REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

a reply to: peacefulpete

i appreciate you clarifying on that point, i didn't realize it was your vid.

thank you!

Just take a look at the countless examples of Pareidolia in often high quality/resolution images taken recently - and then ask yourself honestly - what is more likely in regards to the OP image? A demon/paranormal explanation or just another example of Pareidolia which would be obviously far more common to see in old grainy/low res pictures - especially after cropping and blowing up and enhancing colors/contrast?

You do no good service towards the study & proving the existence of the paranormal by stubbornly dismissing the most likeliest of explanation. I see the same flawed mindsets within the alien/UFO field (even more-so) which is unfortunate as I'm open minded to the possibilities but ultimately am most interested in quality proof, not crap quality images and hearsay which prove nothing.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: GreenGunther
He should get back on the drugs, clearly he lives in fairy land when he’s sober.
Demons?
Come at me demon bro.

But for real, I think there’s a screw loose with anyone willing to entertain the notion of demons, spirits etc..
I like reality to much and avoid cheap cop-outs like ‘a demon made me do it’.

For the most part, I’m in control of my own life, I just wish everyone would start living like they’re responsible for their own future.
It’s a dog.

I'm always entertained by the mentality that being close-minded to the possibility of spirituality, leaves some people thinking they're more realistic.

Ultimately it's most realistic to be open-minded about things that we don't know the truth about.

And yet here I am, calling hoax on a photo of a fella and a dog.
If demons existed I’m pretty sure we’d have some concrete proof by now? Instead we entertain delusions..

We could prove electrons, neutrons, protons, sub-atomical particles exist...

I mean c’mon!

Oh okay, knew this one looked familiar.


Two archived articles from the net:
2007:
WMD

2015:Redbook

----

At least two earlier threads on it:
2007: www.abovetopsecret.com...

2010: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Conclusion: The following post from the 2007 thread IMO lays out the best conclusion: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Though, I do feel the closeup(unedited) while blurry loosely defines the shape of a dog, the background in the image creating the shape with pareidolia, which looks like a rug or other on the wall, seems like the answer. Second thought, double exposure, though that was ruled out in the original article.

Lastly, why not a spirit of a dog rather than a demon? Guess someone would have discussed it with them if the deceased dog's ghost was seen there before or with someone and or attached to one of the humans, if known. Despite that opine, and despite what it is, am glad the image helped the man out.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

Me, "semantic nonsense"? Coming from you, that's rich.

A Google on "Accidental Double Exposure" comes up with this:

Accidental Double Exposure Photos

Can't find one showing a demonic dog, I'm afraid. And please - stop bloody shouting!

Well I'm still not seeing any photos with one small anomaly like the photo in topic.

Yes semantic nonsense.

Why did you say you Googled it and then posted a link to Bing? Do you realize Bing works much worse than Google?

I'm not shouting but I would like the trolls to please - stop bloody trolling!

Good grief. You complain about "semantic nonsense" and then you split hairs about Google/Bing? Priceless. Irony is probably lost on you, though.

You really are making a fool of yourself. If you want to see a troll I suggest that you look in a mirror.

a reply to: dreamingawake


Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

I also wonder why people think that this is a demon. The bloke's wife apparently thinks it is Satan himself. Why would Satan photobomb a wedding reception?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

No, sweetheart, I'm not interested in you, I'm interested in the topic that I made the thread about.

The one with the manipulated images to make it seem like a demon kinda dog is over someones shoulder?

It’s just the usual hoax material.
“Nothing there, until the image is changed to make it look like something.”

Oh you're right: Everything mysterious is a hoax.

You put words in people's mouths that they did not say. You do that a lot and it really is irritating.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: peacefulpete

Is that belief founded on technical information? Is that your LAYMANS understanding?

Are you someone with experience or history dealing with these sorts of technical, non faith based, photo problems?

Or is it a "feeling" sort of belief you have in "zoom" capabilities.

EDIT TO ADD:
Well, we could just stop building space telescopes and high definition lenses. All we need to do is to zoom and enhance old pictures from crappy cameras.

Its not like we cant just zoom in more, amirite.

I'm just a child of the 80's so I've seen film photos my whole life, that's all. The blurriness of the zoom-in shot still looks like that of an unedited film photo. They always had a slight blur to them, just like box-TV's and VCR's always had a slight blur, compared to the crystal-clear pics and TV's and monitors that we are used to nowadays.

Anyway yeah it's a good reason to conclude that the photo was not manipulated, that the blurriness is even across the photo, and it's the typical blur of film photos.

What I can't do is narrow down when the photo was taken though, besides acknowledging that it looks like a film photo.

originally posted by: DividedByZero
I remember hearing about this story a few years back. I was divided on what to think then, but my more sceptical mind now seems to think it's not a demon and some other more simple explanation would explain the face above his shoulder in the picture.

For curiosity sake, I would be interested in hearing from others why they think a photograph would reveal something potentially from the spiritual world that the naked eye doesn't seem to pick up.

There's a long history of spirits allegedly showing up in photography, unintentionally. The camera lens may happen to be more sensitive to certain light frequencies that the human eye doesn't usually see.

I guess it's very similar to asking why spirits are usually unseen in general, but they sometimes show up clearly in dreams or even in waking life? Maybe it partly depends on the spirit WANTING to show itself?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: peacefulpete

It could just be a statue or a stuffed dog behind him. The only thing we have to go on that nothing was there...is his word. Far be it from anyone to troll or hoax on the internet for attention.

Well, such a statue or stuffed dog would be weird to be sitting next to the 50th wedding anniversary cake.

I'm not sure when this case really first came out, but it seems long before the internet blew up, just based on the typically blurry film photo, I would have guessed that the photo was from the 90's or 80's.

So it was before internet trolling or hoaxing was a thing. Plus, he hasn't done it. The case has received very little attention, and that short newsclip seems the most online content that exists. (It's originally from '07.)

originally posted by: fiverx313
a reply to: peacefulpete

i appreciate you clarifying on that point, i didn't realize it was your vid.

thank you!

Yeah it's a small non-monetized channel. Mainly because I got a new iMac that is easy to make videos with.

originally posted by: Navieko
Just take a look at the countless examples of Pareidolia in often high quality/resolution images taken recently - and then ask yourself honestly - what is more likely in regards to the OP image? A demon/paranormal explanation or just another example of Pareidolia which would be obviously far more common to see in old grainy/low res pictures - especially after cropping and blowing up and enhancing colors/contrast?

You do no good service towards the study & proving the existence of the paranormal by stubbornly dismissing the most likeliest of explanation. I see the same flawed mindsets within the alien/UFO field (even more-so) which is unfortunate as I'm open minded to the possibilities but ultimately am most interested in quality proof, not crap quality images and hearsay which prove nothing.

Looks pretty clear to me, and to the guy in the photo, who changed his life based on that photo.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: GreenGunther
He should get back on the drugs, clearly he lives in fairy land when he’s sober.
Demons?
Come at me demon bro.

But for real, I think there’s a screw loose with anyone willing to entertain the notion of demons, spirits etc..
I like reality to much and avoid cheap cop-outs like ‘a demon made me do it’.

For the most part, I’m in control of my own life, I just wish everyone would start living like they’re responsible for their own future.
It’s a dog.

I'm always entertained by the mentality that being close-minded to the possibility of spirituality, leaves some people thinking they're more realistic.

Ultimately it's most realistic to be open-minded about things that we don't know the truth about.

And yet here I am, calling hoax on a photo of a fella and a dog.
If demons existed I’m pretty sure we’d have some concrete proof by now? Instead we entertain delusions..

We could prove electrons, neutrons, protons, sub-atomical particles exist...

I mean c’mon!

Yeah funny how spirits just never seem to give us much tangible proof. There are some odd photos though and I do think this is one of the best.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Oh okay, knew this one looked familiar.


Two archived articles from the net:
2007:
WMD

2015:Redbook

----

At least two earlier threads on it:
2007: www.abovetopsecret.com...

2010: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Conclusion: The following post from the 2007 thread IMO lays out the best conclusion: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Though, I do feel the closeup(unedited) while blurry loosely defines the shape of a dog, the background in the image creating the shape with pareidolia, which looks like a rug or other on the wall, seems like the answer. Second thought, double exposure, though that was ruled out in the original article.

Lastly, why not a spirit of a dog rather than a demon? Guess someone would have discussed it with them if the deceased dog's ghost was seen there before or with someone and or attached to one of the humans, if known. Despite that opine, and despite what it is, am glad the image helped the man out.

OK, I had searched ATS for "Joe Martinez" and nothing came up for his name, so I thought this was the 1st time the topic was posted to ATS.

Your first link has broken images / links, but the second link does have that same news clip from '07.

The threads are worth looking through, for sure.

Here's a nice post:

everyones screaming DOG, DOG, DOG, except what everyones FAILING to realize is the fact that the creature has NO ears. I mean is it THAT outrageous to think that its possibly a demon? Entities that have been believed in by most civilizations since, well, civilization? Id also like to point out that the photo the poster posted was zoomed in incredibly low resolution. When i zoomed in HD I see several sharp white teeth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: peacefulpete

Lol you trolls are more creative than I expect. Yes, now it's a decoration of an evil dog face on the wall, at a 50th wedding anniversary lol.

again you keep making stuff up.

Why do you do this every thread?


What evil dog? I never said it was an evil dog? try responding to correct posts and not confuse yourself.


Please stop lying about what others post, it just makes you look delusional.

a reply to: peacefulpete


"....and to the guy in the photo, who changed his life based on that photo."

Yeah - a druggie who got religion.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

Me, "semantic nonsense"? Coming from you, that's rich.

A Google on "Accidental Double Exposure" comes up with this:

Accidental Double Exposure Photos

Can't find one showing a demonic dog, I'm afraid. And please - stop bloody shouting!

Well I'm still not seeing any photos with one small anomaly like the photo in topic.

Yes semantic nonsense.

Why did you say you Googled it and then posted a link to Bing? Do you realize Bing works much worse than Google?

I'm not shouting but I would like the trolls to please - stop bloody trolling!

Good grief. You complain about "semantic nonsense" and then you split hairs about Google/Bing? Priceless. Irony is probably lost on you, though.

You really are making a fool of yourself. If you want to see a troll I suggest that you look in a mirror.

It's not splitting hairs lol. Bing is garbage and Google is the best search engine. Calling one the other is like calling it the opposite of what it is.

a reply to: InhaleExhale


I think that he prefers to call it "re-phrasing".

a reply to: peacefulpete

But remember kids, the image of a photo doesn't change by zooming or enhancing colors, no matter how much Terry pretends otherwise.

So point out the woman's nose in the cropped photo that terry posted that you say is not changing the image when cropping

Can you see her nose?


Yes, No.


I cant, it looks like its changed because when cropped I cannot see her nose anymore.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Seriously? What's that got to do with anything? You should change your username to "pedanticpete".