No mystery here. The prop team pushed the carriage and the loud sound was caused by the sound effects team, who are there to make anything mundane into something impressive and mysterious. It sells TV shows and makes advertisers happy.
Only the gullible would believe otherwise.
ETA: Almost forgot. The whole episode was filmed on a Hollywood set. Cheaper and easier than location shooting and you can control effects better.
You’re also free to “define” and live in a childish world of fantasy if reality is too mundane/scary/difficult for you to deal with, but I guess you don’t need to be told that.
Actually it’s the devil. I wasn’t going to tell you this, because I know you’d be upset, but you are displaying all the signs of being possessed by Satan. Especially the belief that what you are feeling is the result of God talking to you rather than Satan whispering in your ear.
Why would any rational person assume it wasn’t a hoax?
Just as a thought experiment, why would anyone think that object is moving of its own accord when only a part of the object is in view? Is it because of the weird music? The black & white photograph? Because the “investigators” said so? If a trickster says, “That box is empty,” and the trick doesn’t work unless it is, why would you believe it without at least a cursory investigation?
It reminds me of the “weeping statues” phenomena. No one sees the oil or tears being applied, so they assume a supernatural source. But no one assumes that the paint on artist’s canvas was applied supernaturally just because you didn’t watch him paint it.
It’s a very human trait to make assumptions, and that is why magicians have a career. But it’s not how science is done.
I think it’s at least possible that it was moved by something that touched/grabbed it off frame, but this wasn’t a purposeful hoax.
True, but it is presented as paranormal. It would be useless footage otherwise.
What possible motive could the producers, cast, or crew have to fake it? I’d love to watch a show called “30 Minutes of Footage Showing a Stroller Not Moving”.
(I typed “30 minutes of frottage” first, that I would watch.)
Not sure what your point here is. I know they have motive. But it’s still possible they didn’t purposely fake it, but something non-supernatural moved it off-frame.
I don’t think something other than the Ghost Hunters moved the stroller. By not moving the stroller themselves they’re taking a risk- they’re risking that nothing will happen and they’ll be out the evidence. I don’t think they’d take that risk, especially considering how many houses have “evidence”. Don’t they visit a new place every week?
To me, these shows are like the “Blair Witch Project” with everything “interesting” filmed in black and white and grainy, and in shots designed to block out any “outside influence”.
I do not now nor have I ever, even as a child believed in ghosts. Even as a five year old I wondered how clothing could be present, if the ghost is a “spirit” or “soul” left over after death of the body. These shows exploit the gullability of the audience.
I have several photos I took myself of “sprits” which are just cigarrette smoke in front of the flashbulb on a dark night, ot “orbs” which are just rain drops.
Cite?
Uh, yeah, almost totally the opposite case.
Location filming is much less expensive than sets, except for exotic locations. The cost of renting facilites is enormous. And the costs of effects is cheaper in locations such as the house in Bellingham MA because the location shoots justify the cheap camera techniques that allow fakery, as in this case. Blair Witch would not have been a financial success if had been shot on a set.
This clip reminds me of one of the scenes in Poltergeist where the paranormal investigators talk about their evidence of an object caught on tape moving a few millimeters, just before being shown a room where numerous objects are flying through the air.
Ghost Hunters is a show created by a couple of guys from RI, which is a clear sign that it is utter nonsense. It’s as real as the Town of Chariho, South County, the unknown island for which the state is named.
It’s also funny how they listen to an audio recording, and it’s jjust static. Then they tell you what you are supposed to hear, and after repeated listening, you start to actually hear it.
Like that ridiculous “back masking” they accused Judas Priest of.
So, hypothetically speaking, suppose a person had a true paranormal event occurring in their home…like a toy moving around the room. With the many number of ways to fake evidence, videos and photos, is there any way they could capture convincing evidence of this event?
I have none. I just said that to remind everyone that not everything is as it seems on shows like this; nothing can be trusted except that they will exaggerate where needed for greater effect.
As far as location vs. studio cost, etc., if you have a studio with lights and equipment already set up and you use it frequently, it is much cheaper than schlepping lots of heavy equipment, not to mention crew, to somewhere remote, setting it up, then breaing it down again.
Conditions (lighting, sound, temperature) can be much better controlled in an environment that is set up for that purpose. Remotely, you may have to improvise or drag even more equipment along and worry about the sun, weather, etc. In a studio, none of those problems exist.
While I don’t have the luxury of a professional studio myself, I have one pseudo-studio location that is easy to use because I am familiar with it. I do many remotes, and each one is a different challenge. I have to have a lot of equipment handy to cover all situations and sometimes I just can’t do it the way I would like.
Multi-angles, multi-cameras, decent lighting and sharp images would be a start, but only a start.
Even then the evidence wouldn’t be convincing, unfortunately. Even if you had every angle covered, you’d also need to control the environment, to make sure there were no magnets, wires, etc.
The trouble is that so much faking and deception has been done concerning the ‘paranormal’, that even extraordinary evidence would probably not be enough at this point…certainly no video evidence would work, no matter how good (and that in the OP is not even close).
In the end, I think you’d need to come up with a plausible theory of just what a ‘ghost’ is that is scientifically testable and verifiable, and THEN you’d need to show your supporting evidence and data, and write up your conclusions in a peer reviewed journal (something that would be VERY difficult to do, even with the best evidence), then see others recreate your experiments and see what data and evidence they come up with.
As long as the ‘field’ relies on stuff churned out by such stellar personages as the Ghost Hunters, even if there was something to it (which I’m pretty confident there isn’t), it will never rise beyond the BS level.
-XT
What makes something paranormal in the first place is the lack of repition of the event under controlled circumstances. That’s why magnets and mental illness, and many other normal things, are no longer considered paranormal. Real paranormal events don’t occur. Pre-normal events do, and in modern times they usually get recorded and explained pretty quickly.
They probably couldn’t in a way that would allow them to still enjoy living there - they’d have to let in teams of scientists and skeptics, repeatedly, and let them literally take the fricking house apart looking for rigs and tricks, and remain there in a state of constant vigilance to ensure that nobody was sneaking any tricks back in. It would make living there decidedly unpleasant - assuming that the skeptics and scientists didn’t insist on you leaving entirely to minimize the risk of you tampering.
Of course, one could make the case that such interference would scare the ghost off, too. Personally though I figure that if a ghost were really sticking around through the TV crews, they’re probably exhibitionistic enough to stick around for the real skeptics too.