It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ghost Rides Rocking Horse (Video)

page: 22
92
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 


None taken


I agree with you in thinking that the audio track is a non-issue but as some people are using it as evidence of a hoax I just wanted to point out there are plausible innocent explanations for the sounds on the video.

I have to admit that the video evidence while compelling is not the main reason why I'm giving credence to this case. For me it's the witness testimony in conjunction with the video that makes it so hard to dismiss.

The witnesses have provided plausible reasons for all the 'anomalies' on the tape. It may turn out that I'm hopelessly naive and an appalling judge of character but I believe their story as told. Is this a video of a ghost? That I can't say but is it a hoaxed video? At the moment if I had to bet I would say that it isn't.

The witnesses have also stated their intent to upload the original video which if they were hoaxers would be painting themselves into a corner.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
[edit on 9/3/09 by bDaedal4ever]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Teebs
 


While I do not completely agree with your comments I do have belief in the authenticity of this post. Even by your own links to the sound paradox's you must agree there is no certainty of what is being said and where from. However, I do beleive the sound was not iterated from the father. It would not make sense both in tonality and timing. I have examined the debated sound with many filtering techniques and still cannot tell what is being said but it does sound like "wire" or "water" with the 't' unpronounced. Of course that proves nothing. (Did they have a parrot?)
0:46 Begins a typical news station intro or special news report.
1:01 There sounds like some channel hopping till about 1:14 (unclear).
1:17 Dad says "put this in here". (probably his son's leg into the high chair proper)
1:38 Dad says "let's eat".
1:39 Debated sound does sound like "wire" and not "liar". For the sound engineers, try cutting a sample of the sound in question in thirds and listen to the first third. An L sound uses the tongue and this does not. However, an entity without physical form may not be able to use a complicated function such as human speech and thus the meaning is lost out of it's intended context. As for placement, it sounds to be anywhere but is not telltale of any whisper.
1:52 Dad says "thank you".
1:57 Dad says "eat that".
2:03 Mom is first in saying "you don't get any beans if you don't" followed by dad.
2:13 Horse begins his lone(maybe not) ride.
3:09 Dad asks, "what, you don't want this?"
3:14 Channel or programming on the T.V. again changed from the commercials that were playing.
3:17 Dad asks, "what about this?"
3:22 Dad says "eat it up".
To add to that the evil laugh at 4:21 was most likely from the T.V. show/movie that was now playing and then came the groaning/whining(oh, oh, oh) of the boy, which he made throughout the recording, at about 4:32. There were other sounds and verbalizations but I could not grasp the usage.
I await the higher quality video.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Completely stupid... Now it's worth that I get off my horse to debunk this crap.

How can people fall in for this one... it can be made with the easiest, oldest trick out there, and that's called the invisible wire.

Instructions:

- take any form of transparent plastic wire, the thinner the better,
- attach it to whatever object you want,
- pull the string by filming the object being animated by a mysterious entity not of this world....



Debunked.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Completely stupid... Now it's worth that I get off my horse to debunk this crap.

How can people fall in for this one... it can be made with the easiest, oldest trick out there, and that's called the invisible wire.

Instructions:

- take any form of transparent plastic wire, the thinner the better,
- attach it to whatever object you want,
- pull the string by filming the object being animated by a mysterious entity not of this world....



Debunked.


So I take it you didn't see any 'ghosts' when you were at the house back in 1992?

Oh wait a minute, you weren't there at all? Oh, ok, I was under the impression your firm convictions were based upon some sort of irrefutable evidence. I guess not.

[edit on 9/3/09 by thebox]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Thanks for your insight! Amazingly no one had pointed out that this could have been faked before


Seriously though, no one is disputing that this could have been faked. However, the fact that it could have doesn't necessarily mean that it was.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by Pimpish
Luckily I trust my ears more than I trust an audio expect.


Amazing!

You not only ignore the statements of three creditable witnesses,
but also the analysis of the audio by not 1 - but 2 - audio engineers.


Make that three: Teebs, Horza and myself.

We have all said exactly the same thing, perhaps the next accusation will be we are all one and the same.


Haha
Yes mate, I can see that coming.

I hadn't forgotten you bud. Erm.... *blushes*, I left poor old Teebs out. I was thinking of you and Horza! (last few days - little or no sleep - zzzzz)

Sorry Teebs - it was just a mental blank mate. I've been impressed with your sound analysis, as I have said before


In fact the three of you guys have brought a hell of a lot of value - not only to this thread, but to board as a whole


Let me thank the three of you, and I know for a fact that DancedWithWolves appreciates the the worK you guys have done.

I'd flag the three of you, if I could


MarrsAttax: Mate, forgive me - my mind is really elsewhere at the moment. I haven't forgotten your stellar performance either




[edit on 9-3-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane


OH! I nearly forgot.
Three experts(?) for and at least one against. PLUS myself who is humbly working with digital film and audio on a daily basis.

And the main reason I keep posting on this topic is beacuse I believe in ghosts. I have felt them, I have smelt one. I have heard one.
I have also seen a lot of fake video of many things.
I hate fakes. And hoaxers.

[edit on 8.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


Holger, dear boy, you haven't exactly got a great track record on this thread reagrding your 'research'.

Let me see:

First series of posts containing insults and spurious claims - proven wrong - very easily I might add.

And now you introduce an "academic" friend of yours who coneveniently is also a sound expert!

Hmmm. I'm sorry, but you've got to play credibility catchup after your faux pas the other day:

Please provide an email address to your academic friend - not a free account one - a real ".edu" one please, from the institution.

Until I see that email address and verify your "friend's" credentials, I won't be wasting time with your posts.

No offence.




[edit on 9-3-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane


OH! I nearly forgot.
Three experts(?) for and at least one against. PLUS myself who is humbly working with digital film and audio on a daily basis.

And the main reason I keep posting on this topic is beacuse I believe in ghosts. I have felt them, I have smelt one. I have heard one.
I have also seen a lot of fake video of many things.
I hate fakes. And hoaxers.

[edit on 8.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


Holger, dear boy, you haven't exactly got a great track record on this thread reagrding your 'research'.

Let me see:

First series of posts containing insults and spurious claims - proven wrong - very easily I might add.

And now you introduce an "academic" friend of yours who coneveniently is also a sound expert!

Hmmm. I'm sorry, but you've got to play credibility catchup after your faux pas the other day:

Please provide an email address to your academic friend - not a free account one - a real ".edu" one please, from the institution.

Until I see that email address and verify your "friend's" credentials, I won't be wasting time with your posts.

No offence.




[edit on 9-3-2009 by mckyle]


No offence taken.


Perhaps we can meet my friend in the university parking lot? (I really like your signature).

And please don't waste any more time on my posts.
Agreed I got it wrong with the date stamp. Reason for this is of course that I am old enough to recognize 8mm as being a film format for home movie stuff. This was not digital or analogue but on real film stock. So much for being old. Our 8mm FILM cameras didn't have date stamp as a feature.

Would you care to explain why the sound on the originally posted video sported a clearly spoken word "wire" and the soundtrack now is a called out "liar"?
I'm sure many of those who listened then and listen again now will notice the difference.
And since the sound has changed it no longer makes any sense to bring in any sound engineers. Unless we find someone clever enough to spot the clip/paste.

Oh - forgot - don't waste more time on my posts.

But please remember that just because I got one thing wrong doesn't mean that other arguments are wrong as well.

Only thing we (the doubting Thomasses) have done is provide OP and "family" with all the neccessary tweeks to make the video and the story more believable.

Ah well.

Nothing happens in the film that I cannot replicate on my own video editing software. Not even the changing of "wire/liar".
I could make an old looking ghost video in less than 1 hour. Time Stamped and everything. Or perhaps as if on old film stock.

Someone claimed that the "wire/liar" is of no consequence.
I think that the absolute most important word in this whole thread is "LIAR".

EDIT:
I forgot. Compliments to OP and "family". Well done.

[edit on 9.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 



mckyle, you have one smart ass reply after another in this thread. I'll bet your just a little bitter pill, huh?

You called my first post stupid and on and on it goes but this isn't about you. Thankfully.

Let's forget the audio piece. Although I am still mystified why no one heard the horse rock. If they heard it at night, why didnt they hear it in the other adjacent room?

Anyway, look closely to how the horse rocks. The front of the horse looks like it is being pulled down, exactly the way a fishing line would do it.

Plus I have another question, why kind of camera was used? It was either an 8mm or vhs, correct? Either way, they only have say 15-30 minutes (8mm is way less, maybe 5 min max) of film time. And they were going to run the camera at night to catch the culprit? OK, thats fine but what happens when the 5 minutes of film runs out? What about the other 7 hours and 55 minutes of nightime?

This has boax written all over it and now that I've seen all of your sarcastice replies, its no wonder you've fallen for it. Makes sense to me.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by Astrobee]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Would you care to explain why the sound on the originally posted video sported a clearly spoken word "wire" and the soundtrack now is a called out "liar"?

[edit on 9.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


This is important evidence. Maybe this can explain why some people are adamant it's a whisper whereas I was convinced it was a shout.

Clearly if it can be demonstrated that the soundtrack has been altered this would be a death knell for the credibility of the case.

Can you post both audio clips so we can listen to the difference?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to Astrobee

1. Has been covered before, either my dad didnt hear it we were eating and playing, or he heard it and knew that if he went to check it wouldnt be there, or he recalls stopping by the door when he heard it and it stopped rocking. I'm not him so im not certain of what happened but there are 3 very plausible explanations.

2. We only have 15-30 mins because we didnt want to have to have 5 hours of dvds to pass around to only watch 5 mins of rocking. We didnt get it converted only to post it on the internet lol we got them converted on christmas and i just recently got around to uploading it. And also already stated this was a test run to see how long the battery would last how much film was left and such and such. Also we are working on converting the other 7 hours and 55 mins (dunno if we really took all of that but you get my point) converted so when we do we will get it posted.

3. The type of camera was stated earlier also it was a Handycam Hi8 or something like that and my dad posted a possible model number for it in the tech thread. But 8mm tapes can hold from 1 hour to 3 hours according to wikipedia (I know they arent always right but Im pretty sure it can hold more then 5 mins and i know vhs can.)

4. As everyone else has said yes it can be a hoax but just because something can be fake doesnt mean it has to be fake.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax

This is important evidence. Maybe this can explain why some people are adamant it's a whisper whereas I was convinced it was a shout.

Clearly if it can be demonstrated that the soundtrack has been altered this would be a death knell for the credibility of the case.

Can you post both audio clips so we can listen to the difference?


Id love to see this too lol, I can barely cut the video correctly let alone go in and edit audio after I had it posted on youtube.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by MethosWare]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Would you care to explain why the sound on the originally posted video sported a clearly spoken word "wire" and the soundtrack now is a called out "liar"?

[edit on 9.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


This is important evidence. Maybe this can explain why some people are adamant it's a whisper whereas I was convinced it was a shout.

Clearly if it can be demonstrated that the soundtrack has been altered this would be a death knell for the credibility of the case.

Can you post both audio clips so we can listen to the difference?


Alas a search through my files and temp files reveal that it has been erased for good.
I copied the sound track for my non-existing friend to listen to. He and I (well I have - he just pretended) have both erased the file after use. It was on a memory stick and it has been cleansed since.

That's why I called out for anyone who might have downloaded the film the day or second day it was posted. There is a dude on Youtube who made a mockery of the video. Not nice of him - I know.
Unfortunately he didn't include sound in his naughty pice of commentary. He might have the original file. I'll ask him.

I can however demonstrate how easy it is to alter the sound track.

While you cannot (I haven't found a way) change the video itself you can easily change the sound.
Youtube has a feature called AudioSwap where you can change your audio - permanently. I suspect it was made for those who would otherwise have to recall a video because of protected music.

Those of you who watched the "egg/chicken" video on page 16 will notice (if you watch it again) that the "chirp chirp" of the chicken has been replaced by a music sound track. One that Youtube suggested would fit


It might be prudent to note that even though the father, son or uncle (I forget who's who) claim to be unable to edit a file, it might be untrue. If they/he can produce the hoax he/she/it can change the sound. Easily.


EDIT:
I have PM'ed him and hope to recieve positive answer. Given his comments in the edited video it's fair to asume that he hasn't any family ties with OP. That'll help with credibility.

[edit on 9.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

It might be prudent to note that even though the father, son or uncle (I forget who's who) claim to be unable to edit a file, it might be untrue. If they/he can produce the hoax he/she/it can change the sound. Easily.


Son in this case, thats true I could be lying I guess lol, but i wish i would've been able to cut the dvd properly at least. Im very good with technology thats why im studying informatics, so im not proud to say i cant edit video or audio but i cant XD. Anywho i guess everyone has their own opinions.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 



That's unfortunate. I'm not doubting that you may have heard it as a whisper on first viewing but it may be that you simply interpreted differently later on. Without an 'original' audio clip there is no way of proving the audio was altered.

I would note though that user Pimpish posted the following four days after the original OP (it's on Page 20 my emphasis added)


Originally posted by Pimpish

I just want to point out that from the very first time I watched this video, which I watched embedded in the OP's post, and did not read a single comment on youtube, nor in this thread before I watched it, I clearly heard the word "wire" being whispered. Every single viewing since I have heard the same thing and it still boggles my mind that anyone could think that it is someone yelling from another room, when to me, it clearly is NOT.


So there is at least one person who was still hearing a whisper many days after the video was posted (maybe Pimpish can confirm if this is still the case) which tends to point towards the differences in sound being subjective rather than the result of deception.

Edit to ask: Can we just confirm that we are talking about the same time frame - at 1:39?


[edit on 9/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
***snip***
Edit to ask: Can we just confirm that we are talking about the same time frame - at 1:39?


[edit on 9/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]


I can't confirm the exact time - only as far as it being a few seconds before the horse dips its head the first time. I do remember thinking that the culprit was a bit slow on the uptake OR that this bit was left in by mistake and the pause was to give room to cut out the call for the wire.
1:39 would fit the bill.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 



That's unfortunate. I'm not doubting that you may have heard it as a whisper on first viewing but it may be that you simply interpreted differently later on. Without an 'original' audio clip there is no way of proving the audio was altered.

I would note though that user Pimpish posted the following four days after the original OP (it's on Page 20 my emphasis added)


Originally posted by Pimpish

I just want to point out that from the very first time I watched this video, which I watched embedded in the OP's post, and did not read a single comment on youtube, nor in this thread before I watched it, I clearly heard the word "wire" being whispered. Every single viewing since I have heard the same thing and it still boggles my mind that anyone could think that it is someone yelling from another room, when to me, it clearly is NOT.


So there is at least one person who was still hearing a whisper many days after the video was posted (maybe Pimpish can confirm if this is still the case) which tends to point towards the differences in sound being subjective rather than the result of deception.

Edit to ask: Can we just confirm that we are talking about the same time frame - at 1:39?


[edit on 9/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]


Then check out page 6



I can't imagine how someone could listen to the sound in that video and say that the word "wire" was a yell from another room. It clearly was a whisper, by the tone of the voice. The reason it sounds louder, is because it's closer, not because it's a yell. Take away your preconceived notions and this becomes obvious. I'm not saying that is proof that this is a hoax in any way, shape, or form, but it is clear to me that someone is whispering the word "wire" for whatever currently unknown reasons.


That was Pimpish as well.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Right; first off, lemme just say, if this idea has already been posted, or anyone has debunked this video already, sorry, I've not read all the posts, since it's gotten huge since the first time I saw it.

Anywho's.

Surely if someone who was off camera was pulling the horse with some fishing line, it would continue to swing.
To me, it looks like it stops suddenly. The horse would still have some GPE to swing back and forth for a good 10 seconds... Instead it looks to me like it just stops, with minimum movement.

I'm only 16, and one of the reasons I joined this site was to learn.. But I know a fair bit about physics.. I suppose only one watch of the video might not be enough to make sure this is correct, but it freaks me out as it is, so I daren't again.


Anyone care to put me in my place ? Hahaa.

- RobCav.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


Exactly. Pimpish heard a whisper from the get go and continued to do so up to at least four days after the original posting.

If this is the case then the audio could not possibly have been edited until after this post.

Furthermore, if Pimpish still hears it as a whisper even now then it damages your assertion that the audio was altered. If it was altered then Pimpish would hear it as a shout as well, would he not? If he still hears a whisper I'd say that this was proof that what we are dealing with is nothing more than people's subjective interpretion of the audio and therefore there is no need to suppose that the audio was manipulated.

More evidence that the audio was not altered: On the same day as the thread was created Clark Savage Jr. posted this


Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Glad you re-listened, friend, because regardless of what word was heard at 1:39 or so, it sure in no way was a 'whisper'. In fact, its odd how on both here and the youtube comments it was described as such.


If Pimpish was still hearing it as whisper four days later this means the audio could not have been changed until at least four days after the OP. And yet we have Clark Savage Jr hearing it as 'no way a whisper' on the same day of posting which would suggest the audio had already been altered by the time he posted.

So when was it changed? The same day or after four days?

The 'manipulated audio' scenario does not make sense. What does make sense and is a well recognised phenomena is that people interpret sounds differently.

Of course if Pimpish turns up and says he didn't listen to the audio after that first day then you have a case.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrobee
reply to post by mckyle
 



mckyle, you have one smart ass reply after another in this thread. I'll bet your just a little bitter pill, huh?

You called my first post stupid and on and on it goes but this isn't about you. Thankfully.

Let's forget the audio piece. Although I am still mystified why no one heard the horse rock. If they heard it at night, why didnt they hear it in the other adjacent room?

Anyway, look closely to how the horse rocks. The front of the horse looks like it is being pulled down, exactly the way a fishing line would do it.

Plus I have another question, why kind of camera was used? It was either an 8mm or vhs, correct? Either way, they only have say 15-30 minutes (8mm is way less, maybe 5 min max) of film time. And they were going to run the camera at night to catch the culprit? OK, thats fine but what happens when the 5 minutes of film runs out? What about the other 7 hours and 55 minutes of nightime?

This has boax written all over it and now that I've seen all of your sarcastice replies, its no wonder you've fallen for it. Makes sense to me.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by Astrobee]


It was filmed on Sony Mp Metal Particle Tape (P6-120MP) Video 8, That would be 120minute of taping.

I think the camera was a Sony Hi8 video CCD-F33 (sold it 10 years ago) and yes for the love of mike it had a Time/date stamp that you could turn on on off with a button

here is a link to the Sony sight with manual and spec
Sony Handycam




top topics



 
92
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join