Most Haunted UK

Hi,

What are peoples opinions on this popular UK television show and any comments on any of the personalities on the show. I can find it quite gripping at times, I especially found it gripping when the team went into Holly Bush, and then one by one, 4 team members started to suffocate. I think that was very compelling evidence that something paranormal was indeed transpiring, given that this place is where people use to be hanged in the past?

As for the skeptic on the show, I don't recall his name(Matthew?), but it seems clear enough to me, that he will never change his skeptical views, no matter what transpires in the live investigations. Even, when something "paranormal" does occur, that he admits he cannot explain, he will still defend his position and purport, while he cannot explain it, it does not mean there is not a rational explanation. An explanation that there could be an explanation. That is a cop out, for sure.

My views on Derek Akkora have changed. I use to think he was acting, but now I am more inclined to believe he is genuine.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Indigo_Child]

I donno,,, Exactly what you said acting..

I dont know if TV over in the UK is diffrent than american TV, but I downloaded and watched I guess most of the episodes from some girl over there...

The guy seems to be convincing.. the one guy wit a guild called Sam.. but the rest, they seem to be showing up for the camera, altho I did learn some history about the UK i didnt know before, thats always a good thing...

But i am still out on the show cause I am not sure if its acted Bull# like American TV or if they actually do this for real.

Scheduled shows that expect to reveal hauntings and such are on an entertainment level with the WWE Wrestling - it's fun to watch, great entertainment, and about as real and valid as the ravings of a drunken madman.

It's handy as a resource for researching haunted locations, but I pay no heed to it's results having seen too many charlatans make a quick buck off the same sort of thing elsewhere.

And until I can haul my carcass (and get tickets to) one of the Most Haunted Live shows, my views are likely to remain as such.

Yeah, I can understand why you would think it is acting, even I sometimes can suspect that they are probably playing up to the camera(not acting per se) or perhaps the atmosphere is affecting their psychology and they think are thinking they are hearing or seeing things. Ivette especially has a tendency to jump and scream at the slightest noise.

Otherwise, I don't think it is acting(it is suppose to be a live investigation) as it happens live and is supervised by a scientific team and monitored with scientific equipment, sometimes an audience member joins the team. The reactions are quite natural as well.

The hard evidence is when they do their Seances and Ouiji board experiments, and when Derek is able to gives names that can be corroborated by professional historians on the show. It may not be incontrovertible evidence, but it is quite compelling indeed.

Recently, and thank god Kiran(the skeptic parapsychologist) introduced a new control in the Ouji board experiment(incidentally, I was just thinking of contacting them with this experiment) by blindfolding them so they cannot see the letters on the board. Unfortunately, the experiment did not go very well and was rather inconclusive, and Derek attributed this to a mischevious spirit.

What was interesting however, when they asked for the first initial of the spirits name, the glass ended between G and H. When they asked it further, the glass kept on ending at "No" and then "Good bye" When they asked it to stop playing with them, and give it's name. It again ended between G and H.

Now bear in mind that they are blindfolded, that is actually quite interesting. If they could have gone the whole 9 yards and spelled the name of this supposed spirit, it would have been very hard evidence for the paranormal.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The hard evidence is when they do their Seances and Ouiji board experiments, and when Derek is able to gives names that can be corroborated by professional historians on the show. It may not be incontrovertible evidence, but it is quite compelling indeed.

But how do we know this just isnt some gay crap that they due offstage, tell him some crap about the place.. and then he says it on the show...

But i am just going on a sceptic view...............

The guy Derek tho, he was supposivly doing that stuff before the show ever started?? right???

So I wonder of he would be real or not.. I am not sure.. like I said in before post, I dont know if UK tv is as crapped out as rigged american TV.

[edit on 5/9/2005 by ThichHeaded]

But how do we know this just isnt some gay crap that they due offstage, tell him some crap about the place.. and then he says it on the show...

Yeah, that is the unanswered question, that does not quite let me make the leap of faith in Derek. However, it would appear that is unlikely, unless we bring into question the integrity of the entire show, which seems quite authentic and professional.

Derek is actually quite an accomplished medium and does live mediumships on tour around UK. So, he's not just some guy off the street. However, that still does not rule out the possibility of researching about locations beforehand. Really, that is the only other possibility. He's either a fraud or he's genuine.

The question is how easy is it for him to get all this information he gives? According to the professional historians on the show, some of the information he gives is very difficult to find, even for a historian. What further lends some credence to him, is sometimes the information he provides is not even corroborated by historians. There have also been times where it has not been corroborated by historians, but later corroborated by a viewer calling in.

