GT’s Joe Ruiz brought my attention to his video and I thought the readers of GT might like to see this themselves. The video is a debunking video done on YouTube, of course, with the poster narrating some questionable debunk’s on ghostly sightings at Disneyland. I posted an article several weeks back about security camera footage showing a ghost. The debunk video (questionably) answers this and other ‘sightings’.

Anyhows, let’s check this out in order. As far as the first video (which I posted serveral weeks back), Nice start as he debunks what people call a ‘reflection’ as he shows the ‘anamoly’ in the two frames. Then he (cleverly) jumps to the next instance in which he says the ‘anamoly’ affects the lights on the riverboat. Watch the video again. The ‘anamoly’ passes by the nearest light source before you see the occurance of the riverboat light. I can’t honestly say the two are connected, but let’s continue on. The narrator continues on and states that the scenes are burned into the monitor (monitor burn), and that in fact, the ‘anamoly’ is just an employee walking around. Sounds plausible for sure, but notice how the narrator cleverly skipped past where the ‘anamoly’ walked through the gate? The end of the video, the ‘anamoly’ actually starts to walk across the water, and that isn’t mentioned. I can buy into the monitor burn (as to why the lights have a flaring effect), but otherwise I am willing to bet that those monitors work perfectly well. Think about it, they are security camera’s, watching a multi-billion dollar piece of property, owned by a multi-billion dollar company. The video remains a curiousity to me.

The narrator moves on to second video which appears that a ghost is hopping into a seat at a ride.  The humoress part of the narrator’s debunking starts off with him stating that the we are picking up a reflection of someone via  ‘polished concrete’. Polished concrete. I’ve gone to many amusement parks in my time, and never have seen polished concrete on the platform for a ride. The visible reflections appear to be puddles from rainwater if anything, and any reflections are more likely to be dark/shadows, yet the ‘anamoly’ appears to be light in color. The narrator also states that the ‘anamoly’ is a reflection from the ride operator, since this was taken from the ride operator’s booth. Ok, you can -clearly- tell this is once again a security camera monitor. This deunks his remarks about the reflections being picked up by the frosted glass and such. If anything, the reflections being picked up may be reflections of people as the walk behind the recorders viewpoint.

The third video has to do with the Tower of Terror. We see a mainenance man (MM)  ‘check-riding’ the ride and logging remarks in his tablet. We see a ‘anamoly’ of a man appear behind the maintenance man, then another to the right of  him. The narrator’s debunk are comical. The reason for this are a low frame-rate security camera and strobe-lights which cause a ‘ghosting effect’ and causes the man to jump around in the scene. The first ‘anamoly’ we see is of a man sitting behind the MM, and at that point of time, the MM has his hat on, while the ‘anamoly’ does not. Not to mention, the ‘anamoly’ appears young, while obviously the MM is not. The next anamoly appears to be wearing  light clothing, in which the MM is wearing all dark clothes except for a light colored shirt.

The fourth video shows a employee watching the fireworks show, and the narrator is spot on to say that the man is watching the fireworks. The funny part about this one is how the narrator says the employee is wearing ‘camoflauge’ so as not to be seen by the crowd, then disappears because “his camoflauge works incredible well”. I about LMAO at that comment, but anyhows, the only reason he disappears is becuase there are spotlights on, highlighting the firework’s trails and at the end of the show, they turn them off. Thus he disappears because he is not reflecting light anymore.

Fifth video is interesting. It shows a group of kids getting their pictures taken and the picture pans right and you can see a figure of a ghost sitting on a ledge and then pans back and it is gone. The ghost image is curious, and if you match up a certain crack in the wall, the image is gone. The narrator claims a discoloration in the rocks, which it is not, because the image should be there as it pans back (see picture below). Is it a ghost? I couldn’t say, it could be pareidolia, a trick of the camera, but as I said, it’s curious.

Last but not least, I will leave up to you, the reader to decide. Do I think my conclusions are correct? No. Do I think the narrator’s conclusions are correct? Definately not. Debunking questionable videos is what everyone should do, in practice. The problem with debunking videos is that not everyone has the correct answers, which leads me to say that if you are going debunk video’s publicly, do not get into the habit of making definative statements as the narrator has done in this video, and definately do not cut out scenes in order to circumvent your own thinking. I give the narrator credit for debunking the videos of this nature, yet I have to question the use of such elaborate and/or odd thinking as to the reasons for what appears in the videos.