Zak Bagans Dedicates Show to Skeptics

Zak Bagans, star of Travel Channel’s “Ghost Adventures” show, always seems to be in a giving mood.  Usually, he is giving me a reason to laugh when he gets “possessed” during his Very Serious ghost investigations.  Other times he is giving me a reason to bang my head against the wall when he uses the word “energy” wrong time and time again, yells at unseen demonic entities like a drunken frat boy, or talks seriously about teaching his dog to hunt ghosts.  Ok, I’ll admit it, that’s all pretty funny, too.

But now he has more to give.

Zak took to Twitter recently and dedicated the upcoming episode of Ghost Adventures to “all skeptics.”  The episode, which will air Friday night, was filmed at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado.  And, as Zak writes, their lockdown was conducted with someone he claims is a “Scientist Skeptic” who brought along “cutting edge equipment” for the job.

Maybe I’m wrong, but he seems to indicate that, upon viewing this episode, it will be impossible to be skeptical about ghosts any longer if you had been previously.  Or at least his ability to perceive them.    “It’s closure for me knowing when I sense spirit energy my body knows it,” Zak tweeted.  “This time see a scientist back this up…”

I responded to Mr. Bagans to inform him, in case he wasn’t already aware, that science and peer review is not done through edited television broadcasts.  If a person (namely, me) was skeptical about ghosts beforehand, then a show produced, filmed, and edited for maximum ratings impact is simply not going to sway me.  You see, aside from being skeptical that ghosts exist, I’m pretty skeptical of paranormal reality television as well.

Furthermore, I explained to Zak that “spirit energy” as he calls it is not only a meaningless phrase in science, but that the so-called “energy” he is referring to is currently not detectable by any piece of equipment, “cutting edge” or otherwise.

Oh, I may have also called him a “douche.”  Oops.  Needless to say, Zak didn’t respond.  Not that I thought he would. 

Now look, I’m sure Mr. Bagans means well.  From all indications, he is a pretty credulous individual.  So he probably truly believes he is sensing spirits and fighting demons everywhere he goes.  He isn’t, but he believes he is.  Though I have not researched to find out who this so-called “scientist skeptic” is that will be accompanying him, I can only hope he is not as daft as Zak.  I have strong doubts that will be the case, however. 

Still, I’ll be watching if, for no other reason, a good, hearty laugh.

*EDIT  – I’ve just learned the “scientist skeptic” Zak Bagans refers to is apparently none other than creator of the Ovilus, and other paranormal related buffoonery, Bill Chappell.  Not shocking at all.


12 thoughts on “Zak Bagans Dedicates Show to Skeptics

  1. Yes, Zak has earned the nickname "Douche Baggins". It makes it more fun to think he really believes he is this amazing, ghost sensing, demon warrior. What a clown.

  2. "I responded to Mr. Bagans to inform him, in case he wasn't already aware, that science and peer review is not done through edited television broadcasts" hahahahahahaha. as retarded as he seems, i'd still let him have his way with me. just sayin

  3. @Amanda – Yes, Douchebagans, indeed! Haha it's really quite the perfect name.@Rachel – Somewhere, Zak probably believes you ARE Ronald Reagan now.@Slappy – You are a mouthy bitch, and a slut. I'm glad to know you.

  4. I don't know for sure that I believe in the paranormal, though I am skeptical of Ghost Adventures, and all other paranormal reality shows. But that is because they make shit up, scare people unnecessarily by perpetrating the idea that what they do is dangerous, and take themselves way too seriously. I hope you'll read my follow up post on GA and Mr. Bagans coming…eventually. Thanks for the comment.

  5. Well, I did notice that they declared that The Stanley was built on a large deposit of quartz and limestone even after Bryan and Baxter scientifically proved otherwise and have government reports to show for it. The Stanley even has copies of that report and their "resident" paranormal investigator still spreads that lie. I loved seeing Zak point at a bunch of dirt and ask "what kind of rock is that?"

  6. Korbus:

    The question is: do you have a proof against Zak Bagans´s work? I read this post and I just found only teasing words. And if your answer is: “He is talking about demons, ghosts and silly haunted houses”, then you don’t have any evidence to say Zak Bagans is a fraud.

    Tell me say you more: I have a PhD in Research Methods, and it’s quite funny to see “common” people that who believe in science speaking about “real energy”, “empirical evidence” and so on. This kind of phenomena (paranormal or spiritual phenomena) cannot be placed into scientific categories, just because science doesn’t have any tool to speak about it, not now, at least. A real scientist would only say: “I can’t say nothing”. So you don’t believe in ghosts? Okay, I have an advice for you: close your fucking mouth and start your scientific work (Zak is doing something even though in his job he don’t apply the scientific method; my suggestion: use the same method). After years, perhaps you could have something evidence to show us. Before that, you are only a fucking religious person: your religion (without any evidence) is called skepticism.

    • Pablo:

      Go fuck yourself. You come to my blog and tell me to “close my fucking mouth” and call me a “fucking religious person”? I’d tell you to stick your PhD up your ass, but we both know that PhD doesn’t exist. If it does, it can’t be from a legitimate academic organization. Tell me, did you order it through the mail?

      Energy, as you should know, is the measurement of a systems ability to perform work. My point in the article was that to use the word in a metaphysical sense is to purposefully obfuscate the issue, knowing full well, as Bagans does, that there is no “spiritual energy” currently known by science. You, of course, would understand what I wrote if you had even a basic education. Plus, you wouldn’t have needed to waste my time with your rambling, incoherent bullshit.

      But, aside from that, where did I call Bagans a fraud in this blog post? That seems to be the foundation of your argument, and yet I don’t see where I have said that at all. I wrote that “he means well,” that he is “credulous,” and even that he can be a “douche.” But not once did I call him a fraud. So, what are you even talking about? And why are you badmouthing skepticism and the “belief in science” (whatever that means) when Bagans himself brought in a guy for the episode that he called a “scientific skeptic”? Sounds like your problem should be with Bagans.

      I really hope you are a PhD. It was a lot of fun destroying your silly ass argument. Now, next time you come to this blog, show a little respect. If you have questions, or even a disagreement, feel free to post. But act like a human being. I will no longer approve your comments if all you plan to do is badger me with your bullshit.

      Good day, jackass.

  7. Pingback: twitter zak bagans | Kuplux's

Comments are closed.