In a recent episode, TAPS supposedly caught an object moving of it’s own accord on camera. You can view the footage HERE With the relevant portion starting around 5:45. Now assuming that they aren’t hoaxing, how can this be explained? I don’t infer that because it is unexplainable it is a ghost, but I would like to know how something could move like that without any obvious outside force acting upon it.
For those that can’t or don’t care to view the footage, a small play stroller that has been stationary in the room on carpet for hours gives a jerk, then rolls forward several inches, the makes a sharp turn and stops.
If by “they” you mean the production team, then the list of people with a motive and opportunity to hoax include:
The rest of the film crew (job security).
The family living in the house (publicity).
Executives at the TV company at all levels (obvious reasons).
Drunken frat boys and a zillion other random hoaxers (coz that;s what they do).
Anybody with an advertising deal during that show.
Mediums or any member of a church/faith that preaches the existence of ghosts/demons.
Electronics manufacturers, skeptics or a zillion others if they are prepared to reveal the hoax at a later date.
Not every hoax is committed by the publiciser. Many are of the Piltdown Man and Cottingley Faieries ilk, where someone is hoaxing the publiciser along with the rest of the world.
Unless you can rule out all the above people, a list of at least 5 billion people, then hoax remains the most plausible answer, even if “they” aren’t hoaxing.
You are missing the point. I realize that the footage is in all likelihood faked. Hell you can’t even see the bottom of the toy, so it would be easy for someone to be lying on the floor and move it.
I get that.
The problem with stuff like this is that there is no good way to prove it happened just like you see. It’s too easy to hoax now, and even if what you see is genuine, character assassination would squash the cleanliness of the evidence in any case.
What I’m asking for is there any other idea out there that might explain something like that? The court of wild speculation is open.
I’d have to go with Blake’s explanation as the most plausible. Ghost Hunters would like/need ‘evidence’ of ghosts or ghost like activity. It will improve ratings if nothing else. Therefore, they have a vested interest in getting this evidence. In addition, having watched the show a couple of times, they generally go to sites suggested to them by outside groups or individuals, who also would have a vested interest in having their site ‘proven’ to have real, genuine ‘ghosts’. The producers of the show, sponsors of the show, and any number of other people who cater to the ‘ghost’ tourist trade (surprisingly many, at least from what I’ve been able to see watching the show…‘ghost’ tours and all sorts of silly stuff like that) all have vested interests in having this happen.
My own Occam’s Razor (plus my built in BS detector) all seem to say that the most likely explanation is that it’s a fake or hoax, especially when you couple how easy it is to fake this sort of thing on video no less. The internet is full of viral videos that turn out to be BS…just watch MythBusters when they do one of their specials.
I can’t watch the video atm, but based on your description I suppose it could simply have been the house settling due to a change in temperature or any number of other reasons (if it’s an old house or building, which most of the places they go to are, then stuff like this is bound to happen). Could have been wind (again, if the house or building is old it could have all sorts of odd faults in the construction or decay).
But I don’t see any reason to speculate on wild ‘might have been’ type explanations, when the most likely one is that it was simply a fake.
It is plainly obvious that it is possible that anyone with access to both the camera equipment and the room with the stroller could have perpetrated the hoax, by noting that the corner of the stroller was not in view and thus could be pushed and pulled, and then creeping in and doing so.
That said, it could also have been a small animal. I don’t have sound on this computer but I’ll assume the house doesn’t have pets, but perhaps they have rodents.
If you are asking how it can move without *any *force acting on it the answer is it can’t.
I’m not sure what an “obvious outside force” is. Can you elaborate, both on what an obvious force is, and what an outside force is? AFAIK, there really aren’t that many forces that we know about.
I think that “obvious outside force” in this context means (or ought to mean) “the source of the force was visible in the youtube video”.
This thread would be a lot more interesting if the stroller had been fully in frame when the video was taken. (Preferably, with cameras filming from both sides.) In cases like that one would be almost forced to assume somebody’s playing games with magnets or fishing line. In this video, it could have been the cat.
Sure. I meant that there isn’t a person there pulling on a string or lying out of frame pushing it.
Someone above mentioned rodents. A large rat could indeed have moved the stroller. See? That’s what I’m looking for. I think that house settling wouldn’t cut it. The room is carpeted, and toy is a plastic baby stroller, it doesn’t have the type of wheels that would account for that much movement.
So you think they have more credibility because they get royally pissed if they find someone’s been trying to put something over on them?
Do you think that gives them a motive to *act *royally pissed if they find someone’s been trying to put something over on them, even if they are deliriously happy when people do so?
The fact that you think such a reaction gives them credibility is itself proof that the reaction itself has no credibility.
That’s kind of my point. Modern technology has basically made the documenting of evidence incapable of being proven. No matter how reliable the test, the controls or the people running the experiment, there is really no concrete way to prove your results. Unless something can be demonstrated over and over in any setting we can always say they hoaxed, CGI, etc… it. So I’m asking us to simply set aside the hoax ad concentrate our imaginations on hypotheses that might produce the same results without resorting to woo.
If we simply dismiss anything unexplainable as a hoax we’ll never learn anything. I agree that this particular footage is almost certainly faked, but consider if it came from someone’s nanny cam etc… Lots of people reprot this type of thing and many of them are very reluctant to talk about it openly for fear of ridicule. Personally I think they deserve better than " You are either a liar, a mark, or insane."
It could happen naturally by any kind of vibration or settling in the floor. A gust of wind from an open window could make it move. An air conditioner kicking in could move it. A wheel brake could slip off and if the floor was uneven it might roll. Whatever it was, it wasn’t a ghost.
You’re leaving out just honestly mistaken, over-active imaginations and misinterpretations of data. In no case is magic ever an explanation that needs to be taken seriously, but that doesn’t mean the reporter can’y honestly believe what he’s reporting, or even what he’s reporting (in general terms) didn’t happen. Sure, a stationary stroller could suddenly roll across a floor for a number of natural reasons. It’s jumping wildly to the conclusion that “a ghost did it” which may be summarily dismissed.
