DEMON APPEARS IN WEDDING PHOTO
Heike Hoffmann
thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
am submitting for your opinion of its authenticity. It shows a
creature looking over the shoulder of a gentleman in an anniversary
photo with his wife. Some are claiming it is a demon which has
actually been caught on film. Apparently, an unbiased photography
expert has concurred that the photo in question has not been faked,
altered, or otherwise doctored in anyway.
An enlargement of the image of the creature in the report, in my
opinion, clearly shows that it is a dog. However, there apparently
were not any animals present at the anniversary celebration in
question,
nor were there any replicas of animals either (i.e.; a stuffed animal
toy).
What a grinning (or snarling) dog is doing hamming it up in the photo
is perhaps the only mystery.
Do you believe the entity captured in this photograph is indeed a
something supernatural?. I am leaning towards it being a fake.
However, what the photography expert in the video who clearly verifies
that the photo has not been altered, enhanced, or otherwise doctored?.
I had thought the "demo dog" in the photo was the result of another
photo containing that of grinning (or snarling) somehow getting
spliced into this photo as a result of poor photography developing;
but the photography expert clearly say its not the case.
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a link to the picture in the
text below. This photograph has apparently received nationwide media
attention recently.
Any thoughts on what could cause this anomaly (apart from it actually
being some sort of malevolent supernatural entity)?. The photography
expert of 20 years in the video clip clearly states that the anomaly
in question is not the result of "double printing" or "splicing" in
anyway. So what could possibly account for
it?. Any suggestions?.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t87rJxKaoQ&feature=related
Cheers,
Heike Hoffman
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Any thoughts on what could cause this anomaly (apart from it actually
> being some sort of malevolent supernatural entity)?. The photography
> expert of 20 years in the video clip clearly states that the anomaly
> in question is not the result of "double printing" or "splicing" in
> anyway. So what could possibly account for
> it?. Any suggestions?.
Looks like a German Shepherd. Maybe a GS/Husky mix. Great dogs, mine
likes to grab an empty 30-pack box of Coors Light and run around the
backyard with it. He also has a basketball and a soccer ball he runs
around with.
Demons? These people are idiots in the first place, believing there is
some kind of life after the death of what gives you life. Pay them no
mind.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"The Bible talks about the first rainbow after the Great Flood, and we see
rainbows in the sky today. This is proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ
and the existence of God." - Zacharias Mulletstein
Scotius
I hate to rain on anyone's demonic parade, but this is the
biggest crock of shit I've ever seen.
I'm sure demons do exist, but I don't think one was captured
on camera. That is either an effect of having the draperies in the
background look just the way they happened to look, or it's the face
of an angry racoon that's been somehow superimposed on the other
image. Sorry to burst a bubble, but that's it.
thomas p.
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Heike Hoffmann
> <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on what could cause this anomaly (apart
>> from it actually being some sort of malevolent
>> supernatural entity)?. The photography expert of 20
>> years in the video clip clearly states that the anomaly
>> in question is not the result of "double printing" or
>> "splicing" in anyway. So what could possibly account for
>> it?. Any suggestions?.
>
> Looks like a German Shepherd. Maybe a GS/Husky mix.
> Great dogs, mine likes to grab an empty 30-pack box of
> Coors Light and run around the backyard with it. He also
> has a basketball and a soccer ball he runs around with.
>
> Demons? These people are idiots in the first place,
> believing there is some kind of life after the death of
> what gives you life. Pay them no mind.
It is really beyond comprehension that people would look at an image that
looks exactly like a dog and see something supernatural in it. There is
nothing strange about the picture at all. On the other hand the people
involved are rather strange.
Peter
news:fmu6v5p9lddh7ghel...@4ax.com...
> Sorry to burst a bubble, but that's it.
Are you really sorry?
--
Peter
Heike Hoffmann
remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!. The
photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
dogs or even
fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
So what is it if its not something supernatural?!. Is this not proof
of the supernatural, albeit, highly subtle proof?.
JayPee Vee
> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
> thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
> am submitting for your opinion of its authenticity.
Why do most of these totally idiotic stories happens in the USA?
Mickey
It is not supernatural, and it most likely is a fake.
Anything that exists is natural. There is no such
thing as the supernatural.
Mickey
Who is this photography expert and is he really an expert?
Jimbo
Probably the same person that doctored the photo. At least it's not
another of those triffling large man in fur coat Sasquatch fakes. :D
Heike Hoffmann
phenomena in question was discovered. So this couple only saw the
"Demon Dog" in the photo upon looking through some old pictures.
Therefore, how could the photography expert be part of a conspiracy to
doctor this photograph?. Furthermore, there are millions of odd photos
and video clips on You Tube and elsewhere which claim to have captured
images of ghosts, demons, monsters, ect; so why would this particular
photograph receive national media attention?. I am assuming the media
would not even report on something like this unless they had examined
the photograph themselves beforehand to look for evidence of doctoring
and splicing. Any ideas on how the image of a dog got into this
photograph and is so perfectly tucked over the shoulder of the man in
question?. What are the odds that it would show up in an empty spot on
the photograph if it were a case of double exposure?.
thomas p.
"Heike Hoffmann" <sexyam...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:9f37f565-213a-4eba...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
> remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!.
In the ususal way one supposes. The dog stuck his head up and the camera
caught it.
The
> photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
> photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
> or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
> dogs or even
> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
> So what is it if its not something supernatural?!. Is this not proof
> of the supernatural, albeit, highly subtle proof?.
No, it is a story on Fox News. There is nothing in the picture that
suggests anything supernatural, and everything in the source of the story
that suggests fraud.
thomas p.
Fox News says he is an expert. What more do we need? : )
HardySpicer
> Uncle Vic wrote:
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, Heike Hoffmann
xcuse me - surely he would have known if a bloody great Alsatian was
looking over his shoulder!!
Hardy
philo
It is natural
it is very natural
it so so very natural it's boring
it is very very very very natural
it's so frickin' natural it's *super* natural as a matter of fact
sheesh
Tim McGaughy
> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
> thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
> am submitting for your opinion of its authenticity.
It's exactly what it looks like. A dog got into the frame of a picture
that was being taken.
These idiots probably don't remember a dog because they were ON DRUGS.
Other family members probably won't tell them whose dog it is because as
long as they believe it's a demon, they'll stay clean.
Tim McGaughy
> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
> remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!. The
> photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
> photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
> or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
> dogs or even
> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
Says who? The recovering drug addicts?
Tim McGaughy
Back up. I don't remember the expert saying it was a ghost or demon,
just that the photo didn't look tampered with. And it doesn't.
There are any number of completely natural explanations for why a dog
would appear there in the photograph, including someone else holding it
over his shoulder as a joke.
Tim McGaughy
> Apparently, the photo in question was taken 8 year before the
> phenomena in question was discovered. So this couple only saw the
> "Demon Dog" in the photo upon looking through some old pictures.
