A Hampton Court Ghost

[fsol]

Has anybody seen this?


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8268114?source=Metro

Psychologist Dr Richard Wiseman said the spectre, nicknamed Skeletor, might prove to be a significant discovery.

'It could be the best ghost sighting ever,' he said. 'I haven't seen anything that would match that at all.'

[MRC_Hans]

Kewl! That's gonna boost their ticket sales. .... Which is presumably the purpose. :rolleyes:

Hans

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

This is just words and anecdotes that mean nothing! Besides this goes against materialism and the skeptical world view so it is impossible and false and we know that as a fact! The guards were just halucinating due to their own wishful thinking that there are magical ghosts! The picture is a clear fake I can do that in photoshop in less than 6 minutes!

Debunked!!!!!!!!!!!

[fsol]

I remember someone telling me (it might have been here) that they had seen a ghost at one of these stately homes type of places. And instead of standing still and staring or running away, went over and tackled it. Upon which the ghost turned round and told him to push off as he was employed by the stately home to dress up and roam about to spook the tourists.

Something like that anyway.

I am just amused by Dr Wisemans comments.

[Lothian]

Richard Wiseman is a parapsychologist (and Skeptic) who conducts many popular experiments. Although appealing to the masses the experiments are well done and to date have confirmed no supernatural activity. I suspect his comments are taken out of context along the lines of 'If you could turn that tree upside down by the power of thought alone, It could be the best paranormal event ever,' he said. 'I haven't seen anything that would match that at all

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There is no need for further discussion I have debunked this and proven that it is bull sh*t like everything else considered supernatural!

[Ed]

Very cool. I love ghosts in old buildings.

[fsol]

I seem to remember Wiseman doing somesort of Hampton Court ghost study at some time or another. Probably why they asked him to comment.

[Jeff Corey]

"Australian tourists have also reported seeing the ghost..."
Well, that settles it.
Was that during the Pommie Pub Crawl Event, then?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
"Australian tourists have also reported seeing the ghost..."
Well, that settles it.
Was that during the Pommie Pub Crawl Event, then? There were two of them providing the double blind drunk control.

[richardm]

From the article:
The palace, in West London, has ruled out its guides as suspects because they do not enter that part of the building.

Ah, well, if the guides never go there then it must be a ghost, eh?

[Suezoled]

Oh, the guides don't enter that part.... maybe they go around and close the doors.

[Checkmite]

I think it's fascinating. Unlike the "ghost in the junkyard" video, which was clearly fake, we only have a still in this case - and I must admit it's a uber-cool still at that. The figure seems solid enough to be a real person, so Occam's Razor and all that.

I still think it looks cool though.

[max]

The film of the 'ghost' closing the doors was caught on cctv security cameras. The alarm went off but no one was there. When the tape recording was checked, the figure as you see it in the photo (on the link given further up this thread) was the cause
The film was shown on Richard and Judy prog this evening

[ShowMe]

"To the sceptic it may simply look like a fuzzy CCTV image of someone in a long coat walking through a doorway. "


Shouldn't that read "to any rational thinking person it may simply look like a fuzzy CCTV image of someone in a long coat walking through a doorway. "

The mystery surfaced two months ago

Two months ago? You mean, right around Halloween? Coincidence, I'm sure.



Security staff heard alarms ringing near an exhibition hall, indicating fire doors had been opened. But on investigation they found the doors closed

No HUMAN could possibly open doors, then close them!


To add to the mystery, the doors also flew open at the same time the very next day. But the ghostly figure has been spotted only once

Odd how cameras can only pick this up once, and then with a very grainy & fuzzy texture.

Yes, yes I'm aware these are security cameras and the resolution isn't the best. Still, one would think in all these years there would be at least ONE nice, crisp, clear photograph or film.....

[Bluegill]

At last, absolute and definitive proof! :)


How much attention would this attract if the person at the door was wearing a modern business suit and tie? But it looks like it's wearing an old robe. Therefore, ghost.

[Suezoled]

The alarm system said doors were open. The employees ran and the doors were closed. The security camera shows the doors coming open. The security camera shows the door being closed. By an entity that has power to affect this plane of existence and cares enough to close things up for us poor humans. Hm... funny how the doors popped open without help but closed by a "spector"....

[Samus]

I just read the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/19/hampton.ghost.ap/index.html) on this. I actually find it quite intriguing, and it's a pretty cool picture. Possible non-paranormal explanations include: an altered CCTV still, an employee playing a joke, the guards playing a joke, and an employee unknowingly causing a stir by using this exit.

If they wish to prove it further, they should attach a video recorder, or just a regular high-quality camera, to a motion sensor where that CCTV camera is. When the doors begin to open, it triggers the motion sensor and the camera films the whole thing.

But they probably won't do that. It's good for tourist revenue to have a good mystery like this.

[Questioninggeller]

It's at CNN too:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/19/hampton.ghost.ap/index.html

Think someone will try to claim the million with this video?

Closed-circuit security cameras at Hampton Court Palace, the huge Tudor castle outside London, seem to have snagged an ethereal visitor. Could it be a ghost?

"We're baffled too -- it's not a joke, we haven't manufactured it," said Vikki Wood, a Hampton Court spokeswoman, when asked if the photo the palace released was a Christmas hoax. "We genuinely don't know who it is or what it is."

Wood said security guards had seen the figure in closed-circuit television footage after checking it to see who kept leaving open one of the palace's fire doors.

In the still photograph, the figure of a man in a robe-like garment is shown stepping from the shadowy doorway, one arm reaching out for the door handle.

[Questioninggeller]

I didn't know ghosts need to open doors... I though they could walk through them. LOL

[smoke]

Possibly the ghost of xmas past heading out on 2003 scrouge patrol.

Altho he looks surprisingly solid and corporeal.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by ShowMe

No HUMAN could possibly open doors, then close them!
[/B]

One of the best lines in cinema history...

"Right...no human being would stack books like this."

[Elektrix]

Honestly I don't get what the big deal is (my own mother just e-mailed me a link to this story asking if I could explain it). I mean, it doesn't even LOOK like a ghost photo, it looks like a photo of some guy in a robe...... there isn't even anything ethereal about it. And the guy is opening the doors (why would a ghost need to or want to do that)?

-Elektrix

[Teetop]

A security video was mentioned--all we've seen is a still photo--I'd like to see the video.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
This is just words and anecdotes that mean nothing! Besides this goes against materialism and the skeptical world view so it is impossible and false and we know that as a fact! The guards were just halucinating due to their own wishful thinking that there are magical ghosts! The picture is a clear fake I can do that in photoshop in less than 6 minutes!

Debunked!!!!!!!!!!!


It's idiots like you that give other skeptics a bad name..... Seriously, people can take a post such as yours and say something such as "see, this is how close minded skeptics are".....
At least other skeptics on here give explanations regarding what they think it might be. As far as my opinion, well, it doesn't prove that it's a ghost, nor does it prove that it isn't., therefore the current evidence given is inconclusive.
KingsFan

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN



It's idiots like you that give other skeptics a bad name..... Seriously, people can take a post such as yours and say something such as "see, this is how close minded skeptics are".....
At least other skeptics on here give explanations regarding what they think it might be. As far as my opinion, well, it doesn't prove that it's a ghost, nor does it prove that it isn't., therefore the current evidence given is inconclusive.
KingsFan

Fine then let's get irrational and play into the believers fairy tales and delusions! That is just what they want us to do but we don't have to take their nonsensical quackery serious and consider any bull sh*t that they call evidence! If we even take this nonsense into consideration then we will soon be taking the tooth fairy into consideration! There is no paranormal science clearly tells us this and makes it a fact so to think otherwise would be to hate science! It is beliefs like this that separates the smart and dumb but us skeptics happen to be the smart ones!

Praise materialism in all it's rational glory in a non-religious way!

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


Fine then let's get irrational and play into the believers fairy tales and delusions! That is just what they want us to do but we don't have to take their nonsensical quackery serious and consider any bull sh*t that they call evidence! If we even take this nonsense into consideration then we will soon be taking the tooth fairy into consideration! There is no paranormal science clearly tells us this and makes it a fact so to think otherwise would be to hate science! It is beliefs like this that separates the smart and dumb but us skeptics happen to be the smart ones!

Praise materialism in all it's rational glory in a non-religious way!


That's funny, I know alot of people with high levels of degrees who are extremely intelligent who believe in the possibility of things beyond our 5 physical senses. To be honest with you, I'd hope to God(or whoever) that no other skeptics on this board think like you do. ... Perhaps you are only on here to make a mockery of skeptics. I honestly can't take your posts seriously, and I don't think anyone can.
I'd feel really sorry for you if you were half way serious in regards to what you are saying.

KingsFan

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN



That's funny, I know alot of people with high levels of degrees who are extremely intelligent who believe in the possibility of things beyond our 5 physical senses. To be honest with you, I'd hope to God(or whoever) that no other skeptics on this board think like you do. ... Perhaps you are only on here to make a mockery of skeptics. I honestly can't take your posts seriously, and I don't think anyone can.
I'd feel really sorry for you if you were half way serious in regards to what you are saying.

KingsFan

Then those people are not being rational! Rational thinking above all else! As skeptics we must not take these rubish claims serious without dissmissing them because if we do who knows what else the kooks will want us to take seriously! Any rational skeptic here knows as a fact that the paranormal doesn't exist because of science so there is no reason to analyze fraud and delusions but I have already debunked this case of woo-wooism!

“Open minds are empty minds.” - Dr. Lewis Wolpert chairman of COPUS British CSICOP

[Kess]

Best article on the ghost I've seen so far must be from today's The Sun newspaper (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583270,00.html). I can't resist quoting a few lines from it...

Apparently, it "could be the ghost of notorious King Henry VIII, experts said last night". Who are these experts? "Leading authority Terry O’Sullivan ... the College of Psychic Studies’ top expert on ghosts". Right. And he adds that it's highly significant that it was filmed back in October, because "the period around Hallowe’en is the most active for apparitions of this kind. It is the time of the year when the veil between this world and the other world is at its thinnest. I find it entirely believable that this was the ghost of Henry VIII".

That's enough. I'm giggling too much to type.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

Then those people are not being rational! Rational thinking above all else! As skeptics we must not take these rubish claims serious without dissmissing them because if we do who knows what else the kooks will want us to take seriously! Any rational skeptic here knows as a fact that the paranormal doesn't exist because of science so there is no reason to analyze fraud and delusions but I have already debunked this case of woo-wooism!

“Open minds are empty minds.” - Dr. Lewis Wolpert chairman of COPUS British CSICOP


If it was up to you, we would have never flown, because your close mind would have said
"it can never be done, it's not rational to think we can fly".

If it were up to you, we would have never sailed, because your close mind would have said
"the world is flat, it's not rational to think that the world is round"

If it were up to you, we would have never discovered be pondering such beautiful theoretical concepts like string theory, because your close mind would have said,
"the idea of other dimensions makes no sense to my rational mind"

and I could go on and on and on and on.....

LOL, I just wrote a poem. I think I'll keep it :).... ...Nope, your thinking doesn't sound too intelligent to me, better check your IQ.

SacKingsFan

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN



If it was up to you, we would have never flown, because your close mind would have said
"it can never be done, it's not rational to think we can fly".

If it were up to you, we would have never sailed, because your close mind would have said
"the world is flat, it's not rational to think that the world is round"

If it were up to you, we would have never discovered be pondering such beautiful theoretical concepts like string theory, because your close mind would have said,
"the idea of other dimensions makes no sense to my rational mind"

and I could go on and on and on and on.....

LOL, I just wrote a poem. I think I'll keep it :).... ...Nope, your thinking doesn't sound too intelligent to me, better check your IQ.

SacKingsFan

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!

[geni]

SAC_KINGS_FAN as far as we have been able to work out !Xx+-Rational-+xX! is joking.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

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

Sure I have lucid dreams every week. Not only do I dream, but I can control many of them and do whatever I want to do in them by programming myself through various exercises I learned in a book the night before..... If you don't dream, then you are obviously not a human being....

Let me also ask you this question, how do you know that what appears to be real life isn't some type of dream??? Where is your proof of that not being true? :)


Just playing the devil's advocate due to your irrationality.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Sure I have lucid dreams every week. Not only do I dream, but I can control many of them and do whatever I want to do in them by programming myself through various exercises I learned in a book the night before..... If you don't dream, then you are obviously not a human being....

Let me also ask you this question, how do you know that what appears to be real life isn't some type of dream??? Where is your proof of that not being true? :)


Just playing the devil's advocate due to your irrationality.

There is no evidence for dreams so remember the skeptic saying that "it's irrational to believe in anything that isn't proven"! Do you have any evidence besides anecdotes!?

http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/d.html

Life isn't a dream because materialism is true and because of Occam's Razor but I won't get into disproving negative claims like this and Santa Claus!

Nobody has ever dreamed!

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


There is no evidence for dreams so remember the skeptic saying that "it's irrational to believe in anything that isn't proven"! Do you have any evidence besides anecdotes!?

http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/d.html

Life isn't a dream because materialism is true and because of Occam's Razor but I won't get into disproving negative claims like this and Santa Claus!

Nobody has ever dreamed!

I don't need to prove what I already know is true. If you don't believe it, then that's your problem.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


I don't need to prove what I already know is true. If you don't believe it, then that's your problem.

Anecdotel, it does not matter what people think they know what should be accepted depends on evidence! Geni just may have a point there but I will never tell anyone for sure!

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

Geni just may have a point there but I will never tell anyone for sure!

Well then, if I don't know if someone is joking or not joking, then it's not worth me wasting my time with.

good night.......

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Well then, if I don't know if someone is joking or not joking, then it's not worth me wasting my time with.

good night.......

No time is wasted when promoting science and rational thinking!

[De_Bunk]

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!...

You are such a woowoo kookball believer..it ain't real...

Seriously..how long did you think you could carry on posting, like you do...and people not realise...

All you are doing is pathetically trying to make fun of members here...and the quicker people realise that fact..the better...

Get back to the John Edward board...or Shadowlands board...

You might be foolin' the slower minded here...but not me..

You are nothing but a Kook believer, who thinks he has found a new angle of attack...

Think you're smart...

Nah...obviously not...

DB

( and please...as im sure you know...i couldnt give a sh*t...so don't even bother...)

[zultr]

I thought ghosts only appear as orbs in photographs.

[Teetop]

I think Kings is merely saying that one should keep an opened mind. I also believe that one should not form a conclusion until the evidence is examined. Unfortunately, it's up to those making the claims to provide that evidene--hehe
I don't see any proof that ghosts exist--all we have is a photo--
it's funny, the ghost is in a Henry the VIII pose that one might see in a movie--he forcefully opens or closes the doors dramatically with both arms.
The article mentions a CCTV video---has anyone seen it?-it might shed new light on the situation.
Wow--just think-if it could be proven that this incident is genunine, the probability that life after death exists would be high. So let's see some real proof.

[dharlow]

Someone should check the visitation records from the past several months. Perhaps (maybe because of Wiseman's critical study), fewer people have been visiting, and someone thought this would help generate more business. A check on visitation numbers might reveal a potential motive for fraud.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!...

You are such a woowoo kookball believer..it ain't real...

Seriously..how long did you think you could carry on posting, like you do...and people not realise...

All you are doing is pathetically trying to make fun of members here...and the quicker people realise that fact..the better...

Get back to the John Edward board...or Shadowlands board...

You might be foolin' the slower minded here...but not me..

You are nothing but a Kook believer, who thinks he has found a new angle of attack...

Think you're smart...

Nah...obviously not...

DB

( and please...as im sure you know...i couldnt give a sh*t...so don't even bother...)

Damn kook lover it's obvious that you don't give a flying f*ck about science because you get so offended when people are hard on quacks! Rational is a skeptic trying to protect science from nonsense not a delusional believers such as yourself!

[Stumpy]

This footage has been featured heavily on national news reports in the UK. For anyone who hasn't seen the footage, follow this link:

http://mysite.freeserve.com/gamesmastervze/bxb/ghost.gif

[dharlow]

I note how the "ghost" shuts each door individually, in a suspicious attempt, in my opinion, to make sure it is seen on camera.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Stumpy
This footage has been featured heavily on national news reports in the UK. For anyone who hasn't seen the footage, follow this link:

http://mysite.freeserve.com/gamesmastervze/bxb/ghost.gif

Thanks for the link.

Excuse me, but doesn't this footage come from a CCTV?

Since when are CCTV's handheld?

Me Smell Big Stinking Skunk. Dead, But Not In Spirit.

[Teetop]

It looks like a guy in a Halloween costume
Notice he's pulling one of the bars (that was surely installed after the 1500's) to shut the door---probably a Halloween prank--
Why is the camera moving at different angles?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Lothian
Richard Wiseman is a parapsychologist (and Skeptic) who conducts many popular experiments. Although appealing to the masses the experiments are well done and to date have confirmed no supernatural activity. I suspect his comments are taken out of context along the lines of 'If you could turn that tree upside down by the power of thought alone, It could be the best paranormal event ever,' he said. 'I haven't seen anything that would match that at all

I read a more complete account of Wiseman's comments. In the quotes I rwad he said that it was one of the best apparitions he's seen. That doesn't mean its a ghost or anything paranormal, it just means its an image.

He was then quoted as saying that he doesn't believe in ghosts.

[Teetop]

Considering the ghost has no physical body, he sure opens and closes doors with no problem---and he can use the modern door handle at that. So, it take it then that bodiless spirits can appear and manipulate pyhsical objects. Interesting---I wonder how many deceased maids are wandering around looking for something to do. My house could use a good cleaning--I wonder what she would accept as payment.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Thanks for the link.

Excuse me, but doesn't this footage come from a CCTV?

Since when are CCTV's handheld?

Me Smell Big Stinking Skunk. Dead, But Not In Spirit.

LOL! A wobbly CCTV camera. :D

Maybe poltergeist activity is shaking it around. ;)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Teetop
Considering the ghost has no physical body, he sure opens and closes doors with no problem---and he can use the modern door handle at that. So, it take it then that bodiless spirits can appear and manipulate pyhsical objects. Interesting---I wonder how many deceased maids are wandering around looking for something to do. My house could use a good cleaning--I wonder what she would accept as payment.

Like they said about the alien in the movie Predator: "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

In this case, if the ghost can touch a metal and wooden door, then we can hit the ghost with metal and wood. :cool:

Someone should take a baseball bat and go knock the ectoplasm out of it! :D

[tamiO]

bump :)

[Teetop]

If one were to hit it with a baseball bat, what one would see coming out surely wouldn't be ectoplasm:hit:

[Morwen]

(Bumping of normal, sane thread to help against the newest annoying juvenile attempt at taking over the forum)

[SteveGrenard]

I dont think this is a shaky camera at all. Stationery surveillnce cameras are set sometimes to run at slower speeds, such as 1 or 10 frames per second, and tend to give this appearance. Just my two cents. Surely an expert here can shed further light on this.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Many moons ago I stumbled across: www.haunteddiary.com

The Haunted Diary is an intellectual gathering of people who hang out on a website to look at two cheap web-cams set up in 'authentic' haunted houses. They then spend all of their free time posting screen captures of blurry, artifacted, webshots and acting like a bunch of crazy people.

