This school surveillance cam’s ‘Poltergeist’ is freaking everyone out

originally posted by: micpsi
All you sceptics are missing the point. It is not enough to argue that you (or someone) could have faked this CCTV footage. A proper debunking of this footage requires EVIDENCE of fakery, not just dodgy arguments that prove nothing. None of you have provided one iota of incontestible evidence that the ostensible poltergeist events were manufactured. Until you do, the proper scientific stance is to remain neutral because of lack of evidence proving either authenticity or a hoax. There really is nothing virtuous per se in being sceptical towards a paranormal claim if it is based simply on prejudice, not on real evidence. Are you worried your brains might fall out if you remained open-minded?

The proper scientific stance would be to assume it's horse crap, seeing as how there's never been a proven case of supernatural activity in the history of humankind. There have, however, been more hoaxes than anyone can count.

I think first someone might want to prove the existence of the supernatural with empirical evidence. Barring that, this kind of thing remains unfalsifiable, unscientific, and strictly the domain of faith and philosophy.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The proper scientific stance would be to assume it's horse crap, seeing as how there's never been a proven case of supernatural activity in the history of humankind. There have, however, been more hoaxes than anyone can count.

I think first someone might want to prove the existence of the supernatural with empirical evidence. Barring that, this kind of thing remains unfalsifiable, unscientific, and strictly the domain of faith and philosophy.

I'm not sure that this is the rightful domain of science in the first place, but since you raise the matter of falsification, it's pretty clear where the burden of proof belongs.

If someone has a mundane explanation for this video, let them put it forward and have it investigated. There are three possible outcomes - the mundane explanation is verified, it is excluded, or no conclusion is reached.

And if there is a mundane explanation, it should be fairly easy to prove it, or at least to demonstrate that it is more likely than any 'paranormal' explanation.

With respect, I think that the mistake you are making is called "arguing from the particular to the general".

No-one has to substantiate some grand unified theory of the paranormal, here. What you've got is a video of an unexplained occurrence, and nothing more than that. What is falsifiable is the notion that this specific event cannot be explained. So people who reckon that it's amenable to a mundane explanation are the ones who have to put their proverbial money where their proverbial mouths are.

(And no, this isn't demanding proof of a negative, or anything like it.)

a reply to: audubon


As of right now, I think we can all agree that it's a video. I think it's a cleanly done and good providence for any current "paranormal" video out there.

The pros going for it being a genuine event is the fact that school officials presented the video to the public. This makes the background on the video easier to question:

Is there any gain for the production of the video?
Was any harm done by the release of the video?
How are school board members feeling on the release of the video?
Has there been any reaction by parents and/or children due to the release of the video?

The cons against the video stay the same as any "paranormal" video being released:

How easily could it have been HOAX 'd?
What is there to gain from making such a HOAX?
Has any harm been done by this HOAX?
Has there been any push back by officials to release any other videos about this event?


The video it self is an interesting piece of story, but there are many questions that need answers before anyone can say one way or the other about this event. In the event that a new video gets released that show similar activity I think we should continue to discourse this event, and also just enjoy the video.

originally posted by: audubon

The chief objection that's been made is the apparently low-mounted position of the CCTV camera.

Actually, the chief objection should be that it captured audio. Audio is legally a very big no-no with CCTV unless the school has demonstrated some exceptional need for it. Therefore, to my mind, this is not captured from their CCTV system but a camera set up specifically to capture it.

So why did the school themselves release it? That stamp of authority is quite intriguing.

Is it possibly connected to the halloween/"haunted house" event they are running in October called "FearPark"? It's a great bit of fortuitously-timed advertising, isn't it.

Cynical minds suspect this to be the case, hence the "official" involvement from the school management.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: audubon

The chief objection that's been made is the apparently low-mounted position of the CCTV camera.

Actually, the chief objection should be that it captured audio. Audio is legally a very big no-no with CCTV unless the school has demonstrated some exceptional need for it. Therefore, to my mind, this is not captured from their CCTV system but a camera set up specifically to capture it.

I wonder if that's accurate. The Information Commissioner's Office for Ireland has issued guidance on CCTV systems and notes that some CCTV can record sound, but doesn't say anything else about it. Which is hard to reconcile with it being forbidden.

I'm not sure why video would be allowed but sound would be forbidden, so my feeling is that it's legal if you have it, but whether you have it or not doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the law.

Is it possibly connected to the halloween/"haunted house" event they are running in October called "FearPark"? It's a great bit of fortuitously-timed advertising, isn't it.

Cynical minds suspect this to be the case, hence the "official" involvement from the school management.

It's not clear whether the "haunted house" event was scheduled before the video was recorded, or whether the school piggybacked the event onto their little "scoop."

My hunch is that it was the latter of those alternatives, because what we are forgetting is that this is a religion-based school, and its staff are from the Christian Brotherhood. From the little I know of Irish Catholics, I seem to recall (!) that they take the Bible fairly seriously (! again), and one of the Ten Commandments is: "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness." I.e., you'll go to Hell if you tell lies.

So, would the head of a respected religious school participate in a hoax (about the afterlife, no less), in order to drum up trade for some poxy school event? Even if he was some kind of "whisky priest" and had no personal qualms about spreading lies about the school, he might at least have very good reason to fear losing his job if he were to be exposed.

