Eerie shadow figure captured on hotel CCTV

[rashore]

On 6/5/2020 at 6:42 PM, Aaron2017 said:

You can do many effects with paint shop pro.  I did that little video above in about 10 minutes.  There are tools to blur, smear, and morph the pixels in an image to create that sweeping ghost effect.  I don't have the time to fashion together an exact representation but it would only take someone with a free afternoon to toy with the paint shop application and create any effect they wish, and instead of editing 10 or 20 frames per second, they could edit 30 or 60 frames per second and create that smooth effect e.g. 

 

 

 

 

I realize it's your explanation about how fudging film works.... nothing new to me, been seeing it for years. 

But if it's supposed to be the explanation to that video- prove it. I hear so often around here from folks asking folks to prove things are spooky... or say that they have the thing that proves something isn't spooky. Well then, prove it. Actually replicate the OP video to prove it's a video hoax. 

 

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, rashore said:

I realize it's your explanation about how fudging film works.... nothing new to me, been seeing it for years. 

But if it's supposed to be the explanation to that video- prove it. I hear so often around here from folks asking folks to prove things are spooky... or say that they have the thing that proves something isn't spooky. Well then, prove it. Actually replicate the OP video to prove it's a video hoax. 

 

Then i get to say prove the orginal video really is paranormal

[rashore]

45 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Then i get to say prove the orginal video really is paranormal

Lol, gosh, I can't prove it's spooky by a long stretch. I'm not terribly inclined to either, I'm still a bit of the notion that it's a human action and bad CCTV artifact action rather than a purposeful inserted video hoax. I can't prove my notion for explanation either. Heh, I'm still waiting to see if on the backtrack the gal that originally posted the video ever comes back to explain why that video was being watched to begin with. A note- the youtube of the OP that posted the video isn't the guy that took that video, it was passed on with permission from the original person, it's noted in the description on youtube.  

I haven't seen yet on some of that sort of local chat yet if the place is planning on an amusement haunt again on the property this fall. Loosely keeping a eye on that along with other amusement haunt news right now. 

From others comments here I'm a bit less inclined to believe my original notion of a squatter hiding on the property that could lead to both things disappearing and also the video itself of the cart parked in front of what appears more as a doorway into a room rather than one of the elevator alcoves. I'm leaning to possible employee theft or perhaps having a kid at work sort of scenario right now. 

But by the way Aaron2017 is talking, they should be able to prove the video hoax explanation. Or at least claiming it's easy enough to replicate the OP vid. 

[the13bats]

7 minutes ago, rashore said:

Lol, gosh, I can't prove it's spooky by a long stretch. I'm not terribly inclined to either, I'm still a bit of the notion that it's a human action and bad CCTV artifact action rather than a purposeful inserted video hoax. I can't prove my notion for explanation either. Heh, I'm still waiting to see if on the backtrack the gal that originally posted the video ever comes back to explain why that video was being watched to begin with. I haven't seen yet on some of that sort of local chat yet if the place is planning on an amusement haunt again on the property this fall. 

From others comments I'm a bit less inclined to believe my original notion of a squatter hiding on the property that could lead to both things disappearing and also the video itself of the cart parked in front of what appears more as a doorway into a room rather than one of the elevator alcoves. I'm leaning to possible employee theft or perhaps having a kid at work sort of scenario right now. 

But by the way Aaron2017 is talking, they should be able to prove the video hoax explanation. Or at least claiming it's easy enough to replicate the OP vid. 

My remark was just at you in fun, you know all the furor with believers not having proof, but a video like in this thread is intriguing the mind engages nope, i cant prove its not whatever,  not my burden, but i also wont use a video like this as proof some kind of shadow entities are running about, the video and its history are too in question.

[moonman]

Cctv footage should never be used as paranormal evidence, since 99% of it is shot on the worst quality camera possible. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 6/8/2020 at 6:34 PM, rashore said:

But by the way Aaron2017 is talking, they should be able to prove the video hoax explanation. Or at least claiming it's easy enough to replicate the OP vid. 

What would count as proof? Aaron's updated video that he photoshopped shows that he can easily create a semi-transparent figure, and his figure does a lot more than the ghost one.  The only thing Aaron would need to do is give it some depth, have his figure look like it's running behind the cart for example, which if you're familiar with the software is not that difficult to do.

And of course if he was to do that, that doesn't of course 'prove' that this particular video isn't of a real ghost.  This is a point that comes up frequently and I've been thinking about and contrasting with 'real' magic as far as how people approach it.  Take this trick with magician David Blaine and Harrison Ford (warning for the sensitive, there is a naughty word said at the end):

Now I'm sure there are explanations on the web explaining how this could be done, I'm not interested in that and can think of possible explanations also.  However, I'm not seeing any evidence within the video itself of how for example Blaine apparently removes Ford's card from the deck he hands to Harrison to look through, prior to Harrison even revealing what card he was thinking of.  This trick is more amazing and the evidence that something actually happened far more clear than the sum total of all ghost evidence. Yet virtually no one thinks something actually magical occurred here, but it seems to me that using the same reasoning this is so amazing that is should practically overload and short-out the papameter; this should be the some of the best evidence for telepathy in existence.  Is the only thing we're missing someone, or Blaine, claiming he's using real magic here, then we should open it up to the possibility of the paranormal? 

Why would the ghost video in the OP, which we know could be faked or some kind of artifact in the camera or image storage software, still leave us open that it's possibly paranormal, yet things like Blaine's trick here which is so much more precise and on the surface more unexplained doesn't normally register at all?  What's the difference between "I know this blurry ghost image could be caused by multiple non-supernatural methods, but we should stay open to a supernatural cause" and "I know some magicians are very good at making people think they have done something truly magical, but we should stay open to the idea that some really have magic powers" as far as evaluating the two videos?

Edited June 12, 2020 by Liquid Gardens

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

but it seems to me that using the same reasoning this is so amazing that is should practically overload and short-out the papameter

The Papameter was turned on for this video (and all electronics remained in good repair):

Harrison Acting 84%    Telepathic Control of Card and Orange Selection 15%   Real Magic 1%

Consideration: Two Actors

 

Now as for this thread Video the Papameter earlier in the thread gave us:

Papameter Reading

66% Paranormal    34% Normal

Considerations: Multiple reports 

 

Now in the thread video the Papameter realizes it could be faked, But was it?

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by papageorge1

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"I know some magicians are very good at making people think they have done something truly magical, but we should stay open to the idea that some really have magic powers" as far as evaluating the two videos

Are you suggesting some have magical powers?

As a magic/  illusionist hobbiest for about 50 years i can assure you most magicians ache for folks to consider magical powers but non have shown anything that proves that possibility, the other consideration is if a copperfield or angel spends say 2m to do a epic new illusion that was in fact used real magical powers then they wasted it for ego real magical powers would basically be priceless, you dont think an egomaniac like trump wouldnt give his last penny to have real magically powers, or hire someone who did.

Presentation,

The op video was presented as a possible eninty not some illusion,  for me stand alone, i have no chain of evidence or details with it so for me its weak, plus i know lots of ways it can be recreated,

So if the presenter is good with me saying it serves to prove nothing then i guess i am done if they want it to serve as proof of some paranormal shadow eninty then they need to keep working on that,  

[+Liquid Gardens]

33 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Are you suggesting some have magical powers?

No more than the extent we should maybe think there's a real ghost on this OP video.  I think there's a tendency for people to think that the OP video is more 'unexplained' than the magician one.  If you didn't have the surrounding context and only had just potential claims accompanying the two videos, which is the better and more compelling evidence for something supernatural:  the OP video for the existence of ghosts, or the Blaine video for telepathy?  If the Blaine video just came out of nowhere we would probably have other magicians come out and say that it's a good trick but they could do it with non-magical means, and possibly even show how to do it, and based on that reasoning nearly all people think magic tricks are just tricks and not real magic.  But when we have a ghost video, which not only could be easily faked but for which there is also the possibility of just unintentional filming or video processing glitches, I think in general some people may think that despite that they are less positive it wasn't a ghost.

Not that the ghost videos are not fun, I had watched a top 'maybe real' ghost video encounter video and some of it was pretty chilling in a horror movie kind of way.

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No more than the extent we should maybe think there's a real ghost on this OP video.  I think there's a tendency for people to think that the OP video is more 'unexplained' than the magician one.  If you didn't have the surrounding context and only had just potential claims accompanying the two videos, which is the better and more compelling evidence for something supernatural:  the OP video for the existence of ghosts, or the Blaine video for telepathy?  If the Blaine video just came out of nowhere we would probably have other magicians come out and say that it's a good trick but they could do it with non-magical means, and possibly even show how to do it, and based on that reasoning nearly all people think magic tricks are just tricks and not real magic.  But when we have a ghost video, which not only could be easily faked but for which there is also the possibility of just unintentional filming or video processing glitches, I think in general some people may think that despite that they are less positive it wasn't a ghost.

Not that the ghost videos are not fun, I had watched a top 'maybe real' ghost video encounter video and some of it was pretty chilling in a horror movie kind of way.

First is why mess around with craptastic videos cant we cut thru the tripe and questiable fluffy claptrap and in that post your chilling "maybe real" ghost video, let us see if we too find it horror movie chilling or horror movie laughable.

 

If you are saying context and presentation also dictacts how some view an alleged ghost video vs a known magician showing off well of course it does, with a real illusionist there is no question, its illusion, at worse we spend time figuring it out, or just jump online and look at up,

but when presented as a chilling maybe real ghost video some want it to be and will say their meters peg 9.9 others of us have our brains engage and try to figure out how it was really hoaxed or happened,

I word things as i do because as of this moment ghosts have not been proven to exist,

Perhaps your video will change my mind, let see, post it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 hours ago, the13bats said:

If you are saying context and presentation also dictacts how some view an alleged ghost video vs a known magician showing off well of course it does, with a real illusionist there is no question, its illusion, at worse we spend time figuring it out, or just jump online and look at up,

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me, I don't think there are any real ghost videos, I was just noting that even though I don't believe them that some that I've seen are nonetheless creepy even if they aren't real, just like horror movies.

To the above it is more addressed to people who think that whether a ghost video is more 'unresolved' than magicians.  In addition to the inconsistencies I mentioned in evaluating the two claims, an inconsistency that I think would be necessary to find this ghost video more unexplained than what magicians do, we also have a more macro point that if we allow that ghosts might exist, then no, I don't think we can say that there's no question that what magicians do is an illusion.  If we allow for incorporeal beings flitting about then what's so farfetched about telepathy?

[rashore]

21 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What would count as proof? Aaron's updated video that he photoshopped shows that he can easily create a semi-transparent figure, and his figure does a lot more than the ghost one.  The only thing Aaron would need to do is give it some depth, have his figure look like it's running behind the cart for example, which if you're familiar with the software is not that difficult to do.

And of course if he was to do that, that doesn't of course 'prove' that this particular video isn't of a real ghost.  This is a point that comes up frequently and I've been thinking about and contrasting with 'real' magic as far as how people approach it.  Take this trick with magician David Blaine and Harrison Ford (warning for the sensitive, there is a naughty word said at the end):

Now I'm sure there are explanations on the web explaining how this could be done, I'm not interested in that and can think of possible explanations also.  However, I'm not seeing any evidence within the video itself of how for example Blaine apparently removes Ford's card from the deck he hands to Harrison to look through, prior to Harrison even revealing what card he was thinking of.  This trick is more amazing and the evidence that something actually happened far more clear than the sum total of all ghost evidence. Yet virtually no one thinks something actually magical occurred here, but it seems to me that using the same reasoning this is so amazing that is should practically overload and short-out the papameter; this should be the some of the best evidence for telepathy in existence.  Is the only thing we're missing someone, or Blaine, claiming he's using real magic here, then we should open it up to the possibility of the paranormal? 

Why would the ghost video in the OP, which we know could be faked or some kind of artifact in the camera or image storage software, still leave us open that it's possibly paranormal, yet things like Blaine's trick here which is so much more precise and on the surface more unexplained doesn't normally register at all?  What's the difference between "I know this blurry ghost image could be caused by multiple non-supernatural methods, but we should stay open to a supernatural cause" and "I know some magicians are very good at making people think they have done something truly magical, but we should stay open to the idea that some really have magic powers" as far as evaluating the two videos?

As proof? The same thing we ask of people that believe such a video is paranormal- is it repeatable or able to be replicated? So far, Aaron has not done that. To prove it as a video hoax, they would need to repeat or replicate the original hoax video, and Aaron has not managed to do that. There has been some handwaving about how easy it is to do, but hasn't actually  been done yet. 

I know video hoaxing is a thing, and that it can be done. Seen many rather good hoaxes and even better debunks of those by replicating the original hoax. As a hoax, it should be even easier to replicate than a camera error or bad video artifact could be. If the easy and not difficult to do editing can't be done to replicate the OP, then it does not really stand up as an explanation to what is in the OP video. It then leaves out a purposeful video hoax as an explanation and we can then try to move on with other possible explanations. 

I've seen some good debunking here on UM in the past- it's just not happening with this one. It's become too easy to say it's easy to do the hoax, without actually backing that up and giving the proof. I'm skeptical that the video hoax explanation is a valid one in this thread. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

To prove it as a video hoax, they would need to repeat or replicate the original hoax video, and Aaron has not managed to do that. There has been some handwaving about how easy it is to do, but hasn't actually  been done yet. 

If someone was to replicate the video using video editing software, how does that prove that this is a hoax, and not just that someone can replicate a 'real' ghost sighting video with software?  All it does is show that there are other possible explanations for the video other than the supernatural.  Just as there are other possibilities for magicians other than that they have magic powers.  Are you familiar with editing software like Photoshop and their capabilities?  Exactly what part of the original ghost video do you think is that much more difficult to replicate compared to what Aaron has already provided?  

1 hour ago, rashore said:

If the easy and not difficult to do editing can't be done to replicate the OP, then it does not really stand up as an explanation to what is in the OP video.

Is it possible though that you just aren't that familiar with what editing software can do?  That would be key to understanding whether it stands up as an explanation or not.

1 hour ago, rashore said:

It's become too easy to say it's easy to do the hoax, without actually backing that up and giving the proof. I'm skeptical that the video hoax explanation is a valid one in this thread. 

I'm skeptical of that too, the motion of the ghost seems kinda weird to me so I'm leaning towards some kind of glitch or image artifact or byproduct of the video's speed.  I don't know if it's even possible to ever 'prove' something is not supernatural though if that's what you were looking for, but that has to be more with problems with asking to prove negatives and misapplying the burden of proof.

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't know if it's even possible to ever 'prove' something is not supernatural though if that's what you were looking for, but that has to be more with problems with asking to prove negatives and misapplying the burden of proof

Im of the mind set that the burden of proof is always on the seller, the presenter if they are using their video to try to prove a ghost, bigfoot, lake monster, alien etc.l exists,

Countless times dear believers will demand that a non believer prove its not ________ and that is flawed, a non believer can not disprove something never proven to exist in the first place, we are still waiting for proof of a ghost its not happened yet, highly questiable video are not proof.

Okay so this threads video might very well be a ghost, shadow entity etc  but i wont use it as my go to to prove ghosts exists or paranormal is real i cant imagine any one would.

[GlitterRose]

On 5/28/2020 at 12:02 PM, papageorge1 said:

Papameter Reading

66% Paranormal    34% Normal

Considerations: Multiple reports 

I thought you would go higher on this one.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, GlitterRose said:

I thought you would go higher on this one.

Re-checked it. I was spot on!

[preacherman76]

Maybe it doesn’t always have to be about proving anything to anyone. Maybe it could just be about watching it and deciding for yourself what you believe. Or even just enjoying watching it for the possibility. 
 

The paranormal can’t be proven as fact through a video. Why make such a big stink over something that isn’t possible? If you haven’t figured out by now that video evidence will never satisfy you, you are wasting your time, as well as everyone else’s. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Maybe it could just be about watching it and deciding for yourself what you believe. Or even just enjoying watching it for the possibility. 

It could be, but kinda defeats the purpose of the UM discussion forum section.  I see at 19000+ posts you don't take the above suggestion to heart yourself very often...

[rashore]

On 6/13/2020 at 3:29 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

If someone was to replicate the video using video editing software, how does that prove that this is a hoax, and not just that someone can replicate a 'real' ghost sighting video with software?  All it does is show that there are other possible explanations for the video other than the supernatural.  Just as there are other possibilities for magicians other than that they have magic powers.  Are you familiar with editing software like Photoshop and their capabilities?  Exactly what part of the original ghost video do you think is that much more difficult to replicate compared to what Aaron has already provided?  

Is it possible though that you just aren't that familiar with what editing software can do?  That would be key to understanding whether it stands up as an explanation or not.

I'm skeptical of that too, the motion of the ghost seems kinda weird to me so I'm leaning towards some kind of glitch or image artifact or byproduct of the video's speed.  I don't know if it's even possible to ever 'prove' something is not supernatural though if that's what you were looking for, but that has to be more with problems with asking to prove negatives and misapplying the burden of proof.

It would prove hoax as a valid explanation... and I do know what video editing can do. It's a fair disappointment for there to be an insistence of video editing being easy, or amazing to be able to replicate the OP video- and yet nada. I'm going to guess the whole OP video is difficult to replicate for Aaron, because it hasn't been done. Aarons mockup wasn't even a decently good attempt at replicating the original any more than when someone sticks a fake ghost image into their phone photos. And again, yes, I do know what editing software can do- it just isn't being done to prove it as a valid explanation here. But if I didn't know, that would be an even better reason for Aaron to show that it can be done. 

At this point the handwaving over how easy video hoax is without actually doing it is at about the same level as if someone handwaves it's ghosts in the OP video, and unable to demonstrate this is so. The burden of proof of someone saying it's a video hoax would be to provide just that- and it hasn't been done in this thread. 

I'm not on the fools errand that the supernatural can be proven not to exist, and that's not my point here. My point is if there is a mundane explanation being promoted, it should be able to be proven, not just said that it can be done. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

25 minutes ago, rashore said:

It would prove hoax as a valid explanation...

A hoax IS a valid explanation, we already know this.  It's not necessary to reproduce the exact Bigfoot costume to make a hoax a valid explanation for this:

So what's the diff?

32 minutes ago, rashore said:

It's a fair disappointment for there to be an insistence of video editing being easy, or amazing to be able to replicate the OP video- and yet nada. I'm going to guess the whole OP video is difficult to replicate for Aaron, because it hasn't been done. Aarons mockup wasn't even a decently good attempt at replicating the original any more than when someone sticks a fake ghost image into their phone photos

I don't think that's a justified 'guess', Aaron may have many reasons for not trying to replicate the video, including having better things to do and that it's tedious.  Aaron did show how easy it is to make a transparent object, so again, "Exactly what part of the original ghost video do you think is that much more difficult to replicate compared to what Aaron has already provided? "  If you do know photoshop then you know how easy it also is to make something look like it's moved behind the cart, that's about the only thing I've seen that he hasn't provided you an example of.

35 minutes ago, rashore said:

My point is if there is a mundane explanation being promoted, it should be able to be proven, not just said that it can be done. 

You know it can be done, you must have seen a movie with CGI in it.  So it's essentially a matter of how hard would it be to fake something like this and what skills it would require.  In photoshop, at least the older versions, here's how I'd do it:

• Break video up into individual frames.
• Using a Photoshop layer, create the image of the ghost and set it's transparency so it's partly see-through.
• Using another Photoshop layer, cut and copy the cart (or anything else we want the ghost to travel behind) to a separate layer on top.
• Assemble the video frame using the background, with the ghost layer on top of that, and the cart layer on top of that.  When the ghost layer overlaps the cart layer, since the cart layer is opaque, the ghost will appear to move behind it.
• Repeat same process for each frame moving the 'ghost' around as needed and reassemble as video clip.

Considering that the 'ghost' is a black blob with about the only detail visible being possibly a head, that allows for a lot of leeway also.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

It would prove hoax as a valid explanation... and I do know what video editing can do. It's a fair disappointment for there to be an insistence of video editing being easy, or amazing to be able to replicate the OP video- and yet nada. I'm going to guess the whole OP video is difficult to replicate for Aaron, because it hasn't been done. Aarons mockup wasn't even a decently good attempt at replicating the original any more than when someone sticks a fake ghost image into their phone photos. And again, yes, I do know what editing software can do- it just isn't being done to prove it as a valid explanation here. But if I didn't know, that would be an even better reason for Aaron to show that it can be done. 

At this point the handwaving over how easy video hoax is without actually doing it is at about the same level as if someone handwaves it's ghosts in the OP video, and unable to demonstrate this is so. The burden of proof of someone saying it's a video hoax would be to provide just that- and it hasn't been done in this thread. 

I'm not on the fools errand that the supernatural can be proven not to exist, and that's not my point here. My point is if there is a mundane explanation being promoted, it should be able to be proven, not just said that it can be done. 

I can't resist putting in a plug for the Papameter here. The Papameter is always aware that about anything video can be hoaxed with enough effort. But that doesn't tell us if this particular video was hoaxed. In the end it comes down to our analysis of all the clues and our assessment of human nature, plausibility and etcetera. In the end all we can have is a judgment that only ranks our appraisal of likeliness but reaches no definite conclusion.

People want a final conclusion but in the end we have to walk away with the case an Unexplained Mystery but something we add to our cumulative database of such things. Each case adds to our view of the world in a little way and has its small effect on the next case. And then on to the next debate,

Edited June 17, 2020 by papageorge1

[preacherman76]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It could be, but kinda defeats the purpose of the UM discussion forum section.  I see at 19000+ posts you don't take the above suggestion to heart yourself very often...

The purpose of these boards is for people to demand proof that they in no way will ever get?

I have never once, in all my 19000 post made a solid stance on a paranormal subject. None that I haven’t personally experienced anyway. Even then I have more questions than answers. I take my own suggestion very seriously, and have been suggesting the same for many years. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The purpose of these boards is for people to demand proof that they in no way will ever get?

You don't know we'll never get it.  The purpose of these boards is to discuss or post your thoughts, which isn't included in what you suggested be done of 'watch and decide for yourself' or to just watch and enjoy it.  Boards here would be pretty empty if that's all anyone did. 

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I have never once, in all my 19000 post made a solid stance on a paranormal subject.  None that I haven’t personally experienced anyway. Even then I have more questions than answers. I take my own suggestion very seriously, and have been suggesting the same for many years. 

So then you do have an opinion on the subject, one that you'll share.  What's the prob with others doing the same, other than it may not agree with your opinion?  If you've got an issue with someone's solid stance on a paranormal subject then go ahead and challenge them on it, nothing wrong with that.

[preacherman76]

8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You don't know we'll never get it.  The purpose of these boards is to discuss or post your thoughts, which isn't included in what you suggested be done of 'watch and decide for yourself' or to just watch and enjoy it.  Boards here would be pretty empty if that's all anyone did. 

So then you do have an opinion on the subject, one that you'll share.  What's the prob with others doing the same, other than it may not agree with your opinion?  If you've got an issue with someone's solid stance on a paranormal subject then go ahead and challenge them on it, nothing wrong with that.

I have no problem with people discussing these subjects I love doing that myself. I just get tired of these threads turning out the same way every time. With people demanding proof that this is a the real thing. There is no way to prove that. Then it turns into a thread about why they don’t believe anything. The massive ego it takes to turn this subject into a discussion about them is amazing. 
 

Maybe one day there will be absolute proof of the paranormal, but it won’t be discovered through a video on a message board

Edited June 17, 2020 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

Oh my opinion on this one is it’s a pretty cool video. Might be a fake, might not be. I don’t think it was the shadow of a worker, or someone walking by or whatever. But then, what do I know?