| User | Post |
|
2:40 pm
November 30, 2008
|
SkepticalRader
| | California | |
| Investigator | posts 38 |
|
|
Don't know if this has ever been discussed here, but I was never impressed by the glass breaking in Jason's room in the Stanley Hotel episode. I have seen this happen before. Years ago, I was working for a company who had a little get-together at the end of the day at one of the local restaurant/bars. I was sitting with the boss who seemed to be more than just a little curious about his drink which was sitting on the table in front of him. He was feeling his glass and commenting about how hot it felt when all of a sudden it shattered right before our eyes. Seems the place was so busy, that night, that they were taking glasses right out of the dishwashing machine and putting them back into service before they had a chance to properly cool down. The combination of the cold drink in the hot glass caused a reaction in the glass.
I'm not saying this is definitely what happened to Jason's glass, but it is a possibility. I'm sure there are other non-paranormal reasons for glasses breaking on their own.
|
|
|
4:00 pm
November 30, 2008
|
Queen of the Nerds
| | Orange County, CA | |
| Investigator | posts 105 |
|
|
A few days before this episode, one of my kids broke a glass by putting cold water in a hot glass. As soon as the episode aired and I saw that broken glass that was my immediate thought. Or, it could have been an ice cold ghost touching a hot glass…. or vice versa.
|
If you believe in telekinesis, raise my hands.
|
|
|
10:45 pm
November 30, 2008
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
This one is really iffy, and I've gone around and around on it. We don't see the glass break. At best, we hear it– but I'm not convinced that what we hear is the sound of breaking glass. It might be, but it might not.
So, basically, we have Jay's word that the glass broke right then. It might have broken earlier, and he just noticed it right then. Was it cold enough in there to break the glass with thermal shock? I don't remember Jay's breath misting during his Blair Witch monologue, so I'd guess not. I'm not a materials scientist, though. If there was a bad enough draft in there to kick that door around, who knows what happened?
So I don't really know what happened in there. It doesn't really look like a hoax– not that it couldn't be, but if so it was kind of a fizzle. We don't know exactly when the glass broke, so it's not compelling evidence to me. I don't see an obvious mundane explanation, but then again without seeing the glass break, I'm not sure what I'm trying to explain.
So it's a mess. Stephen's law #1: "You can't analyze crap." I shrug my shoulders and move on.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
11:34 pm
November 30, 2008
|
SkepticalRader
| | California | |
| Investigator | posts 38 |
|
|
It's been awhile since I've seen the Stanley Hotel episode, but I seem to recall that Jason points the camera towards the end of his bed with the open closet door beyond it. Initially you see his leg, then it moves out of the camera shot, then the door closes, slowly. I remember thinking, at the time, he's slid off the bed, crawled across the floor, and closed the door. I didn't want to believe that he would do that, but now I'm not so certain.
|
|
|
7:01 pm
December 4, 2008
|
Wallydraigle
| | Ohio | |
| Investigator | posts 114 |
|
|
I wonder if it's possible that the glass could have been absorbing some of the IR from their illuminator and heating up on one side. Normally, ordinary glass is pretty transparent to IR and wouldn't absorb much, but if it had some cerium in it it could be very absorptive to IR. If one side was being heated by radiant energy, and the other side cooled by a cold draft, that could easily put enough strain on the glass to break it.
It's purely conjecture, but possible.
|
|
|
12:10 am
December 5, 2008
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
Wallydraigle– interesting idea. I don't think so, though. The LEDs on the cameras aren't heat lamps.
UPDATE: Obviously I didn't read clearly enough. OK, interesting. How likely is it that a glass would contain cerium?
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
6:58 am
December 6, 2008
|
Andy
| | Liverpool | |
| Investigator | posts 101 |
|
|
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUA9i8i46w&feature=related
The above link explains the closet door 'mystery' very well
As for the glass, it was already broken before 'something' broke it, and a sound effect was added
|
|
|
3:23 am
January 31, 2009
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Stephen said:
Wallydraigle– interesting idea. I don't think so, though. The LEDs on the cameras aren't heat lamps.
UPDATE: Obviously I didn't read clearly enough. OK, interesting. How likely is it that a glass would contain cerium?
Depends. Cerium Oxide is used in the glass industry as a polishing abrasive. Various Cerium compounds can be used in the actual making of glass as either a component and/or a decolorizer. "Typically" this is a bit higher end glass, but then again, the Stanley Manor is a higher end place.
And, for the record, the "breaking glass" thing always bothered me. Not the actual broken glass or the sound, but Jason's reaction to it. I mean…say you're a Ghost Hunter. A solid glass object shatters two feet from your head and your reaction is to ponder over it for a couple of minutes, decide to check the film later and go back to sleep. If it really happened, wouldn't the response be to break out every piece of equipment, call everyone in there and figure out what was going on? I would think in the paranormal world, a breaking glass is HUGE! The "I'm going back to sleep" response tells us a great deal about the incident.
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
5:39 pm
January 31, 2009
|
Jacqui
| | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 14 |
|
|
Andy said:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUA9i8i46w&feature=related
The above link explains the closet door 'mystery' very well
As for the glass, it was already broken before 'something' broke it, and a sound effect was added
This is my take on it too. I don't need to try to figure out a natural explanation for the glass breaking because I don't believe it broke naturally. Before collar-gate, I believed it happened exactly as they portrayed it, but in hindsight, noooo. If they'll fake one thing, they'll fake another. I'm with Andy on this one.
|
|
|
11:41 am
February 1, 2009
|
T.A.Sharps
| | Iowa | |
| Investigator | posts 60 |
|
|
It is a long shot, especially when you add the hoax factor. Though I was thinking what if the glass was fractured earlier one way or another and didn't fall apart until later?
Of course the hoax would be easy, break it before, then flick it off camera and "What the frig…", pick up the camera and film it.
Thats the thing about the hoax factor, it allows very little room to confirm something more than say 60%, if we could give it a rating. Seems like no matter what they catch, TAPS and a TV show production crew would be able to recreate what happened most of the time.
They never talk about the production crews footage, when they review, they only mention their own cameras, I know the production crew edits their own stuff, but we would have to "believe" they do their own paranormal review that we just don't hear about.
Kind of like the production crew doesn't exist, unless they are part of the evidence.
|
" Your reality Sir is lies and balderdash and I am delighted to say I have no grasp of it whatsoever!"
|
|
|
4:51 pm
February 1, 2009
|
jennjenn
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
T.A.Sharps said:
It is a long shot, especially when you add the hoax factor. Though I was thinking what if the glass was fractured earlier one way or another and didn't fall apart until later?
Of course the hoax would be easy, break it before, then flick it off camera and "What the frig…", pick up the camera and film it.
Thats the thing about the hoax factor, it allows very little room to confirm something more than say 60%, if we could give it a rating. Seems like no matter what they catch, TAPS and a TV show production crew would be able to recreate what happened most of the time.
They never talk about the production crews footage, when they review, they only mention their own cameras, I know the production crew edits their own stuff, but we would have to "believe" they do their own paranormal review that we just don't hear about.
Kind of like the production crew doesn't exist, unless they are part of the evidence.
It is not the job of the production crew to verify the supposed paranormal activity. It is their job to film the cast and thier reactions to what is happening. Having said that, it would be nice to know how much of the cast footage can be debunked or confirmed by the crew footage.
|
|
|
5:40 pm
February 1, 2009
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
Right…because I'd much rather see a close up of Grant's reaction rather than the supposed paranormal event lol Think about it, if the event were real, it would likely be human nature for the cameraman to be trying to capture the event rather than what someone's face looks like who sees the event. It is these things that speak louder than any evidence they can garner.
Let's take a real life situation. An airshow. How many cameraman filming the crowd are going to keep their cameras trained on the people when a plane crashes into the ground?
And if it were real, wouldn't Pilgrim gain MUCH more by capturing the evidence than someone's face??? (Because the evidence ain't gonna come from the Team's equipment given how the TAPS team has SUCH a success rate of having cameras in the right place!)
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
7:35 pm
February 1, 2009
|
jennjenn
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
I agree, I would much rather see footage of what is happening in the other room and there have been instances wher the crew has shifted focus to whatever is supposedly happening. I'm just stating that they are doing exactly what they are being paid to do. Also i would piont out that the reactions of the cast are being used as arguments as to the authenticity of some of the claims being made. unfortunately we can't have it both ways. 
|
|
|
8:14 pm
February 1, 2009
|
Liz M
| | NY | |
| Investigator | posts 30 |
|
|
About that glass…. A few years ago, I took a glass from the drying rack near the sink (no dishwasher in the apartment at the time). Poured in room temp water and as I lifted the glass (it had a handle – kind of a glass beer stein), the bottom fell out! Water everywhere. I am not saying this was a paranormal event, just plain weird. If someone has an explanation, I'd love to hear it. It has never happened again. I usually break glasses as I am cleaning them (knocking against the faucet), but I had never broken the type of glass that broke that day. And I still have some of that type and they're all in one piece.
|
|
|
2:25 am
February 2, 2009
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Liz M said:
About that glass…. A few years ago, I took a glass from the drying rack near the sink (no dishwasher in the apartment at the time). Poured in room temp water and as I lifted the glass (it had a handle – kind of a glass beer stein), the bottom fell out! Water everywhere. I am not saying this was a paranormal event, just plain weird. If someone has an explanation, I'd love to hear it. It has never happened again. I usually break glasses as I am cleaning them (knocking against the faucet), but I had never broken the type of glass that broke that day. And I still have some of that type and they're all in one piece.
Ok, I'll take a stab at it… 
The typical glass beer stein has a heavy bottom. Most likely during its creation, a tiny bit of air got trapped and when the glass cooled, it formed a hairline fracture. Ideally, the fracture would be tiny and right along the inside edge so almost impossible to detect. Through time, cold liquids are poured into the glass while hot water is used to wash it. The hot and cold liquids, over time, cause the fracture to grow. Then one day you pour in some water, gravity does its job, and blam…clean up on aisle 3.
It's just a possibility…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
1:11 pm
February 2, 2009
|
T.A.Sharps
| | Iowa | |
| Investigator | posts 60 |
|
|
jennjenn said:
It is not the job of the production crew to verify the supposed paranormal activity. It is their job to film the cast and thier reactions to what is happening. Having said that, it would be nice to know how much of the cast footage can be debunked or confirmed by the crew footage.
You assume a lot there. That would mean the crew has never been part of any evidence that was questionable, nor have an intrest in the success of the show.
|
" Your reality Sir is lies and balderdash and I am delighted to say I have no grasp of it whatsoever!"
|
|
|
8:17 pm
February 2, 2009
|
AA Adams
| | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 19 |
|
|
I can't figure out what all the sounds I am hearing are except for the chip rolling on the table but my guess is that maybe we (the audience) are supposed to think we hear 1. the glass falling over (looks to me like an impact type break like maybe the glass hitting the table or being hit) 2. the chip rolling on the table and 3. the glass hitting the table again as it is set back down or it repositioning/settling after being hit.
So the problem I have with that is if you watch it you can see what I think is a reflection of the clock in the glass and it NEVER moves through the entire sound effects show
but again who knows…maybe ghosts carry ball pene hammers or more like ice picks?
looked like kinda thick glass wonder how far a chip would fly or roll after an impact it didn't go far and all I saw was one large v shaped hole in the glass and cracks
|
|
|
8:58 pm
February 2, 2009
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
That's the whole question for me– I am not remotely convinced that the sound is connected to the glass breaking. Jay doesn't see it break. He mentions, after investigating the door, that the glass is broken, but he has no way of knowing when it broke.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
4:00 am
February 3, 2009
|
AA Adams
| | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 19 |
|
|
Stephen said:
"You can't analyze crap."
Now that's funny! And I'm guessing that is what they are counting on, the 'who knows' factor.
(I'm thinking printed T's as gifts for the GH crew)
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
