Most Haunted Ghost captures 'real' ghost footage?

Right, gif. It's the best quality I could achieve. Given that it's a gif made from not great quality video, that's not amazing. You can see that the lines disappear as the guy moves in front of the camera, just as they would if they were lens flare artefacts:

vkqt9WE.gif


But, on the whole, I still maintain that the footage simply isn't good enough to make any real determination about anything. It's suspiciously like Bigfoot footage like that.
 
Last edited:
Something wasn't sitting right with me with that last gif, so I've isolated the "ghost" and blown it up. I've changed my mind. I still don't think the footage is clear enough to make any determination about translucency, but I do think that if that were not an overlay, then you'd see them blocking the light on the wall on the right side of the frame:

XQ0nJU5.gif
 
Ah, now this is fun. I'm definitely spending more time on this than I should be.

Yvette Fielding and "sceptic" Glen Hunt discuss the footage here. Their claim is that it cannot be faked as it's the raw footage from the camera, taken straight off the card.

A couple of things stand out to me. Firstly, when they open the footage in VLC, it appears that this particular bit of footage is 4 minutes something. That seems suspicious if you've just got real footage of a ghost and want to see if you can get more. Wouldn't you keep rolling? Isn't "keep rolling" the first rule for a video journalist?

Secondly, although the file itself appears to have been last modified at the same time as the folders containing the other files, the folder in which the file is located appears to have been last modified 5 days earlier, as far as can be told from the poor-quality video. Perhaps they altered the "last modified" attribute of the file (using something like Bulk File Changer) after editing, but forgot to do the same to the folder?

I have to say, though, that I'm digging the explanation they're giving - stone tape theory. Firstly, I love the fact that it's the Ur-example of people hearing something and thinking "yes, that makes narrative sense" without stopping to think about whether or not it makes any actual sense.

Secondly, I love the fact that they're offering this explanation because it's obvious, to them, that it's one of the presenters. So they're pre-empting that criticism by saying "yes, we think it's one of the presenters, too! It must be a recording of him, thus validating the stone tape theory!"

Thirdly, I love that they're saying that the fact that it's obviously one of the presenters (I have no idea if regular viewers would find it obvious, but it's certainly not to me, given that I don't watch the programme) makes it less likely to be fake because if they'd faked it, wouldn't they have faked someone other than the presenter?

It's extraordinary.
 
IMO it's either a special effects shot or a genuine ghost. So, taking account of the fact it was obtained by a TV show renowned for faking 'evidence', and whose income is based on convincing people that ghosts are independently real, I'm going to go with... gee, it's a tough one, this... OK, the 'special effects shot'.
 
Why do ghosts wear clothes? Do they wear the same clothes all the time or do they have wardrobes?
 
I'd guess that whoever was caught on camera ended up standing behind the door held open by one of the presenters when he ushers the other one into a room.
 
It's 60% transparent but it's also 100% fake. Obviously their budget didn't run to motion tracking, which is why they set the camera down for a fixed angle before the ghost was overlaid... I mean, showed up.
 
So, the daily mail appears to be the only media organization running with this, the same daily mail that believes vaccinations are bad and was recently listed as fake news by most including google and wikipedia?

Telling
 
imodium said:
So, the daily mail appears to be the only media organization running with this, the same daily mail that believes vaccinations are bad and was recently listed as fake news by most including google and wikipedia?

Telling
Click to expand...

It was the main story on the front page of The Daily Star yesterday or the day before. But, then, once or twice a month they do run with a story of the paranormal as being "proven" true or being "spooky".
 
I am a little suspicious that the "ghost" appears to be dressed exactly the same as the guy who rushes towards it (hip length jacket and light coloured trousers).
 
TX50 said:
I am a little suspicious that the "ghost" appears to be dressed exactly the same as the guy who rushes towards it (hip length jacket and light coloured trousers).
Click to expand...

They're claiming it's a stone tape recording of him. They're also claiming that this makes their claim stronger, as if they'd faked it they'd have gone for someone dressed as a stable hand or a monk.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
British television show "Most Haunted" in which a former Blue Peter presenter attempts to communicate with the sounds of cooling buildings and screams at shadows claims in it's seventeenth year to have captured 'groundbreaking' footage of a ghost.

Did anyone see it when it was televised last night? More to the point, did anyone find it convincing?
Click to expand...

The acting on Phil Redmond's awful "Hollyoaks" is more convincing, as is Elton John's suntan and Wayne Rooney's hairline. The fact that anyone could be convinced by such utter bollocks is a testament to the fact that a lot of humanity is still collectively as thick as two short planks.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
deliberate fake
Click to expand...

My guess would be yes, a deliberate fake. The show is growing pretty dim here in the UK in terms of people actually giving enough of a crap to bother watching it. Most people stopped tuning in once Derek left, because he was always at least good for a laugh, "Mary loves Dick" being a shining example of that blatant comedy factor.

The show is likely struggling to keep itself on air, much like shows like "(Literally Never) Finding Bigfoot," they really have to start jumping through more interesting hoops to keep their head above water in the competitive world of TV ratings.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
My guess would be yes, a deliberate fake. The show is growing pretty dim here in the UK in terms of people actually giving enough of a crap to bother watching it. Most people stopped tuning in once Derek left, because he was always at least good for a laugh, "Mary loves Dick" being a shining example of that blatant comedy factor.

The show is likely struggling to keep itself on air, much like shows like "(Literally Never) Finding Bigfoot," they really have to start jumping through more interesting hoops to keep their head above water in the competitive world of TV ratings.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, hence having to ask the question! I went through a period of watching it with beer and pizza, but stopped long ago. I'm not really even sure why I watched it to be honest, I don't believe in ghosts but I'm interested in why so many people (myself included) have seen things they interpret as ghosts. I just keep hoping for a show where they go to supposedly 'haunted' places and actually look for a rational explaination..

The closest I ever found was (I may have the name slightly wrong) "Paranormal Home Investigation" where as well as two self-serving fantasists, a medium and a paranormal investigator, encouraging the home owners to fear ghosties and beaties and things that go bump in the night they had an actual building inspector pointing out rational explainations. Of course even when the explaination was as simple as clearly visible tree branches scratching at the window the residents were convinced that there was still 'something' paranormal involved, especially once they'd had all their stories confirmed by the medium and the 'investigator' had dug up every death within five miles and claimed a possible link.....:rolleyes:
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Yeah I know, hence having to ask the question! I went through a period of watching it with beer and pizza, but stopped long ago. I'm not really even sure why I watched it to be honest, I don't believe in ghosts but I'm interested in why so many people (myself included) have seen things they interpret as ghosts. I just keep hoping for a show where they go to supposedly 'haunted' places and actually look for a rational explaination..

The closest I ever found was (I may have the name slightly wrong) "Paranormal Home Investigation" where as well as two self-serving fantasists, a medium and a paranormal investigator, encouraging the home owners to fear ghosties and beaties and things that go bump in the night they had an actual building inspector pointing out rational explainations. Of course even when the explaination was as simple as clearly visible tree branches scratching at the window the residents were convinced that there was still 'something' paranormal involved, especially once they'd had all their stories confirmed by the medium and the 'investigator' had dug up every death within five miles and claimed a possible link.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, and a lot of people tuned in for exactly those reasons. It was a bit of a laugh to point at the screen when Derek was in full-on am-dram mode, doing his best Mystic Meg impression, while Yvette ran around screaming into the dark and being wowed by balls of dust. A few friends and a joint or a beer, bit of food, you've got a solid little hour of laughs.

It kind of got old fast, though, especially when the main comedic element left, which was Derek, imo. There's a ton of shows like that now, on so many silly channels. If you're in the UK, there's a channel called "Really," no, really! And it tends to show run-of-the-mill ghost-hunting shows, bit like the dreadful Scy-Fy channel which should be taken round the back of the knackering shop and shot between the eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom