Page 101 of 134 FirstFirst ... 51919899100101102103104111 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 2008
  1. #1501

    • Larger Than (After)Life
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    A Dusty Attic
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by Madame_Leota View Post
    All this talk about pants made me realize something Madame Leota isn't wearing any pants... or any clothes at all!
    Madam Leota doesn't need clothes. She's a head of her time.

  2. #1502

    • Larger Than (After)Life
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    A Dusty Attic
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by SmellyOrangutan View Post
    If you look at the user's account, you'll see that he has videos of the same "ghost" at Space Mountain and Tower of Terror.
    They don't look the same to me — at all.

    The one from inside Space Mountain is a reflection. And there are two TOT "ghost" videos on YouTube, one shot outside and one recorded inside. I have no explanation for either of these, although I will say that the one recorded outdoors appears contrived.

  3. #1503

    • Larger Than (After)Life
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    A Dusty Attic
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Back to The Haunted Mansion attraction and types of ghosts/entities contained therein:

    I think that the extended family of staring, blinking eyeballs are goblins.

  4. #1504

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,478

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    posin' with no lederhosen

    Oh no you don't. Don't change the subject just yet. I've been thinking about this one all morning, and it's getting interesting.

    I'll take Data's arguments as representative of the "con" position (plus a few points offered by others) and play devil's advocate for the "pro" position.

    There seems to be a tacit admission on all sides that if this is a hoax, it's probably beyond the reach of some techno-nerd with too much time on his hands. You would need a big stage, special lighting, etc. I'm not competent to judge whether or not someone could whip this thing up at home, so I'll defer to the judgments of others on that point.

    There seems to be a consensus too, that if it's a hoax, Disney did it. That seems reasonable. The pool of people who would have the means (a couple of thousand bucks to blow), the opportunity (access to a soundstage and all the equipment), and the motive ("I'll be an Internet star; how cool is that?") must be small. Plus, it couldn't be done alone, so all it would take is one crew member to go ratting to the Mouse and you could potentially wind up in deep doo doo. ("Hmmm, how well do I know that guy running the lights, really?") If there were a sufficient economic motive, someone might take that risk, but this is free to the world on Youtube. Plus, it's possible to supply a motive for Disney to do it: bumping up Halloween attendance with the buzz from a viral video.

    Finally, there seems to be a consensus that these tapes started off in life as real security camera videos from DL. Someone with access to those was involved, legitimately or illegitimately.

    If it's not a hoax, who did it? Possibly someone working in DL Security. But if he himself is putting up naughty videos on Youtube, it wouldn't be that hard for the Mouse to track him down, and there goes his job. More likely, if these are authentic, a Security guy made these tapes in order to preserve something amazing, and at some point he passed them to a second party, who youtubed them. Since he's not making any money, if he gets caught he's not going to be in much trouble. He owns some tapes that someone else filched from Disney. Hand 'em over, and that's about it. We'll call this guy Ed.

    Now comes the fun part. Any motive that applies equally to Disney and to Ed must be thrown out. "Hey look" (we are told), "they all came out close to Halloween. Disney would want to do that." Big deal. So might Ed. He's got these ghost videos sitting around. What better time to youtube 'em than Halloween season? The realization that Halloween was a-coming may even have been the thing that reminded him that he had these cool ghost tapes and gave him the idea of putting them out there.

    Data puts forward two arguments that are easily dismissed (sorry Joe, nothing personal). First, we are told that the ghost doesn't look right. He's too bright, or he's not bright enough, or something. Um, exactly how bright does a "real" ghost look when it's videotaped? Is this known? Second, the timing is off. He shows up too soon in tape #3 if he's just sauntering along. Well, I presume that these security tapes were hours long. We're not terribly interested in the hours and hours of videotaped nothing. With regard to the HM tape, the Security guy rewound the four tapes to just before Mr. Ghost shows up, turned them on, and videotaped the videotapes. He didn't quite rewind #3 as far as he should have if he were trying to exactly reproduce the time involved, but who says he was? A third argument that's been made is that this guy has only put up these three tapes, under the subtle name "ghostatdisneyland," not long before Halloween. Looks like an attempt to produce a viral video. Yeah, so what? Ed doesn't want them to go viral? This is poor Ed's first and so far only experience at putting something on Youtube. He's like me. Doesn't do that sort of thing all the time. He takes the name "ghostatdisneyland." Sounded good to Ed. Maybe he doesn't have much imagination. Lot of that going around.

