Mystery image caught on surveillance camera

[Still Waters]

A Clovis family dinner was interrupted Tuesday night by an unexpected guest — one they don’t think is of this world.

“As soon as I saw it, my hair stood up… I’ve never seen anything like that before,” Breanna Hernandez said.

The Hernandez family saw something they can’t explain captured by their home security cameras in Clovis.

“My husband happened to look over right when the image popped up,” Hernandez said.

http://krqe.com/2017/08/23/creepy-image-caught-gliding-across-clovis-surveillance-camera/

[XenoFish]

Surveillance video, filmed on a potato.

[The Caspian Hare]

Guy walking fast in a robe might cause that effect

[SecretSanta]

I dunno, just looks like a person walking to me. 

[+DieChecker]

Looks like a Trick-or-Treater. Kind of small like a kid, and carrying a lunch box. Obviously wearing a loose white hoodie, or maybe poncho.

 

[SecretSanta]

I got it! It's a tumbleweed!

[I'mConvinced]

I'm convinced.

Grainy low res footage - check

At night and from a distance - check 

Single camera with no other footage - check

All reasonable explanations ignored and ghost selected as only possibility - check

Well, if you aren't convinced by this evidence you are clearly blinkered.

[papageorge1]

The people sound legit; no reason to invent. There is a history with the property. They both saw it live and happened to capture it. Ghosts do exist in my opinion. I'm thinking 90% chance of ghost on this one. 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[I'mConvinced]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The people sound legit; no reason to invent. There is a history with the property. They both saw it live and happened to capture it. Ghosts do exist/ I'm thinking 90% chance of ghost on this one. 

 

The people sound legit - So did Betty and Barney

No reason to invent - Neither did Betty and Barney

There is a history with the property - There is a history with every property

They both saw it live - According to them 

They happened to capture it - Or they edited the video/suffered a recording anomaly 

Ghosts do exist - Zero reliable evidence supports this

It's a 90% chance of ghost - It's a 100% chance of being the other 10%

[freetoroam]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The people sound legit; no reason to invent. There is a history with the property. They both saw it live and happened to capture it. I'm thinking 90% chance of ghost on this one. 

 

What property? The person is walking along the road. Thats all it is, someone wearing a light coloured outfit being captured on a low res camera. Look at all the lights around. .everything is grainy and out of focus.

What history do you know about the road the person is walking on?

 

[papageorge1]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

The people sound legit - So did Betty and Barney

No reason to invent - Neither did Betty and Barney

There is a history with the property - There is a history with every property

They both saw it live - According to them 

They happened to capture it - Or they edited the video/suffered a recording anomaly 

Ghosts do exist - Zero reliable evidence supports this

It's a 90% chance of ghost - It's a 100% chance of being the other 10%

I feel I am the one looking at the total picture objectively. I also feel some people are hardened deniers and no longer interested in the truth but in denying.

We'll have to end with different opinions.

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

What property? The person is walking along the road. Thats all it is, someone wearing a light coloured outfit being captured on a low res camera. Look at all the lights around. .everything is grainy and out of focus.

What history do you know about the road the person is walking on?

 

DId you watch and listen to the whole video? The people were concerned about ghostly activity on this property before this event, 

Edited August 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[I'mConvinced]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel I am the one looking at the total picture objectively. I also feel some people are hardened deniers and no longer interested in the truth but in denying.

We'll have to end with different opinions.

You may feel that way but an objective opinion would not arrive at a 90% ghost conclusion from the limited evidence available.  Objectively the video provides evidence of nothing at all.  It neither disproves nor proves the existence of ghosts.  Once the tape has been submitted for analysis, photo shop and camera fault have been ruled out and the people's claims investigated I will reconsider the evidence.  This of course will not happen.  There will be no further appearances of this ghost, no other CCTV footage will verify its existence and no further proof will be collected.

How do I know this? It follows the same pattern as every other piece of 'ghost evidence' I've ever seen. 

