The internet is plagued with videos claiming to contain an actual ghost caught on camera. A quick YouTube search for the phrase “real ghost” conjures 118,000 grainy videos of clearly false evidence: bugs, dust, or light sources — each improperly labeled as an entity. I have combed through a large number of these videos and can comfortably call out 99.99 percent as frauds. In most cases, a group of teenagers simply figured out some editing software and created their own “ghost,” attempting to pass it off as authentic. And then there are a ton of videos that ask you to watch closely, turn up the speakers, get real close to the screen… and… “AHHHHHHH!” — Regan’s face from The Exorcist pops up to scare the crap out of you.
I hate those.
Today, I am going to share my favorite, possibly real ghost film from YouTube. Filmed at the Gettysburg Battleground, this intriguing handicam video resembles no other ghost video out there.
If there is such a thing as a ghostly encounter, this video represents it as authentically as possible. Actual (possible) entities rarely take a full human form, but often appear as waves of lights, shadows, or mist. Also, give this kid an Academy Award if this video is faked — he is convincingly unnerved what his father is filming.
The hours spent online watching faked videos, clips from morons with their first cameras, and videos edited for Japanese game shows (the strangest of all), was worth it to find this video. It is beautiful in its simplicity and presentation, worth watching again and again.
Your thoughts?
December 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
That is pretty cool. But we still won the fucking war. Which means people should stop talking in those ridiculous accents.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
It definitely looks cool, but I don’t see why you’re so convinced this is a ghost. The YouTube-compressed version is shitty, but all I see is a form moving out of shadow and back into shadow around :29. There’s no way to tell if it’s anything other than a regular old living person.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Not convinced it is a ghost – it is just intriguing because it looks so radically different than other videos out there… it actually fits the criteria of a sighting.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
So let me just break this down. 99.9% of youtube videos of ghosts are discountable, but you personally can’t account for how this one was made, so it’s “possibly real.” Also, “entities rarely take a full human form, but often appear as waves of lights, shadows, or mist.”
Forgive me, but if 99.9% of the videos are faked, how were the criteria for “real” ghost sightings established? Don’t you have to have a baseline of at-least-probable cases to work from in order to establish norms? And if these probable cases aren’t videos (I’m assuming the leading candidates MUST have been put up on youtube by now), are they just hearsay? Aren’t ghost encounter stories even more dismissible than videos since there’s less actual evidence involved?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Hi Bill,
Good questions. I think it is safe to say that a YouTube video stating that real ghostly evidence was captured can easily be debunked as nothing more than shoddy editing software and little imagination – the 99.9% means that it is easy to rule out the vast majority of videos as nothing more than fakery.
A saying among investigators: “The smallest of doubt? Rule it out!”
I based the norm on “real ghost sightings” on the majority of paranormal experiences that people have encountered. Since I started paranormal investigating roughly three years ago, I have only come into contact with one person who claims to have seen a full-bodied apparition – the overwhelming number of people who claim to see “curtains of light” or “shades moving like fabric in the air” far outweigh those who see a face, body, clothes, etc. Even in my own experience, the one possible true encounter I had was very similar to what is depicted in this video, but lasted longer.
As far as the validity of this particular video, I am not saying “look at this! Ghosts are real! Fools! I say, fools to non-believers!” To me it is intriguing that a video has surfaced that best represents what many people claim to see. I question its validity as a natural skeptic, but, I still find myself pulled to it quite often – its one of the few that I view on a regular basis.
A theory as to why these type of encounters and videos don’t make YouTube is that ghost encounters appear in the mind and not in physical worlds. External energetic stimuli cause the human brain to ‘backfire’ – energy is converted to information and the observer sees, hears, and feels, a “ghost.” The observer’s encounter is internal, and not external – so these encounters cannot be videotaped. This is why most paranormal investigators walk around with EMF detectors, but also video cameras.
As far as evidence goes, paranormal investigation is a pursuit of personal passions. While the science-side of the investigation is hell-bent to give unarguable evidence to the world, for me, the paranormal is more of a personal quest. Sure we could be wasting our time, but, its an endeavor no different than being a musician, writer, filmmaker, poet, etc. Just my opinion.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for the reply, Chris, and I’m not trying to harsh your personal quest for truth, however you choose to pursue it. But I’m a skeptic in the Carl Sagan sense of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and the claim “ghosts are real” (or in your case “I think ghosts might be real”) is pretty extraordinary.
I also believe, somewhat axiomatically, that science is hands down the best way to test claims about the natural world, and despite the ubiquity of the term “supernatural,” if ghosts are “real” in any meaningful sense, then they must by definition be part of the natural world.
You wrote: “A theory as to why these type of encounters and videos don’t make YouTube is that ghost encounters appear in the mind and not in physical worlds. External energetic stimuli cause the human brain to ‘backfire’ – energy is converted to information and the observer sees, hears, and feels, a “ghost.” The observer’s encounter is internal, and not external – so these encounters cannot be videotaped. This is why most paranormal investigators walk around with EMF detectors, but also video cameras.”
This theory is a rather dramatic example of confirmation bias — an attempt to repurpose a lack of video evidence as evidence that ghosts are somehow magically invisible to videotape. One might ask why, if ghost encounters are purely internal to the observer and not part of an external reality, an EMF detector would useful in any way. EM fields are part of our external reality too, after all. EMF detectors are fabulous confirmation bias generators because one can attribute shifts in local EM fields to anything one wishes.
Not to sound like a religious devotee of Sagan’s, but since his 75th birthday recently, I’ve been re-reading The Demon Haunted World and this passage about a fire-breathing dragon seems particularly relevant here.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I never take criticism as personal attacks, if anything it keeps me on my toes! And would never view questioning as anything but invited.
To be honest with you, my fascination with the paranormal is based on the human experience of the paranormal versus the paranormal itself. I think that it is interesting that, since the written word, ghostly apparitions and hauntings have played a major role in culture building, human interactions, religion creation, and other parts of our society. The belief that the world is a supernatural one may be outdated – as science trumps religion, we as people lose certain elements that were, at one point or another, a pillar of our existence. The supernatural crosses cultures – societies whom never encountered each other share these archtypical revelations of other worldly phenomenon. To me, that is where the passion and interest comes from.
And my fascination with this video is that it is different than any other video out there. There are so many ill-fated attempts at depicting paranormal phenomena as something out of a horror movie (which already grossly mis-represents the entire field) that to see something like this is refreshing.
I agree that science is vital to any investigation and never would say other wise. EMF is natural and not supernatural. Radiation is natural and not supernatural. EVPs are natural and not supernatural. As matter of fact, anything that a paranormal investigator could possibly produce as evidence of a haunting has hundreds, if not thousands, of natural explanations versus one single supernatural quality! Reality will always answer the questions we long for as people, and it will always stick like glue to, not just skeptics, but to anyone who keeps their head based in reality.
So, what are we left with as paranormal investigators when science will always trump any finding (and likely so)? To me, I gave up on the search for the Holy Grail a long time ago because science can’t do it alone. We are only left with the experience. Paranormal investigation may be that last hold we have that our world cannot be so easily explained; that the hubris of man’s honing of science blinds him from ideas that have been a part of our species since the first ape-man looked up to the sky and recognized the sun as a god. And as we lock our brains into algebraic equations and scientific methodology to explain our world, in a sense, we lose a little bit of what makes us who we are (or were).
And I love me some Cosmos, watched it on NetFlix just the other day and am astonished and honored to have a first edition willed to me by my grandfather sitting on my bookshelf (right next to Edgar Cayce!) But I will turn to another bleeding-hearted Romantic, Edgar Allan Poe:
“Science is a vulture whose wings are dull realities.”
December 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
It really depends on a couple of a priori assumptions, neither of which are likely to be reconciled anytime soon.
1. Science, and its practice of replicating conditions for the collection of experimental data is the only system we have with which to verifiably confirm phenomenological occurrence.
2. Human apprehension of all phenomena is symbolic, and not even our finest instruments of measure will ever be able to evidence “reality,” as the tools themselves are subject to our symbol-oriented perception. This goes for calling a “tree” a tree, which is merely a placeholder — what is a tree, exactly? In some cultures, there is no word for aggregate foliage; they individually name each varietal. The same goes for numbers, which are value placeholders to which we assign processes. Still symbolic, not “actual” in any way, shape or form.
What I’m trying to say here is that the human brain is bound by its own neuronic circuitry. Barring a sudden paradigm-busting evolutionary shift, that’s the way things are likely to stay for a while. Which is why ghosts can be as “real” to any given individual as the Resurrected Christ or algebra.
Now, if you don’t mind me, I’m gonna go invoke the Cosmic Mickey Mouse.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
always the mediator
December 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Hi,I dont believe in much of anything,lol,but at the Holiday Inn in GB my hubby had a sock thrown at him just as I turned out the light to go to sleep…,plus some other weird things,like lights going off and a fan etc. and my camera broke at Devils Den,dont what happened to it,it just quit ,had to spend American $ to buy another one
December 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hi Brenda,
Great personal stories about the battlefield. Thanks for chiming in!