    Okay, here's the killer. We're told that Disney has an excellent motive for doing this sort of thing. If it goes viral it'll create buzz and boost attendance. $$$ The only problem with that argument is that Disney has a much stronger motive not to do this sort of thing. What this is supposed to look like is something illegal done by a park employee. If it becomes popular, what sort of mess have they created? Now everyone with access to those tapes is going to be tempted to do something naughty. "But wait, these ghost videos were not something a park employee could do." Maybe not, but videos of guests urinating in the bushes or stupidly trying to shoplift 25 hats, or slipping on banana peels might be pretty entertaining, and those tapes manufacture themselves on a regular basis.

    Nope. Sorry. It's ridiculous. Disney would NEVER do something that appears to legitimate or encourage wrongful behavior by their park employees.

    Unless you flatly rule out the possibility of authentic ghost videos (and that is a perfectly ordinary position), the arguments favor authenticity. Doesn't mean it is authentic; it just means that the pros have a stronger case at present. You go, Ed!

    Oh, almost forgot. "The ghosts in all three tapes look alike." That's a very subjective call, but even if it were true, so what? There's this ghost that haunts several rides. Do we know that "real" ghosts never do that?
    Last edited by HBG2; 03-26-2010 at 08:34 AM.
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

  5. #1505

    • =)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Nicely played - the devil surely appreciates your well-thought-out advocacy. Just to address several of your points:

    Quote Originally Posted by HBG2 View Post
    Finally, there seems to be a consensus that these tapes started off in life as real security camera videos from DL. Someone with access to those was involved, legitimately or illegitimately.
    Actually, I seem to recall a cast member on here saying that there are no security cameras in these positions. If that's truly the case, the whole thing is a hoax put up by Disney - case closed. Unfortunately, I'm not a cast member (yet) and don't know first-hand whether there are security cameras in these positions. Soooo...let's look at those positions!

    Cameras 1 and 2 are located near the wait time pillar, but they're about 20 feet above ground level. We know this because the sundial and the southwesternmost part of the curve of the queue line up with the camera angle, and because the laws of perspective tell us the camera is almost perfectly level with the tops of the facade's columns. If this is a pair of real security cameras, it'd have to be hidden in the tree immediately adjacent to the wait time pillar. Can someone please take (or find) a good shot of that tree, specifically from the early parts of the outdoor queue? If those cameras are there and they can see the queue, you should be able to see them from the queue. And they won't be buried too deep in the tree, because these are relatively wide lenses and they're not seeing ANY foliage around the edges.

    Cameras 3 and 4 are harder to place. I previously said that they were located above Pirates, but now I'm not quite so sure. They're on the roofline of some building, either dead center in this photo (clearly no security cameras there!) or above the buildings of NOS further west. Unfortunately, I can't find any good shots of their rooflines at the moment, though.

    Now comes the fun part. Any motive that applies equally to Disney and to Ed must be thrown out. "Hey look" (we are told), "they all came out close to Halloween. Disney would want to do that." Big deal. So might Ed. He's got these ghost videos sitting around. What better time to youtube 'em than Halloween season? The realization that Halloween was a-coming may even have been the thing that reminded him that he had these cool ghost tapes and gave him the idea of putting them out there.
    A valid point - as far as motive goes, it really could swing either way. (Though the presence of the words "Halloween time" in the video tags is suspicious.)

    Data puts forward two arguments that are easily dismissed (sorry Joe, nothing personal). First, we are told that the ghost doesn't look right. He's too bright, or he's not bright enough, or something. Um, exactly how bright does a "real" ghost look when it's videotaped? Is this known?
    No apologies necessary. However, I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that the ghost isn't bright enough. As you said, we don't know how bright a "real" ghost would look on videotape. What I was saying was this: the ghost itself is relatively dim, but the vertical flare of light around him is relatively bright, which is inconsistent with everything else in the video. There are many lights scattered around all four views. All of them are bright enough to be totally blown out (i.e. they appear as big flat white splotches with heavy glow around them). They all have vertical flares caused by the camera lens - you wouldn't see those in real life, of course. Then the ghost comes walking through. He is MUCH dimmer than the lamps (which is fine). He's not blown out at all - in fact, he fades in and out of visibility, always remaining quite dim. Again, that's fine. But his vertical flare sometimes gets as bright as those around the lamps, which could not happen if he's that dim. It's a question of camera and light physics, not ghost physics.

    Second, the timing is off. He shows up too soon in tape #3 if he's just sauntering along. Well, I presume that these security tapes were hours long. We're not terribly interested in the hours and hours of videotaped nothing. With regard to the HM tape, the Security guy rewound the four tapes to just before Mr. Ghost shows up, turned them on, and videotaped the videotapes. He didn't quite rewind #3 as far as he should have if he were trying to exactly reproduce the time involved, but who says he was?
    I can't claim to be an expert on this, but it seems to me that a station for viewing security tapes would automatically sync all tapes. It'd be dangerous if anyone could just throw them out of sync with each other, especially with no visible timestamp. How would anyone ever notice? So while this is hardly conclusive proof, it's just another layer of reasoning for my dubiousness. If anyone has experience with security monitors like this, please speak up!

    Disney has a much stronger motive not to do this sort of thing. What this is supposed to look like is something illegal done by a park employee. If it becomes popular, what sort of mess have they created? Now everyone with access to those tapes is going to be tempted to do something naughty. "But wait, these ghost videos were not something a park employee could do." Maybe not, but videos of guests urinating in the bushes or stupidly trying to shoplift 25 hats, or slipping on banana peels might be pretty entertaining, and those tapes manufacture themselves on a regular basis.
    An interesting point. I suppose if it's a viral marketing video (and there's at least one online account of a cast member saying he'd seen the thing being shot) then Disney would have to take precautions to ensure that cast members knew it was fake and/or had very strong incentives not to pull similar crap on their own. Can't really say. But viral marketing does happen, and it's usually gutsy and unconventional.

    Soooo...just to make my position clear: I believe that sometime before HM went down for holiday conversion last year, Disney brought in some cameras after hours, shot fake security camera footage from carefully planned angles, and then shot an actor either in a greenscreen studio or on location* and then composited him with ghostly effects into the footage. The final footage was then shot in an intentionally shaky, "unprofessional" style with a camera phone or whatever, using a fake set of security monitors.

    * Rewatching the footage, I now believe it could have been accomplished even without a greenscreen. Let me know if you want me to go into all the details. Basically, they could have kept the northeast side of the gate open for the footage of the actor so he could just walk right through, and then they could have just done his fizzling out over the water by hand. Isolating and ghostifying one changed element (a man walking) in stationary video footage is pretty easy, too.


  6. #1506

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    35

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by HBG2 View Post
    Big stages, green screens—where was this done?
    The video of the "ghost" walking through the park could have easily been done by computer animation. The movement of the figure looks very mechanical and unnatural. It seems more likely that an animated model was used rather than an actor in front of a green screen to achieve this effect.

    Also, there seems to be a very slight difference between the smoothness of the "ghost" walking through the park and the rest of the picture. What I'm trying to say is that the source video (taken from the video camera) appears to be shot at slightly lower frame rate than the figure. I'm not 100% sure about this (it's just an idea), but seeing as the water looks choppy (suggesting that the recorded video has a low frame rate) and the "ghost" moves fluidly through the video, it makes it seem as though the image of the "ghost" is rendered faster than the rest of the picture (i.e. put in artificially).

    Furthermore, because the person video taping the footage anticipates where the ghost is moving, we can all assume that this is not real time and is archived footage. But why would the archived footage be at such a high frame rate? I can understand that the live footage of the park is captured at a high frame rate (e.g. 30FPS), but to archive that it would take tons of space. Even one or six frames per second is enough to capture any wrongdoing in the park, 30FPS is not necessary. It seems more sensible to have the archived footage capped at a lower frame rate.

  7. #1507

    • =)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    The video of the "ghost" walking through the park could have easily been done by computer animation. The movement of the figure looks very mechanical and unnatural. It seems more likely that an animated model was used rather than an actor in front of a green screen to achieve this effect.
    I'm going to have to disagree with you there - although there is a certain weird smoothness to the motion, it doesn't look CG to me. I'm quite certain that if this is not a real ghost, it was a real actor. It wouldn't be cost-effective, either; in a case like this, it's easier to just shoot a guy walking through.

    Also, there seems to be a very slight difference between the smoothness of the "ghost" walking through the park and the rest of the picture. What I'm trying to say is that the source video (taken from the video camera) appears to be shot at slightly lower frame rate than the figure. I'm not 100% sure about this (it's just an idea), but seeing as the water looks choppy (suggesting that the recorded video has a low frame rate) and the "ghost" moves fluidly through the video, it makes it seem as though the image of the "ghost" is rendered faster than the rest of the picture (i.e. put in artificially).
    I got excited when I read this...but then I went and watched again, and I'm sorry, but the framerate looks the same for the water to me. The ripples have quite a high framerate. But...

    Furthermore, because the person video taping the footage anticipates where the ghost is moving, we can all assume that this is not real time and is archived footage. But why would the archived footage be at such a high frame rate? I can understand that the live footage of the park is captured at a high frame rate (e.g. 30FPS), but to archive that it would take tons of space. Even one or six frames per second is enough to capture any wrongdoing in the park, 30FPS is not necessary. It seems more sensible to have the archived footage capped at a lower frame rate.
    ...THAT is a good point. I would expect a noticeably lower framerate for security cameras like this. Hadn't even thought of that! Again, this is fairly speculative, but when all these layers of dubiousness accumulate, it's hard for me to accept the video as undeniable proof of its own reality, as the Hatbox Ghost was suggesting.


  8. #1508

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    332

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Please get back on topic, ladies & hatbox ghosts!

  9. #1509

    • TTA Traveler
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekkie313 View Post
    Please get back on topic, ladies & hatbox ghosts!
    I dunno, I find this all very interesting, and semi-relevant to the HM.

  10. #1510

    • =)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekkie313 View Post
    Please get back on topic, ladies & hatbox ghosts!
    I was ready to give it a rest...then HBG2 had to come in and keep it going. And considering how much information he's contributed to keep these six Threads afloat, I figured the least I could do was respect his arguments enough to counter them.

    That being said, if you have an on-topic post you wish to make, Trekkie313, please do it, by all means!


  11. #1511

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,478

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    a legacy of legs too seen

    (You know I am going to run out of these eventually.)

    The idea that Disney did this but first called together all the personnel with access to the security tapes and sternly warned them not to even think about doing what they're about to pretend to do...meh, I don't know about that one. You're still putting ideas in people's heads that you absolutely do not want them to have in their heads. If the thing is an overwhelming, smashing success, like I say, how long would it be before someone simply could not resist leaking that video of the kid throwing up on Mickey Mouse? Too risky. Not worth it. It's not as if Halloween time is such a slack period at DL that it needs this kind of boost.

    As for frame rates and camera placement, we'll all just have to wait until someone can tell us what kind of system they've got and perhaps where they've got the cameras. Things can be hidden or disguised pretty cleverly. An argument that begins, "I looked at the area where I think the camera should have been, but I sure didn't see anything there," is not going to close the debate, believe me.

    I don't understand the argument that they might tape at normal speed, but they would probably archive it at a lower frame rate because otherwise it would take too much space. Too much space? These days? They've got these cool things called "discs." And low frame rates are not just as good for security-camera purposes as normal rate. How many times is it the case that one particular frame (there! that one right there!) is the one where you can clearly see the rotter's face? Besides, the Security guy might have taped the amazing thing that he saw the very next day, before the tapes were archived and he couldn't get at them again so easily. That would make sense, wouldn't it?