> Therefore, how could the photography expert be part of a conspiracy to
> doctor this photograph?. Furthermore, there are millions of odd photos
> and video clips on You Tube and elsewhere which claim to have captured
> images of ghosts, demons, monsters, ect; so why would this particular
> photograph receive national media attention?.
Because there's an anti-drug message attached to this particular photo.
And I hardly think it's receiving national attention. The first I heard
of it was here, today.
> and splicing. Any ideas on how the image of a dog got into this
> photograph and is so perfectly tucked over the shoulder of the man in
> question?
I've already addressed this in previous posts, but it could be a prank,
like bunny ears, or it could simply be a coincidence: a dog hopping on a
couch or table in the background.
The fact remains that it looks like an ordinary dog, not a demon, and
that there are any number of ways a dog could have accidentally wandered
into a shot.
Tim McGaughy
Yeah, he'd have had to be really high to miss that.
Oh, wait....
altheim
Just because the 'expert' was not able to determine the manner
in which the image of a dog was inserted into the picture does
not mean that it was not "altered, tampered or doctored".
Frankly, no matter how qualified the photography expert may
have been he should not have made such a categorical statement,
and at the very least should have made it clear that this was only
his opinion.
I agree the image is convincing and, even allowing some sort
of anomalous cause, does not mean that it was necessarily
supernatural.
Anyway, what do you mean by "subtle proof"?
--
altheim
altheim
I suspect it is because the US is a big country with a lot of
people and so constitutes a rather large percentage of the
whole.
Then again, it takes idiots to believe in them...
--
altheim
altheim
"Mickey" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 12:31 am, Heike Hoffmann <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
>> thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
>> am submitting for your opinion of its authenticity.
>
> It is not supernatural, and it most likely is a fake.
> Anything that exists is natural. There is no such
> thing as the supernatural.
Correct! Absolutely correct, but parapsychologists,
who study this sort of thing accept that examples of
apparently anomalous happenings in nature do
sometimes occur.
They don't automatically write them off as "supernatural",
they study them in order to find the "natural", physical
cause.
--
altheim
Heike Hoffmann
highly coincidental to the point of disbelief that a real dog was
actually at this wedding and stood up on its back legs without this
gentleman noticing it!. If the dog is the result of a double exposure,
then it seems to me unreal that another photo of a dog was developed
too close to this picture and that only the head of this dog showed
up!. Also, what are the odds that the head of the dog would fit so
perfectly beside the gentleman's shoulder?!. I mean isn't it more
likely that the dog's head from a double exposure would find itself in
the middle of the photo?. It seems to good to be true!.
Any thoughts on what may have caused this from a technical or
photographic perspective?.
By the way, despite I self-identify as an Atheist and do not believe
in the occult/supernatural, then why has this photograph made me so
scared and paranoid to the point of shortness of breath?. I have been
having anxiety attacks ever since I saw this photo on You Tube the
other day.
george
Some will mistake them for spectres unhaunted and others will identify
them as bitches
Reverend Dave
4ad7-ad6c-3...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
This story is from 2007, not exactly what I'd call current.
Two questions come to mind.
1) What do we actually know about the so called experts? They're from a
paranormal institute, which means they could probably find demons in
photos even if they weren't there. The one guy looks a lot like the Comic
Book Guy from the Simpsons.
2) Why didn't they ask to see the negative?
--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce
Norman Weaver
"Heike Hoffmann" <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:902df278-2f51-46fc...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Apparently, the photo in question was taken 8 year before the
> phenomena in question was discovered. So this couple only saw the
> "Demon Dog" in the photo upon looking through some old pictures.
> Therefore, how could the photography expert be part of a conspiracy to
> doctor this photograph?.
I doubt he is. A quick google shows him to be the B+W printer at Roach Photo
of Denver. But he also said only that the grain matches, not that he thought
it was supernatural or even a dog. And there's the rub. I looked carefully
(as far as that was possible) at the photo and it's not supernatural and
not, apparently, even a dog. It looks close enough around the eyes, but the
muzzle is *all* wrong. Probably a trick of the light on some irregular
surface that the human "pattern matcher software" sees as it wants. Happens
a lot. Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich, and all that.
Norm
--
Tim McGaughy
> Yes, many of the comments here make sense. However, I still find it
> highly coincidental to the point of disbelief that a real dog was
> actually at this wedding and stood up on its back legs without this
> gentleman noticing it!
Why would it have to stand on its back legs? do you know for a fact that
there was nothing but floor behind the man?
> Any thoughts on what may have caused this from a technical or
> photographic perspective?
Yeah, there was a dog behind him.
> By the way, despite I self-identify as an Atheist and do not believe
> in the occult/supernatural, then why has this photograph made me so
> scared and paranoid to the point of shortness of breath?
Because you're lying about being an atheist. You brought this to us
pretending to be an atheist filled with doubt, hoping to get the same
reaction from us.
Tim McGaughy
Nope. ONE of them is, and readily admits he hasn't got enough
information to determine what's up with the photo. The other simply
verifies that he doesn't think the photo is faked.
I don't think it is, either. I just don't think it's a demon, and I'm
convinced the couple just didn't notice the goddamn dog at the party.
> 2) Why didn't they ask to see the negative?
The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There probably is
no negative.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
> remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!.
Dogs like attention, and they want to be a part of their masters' lives.
Or someone photoshopped it, and is sitting there laughing his ass off at
all the dumbass "demon" remarks.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"The Bible talks about the first rainbow after the Great Flood, and we see
rainbows in the sky today. This is proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ
and the existence of God." - Zacharias Mulletstein
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Apparently, the photo in question was taken 8 year before the
We have two possibilities here, with the same outcome.
1. There was a dog in the photo, in which case the person claiming no dog
was present is lying.
2. The picture was photoshopped to include a dog, in which case the person
claiming the photo was not tampered with was lying.
People who claim demons exist, sans evidence, are lying.
Uncle Vic
> It looks close enough around the eyes, but the
> muzzle is *all* wrong.
No. Definitely a dog. I've owned nine dogs in my lifetime (so far). It's
a dog.
Reverend Dave
news:mYadndNEKvAwOGnW...@posted.toastnet:
Which doesn't speak to the expertise of either of them.
>
> I don't think it is, either. I just don't think it's a demon, and I'm
> convinced the couple just didn't notice the goddamn dog at the party.
>
>> 2) Why didn't they ask to see the negative?
>
> The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There probably
> is no negative.
The photo was eight years old when the story came out, hardly ancient.
dadiOH
> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
> photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
> photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
> or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
> dogs or even
> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
> So what is it if its not something supernatural?!. Is this not proof
> of the supernatural, albeit, highly subtle proof?.
Nope, it is proof that people see what they want to see. Assuming it is a
straight photo, the "dog" has to be a juxtaposition of background objects
that people *think* looks like a dog.
A couple of years ago, people were seeing the virgin Mary in the glass front
of a building in St. Petersburg, FL. All it was was an interference figure
(like an oil slick) created by a film of whatever on the window. The film
could have been from autos, sprinklers, many sources. Regardless of the
obvious source of the "image", the believers believed and cited it as proof
of the miraculous.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Norman Weaver
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D7DEC8C...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Norman Weaver" <noe...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks close enough around the eyes, but the
>> muzzle is *all* wrong.
>
> No. Definitely a dog. I've owned nine dogs in my lifetime (so far).
> It's
> a dog.
I doubt it, based on the look of the "nose" and what should be its left lip,
which appears to be missing.
By her position in the photo, that's where his wife's left hand would fall
if she had her arm around his shoulders. She could be holding something.
Maybe she's really Robert Smigel in drag ;-)
Norm
--
GMAN
LOL!!!!
<http://www.mtv.
com/photos/2009-mtv-movie-awards-backstage-moments/1611666/3947138/photo.
jhtml>
Tim McGaughy
I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog
HAVE to be faked?
>> I don't think it is, either. I just don't think it's a demon, and I'm
>> convinced the couple just didn't notice the goddamn dog at the party.
>>
>>> 2) Why didn't they ask to see the negative?
>> The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There probably
>> is no negative.
>
> The photo was eight years old when the story came out, hardly ancient.
That's still a long time to hang onto a negative for a picture that was
apparently thrown into a box and ignored for 8 years. Probably was a
copy given to them by whoever took the original.
Scotius
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Scotius" <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
>news:fmu6v5p9lddh7ghel...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> Sorry to burst a bubble, but that's it.
>
>Are you really sorry?
Actually, now that you mention it I'm not. I'm pretty glad to
do so in fact.
Heike Hoffmann
> I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog
> HAVE to be faked?
The answer is quite obviously because the couple in the wedding photo
along with all of the guests at the wedding anniversary in question
have stated that there were no dogs or other animals at this event.
This was clearly stated on the You Tube video, if you bothered to even
watch it. There were NO dogs at this event plain and simple!. So the
dog is the photograph is either something supernatural (demon, ghost,
shadow entity, ect.), an error in the development of the film (i.e.,
double exposure, or its a deliberate hoax.
I am still waiting for someone here to offer some detailed technical
perspectives on how this may have occurred in the development process.
I am not an expert on photography, and I do find it odd that the dog's
head fits so perfectly into a blank space above the gentleman's
shoulder if in fact it is a case of double exposure or something along
those lines. That leaves a hoax. But the photography expert clearly
said the photo did not appear to be tampered with at all. Any further
suggestions?. I am in fact an Atheist who does have doubts from time
to time as a result of my Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant
upbringing having done damage to me. I am still waiting for someone to
tell me why this photo is causing me shortness of breath and panic
attacks; despite scarier photos I have seen have not done so.
Lohan, Lindsay
"Heike Hoffmann" <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:537230cf-35bf-4e99...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 3:02 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog
>> HAVE to be faked?
>
> The answer is quite obviously because the couple in the wedding photo
> along with all of the guests at the wedding anniversary in question
> have stated that there were no dogs or other animals at this event.
> This was clearly stated on the You Tube video, if you bothered to even
> watch it. There were NO dogs at this event plain and simple!. So the
> dog is the photograph is either something supernatural (demon, ghost,
> shadow entity, ect.), an error in the development of the film (i.e.,
> double exposure, or its a deliberate hoax.
i think it is
Toledo Oh
altheim
"Heike Hoffmann" <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I am in fact an Atheist who does have doubts from time
> to time as a result of my Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant
> upbringing having done damage to me. I am still waiting for someone to
> tell me why this photo is causing me shortness of breath and panic
> attacks; despite scarier photos I have seen have not done so.
Well I can find nothing scary in the image at all. Anomalous and
puzzling yes but scary, no. Without further information I doubt
anyone here can answer your question. So tell us please, what
worries YOU about this picture?
--
altheim
altheim
Why would you have anxiety attacks if you did not believe there
was something to be anxious about? Why do you think this image
is scary?
--
altheim
Lohan, Lindsay
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bf42b87$0$56775$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Mickey wrote:
>> On May 19, 11:13 am, Heike Hoffmann
>>> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the
>>> question still remains, how did the head of a dog appear
>>> in this photograph?!. The photography expert mentioned
>>> in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
>>> double exposure or splicing, in his professional
>>> opinion. There also were not any real dogs or even
>>> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this
>>> picture was taken. So what is it if its not something
>>> supernatural?!. Is this not proof of the supernatural,
>>> albeit, highly subtle proof?.
>>
>
>
a resume with cross examination as to alleged items thereon?
Lohan, Lindsay
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:maidnXoC27UZymnW...@posted.toastnet...
> Mickey wrote:
>> On May 19, 11:13 am, Heike Hoffmann <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
>>> remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!. The
>>> photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
>>> photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
>>> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
>>> or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
>>> dogs or even
>>> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
>>> So what is it if its not something supernatural?!. Is this not proof
>>> of the supernatural, albeit, highly subtle proof?.
>>
>> Who is this photography expert and is he really an expert?
>
> that the photo didn't look tampered with.
Yep!
Liz
It is impossible to be frightened by things you don't believe exist.
However, it is possible to be frightened by the unknown. Slapping a
label on the unknown and labeling it either a god or a demon explains
nothing, but it makes religious people feel they have an explanation.
I don't know why you are frightened of this particular video. I found
it rather insipid. Maybe you have unresolved issues about dogs.
Liz #658
Tim McGaughy
> On May 20, 3:02 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog
>> HAVE to be faked?
>
> The answer is quite obviously because the couple in the wedding photo
> along with all of the guests at the wedding anniversary in question
> have stated that there were no dogs or other animals at this event.
Back up. "All the guests at the wedding anniversary" said no such thing.
Only the couple were interviewed.
> This was clearly stated on the You Tube video, if you bothered to even
> watch it.
I did. The interviewer did not talk to other guests.
> There were NO dogs at this event plain and simple!. So the
> dog is the photograph is either something supernatural (demon, ghost,
> shadow entity, ect.), an error in the development of the film (i.e.,
> double exposure, or its a deliberate hoax.
The same could be said about the face on Mars, and it would still be
incorrect. If it's not actually a dog, it's just a trick of the light.
> I am still waiting for someone here to offer some detailed technical
> perspectives on how this may have occurred in the development process.
In other words, you've already assumed your conclusion.
Tim McGaughy
Because she's not actually an atheist.
thomas p.
That seems nearly certain.
thomas p.
> On May 20, 3:02 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like
>> an ordinary dog HAVE to be faked?
>
> The answer is quite obviously because the couple in the
> wedding photo along with all of the guests at the wedding
> anniversary in question have stated that there were no
> dogs or other animals at this event.
The evidence says there was one.
This was clearly
> stated on the You Tube video, if you bothered to even
> watch it. There were NO dogs at this event plain and
> simple!. So the dog is the photograph is either something
> supernatural (demon, ghost, shadow entity, ect.), an
> error in the development of the film (i.e., double
> exposure, or its a deliberate hoax.
Or the dog was not noticed.
> I am still waiting for someone here to offer some
> detailed technical perspectives on how this may have
> occurred in the development process. I am not an expert
> on photography, and I do find it odd that the dog's head
> fits so perfectly into a blank space above the
> gentleman's shoulder if in fact it is a case of double
> exposure or something along those lines. That leaves a
> hoax. But the photography expert clearly said the photo
> did not appear to be tampered with at all. Any further
> suggestions?. I am in fact an Atheist who does have
> doubts from time to time as a result of my Evangelical
> Fundamentalist Protestant upbringing having done damage
> to me. I am still waiting for someone to tell me why this
> photo is causing me shortness of breath and panic
> attacks; despite scarier photos I have seen have not done
> so.
You have actually seen photos scaries that a photo of a dog? Gosh!
Reverend Dave
I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog,
but which is claimed to be a picture of a demon, have to be real?
>
>>> I don't think it is, either. I just don't think it's a demon, and
>>> I'm convinced the couple just didn't notice the goddamn dog at the
>>> party.
>>>
>>>> 2) Why didn't they ask to see the negative?
>>> The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There
>>> probably is no negative.
>>
>> The photo was eight years old when the story came out, hardly
>> ancient.
>
> That's still a long time to hang onto a negative for a picture that
> was apparently thrown into a box and ignored for 8 years. Probably was
> a copy given to them by whoever took the original.
Sure, some people toss negatives, others file them away just in case
someone wants a copy.
The only people that investigated this whole thing were local, a Denver
paranormal group, and Roach Photo, a "combined full service photo lab
and fine art gallery".
The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
http://www.kdvr.com/kdvr-demonicimagecapturedincoup-5065065,0,7489651.sto
ry
Tim McGaughy
It doesn't. But it's easy to tell if a print has been tampered with, and
the guy the Fox station took it to had no reason to lie about it.
>>>> The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There
>>>> probably is no negative.
>>> The photo was eight years old when the story came out, hardly
>>> ancient.
>> That's still a long time to hang onto a negative for a picture that
>> was apparently thrown into a box and ignored for 8 years. Probably was
>> a copy given to them by whoever took the original.
>
> Sure, some people toss negatives, others file them away just in case
> someone wants a copy.
The picture was taken OF them by someone else. Their print probably IS a
copy, and if there's a negative, someone else probably has it.
Doesn't matter, anyway. It's just a goddamn dog.
> The only people that investigated this whole thing were local, a Denver
> paranormal group, and Roach Photo, a "combined full service photo lab
> and fine art gallery".
>
> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
And?
Lohan, Lindsay
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:mfqdnbxyUbiFlWvW...@posted.toastnet...
what about those of who have curly lashes
Uncle Vic
<Lindsa...@actingchops.gov> wrote:
My dog has a curly tail. Does that count?
livvy
and this is how much ado about nothing, becomes a thing on the
Internet. There is nothing.....and the yammering, will go on and
on....before you present, be very sure of what you speak. Otherwise,
all's you'll get is loud yapping; so common here.
thomas p.
Perhaps if you left you would not suffer so much.
Albert van der Horst
Heike Hoffmann <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 3:02 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Why does this photo of what looks like an ordinary dog
>> HAVE to be faked?
>
>The answer is quite obviously because the couple in the wedding photo
>along with all of the guests at the wedding anniversary in question
>have stated that there were no dogs or other animals at this event.
Apparently they are mistaken, because the photo shows otherwise.
I have more trust in a photo than in people's memory over 8 years.
<SNIP nonsense about how this is construed as a miracle>
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Lohan, Lindsay
>>
>> what about those of who have curly lashes
>>
>>
>
> My dog has a curly tail. Does that count?
>
be careful so that when you are racing your cat, you don't sit on it
by mistake
Albert Ross
wrote:
>Mickey wrote:
>> On May 19, 11:13 am, Heike Hoffmann
>> <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the
>>> question still remains, how did the head of a dog appear
>>> in this photograph?!. The photography expert mentioned
>>> in the video clip clearly states that the photo has not
>>> in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
>>> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of
>>> double exposure or splicing, in his professional
>>> opinion. There also were not any real dogs or even
>>> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this
>>> picture was taken. So what is it if its not something
>>> supernatural?!. Is this not proof of the supernatural,
>>> albeit, highly subtle proof?.
>>
>> Who is this photography expert and is he really an expert?
>
>Fox News says he is an expert. What more do we need? : )
>
Ah OK, it's not a dog it's a fox . . .
Reverend Dave
So you're just going to accept that the guy from the photo shop is an
expert?
>
>>>>> The photo was old even when the story was reported on. There
>>>>> probably is no negative.
>>>> The photo was eight years old when the story came out, hardly
>>>> ancient.
>>> That's still a long time to hang onto a negative for a picture that
>>> was apparently thrown into a box and ignored for 8 years. Probably
>>> was a copy given to them by whoever took the original.
>>
>> Sure, some people toss negatives, others file them away just in case
>> someone wants a copy.
>
> The picture was taken OF them by someone else. Their print probably IS
> a copy, and if there's a negative, someone else probably has it.
You've never had someone hand you their camera and ask if you could take
a picture of them?
>
> Doesn't matter, anyway. It's just a goddamn dog.
Right next to the dog is a wedding cake. I don't know about you, but if
my dogs got anywhere near a wedding cake everyone would notice.
>
>> The only people that investigated this whole thing were local, a
>> Denver paranormal group, and Roach Photo, a "combined full service
>> photo lab and fine art gallery".
>>
>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>
> And?
I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
outset.
Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't a
fake doesn't mean it isn't.
Mickey
Fox Newts? Highly subtle spoof? Yep. They would be
dumb enough to fall for this. Especially eight years after
the mystery doggie was supposed to have appeared
but not been noticed.
Mickey
> Mickey wrote:
> > On May 19, 11:13 am, Heike Hoffmann <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, I agree that it looks like a dog. However, the question still
> >> remains, how did the head of a dog appear in this photograph?!. The
> >> photography expert mentioned in the video clip clearly states that the
> >> photo has not in anyway been altered, tampered, or doctored. He also
> >> states that the appearance of the dog is not a case of double exposure
> >> or splicing, in his professional opinion. There also were not any real
> >> dogs or even
> >> fake dogs (i.e., stuffed animals) present when this picture was taken.
> >> So what is it if its not something supernatural?!. Is this not proof
> >> of the supernatural, albeit, highly subtle proof?.
>
> > Who is this photography expert and is he really an expert?
>
>
> There are any number of completely natural explanations for why a dog
> would appear there in the photograph, including someone else holding it
> over his shoulder as a joke.
So, why are they trying to make it look like it is
supernatural? For one second of fame that will
end up with all involved laughed ot of town?
Mickey
> "Mickey" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On May 19, 12:31 am, Heike Hoffmann <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
> >> thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
> >> am submitting for your opinion of its authenticity.
>
> > It is not supernatural, and it most likely is a fake.
> > Anything that exists is natural. There is no such
> > thing as the supernatural.
>
> Correct! Absolutely correct, but parapsychologists,
> who study this sort of thing accept that examples of
> apparently anomalous happenings in nature do
> sometimes occur.
>
> They don't automatically write them off as "supernatural",
> they study them in order to find the "natural", physical
> cause.
Were any parapsychologists involved in this? Did
they find any cold spaces where the wedding was
held the size of a big dog? Did they find a "natural"
physical reason for the dog to be in the picture? In
fact, I'm finding it difficult to believe that anyone with
any sense at all is falling for this 'ghost dog' nonsense.
Mickey
> Yes, many of the comments here make sense. However, I still find it
> highly coincidental to the point of disbelief that a real dog was
> actually at this wedding and stood up on its back legs without this
> gentleman noticing it!. If the dog is the result of a double exposure,
> then it seems to me unreal that another photo of a dog was developed
> too close to this picture and that only the head of this dog showed
> up!. Also, what are the odds that the head of the dog would fit so
> perfectly beside the gentleman's shoulder?!. I mean isn't it more
> likely that the dog's head from a double exposure would find itself in
> the middle of the photo?. It seems to good to be true!.
>
> Any thoughts on what may have caused this from a technical or
> photographic perspective?.
>
> By the way, despite I self-identify as an Atheist and do not believe
> in the occult/supernatural, then why has this photograph made me so
> scared and paranoid to the point of shortness of breath?. I have been
> having anxiety attacks ever since I saw this photo on You Tube the
> other day.
Something else is bothering you, and you've pushed
it out of your thoughts by dwelling on this nonsense.
Stop it and start working on your own problems.
Tim McGaughy
Heh. Looks like Lindsay's on a coke binge.
Tim McGaughy
Did they state that they did this? No, they did not.
>> Doesn't matter, anyway. It's just a goddamn dog.
>
> Right next to the dog is a wedding cake. I don't know about you, but if
> my dogs got anywhere near a wedding cake everyone would notice.
Perhaps someone did. The fact that these two admittedly drugged up
yahoos did not means nothing beyond that they weren't very observant.
>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>> And?
>
> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
> outset.
And?
> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't a
> fake doesn't mean it isn't.
So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
examine yourself.
Tim McGaughy
The couple could very likely be doing it for exactly that reason. They
don't seem very stable. There is also an attempted anti-drug slant to
it. They and the Fox affiliate may think they're doing a good deed by
showing off 'evidence' that 'drugs are bad, mmkay?'
thomas p.
You are being very optimistic. The Fatima con is still doing quite well.
altheim
"Mickey" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:279bb185-3404-429b...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Not to my knowledge but this question appears to have
been posed with the paranormal in mind. Given the
limitations of the video and the information supplied by
Heike I would not presume anything paranomal and I
can't imagine any parapsychologist wanting to be
bothered by it.
--
altheim
Albert Ross
wrote:
Ah, got it! They were so stoned they hallucinated that there was no
dog when in fact there was . . .
Kilmir
> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
> thanks to a TV news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which I
> creature looking over the shoulder of a gentleman in an anniversary
> photo with his wife. Some are claiming it is a demon which has
> actually been caught on film. Apparently, an unbiased photography
> expert has concurred that the photo in question has not been faked,
> altered, or otherwise doctored in anyway.
> An enlargement of the image of the creature in the report, in my
> opinion, clearly shows that it is a dog. However, there apparently
> were not any animals present at the anniversary celebration in
> question,
> nor were there any replicas of animals either (i.e.; a stuffed animal
> toy).
Yeah of course.
Watch this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pK0BQ9CUHk
Don't look at the comments before you've watched it all.
Now tell me, what do you think happened in your linked story?
Reverend Dave
Nor did they state that they got it from someone else.
>
>>> Doesn't matter, anyway. It's just a goddamn dog.
>>
>> Right next to the dog is a wedding cake. I don't know about you, but
>> if my dogs got anywhere near a wedding cake everyone would notice.
>
> Perhaps someone did. The fact that these two admittedly drugged up
> yahoos did not means nothing beyond that they weren't very observant.
Perhaps the person who took the photo was all drugged up too? Hey maybe
everyone at the party was high. Maybe the dog was the dealer.
>
>>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>>> And?
>>
>> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
>> outset.
>
> And?
Are you really such and idiot that you can't understand this?
>
>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't a
>> fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>
> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
> examine yourself.
>
--
JohnN
No demon, just the mothers-in-law.
JohnN
Tim McGaughy
Hence my use of the word 'probably'.
>>>> Doesn't matter, anyway. It's just a goddamn dog.
>>> Right next to the dog is a wedding cake. I don't know about you, but
>>> if my dogs got anywhere near a wedding cake everyone would notice.
>> Perhaps someone did. The fact that these two admittedly drugged up
>> yahoos did not means nothing beyond that they weren't very observant.
>
> Perhaps the person who took the photo was all drugged up too? Hey maybe
> everyone at the party was high. Maybe the dog was the dealer.
And?
>>>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>>>> And?
>>> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
>>> outset.
>> And?
>
> Are you really such and idiot that you can't understand this?
I'm not an idiot at all. It's a shame you can't say the same about yourself.
Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what they
are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't a
>>> fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
>> examine yourself.
<crickets>
RustY �
"Heike Hoffmann" <sexyam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e00bb0e-a398-4ad7...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> There is a photo is currently making its way around the Internet,
Looks like its on the sideboard again!
Reverend Dave
Do you have a problem with comprehension? You can't seriously believe
that there was dog at the party that nobody noticed.
>
>>>>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>>>>> And?
>>>> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
>>>> outset.
>>> And?
>>
>> Are you really such and idiot that you can't understand this?
>
> I'm not an idiot at all. It's a shame you can't say the same about
> yourself.
I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not the one
who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a banquet
facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
>
> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made such
a connection.
>
>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't
>>>> a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
>>> examine yourself.
>
> <crickets>
You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
--
"There's no messiah in here. There's a mess in here alright, but there's
no messiah"
- Brian's Mom - The Life of Brian
Tim McGaughy
Again, for the moron in the cheap seats... There are TWO people who say
there was no dog at the party. Those two people had what they now
consider to have been a serious drug problem at the time.
>>>>>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody else.
>>>>>> And?
>>>>> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
>>>>> outset.
>>>> And?
>>> Are you really such and idiot that you can't understand this?
>> I'm not an idiot at all. It's a shame you can't say the same about
>> yourself.
>
> I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not the one
> who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a banquet
> facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
>
>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
>> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>
> I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made such
> a connection.
You questioned Fox's expertise. Now you should show why you believe that
made a difference.