So inspired, I came to the decision that:

This was too good for me to pass up.

http://www.haunteddiary.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000045

My thought was: fake a picture with a very obvious chunk of something ghostly in the foreground and make everyone focus on that. The only other pictures that were up on the site at that point were so boring I would be sure to cause a commotion. In the background (behind the door) I would sneak in a very faint inverted face. Drum up the interest, and then while I've got everybody's attention I would have another friend (different IP address) point out the face and we'd play it by ear from there.

It opened up beautifully. Not even a half hour into it one of the board regulars noticed the face behind the door and they all went crazy.

My final mistake however was not taking my time with the pics. I did them in literally about 15 minutes and posted them as quickly as possible so there would be little time between the time on the capture and the post.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I dont think this is a shaky camera at all. Stationery surveillnce cameras are set sometimes to run at slower speeds, such as 1 or 10 frames per second, and tend to give this appearance. Just my two cents. Surely an expert here can shed further light on this.

Male bovine manure, Steve. We don't need an "expert" to see that the camera moves.

It moves, Steve. A CCTV? It doesn't pan, it is shaky. Just as if it was handheld.

[SteveGrenard]

They can be set to pan, automatically or manually. Check out Pelco's website for a remote panning black box for such sureveillance cameras. They can augomatically or manually be remotely zoomed in/zoomed out as well. And they can be set at time lapse as indicated above. They are by no means stationery, fixed units.

or here:


http://www.cctvhardware.com/products.html

or the source:


http://www.pelco.com/products/controlsite/controls/direct.aspx

MPT24DT/MPT115DT
Pan/Tilt Functions


Product Features
• Desktop or Rack Mount
• 8-Position Joystick Control for a Single Pan/Tilt
• Manual or Auto/Random Scan Models Available
• 24 VAC or 120 VAC Output

Documents
Product Specification Sheet (174 KB PDF)
Installation/Operation Manual (87 KB PDF)
MPT24DT A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
MPTA24DT A&E Specifications (16 KB RTF)
MPT115DT A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
MPTA115DT A&E Specifications (16 KB RTF)
MPT220DT A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
C06HWC A&E Specifications (8 KB RTF)
DWG CAD Drawings (24 KB ZIP)
DXF CAD Drawings (18 KB ZIP)

MPTAZ Series
Pan/Tilt, Scanner and Lens Functions


Product Features
• Desktop or Rack Mount
• For use with 24 VAC, 120 VAC or 230 VAC Pan/Tilts or Scanners
• AMP CPC Type Connector used for 120 and 230 VAC Models; Terminal Strip Supplied for 24 VAC Models
• Capable of Auto/Random Scan Operation

Documents
Product Specification Sheet (172 KB PDF)
Installation/Operation Manual (114 KB PDF)
MPTAZ24DT A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
MPTAZ24DT/220 A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
MPTAZ115DT A&E Specifications (14 KB RTF)
MPTAZ220DT A&E Specifications (15 KB RTF)
DWG CAD Drawings (84 KB ZIP)
DXF CAD Drawings (63 KB ZIP)

[Darwin'sGoat]

A pan would mean that there's a focal point that the camera spins on. If it's double axis that would mean that there's a focal point that both planes met on. That string of pictures has no such point, just as if it were someone in a window taking pictures with a handheld camera.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat
A pan would mean that there's a focal point that the camera spins on. If it's double axis that would mean that there's a focal point that both planes met on. That string of pictures has no such point, just as if it were someone in a window taking pictures with a handheld camera.

Definitely on a double axis. But you fail to note that I specify above such units can be set to pan and tilt, which would give you both. They also can automatically zoom in and out. This can also be done manually by an operator back at the control panel watching this on the monitor
being fed the signal from this camera and if the guy was awake I think he would've been doing exactly that.

[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:

http://www.thecafewha.com/skeletor.jpg

[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?

[Aussie Thinker]

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]

Originally posted by !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!

Saved for posterity.

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

[Aussie Thinker]

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 s**t on sceptics I will come up with next time.. hehehehe”

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


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 s**t 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. :)

[Aussie Thinker]

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]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


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]

Originally posted by 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.


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]

Originally posted by Garrette
This is a hoax, Steve. Self-evidently so.



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

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. :rolleyes:

Dear me!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mona


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]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Also: did you consider these frames as being shot at time lapse speeds?

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

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Or a semblance of that as a result of the transfer to the web?

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

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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. :rolleyes:

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

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Dear me!

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

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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]

Originally posted by Stumpy


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.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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.

Assuming a lot here, aren't we?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.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.

(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.

[Stumpy]

Interesting Ian wrote:

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.

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

[Clancie]

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....

[Loki]

Ian,

What I'm perplexed about is why people are discussing it at all.
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/19/hampton.ghost.ap/)

Do you think the Hampton Court Palace image is a hoax?
Yes 53% 24172 votes
No 47% 21362 votes

Total: 45534 votes


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]

Originally posted by Clancie
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....

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

[Suezoled]

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...) :p

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.



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?



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).

[Elektrix]

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

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suezoled
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...) :p

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.

[DVFinn]

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.

[SteveGrenard]

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


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.

[hgc]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Sure I have lucid dreams every week. Not only do I dream, but I can control many of them and do whatever I want to do in them by programming myself through various exercises I learned in a book the night before..... If you don't dream, then you are obviously not a human being....
... Do you commit crimes in your dreams? Do you get laid?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


(snipped) 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.

With your tendency to lord things over... you don't have many friends, do you? :p

[Clancie]

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. :confused:

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]

Clancie wrote: 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?

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.

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.

Reply: The sudden appearance on one frame and absence on a prior is typical of time lapse. Nothing mysterious here.

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.....

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.

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....


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.

[Clancie]

Hi Steve,

I think it is the long coat with piping....

That and the mask-like or indistinct face adds to the effect.

...time lapse (photography)....

Just a person, dressed in costume, whose presence was completely unexpected
Seriously? That, and the locked/unlocked door....That's....it? :confused:
How disappointing.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.
Knock knock.
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:
They can be set to pan, automatically or manually. Check out Pelco's website for a remote panning black box for such sureveillance cameras. They can augomatically or manually be remotely zoomed in/zoomed out as well. And they can be set at time lapse as indicated above. They are by no means stationery, fixed units.

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]

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

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The first images are a gif animation and therefore garbage.Yes.

A day late and a dollar short.

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

Still photo referenced above:

[Paladin]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8268114?source=Metro

The blurring in the photograph is caused by JPEG compression. Information available here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/


JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn't quite the same as
the one you started with. (There are lossless image compression algorithms,
but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless
methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye,
notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than
small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images
that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your
images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even
if they are invisible to the eye.

A useful property of JPEG is that the degree of lossiness can be varied by
adjusting compression parameters. This means that the image maker can trade
off file size against output image quality. You can make *extremely* small
files if you don't mind poor quality; this is useful for applications such
as indexing image archives. Conversely, if you aren't happy with the output
quality at the default compression setting, you can jack up the quality
until you are satisfied, and accept lesser compression.

Because of this, areas of similar color and less detail undergo more "compression" by the JPEG algorithm. That's why the walls show less blurring than the mostly-gray-and-featureless foreground.

=======

Is it a ghost? No. Is it something supernatural? No. It's a living person in a costume. How do I know this? It's really quite simple. Please examine the photograph carefully. The figure moves into view from shadow into light; the amount of light on the figure increases as it moves into the open doorway, and lessens as it closes the doors.

Furthermore, there are points at which the figure casts a shadow -- a faint, small shadow, but a shadow nonetheless.

The fact that this figure reflects light and cast shadows should indicate to any reasonable person that this is a living, material person.

Ghost apologists may wish to cite various speculative hypotheses about how ghosts can violate the laws of physics at will -- making ghosts pretty damned powerful -- but unless they can show some convincing science to support such hypotheses they will not be taken seriously.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ohrryp
=======

Is it a ghost? No. Is it something supernatural? No. It's a living person in a costume. How do I know this? It's really quite simple. Please examine the pthograph carefully. The figure moves into view from shadow into light; the amount of light on the figure increases as it moves into the open doorway, and lessens as it closes the doors.

Furthermore, there are points at which the figure casts a shadow -- a faint, small shadow, but a shadow nonetheless.

The fact that this figure reflects light and cast shadows should indicate to any reasonable person that this is a living, material person.


Is there anyone on here who doesn't agree with you? Or are you just saying this just in case any of us have any wavering doubts? ;)



Ghost apologists may wish to cite various speculative hypotheses about how ghosts can violate the laws of physics at will -- making ghosts pretty damned powerful



That certainly doesn't follow. For example, if we assume we have free will ie our voluntary bodily movements do not wholly follow some predetermined algorithm and hence our bodily movements do not completely follow physical laws, it certainly doesn't follow we are d*mned powerful.



-- but unless they can show some convincing science to support such hypotheses they will not be taken seriously.

How can science support the existence of that which is not physical?

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Is there anyone on here who doesn't agree with you? Or are you just saying this just in case any of us have any wavering doubts? ;)

There are such people who would cling to any odd belief regardless of the evidence. Mostly I post such things for my own amusement.

That certainly doesn't follow. For example, if we assume we have free will ie our voluntary bodily movements do not wholly follow some predetermined algorithm and hence our bodily movements do not completely follow physical laws, it certainly doesn't follow we are d*mned powerful.

How can science support the existence of that which is not physical?
I wasn't writing about living human beings; I was writing about ghosts, which presumably are immaterial, or possibly semi-material (ectoplasmic), or extra-dimensional, and was writing about possible speculative hypotheses someone who believed in ghosts might advance.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


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.

There is no more evidence for these ghosts, apparitions, ESP, or whatever, than there is for the Virgin appearing at Fatima-- that latter notion had me in thralldom for my entire youth. Truly, as grumpy and egotistical as Randi is, he was a factor in freeing me from religious shackles. Why, then, should I not apply empricism and reason to all other extraordinary claims? Give me compelling evidence, and I'll believe. Don't, and I won't. What is so wrong with that standard? I can tell you what is right with it, in terms of freeing minds, because I lived that liberation.

Truth matters. To real people.

[Rolfe]

JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn't quite the same as the one you started with.Has anyone asked Lyndale (LightPiercingDarkness) if he can see his demon faces in this? :D

Rolfe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mona


There is no more evidence for these ghosts, apparitions, ESP, or whatever, than there is for the Virgin appearing at Fatima-- that latter notion had me in thralldom for my entire youth. Truly, as grumpy and egotistical as Randi is, he was a factor in freeing me from religious shackles. Why, then, should I not apply empricism and reason to all other extraordinary claims? Give me compelling evidence, and I'll believe. Don't, and I won't. What is so wrong with that standard? I can tell you what is right with it, in terms of freeing minds, because I lived that liberation.

Truth matters. To real people.

What do you mean by compelling evidence and why do you require it before deeming the hypothesis, that ghosts are not wholly generated from within, a reasonable hypothesis? And what type of ghosts are we talking about here? All ghosts/apparitions etc whatsoever? What reason do you have to label all of them hallucinations? Do you have in fact any reasons other and above an unthinking adherence to materialism?

Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?

Reference?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reference? [/B]

Are you unable to find your own references? If you doubt it what percentage do you think it is?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you unable to find your own references? If you doubt it what percentage do you think it is?


It sounds like hogwash to me. I also sounds like a typical fast and loose paranormal assertion.

The point is, if you can't back up a statistic, don't post it. Or, post it and let it rise and fall on it's merits.

If I had to guess, I'd say 5% which seems to be the residual "unknown". That, incidentially, is my own hypothesis. And if it is, in fact 5%, you would need a pretty hefty sample for it to be taken seriously. You would also need an instrument that is not flawed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed



It sounds like hogwash to me. I also sounds like a typical fast and loose paranormal assertion.

The point is, if you can't back up a statistic, don't post it. Or, post it and let it rise and fall on it's merits.


What evidence do you have that I can't back up my statistic? Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed. :p

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?

By definition, a hallucination is generated entirely from within the mind. Ergo, the experience is not a ghost.

An hallucination is an experience of perception in the absence of an appropriate stimulus, but which has the impact of a conventional perception and is not under the control of the experiencer.

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P2.html#hall

Everyone experiences hallucinations from time to time.

[Suezoled]

I don't read Ian's posts often, but the ones I do read are hilarious.