If this is a hoax, the principal isn't in on it, imho.

a reply to: audubon
a reply to: EvillerBob

Excellent, well-considered posts

Personally, despite some good points by Audubon, I'm still favouring the hoax explanation. It may have been a small promo piece for the FearPark evening although it seems somewhat unethical to use false advertising. Then again, people who attend those nights are usually seeking fun and thrills rather than expecting actual ghosts. Is it a question of ethics or are they simply making a good night better?

CCTV (audio or not) constantly captures millions of hours of footage 24/7 and yet we don't see any high quality segments of extraordinary activities. In contrast, there are hundreds of hours of 'poltergeist' footage we know to be faked. The Dearpark film looks very similar to the scores of 'haunted kitchen' films that litter YT and would otherwise be almost unique in it's quality and the events it captured.

“I’m a sceptic myself but we said we’d throw it up on our Facebook page, simply because we don’t know is this a prank or what? Is somebody playing games with us?

“People in old buildings are always hearing noises and strange sounds but this is the first time we’ve actually caught something.

“We’d often come across papers strewn about but we were never able to say what it was, we just assumed it was students that were doing it.”

“Because we have motion-sensor detectors now, we should have been able to detect other people coming towards that area on the other cameras, and we haven’t been able to.”

Comments by the Head Teacher

Is it a 'black swan' example of 'best ever' ghost footage? Well it could be I suppose, but I don't see anything compelling enough to elevate it to that level. The Head's statements are going to inject a little doubt in many people's minds. They're intriguing and they pad out the context of the video. In spite of him putting his own involvement at arm's length, I reckon he has to have some knowledge of the proceedings. Let's be clear here; there'd be no doubts about the existence of 'ghosts' with footage like this. It suggests he's a little bit mock-puzzled given the context.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Let's be clear here; there'd be no doubts about the existence of 'ghosts' with footage like this.

Whatever cultural or spiritual value you place on the Bible, you have to admit that the character of "Doubting Thomas" was a shrewd bit of observation. He's seen Jesus tried, crucified, and interred. When Jesus is resurrected and the other Apostles are in awe and amazement, Thomas - who is as familiar with Jesus as the others - refuses to believe it and insists on poking his fingers into Jesus's wounds. So someone who was present during the flipping Resurrection was sceptical!

It's human nature, nothing is ever settled finally and objectively, there will always be a spectrum of opinions about everything, no matter how good the evidence.

(N.b., am not religious myself, but the Bible is a good cultural reference-point, and it seemed appropriate given the Christian ethos of the school we're discussing.)

Oh, and I found this page about how high to mount CCTV cameras for security purposes, which makes a better job of the explanation I presented upthread.

I think the "money shot" in that piece is this quote:

“Ideally people should have two cameras – one high on the wall to capture the whole event and another to capture the faces of criminals. But those who were only able to use one should position CCTV apparatus at eye level.

“But few households had cameras installed, and those which did usually positioned them too high. Taking [pictures of] the tops of their heads is not that helpful for facial recognition which relies on the eyes and the configuration of the area around the nose and the mouth, so we’re trying to get people ideally to add another camera at face level [...]

“You don’t have to make it blindingly obvious,” he said. “The reason [people have put cameras] high is twofold – one is to keep it out of harm’s way and, as importantly, you get a whole shot of what happened at the event. But more relevant today is a face. That’s what we need.”

The speaker is Bernard Hogan-Howe, until a few months ago the commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police Force. I think that recommendation is enough to satisfy any last shred of doubt about the position of the school's CCTV cameras.

first chance i've had to get back to this - thanks to everyone for their thoughts and comments, and my apologies for not realising it'd already been posted (and possibly debunked). sorry about that. thanks again

originally posted by: audubon

I wonder if that's accurate.

It is. Just a flying reply so not posting in depth links, but I did the background research on this point.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm happy to wait till you have enough time to post supporting evidence, because I looked for what you are describing and couldn't find it.

It was debunked last week. The principal admitted it was just to celebrate Halloween in a fun way

a reply to: vlawde

News to me, and I've been intrigued enough to be reading up on this incident.

Do you have a link to share, to back up that statement?

I've been looking, I saw it last week but can't find it now. But it was to promote their haunted house Fear park

a reply to: vlawde

I think your memory is playing tricks on you. Some people on ATS have suggested the same thing that you're claiming, but there has been no such announcement from the principal, the school, or the trust that manages the school.

#thank you Rosco and thank you Audobon.

It has been a pleasure following this thread.

I find the sign, and the way it basically just f***s off all stupid like, to be pretty hard to do.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Does anybody know what the numbers in the left top of the video mean?

01.10.17 03.06

I thought maybe it was a date, but can't tell.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Does anybody know what the numbers in the left top of the video mean?

01.10.17 03.06

I thought maybe it was a date, but can't tell.

1st Oct 2017 3:06 am?

In the UK and most of Europe we place the day, then month, then year as opposed to month, then day, then year.

Which is just frickin weird by the way!

a reply to: Jonjonj

Ahh, I bet that's it. Thanks. I think what had me confused, was that I thought I'd remembered seeing this years ago.