Debunking the Ghost Video: Security Camera Evidence Explained

[Cowtipper]

Please debunk: Blue "Angel"

Here's a sight to be seen! It must be a ghost.

</sarcasm>

Debunk this one. I'm not sure what it could be, it could just be a camera malfunction or something...

edit: replaced link http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ghost-video/security-camera-captures-image-of-ghost-322173.php

 

[russ_watters]

I would guess a camera malfunction too, but don't know what it could really be. I'd suggest mounting a second camera next to it to see if the second camera picks anything up.

 

[ZapperZ]

This thing is getting a lot of news coverage. However, all of them seem to already call it, even with a bit of tongue-in-cheek, a "ghost" without looking at it a bit more critically.

For example, why is this thing not see with the human eye, but with a low resolution camera? The human eye has a lot more resolution and a lot better dynamic range than a simple security camera. Why did this 'ghost' can only be observed by a poorer "detector"?

Secondly, the security camera only observes the SAME visible range of frequency as the human eye. In fact, as I've said, probably a poorer range within the visible frequency. So all it can see is worse than what we can see. So why would this be visible only to the camera?

These are questions that were never brought up in the news coverage. They only presented the video with already the suggestion of a "ghost". And then we wonder why more than half of the population believe in such things.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

That really looks faked.

 

[out of whack]

Wasn't there another thread about a different bug crawling over a different camera lens recently?

 

[RogueSpidor]

Unfortunately, there's just not enough evidence to make a determination. As was said earlier, another camera beside it would have been helpful, to see if it picked up the same thing. A camera pointed at the first camera would have shown if there was just some lint blowing around in front of the lens.

There's not enough evidence to say what it is, mundane or supernatural. Apply Occam's Razor and move on.

 

[Far Star]

The movement looked more human than ghostly. A blue version of a reverse green screen?

 

[waht]

This is just another example of optical illusion, just like "orbs" or "rods" that are often caught on camera. It's an unfocused foreign object, in this case it looks like a blue piece of plastic bag that got stuck on the lens for half an hour, then the wind blew it off.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Solved:
http://members.aol.com/pseisen/booberry/booface.gif"

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Isn't there a local species of fly that's blue in color? To me it looks like an unfocused fly on the lens.

 

[wolram]

Blue cloud

http://www.local6.com/news/14578641/detail.html

Just came across this item, I am not sure it fits S and D rules.

It is about a blue cloud that appeared at a gas station ,it was caught on the stations vido
tape.

Edit by Ivan: Post merged with existing thread.

 

[Nomad]

It's a small grasshopper sitting on the pane of the camera housing.
Note the shape of the blob. It is an outline of a grasshopper-like insect, with edges blurred, and as it turns you can see whatever it is retains its solid outline shape. The legs are too small to be seen out of focus.
Note also that the motion of the animal is also very obviously in the plane of he camera lens, and not, say in the vertical plane or the ground at the gas station. The reporter describes the one scene as the ghost resting "on the car windshield", but that is simply a coincidence of angles. (yes, angles, not angels). The color can be attributed to a nearby flourescent lightsource just out of view and in the plane of the camera lens (plus low-quality camera optics).
The fact that lots of people were getting in and out of their cars this whole time and no one seems to have seen an actual phantasm flaoting around the station speaks much more to some mundane explanation like this rather than an actual ghost. We need to shave more often with Occam's Razor.