The Daily Star and The Chilean Poltergeist: Upping The Ante On Fake News.

At a time when everyone is talking about "fake news" and which news sources and stories should be deemed "fake" The Daily Star has taken the bold move to claim the title in perpetuity. Their stunning effort to capitalise on the fake news phenomena comes with this story from 28/02/17, entitled "Chilling video of family home so HAUNTED it was evacuated by police." 

The report tells us of a Chilean family allegedly forced to flee their home after calling the police to investigate an alleged haunting.

"Officers were called to the property after reports of a fire but when they arrived the residents admitted they had actually called because of the strange activities happening inside. They claimed objects had begun floating and moving. Video of the alleged poltergeist has been published online."

The Star links a video at the top of the page and gives a description of the events that take place in the video.

"In the clip a light fitting seems to sway all by itself before a broom in the corner moves. Objects on the kitchen counters including a frying pan then move before a cupboard door flies open. Finally, a bucket flings itself across the floor. While the authenticity of the video cannot be guaranteed, officers who were called to the house in Puerto Montt, Chile, claimed they were attacked by a knife that jumped out of nowhere."

So far, so fake right? So what makes this one stand out from the average piece of ghost "news" offered by the Star or any other tabloid?  Perhaps the fact that the video the Star links and describes in the article was not filmed recently, nor was it filmed in Chile. It was actually filmed in Cork, Ireland and was uploaded to facebook by user Ashy Murphy in September 2015. As of yesterday, the original video had received over 23 million views.

Let's play spot the difference!

Facebook, Sept 2015.

The Star, 28th Feb 2017.

Here's that original version:

The beauty of the original "Ashy Murphy" version of the video is that not only is the original sound is present, but the video is clearer and far less pixelised. This makes it child's play to spot the wires that Ashy has used to achieve her "poltergeist" effect. The final shot of the video being particularly striking.

Now let's play spot the fishing wire!

Wire or thread is also visible on the cupboard door that opens, but it's far less striking and glimpse and you'll miss it.

You can watch Oskar Jungell replicate the effects of Ashy's video below:

There is an actual video (below) that represents the story the Star is reporting on, and the story itself isn't a complete fabrication. It's clear why the Star didn't use the correct video from watching it, as you can below. It's remarkable only for how unremarkable it is.

Essentially all we see is a pillow fly across a room, not convincing in any way. I believe that the Star reporter intentionally attached a more interesting, more eventful video to this article in an attempt to "spice it up" for the simple reason that would illicit more shares, more clicks and more revenue.

It's not every day that you can highlight the Star as lacking even their usual bar lowering standard of journalistic ethics.

I recently appeared on the Spooktator podcast to discuss this story and others with Hayley Stevens and the crew. It was a great discussion if you'd like to watch that discussion it's here:

Week In Weird: Emphasis on "Weak"

The Paranormal "news" site Week In Weird caught my attention a few weeks ago and, as is often the case, spawned a segue into another topic that I'm currently working on. Although that post is in response to a comment made by Week in Weird's Dana Mathews, it isn't about Week In Weird per se. This post is.

On the 12th July, Dana posted a column entitled "Ghost Photo Roundup: Investigating the Internet’s Weirdest Paranormal Pictures" which even a person using the most liberal definition of the word "investigation" would be forced to admit, is nothing of the sort. There is quite literally no investigation here at all, something that I can quite easily demonstrate by highlighting a familiar face. Hello Little Ghost Girl, described here as "Ghost in the hallway." Below is a comparison, the image featured in the Week in Weird article is on the left, another example on the right.

You can forgive Dana for failing to recognise this image, it's only the most famous ghost app image in existence. Here's the story that Dana gives for the image.

"This exceptionally strange photo was snapped by a group of carpenters in Norway who were hired to perform renovations on a historical site. Unfortunately, after just a few weeks, the men began experiencing some unexplainable activity. The strange knocks, disembodied voices, and other mysterious phenomena got so bad that the men refused to finish their work on the basement. After a particularly active day, one of the men took a series of photos down a particularly problematic hallway, and when they discovered what resembled a “white shadow resembling a man” in the images, they left and vowed never to come back."

Of course, Dana gives no source for this story, the only other reference to it I could find was on pinterest. Dana, or her source perhaps, has elaborated on the story offered there somewhat. Googling "Norway Carpenters basement knocks ghost" gives one precise result: the Week in Weird article in question. So not only is this photo not investigated, it seems completely fabricated (Edit: In the comments section Torkel has provided the original source, there is also another photo.)

In discussing the next photo Dana shows a stunning lack of investigation and general knowledge of the paranormal scene.

Here's what Dana writes about the image:

"This odd photo was taken on January 11, 1978, and has been at the center of many debates about the validity of the image. According to the photographer, Richard Wiseman, the woman shown partially hidden was not only not there when the photograph was taken, but at the time Wiseman was sure he’s never seen her at all. Of the many photos taken that day, this was the only picture that the mysterious woman appeared in."

Now had Dana done the slightest bit of digging, she'd have realised that the Richard Wiseman in question is, in fact, arch-skeptic, psychologist and magician Richard Wiseman the author of Paranormality. He didn't take the photograph at all, and it wasn't taken in 1978 but 1987. Wiseman's association with it comes from his website where he describes it as follows after it was sent to him in 2009:

"...this week I received another interesting ghost photo….“This is a photo of myself, my mother, and my newborn daughter taken January 11, 1987. The face beside the lady holding the baby is no one we know. We have several pictures from this day and this is the only one with the face. Can you tell me what it could be? A ghost? I get the feeling that it is not a benevolent, whatever it is.”
The person says that she has the print of the picture and perhaps the negative."

Now it's pretty clear from the photo what is going on here. Several commenters on Wiseman's blog suggest it's a double exposure, but I think that's an actual person sat behind the main figure. The person in the Coca-cola jumper seems to be looking at the person sat behind the main figure. Also, her face is similarly washed out and pale. In addition to this, I'm pretty sure the"ghost's" shadow can be seen on the vase in the background. The only evidence we have that there was none sat behind the lady in the photo is from the person who submitted it. Now I'm not suggesting that the submitter may be lying, though that is a possibility, but it's more than possible that she simply misremembers a party from 22 years ago. I don't see any reason to even begin to suggest "ghost" here. Far more likely a trick of perspective and memory.

Speaking of tricks of perspective:

Here's what Dana says about this one:

"Taken by a woman known only as “Heather in Pennsylvania”, this photobomb would have sent me running in the other direction. Forget the kid, I’m gone.
“I took this photo of my son with my Samsung Verizon camera phone,” Heather wrote. “He was sitting with his back to the couch. I’m still trying to figure out what the apparition is behind him.”
Skeptics have theorized that the image is just a reflection, however, the photographer was on the other side of the phone taking the actual picture and claims that no reflective surfaces were facing the lens.

The earliest use of this image seems to come from a blog published in 2012, and Dana pretty much quotes the story verbatim.

Again all we have here to suggest anything unusual about the photo is the insistence by the person who submitted it that there was no one else present. I'm don't really buy the idea of Dana's reflection. It doesn't appear to me that the child has his back on the back of the couch. He seems much further forward and higher. In my opinion, he's sat on someone's knee, I'm pretty sure that I can actually see the shoulder of the person in question.

Could she be leaning out to one side in an attempt to see her phone screen as she snaps a selfie of her and the child? An alternative explanation may be the child moving his head as the image is taken resulting in a "slow-shutter speed" effect, although I prefer my former explanation.

Here's the final two images featured. I'm pretty sure the first is an extremely poor photoshop. Even Dana acknowledges this. There's much else to say as the image resembles a figure in only the loosest possible sense. It looks more like the symbol that appears on toilet doors that either an actual person or a ghost.

The final image(left) may well be another photoshop, the black shadow surrounding the figure is of a much greater richness than any of the other shadows in the image. Another explanation is possibly a prowling animal. That would certainly explain the glowing red eyes.

What irks me about this post isn't the misattribution of paranormal explanations to the pictures exhibited, or even the pretty wholesale rejection of possible rational explanations. Rather it's the sheer laziness Dana displays. She clearly didn't even bother to Google search the images or Richard Wiseman's name, I get the distinct image she pulled them all from pinterest in an afternoon. Where further information wasn't available Dana has simply invented a backstory. There isn't any real content here, there certainly isn't anything even resembling "investigation." To put the article into context, here's how Week In Weird describe their content:

" With its lighthearted, middle of the road approach to the unexplained and the best-written weird news content on the web, Week in Weird has become a regular source of material for huge media outlets like VICE, Mental Floss, Coast to Coast AM, Gawker, The Fortean Times, and Mysterious Universe to name just a few."

Firstly "best written?" The post I read was barely written at all. When I read the above passage all I can think is "fluff". This is fluff, they know it's fluff. The claim it can be used as a source is laughable. The site is another example of people with an interest in the paranormal, believers and skeptics alike, being sold short again, and its a thumb in the eye to anyone who values the concept of investigation.

We deserve better.

A Big Tall Glass of Common Sense.

The British tabloid press are at it again. Virtually every tabloid paper in the UK has reported on this piece of footage from Honduras breakfast TV show First Edition over the last 24 hours.

Take a look.

So is this "chilling" or paranormal in any sense?

No. Not in my opinion. What we are seeing here is the natural outcome of a glass resting on a glass table with a speck of moisture , or even moist air trapped underneath it. The coefficient of static friction being very small between two glass surfaces even without the presence of water or moist air.

Arnold Anderson, retired professor of frictional forces explains the effect:

"When a wet glass is placed on a smooth surface, a ring of water first
makes a seal around the bottom edge of the glass. Then, as the glass
continues toward the countertop, air that is under the glass bottom is
compressed. Under ideal conditions, this small volume of pressurized air
is able to support the weight of the glass. The water around the bottom
edge of the glass functions as a seal to prevent the air from escaping.
For a short time, the glass is floating on the surface water, and moves
with almost no friction. A different, but related behavior is possible
with a container that has a very smooth, flat bottom. Here, the water can
not escape quickly, and temporarily supports the glass on a squeeze film
of water alone. This is much like an ice skate, which melts the ice under the blade, so
the skater glides freely on a thin film of water. The first case is like
a hovercraft, where a large fan pressurizes the air under the craft so it
can move freely over water or even smooth land. Technically, the glass uses what is called a 'squeeze film' bearing to temporarily support the glass. Hovercraft are supported by 'externally pressurized' bearings. Ice skates employ 'self-lubricating' bearings. These are all ways to reduce friction, using lubrication."

 So what sets the glass moving? Could be one of two things, or a combination of the two, heat from the studio lights causing the fluid to expand, or the presenter disturbing the air around the glass and setting it in motion. Notice that the glass begins to move as the Presenter moves his hand past it, the initial movement is very slow and the glass speeds up as it moves towards the middle of the table. It finally stops when the moisture is exhausted. It would take very little force to get the glass moving as the static coefficient, the resistance against sliding, is so small.

Examination of the surface doesn't immediately reveal the presence of liquid.  But all that is needed here is moist air, or condensation on the outside of the glass.

More tabloid stupidity then. As mentioned in a previous post, I'm not linking to any of the stories, click-bait shouldn't be encouraged.