The face in the catflap again

6 views
Skip to first unread message

MNRebecca

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 10:02:41 AM1/5/11
to
Hello again.

In 2005 I posted this picture...

http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/SummerKitchen.jpg

...and asked about the orbs. One responder wrote (in effect), "The
heck with the orbs. What's with the face in the cat flap?"

http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlap.jpg

Here's a photo taken about 4 years later. Anybody see the face again?

http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlapFaceAgain.jpg

If so, can you find anything in the picture to explain it (besides
something supernatural, I mean)?

Thanks.

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 10:12:20 AM1/5/11
to

Huh?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

MNRebecca

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 10:54:38 AM1/5/11
to
On Jan 5, 9:12 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Huh?
>

A tad more info (that shouldn't be too leading, since the 2005 pix are
inside and the 2009 picture was taken outside): The brown room shown
in the 2005 pix, called the summer kitchen, is also the location of
the window where I recently noticed the face again (18 months after
originally taking and reviewing the photo). To remind folks, there is
nothing IN the square cat flap that sits low in the door. No swinging
door or rubber drape or anything. It's just a square framed opening
between the summer kitchen and the garage (which makes that weird flat
face a little hard to explain since it can't be a reflection or smudge
on black rubber or anything like that).

Bgurney

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 11:07:43 AM1/5/11
to
Yes, I see the face in both photos .....

Ofnuts

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 12:10:15 PM1/5/11
to

I don't see anything in the last, but in the first it must be an
out-of-focus illuminated dust speck (there are others clearly visible in
the picture).

--
Bertrand

Val Hallah

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 1:18:31 PM1/5/11
to
On Jan 5, 4:02 pm, MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
> Hello again.
>
> In 2005 I posted this picture...
>
> http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/SummerKitchen.jpg
>
> ...and asked about the orbs.  One responder wrote (in effect), "The
> heck with the orbs.  What's with the face in the cat flap?"
>
> http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlap.jpg
>
> Here's a photo taken about 4 years later.  Anybody see the face again?
>
> http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlapFaceAgain...

>
> If so, can you find anything in the picture to explain it (besides
> something supernatural, I mean)?
>
> Thanks.

thats not a face...its an arse

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

GMAN

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 2:51:12 PM1/5/11
to
>....and asked about the orbs. One responder wrote (in effect), "The

>heck with the orbs. What's with the face in the cat flap?"
>
>http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlap.jpg
>
>Here's a photo taken about 4 years later. Anybody see the face again?
>
>http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlapFaceAgain.jpg
>
>If so, can you find anything in the picture to explain it (besides
>something supernatural, I mean)?
>
>Thanks.
Its the house elf
Message has been deleted

Robert Coe

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 9:56:53 PM1/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:56:03 -0500, shiva das <sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote:
: In article <shiv-A31187.1...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,
: shiva das <sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote:
:
: > In article
: > <86c88c33-8754-475d...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
: > MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
: >
: >
: > Huh?
:
: To elaborate on my question, if the cat flap doesn't have a cat flap,
: why are you calling it a cat flap? Wouldn't "just a square framed
: opening between the summer kitchen and the garage" have been a better
: description?

The correct term is "hole in the door". But maybe that lacks the cachet of
"cat flap".

: Until I can figure that one out I'll be a bit tardy in looking for faces
: caused by chromatic aberration or lens flare or free-floating dust
: particles out of focus.

Or by anything else. If we let the OP draw us into a discussion of the occult
in this newsgroup, we're rather more stupid that I guess I had thought.

Bob

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 10:20:25 PM1/5/11
to

Agreed.
This is more troll than photo question.
The dumb, out of context, exterior shot only adds weight to that conclusion.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Frank ess

unread,
Jan 5, 2011, 11:30:37 PM1/5/11
to

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2011010519202578840-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

You guys are all hat and no ignore.

--
Frank ess

Message has been deleted

Whisky-dave

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 7:47:52 AM1/6/11
to

Is it a one eyed cat coming in or as you say a cat going out ;-)

Not that I could see it.


George Kerby

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 9:56:04 AM1/6/11
to


On 1/5/11 11:45 PM, in article
shiv-985083.0...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com, "shiva das"
<sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mp6dnRlvor3t2LjQ...@giganews.com>,


> "Frank ess" <fr...@fsheff.com> wrote:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2011010519202578840-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2011-01-05 18:56:53 -0800, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>>>
>>>>
>

> <pruning applied>


>
>
>>>>
>>>> Or by anything else. If we let the OP draw us into a discussion of the
>>>> occult
>>>> in this newsgroup, we're rather more stupid that I guess I had thought.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>> This is more troll than photo question.
>>> The dumb, out of context, exterior shot only adds weight to that
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You guys are all hat and no ignore.
>

> *Woosh*

There went the kitty...

otter

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 10:10:38 AM1/6/11
to
On Jan 5, 9:02 am, MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
> Hello again.
>
> In 2005 I posted this picture...

I suggest you spend your energies fixing up your house, rather than
taking bad pictures.

MNRebecca

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 10:24:52 AM1/6/11
to
This is a test.

If, in the course of your banking duties, you happened upon a coin
that gave off an eerie glow, would you consult solely with a person
interested in strange phenomena, or would you also consult a physicist
and/or metallurgist?

Don't bother responding. My history project is important to me; I
want feedback from people who are accurate and straightforward. I'll
look for photography input elsewhere.

Allen

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 10:37:29 AM1/6/11
to
If I found a coin like that when I was a banker, the first thing I would
have done is show it to other people and ask if they could see it. If
none of them could, then I would visit an ophthalmologist or a psychiatrist.
Allen

Whisky-dave

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 11:14:03 AM1/6/11
to
On Jan 6, 3:24 pm, MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
> This is a test.
>
> If, in the course of your banking duties,

banking duties is that a code for something.

> you happened upon a coin
> that gave off an eerie glow, would you consult solely with a person
> interested in strange phenomena, or would you also consult a physicist
> and/or metallurgist?

I'd try to photograph it.
I'd ask the nearest person if they too could see the glow.
if they could I'd drop it and seek medical help.
Things like that could be radioactive.
I'd keep it away from any film I had in case it fogged it,
but I don;t have much film about.

>
> Don't bother responding.  My history project is important to me; I
> want feedback from people who are accurate and straightforward.  I'll
> look for photography input elsewhere.

So why the question about this coin ?


Val Hallah

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 11:24:14 AM1/6/11
to

...I meant the bloke in the jeans....

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 11:37:55 AM1/6/11
to
On 2011-01-06 07:24:52 -0800, MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu> said:

> This is a test.

No it isn't.


>
> If, in the course of your banking duties,

I have banking duties?

> you happened upon a coin
> that gave off an eerie glow, would you consult solely with a person
> interested in strange phenomena,

Why would that be a first choice? There would be no logical or valid
answer from that source.

> or would you also consult a physicist
> and/or metallurgist?

Consult? You appear to be posing a loaded hypothetical question here
with no basis in reality.

>
> Don't bother responding.

Then why bother posting?

> My history project is important to me;

What history project?
When have you mentioned a history project?

> I want feedback from people who are accurate and straightforward. I'll
> look for photography input elsewhere.

In your OP you talk about "orbs" and crediting the "supernatural" for
possible elements in the image you posted. The subscribers to the
various photo groups are for the most part practical, technically
minded, and skeptical individuals.
I would suggest, unless you stick to seeking answers for stuff such as
the two examples of lens flare in that first image, you will find
skeptical derision as a response if you hint that you believe there is,
for you, only a "supernatural" cause.
If you want a solution, or answer to something happening in your
photography say so without the qualifying hint at the "supernatural",
and you should get some sincere responses.
If you are trying to provoke a discussion regarding the "supernatural"
in a photo group, your post will be seen as little more than a troll.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 4:23:40 PM1/6/11
to
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:37:55 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>
>In your OP you talk about "orbs" and crediting the "supernatural" for
>possible elements in the image you posted. The subscribers to the
>various photo groups are for the most part practical, technically
>minded, and skeptical individuals.


We may have a possible new mandate for the SI: Capturing the
paranormal.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Frank ess

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 4:24:30 PM1/6/11
to

"shiva das" <sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
news:shiv-985083.0...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...

> In article <mp6dnRlvor3t2LjQ...@giganews.com>,
> "Frank ess" <fr...@fsheff.com> wrote:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2011010519202578840-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> > On 2011-01-05 18:56:53 -0800, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>> >
>> >>
>
> <pruning applied>

>
>
>> >>
>> >> Or by anything else. If we let the OP draw us into a discussion of the
>> >> occult
>> >> in this newsgroup, we're rather more stupid that I guess I had
>> >> thought.
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> > This is more troll than photo question.
>> > The dumb, out of context, exterior shot only adds weight to that
>> > conclusion.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You guys are all hat and no ignore.
>
> *Woosh*

If that's what it sounded like to you ...

George Kerby

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 8:38:22 PM1/6/11
to


On 1/6/11 3:23 PM, in article 6hcci6p5tvr4am5v6...@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:

HEY!

I like that. Gets MY vote!

Grimly Curmudgeon

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 9:46:24 AM1/15/11
to
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember MNRebecca <web...@morris.umn.edu>
saying something like:

All I saw in the catflap was a smudge, or a pattern of light on the
floor behind, if it was a hole.

>Here's a photo taken about 4 years later. Anybody see the face again?
>
>http://personal.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/SawyerSep2005/CatFlapFaceAgain.jpg

The face in the window, apparently of a young woman, is nothing more
than the brain's attempts to see recognisable order out of randomness.
Iow, it's a reflection of trees off to the left of the photographer.

Where do you think the Martian canals came from?

Supernatural explanations are always total bollocks.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages