Thnk you thats a lot better.

Just looks like someones shadow from behind to me, and they stop at the top of the stairs.

Originally posted by valiant
Just looks like someones shadow from behind to me, and they stop at the top of the stairs.

How can a shadow go through a person, Plus to have a shadow like that the light source would have to be under the stairs.

The light source is on the camera.

The boy moved something in front of the camera light.

My guess is an action figure.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
The light source is on the camera.

The boy moved something in front of the camera light.

My guess is an action figure.

I am not sure I buy this explanation.

1. It seems to be a pretty big shadow to have been made and filmed by the same mobile phone camera.
2. The house seemed to be well lit by itself.
3. I saw no indication of the camera light before the shadow although of course it could have been turned on quickly as he turned.
4. The figure was black translucent which I think would be hard to do with an action figure.
5. During the sequence the top of the figure changed. If it was an action figure I didn't see any fingers/hands manipulate it.
6. There is a streak of black following the figure that at one point turns into a round shape. I am not sure how you could do that with an action figure.

Just my .02.

It honestly looks as if a piece of plexi-glass or something similar is passed in front of the camera. If you slow it down enough, you can see the edge of the glass pass by.

Originally posted by Tartarspoon
It honestly looks as if a piece of plexi-glass or something similar is passed in front of the camera. If you slow it down enough, you can see the edge of the glass pass by.

I agree much more with this explanation. This accounts for everything that we see and everything we are 'not' supposed to see. We would have a much harder time with this one if the light from behind wasn't quite so bright.

I dont think so,

But as my girlfriend said last night " Its the Sun" the newspaper is well known for printing BS.

G

the thing is with the amount of "ghost hunter" Most Haunted type TV shows, they would by now have caught some decent footage, but no, after about 20 years of these shows, using the best recording equipment to track ghosts, there has never been anything convincing to prove the existence of ghosts

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
the thing is with the amount of "ghost hunter" Most Haunted type TV shows, they would by now have caught some decent footage, but no, after about 20 years of these shows, using the best recording equipment to track ghosts, there has never been anything convincing to prove the existence of ghosts

Well there has been some fairly decent evidence provided by some but the problem is that these shows are for entertainment rather than serious research. Some are downright fraudulent and involve massive amounts of proven fakery.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
the thing is with the amount of "ghost hunter" Most Haunted type TV shows, they would by now have caught some decent footage, but no, after about 20 years of these shows, using the best recording equipment to track ghosts, there has never been anything convincing to prove the existence of ghosts

I agree with Gareth, these shows do the paranormal field an injustice. The Roto-Rooter guys top my list. However, I'm sure there are paranormal groups out there that have caught some truly unexplainable things on film that we will never see. EVP's are well documented now as are temperature fluctuations and EMF readings.

Secondly it is assumptive that we can photograph ghosts on film or via digital means. We think we can photograph anything at anytime. These entities may be able to hide/unhide themselves at will to our cameras. I personally don't think we know enough one way or the other to make a determination.