Ghost filmed walking through stately home

[Farmer77]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

LOL....I first took 'Zero' as an attack on me (as I am so used to criticism when I go to this form). So, thanks for seeing my argument.

So in the bigger picture this OP case (like all such cases is quite interesting) but is not really important to any bigger issues.

Yeah man you take some beatings for sure, gotta admire your persistence though!  Having had some crazy experiences throughout my life im really a believer in anything's possible. That doesnt mean ill accept everything put out there without a critical eye but the paranormal, Aliens and to a lesser extent cryptozoology arent really areas where I feel like being overly dogmatic is productive. 

All of that said the OP video is IMO highly questionable 

 

[papageorge1]

12 minutes ago, goodgodno said:

No amount of video evidence will ever sway a non-believer.

The only way, currently, to start believing is to experience the paranormal for yourself. 

I read the same thing on these forums, people insisting for "evidence" like a broken record. 

Many of us were once critical non-believers as well, then you experience something for yourself.

Actually I have never had any 'dramatic' experience myself that would compel me to believe. My believe actually comes from the combined human experience of others and the logic I presented in post #48.

[thedemon]

Bah ha ha ha. This is terrible. Not only am i skeptical, but i'd go even further and call this one complete and utter BS.

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, xxxdemonxxx said:

Bah ha ha ha. This is terrible. Not only am i skeptical, but i'd go even further and call this one complete and utter BS.

Based on what information???

[oldrover]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

LOL....I first took 'Zero' as an attack on me (as I am so used to criticism when I go to this form).

Yes, as Farmer says, I admire your persistence too, I think you're wrong, but you're never rude or unpleasant and I admire that also. 

[oldrover]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So  what are the chances there is no paranormal things?

Overwhelmingly high. Trouble with your 'and' statement is if people are culturally conditioned to interpret certain things in a certain way that questions the evidential value of those experiences. I don't think you'd argue that our experiences with the paranormal change either over time, or across cultures. 

Aside from all of that, this is 'Most Haunted' we're talking about, this is an entertainment show, with a history of being caught out/behaving exactly as you'd expect from a piece of light entertainment. 

[moonman]

It would be impressive if it didn't come from known fakers. Thanks to that, gotta throw it out.

Edited April 25, 2017 by moonman

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, oldrover said:

Trouble with your 'and' statement is if people are culturally conditioned to interpret certain things in a certain way that questions the evidential value of those experiences. I don't think you'd argue that our experiences with the paranormal change either over time, or across cultures. 

Here you are talking about interpretations having a cultural flavoring which would be another discussion, however it doesn't change the fact that these people believe something paranormal happened. The latter is the only thing my 'and' statement was addressing.

4 hours ago, oldrover said:

Aside from all of that, this is 'Most Haunted' we're talking about, this is an entertainment show, with a history of being caught out/behaving exactly as you'd expect from a piece of light entertainment. 

I am not familiar with the show, but do the show's producers actually admit that they fake evidence (like this OP ghost) or is this another he said/she said situation with everyone siding with the side of their bias. Certainly it is entertainment with a spooky mystery spin, but do they admit to faking evidence as blatantly as this ghost?

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Here you are talking about interpretations having a cultural flavoring which would be another discussion, however it doesn't change the fact that these people believe something paranormal happened. The latter is the only thing my 'and' statement was addressing.

Yes, but the fact that there's a culturally widespread explanation proposed for these experiences is very significant. I hate to say this because it sounds so trite, but previously inexplicable things were given supernatural explanations until we understood them better. It's very relevant. 

 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not familiar with the show, but do the show's producers actually admit that they fake evidence (like this OP ghost) or is this another he said/she said situation with everyone siding with the side of their bias. Certainly it is entertainment with a spooky mystery spin, but do they admit to faking evidence as blatantly as this ghost?

I'll leave it to you to decide this one. No, they have never admitted to faking anything themselves, and don't get me wrong I quite like the couple in question I think they're very enterprising, essentially harmless, and I wish their TV channel had succeeded because they had some good stuff on it. But, in their first (and best in my opinion) series they hired an actor/TV presenter called Jason Karl to play the part of a sceptical parapsychologist who in his own words had 'never seen a ghost'. Mr Karl is as I say an actor, he is not a parapsychologist, and had been on a Discovery documentary some years earlier describing his multiple ghost sightings. So, while it made for good television it isn't exactly being straight is it? Just to emphasis that, they hired an actor to play the part of the sceptical investigator. 

Also, they had a long running medium on the show called Derek Acorah, who was a pitiable fraud, but who's antics formed a huge part of the programme (because nothing else ever happens apart from the main presenter Yvette Fielding circling her eyes with eyeliner so that they look huge on night vision ready for when she screams the place down at the slightest noise). Anyway they had a spat and revealed Acroah, and consequently 95% of their show was a fix on his part. Which it obviously was, but at the same time you could argue they were taken in at first, but then if you (one) were familiar with the show and still believed that, you're (one is) likely to have been the proud owner of a bridge at one time or another. 

[fran123]

I've watched the footage and if there is a cast iron guarantee, and they can prove it, that there was no-one in that area then, yes, it could be a ghost. The problem with that particular show is it has a lot of baggage from previous series and it's difficult to beieve in their findings.

I would be far more convinced if they went to an allegedly haunted location, secured the building and left cameras and sound recording devices in every room in the building. At least that would rule out human interference and if something was caught on camera or on a recorder, it would be far more convincing. Of course they have to make a show for television with presenters but they could still do the empty property footage and feature it in their programme if they picked up something. This constantly chasing ghosts around with creepy background music is really getting a bit silly. If I was a ghost I would run a mile if that lot came looking for me.

Edited April 25, 2017 by fran123
spelling error

[papageorge1]

57 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Yes, but the fact that there's a culturally widespread explanation proposed for these experiences is very significant. I hate to say this because it sounds so trite, but previously inexplicable things were given supernatural explanations until we understood them better. It's very relevant. 

In this context, I would actually reject the use of the term 'supernatural'. If it exists, it is 'natural'. In eventually explaining these other phenomena, we just expanded our understanding of the natural. An eventual understanding of the so-called paranormal would just do the same.

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

I'll leave it to you to decide this one. No, they have never admitted to faking anything themselves,

This is what I kind of suspected. Knowing the crowd on this particular forum all parapsychologists or paranormal investigators are either fakes or jokes. I agree with your first sentence above for all of us.

[oldrover]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This is what I kind of suspected. Knowing the crowd on this particular forum all parapsychologists or paranormal investigators are either fakes or jokes

The point is he wasn't a parapsychologist, he was an actor hired to play the part of a parapsychologist. And why would the sceptics here have a problem with one of those anyway?  Forgive me for asking, but are you familiar with the term? 

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, oldrover said:

The point is he wasn't a parapsychologist, he was an actor hired to play the part of a parapsychologist.

Perhaps the better term is 'paranormal investigator'? I never watched the show. That is a field where amateurs dabble. I don't think there is even any actual professional degree in ghost hunting.

20 minutes ago, oldrover said:

 And why would the sceptics here have a problem with one of those anyway? 

In theory, they shouldn't. In the reality I have seen, if any parapsychologist or paranormal investigator should make any positive claims, it seems the hard-line so-called skeptics (pseudo-skeptics in my opiion) will immediately jump to calling them fakes or jokes.

I actually consider myself an open-minded skeptic. Fair minded skepticism (without an agenda) is a good thing.

Edited April 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[oldrover]

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't think there is even any actual professional degree in ghost hunting.

Well I'm surprised you aren't aware of parapsychology. 

Here is a list of British Universities which offer the course

http://www.parapsych.org/articles/34/39/united_kingdom.aspx

Perhaps now, you'll see why hiring an actor to play your sceptic, and pretending he has qualifications and experience he has not got, is a bit naughty. 

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

 

In theory, they shouldn't. In the reality I have seen, if any parapsychologist or paranormal investigator should make any positive claims, it seems the hard-line so-called skeptics (pseudo-skeptics in my opiion) will immediately jump to calling them fakes or jokes.

 

Actually us skeptics just want evidence that is found in a sensible manner.    Making a ghost hunting TV show and only having 1 camera is NOT sensible.  Not having head mounted cameras is NOT sensible.  They are not expensive.  Hiring actors to play parapsychologists is NOT sensible.   

[papageorge1]

40 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Well I'm surprised you aren't aware of parapsychology. 

Here is a list of British Universities which offer the course

http://www.parapsych.org/articles/34/39/united_kingdom.aspx

Perhaps now, you'll see why hiring an actor to play your sceptic, and pretending he has qualifications and experience he has not got, is a bit naughty. 

I was aware of the academic field of parapsychology of course. I was differentiating that from those amateur people that join ghost hunting adventures. I was just creating different categories and I have no problem with laypeople investigating too.

Edited April 25, 2017 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, Myles said:

Actually us skeptics just want evidence that is found in a sensible manner.    

I don't believe that. From my observations, even tightly controlled experiments must not be sensible enough. And in the real world of spontaneously occuring phenomena it is not going to be perfect and, yes, we should factor that into our judgment.

[oldrover]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I was aware of the academic field of parapsychology of course. I was differentiating that from those amateur people that join ghost hunting adventures. I was just creating different categories and I have no problem with laypeople investigating too.

Neither have I. But lets remember the context in which this came up, the reliability of a TV programme. And in that context, and as you say you are aware of parapsychology, you can see why pretending that one of these laypeople is a qualified and seasoned sceptical investigator is not a good sign.  

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Neither have I. But lets remember the context in which this came up, the reliability of a TV programme. And in that context, and as you say you are aware of parapsychology, you can see why pretending that one of these laypeople is a qualified and seasoned sceptical investigator is not a good sign.  

I would agree if he is actually portrayed as 'seasoned' (but even that is a judgment word and I don't know the guy). But I have been saying all along that there is show business involved too and we need to consider that. 

[oldrover]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I would agree if he is actually portrayed as 'seasoned' (but even that is a judgment word and I don't know the guy). But I have been saying all along that there is show business involved too and we need to consider that. 

Yes, as I said he his character was of an experienced parapsychologist (and the study and qualification that implies, which he referred to on many occasions) who'd never seen a ghost, yet on another programme on another channel he was describing his ghostly encounters at a place called Chingle Hall, and there he was described as being the man who was arranging the ghost tours. 

But yes, it is just light entertainment, which was sort of the point in the first place, it's a bit of fun nothing more. And not reliable. 

[papageorge1]

8 minutes ago, oldrover said:

 it's a bit of fun nothing more. 

I think the thread's ghost footage is more than nothing myself. As you said they claim to not fake such evidence.

[Myles]

45 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't believe that. From my observations, even tightly controlled experiments must not be sensible enough.

Believe it or not.   That's your choice.  At least we have finally found something you do NOT believe.

Doesn't this bother you?

Making a ghost hunting TV show and only having 1 camera is NOT sensible.  Not having head mounted cameras is NOT sensible.  They are not expensive.  Hiring actors to play parapsychologists is NOT sensible.   

[oldrover]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the thread's ghost footage is more than nothing myself. As you said they claim to not fake such evidence.

Yes, but as we've already established they fake entire characters who's evidence they include in their programme. That's sort of like faking evidence isn't it. In that they faked the source of the evidence, using an actor? No? 

[Stiff]

[thedemon]

19 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Based on what information???

The fact they are well known for fakes to get attention. Good enough for me. They just aren't trust worthy.