A team of paranormal sleuths from New York Paranormal was called upon to investigate Valentown in Victor NY, a well known spot for strange happenings. Valentown was a shopping plaza built in 1879 that never saw the light of day as it was abandoned and turned into a museum in 1940.
Workers have reported the standard slew of spooky incidents. There have been voices, noises, lights turning on and off, and footsteps. But what this team witnessed and filmed is quite interesting and very rare indeed.
They setup IR cameras throughout the building to record unmanned for their entire stay. This is how they captured what appears to be a ghost walking on the right side from the background to the foreground. As usual the film was examined by experts in the video and paranormal circles. All conclusions are that the video is unaltered.
Decide for yourself by watching it here and viewing an analysis here.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:52 am
That’s funny: WNY Paranormal has “Do You Have A Haunting? Call [..]” at the top of their website.
Who do you call? :D
June 8th, 2006 at 5:34 am
lmao i hear ya smith heh.good grab who ever filmed it. and they got allot of backing from the supplieer as well…but why is the chic just standing there the whole friggin time lol
June 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Hmm… It I looked at the list of ‘experts’ who determined that the film was unaltered. They are all paranormal business that all have an interest in ghost stories being real. The one exception was Lorex, who was the business who supplied the cameras. They wouldn’t want the reputation of having faulty cameras or film would they?
What it looks like to me is that the film was used more than once and the ‘ghost’ is nothing more than previous footage that wasn’t completely recorded over. Why else would the person standing right there not react to the figure? If the figure was actually in the room and able to be picked up by a camera, it was reflecting light, which any camera lens and human eye can detect. The fact that only the camera ’saw’ it suggests that it’s a flaw on the film.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Well if I’m not mistaken those cameras record straight to hard disk so there is no possibility of recording over old video.
As for the girl not seeing it… it was rather dark and they were using IR cameras which can capture stuff the naked eye can’t. Just an idea.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:12 am
The company offers both digital and analog recording systems. Here’s a link to their time lapse VCRs: http://lorexstore.strategicvista.com/product_listing.aspx?cat_id=78&scat_id=80
The jittery motions of the person suggest that the film was a bit time lapsed. As for it being to dark, it’s light enough for the woman to be reading/writing.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:27 am
They say on their website that they were using cameras that saved directly to hard disk so that removes the possibility of recording over something else :)
June 8th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it in my first skimming of the story. Don’t discount the possibility that NY Paranormal is lying. Remember, these people have a financial interest in filming such oddities. But let’s assume they are telling the truth. What could that image be? Unfortunately, I am no camera or video expert, so I can’t say, but I would be VERY hesitant to conclude ’supernatural’ causes. There are other possibilities. One could be that it is a hoax. Another is that it is a camera flaw. A third is that it could be an optical trick of the room and/or camera position. That is, it could be capturing a partial reflection of someone, like when you look through glass into a semi-dark room (like the one they are in!) and see the room and a transparent reflection of yourself. That would also explain why the person was not surprised by the figure; it was only a reflection of someone she knew to be in the room. I’m sure there are other plausible explanations that I cannot think of. I’d be curious what a video/optical expert would say about it.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:49 am
It should also be noted that this group is composed of volunteers and performs all their investigations free. That can be seen on their main page if you click ‘about’.
Seems like they have no financial interest in faking this.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Really? Have you visited their ’spook shop’? http://www.wnyparanormal.org/cubecart/
You can buy their ‘Ultimate Ghosthunting Kit’ for 810 USD :)
June 8th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Valentown Museum Video Analysis…
The Director of WNY Paranormal had brought to my attention the existence of an enigma recorded by unmanned video camera while conducting investigations at Valentown Museum in Victor New York.
Where in one particular segment appears to be the ghostly s…
June 8th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
True sidfaiwu, but with all the time spent doing free investigations and all the money spent buying their gear… they could probably make more money at McDonalds part-time :)
They appear to be a group of ghost geeks that really enjoy doing this sort of thing. Does that mean they didn’t fake the video.. of course not, but I think it makes it more unlikely.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Might these same individuals then be eager to ‘prove’ they are not fakes? Or maybe to psychologically justify to themselves spending so much money on ghost hunting ‘technology’? But, as I think you are pointing out, I am only guessing possible motives to fake the footage. Returning, then to my other point, suppose that no intentional deception is occurring, why assume a ’supernatural’ cause when other causes may be plausible? Particularly, could the figure be a partial reflection of someone else in the room? This would be especially plausible if there was some kind of glass covering over the camera as many of Lorex’s cameras have.
I told you I was looking forward to challenging you ;)
June 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
It wasn’t anyone else there because they knew where each member of the team was. Now saying that it was a trick with light and glass is a stretch that even you must admit. If you watch the video, I believe you can even see the “thing” look at the girl.
Does it mean that this is a ghost… of course not, but it’s possible.
At least admit that :)
June 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Interesting point. I do admit that tricks of light and glass are a stretch, but less of a stretch than blaming paranormal activity. Also, I was just reading more info about their investigation and found out that there were at least three non West NY Paranormal people in the building at the same time. Even if they account for all of their own people, they can’t account for the other three.
Furthermore, the glitches in the video show a different room entirely (see one of the frames at 00:46:25, 00:46:37, and 00:46:55 in particular). The cameras where clearly interfering with each other. Since this glitch was occurring, there is no reason to assume that the footage it trustworthy.
If similar footage is reproducible with a different, preferably less faulty system, then there might be more to it.
Another curiosity of mine: why would a ghost hunter be willing to spend $810 on a ghost hunting kit, why would they not spend just a couple hundred on a higher quality camera? All of these ‘ghost’ images are always grainy and/or dark. I know this one was an IR camera, but there are better quality IR images available as well.
In short, the incentive (financial or physiological) to believe, combined with low quality images, faulty cameras, and unusual lighting just doesn’t add up to evidence in my estimation.
But if you want a good laugh, check out their ‘Boo in a Bottle’. It’s supposedly a dehydrated ghost that they have captured and placed in a bottle. Only $3! You can even ‘reanimate’ it at home. Just add water!
June 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Showdown At Valentown…
Recently, a single individual representing Rolling Hills Ghost Hunts has identified herself publicly as the living female figure who is visible within WNY Paranormals video of a moving apparition captured on Infrared film at Valentown Museum in Victor,…
June 9th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Not a very impressive video. Not clear at all and the movement seemed very awkward, like some drunk guy ambling through. I’m generally a believer in the paranormal, but this video is not very convincing. Could just be an image picked up from another transmission or perhaps already on the tape.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Honestly, I have to agree with the above poster. I believe in the existance of such supernatural beings, but really, I don’t think they’ll ever show up on a camera. I’m certainly not convinced by that video - why is it so low-res? These days, a $200 camera could get quality four or five times that.
Out of curiosity, knowing your views on religion (I visit religiousfreaks.com on occasion), what’s your explanation for the paranormal, gasmonso?
June 11th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Salandarin,
Gasmonso has a detailed answer when he was asked that question when this site was introduced. Here’s the link: http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/06/06/welcome-psychic-freaks-to-the-family/
I hope this helps.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
This is the most convincing ghost video I’ve ever seen. Caught by a security camera. Do a search for the actual video.
Palace ‘ghost’ caught on camera
Friday, December 19, 2003 Posted: 1:54 PM EST (1854 GMT)
The ghostly figure appears to be in period dress.
——————————————————————————–
Story Tools
——————————————————————————–
RELATED
Hampton Court Palace
QUICKVOTE
Do you think the Hampton Court Palace image is a hoax?
Yes
No
VIEW RESULTS
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you’re interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
Manage alerts | What is this?
LONDON, England (AP) — Are there ghostly goings-on at Henry VIII’s palace, or is that hazy image of a fellow in fancy robes just a bit of Christmas cheer?
Closed-circuit security cameras at Hampton Court Palace, the huge Tudor castle outside London, seem to have snagged an ethereal visitor. Could it be a ghost?
“We’re baffled too — it’s not a joke, we haven’t manufactured it,” said Vikki Wood, a Hampton Court spokeswoman, when asked if the photo the palace released was a Christmas hoax. “We genuinely don’t know who it is or what it is.”
Wood said security guards had seen the figure in closed-circuit television footage after checking it to see who kept leaving open one of the palace’s fire doors.
In the still photograph, the figure of a man in a robe-like garment is shown stepping from the shadowy doorway, one arm reaching out for the door handle.
The area around the man is somewhat blurred, and his face appears unnaturally white compared with his outstretched hand.
“It was incredibly spooky because the face just didn’t look human,” said James Faukes, one of the palace security guards.
“My first reaction was that someone was having a laugh, so I asked my colleagues to take a look. We spoke to our costumed guides, but they don’t own a costume like that worn by the figure. It is actually quite unnerving,” Faukes said.
The palace, built in 1525 on the River Thames 10 miles west of central London, is a popular tourist attraction and some of the guides wear costumes of the Tudor period.
Wood said she was hoping people would come forward with similar stories and try to explain the figure.
The palace has been the scene of many dramatic royal events, and already is supposed to have a few ghosts.
King Henry VIII’s third wife, Jane Seymour, died there giving birth to a son, and her ghost is said to walk through one of the cobbled courtyards carrying a candle.
Her son, Edward, had a nurse called Sibell Penn who was buried in the palace grounds in 1562. In 1829 her tomb was disturbed by building work, and around the same time an odd whirring noise began to be heard in the southwest wing of the palace.
When workmen traced the strange sounds to a brick wall, they uncovered a small forgotten room containing an old spinning wheel, just like the one Penn used to use.
Henry’s fifth wife, Catherine Howard, condemned for adultery, was held at the palace under house arrest before her execution at the Tower of London. An 1897 book about the palace says she was reportedly seen, dressed in white and floating down one of the galleries uttering unearthly shrieks.
The palace was once a prison for King Charles I, who later was beheaded, and then home to his nemesis Oliver Cromwell, who briefly ruled when Britain was for a short time a republic.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/19/hampton.ghost.ap/index.html
June 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Here’s the actual video of the ghost caught at Hampton Court. Rather impressive I must say.
http://www.paranormal-investigation.com/hampton.htm
June 12th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Intersting find John C, but here is another look at that same video…
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page330.html
gasmonso
June 13th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Here’s a better version of the Hampton Court ghost video, with a frame by frame analysis: http://www.paranormal-investigation.com/research/hampton/hampton.htm
Hampton Court is known for hauntings. Some call it the most haunted place in England.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:57 am
Two observations about the film (inspired by sidfaiwu’s discussion of the glitches):
The film shows the same piece of footage played several times with different filters applied to make the alleged `ghost’ more apparent.
There are two main glitches that occur during the video: one at time index 46:37 (by the counter on the video) and one at 46:55.
If you look through and keep track of the time index, you will see that, at least once, the 46:37 glitch occurs but not the 46:55 (the first version in the footage). Also, in one case the 46:55 glitch occurs but the 46:37 one does not (this can be seen in the red filtered version about 1:30 into the footage).
The only reasonable conclusion from this is that none of the versions of the video shown here are a direct copy of the original video that was taken, and that these glitches were introduced during the filtering of different versions of the video.
So where is the original, which by inference should have neither of these glitches?
July 5th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Good point DrFrank. I didn’t think to compare the filterd pieces with the unfiltered pieces.