Apathetic version of Reece Pitman's ghost shadow.

[rataka200]

lol

[ShadowFan502]

hahahahha :DDD

[2UNBELIEVABLE]

OMG!!!!...a genuine ghost caught on cam at last!!!!!!!

[ivandelfin]

Srake!

[Jodydnl]

Fake

[Spillage66]

Well... Duh! It's meant to be fake. It's meant to be an elaborately faked fake, to illustrate *with some exaggerration*... how fake the original is. Got it?

[haulghwarrior]

you dangled something over the camera lense.

considering the whole picture went entirely blurry.

[tapsghost1979]

Fake!

[Spillage66]

Well... Duh! It's meant to be fake. It's meant to be an elaborately faked fake, to illustrate *with some exaggerration*... how fake the original is. Got it?

[Mrdebunk]

lol nice job I have yet to see compelling evidence for ghosts if you do believe in the do you not think that thay would be documented. im sure with the number of people setting up cameras and doing ghost hunts we would have some strong data that would stand up to scientific scrutiny if ghosts actually did exist.

[Spillage66]

Not only that, but logic would state that any such form of anti-science, *which is now fashionably manipulated into a form of science, like religion is becoming*... would have been tried and tested in a peer review of scientific interest, but, no. Like UFOs , religion and Monsters, it's all fantasy.

[PaulJ09]

it's impossible to get real evidence of such things because:

1. they're rare

2. anything can be editted nowadays, pics and videos

the only evidence you can get is from experiencing it yourself.

[PaulJ09]

FAIL. This debunks nothing. Why don't you try making it walk next time, it takes a shit load of editting skill to remake something like that video.

[drunkspillage]

Read the titles. It's an 'Apathetic' attempt. When I get round to it, using snother person, I could easily reproduce the original perfectly using simple reflection.

[PaulJ09]

he changed the title of the video after I had posted that comment. Even if it was poorly done, the whole 'he used a plastic cover' theory completey fails.

[Spillage66]

I changed the title? When? I did not! It has always been the same. Explain how the reflective effect fails?

[Spillage66]

This, my friend is a piss take. It's less than elaborate, to illustrate the fact that it was done simply, using a very old technique of reflection/superimosing.

[voiceofbede]

oh man if this is the best the debunkers can do then the paranormalist win, hands down. This wouldn't have convinced Ray Charles or Helen Keller.

[voiceofbede]

in all fairness I don't think the people alleging quackery have made their case. So far attempts to replicate case have been abysmal .

a.) the dark shadow moves over the light in the authentic film. No skeptics has been able to replicate that and that is very problematic so far for skeptical counter explanations.

b.) The bright light might just be an artifact of the digital filming. Cell Phones are not the mosts reliable of tools after all.

[drunkspillage]

Remember, this is just a piss take! I could replicate it EXACTLY... if I took the time to make my environment similar to the original, and use the same technique to a tee. It's definitely a transparant reflective surface, whether or not it's perspex or acetate, there's a better debunk on here. You can see the mobile phone light reflection AND the "ghost" remains in the frame when the camera moves to the right *It follows* Face reality mate.

[drunkspillage]

Actually, you are right about the obscuring of the reflective light. Thanks for pointing that out. It now appears that the "ghost" is in fact a reflection, and not a print on the transparant sheet in front of the lense. Cheers for that!

[voiceofbede]

reflection of what? And wouldn't it have occurred to the kid?

Lastly how does a reflection walk and look somewhat human?

I am not saying this is a ghost but if this is a fake it is a damn good one and if it is a reflection we have a truly stupid child. I mean if it startled him for a moment I think he would have realized after awhile it is a reflection...

Strictly speaking we don't even know if such a reflection would be possible there. We don't know the layout of the house.

[Spillage66]

You sound naive mate. The kid STAGED THE WHOLE THING! It's not a good fake at all. You can see too many reflections, and also see the edge of the plastic.

[voiceofbede]

Assertions are not evidence. Do you have an iota of evidence to support your claims. Why is there too many reflections and more importantly where can you see the plastic, what part of the frame?

You sound like a person who think sound bites constitutes rational thoughts.

[Spillage66]

Sorry, I accidentally deleted one of your posts about the ENfiled poltergeist instead of pressing "Reply".

The Enfield case was a right load of drama, done by the family as a whole. Even the ridiculous claims by the late Morris Gross (I spoke to him about this shortly before his death when he was in Australia!)... so your example falls short there. Take a looke at "MrDebunk"'s video. Clearly you can see the edge of the sheet. I am now satisfied it was reflecting his sister, (or 'other') *cont*

[Spillage66]

coming from the bedroom, to the bathroom. You can see the landing light CLEARLY reflecting on the plastic/glass from the start. Then, when the "ghost" appears, you see the edge of the said sheet precede it. Look at his video. You can blatantly see the reflection start to move with the camera frame AFTER it has left the shot.

[voiceofbede]

Maybe I am missing what you claim you can clearly see. I am still not buying the plastic theory cause the "ghost" chances shape and you wouldn't expect that with a plastic sheet with a uniform picture. Also speaking from experience as a school teacher you will find black overlays ( even semi transparent ones) on plastic tend to appear more solid with light going through them. Like in other skeptic videos on this.

[voiceofbede]

the light you claim clearly reflected could also be an artifact the recording device itself. I do engage in amateur video recording and this is a common problem even with equipment better then a cellphone. As I noted earlier the " ghost" does appear to move through the reflected area too.

[Spillage66]

Yes, I agree completely with you. That was my initial mistake. A further inspection of the video made me realise it was even more simple. Using what has been done for centuries,(but, on a smaller scale,)... with all participants in on the joke. Jokes can get out of hand and end up in the press. Notice no more has become of this, and many other cases. Occam's razor?

[voiceofbede]

Occams razor is something you have to be very cautious with. You have to be sure you know all the facts before using it and I can give you instance where Occam's razor has simply been wrong!

[voiceofbede]

Well why should more come of it. All poltergeist cases have a beginning and end to them. Centuries of reports mention that detail about them

[voiceofbede]

I will look at the video from Mr Debunk a bit later.

However no offense I just have your word for an alleged conversation with Morris Gross and what you two discussed. You know what kind of evidence that is, right?

You have the photos, eyewitnesses and audio testimony with the Enfield Case that are not user friendly at all for your position. Do you have an iota of evidence the family made it up and for what motive? How did they manage to fool everyone, including law enforcement?

[Spillage66]

The only evidence I have for Mr Gross and myself's conversation, is the editor from X Factor magazine in the 1990s. The Enfield poltergeist was a tabloid circus. Check the constabulary in Enfield for evidencial testimony. You should find none. That aside... I am very thorough with any claims of the "supernatural" before commenting, and I appreciate your methods of debate. It's refreshing.

[voiceofbede]

Arghhh you cannot post a video in the comment box!

You should at least read the book on the case before commenting about it, isn't that reasonable?

Watch the documentary on youtube called Interview With a Poltergeist. You should at least listen to the people involved before you just dismiss them as liars in all fairness sake.

Lastly so what if this case became a media circus. Many things unfortunately become media circuses. Does that affect the truth or falsehood of the case at all?

[hybr1dfan]

So funny.

[ItsJustG]

OH MY GOD!!!! *pees self laughing*

[nils4545]

haha, perfect! debunked!