Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Guest
Topic RSS
Offline
I would guess that her Crohn's Disease was part of it. That may not be the entire story – but it seems that Donna supported it at the time. She may have done that out of some contractual obligation, but she did at the very least participate in perpetuating the story that she left GHI because of Crohn's Disease. Is she now saying that isn't the case? I must have missed that part of the interview, too. I need to pay closer attention….
Offline
Okay – I know this is a thread about Donna and her revelations on the GhostDivas – but I had a thought as I was considering all of this. Since thoughts come so rarely to me, I figured I'd better get it out before it died of loneliness.
Here has been my personal experience with Jason Hawes. The man has always been forthcoming with me. When I've had difficult questions about controversial topics he has always been available for commentary. He's always answered me personally and followed up exactly as I needed. Frankly, the guy could have totally ignored me every time and didn't. I don't need to go through layers of PR people who are there to protect his image. Since it appears to me that both Jason and Grant do have somewhat of an "image problem" as they call it in the biz, I sort of believe that it speaks volumes that he answers me personally and doesn't hide behind PR people or a manager. I've seen him respond personally to some of his most vocal critics – as he did in Ron Tebo's blog that Heidi linked to today.
This may be a naive viewpoint, but to me that speaks to some level of integrity. No one is "managing his image". He appears to be a regular guy who has done pretty darn well for himself. Consider for a moment – just stop and consider – what if all of the allegations that he is a bully and a fake are flat out wrong and this guy is the salt of the earth? I know if I was in his shoes, I'd hope for the benefit of the doubt.
I can only speak to Jason, because I've had no communication with Grant, but he doesn't appear to hide behind PR people either.
Trust me – I've tried to gain access to enough paranormal "celebs" for interviews that I know this. Many hide behind layers of managers, agents and PR people and can't be bothered to respond to the paranormal media at all. Their images are carefully managed. If I were terribly suspicious (which I am not), I'd be much more inclined to wonder about those whose images are carefully managed.
But then, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until it is proven to me that they don''t deserve it.
Just a thought. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
Offline
But then, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until it is proven to me that they don''t deserve it.
what about Donna? has she proven that she doesnt deserve the benefit of the doubt?
as i said earlier, we'll all take what we've seen and make our own
conclusion on who we chose to believe /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> . you have your reasons
for trusting Jason, and I have mine for not trusting him.
Offline
what about Donna? has she proven that she doesnt deserve the benefit of the doubt?
as i said earlier, we'll all take what we've seen and make our own
conclusion on who we chose to believe
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> . you have your reasons
for trusting Jason, and I have mine for not trusting him.
I'm happy when people can accept that others have differing viewpoints. The issue that gets to me is when people say that other people who believe differently than they do (in this case when people say they don't believe Jason and Grant themselves are fake) are stupid, blind, or a kool aid drinker.
Offline
Donna coming forward is not really a surprise to me. I mean I had always thought that GH was faked, and after last years Halloween fiasco that sealed the deal on it. Now with Donna stepping forwards on this also, I mean what else is there to say about it? Donna is well liked, both when she was on the show and even now when she is off it. You can tell in her voice that she is speaking truthfully about the mysterious 'editing' that takes place and the fact that she cried about it for 3 days or whatever after she found out the truth. You could also tell that she couldnt exactly outright say "Yup GH is totally faked" because of the confidential agreements that she has signed etc. The way that she said it told the world what many of us already know about GH, but she was smart to say it in a way that tells the world "Yes they are fake" without actually incriminating herself in some kind of breach of contract.
I bet she has been wanting to get this off her chest for a long time now. Good for her! Bad for GH.
Anyways, I am always surprised when I meet a solid believer in GH these days. Chances are they havent seen all the episodes and the proof thats out there against GH now.
Offline
Oh just to answer an earlier posts question- it was announced on the show that the reason Donna left was her Chrones disease not allowing for her to be able to travel easily.
I think that while some of the proof against GH is not really backed up with hard evidence, there are certainly examples of actual 'HARD EVIDENCE' that they have faked before. The most damning evidence in my eyes was the EVP on Halloween last year where the guest host said he could hear it clear and loud coming through his earpiece, and you could hear the director telling him to shut up about it on camera.
