Creepy Stanley Palace video interesting, but pretty much useless

I don’t know anything about this group or about this situation but it’s an interesting video. What a shame such an event was wasted with poor documentation. It’s the claimants job to make a clear case. This doesn’t do it.

Disregard all the horrid dust flying around, though.

Eerie video was captured during an investigation of Stanley Palace in Chester – Chester Chronicle.

A sefton paranormal group claims to have found evidence of spiritual activity in a Chester property.

The group, called Sefton Paranormal Investigations, was at Stanley Palace on the night of June 28 when they made the discovery.

Footage taken at the investigation reportedly captures the image of a person standing on a staircase in the 16th century Tudor building.

The people in the video did not notice anything until watching it. The video is grainy and lacking in details. Also, one video is not enough evidence to declare something “paranormal”. This is the biggest misstep investigators make. They jump to paranormal conclusions far too quickly. I also noticed an astounding lack of verification of any piece of data.

There is a mention in the piece of the views on the video going from 7,000 views on its first day up to over 24,000. However, the youtube link only shows 70. So, it’s unclear where those numbers are from, not that it matters, but is someone paying attention to details at all? Even though the article suggests we visit their website for more info -Sefton Paranormal – the video is not there (not that I can find, there are no dates or a decent index). There is also no written documentation of what happened. I can understand that might not end up in the article but you have to support your claim with details! It takes considerable work to do actual research.

Because of the total lack of observations records and descriptions of what was done, no appearance of controls, no background information (except what they were “told”) and no analysis of what this might be other than just the believer group saying “I don’t know, therefore, paranormal,” we have nothing to go on. A genuine investigation, a thoughtful, planned, objective one, should take place.

Publicizing a strange video is more like mystery mongering and the exact opposite of careful investigation practices. This is the problem with casual research groups, they aim a camera and attempt to talk to ghosts. To make a convincing case, you have to do better than that. If they did really capture a ghost here, or any anomaly, they missed an excellent opportunity to make a decent case. Instead, it’s pretty useless except to those who just wish to reinforce their paranormal beliefs. That’s a shame.

Screen capture from moment where "apparition" is visible on staircase.

Screen capture from moment where “apparition” is visible on staircase.

COMMENTING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SITE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE SUBMITTING. NONSENSE IS NOT PERMITTED.

  24 comments for “Creepy Stanley Palace video interesting, but pretty much useless

  1. busterggi
    July 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM

    Blossom Rock?

  2. RayG
    July 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM

    First thing that popped into my mind was Glenn Close… I have NO idea why. Oh, sorry the “ghost” of Glenn Close

  3. kompani101
    July 30, 2014 at 5:06 AM

    Dust in the air/lens in my humble opinion.

    • Bill T.
      July 30, 2014 at 9:38 AM

      That was my thought.

      I “look(ed) here” and was seriously unimpressed. Was the original HD? The compression artifacts didn’t help my confidence that there was anything other than dust to be seen.

      • Blargh
        July 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM

        Once again, the posted video is filmed off a screen.
        This keeps cropping up in ghost/UFO videos. For some reason, people can’t seem to grasp the concept of copying files, opting instead to use a second camera to shoot the output from the original camera…

        • Bill T.
          July 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM

          Good catch, I missed that.

  4. Dubious f
    July 30, 2014 at 6:35 AM

    I’m pretty sure you can come up with a “ghostly” looking something, by filming your dusty attic in a rocking chair. When your name is Sefton Paranormal Investigations group, you have to be investigative! In this case, no news is bad news…

  5. July 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM

    Hello,
    I can understand your confusion in regards to the above evidence captured by myself and team. Firstly I would like to explain that, the article that has been written about us is very brief and secondly we are still writing up a detailed explication of the investigation.
    I am very open to criticism but feal slightly upset that you have completely disregarded this as dust or a lense issue.
    I have been investigating the paranormal for several years and I am mostly a sceptic. Everyone has the right to search for the unknown.
    Videoing the location is merely one of many things we do within an investigation, a lot of time and effort went into the research of the place and what more can you do than ask out, take evp recordings, place trigger objects and use different devices to attempt to record atmospheric changes in emf etc.
    As I say I’m always open to criticism but I feel this article is harsh. It’s a very dusty room yet the visual on the staircase clearly appears in shot and dissappears in shot.
    Clearly you feel over qualified to completely disproof our visual findings which is fine. But at least take note that yes we are I fact a small “public” run organisation that holds each event for charity. We are not scientists and have never claimed we are. What we capture is completely raw footage. In the years doing this we have never captured anything like this, beleive me we have captured many things that have been disproven as dust. But I beleive this is intelligent in the way of which movement is not as fluid as dust is. I regards to the lens it’s just a basic security camera that films in infrared light, there’s nothing complicated in it at all.
    Thank you for sharing your views with the online community and as I say criticism is always a good thing.

    Aaron sefton paranormal.

    • July 30, 2014 at 11:18 AM

      “I am very open to criticism but feal slightly upset that you have completely disregarded this as dust or a lense issue.”

      That’s because these things ALWAYS are. There are literally thousands of videos out there on the internet who have caught similar things on camera and it has NEVER been something even close to explain the existence of ghosts.

    • July 30, 2014 at 11:31 AM

      Aaron: Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that you took the time to explain. I don’t speak for the other commentators, I don’t say anything but the orbs are dust. I found the video interesting, WAY more interesting than the typical ghost on video. I would like to see you investigate all possible explanations. I realize that groups just have access to the site for a short period of time and may not have the capability to do a thorough exploration and attempted reconstructions. But that is one of the issues I have with publicizing evidence such as this. It’s NOT been well vetted and people do not know that there is more involved here than something mysterious on the video. I don’t blame you for being excited about it. I do not, however, condone calling it “paranormal” or evidence of ghosts.

      Please send me a link to the report and any other work you do on the site. (Editor@doubtfulnews.com) If you do put substantial work into the investigation, it deserves to be published somewhere other than your website. If you find something interesting, no matter what it turns out to be, it would be appreciated if you could share it. We all learn from that.

      • August 4, 2014 at 8:31 PM

        Hi sorry for the late reply. Thank you for getting back to me. Well I have taken the footage off the dvr so it is a better quality video. The shake in the first video was because I filmed it off my phone. This was because I rushed to get it up on our private members page. Didn’t realise it would go round the world as it did. Anyway I’ve got the video at full speed reduced speed zoomed in and inverted in a few different examples within the video. As I say I am aware you guys are skeptical but I love the challenge that such things create. I think it’s important that you and your community challenge everything and therfore I see it as a) a lesson for the next time I’m out in the field and b)all criticism is good criticism. Anyway please feel free to post this new video if you wish, and of course do your magic with it in regards to De bunking it. I’m in the process of adding everything to our website but due to working full time I struggle with time. I’ll keep you posted though. Thanks aaron s.p.I

        • August 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM

          Skeptical, in the true sense, means looking at the evidence and using logic. This is something ALL paranormal investigators should be doing but nearly none do – they have a preexisting belief in the paranormal. That’s a bias. I researched 1000 groups in the U.S. to see how they used science. The result — they didn’t know what they were doing.

          We only debunk when there is bunk. That is, you are claiming something without a basis.

        • Dubious f
          August 11, 2014 at 7:14 PM

          I’ve got to say, this video update has still one problem: it’s a security camera ! No HD vid, no hi-rez pic, no sound, no evidence! If you look (especially in reverse) all around, there’s flickering. Add dust, noise lights and same discussed issues.
          It looks “crispier” but the blur still looks like a blur. If it was proof or evidence for real, to debunk all debunkers, I wouldn’t have waited a month to show on, busy or not…

    • Bill T.
      July 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

      Well, I re-watched the video for a third time, I “look(ed) here” again (full screen 19120X1080 resolution), and all I saw were some inderterminate smudges. To me, it doesn’t look like an “image of a person”, are you going to suggest that I’m not qualified to identify an image of a human? What special training would that require?

      How did you eliminate the possibility that this was a transient response by the video processing system in your camera to changing light conditions? I see no particular reason not to believe it was due to dust, there were dust particles drifting into and out of the area around the time that the purported image appeared.

      Is this the best quality video you have?

      I note that no one is challenging your ” right to search for the unknown”, I am (and it appears others are) only questioning your evidence, which is what happens when people make special claims. Actual scientists attempt to anticipate these sorts of questions ahead of time and do their best to address them. Where have you performed this step?

    • Dubious f
      July 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM

      Being “mostly” a sceptic by your own account and by investigating the paranormal for several years, wouldn’t it be time to use something else than a security camera! You have to give us, sceptics, more meat to chew on. I too can scout clear skies, shoot a MPEG, see a moving dot and call it ufo : “of all my years shooting at skies, never seen that, must be the real deal, believe me”. Also, can a ghost illusion be dubbed as intelligent? Mmmmm maybe Einstein’s….

  6. July 30, 2014 at 10:10 AM

    My first thought was, “Why is the camera held pointed at the two people sitting at the foot of the stairs?”

    [Content removed as unnecessarily accusatory - editor]

  7. Sam
    July 30, 2014 at 10:18 AM

    I will never understand the motivation of ghosts. Why knock shit off the counter? Why shut doors? Why pop in and out if view in grainy media? Why not just sit down, eat a sandwich, and be like “Yo, what’s up? Yea, we’re real…”.

    • Lee
      July 30, 2014 at 10:38 AM

      I concur overwhelmingly! Ghosts are outright BORING! What is there to fear if a ghost did exist except that they obviously are entertained by so few menial activities? I would love to read a claim where someone says their ghost cleans up after themselves. A day in the existence of a ghost would be minimalist at best. I think I will stick to watching a mud puddle evaporate for entertainment!

    • busterggi
      July 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM

      Since popular lore says many ghosts are fulfilling task unfulfilled while alive you’d expect most modern ghosts to be trying to keep up with masturbating to all the porn ever created.

      Hence ectoplasm.

      • Chris Howard
        July 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

        I think you mean ectogasm, no?

        ;-)

  8. Peebs
    July 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    busterggi.

    That observation is worthy of the Late, Great, Douglas Adams and I salute you!

  9. Kenny Biddle
    July 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

    I’m a photographer and have extensive experience and knowledge in the subject of paranormal photography and video. I do consultant work for various groups through the US and UK. I also do consultant work for MUFON. I’ve written extensively on the topic of anomalies in photos and video which have been considered paranormal. I just wanted to clarify that I am qualified to give an opinion.

    Based just on what I see in the video, it appears to be a light from the floor above, coming through the Banister, that most likely runs along the wall around the opening of the stairwell above. It is most likely an artificial light source (flashlight, camera light), quite possibly an infrared light, that someone on the floor above is using while moving and/or looking around that floor. As the light is moved around, it seems to flow over the banister. The banister “poles” would block the light, but the light would still get through the openings in between and show up on the opposite wall….which would be in view of this camera. I notice that the “shadowed” areas do not move…which would be consistent with a solid, fixed object. Like a banister.

  10. Travis
    July 31, 2014 at 7:41 PM

    The complete lack of standards always bothers me. Paranormal “researchers” seem to love the trappings of scientific investigation without adopting any of the rigour. If you want to be taken seriously you have to put in the work, not just see something on a video and toss it online.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *