I may get some pretty nasty feedback but I have to do what is right. Before now, we at API have always made a very concerted effort to not name names, place blame, or otherwise disparage other investigators, especially those who are on television or otherwise popular in the para community. The para community already has enough battles, and API has no desire to hurt the para community or further hinder potential progress in an otherwise already ignored environment.
That was my disclaimer.
1L posted an interested blog — http://paranormalnewengland.com/one-little-brick-started-josh-weinstein/. Those of you who know 1L and myself in even the most general of terms know that we are lawyers by trade. We are not about to take one blog post and turn it into the crowning piece of evidence to support our conviction. However, a great prosecutor taught me that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone if there is enough of it. Otherwise put, where there is smoke fire can usually be found.
Occasionally people in pop culture become hated and reviled for no reason other than society has decided they need to be taken down notch, “They’re not THAT good.” Most notably are bands like Limp Bizkit and Nickelback. They got popular for a reason and then, suddenly, hated. Sometimes its because the band makes crappy music the second time around. Sometimes the band says or does something unbelievably dumb. I am not saying that is or is not what happened with Ghost Adventures. I am pointing out a possibility. After all, TAPS and Ghost Adventures were the real and biggest deal on TV when they first aired. Now, there are hundreds and thousands of people pointing out their every possible flaw. Part of that is due to the fact that everyone has access to television and the internet. We can all watch, re-watch, and comment on everything and anything. We can all be Monday Morning Quarterbacks. I’m sure some of it is that some people just want to watch the mighty fall.
But that’s not the heart of the issue. That’s not even the smoke that leads to the potential fire. We have a line of people who have worked with the GAC and have few, if any, nice things to say about them. The one I hear the most is “Well, he’s professional on camera.” I’m not saying he’s not, I’m saying that if someone asks about me in any professional capacity I hope they have more to say than that. We have another line of people claiming fraud in many capacities, some of those are from the first line of people with whom GAC has worked. We have hundreds of people with nothing to gain by pointing out the flaws in GA, people whose only likely goal is to help further the para community by providing truth by pointing out the falsities of a popular show.
Nick Groff recently left GA, or, if you believe tabloids, was fired by Zac. The para community’s general reaction has been a resounding GOOD FOR NICK. There are also the snide comments about Zac being a bloated douche bag with only showboating and his own ego on his mind. Here is where I think the smoke lies, however. Nick left a hugely popular show on a basic cable channel where he is an on-air personality for a somewhat popular show on a channel much higher up on the dial that fewer people have access to as a producer. That means in all likelihood his exposure goes down, his paycheck goes down, but his liability goes way up. Why would someone make a transition like that? Isn’t interesting that Nick leaves after a repeated follow out of personalities on TAPS? What’s going on in TV for the para community?
I was aware of GA back in the day, when they brought their footage to a local news channel. Before the sci/fi travel channel nonsense. Before the internet was the juggernaut it is now. If memory serves, before they had Aaron. When Zac where khakis and a button down shirt. I thought it was fantastic. I love the paranormal, and someone out there had gotten phenomenal evidence. Now I find I may have been scammed like the rest of America. I never claim to be above it, but I really, really hate it when someone takes me for a fool.
The biggest flag for me in the above-referenced blog is the overall tone of sadness and disappointment. The author, the owner of the Goldfield hotel, other investigators are all expressing regret and remorse at the snowball effect one flying brick has had. The increase of vandalism and trespassing. The setback to the paranormal community. Laughing all the way to the bank on the back of stupid people and swooning females who have no problem looking at muscles instead of evidence (you dumb #$%&^%es). The exploitation of everyone and everything paranormal.
We already know GA was formed in Vegas, Zac has made no qualms about calling it home so the fact that Mr. Weinstein claims to have seen them with their homeless-esque sign begging for work seems plausible (hell, likely) to me. Fakery follows all paranormal shows, especially by skeptics and non-believers. We already knew GA pays places to allow them to investigate, which as ALWAYS struck me as odd – why wouldn’t people pay THEM to investigate and bring publicity to their site? The owner called the brick incident a shenanigan he would not allow to happen again.
On that note, why hasn’t GA caught any compelling evidence like that since? We have seen some good evidence from GA upon occasion (assuming it is legit) but none on the same level. None of a 13 pound cinder block flying across the room while floor boards simultaneously pop up. In fact, it seems to me that on the rare occasion I catch the show there is more of Zac talking about himself and how he factors into this investigation than actual evidence being caught. Even when Zac bought the “portal to hell” it has been dogged with rumors of happenings way beyond the plausible, even for the para community.
I can’t fully express my sadness and anger that the level of alleged fraud from GA goes far beyond and deeper than originally suspected. I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, even when they don’t deserve it at times. I had already given up on GA long ago but this revelation makes my even initial allowance of plausibility seem naive and foolish.