    The ghost sometimes produces a light flare in the camera lens as bright as the other lights, even though they are much brighter than he. So it's a fake. I'm still leery of such arguments. "Real" ghosts do things that defy the usual laws of optics all the time. One person can see a ghost and the person right next to him can't. Well, "seeing" involves some hard facts about light and optics; and yet there it is, thumbing its ectoplasmic nose at such laws. We just don't know what's going on. The camera insists that Mr. Ghost is brighter than he looks, here, here, and over here. Could be because it's a fake, or it could be another example of how little we know about the physics of ghostly apparitions, despite all the research we've done inside the Haunted Mansion.
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

  12. #1512

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Middle River, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by HBG2 View Post
    Well, if you buy the second edition (which I think is worth it), you can afford to trash most of the first one!

    Heh. Uncropped photos are always fun. Hey, remember the time I pretended not to know that there was a raven in the ballroom, and GRD put up a picture showing that there was indeed a raven there, and I had to pretend to be all embarrassed and in need of some good excuses?



    As I recall, I kept up such a convincing front that many of you were deceived into thinking that I was actually wrong about something that obvious. All a ruse, of course. You do remember that, don't you? Sure you do. No need to look it up.

    Anyway, I said that one of the reasons I was unaware of the raven was that he's missing in the ballroom pictures I had seen (plus, the guys at E-Ticket magazine weren't aware of it either, back in the late 90's). One of the new crop just posted was one of those photos. See? No raven.




    Another one of the current pix was deemed useless for the discussion because it was cropped too far to reveal whether or not there was a raven, which would have been just off-camera to the right.




    So who knows whether the raven was in the ballroom when that shot was taken? Who knows? The Shadow knows. Bwahahahaha.




    It would be interesting to know when these two photos were taken, since the raven returned between the one and the other.
    Don't know if anyone followed up on this yet, but the only time I recall seeing a raven in the ballroom was at Phantom Manor. Is it possible that the photo with the raven is PM, not HM?

  13. #1513

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    332

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Does anyone have "behind the scene" pictures of the WDW Ballroom so we can compare all the differences? Also the Phantom Manor would be nice too. Also someone reported that the Raven from the tree in the graveyard is missing at DL HM show element missing

    Also here's a picture of one of the ballroom dancers without his female companion
    Last edited by Trekkie313; 03-26-2010 at 11:26 AM.

  14. #1514

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,478

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    lower limbs left to languish in limbo

    Quote Originally Posted by Grinning Ghost View Post
    Don't know if anyone followed up on this yet, but the only time I recall seeing a raven in the ballroom was at Phantom Manor. Is it possible that the photo with the raven is PM, not HM?
    No, that's DL fer shur. The raven is there on the blueprints, was probably there at the beginning, was still there in 1974, disappeared early enough to be thoroughly forgotten by the 90's, and was back again by the middle of 2002 at the latest.

    As for the relevance of that video, it purports to show a real ghost coming out of the Haunted Mansion. Weighing the probability that the video is genuine, if you grant the possibility of such a thing at all, is an exercise not too far afield from our usual topics, I would think. Anyway, I think I've shot my wad.


    ----------------------------------------

    [/QUOTE]
    AIR GUITAR!
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

  15. #1515

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,054

    Re: Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Part 6: A Prequel in Time, The Unrelenting

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekkie313 View Post
    Does anyone have "behind the scene" pictures of the WDW Ballroom so we can compare all the differences? Also the Phantom Manor would be nice too. Also someone reported that the Raven from the tree in the graveyard is missing at DL HM show element missing

    The raven was there this Tuesday, 3/23.



Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect vs The Army of Darkness, or the Thread 5
    By CaitlinMcFly in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 2077
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 02:45 AM
  2. [Chat] Long-Forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect Episode 4 A New Hope
    By HMF in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 2010
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 09:22 AM
  3. Long-forgotten Haunted Mansion Effect?
    By HBG2 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 2021
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 11:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •