Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, since it's now perfectly obvious from the link Stumpy posted that the "jerkiness" and other descriptions of aberrant camera behaviour were aretfacts of the cropping and frame selection indulged in by the creator of the earlier link, maybe we could quit this futile line of speculation? It seems quite clear that the footage was indeed from the fixed camera shown in the clip from the TV broadcast.SteveGrenard said:
(I hope PELCO were suitably impressed by Steve's communication - I wonder what they made of it?)
It just seems such an obvious hoax. The doors fly open, and IMMEDIATELY this figure appears and closes them. He must have been right behind them when they opened, and the conclusion that he kicked them open seems reasonable. Then he shut them.
Assuming it wasn't just an oddly-attired security guard checking on the doors, somebody is playing silly b*gg*rs. But that isn't nearly such a good story, is it? Or so likely to inflate Hampton Court's visitor figures....
Rolfe.
Interesting Ian wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities here, either ghosts can be photographed or they can't. If they can't, then that immediately eliminates any photograph ever taken that contains an image claimed to be a ghost. I'm not quite sure of the mechanism your are proposing here, Ian. You are suggesting that ghosts exist outside of the mind and can be experienced with the physical senses, but not photographed. How does that work then? The alternative is that ghosts can be photographed, in which case there should be a mountain of such images, I am struggling to find a single one where a witness sees the ghost and simultaneously photographs the ghost.
regards
Stumpy
Well, there are two possibilities here, either ghosts can be photographed or they can't. If they can't, then that immediately eliminates any photograph ever taken that contains an image claimed to be a ghost. I'm not quite sure of the mechanism your are proposing here, Ian. You are suggesting that ghosts exist outside of the mind and can be experienced with the physical senses, but not photographed. How does that work then? The alternative is that ghosts can be photographed, in which case there should be a mountain of such images, I am struggling to find a single one where a witness sees the ghost and simultaneously photographs the ghost.
regards
Stumpy
Maybe there will be ghosts shown to be real some day, but this hardly looks like it will be the one.
I am curious why Wiseman and others have found it the least bit compelling. The things I've read and seen certainly don't make it look that way at all, in any way....
I am curious why Wiseman and others have found it the least bit compelling. The things I've read and seen certainly don't make it look that way at all, in any way....
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Ian,
From the poll on the CNN web site here
The purpose of a discussion might be to find information that can persuade some of that 47% that they have prematurely jumped to a poor conclusion?
Perhaps it has something to do with trying to counter "popular opinion"? Despite the fact that you and I seem to agree that this is a clear hoax, there are a large number of people who find that conclusion questionable.
From the poll on the CNN web site here
The purpose of a discussion might be to find information that can persuade some of that 47% that they have prematurely jumped to a poor conclusion?
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Clancie said:
It always seems that whenever the subject of the paranormal is discussed on the main 5 channels in the UK (which is very infrequently) either him or Susan Blackmore, both of whom are skeptics, tend to be on there, given plenty of air time giving their opinions. One never seems to get anyone on challenging their views
It's so biased. And Wiseman gave a clearly fallacious argument against reincarnation some time ago. This irritated me no end. D*mn, can't remember what he said now. Oh well.Anyway, to address your question I guess they simply misquoted him. Unless he is saying that it is compelling evidence, so that when it gets debunked, that will seem to many people to make the whole area of the paranormal more implausible. Skeptics are devious like that LOL
What I find curious are "ghosts" who are regional, and ethnically so. You don't see mononoke in the English dwellings, or Grey Ladies in Africa, or US Civil war soldiers in South America. Nope, the wailing betrayed hair-in-the-face ghost girl stays in Asia, Grey Lady sits around in her house, and US Civil War Soldiers haunt, well, the US. What's with all the restrictions? With all the travel that's gone on in the world, can we have some ghosts are of Japanese descent and suffered in the American relocation camps? Can we get an American soldier who died in Vietnam? Or a Canadian who died in France? (Oh, well, I guess the last one is the same thing...) 
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
I think it should be pointed out that it is far from clear that there is only 1 type of ghost. Or there are at least seem to be apparently distinct phenomena which people might tend to label as "ghosts". I mean, perhaps some of them should more appropriately be labelled as spirits, or apparitions, or whatever. I don't know.
Anyway, there are for example what might be called "residual ghosts" which are basically like an reenactment of an historical event. Such ghosts don't seem to be conscious at all. On the other hand there's apparitions who convey messages. There's poltergeists. There's ghosts where you seem to have gone back in time to a particular place. Theres even apparitions of living people! (doppelgangers). I don't know whether any of them can be photographed.
If ghosts are really the spirits of people you wouldn't expect them to be physical would you? If the spirit/soul/essence of a person is physical, then this is basically materialism you're advancing here, and it is difficult how the self could be immortal if this is so. And of course any afterlife realm couldn't be physical otherwise we could in principle detect it! But nevertheless the afterlife realm is external to the self. Such a realm might well be able to be experienced when the brain no longer limits our perceptions ie when the self becomes detached from the brain. Indeed when experiencing ghosts (in this sense spirits) it may be that ones brain is in a certain state whereby it temporarily loosens its normal limiting of conscious perception allowing us to apprehend other existents apart from the empirical. But I suspect that seeing ghosts is not like normal vision (indeed if it were ghosts would be physical!). It is like the seeing we have during remote viewing during OOBE's (voluntary or involuntary), and our seeing in OOBE's during NDE's. It is more like a extra sensory perception (esp).
You're absolutely right about there being multiple kinds of ghosts Ian. For example, from Ghostbusters, we learn that "Slimer" was a "focused, non-terminal, repeating phantasm or a class 5 full roaming vapor."
So clearly there's tons of different kinds of ghosts.
-Elektrix
So clearly there's tons of different kinds of ghosts.
-Elektrix
Suezoled said:What I find curious are "ghosts" who are regional, and ethnically so. You don't see mononoke in the English dwellings, or Grey Ladies in Africa, or US Civil war soldiers in South America. Nope, the wailing betrayed hair-in-the-face ghost girl stays in Asia, Grey Lady sits around in her house, and US Civil War Soldiers haunt, well, the US. What's with all the restrictions? With all the travel that's gone on in the world, can we have some ghosts are of Japanese descent and suffered in the American relocation camps? Can we get an American soldier who died in Vietnam? Or a Canadian who died in France? (Oh, well, I guess the last one is the same thing...)
You have just bumped into the RULES. These cover various aspects of the paranormal and there are sub-sets that deal with each specific area. The rule that you are referring to is the nationality/ethnicity rule. In the US and UK ghosts tend to reflect rather victorian dictates. Other rules reflect the presence of believer or language. Ian gave a good precis of an Uber rule:
... 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.
We have, you will note, sort of assumed their existance and then jumped, immediately, into the RULES. The key to understanding paranormal doublespeak is the use of the word "some". Also the use of words like "external" and "empirical". The set up is that we have, in a few words set up at least four kinds of ghosts: external and (presumably) internal and for each of these types physical and not physical. Bear in mind the use of the word "external", that could be license for anything.
Just consider ghosts seen during NDE's (being of light, relatives, friends).
Again you are being drawn in. We have established that ghosts exist and now, without pause, talk of a certain type. Is it true? Who knows, who cares.
[Clearly they are not physical but that certainly doesn't necessitate they are a hallucination!
Golly, no!. Bold statements are key, as you are seeing. We have established their existance by fiat and now their "existance" argues against hallucination. We have (and necessarily) lost complete sight of the basic question.
And consider death-bed apparitions. The dying person can see the ghosts, but not normally the people at their bedside.
We have here lost all semblence of reasoned discussion. What the poor dieing sod can only be experiencing are "apparitions" which immediately become "ghosts". The use of the word "normally" is to provide the illusion of a grounding in reality. Again, sometimes they see 'em, sometimes they don't.
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.
So now we inject a real spinner. They are not physical (sometimes? all the time? who knows) yet they deplete visual pigments, a physical process. So they must be physical, right? No. You forget the rules. Remember this statement?
... 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.
This is the get out of jail free card. "External origin" could mean anything at all. Often this is where we see some invokation of QM or somesuch.
Just remember Rule #1: There are no rules.
Headline:
"Idiots in Britain Capture Video of Man in Robe Opening Door."
Experts claim incontrovertable proof that men exist, wear robes, use doors. Skeptics claim equally incontrovertable proof that people are stupid, buy anything. Bored board people debate camera features.
Yawn...... Snore.
"Idiots in Britain Capture Video of Man in Robe Opening Door."
Experts claim incontrovertable proof that men exist, wear robes, use doors. Skeptics claim equally incontrovertable proof that people are stupid, buy anything. Bored board people debate camera features.
Yawn...... Snore.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Thanks Stumpy. This was an excellent find. . The jerkiness and constant apparent movement of the first video we saw was due to the manner in which it was transferred. I have seen this type of jerkiness in time lapse recordingalso , and this was obviously equivalent to that considering the means by which someone captured a series of still frames off the video to create the gif animation.
Pelco controllers, including automated pan/tilt/and zoom functions are used worldwide; their remote control mounts are standard for any decent surveillance camera set-up. They do not make cameras but their heads have standard mounts for any video camera. I use them with in conjunction with Sony B&W cameras and ceramic infra red emitters to photograph people in pitch darkness while asleep. The PELCO trained enigneer who set up my lab agrees with the assesment made above by Stumpy. He also compared the two sets of footage. The picture is definitely NOT a hand-held substitution as maintained by some here, while the figure in the picture could be, without doubt,
a hoax.
Somebody dressed up in a long robe and ghost-like Halloween mask face does not automatically require his presence to be shot with a hand held when in fact he would know darn well he was being recorded by a mounted video surveillance cam on the roof opposite the doorway he is is using. Much more credibility for the hoax as well.
Someone also thought they saw a second smaller figure in the doorway as well. Did anyone notice this?
Again this points to the very interesting problem of some wild eyed super pseudoskeptics making outrageous, un-investigated claims or counter-claims , turning out to be outright lies, all in the interest of debunking. This hurts their case. A careful and reasoned explanation, the seeking out of professional advice, the elucidation of the original footage (as obtained by Stumpy) all discredits the notion that this was done with a hand held, a theory embraced by some super pseudoskeptics to make their case. When you try and make a case built on the basis of supposition, you make no case at all and end up marginalizing, trivliaizing and discrediting yourself.
Definitely helps to see the original CCTV film.
My question though: what is it that the people who think this is a ghost are seeing that I'm not? What is it in this film of someone opening and closing a door that makes them think its a ghost?
Other than the very beginning (where some frames of film could have been cut out to make it look like the figure suddenly "appears")...it looks like a guy, maybe with a mask or hood, opening and closing a door.
I'm curious why the people interviewed seem so convinced that it -isn't- easily explainable? There must be something in what they're seeing, or thinking is there, that we're missing here.....
And, just curious, have credible people looked at the original film from that camera? Or how the "normal" cctv film of that area looks by comparison? For example, what's all the blurring in some parts of the picture caused by while the rest is in focus? It doesn't seem consistent with moisture on the camera lens...Is it supposed to look "ghost like?" It looks kind of phony to me, but maybe there's a "camera-type" reason....
My question though: what is it that the people who think this is a ghost are seeing that I'm not? What is it in this film of someone opening and closing a door that makes them think its a ghost?
Other than the very beginning (where some frames of film could have been cut out to make it look like the figure suddenly "appears")...it looks like a guy, maybe with a mask or hood, opening and closing a door.
I'm curious why the people interviewed seem so convinced that it -isn't- easily explainable? There must be something in what they're seeing, or thinking is there, that we're missing here.....
And, just curious, have credible people looked at the original film from that camera? Or how the "normal" cctv film of that area looks by comparison? For example, what's all the blurring in some parts of the picture caused by while the rest is in focus? It doesn't seem consistent with moisture on the camera lens...Is it supposed to look "ghost like?" It looks kind of phony to me, but maybe there's a "camera-type" reason....
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Reply: I think it is the long coat with piping. This is not normal 21st Centrury dress.
That and the mask-like or indistinct face adds to the effect.
Reply: The sudden appearance on one frame and absence on a prior is typical of time lapse. Nothing mysterious here.
