other side.

These types of shows get the young people stoked and they copy what they see by getting similar equipment and looking for "haunted places"; which in most cases, the word "haunted" isn't even the appropriate word; just adds to the drama of the chase.

Like a friend of mine said a few weeks ago; she stopped watching GH when they had on the women from that reality show; what was it? The housewives of New Jersey or something to that effect. I didn't watch it when she did; but it tells me all I need to know about what's important to them.