A Hampton Court Ghost

[Darwin'sGoat]

Those pictures aren't pan and tilt and they're not zooming, they're someone trying to take a shot at the same angle with a handheld camera.

-AND-

As per their story there was no one operating the video camera, it wasn't till they returned from the suspicious alarms that they decided to check the cams and found:

 

[scribble]

Hey, this is pretty cool. My mom would have loved a ghost that would shut the door after I left. She was always complaining about the AC.

I wonder if I could get a ghost to close the toilet lid after I'm done? Girl would like that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

It doesn't pan. It wobbles. It shakes. I have no idea how many words there are in the English dictionary to describe that motion, but that's what it does.

This recording only covers a few seconds. Why would it wobble? Why "pan", if even that was the case?

I have no idea why you are defending this obvious hoax. Is it your incessant desire to see a paranormal phenomenon - any paranormal phenomenon - at work? Or is it just the deep need to be right, just once in a while?

 

[AOK Tiger]

Surprise surprise.. a ghost shows up in a tourist attraction famous for its Ghosts !

And people honestly think this has some credibility ?

Simple test.. someone already specified.. set up a motion sensitive camera and leave the doors open..

Result NO GHOST will EVER show up again.. now for us sceptics that is enough to discount the first sighting .. for the woo woos though.. its REAL !

SACS…

Don’t worry about X Rational X he is our resident idiot who latched on to the “hilarious” method of parodying sceptics by pretending to be a loony version of them. His one standard (never changing) “joke” while mildly amusing at first has become HILARIOUS with it massive overuse. It bespeaks his VERY limited repertoire his VERY limited intelligence and his amazingly stupid persistence at sticking with such a lame Joke that he himself has become the object of hilarity…

I greatly enjoy his inanity.. please treat his posts as the great joke ON HIM that they are !

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Aussie thinker, f*ck off dumbass because I will not go easy on kooks like you and those who try to destroy science with this nonsense this is not something that will be taken lightly! F**ktard!

 

[CFLarsen]

Aussie thinker, f*ck off dumbass because I will not go easy on kooks like you and those who try to destroy science with this nonsense this is not something that will be taken lightly! F**ktard!

Saved for posterity.

No science lover - or skeptic - would ever argue like that.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Wow I elicited a response from Rational !

That’s a surprise… as he responds to ANYTHING !

What a life this poor fool must have…

I can just see his thought processes now…

“Hey those damn sceptics at JREF are trying to debunk another piece of paranormal stuff..”

“What can I do to dissuade them.. ?”

“I KNOW”

“I’ll post an inane rant about how we sceptics know EVERYTHING and we are the GREATEST and all woo woos should die !”

“But haven’t I already done that 100 times before??”

“Yeah.. but it is still funny .. and besides I only have one Joke and NO life …”

“Can’t wait till the next post.. I wonder what hilarious method of hanging ◊◊◊◊ on sceptics I will come up with next time.. hehehehe”

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Saved for posterity.

No science lover - or skeptic - would ever argue like that.

No science lover - or skeptic - would ever not argue like that!

Wow I elicited a response from Rational !

Yes you did!

That’s a surprise… as he responds to ANYTHING !

Just about!

What a life this poor fool must have…

No, you f*cking stupid sh*ithead!

I can just see his thought processes now…

This is irrational since thoughts are illusions and can't be seen under materialism!

“Hey those damn sceptics at JREF are trying to debunk another piece of paranormal stuff..”

They better be doing that!

“What can I do to dissuade them.. ?”

Stop going easy on the believers!

“I KNOW”

“I’ll post an inane rant about how we sceptics know EVERYTHING and we are the GREATEST and all woo woos should die !”

You should try it sometime!

“But haven’t I already done that 100 times before??”

That is not enough!

“Can’t wait till the next post.. I wonder what hilarious method of hanging ◊◊◊◊ on sceptics I will come up with next time.. hehehehe”

F*ck off retard!

 

[Darwin'sGoat]

Wow I blocked him in like the first 24 hours I was on this site. Has he come up with something new and exciting? Should I unblock him?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Aussie Thinker
Don’t worry about X Rational X he is our resident idiot who latched on to the “hilarious” method of parodying sceptics by pretending to be a loony version of them. His one standard (never changing) “joke” while mildly amusing at first has become HILARIOUS with it massive overuse.

Hi Aussie Thinker,

The thing is, !Xx-Rational-xX! does have a relevant and somewhat timeless point to his posts, , i.e. "What is good vs. bad skepticism?"

That he can usually get the question/point across humorously is, imo, very commendable.

His posts on his chosen subject make his points in a funny way on various topics--and, broad as the subject is for a board like this, he's hardly a "one note jokester" at all.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Hi Aussie Thinker,

Hi right back Clancie !

The thing is, !Xx-Rational-xX! does have a relevant and somewhat timeless point to his posts, , i.e. "What is good vs. bad skepticism?"

He has a single point.. the way he addresses it is myopic and moronic and bordering on the demented.

That he can usually get the question/point across humorously is, imo, very commendable.

The only “humour” left in Rationals beaten to death one shot joke is that he continues to beat it to death. It's like watching rain man count match sticks…

His posts on his chosen subject make his points in a funny way on various topics--and, broad as the subject is for a board like this, he's hardly a "one note jokester" at all.

He posts on EVERY topic.. and he makes EXACTLY the same lame joke.. his own personal dementia is what is funny…

 

[SquishyDave]

What I noticed about the ole ghosty was his ineptness at closing doors, if you watch the gif, he tries to close the door on our right, then when he closes the left door the right door swings open and he has to reach out and close it again. I would have thought ghosts would be better at that sort of thing.

 

[Garrette]

Steve, the others are correct. This is not a mounted camera, nor is it pan, tilt, or zoom.

Your PELCO stuff (I've worked with PELCO cameras; they're not bad) shows only that PTZ cameras exist, not that this is one. It's easy to tell that it's not.

First, no halfway decent security person would put a pan or tilt camera in a corner where this is. See that corner of wall on the left in the foreground? It negates the pan and tilt features. No, if a camera were put in this corner at all, its sole purpose is to observe the door, in which case it would be totally immobile.

Second, watch the top right corner of the transom. See how it cuts off in one of the frames? That action is not attributable to either pan or tilt. The camera mount itself had to move for that to happen, and since no actual mount would move, that means the camera is on something moveable, i.e, someone's hand.

Third, there is no zooming at all in the picture.

Fourth, the PELCO information you quoted does not describe a pre-programmed pan, tilt sequence; it describes a camera with an 8 position joystick for manipulation by someone monitoring the displays at a console somewhere. If that were happening, then this was observed, but the story makes it clear it was not observed.

This is a hoax, Steve. Self-evidently so.

 

[Mona]

None of this matters because through science we know that materialism is the correct world view! Materialism is a scientific fact and the paranormal is impossible within materialism which discredits it so we must reject everything supernatural!

Don't tell me that you also believe in the irrational woo-woo concept of dreaming!???????????????????????????????

Dreaming does not exist just like ghosts don't exist!

Mostly I have lurked since joining this board. Very clever, you think you are, and you do get some of the naive skeptics going.

Ridicule them as you will. But I was once very gullible and believed a whole sh*tload of absurd bilge, everything from Jesus toting my sins to send me to hell, to his Mother appearing to European peasant children, to homeopathy and insane political conspiracy theories. I was raised and indoctrinated with all of that crap, and it crippled my mind and psyche, for a time. Had I not run into The Zetetic, followed by The Skeptical Enquirerer, in my mid-20s, oh, I might be in an asylum by now. That stuff was making me CRAZY and it was REASON that freed me.

Reason is not, of course, sufficient to meet human needs. But it is absolutely necessary to avoiding much evil. So parody skepticism as you will, but the bigger problem is gullibility and credulousness-- and what these do to kids.

[Edited for typo and clumsy phrasing of last sentence]

 

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, the others are correct. This is not a mounted camera, nor is it pan, tilt, or zoom.

Your PELCO stuff (I've worked with PELCO cameras; they're not bad) shows only that PTZ cameras exist, not that this is one. It's easy to tell that it's not.

First, no halfway decent security person would put a pan or tilt camera in a corner where this is. See that corner of wall on the left in the foreground? It negates the pan and tilt features. No, if a camera were put in this corner at all, its sole purpose is to observe the door, in which case it would be totally immobile.

Second, watch the top right corner of the transom. See how it cuts off in one of the frames? That action is not attributable to either pan or tilt. The camera mount itself had to move for that to happen, and since no actual mount would move, that means the camera is on something moveable, i.e, someone's hand.

Third, there is no zooming at all in the picture.

Fourth, the PELCO information you quoted does not describe a pre-programmed pan, tilt sequence; it describes a camera with an 8 position joystick for manipulation by someone monitoring the displays at a console somewhere. If that were happening, then this was observed, but the story makes it clear it was not observed.

This is a hoax, Steve. Self-evidently so.

I sent the URL of the clip to PELCO for an opinion. Their joystick is used to manually pan and tilt but their scan mode allows the mount of the camera to do this automatically.

Also: did you consider these frames as being shot at time lapse speeds? Or a semblance of that as a result of the transfer to the web? Is it any coincidence also that the pictue is in B&W instead of color. Most security cameras are B&.W only.

I am not saying the figure isnt a hoaxer. I just find hat we are faced with an official quasi-governmental organization in England telling us this tape was made on one of their security cameras and we have others here accusing them of using a hand held to do this, in effect lying about the recorded video.

 

[Stumpy]

I think that the jerkiness in the link that I provided is a result of the author taking a series of stills from the footage and cropping them, the jerkiness doesn't appear in the news report footage that has been shown on the news. I have found a better link that shows the complete report and the original CCTV footage:

http://www.itv.com/news/video/1300_20_hcourt_ghost.rm

It's curious that this "ghost" apparently manages to open the doors without touching them, then struggles to physically close them. As you look at the frame, the door on the right swings open again, the "ghost" has to use both hands on the left hand door to get it to close.

For the non-UK based posters here it's hard to convey the level of interest and belief in ghosts here in the UK. It is now a mini-industry, with many claimed haunted locations able to charge £30 (about $50 usd) per person to go on a "ghost hunt". The popularity of programmes such as "Most Haunted" on our cable channel LivingTV seems to increased the popularity of this pass-time massively. There are literally dozens of these vigils taking place up and down the country every night. Despite the huge volume of these ghost hunts, no-one , as far as I know, has been able to see a ghost and simultaneously photograph or film it. Any images of ghosts that I can find seem to have become apparent after the image was developed (i.e there was nothing seen when the photo was taken) or allegedly captured on CCTV when no one was present to corroborate the presence of the ghost. Certainly the huge number of claimed sightings of ghosts, with discernable features, is inversely proportionate to the number of photographs of such things. Compare this to say, ball-lightning, where there are comparatively few sightings but quite a decent amount of incidents where the effect has been witnessed and simultaneously photographed or filmed - based on this my sense is that science accepts the reality of ball lightning, although no definitive explanation is available. The apparent lack of photographed "ghosts" in the face of the huge number of claimed sightings is suggestive that they are in fact a figment of the imagination. (IMHO)

Despite 3 series of "Most Haunted" the crew have failed to capture anything remotely convincing. The show is an excercise in credulity, 60% - 70% of each 1 hour episode features medium Derek Acorah wondering around talking to spirits and imparting information that is freely available on the internet or at the place being investigated. The producers claim that they are conducting serious investigations, yet use one unproven claimed supernatural ability (mediumship) to solve an unproven claimed supernatural effect (ghosts)! The 15 - 20 minutes of investigation (I use the term lightly) normally yield nothing more than orbs (transparently insects or spiders in most cases) and "unexplained" noises and cold spots that occur in the buildings that are several hundred years old. DUH! This is the most popular cable TV show in the UK at the moment...I have not the words!

regards

Stumpy

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is a hoax, Steve. Self-evidently so.

It's certainly a hoax, no matter what the d*mn camera is!

What I'm perplexed about is why people are discussing it at all. Oh, hang on a sec. Yeah I can guess. So that when it will inevitably get debunked (which no doubt it will be very soon), we'll have yet further evidence against the existence of any paranormal phenomena whatsoever.

Dear me!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Mostly I have lurked since joining this board. Very clever, you think you are, and you do get some of the naive skeptics going.

Ridicule them as you will. But I was once very gullible and believed a whole sh*tload of absurd bilge, everything from Jesus toting my sins to send me to hell, to his Mother appearing to European peasant children, to homeopathy and insane political conspiracy theories. I was raised and indoctrinated with all of that crap, and it crippled my mind and psyche, for a time. Had I not run into The Zetetic, followed by The Skeptical Enquirerer, in my mid-20s, oh, I might be in an asylum by now. That stuff was making me CRAZY and it was REASON that freed me.

