Paranormal: a branch of the entertainment industry

[Mulder]

As a serious paranormal researcher, I feel I am in a tiny minority compared to my 'fellow travellers'; all those TV ghost hunting shows, the groups that imitate them, the 'ghost tour' companies, the Hollywood movies, the 'fictional' TV shows about mediums, the 'ghosts of nowhereshire' books and all the rest.

There IS a subject here to study but it is sometimes buried under a huge investment in the entertainment industry. To them, my favourite subject is a big money spinner. Needless to say, no one is paying me - they're not interested in the serious stuff!

I end up having many bizarre email conversations with people asking me what green orbs 'mean', what frequency is 'spirit energy', are all graveyards haunted. It's like being a guide in Disneyland!

OK rant over ... green orbs mean your white balance guessed wrong ...

[scroll33]

Even more worrying is the fact that people take these shows seriously despite the 'for entertainment' disclaimer at the start. Looking for evidence of anything paranormal via a TV show, be it TAPS, MH or the cold readers on stage Colin 'bring on the trumpets' Fry is about as fruitless as expecting the same from watching Ghostbusters the movie. The Paranormal will have to step into the lab if it ever wants to be found. But it seems to have had an attack of shyness for the past 137 years.

[Mulder]

It's the exploitation of the subject for money that gets me. I don't think the producers of these shows give a stuff about the subject. All they see is the money! As someone who cares about the paranormal, it gets me annoyed!

[Dubious Dick]

The preponderance of paranormal 'entertainment' bugs me as well. It would be interesting though to understand what perentage of the audiences for these things are taken in or reinforced in their views.

I am currently trying to deal with some of the wackier theories instilled in my children by by somewhat gullible ex-wife, and much of what I hear from them is indeed film/tv based. I guess the young are more impressionable.

Anyway, I am not sure what cn be done about the apparent endless willingness of the public to gorge themselves on garbage. Back to that old chestnut i.e. better education. One idea I have often championed is compulsory chess (discuss).

Recently I noticed some daft stuff called Medium had invaded BBC1. Now to me that's horror and not paranormal!!

Stream of conciousness ends.

[rainbows.]

Mulder,i would like to know more about your research.
Everything in fact-is that ok?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Back to that old chestnut i.e. better education. One idea I have often championed is compulsory chess (discuss).

Well, I'm not sure that chess should be compulsory, but it certainly has merits. One is the understanding that positions are objectively won, lost or drawn — and opinion be damned! Another is the understanding that flashy manoeuvres may be decisively refuted. And another again is that even in a game where everything we need to know about the position is fully displayed before players and spectators, we can all be spectacularly wrong.

Objectivity and fallibility— what a combination! ;D

[Mulder]

What does chess teach you, apart from showing you your inner sadist? :smiley:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

You say that as if it were a bad thing... ;D

[Balloonbasket]

Isn't chess for people too stupid to play draughts? >:D

[Question Authority]

I realize it's been a couple of years since your rant, Mulder, but as one who has seen a number of these shows, I wanted to comment on this. Especially since I already do believe in an afterlife, the existence of the spirit plane, etc., I consider my take on these shows to have at least some validity.

I have absolutely no idea how anyone takes these things seriously, but my guess would be these are the same people who watch a reality TV show and believe it's completely unscripted. And I vacillate between wanting to "protect" these people from themselves (lol) and just accepting that it's their own problem if they're naive, gullible or simply not discerning enough to know better (this usually wins out, lol).

I'm reminded of the Orson Welles broadcast of War of the Worlds back in the 30s. Now, my mom has told me that no one in her family - or her entire neighborhood, for that matter - took it even remotely seriously, knowing full well it was a fictional radio broadcast, much like most of the programs they listened to. But apparently there were a great deal of people who - for whatever odd reason (mass hypnosis? LMAO!!) - believed it to be real and behaved as irrationally as one might expect people in blind panic to behave. My mom said they were surprised when they discovered how many people believed it was "real."

And when a program states up front that it's "for entertainment purposes only", yet people still accept it as "real" (because they want to)...well, maybe that's a great argument for restricting television viewing for children anyway, lol.

(I only watch Most Haunted so I can see the architecture and decor of wherever it is they're going, so many of those places are just exquisite! As soon as they go to "night vision", I have no reason to watch any further, lol. But I have seen the whole show before and I can't imagine how anyone could take any of it seriously. I don't think they do themselves, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe I'm just reading into it.)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Isn't chess for people too stupid to play draughts? >:D

It may well be ( I can't play draughts for toffee). But I suspect it's really for people who can't play bridge because they have not two but three ( or possibly four) opponents at the table.

Always remember the maxim: Don't bid the grand slam unless you can count fourteen tricks in your head — fifteen if the oaf on the other side of the table is playing the hand. ;D

[chaggle]

Mulder,i would like to know more about your research.
Everything in fact-is that ok?

Hellloooooooo, is there anybody there?

I'm interested too!

[Trinoc]

Hellloooooooo, is there anybody there?

I'm interested too!
The truth is out there ... and Mulder is out there looking for it ...

[scroll33]

However, we don't want to find it out there,what with all that horrible subjectivity, anecdotes and misinterpretation. We need it to pop into the lab...several labs, and do so on a regular basis :) Perhaps one day it will overcome its attack of shyness...if there is in fact anything to find in the first place. 137 years of fraud, misinterpretation and unrepeatable results would suggest there's nothing but a lot of wishful thinking and fraud.

[Nasib]

137 years of fraud, misinterpretation and unrepeatable results would suggest there's nothing but a lot of wishful thinking and fraud.

What specific event is significant to the year 1872 that you seem to think marks the beginning of "fraud, misinterpretation and unrepeatable results" ?

[rainbows.]

Florence Cook?

[rainbows.]

Hellloooooooo, is there anybody there?

I'm interested too!

Found him yet?

[Nasib]

Originally Posted by scroll33 http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69299#post69299)
137 years of fraud, misinterpretation and unrepeatable results would suggest there's nothing but a lot of wishful thinking and fraud.


Well, the Spiritualist Association of Great Britain was founded in 1872, 137 years ago, but you'd need to go back a bit further to the supposed beginnings of modern mediumship, the Fox Sisters. Are you suggesting that fraud, etc, started with the SAGB?

[scroll33]

No I was just being conservative, of course we can include the Fox Sisters.

[Tony Williams]

It isn't the way that the subject is used for entertainment that I find irritating, so much as the fact that woo is generally presented by the news media as well as TV as if it were true.

[Mulder]

But I have seen the whole show before and I can't imagine how anyone could take any of it seriously. I don't think they do themselves, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe I'm just reading into it.)

Whether the presenters of these ghost hunting shows take them seriously, I've no idea. They certainly make money out of them! The shows are taken seriously by the hundreds of 'ghost hunting' groups who imitate it, and imagine they are doing worthwhile research.

Though there are now far more people 'researching' ghosts now than probably ever before, most of the 'work' done is of no scientific value whatever. I suspect that the number of people doing serious research has probably diminished, overall, since before the advent of these programmes, though that is just a guess based on talking to people.

Regarding my own research, a forum isn't really the place to discuss it, nor is it the point of this thread.

[chillzero]

Having seen Yvette Fielding interviewed a few times, I am firmly of the opinion she knows it is all bunk and is enjoying making a healthy living for herself from the misperceptions of believers that she has no intention of addressing.