The collar tug – while there is no hard evidence on this one- it looks to be very rigged, and if it looks that way it more than likely is.
The hangers – when the flying hangers happened again no hard evidence, but the sheer lack of surprise, not jumping up from the sofa etc. says guilty all over it.
A piece of hard evidence I saw in one of the early episodes at the Manson murders was of a thermal recording that had obviously been edited. The time dates on the FLIR were off completely proving that it had been edited in fake. Not to mention they edited that episode after to correct the error.
Now with people coming forward, I truly believe this is just the beginning of people stepping out on GH. I think in the months to come we will see more people coming out with this kind of information until we finally get a real whistle blower. A real whistle blower may not happen until the show is done recording or off the air due to legal agreements- I dont know.
—————————-
I am not saying its all faked, just that a lot of it is. I look at GH more of as a show like wrestling: most people know its fake, yet a lot of fans watch it anyways for entertainment value.
Offline
This whole GH trustworthy issue seems to back up the old saying that when you run with wolves
don't fall down! Personally I feel that if J and G weren't trustworthy then DC would have never been there in
the first place. DC signed onto a project, perpetuated it's existence sang it's praises and then decided to recant
and rebuke something she helped to create? Sounds too much like sour grapes to me. As to the ability to prove
wrong doing on the J and G end of this story. Good luck with that. You can watch all of the episodes a million times
and it will never prove or disprove anything. Once the editors of there footage have created an episode for airing
those guys have no control whatsoever over what is aired. It's like a bullet once it leaves the barrell it's just gone!
Personally I don't believe either one of these men would fake anything. Just remember the owners of the network
are not TAPS members. I will tell you that a network will do anything, it has to do, to boost ratings and advertising
income. I've said enough here. People will garner there take on this issue and never lose a minutes sleep over whether
they were right or wrong.
Okay – I know this is a thread about Donna and her revelations on the GhostDivas – but I had a thought as I was considering all of this. Since thoughts come so rarely to me, I figured I'd better get it out before it died of loneliness.
Here has been my personal experience with Jason Hawes. The man has always been forthcoming with me. When I've had difficult questions about controversial topics he has always been available for commentary. He's always answered me personally and followed up exactly as I needed. Frankly, the guy could have totally ignored me every time and didn't. I don't need to go through layers of PR people who are there to protect his image. Since it appears to me that both Jason and Grant do have somewhat of an "image problem" as they call it in the biz, I sort of believe that it speaks volumes that he answers me personally and doesn't hide behind PR people or a manager. I've seen him respond personally to some of his most vocal critics – as he did in Ron Tebo's blog that Heidi linked to today.
This may be a naive viewpoint, but to me that speaks to some level of integrity. No one is "managing his image". He appears to be a regular guy who has done pretty darn well for himself. Consider for a moment – just stop and consider – what if all of the allegations that he is a bully and a fake are flat out wrong and this guy is the salt of the earth? I know if I was in his shoes, I'd hope for the benefit of the doubt.
I can only speak to Jason, because I've had no communication with Grant, but he doesn't appear to hide behind PR people either.
Trust me – I've tried to gain access to enough paranormal "celebs" for interviews that I know this. Many hide behind layers of managers, agents and PR people and can't be bothered to respond to the paranormal media at all. Their images are carefully managed. If I were terribly suspicious (which I am not), I'd be much more inclined to wonder about those whose images are carefully managed.
But then, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until it is proven to me that they don''t deserve it.
Just a thought. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
You know what people who survived Ted Bundy's attacks said about him? "He was so NICE. So charming. I liked him and trusted him."
Bundy even worked a suicide hotline.
John Gacy was a clown at kid's parties.
While I am NOT insinuating that Jason is a murderer, he DOES have an agenda – to get you to believe him, so he can continue to hock the "truth" about GH, and sell tickets to conventions and his motel.
Being "nice" and "open" says nothing in my book. Of course these people are going to try to win you over.
Donna also has an agenda. It's important to her that people believe her.
I know you'd love a big interview for your magazine, but if you really want the truth, I believe you're looking in the wrong direction.
