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

onlookerofmayhem
10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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

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

I'm not arguing. You chose the words, not me.

The review of the camera shows pretty much the same exact effect as the ghost video.

Leading credence to the conclusion the "ghost" is a flesh and blood person on a camera with limited capabilities. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
papageorge1
40 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

Leading credence to the conclusion the "ghost" is a flesh and blood person on a camera with limited capabilities. 

So basically you are trying to say they are just looking at themselves and didn't realize it. Although not impossible, one has to consider:

1) They have likely seen themselves on the camera before

2) They would have been smart enough to consider that themselves and could have tested the theory even

3) The parentsy would consider if the timing of the event would make sense with one of them. These people know multiple times the details of this incident than us and they seem convinced.

4) The TV crew would be considering everything and went with this video (not that they're perfect)

5) The nanny cam is just one suspected paranormal event in an alleged series of events. The nanny cam one is just getting more attention because it is something the TV crew can show us (makes good TV). 

So,  in the end, I give your 'flesh and blood' theory a possibility.

 

Papameter holding....64% Paranormal   36% Normal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SecretSanta

This was a “fluff” news piece NOT investigative journalism. 

The series of events include scratches which are common on babies, why do you think you put mittens on newborns? Feeling of being suffocated, classic sleep paralysis and a crappy video. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
26 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

This was a “fluff” news piece NOT investigative journalism. 

I agree with that but that doesn’t disqualify their experiences.

28 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

 

The series of events include scratches which are common on babies, why do you think you put mittens on newborns? Feeling of being suffocated, classic sleep paralysis and a crappy video. 

We never heard their full list but one can construct a ‘normal’ possibility for every claim always in these cases.

i consider all that in the Papameter reading: 64% Paranormal......36% Normal

Not to sound corny but we are left with a personal estimate based on the often incomplete knowledge of the case filtered through everything we know about everything.

i would hope a Santameter wouldn’t even read 0%.

Share this post


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

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. 

now you are grasping it... good for you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

now you are grasping it... good for you.

so you deny being rational...okay i knew it was too good to last...we now return to papas normal blind bised that everything is likely paranormal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So basically you are trying to say they are just looking at themselves and didn't realize it. Although not impossible, one has to consider:

1) They have likely seen themselves on the camera before

2) They would have been smart enough to consider that themselves and could have tested the theory even

3) The parentsy would consider if the timing of the event would make sense with one of them. These people know multiple times the details of this incident than us and they seem convinced.

4) The TV crew would be considering everything and went with this video (not that they're perfect)

5) The nanny cam is just one suspected paranormal event in an alleged series of events. The nanny cam one is just getting more attention because it is something the TV crew can show us (makes good TV). 

So,  in the end, I give your 'flesh and blood' theory a possibility.

 

Papameter holding....64% Paranormal   36% Normal

1. Assumption. The child isn't that old. You don't know how long the camera has been set up. 

2. Assumption on both counts. You don't know how "smart" they are and have no reason to assume they tested anything to overrule their ghost theory.

3. Assumption. How do you know what they would and/or wouldn't consider without asking the parents themselves? 

4. Bull. TV stations will run any story viewers may find interesting. If not for them, we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

5. So what? You're right. She supposedly felt hands on her neck. The baby got scratched. Something odd was on the video.

We have no way of knowing these events were all connected.

It's explainable that,

A. She was having some sort of sleep paralysis or hynagogic/hypnopomic event.

B. The child injured themself or the parents did.

C. As explained, the video is consistent with a camera that has known limitations capturing footage in night vision.

All mundane and real world explanations that would need to be ruled out before jumping to a paranormal conclusion. 

IMHO, your papameter is equivalent to a Ouija board and a magic 8-ball mixed with a tarot deck and a crystal ball.

In otherwords, useless.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

 

All mundane and real world explanations that would need to be ruled out before jumping to a paranormal conclusion. 

 

I’ll comment on that sentence as it gets to the heart of our difffering views.

First I do not think the  ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude is justified. And expecting proof of the paranormal from something like this is not to be reasonably expected.

i see no reason to take such a decidedly anti-paranormal attitude into the consideration. By now I have concluded before this case existed that paranormal things do happen sometimes beyond reasonable doubt. I believe the type of events claimed in this case are precedented and may be rare but then ‘not all THAT rare’.

I consider all your normal explanations possible of course. But I don’t take the anti-paranormal stance as the status quo. Extraordinary evidence is not to be expected from a casual news report.

Papameter holds 64% Paranormal and 36% normal.

if you call that jumping to the paranormal then you are exaggerating what the meter is saying.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

First I do not think the  ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude is justified. And expecting proof of the paranormal from something like this is not to be reasonably expected.

It's literally the opposite attitude.

At this point, the paranormal is found innocent of existing as opposed to being guilty of existing. 

This event is claimed to be paranormal. Therefore the video is supposed evidence. Under scrutiny, it seems it should be inadmissible due to a better, more reasonable explanation of what has occured.

Seeing as how nothing so far has "proved" the paranormal and it's been claimed proof is difficult or impossible to procure, what do you recommend as something that should be considered "reasonable" in terms of such?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It's literally the opposite attitude.

At this point, the paranormal is found innocent of existing as opposed to being guilty of existing. 

This event is claimed to be paranormal. Therefore the video is supposed evidence. Under scrutiny, it seems it should be inadmissible due to a better, more reasonable explanation of what has occured.

Seeing as how nothing so far has "proved" the paranormal and it's been claimed proof is difficult or impossible to procure, what do you recommend as something that should be considered "reasonable" in terms of such?

I consider all the phenomena in this case to already have precedence in the annals of the paranormal. I am just judging likeliness in this particular case at this point.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

To definition of paranormal zigs and zags so much that it's impossible to prove or disprove for everyone.

Since ghosts cannot be explained under any definition it's impossible to disprove them by those that support the idea that they exist at all.

There's nothing scientific about them, they defy any rules of non-paranormal sense. They can be seen apparently, but cannot be photographed, they can be heard but never recorded clearly, they haunt locations over extended periods of time but seemingly no evidence is recorded that cannot be explained by reasonable, realistic, fair and completely prosaic reasons. All scientific methods fail to find them, period.

Yet people believe and will likely continue to believe. People with search and likely continue to search. More than likely nothing will change but the search will continue because people want to believe that there is more to life than simply living and dying.

While personally I do not believe in ghosts, I would like to think there is more to life than simply dying and that's it, so far I've only heard wishful thinking. No one really knows and those that might cannot tell us.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, esoteric_toad said:

To definition of paranormal zigs and zags so much that it's impossible to prove or disprove for everyone.

Since ghosts cannot be explained under any definition it's impossible to disprove them by those that support the idea that they exist at all.

There's nothing scientific about them, they defy any rules of non-paranormal sense. They can be seen apparently, but cannot be photographed, they can be heard but never recorded clearly, they haunt locations over extended periods of time but seemingly no evidence is recorded that cannot be explained by reasonable, realistic, fair and completely prosaic reasons. All scientific methods fail to find them, period.

Yet people believe and will likely continue to believe. People with search and likely continue to search. More than likely nothing will change but the search will continue because people want to believe that there is more to life than simply living and dying.

While personally I do not believe in ghosts, I would like to think there is more to life than simply dying and that's it, so far I've only heard wishful thinking. No one really knows and those that might cannot tell us.

I am probably the last person you want to hear from but I believe the afterlife exists beyond reasonable doubt from just the so-called paranormal evidence: Afterlife Evidence

Now on to ghosts  and such so-called paranormal phenomena, I believe there is quite a large bit explained in considerable detail in eastern and western esoteric traditions. The key being the existence of matter/energy in dimensions beyond the familiar three of our physical senses and instruments.

Yes, we live in an age where materialist science is supposed to rule the roost and where all this superstitious stuff like ghosts was to be done away with last century. But alas, the evidence for this stuff continuing into this most modern times does not seem to be  something we can conveniently just wipe away in good intellectual conscience. The same type of claims return again and again.

 

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

It turns out that the latest generation has shown an increased interest in all sorts of long discredited pseudoscience such as astrology. I was not surprised to learn that the Dunning Kruger effect has led some uneducated people to believe that natural foods contain genes while GMOs do not contain genes.

The new interest in that malarkey does not mean it is somehow being shown to be useful or correct or not a pseudoscience mumbo jumbo blather fest. It simply means people are back into the fad of talking about astrology. It comes and goes.

The simple fact that people chat about such subjects as ghosts again and again does not mean there is any evidence for ghosts. It just means that the fad of talking ghosts comes and goes. There is no evidence for ghosts but there are plenty of fun stories. Only the intellectually weak pretend that the stories are more than stories. It's like pretending that a huge pile of manure is more than a huge pile of manure.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Finally located the article I was looking for. It is from 2014

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/02/11/Majority-of-young-adults-think-astrology-is-a-science/5201392135954/

Quote

According to a new survey by the National Science Foundation, nearly half of all Americans say astrology, the study of celestial bodies' purported influence on human behavior and worldly events, is either "very scientific" or "sort of scientific."

By contrast, 92 percent of the Chinese public think horoscopes are a bunch of baloney.

Here is a 2011 study

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252610393_Astrology_Beliefs_among_Undergraduate_Students

Here is a Pew Research study from 2015

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/

These articles should shed some light on the general public's knowledge of science.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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.