1.) "I assert that 99% of cats have all their claws fall out at one point in their life" (just a silly example)

2.) "Prove it" (skeptic of your choice here)

3.) "What is evidence? What is proof? Can't you look it up yourself?" (Ian)

4.)"Since you're not bringing up proof but you like to talk a lot, I'm thinking you don't have any" (skeptic of your choice here)

5.)"Who says I don't have proof?" (Ian)

6.)"Where is it?" (skeptic of your choice here)

7.) "Oh well what you have to say doesn't count for the immaterialist viewpoint"


Bing! Verse 543908 same as the first.

Or, as I have admitted I don't read Ian's posts very often, is this not a correct evaluation of the situation?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What evidence do you have that I can't back up my statistic? Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed. :p

Never said that, I just said it sounded like hogwash. Unfortunately, believers in the paranormal are like believers everywhere, the results are in and the data then is adjusted. It is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. So, by your non-response, I take it that you simply made up "50%" for the sake of theater?

So then, to answer for Mona

Question
"Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?"

Answer
That is a non-question because you lied about the data.

Edit to fix my "answer"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Flaherty


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By definition, a hallucination is generated entirely from within the mind. Ergo, the experience is not a ghost.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An hallucination is an experience of perception in the absence of an appropriate stimulus, but which has the impact of a conventional perception and is not under the control of the experiencer.

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P2.html#hall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Everyone experiences hallucinations from time to time

Sorry, that was an error on my part. I shouldn't have included the word "hallucinatory" as that begs the question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I don't read Ian's posts often, but the ones I do read are hilarious.

1.) "I assert that 99% of cats have all their claws fall out at one point in their life" (just a silly example)

2.) "Prove it" (skeptic of your choice here)

3.) "What is evidence? What is proof? Can't you look it up yourself?" (Ian)

4.)"Since you're not bringing up proof but you like to talk a lot, I'm thinking you don't have any" (skeptic of your choice here)

5.)"Who says I don't have proof?" (Ian)

6.)"Where is it?" (skeptic of your choice here)

7.) "Oh well what you have to say doesn't count for the immaterialist viewpoint"


Bing! Verse 543908 same as the first.

Or, as I have admitted I don't read Ian's posts very often, is this not a correct evaluation of the situation?

Absolutely. It also applies to just about each and every believer in paranormal phenomena I have ever had the pleasure of talking to.

The last item 7 is substituted with various answers, depending on their beliefs. Often insults.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


Never said that, I just said it sounded like hogwash. Unfortunately, believers in the paranormal are like believers everywhere, the results are in and the data then is adjusted. It is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. So, by your non-response, I take it that you simply made up "50%" for the sake of theater?

So then, to answer for Mona

Question
"Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?"

Answer
That is a non-question because you lied about the data.

Edit to fix my "answer"

I have not lied about the data at all. I did not see the purpose of providing references since, from past experience, I highly suspect people will not check them out. Not even when I provide a URL!

However, since you insist:

W. D. Rees, The Hallucinations of Widowhood, British Medical Journal,
pp. 209-221, 1971.

I. Stevenson, The Contribution of Apparitions to the Evidence for Survival,
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 76: 4, pp. 341-358, 1982.

E. Haraldsson, Representative National Surveys of Psychic Phenomena: Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, USA and Gallup’s Multinational Survey, Journal of the Societv for Psychical Research, 53:801, pp. 145-158, 1985.

K. Osis and E. Haraldsson, At the Hour of Death, 2nd Edition, Hastings House, New York, 1986.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sorry, that was an error on my part. I shouldn't have included the word "hallucinatory" as that begs the question.

In point of fact, the entire question begged the question.

If you were honest you might have asked something like

"Let's take one particular example. Absent evidence, suppose about half of all widows and widowers at some stage report experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. Assuning that half do, with what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?"


It is a rather silly question, but at least open and aboveboard.

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

The point is, if you can't back up a statistic, don't post it. Or, post it and let it rise and fall on it's merits.
Hi Ed,

Many grief books cite the frequent occurence of widows/widowers thinking that they see their deceased spouse. You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

I can't find much of an online reference for you, but Dr. Raymond Moody (famous for research into NDE), -does- quote a similar statistic at his website. If you're really interested, I suppose you could write and ask him for his source (as well as for the others on his list that I'm sure you would dispute as well. Not that I disagree, really--he should source them. Here it is: ).
From Raymond Moody:

66% of widows experience apparitions of their departed husbands.

Raymond Moody (http://www.lifeafterlife.com/)

[Clancie]

Hmmm....it doesn't link to the page.

From the home page you need to go to "Reflections" then to "Percents" toward the bottom of the list on the left side.

(I'm sure you will find some of the "percents" amusing, but...oh well! :) )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Many grief books cite the frequent occurence of widows/widowers thinking that they see their deceased spouse. You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

This night in Denmark, and tomorrow night in the English-speaking world, a fat, bearded guy will visit all children, and drop off several tons of gifts from a sleigh.

You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

[Teetop]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


This night in Denmark, and tomorrow night in the English-speaking world, a fat, bearded guy will visit all children, and drop off several tons of gifts from a sleigh.

You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

I've even seen special reports interupting regular television programming stating that the fat guy has been spotted flying over certain parts of the world. I wonder if he delivers presents to children in non Christian locations?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Ed,

Many grief books cite the frequent occurence of widows/widowers thinking that they see their deceased spouse. You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

I can't find much of an online reference for you, but Dr. Raymond Moody (famous for research into NDE), -does- quote a similar statistic at his website. If you're really interested, I suppose you could write and ask him for his source (as well as for the others on his list that I'm sure you would dispute as well. Not that I disagree, really--he should source them. Here it is: ).


Unfortunately I cannot get to the Journal citations that Ian posted. Perhaps after our Christmas Eve party.

I did eyeball your reference, Clancie. While this gentlemans assertions are warm and comforting, the fact remains that they are dealing with grief striken people. I think such reports are more fittingly placed in the realm of Abnormal Psychology than Parapsychology.

Have you, Clancie, ever experienced an hallucination? I have a few times, once due to sleep deprevation, once during illness and a couple of times due to the aftereffects of anesthesia and once during a grieving period. For all intents and purposes, these events are "real" to the person experiencing them. You might look at the literature on sleep deprivation to get some examples. Nothing strange or unexplained in terms of the causation. There is some scoffing regarding Lucid dreaming but I have experienced that too and I don't find it particularly odd.

My feeling is that leaping to paranormal rationales for these type of things says more about one's belief system than the events themselves.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


This night in Denmark, and tomorrow night in the English-speaking world, a fat, bearded guy will visit all children, and drop off several tons of gifts from a sleigh.

You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.

Funny thing is that when we play up the Santa thing, the kids actually report the sound of Reindeer hooves Christmas morning. A simple example of wishful thinking but one that can be generalized to a host of paranormal stuff.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Teetop]

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

I hope the images in the original footage is a bit more clear than what we see on the above link---I'm sure the blurry image is due to compression---I don't see anything indicating that a supernatural being is responsible -- the clothing is also difficult to see---I wonder if the stills and the jerky video we saw earlier were altered in any way to make them more clear--another question--do employees walk around the place in period costume?

[Clancie]

Hi Ed,

Oh, were you and Ian debating that people really see the deceased? I thought you were arguing whether or not they report seeing the deceased (in significant numbers). The latter is, imo, well and widely documented. Hopefully you will access Ian's journal reference (or write Moody for his) and verify that to your satisfaction.

As for hallucinations...no, I've never had one though I've had other reactions to sleep deprivation.

Interestingly, I've been reading about Eusapia Palladino and the scientists who studied her. Some of them reported observing phenomena that, once tricks are ruled out, you would probably call hallucinations. And they may have been....but then there needs to be some documentation and explanation of that claim, too, don't you think?

Same with widows. Seeing the deceased does not apparently follow a wide pattern of sleep deprivation. There may be other, quite rational, explanations for it, but from what I've read, I don't think sleep deprivation's one of them.....

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Teetop
http://www.itv.com/news/video/1300_20_hcourt_ghost.rm

I hope the images in the original footage is a bit more clear than what we see on the above link---I'm sure the blurry image is due to compression---I don't see anything indicating that a supernatural being is responsible -- the clothing is also difficult to see---I wonder if the stills and the jerky video we saw earlier were altered in any way to make them more clear--another question--do employees walk around the place in period costume?

The answer to your question is yes. I have visited on several occasions and have seen household staff dressed in period costume. Here is a link showing that. Other history of the site can be
viewed on this site as well.

http://www.the-eye.com/hc3.htm

I did not see anyone dressed like this figure, which clearly is designed to mimic Henry VIII. While Ann Boleyn is alleged to walk the halls, her head in her hand
and that would be a siting to remember, I have never heard any legends of Henry materializing. Of course he may not have been noticed before ;)

More to come, no doubt. I dont think it was enhanced or de-enhanced deliberately and think that any changes to its appearance was the result of people trying to copy it in order to post it such as the first wobbly gif which is clearly labeed as such, e.g. gif! Everyone who has seen the original footage says it is from a stationery fixed camera; as previously indicated and confirmed to me by an engineer who installs the emote controlled equipment to do this this was the case, and was automtically programmed.

Here is a still sent to me from an ongoing analysis of the footage. It shows the foggy stuff Clancie refers to.
real well prior to appearance of the figure.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Ed,

Oh, were you and Ian debating that people really see the deceased? I thought you were arguing whether or not they report seeing the deceased (in significant numbers). The latter is, imo, well and widely documented. Hopefully you will access Ian's journal reference (or write Moody for his) and verify that to your satisfaction.

As for hallucinations...no, I've never had one though I've had other reactions to sleep deprivation.

Interestingly, I've been reading about Eusapia Palladino and the scientists who studied her. Some of them reported observing phenomena that, once tricks are ruled out, you would probably call hallucinations. And they may have been....but then there needs to be some documentation and explanation of that claim, too, don't you think?

Same with widows. Seeing the deceased does not apparently follow a wide pattern of sleep deprivation. There may be other, quite rational, explanations for it, but from what I've read, I don't think sleep deprivation's one of them.....

So, what other explanation did you have in mind?

You keep hinting and hinting, but you don't want to say it, do you?

[SteveGrenard]

The frames, Clancie, in sequence show your fog or smoky stuff billowing up, forming the figure of a person and then becoming the recognizable figure of a human, er, the man we see in the figure. Unfortunately these subsequent frames are for some reason 32,768 KB and I am not allowed to post them because they exceed the size limit for attachments.

I dont want to crop them or compress them in case that will do something to what is showing there. Besides I am not that good at it. I just figured out how to post an image.

Perhaps Hal will allow me to do this just this once given the subject matter by momentarily agreeing to increase the size limits for images.

[Pyrrho]

Steve, if you can find someone to host the images on a web site, you should be able to post them using the (img)(/img) vBcode tags.

There are some pretty large pictures in the "JREF Poster Picture Thread" that are done this way.

[SteveGrenard]

Good idea. I'll see if the people doing it would be willing to post their frame by frame on their website.

[Teetop]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Good I dea. I'll see if the people doing it would be willing to post their frame by frame on their website.

Great---keep us posted

[Pyrrho]

Before the issue even comes up, I'd like to make it clear that posting the images here will be considered fair use for purposes of the ongoing discussion.

[SteveGrenard]

Don has agreed to place the frames on his website. The second row shows the fog building up, billowing and then become somewhat vertical. The first photo of the third row shows the figure emerging from this fog. The "snow" is an artifact and has nothing to do with this.

These frames are in sequence from beginning to end.

http://www.enformy.com/HamptonCourtGhost.htm


PS: The Queen of England or "The Crown" owns the rights to these tapes but they have been freely distributed worldwide by Hampton Court Palace so QEII would have a hard time suing anyone, not that I think she would. In fact she is probably delighted about all the PR.

[Ed]

Can't really see anything for the snow.

[Teetop]

I don't see any conclusive evidence that a figure is rising from mist
to me the animated GIF shows the figure walking up from beyond the view of the camera.

[Suezoled]

*giant animated hedgehog appears, yells out "Dinsdale" and scurries off*

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Teetop
I don't see any conclusive evidence that a figure is rising from mist
to me the animated GIF shows the figure walking up from beyond the view of the camera.


Doug seems to think the same thing after he saw the frames:

"Many thanks to Don for the still frames, especially the enhanced frame. What I see is the right sleeve of the "ghost", which, from this angle, briefly looks round, like a (very large) baseball cap. The figure appears to be striding forward, raising its arms in preparation for closing the doors, and in this particular frame (#5), its arm just happens to be oriented toward the camera so that we see the white, round cuff of its sleeve. Because the sleeve is loose and baggy (like the robe itself), and because the cuff is thick, it looks circular (more precisely, oblong). If you look closely at the enhanced frame, you'll see that the sleeve cuff is attached to the figure's right arm. "

"The rest of the "kneeling person" is, I think, the handle of the open door (the left-side door) - it's one of those metal bars that stick out from the door. The way the light catches the door handle, we have the impression that it is connected with the whitish sleeve-cuff, which is also beginning to catch the light - but if you study the other frames, you'll see that the door handle does not change position (until the door is pulled shut) while the sleeve cuff is visible only for one frame (because it is in motion as the arm moves up)."

"Note that the whitish sleeve is in the same position relative to the figure's shoulders as the left hand, which is visible as a white blob.The figure's right hand is also a white blob, because both hands were entering the light at the same time. Doug."

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Teetop
I don't see any conclusive evidence that a figure is rising from mist
to me the animated GIF shows the figure walking up from beyond the view of the camera.

That's what I see too. I don't see anything "rising up" from any mist. Nor, for that matter, could I say that it was in "period costume". It looks to me like a figure in a robe (whether that robe is some sort of period costume or not, I can't say) walking up to a door and shutting it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[schplurg]

I just think it's funny that...
To the sceptic it may simply look like a fuzzy CCTV image of someone in a long coat walking through a doorway. ...While the "experts" (expert at what?) and a psychologist think this may be be extraordinary evidence of the supernatural.

I see nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a living human being closing the doors...aside from the anecdotes, which of course provide no proof at all. Seeing the vid would be helpful.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Why the heck did they have the guy close the doors? I would have had fewer things to argue with if the damned ghost wasn't worried about the heat bill.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat
Why the heck did they have the guy close the doors? I would have had fewer things to argue with if the damned ghost wasn't worried about the heat bill. Makes better theater. He could kick the doors to make them mysteriously open, then appear, close the doors, and vanish. On the other hand, if he was seen to open the doors, what does he do then? Go out, still in costume? Or turn around and go back in like Punxatawny Phil on Groundhog Day? :D

[Mona]

Originally posted by Ed




Have you, Clancie, ever experienced an hallucination? I have a few times, once due to sleep deprevation, once during illness and a couple of times due to the aftereffects of anesthesia and once during a grieving period. ...
My feeling is that leaping to paranormal rationales for these type of things says more about one's belief system than the events themselves.


Agreed. In 1997 my oldest son, at age 19, was killed in a three-car collision. For about a year thereafter, I dreamed, constantly, and very intensely, that he had been sent back to me by "them," and that we did not know how long he was going to be permitted to stay. I have a strong emotional attachment to these dreams and miss them; it was much like having my son again.

But I know they were a product of my mind, and not really him coming back. People who fed me supernatural nonsense about how to contact him, or be with him, were only hurting me. I need empirical evidence to believe things about the physical world, and there is no such evidence for life after death, or for an individual asserting existence after death -- including the dead coming back to visit the living. I WANT there to be some such evidence, I WANT to see my son again. But there just is no evidence to sustain my hope for what I'd prefer to be true.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pffffffttt! Could it be a hoax?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13347671

~~ Paul

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Pffffffttt! Could it be a hoax?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13347671

~~ Paul

Interesting..... although I'm still baffled as to why even that image got so much attention...... I mean, I can appreciate a good fake ghost photograph, but this one really did look like nothing buy a guy in a sort of creepy cloak........ it didn't seem ghost-like at all, and I am missing why people keep saying it looks like a ghost. Maybe it's just because I assume a ghost should look sort of transparent or floating or something...... but this doesn't look otherworldy at all.

Btw, I'd still like to hear this from another source...... from looking at http://www.paranormal-investigation.com/ they don't exactly strike me as "credible" (i.e. they sell things like ghost and spirit detectors on their site)

-Elektrix

[wayrad]

I'm a bit curious about the way the door alarm had gone off on other occasions. Does anybody know whether the attendants are allowed to smoke in the building?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Pffffffttt! Could it be a hoax?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13347671

~~ Paul

I am surprised that it was ever considered anything but a hoax in the first place. I saw the photos and I saw the footage that Steve Grenard posted. It looked like a guy in a robe closing a door, nothing more. I was seriously unimpressed by any of it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Pffffffttt! Could it be a hoax?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13347671

~~ Paul

Yes! Another ghost debunked! WOW! A bit of a body blow for all the woo-woos! :eek: I wonder what . . er . . .oh hang on . . .no-one on here was saying it was for real! :mad: Damn :(

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by wayrad
Makes better theater. He could kick the doors to make them mysteriously open, then appear, close the doors, and vanish. On the other hand, if he was seen to open the doors, what does he do then? Go out, still in costume? Or turn around and go back in like Punxatawny Phil on Groundhog Day? :D

You don't think it would have made for better theater if:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The doors get thrown open.

The ghost appears *boo*.

He dramatically throws his arms to the heavens, skellington fingers clenched into fists. A silent scream escapes him.

Then with a swirl of terrycloth he spins and stalks back into the castle.

Shortly thereafter the security guards show up in the doorway, scratching their heads and hamming it up.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Closing the doors was just sloppy and dumb looking.

Hey Hampton Court people, the next time you do this one, feel free to use my script free of charge.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat


You don't think it would have made for better theater if:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The doors get thrown open.

The ghost appears *boo*.

He dramatically throws his arms to the heavens, skellington fingers clenched into fists. A silent scream escapes him.

Then with a swirl of terrycloth he spins and stalks back into the castle.
You mean, like "AAAAUUUGGGHHH! THE SUN!!! NOOOoooooooo..." ?

Or "D*mn! I forgot my keys AGAIN!"?

[Teetop]

Next time they do this, Hampton Court should hire a head juggler-- it would add a little entertainment to the video-- of course, I'm sure they didn't have anything to do with the sighting.

[Kopji]

The fire doors appear to be blown open, and then pulled closed. There appears to be some indication that a recent fire caused some new ventilation work to be done. (Is there more than one Hampton Court that recently burned due to smoking in bed?)

Several years ago I worked on validating air pressures in a cleanroom. It is amazing the kind of weird things that can happen in a ventilation system when it malfunctions. We were working on a blower unit in a plenum above the room, and opened this little two inch plate: a huge air wave traveled around the entire room below us, lifting ceiling panels as it went around the room (each one quite heavy). Dropping two to the floor. Fortunately nobody was hurt.

We stopped playing with the vent really fast, scared the [hamburger] out of us...