Keith Johnson has said that he never saw anything staged. But, you know what? He very subtly made his opinion known yesterday when he posted on the skiffy bboard and bumped an old thread, saying he liked Donna. He did it the classy, non-dramatic way. If he did not believe her, he would not have done that. This, more than anything Jason or Donna ever said, speaks volumes to me.
If you really want to truth, I would suggest, instead of talking to those with agendas, interview those who have nothing to gain but who know the scoop and who would speak "off the record." TAPS members. Friends. Production members. That's what I did, right after I joined skiffy. Granted, finding out the answer didn't make ME more credible, and you run the risk that no one will believe you, but I think you'll get farther. Just be leery of those with agendas.
And, while there's often more than one side of the story, there isn't when it comes to faking. Either they do, or they do not.
Offline
I wasn't saying that Donna is lying. I am saying that we can really not know the truth of the situation – period. So I choose to stay unbiased. It has nothing to do with trying to "score" a big interview or anything else. We get big interviews regularly. If I was trying to score a big interview, I certainly wouldn't be putting this commentary here in our forum where I doubt that any of the "paranormal glitterati" come or are even aware of.
I know that if I was in either person's situation – Donna's or J&G's, I would hope that people would give me the benefit of the doubt. From either end. As I say, truth sometimes winds up being in the eye of the beholder, and as far as we know the truth of Donna's story (which I am certain she believes 100%) is somewhere in between her truth and the truth of J&G's story (which I am certain that they believe 100%.)
I don't need people to be right or wrong, and I don't need the world to be black or white. So much stuff happens in the world that we don't see in the middle of a one hour TV show or that isn't parlayed in a podcast interview that we can't know. All we can know is how we choose to interpret things. We bring to that our own agendas, our own belief systems, our own biases. I simply am treating others as I would like to be treated. If I put myself in each "side's" shoes, how would I like to be treated?
We don't know the truth. You may think you know, but unless you were privy to every moment between these two groups, you can't know the truth.
Offline
I know that if I was in either person's situation – Donna's or J&G's, I would hope that people would give me the benefit of the doubt. From either end. As I say, truth sometimes winds up being in the eye of the beholder, and as far as we know the truth of Donna's story (which I am certain she believes 100%) is somewhere in between her truth and the truth of J&G's story (which I am certain that they believe 100%.)
but again, as far as faking goes there can be no middle ground…
either you fake or you dont. not saying fake all the time, but even
if it was just one time, that's faking. so either they have faked or
they havent. there is no in between on this subject /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' />
but again, as far as faking goes there can be no middle ground…
either you fake or you dont. not saying fake all the time, but even
if it was just one time, that's faking. so either they have faked or
they havent. there is no in between on this subject
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' />
Thank you, Heidi.
And that's my point. This issue is black and white.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt and realizing so many things out there are only a matter of opinion, but this is simply not one of them. Either they have faked something, or they have not.
Karen – no offense – but I think you prefer the fence and life in the middle of the seesaw. That's why you feel as if you have very few answers. But -some things are "knowable."
Offline
but again, as far as faking goes there can be no middle ground…
either you fake or you dont. not saying fake all the time, but even
if it was just one time, that's faking. so either they have faked or
they havent. there is no in between on this subject
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' />
See I disagree. I think there is an in between. Or a few. Creative editing. Pilgrim faking. That type of thing. We can't know. Plus – Donna didn't say that TAPS fakes. She hinted at the fact that there had been some manufactured evidence. Not really a subtle hint, but she didn't directly say, "yes – TAPS and Jason and Grant fake their evidence."
Occam's razor suggests that we make as few assumptions as possible. Does this apply only to science and not to human interaction, as well? And yet, I see assumption upon assumption in this discussion.
Just so you all know, even if you totally took TAPS out of the equation – say this was a conversation about any celebrity and some part of their character. Paris Hilton. Lindsey Lohan. Whoever. I would still be arguing that we can't know the truth.
Have you ever had friends whose marriage dissolved and it came as a total shock? Or look at KK's examples of serial killers. It's always the nice, quiet guy next door. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors. You don't know what goes on in people's minds. You don't know.
I am always surprised at how offended people get by my statements of objectivity. (I'm not referring to you, HeidiAnn – I know I quoted your post at the beginning of this, so I didn't want you to think I meant you). I've had people get seriously angry at me for this. I've been called names.
I always find it interesting that even with the most neutral statement, people read into it what they want. For instance it was sort of assumed that I was picking J&G's "side" so that I could "score an interview." That thought was laden with assumptions about me, my integrity and the truth of my objectivity. I shared my experience of Jason. Here's what I've observed about the guy. Even that gets attacked.
So I'd like to ask – what's wrong with neutral? What's wrong with objective? What's wrong with the benefit of the doubt. I'm applying Occam's Razor to human interaction. I'm not making assumptions. I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm observing the data, and that's it. I'm not the type to pick up a torch and a pitchfork.
Even if (and I'm not saying they did) the absolute WORST came out and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that TAPS faked evidence, I wouldn't join the mob. People make mistakes. I've made mistakes. I'm guessing that everyone has. So then what they become are people who made mistakes. It isn't my place to be the judge, juror and executioner.
Offline
Karen – no offense – but I think you prefer the fence and life in the middle of the seesaw. That's why you feel as if you have very few answers. But -some things are "knowable."
Yes, because saying "no offense" always makes things so much less offensive.
What I prefer is to be objective and open-minded. Tell me how that is a character flaw. You know nothing of my life or what it is I prefer. But I'll flat out tell you this. I prefer not to judge the actions of others, because I've done things in my life that could be judged quite harshly. I'm pretty sure we all have.
Those things that everyone judges in everyone else are in the past and all anyone can do is do the best they can in the given moment with the tools that they have. They can't go back and undo what they've done. They can move forward. I've chosen to be here in the present with kindness, compassion and understanding. Yeah – I get it. Character flaw. I think I'll stick with it though, because it is what works for me.
Offline
Karen, your theory is that if the production company faked/manipulated then that's middle ground, not in my book.
To me faking is faking no matter who did it. All I'm saying is that either things were faked or they werent. I made
no mention of who I think may have done the faking if there is any.
You are right, we never really know what is happening behind closed doors, being human we
take what we do know and form our own opinions, right or wrong.
You've been lucky enough to have great experiences with Jason. Not all of us have had positive
experiences with members of the team. Some of us have received "cease and desist" emails from
members and told not to talk about them anymore, and then the ultimate punishment, told we
would never receive an autographed pic from anyone on GH /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> .
Offline
Some of us have received "cease and desist" emails from
members and told not to talk about them anymore, and then the ultimate punishment, told we
would never receive an autographed pic from anyone on GH
/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> .
Wow. No picture. How do you muster your will to go on?
I hear what you're saying, Heidi. Just a difference in world-view. If GH was all faked, it would make an interesting story for the magazine, give me a few blogs worth of material, too – but to me it is a show that is designated as a "docu-soap". It's a reality TV program. Frankly, I think that all reality TV is about as far from "real" as you can get. I'm much more concerned with the honesty and integrity of our world leaders.
Offline
Wow. No picture. How do you muster your will to go on?
I hear what you're saying, Heidi. Just a difference in world-view. If GH was all faked, it would make an interesting story for the magazine, give me a few blogs worth of material, too – but to me it is a show that is designated as a "docu-soap". It's a reality TV program. Frankly, I think that all reality TV is about as far from "real" as you can get.
I dont know how I did it Karen. I was on the verge of a complete breakdown when I found out.
It took a lot of therapy to get through that one /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Yes, the reality of reality tv came slamming home around here
when MTV's "Made" did an episode at my son's school. it was
good for the kids to see just how "real" reality tv really is /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' />
Offline
You know – I just realized where part of this – for me – is coming from. I am making a paranormal documentary. Everything in it is actual footage and evidence from our investigations at Wellington. Not a bit is doctored. Not a bit is manufactured. And yet – I can certainly see where people would accuse our production crew of doing so. I guess maybe I am putting myself in the shoes of another. I know how frustrated I would feel if all of the hard work everyone has done was just waved away as "fake."
Offline
Its ok to understand that GH is faked, in my eyes it doesnt make me a disbeliever in the paranormal- just in Ghost Hunters. Hey I am sure J+G are two totally stand-up guys out to make a buck working hard like the rest of us. At the end of the day its about ratings and thats what drives the success of the show. In a show where more ghost encounters equals more ratings which equals more money for everyone I can even understand why they do what they do. Jay and Grant understand the system and how to make a show successfull, and if that entails a little fakery…well its not illegal now is it? Of course they have a personal agenda.
As a guy on the outside I believe that the show being involved in fakery has less to do with J+G being nice guys that seem trustworthy and more to do with two guys who understand that ratings equal personal success in their chosen professions. If it entails having to pull the wool over the publics eyes a little bit, well its not like they will go to court if they are caught (as they already have been caught a few times now imo).
Outside of the show I am sure that J+G are both great individuals. It obviously caught Donna by surprise when she learned the truth of the matter- hence the crying and her finally coming out; albeit, she has come out in a way that doesnt breach her non-disclosure agreements.
Could just the production company be guilty? I dont think so. I think sure the production company is involved, but with J+G both being producers for the show- that means that they are definitely at the source of any tomfoolery.
==========
I just watched the latest episode of GH (even though I dont believe its real, it still has good entertainment value for my wife and I, and think about this:
EXAMPLE:
- in last episode s05e22 they communicate with a ghost using a flashlight. This is done in MANY episodes now where they are having complete conversations with 'ghosts'. I mean think about it- if this were actually true dont you think the entire scientific community would be hot to be involved in this amazing method of communicating with the dead? I mean if someone was actually able to contact the dead and get actual answers out of them to questions, that would be proof enough that the paranormal existed and Universities and parasychologists around the world would want to be involved. Just like wrestling its just not true- and its widely accepted as such.
=============
My opinions are directly related to GH and I still remain an openmindded skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. It just doesnt apply to GH anymore.
See I disagree. I think there is an in between. Or a few. Creative editing. Pilgrim faking. That type of thing. We can't know.
Maybe it is creative editing. And Pilgrim faking. And Grant. And Jason.
Have you ever had friends whose marriage dissolved and it came as a total shock? Or look at KK's examples of serial killers. It's always the nice, quiet guy next door. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors. You don't know what goes on in people's minds. You don't know.
I'm not talking about motive. Two people get divorced – FACT. Why they get divorced – OPINION.
If Grant has faked evidence – FACT. Motive – OPINION.
I am always surprised at how offended people get by my statements of objectivity. (I'm not referring to you, HeidiAnn – I know I quoted your post at the beginning of this, so I didn't want you to think I meant you). I've had people get seriously angry at me for this. I've been called names.
I always find it interesting that even with the most neutral statement, people read into it what they want. For instance it was sort of assumed that I was picking J&G's "side" so that I could "score an interview." That thought was laden with assumptions about me, my integrity and the truth of my objectivity. I shared my experience of Jason. Here's what I've observed about the guy. Even that gets attacked.
Why do you make the assumption that I'm attacking you, because I disagree with you?
I see a clear line between a fact and an opinion. Facts are knowable things, IMHO. Opinions are simply that. You do not. That's your right.
So I'd like to ask – what's wrong with neutral? What's wrong with objective? What's wrong with the benefit of the doubt. I'm applying Occam's Razor to human interaction. I'm not making assumptions. I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm observing the data, and that's it. I'm not the type to pick up a torch and a pitchfork.
On my side, I wanted answers, and I believe I got them. I do find it offensive when people play on gullible people. I know what it's like to be a vulnerable little child and be afraid of the ghost in my grandma's bedroom. I want to know the facts behind the paranormal – wherever that leads Other people see it differently.
You know – I just realized where part of this – for me – is coming from. I am making a paranormal documentary. Everything in it is actual footage and evidence from our investigations at Wellington. Not a bit is doctored. Not a bit is manufactured. And yet – I can certainly see where people would accuse our production crew of doing so. I guess maybe I am putting myself in the shoes of another. I know how frustrated I would feel if all of the hard work everyone has done was just waved away as "fake."
Not that it's worth anything in the grand scheme of things, but I don't believe you ever would. You go out of your way to be honest and unbiased. That's why you bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt.
You trust. I do not. You accept. I analyse.
One is not better than the other. Just different.
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
8 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2944
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1886
Posts: 104920
Newest Members: eleshyendutle, annoreoli, Boiseetat, EricaMartinez, jtr194113, purswellcaracciolo346
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5526), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground