Finally caught a spirit on camera today!

a reply to: Qumulys

From your pics, Thomas is in the same spot while the "ghost" zips between baby and the boy, then zips left. Although you put a lot of effort into the "Thomas theory", it's just not consistent with the movement of the "ghost". Sorry :/

ETA- In slow mo, there is a very slight movement of Thomas by the baby's hand slightly AFTER the "ghost" came flying in. I paused and replayed several times. In real time, you can't even see the slight movement at all. The timing is just off, not to mention the movement does not match the pattern of the "ghost" for it to be a reflection from Thomas. It COULD still be a reflection from something, but I'm not sold on it being Thomas.

a reply to: Wookiep

He honestly isn't in the same spot, it was hard for me to see as well!

Make the video full screen then watch the slow mo part, Thomas is moving linearly towards the camera whilst the flare zips across in unison. I agree it is hard to see, but the movement is there.
At the bottom of the big pic on the last page I show his starting and finishing point. He has travelled approx 1cm from station to station, you can tell by looking at the brown wood under the glass.
If Thomas was stationary I would agree it would be less likely of a candidate, but he has people to pick up and places to go or the Fat Controller gets angry (is it still PC to call him Fat?).

edit, I see you see the motion Just think though of how fast light can bounce say for example off a watch face, you can move your wrist a few millimeters and have light zip about a room very quickly from very little motion.

a reply to: Qumulys

Thomas doesn't move until AFTER the "ghost" enters into view. There is very slight movement shortly after, but that doesn't matter at this point because Thomas wasn't moving when it came into view. Get what I'm sayin?

a reply to: Wookiep

Might have been a very tiny movement that was just too hard to see, or also we must take into account that the camera which is I must say held very still, is being handheld. So perhaps the first flash was partly from the camera slightly moving? If you look at the frame by frame pic on the previous page, the upper right window seems to show the camera is on the move from right to left, it is very marginal but is there.

Keep in mind the watch thing, we have all zipped light around a room doing that. I do wish there was more light on top of Thomas at the time, it would help my theory. But I am struggling to find any other object as a more likely source of the light.

a reply to: Qumulys

I get what you are sayin, and do appreciate the effort you've given on the Thomas reflection theory. With that said, if we can't even observe movement in slow mo at the time the "ghost" actually appears, then I believe it's just stretching at this point. Just my opinion of course!

a reply to: Qumulys

Regarding camera movement. I WILL give you this. Using the white box fan as a reference at the time the "ghost" appears, the camera does move slightly left. I still don't think Thomas is the culprit of the reflection, BUT I do take the camera movement into consideration.

Funny I've spent so much time on this, LOL. I need to watch "Chappie" before I'm too tired to do it. I don't want to pay Redbox extra $ for no reason!

a reply to: Wookiep

Tis funny, I think I've become Thomas obsessed because I started going through my kids old toy boxes hoping we'd have one available for experiments. We didn't so I asked the neighbours who have young children, they obviously don't grasp the importance of my Thomas theory. I wonder if tomorrow at 1;30 Neph can mount the phone camera on a stand in the same place and sit and play with Thomas in the sun rotating him about for a few minutes... (Over the coffee table, probably have to be on your belly because you'll need to keep your head really low.. - for science)? We might be able to replicate something similar or discount him altogether. Who can pass up barrel of fun?!?

a reply to: Qumulys

That's not a bad idea, if for nothing else to help remedy the Thomas obsession lol. I bet she might even be willing to do it!

a reply to: Qumulys

I admire your dedication in this thread, it seems that you have invested a considerable amount of time with the pics and such. Not sure that the thomas explanation works, but at least you are looking for potential causes and have been civil.

It appears that there might be something very reflective on the seat of Thomas's pants. Watch the stop action. You will see a small patch on his pants illuminate briefly before the white smudge image covers him. Then when it completely covers him, the patch is illuminated again. I think there is some kind of weird reflection from something shiny, like a mylar sticker or other object on the inside of his pant leg that is catching the bright light from the window and directing it into the lens of the camera, causing a flash over on the lens. This is why it covers the image as the area on the CCD is being saturated by the brief reflection. It happens in his movement, which causes the reflection to move from right to left.

a reply to: charlyv

Thomas's pants? Can you clarify that a bit more? Do you mean the baby (diapers) or the boy's pants?

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: charlyv

Thomas's pants? Can you clarify that a bit more? Do you mean the baby (diapers) or the boy's pants?

I meant the boys pants. I incorrectly used that baby's name for the boy.

a reply to: charlyv

Lol, ok thanks for the clarity there, Thomas is the toy train and so I was like "he doesn't wear pants, does he?" LOL. The kids names are unknown, just FYI, as they shouldn't be but just to give you some clarity on what Thomas is.

a reply to: Wookiep and Charlyv

Yeah I considered the baby's diaper, they sometimes have a sticky tape fixer on them, but it was behind the table at the time. So you think the background boy has something stuck on his pants like sticky tape? It could be possible. Yeah, could be like a button on his right leg above his ankle? Or some sort of safety stripe perhaps, kids clothes often have those?
I like this suggestion, could fit better than Thomas theory, but he is useful for showing multiple reflections of light are happening, but the background boys legs may even fit better. Not sure which way I lean though, but you have me thinking, however I don't see his pants making any form of lens flare before the main event, but that does not necessarily discount it


edit; They are very colourful pants, looks like a star is on one leg, are those patterns on the pants made of vinyl or shiny paint, or are they just snazzy pj's?
I'm not noticing the pants making any other reflections though, but it cant be fully ruled out. Or for that matter the back of his sneakers which often have reflective safety strips in them.

Clearly not a ghost, unless a new type of manifestation/orb type has been discovered. Trickery of light I would say. I believe in orbs and that is not one jn my opinion. Too clear and straight edged to be energy.

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
When she was recording was the phone's light on? If it was (since it is quite bright light) and some big dust or bug were to flow past very close to the camera the dust would light up like that.

To check whether or not the camera light is on just record a new video and check if it turns on automatically?

I'm not saying that this is the explanation, but it could be.

A very smart post and quite possibly a very good explanation for this. A small out of focus bug lit by the phones light until it moves far enough away. This is why I love ATS.

You can plainly see that as the young child gets closer to the camera his face becomes lit from the front by the phones video light. No doubt about it.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

As far as I know the camera light was on as confirmed by Neph, and at the very start of the video the bottom corner of the coffee table lights up in a way which suggest it to be on, also the earlier reflections on Thomas that face onto the camera seem to show the camera light being on.
So the mote of dust/bug theory is another great possibility

This pic shows light which seems to be coming from above, onto the toy then the table which would fit a source from the camera.

Looks like a paper airplane to me lol.

But yeah something flew past the camera. The light is from the camera, making the object appear to glow. Could have been a bug or anything in general.

I did just notice something strange....and I can't explain it. I'm kinda like feeling a WTF moment here... Pause the video at 38 seconds (this is during the slo mo part of the vid presented in the OP) Focus on the left foot and leg of the boy, not the baby..

It appears to just kinda, partially disappear as a distorted anomaly just below his foot starts making it's way up to his his foot/leg and it vanishes partially for just a few frames while the "ghost" makes it's way into the frame. Then his ENTIRE foot and part of his leg APPEAR to disappear completely until it's firmly planted on the ground again and the anomaly ("ghost") is no longer visible at this point.



This literally happens less than a fraction of a second before the "ghost" appears.

a reply to: Wookiep


If you look at this pic you will see his left arm is very translucent, in fact his wrist and hand seem not to join properly at all. His right arm is also nearly invisible, and you can see the left edge of legs and shirt vanishing.
That could be due to either the initial quality of the video recorded, ie. a slow low light ccd level of resolving the motion captured. Or a result of the slow-motion effect which may be blurring between frames. Not sure what other processes are also involved in the compression stage that youtubes encoding applies, but that may also be to blame in this case.