Reply: Just a person, dressed in costume, whose presence was completely unexpected and probably never seen before on vuideo or anyother way. When I visited Hampton Court back in 1970s I remember they had ladies walking around in period dress. I didn't see any Henry VIIIs, however.
Reply: I have seen a perfect still and there is no blurring. So this may be due to the camera speed or the method of transferring.
Outdoor surveillance cameras are in sealed, water-proof housings. They even have a hood over the front window, behind which the lenses is located. In the biggest downpours the window doesn't usually get wet. You can see such housings on the Pelco website.
Knock knock.SteveGrenard said:
Who's there?
Woo.
Woo hoo.
Oh, stop your whining, you pathetic woo. Those "wild eyed super pseudoskeptics" observed the evidence presented at that time and noted, quite correctly, that those images did not match CCTV images. You, on the other hand, attempted to justify them as matching CCTV images:
Now, sir, go back and look at those first images. Observe that neither panning, nor zooming nor tilting could have yielded the rotational effects that are seen from frame to frame. But, now, what does that make you but a "wild eyed super pseudowoo."
Woo hoo.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
The first images are a gif animation and therefore garbage. Stumpy has already pointed this out. I can access my e-mail so I am forwarding the messages I got re this footage from people who have seen the original and work in this field.
Some comments by private e-mail:
"...the wobble is the result of the images having been cropped for this animated GIF sequence. If you look at the still photo taken from the CCTV footage, it shows (when uncropped) a good deal more of the roof of the building on the left side of the frame. (See attached file.) Whoever stitched together the GIF animation cropped the photos pretty tight. Still, there is some sort of panning and/or tilting action going on, I think. Perspective seems to shift slightly throughout the brief sequence.
I saw the CCTV footage on TV the other night, and I don't remember any significant wobble. The footage is time-lapse, though, so unfortunately we see only bits and pieces of the action.
It certainly *appears* as if the doors opened on their own, with the "ghost" some distance away and well out of camera range. If these were heavy fire doors, they would be unlikely to pop open on their own."
Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SG note: sorry, cannot post the still photo image here as referenced above as this feature does not seem to be
working ...unless someone can tell me what to do)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I sent this bit of video to a friend who has a very old p c. Perhaps because of this the action was slowed down a little. It seems obvious to me that there is another figure ( as we look at it on our left) to the right of the "figure." This looks like a much smaller person opening the door. The person is wearing what looks like a base ball type cap and is bent over thus making the head at a low level." Pat
-------------------------------------------------
"Even though you don't see it Steve, there does seem to be a very slight haze around the figure and in front of it
if you sharpen the image Doug captured. This is probably humidity or some of that "fog" coming in off the Thames that the area is so famous for. " Greg
Some comments by private e-mail:
"...the wobble is the result of the images having been cropped for this animated GIF sequence. If you look at the still photo taken from the CCTV footage, it shows (when uncropped) a good deal more of the roof of the building on the left side of the frame. (See attached file.) Whoever stitched together the GIF animation cropped the photos pretty tight. Still, there is some sort of panning and/or tilting action going on, I think. Perspective seems to shift slightly throughout the brief sequence.
I saw the CCTV footage on TV the other night, and I don't remember any significant wobble. The footage is time-lapse, though, so unfortunately we see only bits and pieces of the action.
It certainly *appears* as if the doors opened on their own, with the "ghost" some distance away and well out of camera range. If these were heavy fire doors, they would be unlikely to pop open on their own."
Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SG note: sorry, cannot post the still photo image here as referenced above as this feature does not seem to be
working ...unless someone can tell me what to do)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I sent this bit of video to a friend who has a very old p c. Perhaps because of this the action was slowed down a little. It seems obvious to me that there is another figure ( as we look at it on our left) to the right of the "figure." This looks like a much smaller person opening the door. The person is wearing what looks like a base ball type cap and is bent over thus making the head at a low level." Pat
-------------------------------------------------
"Even though you don't see it Steve, there does seem to be a very slight haze around the figure and in front of it
if you sharpen the image Doug captured. This is probably humidity or some of that "fog" coming in off the Thames that the area is so famous for. " Greg
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes.SteveGrenard said:
A day late and a dollar short.
Rolfe.