Monster Talk Essay

Monster Talk Every ghost story has its historical backstory, but much of the time these historical backstories are not actually based in history. The historical aspect of notorious ghost stories was discussed in the episode of Monster Talk entitled “Historical Ghost Investigations Part I: Kimo/Therapy.” Monster Talk, a podcast hosted by skeptics Blake Smith and Dr. Karen Stollznow and presented by Skeptic Magazine, looks at the science of popular monsters, using a critical lens to analyze folklore and legends. In this episode, the hosts are joined by Ben Radford, the editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, as they look at the process of researching ghost stories to determine whether there is any truth behind the myth. The episode approaches

The first is Karen’s research on the Waverly Sanatorium, which at different points in its history was a geriatrics hospital and a sanatorium for people with tuberculosis, and currently is considered one of the most haunted places in America. The second case is Ben’s investigation into the ghost of Little Bobby, who supposedly haunts the Kimi theater and was supposedly the source of poltergeist activity during a play. Using these two cases, along with the failure of the facts surrounding their history, the podcast successfully demonstrates to the listener how comparing real historical facts with the narrative history of a ghost story can disprove, or at the very least cast serious doubts on, a ghost’s existence. Many ghost stories gain credibility based on the notion that something real happened to create the ghost and motivate it to remain in the place where it died, thus Monster Talk proposes that one can debunk a ghost story by showing its history is either greatly exaggerated or fully fabricated. There may be a slight flaw in the conclusion that if the story behind a ghost is false, then the haunting activity that has been credited to that ghost cannot possibly be paranormal, however if we place the burden of proof on ghost believers rather than the skeptics, this conclusion is sufficient for the purposes of the skeptics. The hosts present strong arguments about the notion that we are more