'Ghost' flies at camera in medieval graveyard

[Amanda Evans]

That actually looks quite believable.

[+Not A Rockstar]

5 minutes ago, Amanda Evans said:

That actually looks quite believable.

Yeah one of the better ones.

[freetoroam]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I read the article. From where are you getting the idea that people are visiting their loved ones at night?

I can understand the investigator may have gone at night thinking that night might be a more active time increasing his chances to capture something.

The same place i did...we are asking the question,  not saying they do.

See post #17.

People called him because they felt negative presence when they visited their loved ones...he went there at night...why? .he should have gone there during the day, when the people are feeling the negative presence...hence why we are asking why would they visit at night?

To be, they do not, only he chose to go there at night to make it seem spooky. He should have gone during the day when it is the time they felt a negative presence.

 

 

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

The same place i did...we are asking the question,  not saying they do.

See post #17.

People called him because they felt negative presence when they visited their loved ones...he went there at night...why? .he should have gone there during the day, when the people are feeling the negative presence...hence why we are asking why would they visit at night?

To be, they do not, only he chose to go there at night to make it seem spooky. He should have gone during the day when it is the time they felt a negative presence.

 

 

You make a good point that a day investigation would be good too. But it is such a minuscule article, there is a good chance he did that too.

I saw post 17. There is nothing in the article saying people are visiting their loved ones at night but only that the investigator did a nighttime investigation.

[freetoroam]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You make a good point that a day investigation would be good too. But it is such a minuscule article, there is a good chance he did that too.

I saw post 17. There is nothing in the article saying people are visiting their loved ones at night but only that the investigator did a nighttime investigation.

That is the point...no one said they visited their loved ones at night and it is much more likely they did not...so why did he go at night,  apart from trying to make it look spooky. He should have gone during the day when they said the  presence was felt. 

If he had as you imply, gone during the day, then he obviously did not pick anything up. 

Surely someone with any investigative skills would have turned the camera to follow the 'mist', he did not turn round as far as we can see,  this would indicate there was no reason too, but he still tried to fob this off as ghost.

[papageorge1]

8 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

That is the point...no one said they visited their loved ones at night and it is much more likely they did not...so why did he go at night,  apart from trying to make it look spooky.

A good investigation does as much investigating as possible. No problem with day and night and multiple locations, right?

 

9 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

He should have gone during the day when they said the  presence was felt. 

 

Why do you think he didn't also go during the day? It just seems the most newsworthy video was at night. Happens.

[SecretSanta]

Unless the “ghost” was robbing graves why would people worry about deceased loved ones? They’re not there.

[Dyna]

someone blew cigarette smoke. to many possibilities like someone said where was the camera persons reaction?

[RoofGardener]

 well, a few thoughts, after stepping through it frame-by-frame in Adobe Premiere. 

This "mist" is moving very fast. I 'materialises' and moves past the camera in just 12 frames. Depending on the setup of the camera, that could mean as little as 0.5 seconds (roughly). For a "mist" to move that quickly, there would have had to be a strong gust of wind. Yet the leaves on the ground don't move. 

The "mist" appears just as a third gravestone (upper right) is illuminated by something. If the 'mist' (or 'ghost') was doing the illuminating (e.g. it was glowing), you would expect the camera to REALLY flare out. But it doesn't. This leads me to think that the "ghost" is not CAUSING the illumination of the gravestone, but is caused BY the illumination of the gravestone.

The "ghost" doesn't appear to be moving parallel to the ground. Indeed, it doesn't appear to be in the same "plane" as the rest of the scene. Is it moving towards the camera, or is it moving downwards ? In addition to the main "ghost", there are other 'mist/flare' effects in the centre, and the left, of the frame. The flare in the left of the frame is interesting as it appears to grow, then diminish, but not actually MOVE. 

My thinking is that a passing car headlight illuminated the third gravestone. A mixture of lighting directly hitting the camera, and light reflected from this third gravestone, caused the low-light sensor in the camera to generate a spurious 'flare'. It was - if you'll pardon the pun - a "ghost" image. 

An electronic ghost image, and not an image of a ghost. 

The real acid test would be to ask the camera operator what THEY saw at the time. I think the answer would be that they never noticed anything at all. Other than a car passing in the distance. 

[stereologist]

I noticed the misted left side of the camera as if there were condensation on the lens. I also noticed that the lights in the background also appear to be in mist. Just before the white patch moves across the image objects farther away to the left are illuminated. 

I think it is a patchy fog being illuminated by a sweeping light source.

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

I noticed the misted left side of the camera as if there were condensation on the lens. I also noticed that the lights in the background also appear to be in mist. Just before the white patch moves across the image objects farther away to the left are illuminated. 

I think it is a patchy fog being illuminated by a sweeping light source.

Possibly Stereologist, but I'm skeptical. There is no indication of any fog in any other part of the picture. Also, a focused beam would have to be very narrow to produce that effect by illuminating fog, and would be blocked by the surrounding foliage. 

I think this is an ambient, reflected light effect triggering a false registration in the low-light sensor on the camera, rather than an actual physical object (e.g. fog) being directly illuminated. 

Or, of course, it could have been a ghost !

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by RoofGardener

[MissJatti]

If you look closely to the left side of the footage the so called ghost has a reflection too

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Possibly Stereologist, but I'm skeptical. There is no indication of any fog in any other part of the picture. Also, a focused beam would have to be very narrow to produce that effect by illuminating fog, and would be blocked by the surrounding foliage. 

I think this is an ambient, reflected light effect triggering a false registration in the low-light sensor on the camera, rather than an actual physical object (e.g. fog) being directly illuminated. 

Or, of course, it could have been a ghost !

 

The lens is fogged and the background lights are in a fog - at least that is what I interpret.

 

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, MissJatti said:

If you look closely to the left side of the footage the so called ghost has a reflection too

[Seti42]

I think the creator just sped up and reversed footage of cigarette smoke/vape exhale. It's a simple, low budget bit of fakery and all you need is a cig/vape pen, a camera, and some basic video editing software.

[kapow53]

We gots proof now a real ghost.

[freetoroam]

25 minutes ago, kapow53 said:

We gots proof now a real ghost.

I gots to disagree.

[XenoFish]

It's just swamp gas that's reflect light from Venus. 

[RoofGardener]

On 5/3/2018 at 2:30 PM, MissJatti said:

If you look closely to the left side of the footage the so called ghost has a reflection too

No. there is a flare on the left side of the image, as you say. But it is not co-ordinated. 

It is a reaction by the camera sensor - aided no doubt by "picture correction" algorithms - to a passing distant light source. 

Jeez Lousie.... the only "ghosts" here are created in the minds of people who WANT there to be ghosts. 

Answer THIS... or shut up. Who took the video footage, and what are THEIR opinions on what THEY saw ? 

If you can't answer that, then you are all just jerking off .  

Edited May 6, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, I think the footage is cool. And it's something, I like to explore, (yeah, multiple viewings.  ) And whether I either have thoughts that it could be a 'ghost', or I want it to be, I'll leave that up to what I think and want to believe. I find myself, hall-way thinking it could be. Part of me seems to see a 'figure' flying right through the camera person, and that it could be a person's head and shoulders and arms. Could be..............      I'm just saying that for my own benefit.     

And yes, it could also be a mist, or smoke from a cigarette. 

I also think, it also couldn't be either, keeping in mind various posters and their points here. (I think they do have merit.) I will never forget a point my daughter brought up, (while watching a ghost hunter show) that pictures, videos, and such, no matter how compelling they can be, it still open to be faked by the owner of such things, because you weren't there. The capacity to fake it, is there. So, in my thinking, if there is the chance it can be done, then consider the possibility that it might have been done. So, despite how cool, how compelling, how creepy (and delightful too) it might make me, I still have to think that it's not a one hundred percent chance that it is real. 

With that in mind, I see both ways here. And, some posters, those who brought up points for and against, seem to be compelling for me on both sides. 

One thing I have noticed not being mentioned, (if I would go on the skeptic side on this) is the possibility of insects. Granted, that would be a lot of insects, and coincidentally flying in a human formation.     (Or it it?!?! nyuk nyuk nyuk) But, I have seen varying videos looking like compelling floating 'ghosts' in various places, and in the end, turning out to be an up close insect and it being blurred and colored due to the lens treatment. I have even looked at my cell phone videos of various rooms in my house, (in the dark, with the flash on) and what may seem like flying orbs, seem to be tiny mytes or bugs that seem to fly across the view with the camera making it stream. 

What if this is a swarm of mytes or little bugs, that quickly swarm in front of the camera person. In the summer, I have seen in the sunlight, swarms of very tiny insects in my yard. I would think they are moving around at night, right? I think of this, when viewing the footage of the 'flyby'. 

[NotWhoYouThink]

that seems photoshopped...
i dont believe it at all

[the13bats]

Looked cgi or a flashing glare from something like headlights, the camera man wasnt good.

I weigh in a ghost hunter says paranormal is the only possible explanation and the video is used to make profits, and do i even need to state my conclusion ?

[ChrLzs]

 

 

Hi, RG - while that was a good coverage, just a small addition or two to one segnment:

On 5/3/2018 at 4:23 PM, RoofGardener said:

This "mist" is moving very fast. I 'materialises' and moves past the camera in just 12 frames. Depending on the setup of the camera, that could mean as little as 0.5 seconds (roughly).

Hmmmmm.  I have a range of cameras whose behaviors in low light varies dramatically, and I'd suggest that it could be much longer.  At least two of my cameras (one cheap, one expensive) will automatically drop the frame rate way down to as low as 1-5 frames per second if the light levels are exceedingly low.

But there's a bigger problem..

Quote

For a "mist" to move that quickly, there would have had to be a strong gust of wind. Yet the leaves on the ground don't move. 

Camera sensors only record ANGULAR velocity, ie the rate at which something traverses the lens' field of view.  Consider the extremes - a distant aircraft or satellite is travelling at many hundreds (or thousands) of miles per hour - yet it may take 30 seconds or longer to travel across the view.  But a small insect slowly walking across the lens might do so in 0.5 secs or less...  In other words, distance from the lens is absolutely critical in any attempt to guess at *ACTUAL* speeds.  If the 'thing' is close, it will seem to travel very fast when in fact it isn't at all.... 

Otherwise, do carry on!

Edited March 10, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Minimalists]

Be honest I did not know what it was..

[the13bats]

18 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Be honest I did not know what it was..

Right, i can respect unknown