Jump to content

Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

287 replies to this topic

#1

DonitsYum

DonitsYum

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Avon, MA
  • Interests:music, softball, bowling; "Battlestar Galactica", "Mad Men", reality shows

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 1:49 PM

Couldn't find this anywhere so I'm startin one!

It's a little too similar to Destination Truth but I like it. Even some of the items that they don't decide to investigate further end up being interesting because they can debunk them right away.

Description from SyFy:

Heading up the Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files team is Ben Hansen, a former FBI agent with a life-long fascination with the paranormal. Now, having left the agency, he leads a young team of intrepid investigators who will convene to dissect the latest unusual images and decide whether they merit further investigation. Grainy videos will be brought to life as the team conducts thorough and elaborate experiments in an attempt to recreate the phenomena, and Ben will make the final choice which cases will require a trip into the field.



#2

CuriousGinger

CuriousGinger

    Channel Surfer

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 2:26 PM

I've watched a few episodes and I like it. Matter of fact, I like it better than I ever did Ghost Hunters (which I can't stand any longer).

Although I recently caught the episode of the car that "rolled uphill" on it's own and immediately knew that was fake and the reason for it. I can't believe they did a full investigation rather than just debunk it during the case review session.

#3

33Diva

33Diva

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Newfoundland, Canada

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 2:33 PM

I'm on the fence with this one. The first couple of episodes were rough, the last few have been better. At first I found the cast kind of arrogant, but I've gotten used to them.

#4

Malibu65

Malibu65

    Stalker

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 3:21 PM

I can't believe they did a full investigation rather than just debunk it during the case review session.

I can't believe that either since a quick search on the internet would have told them the reason why the car appears to go uphill and how the story of the children being killed was not true. I recall watching some other show years ago that discussed this particular story and debunking it.

Edited by Malibu65, Aug 24, 2010 @ 3:21 PM.


#5

DonitsYum

DonitsYum

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Avon, MA
  • Interests:music, softball, bowling; "Battlestar Galactica", "Mad Men", reality shows

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 4:27 PM

I'm not sure why, but the "Night Stalkers" portion was creepy. These were the figures that walked across that guy's yard in the middle of the night. I didn't finish watching that episode...were they debunked?

I really like Jael, who was also on Destination Truth.

#6

Arynm

Arynm

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 5:34 PM

I really enjoy this show. I like that they can't always debunk what they see, but they use scientific methods to try. I also like that sometimes they figure out that it isn't paranormal after all. The first case with the ghost car was very interesting and I was not sure how they were going to figure it out. Other cases like the little walking thing in that guys yard and the ghost light freaked me out.

I could not see any way they could be faked.

#7

jr13

jr13

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 6:19 PM

I could not see any way they could be faked.

Instead of hanging from a string, they could have attached a pole to the side of it to keep it from spinning, and then edit the gut out.

The ghost car seemed very obvious to me. I was watching with a friend said right away that the fence was just attached at the top and acted like a flap.

I like the premise of the show, but their "investigating" is shitty. It's frustrating to see them do things half-assed. I'd love to see a show done by skeptics.

#8

OSM Mom

OSM Mom

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 6:44 PM

I saw part of one episode where they were investigating the lights in the sky in San Diego. They were able to duplicate the footage by putting road flares on a rig under a balloon. They said that because they duplicated the original footage, that proves it was faked. Um....no. That just means you were able to duplicate the original. That's all.

#9

33Diva

33Diva

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Newfoundland, Canada

Posted Aug 24, 2010 @ 8:34 PM

OSM Mom, I thought the same thing! Anything that's happened can be duplicated if you try hard enough & have access to the equipment.

#10

Forn

Forn

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 25, 2010 @ 9:00 AM

Although I recently caught the episode of the car that "rolled uphill" on it's own and immediately knew that was fake and the reason for it. I can't believe they did a full investigation rather than just debunk it during the case review session.

That one bugged me also. I had been hearing about these places that appear to be uphill but are really downhill all my life, so I thought such things were common knowledge. I can't believe they wasted all that time on it when I'm sure they knew what the answer was. I guess if they would have cut right to the correct answer it wouldn't have been good TV, but dragging it out the way they did was ridiculous.

They said that because they duplicated the original footage, that proves it was faked. Um....no. That just means you were able to duplicate the original. That's all.

Totally agree with you. That irritated me when I was watching also.

The Paulding Light episode was interesting. Does anyone have an explanation for what it could be? Since the light shows up EVERY night, I was sure they would be able to figure out what was causing it.

#11

hatchetgirl

hatchetgirl

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Aug 26, 2010 @ 9:58 AM

My hubby and I just watch the beginning for the clips and then skip the "investigation". It's so ridiculous!!! And I laugh at the credits every time - my hubby says in this James Bond type voice "yes, I'm young and an ex FBI agent. It has nothing to do with the coke! I swear!" LOL.

#12

ubi

ubi

    Stalker

Posted Sep 18, 2010 @ 12:55 PM

I liked this show the first few times I watched it, but then it started to annoy me. Why do they bother to try to build the suspense when it's obvious from the teasers and ads which ones will be chosen? Why can't I seem to find these "viral videos" they show? They either make a half-assed attempt at debunking and then give up, declaring it must be supernatural (for example, the polaroid ghost-writing was attempted mundanely and worked fine in a lab but not so well at the site the first and only time they tried it) or waste an entire segment only to do what they should have done in the first place (the last thing they did when debunking the local version of Spook Hill was to break out a level to verify that they were indeed on an upward incline).

I'm not sure why, but the "Night Stalkers" portion was creepy. These were the figures that walked across that guy's yard in the middle of the night. I didn't finish watching that episode...were they debunked?

That was interesting, but I couldn't see the clip very clearly on my TV and I couldn't find a clip online to look at better, but I became very suspicious when they said the man filmed the monitor playing the footage but then lost the original tape of what was playing on the monitor. SO much opportunity for shenanigans! As for your question, they tried to recreate it with puppets but couldn't quite get it right and gave up. They explored some nearby woods from which they could have come and encountered some weird techical problems, possibly some critters, but nothing definite.

I saw part of one episode where they were investigating the lights in the sky in San Diego. They were able to duplicate the footage by putting road flares on a rig under a balloon. They said that because they duplicated the original footage, that proves it was faked. Um....no. That just means you were able to duplicate the original. That's all.

I consider it proof by Occam's Razor. If you can replicate it mundanely, it's more likely that's the explaination than one involving space aliens.

The Paulding Light episode was interesting. Does anyone have an explanation for what it could be? Since the light shows up EVERY night, I was sure they would be able to figure out what was causing it.

It is indeed car headlights distorted by heat radiating from the ground. There is no record that the lights were seen before cars existed, either. Here's a better video of the Paulding Light.

#13

Glass Ocean

Glass Ocean

    Fanatic

  • Location:Milky Way

Posted Nov 5, 2010 @ 7:33 PM

I just watched the episode with the "ghosty thing" at the NY museum. The team had some good special effects tricks up their sleeves, but didn't seem to be trying very hard to actually duplicate the original footage. The "ghost" never appeared to be wearing a short sleeved shirt with tie, guys. From what I could see, it looked like the projection technique was working the best. But the thing always appeared to be jerky in an unnatural way, more like what happens when you watch a surveillance video that's stop-motion and only takes a frame every so many seconds. If they had made Tie Guy wear a Civil War-era hoop dress, shot him in stop-motion, and then projected that footage, I believe they would have come pretty darn close to the original.

If they could dress the Mexican balloons so accurately, they could have dressed Tie Guy as well, but maybe poofy sleeves aren't his thing.

Edited by Glass Ocean, Nov 5, 2010 @ 7:35 PM.


#14

ubi

ubi

    Stalker

Posted Nov 6, 2010 @ 6:52 AM

I caught a repeat of a new ep in which they investigated a UFO that was taped by some guy who was REALLY into UFO's one night while he just happened to be taping an airplane passing overhead. Yeah, that doesn't sound suspicious at all... As it turns out, they put in enuogh effort to determine it was a hangglider with lights on it.

#15

Forn

Forn

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 6, 2010 @ 7:14 PM

I just watched the episode with the "ghosty thing" at the NY museum. The team had some good special effects tricks up their sleeves, but didn't seem to be trying very hard to actually duplicate the original footage. The "ghost" never appeared to be wearing a short sleeved shirt with tie, guys.

I was thinking that as well. Also, the orginal footage was so much darker than theirs. Maybe they could have used a different camera, or darkened things up a bit? Just the fact that it was so much lighter made it look very different.

As for the Flying Witch Bag of Balloons thing, I don't know. Just because they were able to create a similar effect doesn't mean that's what the original was. Once they come up with something that looks halfway decent they conclude that's the way it was done. It seems a bit of a jump to conclusions to me. But the idea that someone was deliberately messing with the people holding their UFO conference is kind of funny.

#16

PattyorSelma

PattyorSelma

    Video Archivist

Posted Nov 13, 2010 @ 11:26 AM

So the Reed guy was proven to be a liar, which I hope means his dog was not actually killed in such a horrible manner. I had to skip over all mentions of the dog after hearing that detail in the beginning.

The Night Crawler from several months ago scared the daylights out of me! That was the freakiest thing I've ever seen. Holy moly!!! I wish there would be more sightings -- far from me -- and that somebody would figure out what it is.

#17

Oscem

Oscem

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 13, 2010 @ 11:30 PM

I'm sad as hell that they chose not to do the Mothman case, but only because I used to live in Stark County, OH (still own a house there *sigh* ), and I've never heard of Mothman. It looks like the video took place in between Uniontown and Alliance, which means Mothman might have been close to my house. Finally! A crappy urban legend in my old town! When Chi-Lan got shot down, was it just me, or was she giving the naysayers a massive death glare?

I really liked this show in the very beginning, but now, I can debunk this shit before they even start the experiments. And I'm sorry..."Austin thinks he might have sprained his ankle, which may compromise the results of the experiment." Hey, Bill, how about you get off of your lazy ass and run instead then? I think Austin is capable of moving his head in the proper direction like you do.

Give me back my Destination Truth and some Josh Gates, please.

#18

Glass Ocean

Glass Ocean

    Fanatic

  • Location:Milky Way

Posted Nov 14, 2010 @ 8:54 PM

Oooo, the disillusion... the concept must have had so much promise.

Formula: take one eager fresh-faced FBI dude, mix in dubious footage of glimpses of UFOs, ghosts, and cryptozoology creatures from around the world, then add a team of "experts" in their respective fields [must be photogenic]. Proceeed to debunk or prove to be true. How could this not be a cult hit?

Let's see what went wrong. Heavy handed scripting, per chance? Two females who are given the full responsibilty for looking and sounding shocked? Really crappy video footage? Too little time in the field [I'm looking at you, Gates]? Too little funding for special effects?

For me, the last two don't seem to weigh heavily in the equation. Stilted acting does. Lack of team chemistry does too. I wish they were allowed to disagree a bit more often, maybe even step on each others' toes now and then. Were is the charisma, people? Plus the grainy slapstick videos are so tough to feel enthusiastic about.

I realize that I'm still annoyed about the alien puppet-on-stilts episode. When they couldn't get their special effects team to duplicate the animatronics exactly, they decided that there must exist a brand new race of aliens out there OR maybe an undiscovered genetic anomaly. Hey, guys, please don't attempt to stretch my credulity quite that far, OK?

#19

ubi

ubi

    Stalker

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 6:22 AM

SFC had a marathon yesterday afternoon and managed to catch the last ep. The Mothman footage was obviously an owl swooping in on something. I'd seen that Bigfoot footage investigated before (on MonsterQuest?) but they gave up after being unable to get an athelete to run the course Austin ran, so I was surprised Austin had no trouble recreating the scene. As for the alien, I knoew it was fake as soon as I heard the story. Soemthing that can rip a dog's ahead apart was taken down by a big stick? When it pulled the dog's jaws apart it also pulled out its spoine? The dog body turned to ash afterward? Is there a reason when they first show video footage it looks like it was taped off a crappy TV set about six inches away and is thusly impossible to determine what is going on? I swear I could not tell what was going on in that liar's video until they showed it next to the recreated footage!

#20

jr13

jr13

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 11:02 AM

Let's see what went wrong. Heavy handed scripting, per chance? Two females who are given the full responsibilty for looking and sounding shocked? Really crappy video footage? Too little time in the field [I'm looking at you, Gates]? Too little funding for special effects?

You forgot one - taking on cases that have already been debunked. I guess these "experts" don't have access to Google.

When they couldn't get their special effects team to duplicate the animatronics exactly, they decided that there must exist a brand new race of aliens out there OR maybe an undiscovered genetic anomaly.

This makes me crazy. They get close and then give up when it's not a perfect match.

#21

Glass Ocean

Glass Ocean

    Fanatic

  • Location:Milky Way

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 11:38 AM

The Fact or Faked team desperately needs a Mulder and a Scully.

#22

Ananayel

Ananayel

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Durham NC

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 11:47 AM

I'd seen that Bigfoot footage investigated before (on MonsterQuest?) but they gave up after being unable to get an athelete to run the course Austin ran, so I was surprised Austin had no trouble recreating the scene.

