Ghost Hunters for a ninth season (Addition: You see me angry)

Ghost Hunters Renewed for a Ninth Season | Ghost TV Blogs.

Sixteen new episodes to premiere starting January 16, 2013.

Fans can look forward to seeing more technology with the latest innovations in ghost hunting equipment and techniques in season 9.

Aw for chrissake, give it up already!!  This show is crap.

Seriously, I would like to know what self-respecting paranormal investigation group thinks this show is worthwhile? It is edited to death, they have been accused of faking results, their methods are ASTOUNDINGLY scientifical/unscientific and it’s even been parodied on South Park. How much more can you milk out of it? It’s RIDICULOUS!


Ah… perhaps that is the draw.

Addition: There is this release from SyFy which does make me want to gag:

In Season 9, fans can look forward to seeing the TAPS (The Atlantic Paranormal Society) team’s latest innovations in ghost hunting equipment and techniques, as they use more technology than ever before to capture evidence of paranormal activity. TAPS – led by Jason Hawes – will investigate new, high-profile locations across the country, while continuing its mission of helping families in need of assistance from the Ghost Hunters.

Families in need of assistance? That’s despicable. The hubris of these people! What do they think they are, some superheros? NINE YEARS and we are no closer to discovering anything new about “ghosts” or even defining what they even are! Disgusting. I’m going to stop now or you may see me swear. Shame on you SyFy.

  9 comments for “Ghost Hunters for a ninth season (Addition: You see me angry)

  1. Jim Price
    November 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM

    As long as the goose continues to lay golden eggs, they will continue the show. There are a whole lot of people who believe this crap is true.

  2. November 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    Nine years of not finding ghosts while doing a bad imitation of Scooby Doo – my opinion of the general public knows no bottom.

  3. Rand
    November 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    Well, this show *is* on the syfy channel. That actually used to be called the sci-fi channel (for science fiction). I can accept a channel devoted to unrealistic fiction having an unrealistic fictional show like ghost hunters on it. The one’s I have more of a problem with are History Channel and, well, anything on any channel of the Discovery network nowdays. Aliens In Ancient Egypt (and the like) is not about history, it’s about bulls***, and if they’re gonna play that crap, they should rename their channel the Bulls*** Channel. while we’re at it, MTV should have changed their name 20 years ago when they ceased to have anything to do with music. Their channel names are all misleading nowdays.

  4. November 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

    I’m thinking people don’t really make that connection. MANY MANY MANY people believe what they are doing is real and valid. SyFy’s promotion of the them as legitimate and “helping people” is what really riles me.

    People REALLY DO believe this stuff. (Hence, this website exists)

  5. RayG
    November 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    No worse than “Bio” and it’s collection of oogy boogy ghostie shows. But at least their orbs are now “Caught on Camera!”. It wasn’t even worth discussing that show until the “Caught on Camera” label was added! Now their pareidolia can by PROVEN!

  6. WMccreery
    November 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    I consider my self a skeptic but I had an encounter that still baffles me. I dont know how to classify it, but I am leaning tyowards a supernatural explanation. If I cant trust my senses or intellect what do I trust?

  7. One Eyed Jack
    November 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM

    There is an innate problem with explaining anything by supernatural means. A supernatural explanation explains nothing. It’s sort of like saying “goddidit” and stopping.

    If it is real, whether we know the explanation or not, it’s not supernatural. If it exists, it’s natural.

  8. Chew
    November 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM

    Trust only replicated data.

  9. Rand
    November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

    Well, I guess when they make it look like it was done with a low-quality hand-cam and actors who can’t act, people suddenly think it must be real for some reason. I seem to recall a lot of people thought that “the Blair Witch Project” was real as well.

    Why is it that low-quality film seems “real” while high quality film seems “fake”? Are there any studies on the inverse relationship between a films production quality and it’s realism?

Comments are closed.