Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Michigan couple capture 'ghost' on nanny cam

114 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Papameter holds at: 64% Chance of Paranormal       36% Chance of only normal

 

So how many times has the Papameter been in the location of a haunting? 

You have to calibrate it somehow.  :yes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

batmeter 98% chance papa hasnt an unbiaed bone in his body, 2% chance papa knows how ridiculous he comes off.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SecretSanta

The end of the article says...

The family have since taken to sleeping together in the same room whie they wait to move out. “ 

Um, the baby’s crib (pack & play) was in their bedroom at the time the video was recorded. Seems like they’re embellishing the story.

The ghost also seems to cast a shadow on the ceiling. That’s puzzling.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, SecretSanta said:

The end of the article says...

The family have since taken to sleeping together in the same room whie they wait to move out. “ 

Um, the baby’s crib (pack & play) was in their bedroom at the time the video was recorded. Seems like they’re embellishing the story.

So, the video incident may have been after the move-in? It was one of a series of events but gets more play because TV can show something? 

Do semi-materialized ghosts cast shadows? Would seem reasonable I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So, the video incident may have been after the move-in? It was one of a series of events but gets more play because TV can show something? 

Do semi-materialized ghosts cast shadows? Would seem reasonable I guess.

 

a series of "alleged" events.

you present a question then your speculative answer, it would still be far more likely that was mom or dad paused the episode of the show they were watching to trek downstairs for a drink or snack or perhaps bathroom visit that is reasonable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

First off, if it is csicop I know what I am getting: a best attempt to dismiss anything paranormal/crypto/alien and not an overall objective consideration. However, we should still 'consider' what debunkers say. 

He uncovered nothing truly damning but points to consider. He thinks the parents might be looking at themselves and a simple test by the  parents could disprove (whether they did disprove it themselves with a test we are not told in the unthorough coverage). Plus one would think they know by the time and circumstances if that makes sense. And they would be familiar with that one would suspect. The other accusation that they are scammers can't be discounted but one must also give credit to the intelligence of the television team too to not propagate something too suspicious.

Papameter holds at: 64% Chance of Paranormal       36% Chance of only normal

 

 

 

CSI provides an analysis of a situation, something called reasoning, which is something you are uncomfortable with. The analysis of the situation involved research, something you are also uncomfortable with.

The report makes it very clear that this is the type of image we expect to see from people walking around in a room under the conditions the camera was used.

Chances of paranormal 0% 100% chance of normal.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
9 hours ago, the13bats said:

a series of "alleged" events.

you present a question then your speculative answer, it would still be far more likely that was mom or dad paused the episode of the show they were watching to trek downstairs for a drink or snack or perhaps bathroom visit that is reasonable.

and I think it is more reasonable to believe they would know if it was them as they appear reasonably intelligent people and would think of that of course and they know the full story better than any of us distance speculators. That's my reasoning.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
24 minutes ago, stereologist said:

CSI provides an analysis of a situation, something called reasoning, which is something you are uncomfortable with. The analysis of the situation involved research, something you are also uncomfortable with.

The report makes it very clear that this is the type of image we expect to see from people walking around in a room under the conditions the camera was used.

Chances of paranormal 0% 100% chance of normal.

 

First off I think I said it well: if it is csicop I know what I am getting: a best attempt to dismiss anything paranormal/crypto/alien and not an overall objective consideration. However, we should still 'consider' what debunkers say.

Part of being rational is being skeptical of skeptics too.

And as  I just said to bats: I think it is more reasonable to believe they would know if it was them as they appear reasonably intelligent people and would think of that of course and they know the full story better than any of us distance speculators. That's my reasoning.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

First off I think I said it well: if it is csicop I know what I am getting: a best attempt to dismiss anything paranormal/crypto/alien and not an overall objective consideration. However, we should still 'consider' what debunkers say.

Part of being rational is being skeptical of skeptics too.

And as  I just said to bats: I think it is more reasonable to believe they would know if it was them as they appear reasonably intelligent people and would think of that of course and they know the full story better than any of us distance speculators. That's my reasoning.

Skeptical of skeptics? How funny.

You probably meant skeptical of the evidence presented.

You are assuming that these people would know the difference if they are honest. The problem is that people that wish for the paranormal are often unable to accept that there is a simple answer. Are they intelligent? You are adding to the situation. Do they know the story better than us? Not necessarily. People with a penchant for paranormal ideas often stop looking once they decide it is paranormal.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
27 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Skeptical of skeptics? How funny.

Or more accurately stated I am skeptical of anti-paranormal types masquerading under the fair name of ‘Skepticism’. That’s how I view CSICOP.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

and I think it is more reasonable to believe they would know if it was them as they appear reasonably intelligent people and would think of that of course and they know the full story better than any of us distance speculators. That's my reasoning.

you would think that malarkey is reasonable.

of course most reasonably intelligent people do know that is someone walking past a crap baby monitor.

then how does one subscribe " reasonably intelligence" to a couple who dont pick up a mess in their home for news camera crews but the mom can get all doilied up, nails done etc to jump on tv and gofundme and mooch for a hand out stating the reason "child in danger of paranormal attacks"  the only way i can try to fit  " reasonably intelligence"  in there is to believe this was all about mooching and they did know that was one of the parents on the video, but under closer inspection thats a fail because its brought unwated attention to the childs well being, so if a scam it was thought out poorly not an example of  " reasonably intelligence"

however, since papa belives their story then i think the big question here is para did you contribute to their gofindme and if no why not because you feel a child is in danger of paranormal attack, what does that say about you if you didnt help....  

Edited by the13bats
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, the13bats said:

you would think that malarkey is reasonable.

of course most reasonably intelligent people do know that is someone walking past a crap baby monitor.

then how does one subscribe " reasonably intelligence" to a couple who dont pick up a mess in their home for news camera crews but the mom can get all doilied up, nails done etc to jump on tv and gofundme and mooch for a hand out stating the reason "child in danger of paranormal attacks"  the only way i can try to fit  " reasonably intelligence"  in there is to believe this was all about mooching and they did know that was one of the parents on the video, but under closer inspection thats a fail because its brought unwated attention to the childs well being, so if a scam it was thought out poorly not an example of  " reasonably intelligence"

Seems like you are putting way too much effort into  'messy house' importance. Err, if the scenario was as you suggest one would think they would have tidied up before the camera crews arrived to give a better impression. Plus their house seemed cluttered but not dirty and not a big deal to me.

44 minutes ago, the13bats said:

however, since papa belives their story 

(actually papa gave the normal explanation a very significant chance of 36%)

44 minutes ago, the13bats said:

however, since papa belives their story then i believe the big question here is para did you contribute to their gofindme and if no why not because you feel a child is in danger of paranormal attack, what does that say about you if you didnt help....  

Ahh, the big question. And the answer is, If I knew these people personally I might.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Or more accurately stated I am skeptical of anti-paranormal types masquerading under the fair name of ‘Skepticism’. That’s how I view CSICOP.

So you are not examining the evidence they provide?

CSI makes  it very clear that if the normal fits very well with the facts of the case then it is very likely that the case is normal.

Paranormal believers don't bother with evidence. They simply make a biased decision and pretend they have applied some form of reasoning.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Seems like you are putting way too much effort into  'messy house' importance. Err, if the scenario was as you suggest one would think they would have tidied up before the camera crews arrived to give a better impression. Plus their house seemed cluttered but not dirty and not a big deal to me.

(actually papa gave the normal explanation a very significant chance of 36%)

Ahh, the big question. And the answer is, If I knew these people personally I might.

clothes on floor are dirty or getting dirty HRS looks at such things,  the reason the messy house is an issue is because its a piece in a puzzle, it leads to mom took time to get dollied up, then to post askng give her a handout my childs in danger, did you donate to her yet?

stop avoiding the question , did you donate or not?

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
55 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you are not examining the evidence they provide?

Wrong, I said what they say should still be considered.

56 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 

CSI makes  it very clear that if the normal fits very well with the facts of the case then it is very likely that the case is normal.

 

If they do that and consider everything unbiasedly then that is fine but they have an obvious agenda to be an anti-paranormal group so an unbiased person like myself should view them with suspicion.

59 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Paranormal believers don't bother with evidence. They simply make a biased decision and pretend they have applied some form of reasoning.

Anti-paranormal types are only interested in what helps their side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SecretSanta
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Or more accurately stated I am skeptical of anti-paranormal types masquerading under the fair name of ‘Skepticism’. That’s how I view CSICOP.

He’s pretty thorough in his investigations, though. He even took the time to research the camera used and found a video review done by a guy who is very well respected in his reviews of security systems and he’s not a paranormal investigator or part of a skeptic group. 

As to whether they would know it was them or not...maybe they’re just trying to make a buck (or 5,000). Wouldn’t be the first time someone makes money off of a hoax.

Edited by SecretSanta
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
41 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

stop avoiding the question , did you donate or not?

 

I said perhaps I'd donate if  I knew them personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

He’s pretty thorough in his investigations, though. He even took the time to research the camera used and found a video review done by a guy who is very well respected in his reviews of security systems and he’s not a paranormal investigator or part of a skeptic group. 

What he says deserves consideration but he certainly has the same modus operandi as csicop in that he has an obvious agenda to debunk meaning he is only interested in one side of the coin. It is the best attack that can be mustered against every paranormal subject, personality and case. But I agree that side should be looked at. 

35 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

As to whether they would know it was them or not...maybe they’re just trying to,Abe a buck (or 5,000). Wouldn’t be the first time someone makes money off of a hoax.

That possibility should be considered. One would think the TV crew and staff were on suspicion of a hoax from the beginning too and ran with the story (not  to say they couldn't be hoaxed too).

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

(actually papa gave the normal explanation a very significant chance of 36%)

If your doctor gave you a 36% chance to survive brain surgery would you consider that a "very significant" chance of survival?

I suggest, if you haven't already, to watch the CSICOP video and judge it on it's own merits.

The "ghost" in the video is a known attribute to the specific camera being used.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I said perhaps I'd donate if  I knew them personally. 

not bad cop out,

investigators of stuff like this dont go into it to debunk they go in to see what possible options there are since they are not biased to evenything being paranormal like you are they find the likely explanation which is prosaic and since that makes you look more silly for hailing everything is paranormal you of course dislike any open non biased  investigators.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Wrong, I said what they say should still be considered.

If they do that and consider everything unbiasedly then that is fine but they have an obvious agenda to be an anti-paranormal group so an unbiased person like myself should view them with suspicion.

Anti-paranormal types are only interested in what helps their side of the argument.

LOL. You unbiased? That's so funny. Love the joke.

In my opinion you are by far the most biased person in these discussions.

And you are quite wrong about CSI. They are not anti-paranormal. They simply do not have the out of control bias you do.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

If your doctor gave you a 36% chance to survive brain surgery would you consider that a "very significant" chance of survival?

 

It is way more than 'insignificant'. Let's not argue over an imprecise word.

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I suggest, if you haven't already, to watch the CSICOP video and judge it on it's own merits.

The "ghost" in the video is a known attribute to the specific camera being used.

The only video I saw was a nanny cam product review that covered it's  good and bad features. Ho..hum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, the13bats said:

not bad cop out,

investigators of stuff like this dont go into it to debunk they go in to see what possible options there are since they are not biased to evenything being paranormal like you are they find the likely explanation which is prosaic and since that makes you look more silly for hailing everything is paranormal you of course dislike any open non biased  investigators.

Ahh, but investigators that investigate the paranormal on shows like Ghost Adventures and etcetera are biased and not to be  trusted. But investigators that never find anything paranormal are the unbiased ones. I see, bats. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

LOL. You unbiased? That's so funny. Love the joke.

In my opinion you are by far the most biased person in these discussions.

And you are quite wrong about CSI. They are not anti-paranormal. They simply do not have the out of control bias you do.

Thanks for the analysis Mr. Unbiased himself.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 3/28/2019 at 12:14 PM, the13bats said:

 in answer to his super biased papameter i dusted off the non biased batsmeter and i couldnt be more pleased others are following suit and bringing out their own meters.

I don't have any meter to bring to the table.

I just pop into discussions and glitterbomb them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.