Disneyland ghost

[PPI Tim]

So Guys, Which hitchhiker from the haunted mansion this one? It looks a little mickey mouse to me.

http://www.youtube.com/v/jnjibWcbV2o&hl=en_US&fs=1&

[ljiljanac]

Goofy!  Definitely Goofy!!  That's soooo cool!!!    :o

[Gary]

Hey Tim, what do you think of these?  There are 2 other videos with Disney Land ghosts on the same youtube account!!

[PPI Tim]

There a person who is attempting to debunk the video. It does sound plausable.

[ljiljanac]

Disneyland has always supposedly had a ghost or two.  Ever since I was little, I'd hear about it.  I like this videa because they can follow it all the way through.  It also has a glow to it like the lights do, which is different then a lot of the other ghost videos, which is pretty interesting to me.  And was that water it walked over at the end???  I seriously hope this really is a ghost and not an effect.  The fact that there is no narration also gives this credibility to me. 

The ONLY question in my mind would be why the videographer happened to focus in with a video camera right before the ghost first appears.  Was he seeing it through another camera (totally possible because every angle of that park is covered), or is it staged?  Otherwise, I can't debunk it so far with possibilities, which I think is cool.   

[PPI Tim]

That is a good point Lillie. The timing was perfect. I too thought it looked cool to see the ghost walk across the water.

[Gary]

As for the timing, I thought the same thing, however they could be recordings he has set up.  His recording is not live.  I would imagine.

[PPI Jason]

Why is he recording a video screen anyway? What possible reason could there be for someone to have a video camera inside a room with video surveillance cameras for Disneyland and then, on top of that, to start video taping the surveillance? Add on that what are the odds that someone would do this at the exact moment a ghost is walking through the park? I guess one explanation would be that ghost walk around the park all the time at night. But if that were the case, why aren't there more such videos? Also, I know for a fact that those video cameras are recorded. If the person has access to view the surveillance cameras, does the person have access to the actual recordings? Why didn't they provide the original recordings?

I would love for this to be true. It looks so much cooler than other ghost videos I've seen. But I also noticed a few things that strike me as odd.

1. As the ghost walks on the water at the end, his movement seems inconsistent. He doesn't appear to be shrinking in the distance the way a person actually would. Also, the speed at which he is moving is inconsistent with him moving away. If he were to change directions and go away from the camera, he would appear to slow down somewhat. In this case, however, he maintains his same speed (as if he were facing sideways while walking but going straight up on the screen).
2. The ghost gets brighter when he passes underneath the street lamps. I'm not saying ghosts do that, but I KNOW people do.

[ljiljanac]

Hmmmm.....      

[PPI Tim]

Here is another one. See if you can spot the ghosts.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ghRGGE7_wOQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&

[Damian]

First of all, paranormal or not, that's a pretty cool video!

I found myself wondering the same thing that Jason talked about.  Why is this person recording the screen?  Does he/she always bring a video camera to work?

It smells manufactured to me, but then as I think through it further, I'm wondering what exactly would NOT feel manufactured to me?  If one of the PPI team shared video they had captured, I'd be inclined to believe it's validiity.  But I guess the problem with video (and even audio) evidence is that it's out of context, and the viewer has no frame of reference, no background or supporting info, and really no reason to believe the person presenting the evidence.

Is anyone aware of video footage or audio evidence that has been put through the ringer and still survived as unexplained?  I wonder if, due to the nature of what we study, we'll ever be able to provide irrefutable proof...  But that doesn't mean we can't have a great time trying to find that proof!

[ljiljanac]

In terms of the Disneyland video, I can actually totally see someone bringing their own video camera and recording from the surveillance system.  Theme parks, especially Disneyland had a lot of red tape and beaurocratic b.s. as major corporations, banks, etc do.  They ARE a corporation.  In order for someone to make any kind of surveillance tape copy for themselves or for dissemination on the web, he/she would have to get approval from Administration, etc.  A LOT of red tape and likely to be denied. Disneyland employees go through security clearances and indepth background checks, more so than many other jobs, and have Confidentiality clauses as part of their signed employment contracts.  If the videographer is found out (hence, no narration), he faces not only termination but also civil liability. 

In effect, should this be a true Disneyland ghost, this guy is actually taking a pretty big risk.

[PPI Jason]

Damian,

I am unaware of any video that has survived scrutiny or been shown to be proof of a ghost. But I think a major reason for that is that fact that most people don't realize that the moment you put a video out to the public and claim there is an actual ghost on it, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON PRESENTING THE VIDEO. It shouldn't be up to the public to disprove it. That's easy. But people post things on the intertnet and assume we will all buy into it. And, unfortunately, most people do. But, IMO, a better way to present presumed paranormal evidence would be to provide videos and photos with intact metadata as well as an explanation (a believable explanation) as to how the video came about.

Lillie,

I agree there is likely a lot of red tape at Disneyland that would prevent someone from being able to obtain a copy of video surveillance....possibly. But Anaheim PD guys have no problem getting video recordings as needed, especially since it only involves sticking a DVD disk in a recorder, hitting "play" and "record." Now I'm not saying Disneyland might not have other measures in place to prevent accessing their recordings, but not all corporations have such red tape. I regularly get video surveillance from Target, Walmart, banks, shopping malls, etc.. and I've never encountered any barrier that would have prevented me, or the employees creating the video, from posting it on the internet (other than the obvious... that I would get in trouble if I got caught. But I would get in trouble if I got caught putting up a video recording of the surveillance as well, so what's the difference?)

[ljiljanac]

Hi Jason,     I remember way back when I worked Security at Six Flags Magic Mountain, security surveillance was limited to admin and PD access only.  We as guards couldn't make copies.  I remember talking about security measures at Disneyland with their security guys on a visit.  They were tighter than we were and had measures in place (contractually as well as by policy) that prohibited access by everyone other than admin and PD.  Things may have changed.  That was back in the 90's.   

I wish there was a way for a viewer to really tell if a video is manufactured or not.  Then again, what's a little excitement for laypersons who wish they could see a real ghost.   

[Gary]

The ghost gets brighter when he passes underneath the street lamps. I'm not saying ghosts do that, but I KNOW people do.

Notice all the street lamps in the video.  All the of them have bright rays of light that connect the top of the screen to the bottom.  The walking figure has the same traits, reflecting from top to bottom of the frame.  What is that about?

[PPI Jason]

Hi Jason,     I remember way back when I worked Security at Six Flags Magic Mountain, security surveillance was limited to admin and PD access only.  We as guards couldn't make copies.  I remember talking about security measures at Disneyland with their security guys on a visit.  They were tighter than we were and had measures in place (contractually as well as by policy) that prohibited access by everyone other than admin and PD.  Things may have changed.  That was back in the 90's.   

I wish there was a way for a viewer to really tell if a video is manufactured or not.  Then again, what's a little excitement for laypersons who wish they could see a real ghost.   

Just for my clarification, was it that you weren't ALLOWED to make videos, or was it that you weren't ABLE to make videos? I guess what I'm getting at is this: Was it physically possible to make such videos but against policy, or was the actual recording device locked away somehow so that you couldn't make the videos unless admin unlocked the secret room with a key only they possessed, as it were?

I just imagine that if it is only a contractual obligation to not make recordings, then what would be the difference between making a recording of the video straight from the DVR and making one with a video camera? Wouldn't they both be policy violations? I guess I'm harping on this because it just seems to me that if this employee had the phyisical capability to make a DVD of the surveillance video, and would stand to get in trouble whether he made a straight DVD or recorded it using a handheld video recorder, then it seems to me that it would be much more likely that the ONLY reason he would use a handheld video recorder would be because it would allow him to fraudulently create this video in a way that obtaining the video straight from the DVR would not allow.

[PPI Jason]

The ghost gets brighter when he passes underneath the street lamps. I'm not saying ghosts do that, but I KNOW people do.

Notice all the street lamps in the video.  All the of them have bright rays of light that connect the top of the screen to the bottom.  The walking figure has the same traits, reflecting from top to bottom of the frame.  What is that about?

Could that be a result of the video camera quality and its attempts to deal with recording a monitor? It seems to me that my own eyes have played a similar trick on me when I look at a very bright light source in an otherwise very dark setting. I dunno. Brian's the guy to ask on this one (which is something I say a lot, if you haven't noticed. It is a very legitimate cop out to say, "Just ask Brian" and I intend to abuse this cop out thoroughly). 

[ljiljanac]

Jason, for us it was a matter of both...not being allowed AND not having access.  I believe it's a matter of not having the super secret squirrel key or password to access the super secret copy-making room and/or system.  Similar to walking into a business and asking for a copy of the survellance.  You might be able to play it back and view it at that location, but the security company at another location would have to make the copy.  I can only imagine it having gotten more strict over the years. 

I could see this being a topic of conversation...."Hey did you see that?  What is that?  Is that a ghost?  Hey that would be cool!  Hey it would be cool to post that!"  And then someone bringing his videocamera to work and recording the playback real quick.  And being quiet about it so no one heard him.  Just a thought.  I wish we had someone on the forums who knows more about this than me.

Gary...that stream of light coming off of the figure is what is playing on my mind.  Why would it do that?   

[Damian]

I think that lighting artifact is fairly common depending upon the camera and the screen that you're viewing the image on.  I got that same type of lighting streak effect at the Benjamin's mini-investigation.  When I looked at the LCD on my camera, I was getting that streaking light from the ceiling fan in Paul's bedroom.

[PPI Karl]

The ghost gets brighter when he passes underneath the street lamps. I'm not saying ghosts do that, but I KNOW people do.

Notice all the street lamps in the video.  All the of them have bright rays of light that connect the top of the screen to the bottom.  The walking figure has the same traits, reflecting from top to bottom of the frame.  What is that about?

I wondered about that as well.  The easiest thing to do to fake videos is to conceal the evidence of their invention in the natural flaws and artifacts of the videographic or photographic process.  Remember, the less clear it is, the less certain we are that it's NOT a fake, and sometimes that lack of clarity can be intentional.

To me, the figure in the first video looks like its connected to a reflection or a shadow, which immediately makes me suspicious.  Also, it seems like negative image, rather than something outlined by light.   I could be wrong about that, though; it is hard to see.

[ljiljanac]

Hey Karl      What do you mean by "negative image"?

[PPI Brian]

Found this video on YouTube that discusses all of the videos presented so far... plus a few more! 

http://www.youtube.com/v/mFnmTVwSIp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&

[Gary]

Cool video... the guy makes some valid points!

[PPI Jason]

This guys a man after my own heart. I love his approach.

But I don't know if I entirely buy some of his explanations. He said that in the first video (the one we've been discussing on this thread for the most part) that the anamoly is caused by monitor "burn in." But if it were burn in, why would it effect the ferry boat lights (as he pointed out) and why would it burn in one employee walking along the path (instead of the more static images) and if so, does it play that same image over and over again. I'm not saying his explanation isn't plausable. I guess I just don't fully understand it.

[PPI Karl]

Hey Karl      What do you mean by "negative image"?

Hi, Lillie.  I meant it was an inverted image, like a photo negative.