>>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it isn't
>>>>> a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
>>>> examine yourself.
>> <crickets>
>
> You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
Evasion noted.
Pink Freud
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:TPmdnZkNG8H-p2DW...@posted.toastnet...
And besides which, what is more likely?
A dog at a party?
Or a demon in a photograph?
Reverend Dave
Except that it was only the husband that had a drug problem, not the
wife.
Leaving the drug addict out of it, the wife, the person taking the
picture, and the rest of the guests should have noticed a dog next to the
table with the cake on it. I suspect that a dog anywhere near the cake
would have caused something of a commotion, yet apparently you think that
nobody would notice this.
http://www.kdvr.com/kdvr-demonicimagecapturedincoup-
5065065,0,7489651.story
>
>>>>>>>> The story was carried by the local Fox affiliate and nobody
>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>> And?
>>>>>> I question their so called expertise, something I stated from the
>>>>>> outset.
>>>>> And?
>>>> Are you really such and idiot that you can't understand this?
>>> I'm not an idiot at all. It's a shame you can't say the same about
>>> yourself.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not the
>> one who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a banquet
>> facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
>>
>>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
>>> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>>
>> I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made
>> such a connection.
>
> You questioned Fox's expertise. Now you should show why you believe
> that made a difference.
No Tim, I didn't question Fox's expertise at all. I questioned their
choice of so called "experts".
As to why that makes a difference consider this;
The "expert" from the paranormal research society said he could not
explain the photo. His findings are inconclusive and therefore of no real
benefit to promoting the story.
The second "expert" said that the photo didn't look double printed, or
spliced and that the grain of the picture was uniform. For Fox, that was
enough evidence for them to consider running the story.
Here's the question you should be asking yourself. Had the second expert
looked at the picture and declared it to be a fake, would Fox have
bothered to run the piece? Without the "wow' factor, there's no story.
Here's a scenario that you and the second expert didn't consider that
could establish the photo as a fake.
step 1: scan the original photo to an image file
step 2: edit the image file using Photoshop or similar photo editor,
adding the dog into the picture, use the editor's grain tool to give the
picture a nice uniform look
step 3: get the image printed on stock emulsion photo paper rather than
going to a photo kiosk which uses a newer development process in order to
give it the appearance of being an old photo
step 4: call Fox news concerning your "demon" photo and let the fun begin
>
>>>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it
>>>>>> isn't a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
>>>>> examine yourself.
>>> <crickets>
>>
>> You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
>
> Evasion noted.
>
Why? Just because I don't run along and do your bidding? You have an
overdeveloped sense of self importance Tim.
The photo is available online in several locations. Download it and look
at it with a decent editor. If you zoom it you can see a blue haze just
above the husband's left shoulder that suggests the picture was editted.
The husband's left ear is blurred and the "dog's" muzzle is also blurred
and appears to be missing nostrils.
http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/demon_shows_up_at_wedding/
http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/ghastlyghostgallery/demoninthep
icture.htm
You can think whatever you want, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a
fake.
Tim McGaughy
Hold up, Mr. Moron.
The reporter talked to two people. Nobody else. Not the person taking
the picture, not the rest of the guests.
> would have caused something of a commotion, yet apparently you think that
> nobody would notice this.
Perhaps someone did. The reporter did not talk to everyone who had been
at the party.
>>> I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not the
>>> one who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a banquet
>>> facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
No, you're the idiot who thinks you can talk to two witnesses to find
out what the entire crowd saw.
>>>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
>>>> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>>> I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made
>>> such a connection.
>> You questioned Fox's expertise. Now you should show why you believe
>> that made a difference.
>
>
> No Tim, I didn't question Fox's expertise at all. I questioned their
> choice of so called "experts".
Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what they
are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
> As to why that makes a difference consider this;
>
> The "expert" from the paranormal research society said he could not
> explain the photo. His findings are inconclusive and therefore of no real
> benefit to promoting the story.
>
> The second "expert" said that the photo didn't look double printed, or
> spliced and that the grain of the picture was uniform. For Fox, that was
> enough evidence for them to consider running the story.
>
> Here's the question you should be asking yourself. Had the second expert
> looked at the picture and declared it to be a fake, would Fox have
> bothered to run the piece? Without the "wow' factor, there's no story.
>
> Here's a scenario that you and the second expert didn't consider that
> could establish the photo as a fake.
Wow. I didn't know that you were such the expert.
> step 1: scan the original photo to an image file
>
> step 2: edit the image file using Photoshop or similar photo editor,
> adding the dog into the picture, use the editor's grain tool to give the
> picture a nice uniform look
>
> step 3: get the image printed on stock emulsion photo paper rather than
> going to a photo kiosk which uses a newer development process in order to
> give it the appearance of being an old photo
>
> step 4: call Fox news concerning your "demon" photo and let the fun begin
You go do that. Tell us what happens.
>>>>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it
>>>>>>> isn't a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>>>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo to
>>>>>> examine yourself.
>>>> <crickets>
>>> You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>
> Why? Just because I don't run along and do your bidding? You have an
> overdeveloped sense of self importance Tim.
Continued evasion noted.
> The photo is available online in several locations. Download it and look
> at it with a decent editor. If you zoom it you can see a blue haze just
> above the husband's left shoulder that suggests the picture was editted.
You see the same blue haze between his jacket and his white shirt. It's
either a camera artifact or a development artifact.
Unless you want to suggest that his shirt was composited in, too?
> The husband's left ear is blurred and the "dog's" muzzle is also blurred
> and appears to be missing nostrils.
His right ear is just as blurred as his left.
As for the dog, I see nostrils. As for why it's blurred, dogs don't tend
to sit still for pictures.
Anyway, why the hell would someone composite in a dog but take away the
nostrils?
Reverend Dave
As you say, perhaps, then again perhaps not. Whether anyone actually saw
a dog at the party is a complete unknown. Any suggestion that there was a
dog at the party is pure speculation. The only thing we know for sure is
that two people have stated that there was no dog at the party.
As for the person with camera, you need to ask yourself at least a couple
of questions. If that person had seen the dog, would he/she not want to
do a reshoot of the couple without the dog in the picture? When the
couple moved away from the table wouldn't the dog on the table next to
the cake be obvious to everyone, including the couple? Wouldn't a dog on
a table right next to a wedding cake cause enough of a commotion to alert
everyone, including the couple, to the dog's presence?
>
>>>> I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not
>>>> the one who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a
>>>> banquet facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
>
> No, you're the idiot who thinks you can talk to two witnesses to find
> out what the entire crowd saw.
And yet, in the comments at the Fox website, nobody came forward to
refute the couple's claim that there was no dog. The comment that
identified it as the mother-in-law made as much sense as any.
You do realize that I've never actually called you an idiot or a moron.
Why do you think it's necessary to call me one?
>
>>>>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows
>>>>> what they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>>>> I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made
>>>> such a connection.
>>> You questioned Fox's expertise. Now you should show why you believe
>>> that made a difference.
>>
>>
>> No Tim, I didn't question Fox's expertise at all. I questioned their
>> choice of so called "experts".
>
> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
Are you really this dense or are you just trying to be difficult? Again,
for the second time, I never made such a connection.
>
>> As to why that makes a difference consider this;
>>
>> The "expert" from the paranormal research society said he could not
>> explain the photo. His findings are inconclusive and therefore of no
>> real benefit to promoting the story.
>>
>> The second "expert" said that the photo didn't look double printed,
>> or spliced and that the grain of the picture was uniform. For Fox,
>> that was enough evidence for them to consider running the story.
>>
>> Here's the question you should be asking yourself. Had the second
>> expert looked at the picture and declared it to be a fake, would Fox
>> have bothered to run the piece? Without the "wow' factor, there's no
>> story.
>>
>> Here's a scenario that you and the second expert didn't consider that
>> could establish the photo as a fake.
>
> Wow. I didn't know that you were such the expert.
I'm going to guess that you don't even want to bother considering it as
an alternative possibility. You're so stuck on the real dog at the
reception scenario that nothing else works for you. As for being an
expert, I've had experience with scanning, photo editing, cameras, and
development techniques. I'm no expert but I find it strange that Fox's
photo expert didn't consider the scenario I'm suggesting. Either that, or
he did, and Fox edited it out of the interview.
>
>> step 1: scan the original photo to an image file
>>
>> step 2: edit the image file using Photoshop or similar photo editor,
>> adding the dog into the picture, use the editor's grain tool to give
>> the picture a nice uniform look
>>
>> step 3: get the image printed on stock emulsion photo paper rather
>> than going to a photo kiosk which uses a newer development process in
>> order to give it the appearance of being an old photo
>>
>> step 4: call Fox news concerning your "demon" photo and let the fun
>> begin
>
> You go do that. Tell us what happens.
As I stated, it's a scenario, not something I intend to do.
>
>>>>>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it
>>>>>>>> isn't a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>>>>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo
>>>>>>> to examine yourself.
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>> You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>
>> Why? Just because I don't run along and do your bidding? You have an
>> overdeveloped sense of self importance Tim.
>
> Continued evasion noted.
Had you bothered to read my explanation as to why contacting the couple
is totally unnecessary (the photo is available online), you would have
realized that I'm not evading anything. Are you sure that you don't have
comprehension issues?
>
>> The photo is available online in several locations. Download it and
>> look at it with a decent editor. If you zoom it you can see a blue
>> haze just above the husband's left shoulder that suggests the picture
>> was editted.
>
> You see the same blue haze between his jacket and his white shirt.
> It's either a camera artifact or a development artifact.
Is it? How do you know this?
>
> Unless you want to suggest that his shirt was composited in, too?
The blue haze over his shoulder is completely different from what's on
the shirt. It is wider and more jagged. It doesn't extend down the arm of
his jacket, but stops at the shoulder joint.
>
>
>> The husband's left ear is blurred and the "dog's" muzzle is also
>> blurred and appears to be missing nostrils.
>
> His right ear is just as blurred as his left.
No it isn't. The left ear has far more blur and distortion to it.
>
> As for the dog, I see nostrils. As for why it's blurred, dogs don't
> tend to sit still for pictures.
Do you really see nostrils or do you want to see nostrils because it
supports your "dog at the reception theory"? As for dogs sitting still
for pictures, this is a flash photo which means that it was shot at a
shutter speed of 1/60th of a second. This means that the dog would have
to be virtually gyrating (like any good demon dog would) in order to blur
the features.
>
> Anyway, why the hell would someone composite in a dog but take away
> the nostrils?
Perhaps because they weren't really good at Photoshop?
Here's something else about the photo to consider. If you look closely at
the husband's eyes you will see a slight amount of red eye in the iris
and a reflection of the flash back from the pupil. If you look at the
"dog", there's no reflection of light from the pupil. In the case of an
animal with green or green yellow eyes you should expect to see the iris
appear to be a glowing, somewhat fluorescent green.
The problem as I see it is that you're stuck on the "real dog at the
reception" theory and refuse to consider any other possibilities.
Here's a couple of more possibilities to consider.
It's a stuffed toy dog, some of which are very lifelike in both size and
appearance. This would explain the iris/pupil issue.
It's an optical illusion.
Either of the above with a little augmenting to make the "demon" look
more other worldly and realistic.
Whether your scenario, my scenario, or one of the other scenarios I've
mentioned is true, it all boils down to the same thing - it's a bullshit
photo from a bullshit story. We have no idea how Fox edited the story. It
could well be that they edited out some of the photo experts commentary
to make it fit their needs. There is no way to know. What Fox is selling
is the old "man finds God and beats addiction" story line with a demon
thrown in for the simple minded slobs who believe in that shit.
Tim McGaughy
It's not speculation when there's evidence. The suggestion that the
evidence is faked is speculation.
> The only thing we know for sure is
> that two people have stated that there was no dog at the party.
Two unreliable witnesses. Another thing we know for sure is that there's
a photo of a dog.
> As for the person with camera, you need to ask yourself at least a couple
> of questions. If that person had seen the dog, would he/she not want to
> do a reshoot of the couple without the dog in the picture?
People quite often fail to notice things in the background when focusing
on something else.
> When the
> couple moved away from the table wouldn't the dog on the table next to
> the cake be obvious to everyone, including the couple?
No. It would probably be obvious to some. There's no reason EVERYONE
would notice, and certainly no reason a couple with their backs to it
would notice.
> Wouldn't a dog on
> a table right next to a wedding cake cause enough of a commotion to alert
> everyone, including the couple, to the dog's presence?
No. See above. It could cause enough concern for someone to remove the
dog, which would contribute somewhat to the couples' conviction that
there was no dog there.
>>>>> I'm not so sure that either of those statements are true. I'm not
>>>>> the one who thinks that there was a real dog that wandered into a
>>>>> banquet facility and wasn't noticed by the staff or guests.
>> No, you're the idiot who thinks you can talk to two witnesses to find
>> out what the entire crowd saw.
>
> And yet, in the comments at the Fox website, nobody came forward to
> refute the couple's claim that there was no dog.
Argument from ignorance.
> You do realize that I've never actually called you an idiot or a moron.
> Why do you think it's necessary to call me one?
Because I'm convinced you're an idiot and a moron.
>>>>>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows
>>>>>> what they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>>>>> I suspect you may have comprehension issues Tim, since I never made
>>>>> such a connection.
>>>> You questioned Fox's expertise. Now you should show why you believe
>>>> that made a difference.
>>>
>>> No Tim, I didn't question Fox's expertise at all. I questioned their
>>> choice of so called "experts".
That's questioning their expertise, my dim friend.
>> Again, please explain the connection between whether Fox knows what
>> they are doing and whether the couple faked the picture.
>
> Are you really this dense or are you just trying to be difficult? Again,
> for the second time, I never made such a connection.
Fine, I'll play your silly game. Please explain the connection between
whether the photo expert knew what he was doing and whether they faked
the picture.
>>> As to why that makes a difference consider this;
>>>
>>> The "expert" from the paranormal research society said he could not
>>> explain the photo. His findings are inconclusive and therefore of no
>>> real benefit to promoting the story.
Irrelevant. He didn't know whether it was a real dog or not.
>>> The second "expert" said that the photo didn't look double printed,
>>> or spliced and that the grain of the picture was uniform. For Fox,
>>> that was enough evidence for them to consider running the story.
So what? He didn't specify that it was a demon dog, either.
>>> Here's the question you should be asking yourself. Had the second
>>> expert looked at the picture and declared it to be a fake, would Fox
>>> have bothered to run the piece? Without the "wow' factor, there's no
>>> story.
>>>
>>> Here's a scenario that you and the second expert didn't consider that
>>> could establish the photo as a fake.
>> Wow. I didn't know that you were such the expert.
>
> I'm going to guess that you don't even want to bother considering it as
> an alternative possibility. You're so stuck on the real dog at the
> reception scenario that nothing else works for you. As for being an
> expert, I've had experience with scanning, photo editing, cameras, and
> development techniques.
So have I, chuckie. It's curious you can't recognize a blue haze
generated by a lens, but go on.
> I'm no expert but I find it strange that Fox's
> photo expert didn't consider the scenario I'm suggesting. Either that, or
> he did, and Fox edited it out of the interview.
Either that, or he'd have thought your scenario is ludicrous and not
worth serious consideration.
>>> step 1: scan the original photo to an image file
>>>
>>> step 2: edit the image file using Photoshop or similar photo editor,
>>> adding the dog into the picture, use the editor's grain tool to give
>>> the picture a nice uniform look
>>>
>>> step 3: get the image printed on stock emulsion photo paper rather
>>> than going to a photo kiosk which uses a newer development process in
>>> order to give it the appearance of being an old photo
>>>
>>> step 4: call Fox news concerning your "demon" photo and let the fun
>>> begin
>> You go do that. Tell us what happens.
>
> As I stated, it's a scenario, not something I intend to do.
Then you know it would fool someone who works with photos for a living
because...?
I can tell scans from film originals. Assuming you're actually telling
the truth, I'd bet you can too. It would also be extremely hard to give
two separate pictures the same grain, given that they already have
differing levels of grain to begin with.
>>>>>>>>> Just because one guy that works for a photo studio thinks it
>>>>>>>>> isn't a fake doesn't mean it isn't.
>>>>>>>> So contact the couple in question, and get a copy of the photo
>>>>>>>> to examine yourself.
>>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>> You hear crickets? You should get that checked out!
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>> Why? Just because I don't run along and do your bidding? You have an
>>> overdeveloped sense of self importance Tim.
>> Continued evasion noted.
>
> Had you bothered to read my explanation as to why contacting the couple
> is totally unnecessary (the photo is available online), you would have
> realized that I'm not evading anything. Are you sure that you don't have
> comprehension issues?
So you think the online photo is a completely accurate representation of
the original? How funny.
>>> The photo is available online in several locations. Download it and
>>> look at it with a decent editor. If you zoom it you can see a blue
>>> haze just above the husband's left shoulder that suggests the picture
>>> was editted.
>> You see the same blue haze between his jacket and his white shirt.
>> It's either a camera artifact or a development artifact.
>
> Is it? How do you know this?
Because I've seen other photos with the exact same type of blue haze
between bright and dark areas.
>> Unless you want to suggest that his shirt was composited in, too?
>
> The blue haze over his shoulder is completely different from what's on
> the shirt.
I'm looking at a copy of the photo in my browser at this moment, got it
blown up pretty far, and I really don't see what you're talking about.
It's the same blue haze that extends over the dark suit from the lighter
areas.
> It is wider and more jagged. It doesn't extend down the arm of
> his jacket, but stops at the shoulder joint.
You're making shit up, now. I clearly see the haze extending down the
entire border between his jacket and the cake. In fact, I DON"T see it
around the dog's face, so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to
be. If you think the haze is supposed to be evidence of tampering, don't
you think it would be in the area you think was tampered with?
>>> The husband's left ear is blurred and the "dog's" muzzle is also
>>> blurred and appears to be missing nostrils.
>> His right ear is just as blurred as his left.
>
> No it isn't. The left ear has far more blur and distortion to it.
No. I'm looking at it right now. The resolution of the entire picture
overall is crappy, especially when you blow it up far enough to get a
good look at his ears. The ear on the dog's side is against a roughly
flesh colored background, so that's what probably fooled you.
>> As for the dog, I see nostrils. As for why it's blurred, dogs don't
>> tend to sit still for pictures.
>
> Do you really see nostrils or do you want to see nostrils because it
> supports your "dog at the reception theory"?
Now that I'm staring at it, yes, I definitely see nostrils. And the part
of his muzzle that is missing is actually hidden BEHIND the corner of
the cake.
> As for dogs sitting still
> for pictures, this is a flash photo which means that it was shot at a
> shutter speed of 1/60th of a second. This means that the dog would have
> to be virtually gyrating (like any good demon dog would) in order to blur
> the features.
The features aren't that blurred.
> Here's something else about the photo to consider. If you look closely at
> the husband's eyes you will see a slight amount of red eye in the iris
> and a reflection of the flash back from the pupil.
The picture I'm looking at is
http://www.kdvr.com/media/photo/2008-12/5064946.jpg
I see no evidence of red eye whatsoever.
But I'll give you that it is either a flash or a lit photo.
> If you look at the
> "dog", there's no reflection of light from the pupil. In the case of an
> animal with green or green yellow eyes you should expect to see the iris
> appear to be a glowing, somewhat fluorescent green.
You obviously have no idea what a dog's eyes look like when lit by a
flash. I've seen a flash where the dogs eyes are glowing blue. My own
dog's eyes, when flashed, are an orange-yellow color very close to what
we see in the photo.
Yap
> On May 19, 12:31 am, Heike Hoffmann <sexyampelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Internet. There is nothing.....and the yammering, will go on and
> on....before you present, be very sure of what you speak. Otherwise,
> all's you'll get is loud yapping; so common here.
Yes, it is a pastime tactic.....so much jobless in the US now?
Many years have passed, I can't remember the doggie, so that must be a
demon....ha, lets get Fox, they represent the conservative bigotry.
Yap
help me out, wat r n e other ways, or can u recomend some sites to
visit or something?? ** plz help **
Tim McGaughy
Step one is to stop forging usenet posts.
Terrys
> Yap wrote:
> > i get horney, ways to reduce that are i masterbate and get my bf to
> Step one is to stop forging usenet posts.
Is that where you write them out, and glue them to the monitor?
Forging the headers is easier and more effective [for small values of
`effective'].