I want to say it was on the show where Boston Rob Mariano (Survivor, etc.) and some others went around investigating things. They dressed Rob in a fur suit and sent him off running the same path, but it was quite difficult what with the heat, the cumbersome costume, and the fact that the head made it hard for him to see his footing. So he did a quite spectacular faceplant. If it wasn't this video they were investigating, it was a very similar one.

I want to like this show, but I just can't. Either everything they show is completely obvious fakery which needs no investigation, already debunked (like the uphill car,) or just not interesting. I didn't like Jael all that much on Destination Truth, and seeing more of her hasn't changed that.

#23

Arynm

Arynm

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 1:48 PM

All I want to know is where the dog is. He had a dog and now its gone.

Creepy. I really hope the dog died of natural causes and he made this story up to go with it. To me, this does not make any sense.
The dog makes me more upset then any other part of this case.

The Mothman case just looked like a big bird and I'm sure that is all it was.

The only case that I think might be paranormal is the lights. I really want to know what they are.

#24

lurk3000

lurk3000

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 15, 2010 @ 3:56 PM

All the team had to do with the "Reed" case was google it. It was debunked years ago here.

#25

danicalifornia

danicalifornia

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Nov 16, 2010 @ 5:36 AM

The Fact or Faked team desperately needs a Mulder and a Scully.


Or somebody on the cast that's actually likeable.

They "debunk" bigfoot and then shit bricks when they throw some food in the wilderness and see blips on a thermal? UGH.

#26

Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 16, 2010 @ 12:14 PM

Any time any paranormal show goes outside, I dismiss anything that comes up on the thermal. It's just not a secure environment.

I don't watch YouTube, so many of the cases they investigate are new to me, but it's disappointing to hear that so many of them are rehashes of cases that have already been debunked. In addition, the premise that if they can duplicate it it's false and if they can't it's true is just not logical or valid.

#27

ubi

ubi

    Stalker

Posted Nov 16, 2010 @ 6:52 PM

Sure it is! Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

I want to say it was on the show where Boston Rob Mariano (Survivor, etc.) and some others went around investigating things. They dressed Rob in a fur suit and sent him off running the same path, but it was quite difficult what with the heat, the cumbersome costume, and the fact that the head made it hard for him to see his footing. So he did a quite spectacular faceplant. If it wasn't this video they were investigating, it was a very similar one.

That sounds very much like what I saw, but I was sure they recruited a collegic track star to run the course. I don't sppse Rob comepeted in college, did he?

#28

Ananayel

Ananayel

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Durham NC

Posted Nov 16, 2010 @ 6:58 PM

That sounds very much like what I saw, but I was sure they recruited a collegic track star to run the course. I don't sppse Rob comepeted in college, did he?

I don't know, but I'm sure putting someone in a suit and having them retrace the "creature's" steps is a staple of bigfoot investigating, so probably more than one show has done it, maybe even trying to debunk the same video. I know I've also seen someone in a suit running through the woods while being filmed to match against pictures. I've seen so many bigfoot shows, at this point they've all blurred into one giant show.

#29

PattyorSelma

PattyorSelma

    Video Archivist

Posted Nov 18, 2010 @ 11:40 AM

I was raised in Texas and always loved the legend of the kids who pushed cars over the train tracks. It was disappointing to see that one debunked because a San Antonio news crew once did a story that proved it was true, so I always believed it.
However, I can't get over the fact that the Fact or Faked folks dusted the car afterward to look for oily residue. I know very little about the paranormal, but do ghosts leave oily fingerprints? It seems highly unlikely! The San Antonio news crew dusted the car beforehand, and then noted tiny smudges in the powder after going over the tracks. That still seems odd, but I believed it at the time.

#30

Glass Ocean

Glass Ocean

    Fanatic

  • Location:Milky Way

Posted Nov 18, 2010 @ 4:53 PM

I know very little about the paranormal, but do ghosts leave oily fingerprints? It seems highly unlikely!


Interesting question. The answer seems to depend on the belief system of the team investigating or maybe whatever makes for better TV. Once I've observed Jason & Grant sprinkle talcum powder on the floor of a particularly active attic which made stomping footsteps all on its own. Other crews have laid down table salt or other powder around objects which were purported to move by themselves. That was more to figure out if the objects were actually in a different spot that where they started.

I guess kids eat a lot of snacks and don't wash their little hands afterwards, so if a dozen of their ghosts were pushing a car then you might find traces of astral/ectoplasmic peanut butter later.