So I wonder of he would be real or not.. I am not sure.. like I said in before post, I dont know if UK tv is as crapped out as rigged american TV.

I could not really say for certain, but generally UK television is not as rigged or unrealistic as US television. The Most Haunted show in particular is quite credible.

With good information gathering (at a level that any half baked TV should be able to provide, let alone something like Most Haunted) a Seance would be easy to rig, an ouija board would be a more difficult to rig, but not impossible, even with blindfolds.

(Again I'm coloring myself a skeptic here - but having previously looked into how they can be rigged I find the 'entertainment' industry might be too biased to pass up on such things).

Yeah, Nocturne, anything on television can be rigged, I think we as a viewer or audience member, would have to exercise some faith in the credibility of the investigators or the monitors or skeptics.

Now, I think at the very least I do have faith in the Most Haunted team and show. For many reasons:

1. There are professional psychologists and historians involved
2. There is professional and expensive equipment involved
3. There are skeptics involved, who have very high standards of evidence
4. It has been running for more than a year now, and there is still no hard evidence, just some scattered about anamolos events.

What in your opinion should they do, that you will accept as good evidence as someone watching from afar?

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Sounds like an interesting show. I wish we could get it here.
Anyone (from America) know if it is on TV here? Like on SciFi
or anything??

I beleive in ghosts but i'm a skeptic about the show...

That guy with the ear-ring (Derek I think) once said a name on a show that was actually made up by some mischevious crew member earlier in the day.

The crew-member said a name and some other stuff within ear-shot of him on purpose and he brought up the name for the building with a whole long story.

Also, what I find hilarious is the way Eyvette challenges the ghosts to make noises or do something and then she *poops* her pants and runs away screaming in hysterics...Imagine like Jeff Irwin the crocodile hunter spending his shows looking for snakes and crocs and then when he finds one, runs away screaming!
What Im getting at, is they should get someone with a little more "sack", it always looks like the Blair-Witch project as the cameraman follows a scared and bewildered Ghost-hunter thats afraid of ghosts...

It always starts with "if you are here please make a noise" then there would be a noise and they would all be like what was that-what was that?" and then they'd say, "if that was you please make another noise" which then repeats and REPEATS.
More conclusive experiements would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1. There are professional psychologists and historians involved

These could easilly be counter productive, providing the host with information before the cameras roll (or possibly even during filming) on the history and legends of the site, and the psychological make up of those with him.

2. There is professional and expensive equipment involved

again, more equipment makes a rigging something MUCH easier.

3. There are skeptics involved, who have very high standards of evidence

granted this one bodes well for credibility.

4. It has been running for more than a year now, and there is still no hard evidence, just some scattered about anamolos events.

A TV show will only continue running if it gets good viewing figures, a long lived show, is only evidence of good ratings.

What in your opinion should they do, that you will accept as good evidence as someone watching from afar?

Less gear would be a start.
Reducing the amount of information available to the host would be good, as would reducing the time available to him for assimilating that information.
Ensuring that the 'Experts' (Historians / psychologists etc) don't get anywhere near the show until AFTER the live segment has been filmed.

I think we can basically surmise that there needs to be a more conclusive experiment. Yeah Zenem, Ivette does do what you say, and it quite hilarious at times. However, if I was in the same circumstances, I think I would be scared as well. Naturally, calling out for a ghost, and then hearing a sudden sound, would make you flinch at the very least.

I think what we need is a double blind experiment. That is when neither the presenters or the team know where they are going. The location is chosen at random from hundreds if not thousands of possible locations, and the team is taken in blindfolded. If Derek could still gave verifiable names, that would definitely make it more likely he is genuine.

Nocturne, taking away the gear, will mean taking away controls. If the equipment records strange activity, where the team are experiencing strange activity, it corroborates it. Often, the thermal imaging camera is used to corroborate claims of changes in temperature. This adds to the investigation, rather than detracts from it.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Indigo_Child]

They have the basic gear on display for recording thier findings and the various guages for displaying some recordable evidence of the phenomenon they are looking for, BUT there's a LOT of other kit that goes with recording, producing, and broadcasting a live show, and they could strip down a HELL of a lot of that stuff without affecting the site or the investigation at all.

Have to admit this is one programme that I realy never liked but after watching it a few times I started to like it more and more. Some of the things I've seen on their have change the way I think about some stuff and Derek Akkora is a great guy. another thing is you have to watch it at 3am in the morning and in the dark scare the hell out of ya.