Reason is not, of course, sufficient to meet human needs. But it is absolutely necessary to avoiding much evil. So parody skepticism as you will, but the bigger problem is gullibility and credulousness-- and what these do to kids.

[Edited for typo and clumsy phrasing of last sentence]

Yes, but there's no need to go to the other extreme either. Clearly this very physical "ghost" discussed in this thread is a very obvious hoax, but does that mean that all ghosts/apparitions are wholly internally generated ie a hallucination? Certainly not necessarily. Be sceptical, but not skeptical.

 

[CFLarsen]

I sent the URL of the clip to PELCO for an opinion. Their joystick is used to manually pan and tilt but their scan mode allows the mount of the camera to do this automatically.

How do you know the camera was from PELCO?

Also: did you consider these frames as being shot at time lapse speeds?

Yes. Why would that explain the jerkiness of the camera?

Or a semblance of that as a result of the transfer to the web?

Yes. Why would that explain the jerkiness of the camera?

Is it any coincidence also that the pictue is in B&W instead of color. Most security cameras are B&.W only.

A handheld digital camera can often record in B&W as well. Subsequently, the footage can be made B&W.

I am not saying the figure isnt a hoaxer. I just find hat we are faced with an official quasi-governmental organization in England telling us this tape was made on one of their security cameras and we have others here accusing them of using a hand held to do this, in effect lying about the recorded video.

No, we have some security guards who apparently saw the ghost on camera. They can fool their employer. It has happened before.

Yes, I am accusing them of lying about the recorded video. I am saying that this footage does not come from a CCTV.

It's a hoax, Steve.

What I'm perplexed about is why people are discussing it at all. Oh, hang on a sec. Yeah I can guess. So that when it will inevitably get debunked (which no doubt it will be very soon), we'll have yet further evidence against the existence of any paranormal phenomena whatsoever.

No, it will merely be evidence that this was yet another hoax, one of the many that has marred paranormal research.

Dear me!

Yes, that would be detrimental to your beliefs, if any paranormal phenomena would not exist.

Yes, but there's no need to go to the other extreme either. Clearly this very physical "ghost" discussed in this thread is a very obvious hoax, but does that mean that all ghosts/apparitions are wholly internally generated ie a hallucination? Certainly not necessarily. Be sceptical, but not skeptical.

Of course not. However, we can deduct that all of those investigated, all were found to be hoaxes or undetermined, due to lack of positive evidence.

Logical fallacy: Either-or.

Stop whining, Ian, and go out and find some real evidence instead.

 

[Interesting Ian]

For the non-UK based posters here it's hard to convey the level of interest and belief in ghosts here in the UK. It is now a mini-industry, with many claimed haunted locations able to charge £30 (about $50 usd) per person to go on a "ghost hunt". The popularity of programmes such as "Most Haunted" on our cable channel LivingTV seems to increased the popularity of this pass-time massively. There are literally dozens of these vigils taking place up and down the country every night. Despite the huge volume of these ghost hunts, no-one , as far as I know, has been able to see a ghost and simultaneously photograph or film it. Any images of ghosts that I can find seem to have become apparent after the image was developed (i.e there was nothing seen when the photo was taken) or allegedly captured on CCTV when no one was present to corroborate the presence of the ghost. Certainly the huge number of claimed sightings of ghosts, with discernable features, is inversely proportionate to the number of photographs of such things. Compare this to say, ball-lightning, where there are comparatively few sightings but quite a decent amount of incidents where the effect has been witnessed and simultaneously photographed or filmed - based on this my sense is that science accepts the reality of ball lightning, although no definitive explanation is available. The apparent lack of photographed "ghosts" in the face of the huge number of claimed sightings is suggestive that they are in fact a figment of the imagination. (IMHO)

I don't agree at all. It is certainly possible that some ghosts have an external origin, but are not an integral part of this empirical reality so to speak ie are not physical. Just consider ghosts seen during NDE's (being of light, relatives, friends). Clearly they are not physical but that certainly doesn't necessitate they are a hallucination! And consider death-bed apparitions. The dying person can see the ghosts, but not normally the people at their bedside. On the other hand reports say that sometimes the people at their bedside can see what the dying person is seeing. But I doubt whether the image could be captured on a camera.