|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4147
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 3:10 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
Look out this Halloween for the program 'Most Haunted' on LivingTV, where they will explore the East End on the trail of Jack the Ripper. It's a live show and on for 4 nights over Halloween.
Their regular psychic medium is as always Derec Acura (who according to several attempts can not seem to make up his mind aabout who the Ripper was anyway) - the man who takes a habit of being possessed by the spirits he contacts.
Now, let me make clear that I am a general believer in the paranormal, spirits and ghosts, but this show is just too much. Most Haunted is a disgrace and a slap in the face for anyone who seriously studies paranormal phenomenon. I've seen a couple of episodes (what on earth is Richard Jones doing in company with these people?) and it is terribly unscientific and goes against every serious method of studying the paranormal that exists.
1) In every show that I've seen, this is what they do: scared out of their wits (unless that is acted as well) they go into a house or down in a cellar that is haunted and then they place a table there and plays with a glass that they move with their fingers while they ask the spirit questions, using the glass as an indicator for response. Now, this old method - preferred by spiritualists of the Victorian age - is no longer used by serious scholars of the paranormal but only by teenagers who wants to have fun and play 'ouija board'. For God's sake - they are touching the glass themselves!
2) As mentioned earlier, it is Derec Acura who is the so called psychic medium in the group, but his role is totally redundant, since he receives too much information, gets influenced by the others' fears and screams and he hardly says or does anything. I think he is crap; I am a personal friend with Sweden's most famous psychic medium and he would never accept any of these conditions. A medium is not supposed to receive ANY kind of information, regardless if it's factual or emotional. Complete disaster!
3) Worst of all, who put the hysterical blonde woman as leader of the group? She is so terrified that she almost wets her knickers, faints and screams like a chicken. I have no idea what she's doing there, but probably her role is to stir up the viewers. Usually in paranormal programs, they are quite thorough with pointing out that the spirit are not any dangerous threats or anything sinister, but her it is like a they convinced of that they are facing demons and turning it into a silly spectacle. It is absolutely appaling and goes against modern philosophy regarding the paranormal.
As for using psychic mediums in very well-known classic cases like the Ripper, I find it useless and totally out of the question. Of course there are people out there in the field who knows nothing of the Ripper, but we can't know if they do or don't! And as I said, a medium is not allowed to receive any information or have any factual knowledge about the spirit they are contacting or the circumstances surrounding the death.
I will absolutely watch it, if nothing else for to experience a complete bogus charade and to see which silly theories they come up with. Wanna bet that theyll say that the murders had Royal connections?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Thanks Glenn,
I shall watch these episodes of Most Haunted with great intrest , Derec Acura is a medium held in high regard and i believe is sincere in his attempts to get a insight, he is not superhuman but i would never suggest he is a fraud, he simply relays what thoughts he is tuned in to.
I for one am excited that this is what I believe to be a genuine attempt to pick up infomation from the other side that may release clues to these murders although i am sure many of our regulars will dispute its authenticity.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Richard,
Believe me, there is nothing serious about the attempts made by Most Haunted. You will know why when you see it. The only thing they manage to create is not results, but unnecessary hysteria and giving paranormal investigations and mediums a bad name.
As for Acura, 'held in high regard'... that is not what I heard from those who knows the 'business', and I do have my contacts within that field and have myself been involved in those circuits for nearly ten years. And from what I've seen so far, I am not impressed. I haven't seen him on other occasions outside this show, but here he is not working under the conditions a medium is supposed to. If he was serious about what he is doing, he wouldn't participate under those circumstances.
So sorry, Richard, from the ridiculous nature of their other episodes, you won't find any answers in their quest for Jack the Ripper this time. Nor any 'genuine attempts'.
From a believer's point of view (as I am), it is very important to be critical and this show is absolute crap. Although hilarious. Look out for the annoying, screaming Yvette Fielding - well... in all honesty, you can't miss her...
So... regardless if one is a believer in the spiritual world or not, this is a must-see. Although for pure entertainment value only. Totally hysterical.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5162
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
As someone who has an open mind about psychic phenomena, I can see there might be some point in trying to establish contact with a victim, policeman etc. But not with Jack. Why would someone like that give his correct name and details?
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I have no idea how they are supposed to go about it, but the normal approach would be to come in contact with the victims, not the perpetrator, and let them reveal as much interesting information as possible. This is probably what they'll try to do, not necessarily contact Jack the Ripper himself.
Not that I think it makes much difference in the case of Most Haunted, though.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4151
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Philip,
I couldn't have said it better myself and I completely agree with all of it (maybe except for the "I don't believe they are dead people coming back to haunt us" part, although I am prepared to subscribe to the stone tape theory in some cases, even though it is not my favourite theory and it not really fits the credentials of all sightings).
I just didn't feel I had the authority to claim those things in the open as you did, which I however feel you can do thanks to your position in the Ghost Club.
Couldn't agree more, in other words, and it pretty much confirms what I've heard - and seen.
I get the feeling that the audience who for real enjoys and really believes in the show are people who likes to work themselves up, like as if they're watching a horror movie and have no real understanding of the concept of ghosts.
I'll still tune in, though, because I admit I curious about how much of a mess they'll do of it all. As far as I am concerned, Most Haunted is an excellent indicator on how you are NOT supposed to do a paranormal investigation. I just can't believe people are taking it seriously.
I agree, it's all for the cameras.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm a skeptic myself but I guess if I found myself in a "haunted house", I would turn into Mr. Chicken and be all big eyes and ears. I'm pretty sure my senses would suddenly become very acute.
I love watching these kinds of shows--I can't get enough of them. Halloween is my favorite holiday. Over here, we have a very entertaining show called Ghost Hunters which is a reality TV show about, well, ghost hunters. By day they're plumbers for Roter-Rooter, by night they try to document evidence for ghosts (what I like about the show is that they do a lot of debunking and particularly despise orbs), video, e.v.p. etc.
Personally, I find the idea of ghosts depressing. How bad would it suck to spend eternity hanging out in a house while some ghost hunter asks you thinks like, "Do you know who Robert E. Lee was?" or "Are you here?" Okay, now I will make the chair rock. Whooo. Next , I'll shut the door. Look at me shut the light off. Forever.
But it makes for entertaining television, even when they debunk hauntings. Believe it or not, their plumbing skills come in handy. And when they can't explain a haunting. . ."Dude, run!"
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5163
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Dave, Oliver Onions wrote a story about a poor ghost who had to spend a night in a human chamber.
I liked Shaw's line, that believing in heaven isn't conquering death, but refusing to die on any terms whatsoever.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4157
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
"I'm a skeptic myself but I guess if I found myself in a "haunted house", I would turn into Mr. Chicken and be all big eyes and ears. I'm pretty sure my senses would suddenly become very acute."
Yes, perhaps, but you are not a professional and professional psychic investigators and mediums knows that fear has no place in this context and that spirits generally are not dangerous.
And professionals do not play ouija board with a glass on a fold-out wooden table.
Based on the silly reactions from the people involved, watching Most Haunted is like watching a satire on Blairwitch Project - on speed. Although less realistic.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 804
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Glenn - don't you believe it. I veritably cack myself on a regular basis on investigations. Not literally, of course.
It is not when something happens I get scared. I find that sort of thing fascinating. It is being alone in an unfamiliar dark room where someone died and is supposed to haunt. With just one other person it's fine, but alone - and it is not something we do on investigations, it would just be to set up or collect equipment - I get terrified.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Oh, Most Haunted sounds like a bunch of hocus-pocus, but sometimes it's fun to watch (but I'm not a serious follower of the subject).
I'm definitely not a professional psychic investigator, whatever those qualifications are. I bet they do get scared though. Are you sure they're owning up? See, being Irish, I may have a different point of view than you. Perhaps your professional friends see ghosts as a perfectly natural phenomenon and therefore nothing to be feared. "So are tigers. So are sharks," any Irishman worth the name will tell you. I say let your professionals investigate a good old-fasioned Irish ghost. The Irish don't cotton to these modern concepts of spirits--orbs and electronic voice phenomenon. Read Elliott O'Donnell sometime (maybe you have)--in his stories, Irish ghosts kill people. A Banshee shows up, I guarantee you she doesn't care about being understood. Someone is going to die--tonight. Irish ghosts are not lost or confused, they're mad as hell and they're mad at you (the collective you, not the Swedish you). Perhaps you have such ghosts in Sweden.
While I am skeptical, ghosts are a fascinating topic.
Robert,
Oliver Onions--I like him already, just because of his name. I will have to check out his website.
Cheers,
Dave |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4161
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hutch,
"It is not when something happens I get scared. I find that sort of thing fascinating. It is being alone in an unfamiliar dark room where someone died and is supposed to haunt. With just one other person it's fine, but alone - and it is not something we do on investigations, it would just be to set up or collect equipment - I get terrified. "
I agree with that, but as you imply it is the dark and the loneliness that is chilling, not the actual spiritual responses as such?
As for me, I am terribly afraid of the dark, but I have seen two ghosts and they didn't scare me one bit.
In Most Haunted they jump to the ceiling and screams like hell just because one in the group asks what the time is. And when they finally get a 'reply' (hmmm) they panic and faints from pure agony (or appear to do so). That is not professional.
General belief in study of the paranormal today is that the forces themselves as such should not be feared. Being scared of the dark is something else.
Dave,
"Perhaps your professional friends see ghosts as a perfectly natural phenomenon and therefore nothing to be feared."
Exactly, and so do I. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing mystic about it all and most psychics subscribe to that feeling. If they were freaked out about the encounters they do, they would soon commit suicide. The things you see as normal doesn't scare you, and you would be in the wrong profession otherwise.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 16
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
Any 'believers of this sort of tosh would do well to see this page: Link
I recall that there are a couple of similar 'exposés' on the same site for that programme.
Ardent/casual 'believers' in the paranormal generally would do well to consider this one little word: proof 
Mike. |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 805
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Thanks for the link Mike. Exactly.
Dave - O'Donnell is the source for many of the ghost stories that have sprung up aound JTR. I have many 1st editions of his books (one of them signed) and am a fan of his work, but sadly O'Donnell was a great one for making the stories up and it is hard to tell what is real and what came from his head. There's one or two well-known names like that today, sadly.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Guys,
This is indeed fantastic news.
I have been waiting for Jack to come up on this show for years. After a brief appearance at London Dungeon he finally has his own show.
Don’t get me wrong, the shows subject matter is a load of tat but the entertainment.
Why?
Yvette always tells everyone to shut up and in doing so goes on herself, thus winding everybody up. Cue bitchy looks
Carl and Stewart are the best double act on TV. Their 3 Stoogies routine is a blast. Carl always feels a ‘little bit queer’ and Stewart always walks into some kind of scenery, getting smacked by an ‘unseen’ entity or getting smacked by Carl himself. The old ‘Hello, is there anybody there’ line is in abundance along with, ‘stop f*ckin about Stew’ and ends with the pair of them running out screaming like my youngest does once she sees a spider.
Dereks possessions are great too. Notice how they all have the same accent, even when they were in France?
But the best bit, and it always happens, is Cath getting ‘touched’ up by a ghost. Every time she gets a touch on her bum she spins around and casts an accusing look at the cameraman and just holds back from lamping him one. You check it out next time you watch. Every damn programme.
Most Haunted Party at my place !!
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Hi Philip,
Oh, I don't believe the stories (unless it's particularly dark and late at night). For example, I never bought into O'Donnell's story of the mummy at the Egyptian Museum. I only have one book of his, and he seems mainly to recount folklore and legend. Been awhile since I've read it--the cover terrifies me. I'm only there for the yarn anyway, so I don't mind. The one about the boy the ghosts take away . . . (shudder).
Cheers,
Dave
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4162
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Just one thing, Mike.
Although I agree on the objections on this particular program, I don't like your insinuations:
"Ardent/casual 'believers' in the paranormal generally would do well to consider this one little word: proof "
An advice, Mike: forget 'proof'. I don't believe in 'proving' the paranormal - regardless of which proof you deliver, you will always have people (usually from the so called scientific - read: narrow-minded - field and mostly big fans of James Randi), debunking and trying to shred it to pieces because they are biased in their own perceptions. No matter how convincing photos or movie files you manage to produce (which does not happen very often, though), they will always claim that they are fake. Most of them are, of course, but still...
It is totally pointless, which is why I give very little credence to paranormal investigations in general. They are interesting and can deliver some interesting information, combined with research, but they can't prove anything.
Either you believe in ghosts or you don't, and it usually takes personal experiences of your own to see the other side of the coin. And just because one is believer doesn't mean that one has to accept all ludicrous excercises as the ones that Most Haunted represent. There is alot of garbage out there, unfortunately, since many find the subject interesting. But that doesn't mean that believing in the paranormal is crap as such.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 18
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
I'm not saying that such belief is always "crap" and I'm not trying to accuse anyone of stupidity or worse (or to be a trolling influence on this thread). But I do distinguish between people who "believe in things" and they who "like to believe in things", regardless of whether the subject realises that and accepts it or not. And that's not through my arrogance or conceitedness (I reserve my fully-developed conceited arrogance for other matters !).
Certain kinds of folk have certain kinds of tendencies to be comforted/intrigued/scared by 'the paranormal' whereas no paranormal activity has ever been proved ever in any way ever, ever, ever by anybody. Such people can have their fun but, ultimately, in the cold light of the day, nothing has ever been shown to be true. Ever. By any one alive (or dead).
Mike. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 958
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
"you will always have people (usually from the so called scientific - read: narrow-minded - field and mostly big fans of James Randi"
That sounds suspiciously like "don't trust British Empiricism" to me...
James Randi has a lot of fans specifically because they think the other side is narrow minded and unscientific. You getting all bent out of shape and insulting the guy isn't really an argument in your favor. You'd think people who identify themselves as professional paranormalists would be welcoming people like Randi with open arms to weed out all the frauds making a mockery of their field.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
MTR
Certain kinds of folk have certain kinds of tendencies to be comforted/intrigued/scared by 'the paranormal' whereas no paranormal activity has ever been proved ever in any way ever, ever, ever by anybody. Such people can have their fun but, ultimately, in the cold light of the day, nothing has ever been shown to be true. Ever. By any one alive (or dead).
But that's not an objective fact, any more than anything from the other side.
What you mean is that you personally don't accept any claims that paranormal activity has been proven. That's different.
Chris Phillips
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
I'm not sure which elements of my statements are not objective facts - and who's version of 'objectivity' we're abiding by. Please tell me which paranormal activity has ever been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or with any degree of certainty (and by rational people).
I don't accept that evidence of paranormal activity (never mind proof) should be squinted at myopically - as they who drop their mental guard to acknowledge such things are wont to do.
Would we all not rather view such matters in the scientific daytime than in the dark of a pseudo-scientific night ? Surely we have a straight choice between Knowledge and Anti-Knowledge ?
Mike. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Mike
What you wrote was "no paranormal activity has ever been proved ever in any way ever, ever, ever by anybody".
You know (I hope) that experiments have been done that have produced results that are way outside any level of statistical significance used in mainstream science.
You may choose not to accept them, but I think it's because you find the idea unbelievable, not because you've looked into each of these experiments carefully and found evidence of fraud or collusion or whatever.
That's OK in a way, if you find the paranormal intrinisically unbelievable for some reason (though just at the moment I can't imagine what that reason might be).
But all that silly "ever in any way ever, ever, ever" stuff is just not true.
What you mean is that there are people who claim to have proved it, and do present the appearance of having proved it, but that you conclude from other considerations that they must be lying.
Chris Phillips
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
I'm very much in agreement with you  |
Dan L. Hollifield
Detective Sergeant
Username: Vila
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
If y'all will pardon my intruding into your thread... I thought all of you had valid points to make in this discussion so far, and feel that there will be more of value yet to come. But I think you're going to have to agree on some common ground in order to divert the impending flamewar that'll result from your minor disagreements as to the specifics here.
Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but it looks to me as if you're all arguing at cross purposes. You all seem to agree that there are both real psychic researchers and frauds.
That a lot of the better known frauds wind up on TV doing what I will charitably term "reconstructions" or "dramatic reinactments" because that sort of thing causes fewer viewers to change the channel out of boredom.
That real psy researchers occasionally get tarred with the same brush that gets used on the frauds, and the real researchers don't like that much. The frauds will welcome it, because being lumped in with the folks that *aren't* out to sell advert airtime makes the frauds seem more legitimate.
That Debunkers can sometimes do as much harm as good -- Good by pointing out the fakes when they find them, but harm when the viewer gets the impression that all psy reachers are either frauds or deluded.
And that the field does need the serious researchers far more than it needs the TV phonies. But no ammount of serious research is going to rid the world of the fakers while there is still a buck to be made off of the credulous.
To sum up, y'all seem to be saying that the fakes do a lot of harm to the subject, but they can sometimes bring new people to an interest in the field that can occasionally turn them into a serious researcher. And as long as you can avoid casting aspersions at each other in a pirranah-like frenzy of listing psychics and shouting "They're a fake" and "no, they're real" until everyone hates each other, you can drift back into some good debating and teach me a bit more about your interests.
Vila
"Extremely difficult. Virtually impossible... However, it should only take me ten minutes or so."
|
Alan Hunt
Police Constable
Username: Mews
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi all!
i started a thread about the programme on the television page but glad someone else has noticed this. I can only sumise that as the programme is on 4 nights this time they must be doing a victim a night with the sunday night for the double event!
what they will discover anyone can guess but i can assure you that the whole thing will take the usual route of:-
1.Derek Accorah will come out with a new suspect
2. He will then be "possessed" by the spirit of an "evil" person and throw himself about theatrically and hit at least two of the crew in the process
3.the presenter,yvette Fielding will repeatedly say "did anyone feel/hear/smell/see that?" in a high pitched squeel and then go off with the other girls so they they can scream together when yhe sloghtest noise is heard
4.either the sound man or cameraman will pass out because someones hands are around there throats
5.the cameraman,who is also the producer and married t ms Fielding, will go off down a dark alley/corridor/basement/room and get touched up by a supernatural pervert!
6.the other psychic, whose name escapes me,will no doubt contact a victim and feel empathy with her, being ever so slightly etheminat himself
7. the studio presenter,David Bull (a doctor of god knows what) will try and dramatise every little sound or movement before assuming a pouting look reminicent of victoria Beckham, before going to there internet expert who can only be described as Yoda's older brother!
all this is pnly slightly lightened by the resident expert who has been known to debunk some of the so called people mentioned by Accorah. What with this and the floating dust particles present in every dry,old place they have visited or as they call them "Orbs" you can be assured of a lively but flawed piece of tv Entertainment and that is all it is! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
We all seem to be prejudging here, I have some obvious doubts about Ghosts and contacts with the spirit world , however personally speaking [ and that is only one can do] i have had several unexplained happenings in my life, as many of you proberly also and a open mind is advised.
The most Haunted team I Believe try there best to portray ghostly activity with sincerity, but they have had limited success, however these programmes over Halloween offers them at least a chance to tune into a possible victim or suspect and it is just possible that something positive may derive from it.
We cannot dismiss the after world because no living mortal can reflect on what happens next...
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5166
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
The thing is that IF, emphasis IF, there is "the other side" and it can communicate with us, then there is a risk of ending up with some supernatural Arfa Kidney wasting everyone's time.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4164
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Vila,
Very good post! No further comments necessary.
Alan Hunt,
An extremely good summary of Most Haunted's approach. That is approximately what I expect from them in this case as in any other.
Richard,
No offense, but don't be so terribly naive about Most Haunted. At least for once try and be critical for a change and pick up facts and arguments from people like Philip, who have more experience in the field than you have.
'Prejudging'... Have you ever seen the show yourself? Have you an idea at all about how paranormal investigations are supposed to be done? I have seen several episodes and their approach is horrendous and ridiculous.
The fan club of the show contains of people who likes to get stirred up and excited in a silly way, like from seeing a horror movie; not anyone with real serious interest in the paranormal can take their embarrasing stuff seriously. It is all for the cameras - period!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Alan Hunt
Police Constable
Username: Mews
Post Number: 8
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Thanks Glenn
i caught another episode of the Supernatural soap tonight and it went exactly as i said! the halloween one will be interesting as on a previous show at the London Dungeon mr Accorah came up with information in the JTR part of the dungeon that there was two murderers and one of them was tried in St.Georges Hall Liverpool (a touch of diary fever there) alhough he is not supposed to have had any previous knowledge of where he is it seems funny that when he mentioned the ripper he came up with the Liverpool connection-well not really seeing as he is a liverpudlian-or scouser-and was in fact a proffesional footballer with Liverpool F.C. before he changed his name to Accorah.
So we will have to wait and see what delights he comes up with on his swansong as it his last live most Haunted! theres a website called most haunted exposed which has a lot of mistakes and exposes the cheats from the show!
cheers all and sleep tight!
Alan |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Naive mayby?,
However I am still convinced if there is a after life/ spirits etc, that if a genuine Medium stood on the sites of these murders with genuine intentions it is not without possibility that certain vibes could be hit on, the question is will Most Haunted be adapt to fulfill that hope.
I assume you decide No.
Lets just enjoy or ridicule the programmes when they are aired.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3099
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Oh well its Friday tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!
12 hours to go eh!!!!! Hmmmmmmm
Suzi |
Pete Wolfe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
I have to say I was a real devotee for Most Haunted when it began. But over the period of the last few years doubts began to creep into my mind. Yvette and Karl in particular seemed a little melodramatic. Hardly surprising perhaps when you find out that Karl's production company produce the show and they both get a small fortune for every episode. Soundmen fainting, people being possessed, people being pushed and pulled. Funny how Yvette is always the first to hear moans and groans which are not audible to the camera and how others then follow suite and have heard it too. Funny how Karl always seems to faint or fall over. Funny how glasses fly off the table and smash when the camera isn’t on them. Funny how the live shows always seem to end with something dramatic happening and yet 5 minutes later when the webcam show comes on, they’re all gone. Funny how spirits always seem to communicate by knocking on an area where nobody can quite reach to verify. Why not a table or a door where the man with the boom can reach and we can see as the noised happen.
All these dramatic events happen within the space of one evening, yet in real life there may be one or two reported sightings over a long period of time.
I was interested to read about how Ciran O'Keefe discredited Derek by making up a story of a South African jailer named Kreed Kaifer (rearrange the letters to spell Derek Faker) and then made sure some of the crew then spoke about it within earshot of Derek (it was the Bodmin Jail episode). Derek then supposedly contacted this man and spoke with him.
There was also an episode from Scottish Castle when Ciran leaked that Richard the Lionheart had stayed there, even though he hadn't. Derek, true to form, in his usual dramatic flair, revealed that Richard the Lionheart had stayed in a particular room in the castle.
After reading and digesting a lot of material published on the internet, I would encourage people to be sceptical. Read around the subject and do your own homework before believing/disbelieving these people and this show. At the forefront of it all, remember that the people who do it are getting paid to do it, knowing that there are millions of people out there who want to believe. Genuine paranormal investigators or cheap charlatans who use modern technology to fool thousands and make money? You decide. |
Edokun
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Just my thoughts on the whole MH scheme. From season one, Derek is a circus act and I can never take him seriously. IIRC, he said a medium can only be possessed if he willingly allows it. If one believes in Derek's possessions, this guy has no will. He gets possessed far too easily! Even then, no psyche can handle being possessed that often and also in being inside a haunted location (on a weekly or periodic basis) without taking some irreversable damage. And that includes the rest of the 'investigative team."
Dead Famous, on the other hand, had the hostess emotionally damaged and on the brink of suicide. And she wasn't possessed. Ghost Hunters have it differently. The team almost regularly diss their other mates. I'm more inclinded to believe the evidence found on these shows more than with what MH tries to present. |
Lee McLoughlin
Police Constable
Username: Lee
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 3:06 am: |
|
Hi all,
I caught a moment when they were showing the "best" parts of the JTR special shows. Am I right in thinking that that "pyshic" said that a Doctor killed 5, James Maybrick killed more and a man called Walter was also involved? If I REALLY did hear that then I think we can safely say that the shows presenters kept all their options very open and have been reading some very popular but not very convincing theories.
Lee |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 840
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Lee - have you REALLY been registered for 2 years and this is your first post???
