"It was crawling - at the back end of the corridor...."

Actually, having read a bit more about Nick Groff today, I think this is probably best treated as entertainment rather than anything evidential.

[Ninshub]

Could that figure be someone in a suit of some kind?

[Laird]

Actually, having read a bit more about Nick Groff today, I think this is probably best treated as entertainment rather than anything evidential.

What is it that you read, Chris, and how did it lead you to that conclusion?

[Laird]

Could that figure be someone in a suit of some kind?

It's not clear enough for me to make out that level of detail.

What is it that you read, Chris, and how did it lead you to that conclusion?

I read a lot of criticism of him from fans of these paranormal TV programmes. There seems to be a widespread opinion (not just among sceptics) that the shows he's involved in are scripted, that actors pose as witnesses of phenomena, and that phenomena are faked. The most specific criticisms related to a series entitled "Ghosts of Shepherdstown", where apparently a "witness" presented under one name was found to have a professional IMDB profile under another name, and the director of the town's visitors' centre said that details and locations had been changed to make better television.

And I just don't find clips like this at all believable (not that I think the debunker has really seen a string pulling the noose as is claimed):

[Laird]

OK. Thanks for the info, Chris. I'm not familiar with the show or its presenters so don't really have an opinion as to its/their reliability, but if what you say is accurate then it does seem to be problematic.

[Laird]

I think it's worth noting that Nick responded to at least part of these claims in a Facebook post. Here's part of it:

My fellow investigators, Bill Hartley and Elizabeth Saint, and I work closely with production, the local researcher, Dana Mitchell, and the town of Shepherdstown to ensure that all witnesses’ stories are told accurately. All of the witness accounts that we investigate are real.

Unfortunately, an online outlet took a quote from Marianne Davis, the director of the Shepherdstown visitor's center, out of context from an interview that Marianne gave to a local newspaper earlier this year. Marianne was not interviewed by this outlet, nor any other that shared the story.

One person commenting on Nick's post, who claimed to live just outside of Shepherdstown, offered an explanation as to why details and locations might have been changed: the town is very small and tight-knit and residents would have been very wary of having their reputations potentially ruined in the community by being known to have been involved in the show. How plausible/accurate this explanation is I am not sure - but if Nick even noticed the comment, then he didn't acknowledge let alone validate it.

I didn't see any explicit mention of or attempt to refute the allegation of an actor masquerading as a witness, but I suppose the above explanation might fit that case too: the real person's worry about his/her reputation necessitated him/her being played by an actor [Edit: in fact, on rereading the comment, I find that the person making the comment did address this issue directly: "If you know Shepherdstown then you fully understand why filming locations had to be changed and why some of the actual people chose to have their stories told by someone else."]. But that's just (my) supposition.

I think it's worth noting that Nick responded to at least part of these claims in a Facebook post. Here's part of it:


One person commenting on Nick's post, who claimed to live just outside of Shepherdstown, offered an explanation as to why details and locations might have been changed: the town is very small and tight-knit, and residents would have been very wary of having their reputations potentially ruined in the community by being known to have been involved in the show. How plausible/accurate this explanation is I am not sure - but if Nick even noticed the comment, then he didn't acknowledge let alone validate it.

I didn't see any explicit mention of or attempt to refute the allegation of an actor masquerading as a witness, but I suppose the above explanation might fit that case too: the real person's worry about his/her reputation necessitated him/her being played by an actor. But that's just (my) supposition.

Yes, I did see Groff's statement. The original report of the director of the visitors' centre is available here:
http://www.journal-news.net/news/local-n...nd-season/
Or for those in Europe:
https://web.archive.org/web/201701250641...nd-season/

Certainly she is positive about the effect the show is having on the town (which tourism official wouldn't be?), but the report does say:
Davis said some of the locations or ghost stories were changed by the show’s producers “to make good television.”

Obviously Groff could have denied that, but didn't.

And I think Davis's concluding comments very much suggest that she doesn't think the programme should be talen too seriously:
According to Davis, residents of Shepherdstown are “having a good time with the show,” and the reputation the town has gained among paranormal enthusiasts.
“I think the residents of town are taking it in good fun. A local bluegrass band, The Speakeasy Boys, have written a great satirical song,” she said.

[Laird]

Just FYI, Chris, I'd edited my post a bit, beyond the version you quoted above, to add some details. I'm not sure that it would change your response though.

If filming locations are changed, and the people's parts played by actors, are any purported phenomena also staged? (That seems the logical conclusion.)

My problem with all of this is that I don't doubt that people do indeed experience inexplicable events, but I'm much less sure that they can be captured on camera, any more than we can photograph our dreams or OOBEs or NDEs. All of these are known to occur, that is not disputed, but putting them on film is something which is not possible.