Michigan couple catches a ghost on their baby monitor

[Magical Realist]

The apparition appears whispy and is transparent, dissolving into thin air at the end. The mother notices scratch marks on her baby's face. The monitor is an infrared camera that records images as illuminated in infrared light. Neither of the parents were in the baby's room at the time. A compelling if not disturbing piece of paranormal evidence..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XHuKZZS6po

[Zinjanthropos]

You’ll have to argue with AI this time.

AI Overview

A Michigan couple claimed a ghost scratched their baby and caused other paranormal events, but the story has been widely considered a hoax. The initial report involved a nanny cam capturing what appeared to be a ghostly figure, which the couple believed had scratched their daughter and even attacked the mother. However, many viewers and investigators suggested alternative, more logical explanations for the scratches and other phenomena, including the possibility of a hoax. The messy state of their home, the couple's stated desire for donations to move, and the fact that the "ghost" only seemed to appear on camera while they were in the house, all contributed to the skepticism.
Here's a breakdown of why it's likely a hoax:

No clear evidence of paranormal activity:
While the couple described unsettling experiences, the video evidence primarily showed a blurry image and no conclusive proof of a ghost or supernatural event.

Suspicious timing and location:
The "ghost" only seemed to appear when the couple was present in the house, and the messy state of the home also drew criticism, suggesting a potential staged event, according to WGNTV on Facebook.

Financial incentive:
The couple's request for donations to help them move out of the house, combined with the dramatic nature of the story, led some to believe they were attempting to exploit the situation for financial gain, according to a Facebook post.

Skepticism from investigators:
Paranormal investigators who looked into the case also suggested logical explanations for the scratches and other phenomena, such as reflections and dust

[Magical Realist]

Ahh yes...a messy room, being in the house at the time, and the need for money to help them move out. All iron-clad indications that it was all hoaxed. In the meantime we have the video itself and the whispy transparent appearance of it being exactly what a ghost looks like. And it only showed up in infrared. How did they fake that? We have the deep visible scratches on the baby's face. What? Did the mother do that? We have them wanting to move out so bad they have to rely on financial help. Why would that be? And then there is this statement by the paranormal investigator:

"This happened in the guest house they are staying in next to Josh’s parents home, which it turns out, some believe is also haunted.

“I definitely believe there is something going on at this house,” said Mike Priest. “We are looking forward to checking out this one as well.”

Mike Priest of Scientific Paranormal Investigations of Michigan says after family members heard strange noises his team investigated and recorded audio.

“We heard something say, ‘Oh here we go. oh yeah.’ I heard it as plain as day,” said Priest."

As for the event only happening when they were there, we don't know that. They only caught it on video when their baby was there and the camera was on. The camera wouldn't be on when they're gone. Duh..

So much for machine generated arguments...lol

[Syne]

Here's another ghost caught on night vision video:
https://youtu.be/4JEatkWI4Ms?si=d9EaJzTVT_DKkXBV&t=65

Notice how creepy and wispy it is whenever it's moving.
Chilling.

[Magical Realist]

Nothing wispy at all about those images. They are well-defined, just not as brightly lit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUTdghkD8vc

[Syne]

Nothing wispy at all about those images. They are well-defined, just not as brightly lit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUTdghkD8vc

You think this isn't wispy and ghost-like?
https://youtu.be/4JEatkWI4Ms?si=nw7-AYk_adXAn39K&t=72

If not, you're clearly lying, as it very obviously is. You can see right through him when he moves.
You'll say anything just to defend your precious beliefs.

[Magical Realist]

I foresaw your semantic weaseling by giving you the definition of wispy in advance. Learn the meaning of words before you use them.

[Syne]

You didn't answer the question. As usual, you're just completely intellectually dishonest.

Not only are you equivocating definitions, you are projecting your own obvious semantic game to avoid the glaring similarity in video quality and appearance.

wispy:
adjective
lacking clarity or distinctness
synonyms: dim, faint, shadowy, vague
indistinct
not clearly defined or easy to perceive or understand
- https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/wispy

Do you even realize how much you avoid simple questions, or is it all subconscious?

[Magical Realist]

I already provided the definition as well as its use in sentence. Nothing more to quibble over. Those images in those cameras weren't wispy.

[Syne]

You cherry-picked a definition... and you're STILL avoiding the simple question, chickenshit.