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You may feel that way but an objective opinion would not arrive at a 90% ghost conclusion from the limited evidence available.  Objectively the video provides evidence of nothing at all.  It neither disproves nor proves the existence of ghosts.  Once the tape has been submitted for analysis, photo shop and camera fault have been ruled out and the people's claims investigated I will reconsider the evidence.  This of course will not happen.  There will be no further appearances of this ghost, no other CCTV footage will verify its existence and no further proof will be collected.

How do I know this? It follows the same pattern as every other piece of 'ghost evidence' I've ever seen. 

When I say 90%, it is an estimate based on all I know about this event and my worldview on such things. The more I know the stronger my conclusion will be. In this case it is my casual estimate; no harm in that.

For example, I would assume they know what regular people look like on this surveillance view.

Edited August 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[I'mConvinced]

28 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel I am the one looking at the total picture objectively. I also feel some people are hardened deniers and no longer interested in the truth but in denying.

We'll have to end with different opinions.

"I also feel some people are hardened deniers and no longer interested in the truth but in denying"

Would you agree with the following:

1. There have been many, many faked ghost pictures and videos

2. These far outweigh the number of pictures and videos in which fakery cannot be proven

3. No evidence collected to this day can definitively prove the existence of ghosts

So, if we work with the above being true (I am willing to review any evidence to the contrary) the only logical conclusion when first presented with evidence of ghostly activity is one of skepticism.  Once you have ruled out all possibility of deceit, examined all of the evidence and investigated every standard non-paranormal explanation then we can start to discuss the possibility of a ghost.  

What is presented here does not meet any of these criteria and so you cannot claim to be looking at this objectively.  The very nature of being objective is to look at all sides without a predisposed bias - you clearly exhibit a predisposed bias in your unerring belief in the paranormal.

Edited August 25, 2017 by I'mConvinced
with to without

[freetoroam]

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

DId you watch and listen to the whole video? The people were concerned about ghostly activity on this property before this event, 

The person is walking along the pavement...looks like a public pavement to me. the walking person is not on their property. 

So where are the videos of the ghostly activity on the property? they have a camera inside their property, you see the husband get up to look at the cctv, why did he not run outside..  or maybe he did...but we do not see that bit once he realises it was a live human being walking past.

Papa have you not learnt anything on here yet about grainy low res camera footage? Your gullibilty is becoming a concern.

[papageorge1]

15 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

1. There have been many, many faked ghost pictures and videos

Percentage wise, I believe the majority are never solved with certainty.

15 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

 

3. No evidence collected to this day can definitively prove the existence of ghosts

 

How is photographic or video PROOF even possible. So this statement doesn't really mean much. I've seen many times where an investigation ends with "I can't explain this'.

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

 

5 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

The person is walking along the pavement...looks like a public pavement to me. the walking person is not on their property. 

So where are the videos of the ghostly activity on the property? they have a camera inside their property, you see the husband get up to look at the cctv, why did he not run outside..  or maybe he did...but we do not see that bit once he realises it was a live human being walking past.

Papa have you not learnt anything on here yet about grainy low res camera footage? Your gullibilty is becoming a concern.

I would assume they know what regular people look like on this surveillance view.

[I'mConvinced]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Percentage wise, I believe the majority are never solved with certainty.

How is photographic or video PROOF even possible. So this statement doesn't really mean much.

 

Ahh the neat sidestep where you do not address the objectivity question we were actually discussing but rather throw in the non-issue of an un-provable percentage and ignore the rest.  I didn't ask specifically for video or photographic proof, just any proof at all will do...as long as it's just that, proof.  For example I can prove we've been to the moon by pinging a laser off the mirrors we left there and then asking someone else to recreate the experiment with different equipment.

How is video or photographic proof of ghosts possible? Well complete, definitive proof is difficult but... In this instance they could provide more proof by obtaining CCTV footage from someone else's system that captures the ghost from a different angle - after all, if one camera can capture it then all cameras can and surely they aren't the only people with CCTV in the area.  They could record the other evidence they have experienced and build up a body of such that is harder to disprove.  If we were looking at footage recorded on multiple cameras, from different angles, from multiple people with witness statements which showed something physical to be in the videos and yet completely unexplainable you would have many more people believing.  Yet do we have a single instance of this happening in all of recorded history? No.  Given the number of recording devices in the world why oh why do we only ever capture grainy, undecipherable nonsense?   

 

[Calibeliever]

This is not atypical footage from an IR CCTV camera. Frame rate plus high contrast clothing, along with a questionable setup (this is an amateur setup on their balcony). The cables could be too long, there could be moisture on connections, a tape reused too many times, etc, etc, any number of things really. (Google CCTV "ghosting") .

Personally, I'm surprised this footage made it to a news broadcast (where presumably they have at least ONE camera expert somewhere in the building who could easily explain this)

[paperdyer]

27 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

This is not atypical footage from an IR CCTV camera. Frame rate plus high contrast clothing, along with a questionable setup (this is an amateur setup on their balcony). The cables could be too long, there could be moisture on connections, a tape reused too many times, etc, etc, any number of things really. (Google CCTV "ghosting") .

Personally, I'm surprised this footage made it to a news broadcast (where presumably they have at least ONE camera expert somewhere in the building who could easily explain this)

Maybe it was a slow news day or they had friends at the station.  Did you notice who unimpressed the dog was?  Dogs are supposed to be sensitive to the paranormal.  The dog just look at his owners like "Hey nothing to get excited over".  We going for a walsk?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Ahh the neat sidestep where you do not address the objectivity question we were actually discussing but rather throw in the non-issue of an un-provable percentage and ignore the rest.  I didn't ask specifically for video or photographic proof, just any proof at all will do...as long as it's just that, proof.  For example I can prove we've been to the moon by pinging a laser off the mirrors we left there and then asking someone else to recreate the experiment with different equipment.

The type of physical proof that you asking for, like the moon trip, works for physical plane phenomena; the plane directly accessible by our physical senses and instruments. 95% of the matter/energy in the universe (some call it dark matter, astral matter, or whatever) can not be directly detected by the physical senses and instruments.  Only the affect on the physical plane from these dimensions can be detected; things like anomalous sightings, recordings and instrument disturbances.  In the case of science, it is the gravitational effect of dark matter that is detected, not the matter itself.

My belief in ghosts is beyond reasonable doubt and comes from the millions of anomalous occurrences from millions of credible people in human history as well as the testimony of those that claim psychic perception (senses not restricted to physical only phenomena). 

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

How is video or photographic proof of ghosts possible? Well complete, definitive proof is difficult but... In this instance they could provide more proof by obtaining CCTV footage from someone else's system that captures the ghost from a different angle - after all, if one camera can capture it then all cameras can and surely they aren't the only people with CCTV in the area.  They could record the other evidence they have experienced and build up a body of such that is harder to disprove.  If we were looking at footage recorded on multiple cameras, from different angles, from multiple people with witness statements which showed something physical to be in the videos and yet completely unexplainable you would have many more people believing.  Yet do we have a single instance of this happening in all of recorded history? No.  Given the number of recording devices in the world why oh why do we only ever capture grainy, undecipherable nonsense?   

 

Well, all  I know about this case comes from the two minute video. I will probably never know if any further research was done on this case. I know there are stronger video evidence cases than this one out there by professional investigators.  They use various types of high-tech devices that have detected anomalies at the same time. However for completely spontaneous and unpredictable events this level of evidence is more than normal. Usually it is just eyewitness testimony.

Edited August 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[Keel M.]

First, am I the only person who finds it strange that this couple watches CCTV while eating dinner rather than their normal television? I mean if your viewing options are that bad.....

Second, I have read a lot of stories of home hauntings over many, many years and there is one thing they are all consistent about: the location of the alleged spirit haunting their homes. Whenever someone believes their house is haunted, the ghost does not EVER go wandering outside. They are fixed to one room or one area of one room. Ghosts don't go for a walk in the evening after dinner.

I'm not saying that their house isn't haunted. I'm saying that CCTV captured nothing more than a kid walking by wearing a light colored jacket.

[Essan]

3 minutes ago, Nonentity said:

First, am I the only person who finds it strange that this couple watches CCTV while eating dinner rather than their normal television? I mean if your viewing options are that bad.....

 

Whats even wierder is that they have another surveillance camera in their home filming them watch a surveillence camera whilst they eat!

[Keel M.]

YES!!! Lol