And to have thrown that special moment away on such a rubbish joke of a programme..!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Lee McLoughlin
Police Constable
Username: Lee
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi Philip,
I have posted around 100 messaages but haven't posted throughout the last year to 18 months. Maybe there has been some upgrade which wiped out all my other posts???
BTW, Did I hear correctly what that Derrick bloke said? |
Lee McLoughlin
Police Constable
Username: Lee
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
SO does ANYBODY know what Derek said...... |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
I have it taped but cant get to a vedeo until Saturday.
Can any one confirm. Did Derek say Maybrick?
Or is someone winding me up.
Jeff |
Lee McLoughlin
Police Constable
Username: Lee
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Jeff,
Derek did say Maybrick but I am convinced that I also heard him say in the same sentence "A Doctor killed 5, Maybrick killed 4" He also linked a man named Walter to the case. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Better get my sister to check tonight I dont beleive it.
Jeff |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
I hope he sin't stealing my Sickert, Maybrick Williams alliance theory lol!
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 794
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
I was told last night the "solution" was Maybrick and Pedachenko in tandem. Really.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
At least we can safely leave Sickert out of this.
very very odd though. I need to check the tapes and see exactly what was said.
Perhaps we're just miss interpreting what is being said...
Maybrick Smraybrick....never work with animals, children and ripperologists.
Jeff |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 842
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Hi folks. I spoke to Richard Jones this afternoon and he confirmed the names that were mentioned were Maybrick and Pedachenko.
I know Maybrick is an obvious one but why, you may be asking, go for an obscure choice such as Pedachenko?
Well, I think I might have worked out the answer.
One of the Ripper books that deals largely with some (possibly fictional) ghost stories is Peter Underwood's 'ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF MYSTERY' (1987) and the name he cites in that book as being the suspect favoured by most Ripperologists is none other than Dr Alexander Pedachenko.
Hmm... maybe someone was doing some reading before the show? Just a thought.
PHILIP
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Why would he chose to read the book of noted ghost hunter Peter Underwood?
Philip, Philip,
I don't know what you mean!!
yo
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 797
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
the name he cites in that book as being the suspect favoured by most Ripperologists is none other than Dr Alexander Pedachenko.
I would think that Peter Underwood might have a good case if he sued his researcher for incompetence.
Don.
PS: Yo!
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3075
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
dont tempt things Don
Jenni
ps why do you keep saying yo?!!
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 799
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Jenni,
ps why do you keep saying yo?!!
I dunno -- maybe I've been watching too many "Gomer Pyle" reruns.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 851
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Don - my opinions on Underwood are not a secret and are not solitary either.
Jenni - I think I'd previewed the message and then added some more which pushed my name off the bottom of the box so I did it again, forgetting what I was doing was an extension of the original posting.
PHILIP
PHILIP
PHILIP
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 800
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Philip,
I had no problem with you on this issue. I was only suggesting that if Underwood actually believed Pedachenko was the suspect most favored by Ripperologists [is he favored by any?] either his research or that of whomever he hired as a researcher was negligent to the point of incompetence.
As it is, your surmise as to how Pedachenko popped up in the show seems sensible. Perhaps Derek needs a rap on the shnozz so that we may "strike a happy medium."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Philip Beleive it or not the idea that psychics would not be able to use the internet is somewhat strange.
He obviously looked it up on casebook..went into Maybrickland read John, Allys, jenni's and caz's posts and thought how can i have I real laugh.
Honest thats just how it happens..
I will check the tapes over the weekend.
Jeff |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 854
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Yo Don.
The banging the head against the wall was nothing to do with yo, and I hadn't taken any offence in any way whatsoever from your posting... sorry if the reply has struck yo in any way as being like that.
I don't think Underwood has a researcher. He accrues the stories himself, with a fair dollop of creation which as time goes on finds itself in the mainstream with no primary or even secondary source material to support it. I know of more than one famous case where the tales - supposedly ancient - have been traced back to originating from him. Unfortunately, as he is so high-profile, he is seen as sacrosanct but I judge him both professionally and personally as not worthy of serious study. I was brought up on his stories and was very disappointed to learn the truth about him.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
