REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: peacefulpete

Could be a ghost dog. Not even joking. My ex has the pictures or I'd post them but a dog I had for years had been dead about a year and he showed up in a few pictures taken at the house we lived in at the time. He only showed up in pictures with me in them, which makes sense because he was always at my side.

Nice, it must have been great to see your dog's spirit in the photos.

I have been visited in dreams by the spirits of my deceased pets, it's amazing.

However for Joe Martinez, I default to his intuition that it was a demon. Plus just look how angry and crazy the thing looks. Not loving at all.

I am a pitbull lover and while the dogs physically look tough, their gentleness shows in their face. Joe's image does not show love or gentleness but anger and malice IMO.

originally posted by: SailorJerry
a reply to: peacefulpete

It's also worth considering that the photo was presumably taken sometime in the 90's or earlier, long before the internet blew up. So the guy would not have had the idea to try to make it an internet sensation, or anything like that.

Hate to break it to you , but people were seeking media attention long before the internet came around.

Have you not seen tabloid magazines?


Simple is someone was holding a dog in the pic behind him, very apparently, and they used this.

I remember when this story came out they were all over the news. So they did exactly what you said they werent trying to do.

Well please enlighten us with some links to all the wild media attention lol. Because it doesn't seem to exist.

The short news clip of 2 or 3 minutes, seems the absolute most media attention that the case ever received.

a reply to: peacefulpete


For some reason the face reminds me of Anubis.





The yellow eyes maybe.

Looks like the pic was taken around 1980 ish give or take.
And with film pics, can't they sometimes get an image from someone else pics accidentally sometimes?

Just a thought.

Looks like someone else's dog from another set of photos.

a reply to: FinallyAwake


Sounds likely. More likely than it being a demon gate crashing a wedding reception and no one noticed it! Looks like a dog to me.

Judging by the OP's history I doubt that he will let this go though.

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
Looks like the pic was taken around 1980 ish give or take.
And with film pics, can't they sometimes get an image from someone else pics accidentally sometimes?

Just a thought.

Looks like someone else's dog from another set of photos.

No, not really. Film photos don't have a tendency of other photos getting accidentally spliced in. Maybe with a broken camera or something lol but you might as well say the same thing about digital photos, that they could mix photos together when using a broken digital camera lol.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: FinallyAwake


Sounds likely. More likely than it being a demon gate crashing a wedding reception and no one noticed it! Looks like a dog to me.

Judging by the OP's history I doubt that he will let this go though.

I love how for some members, the most mundane explanation is always "more likely" than anything mysterious or meaningful.

Yup it must be a broken camera, if not a deliberate hoax with a guy holding a dog behind him, if not a dog standing on the table next to their cake and getting dog hair and saliva all over their food.

You guys seem incapable of considering anything other than a stupid mundane explanation.

Judging by oldcarpy's crappy history, I doubt he will let this go though.

originally posted by: Noinden
Nah as others have said, its a dog. Dogs are not demons.

Never met a Chihuahua I take it?

Oh, and as to the veracity of his claims, I agree, there is a demon in the photo and as anyone who's been married can attest, it's the one in the dress. He should've went home with the doggie.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

lol I was just thinking about my grandma's lil chihuahua as a kid, damn thing was def a demon..

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
lol I was just thinking about my grandma's lil chihuahua as a kid, damn thing was def a demon..

Friggin rodents, I would have punted it into a wedding reception.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

the face reminds me of that or a jackal with a bit wider face, it's hard to say anymore what's photo shopped and what's not.

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
the face reminds me of that or a jackal with a bit wider face, it's hard to say anymore what's photo shopped and what's not.

Come on now, I don't think the wife looks like a jackal. She's no prize winner but she ain't that busted. The dog looks like a dog however.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

lmao, true. but what breed of dog would you say?

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
lmao, true. but what breed of dog would you say?

Hell Hound. Duh.

originally posted by: SR1TX
The ignorance in the responses make me want to puke.

This is not social media face book site.

This story is decades old. The man had a full interview and stated he became a Christian after this. There were NO animals at the part of any sort. This was also the only image that featured the beast or whatever it is.

In gods name, what on Earth is there to gain in the way of fame by showing 1 reception photo to the World? The dude was genuinely freaked out in his interview because of this.

Artifact or otherwise it's not a fking dog.

There were NO animals at the part of any sort

You were there? Or they said without no proof at all because the guy wants to believe and he figures he has to make things go that way so no one can't say otherwise

Is not a fking dog but it sure looks like one

And again, was it the job of a demon to corrupt and destroy humans or to show them the right way by scaring them and let them know they will go down under

In all of the above, could you reply with "why" every one of those thing happened?

a reply to: peacefulpete


I think that most rational people would accept a mundane explanation over some woo-woo paranormal one but it seems that you prefer to go with woo-woo.

What is "stupid" about this "mundane" explanation, exactly? It's probably just a film processing issue but if you want to go with "demon" then that's up to you.

"Crappy history?" Starting with the personal insults again? Grow up.

a reply to: peacefulpete
One of the easiest ways for a demon or jinn or a disembodied spirit to gain access to a body is through alcohol abuse and drug addiction. When one looses control of their conscious state it can allow for those that would seek to either utilize the body or influence it easier access. I have personal experience of this. Whether the picture is a demon or jinn, I don't know.

It could be this:

Double Exposure

Apologies to the OP as he does not like mundane explanations but there you go.

originally posted by: WarriorMH

originally posted by: SR1TX
The ignorance in the responses make me want to puke.

This is not social media face book site.

This story is decades old. The man had a full interview and stated he became a Christian after this. There were NO animals at the part of any sort. This was also the only image that featured the beast or whatever it is.

In gods name, what on Earth is there to gain in the way of fame by showing 1 reception photo to the World? The dude was genuinely freaked out in his interview because of this.

Artifact or otherwise it's not a fking dog.

There were NO animals at the part of any sort

You were there? Or they said without no proof at all because the guy wants to believe and he figures he has to make things go that way so no one can't say otherwise

Is not a fking dog but it sure looks like one

And again, was it the job of a demon to corrupt and destroy humans or to show them the right way by scaring them and let them know they will go down under

In all of the above, could you reply with "why" every one of those thing happened?

It is our personal choice how we would respond to demonic influence if we were to recognize it at all. The odds were pretty low that anyone would even notice the doglike face. Apparently on first look, no one noticed. Many addicts would have responded to this by using more drugs to block it out, he, apparently chose another direction for the better.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


I think that most rational people would accept a mundane explanation over some woo-woo paranormal one but it seems that you prefer to go with woo-woo.

What is "stupid" about this "mundane" explanation, exactly? It's probably just a film processing issue but if you want to go with "demon" then that's up to you.

"Crappy history?" Starting with the personal insults again? Grow up.

Well your history IS crappy. You wrapped up my last thread by posting broken links and then announcing you were done with the thread.

What's "stupid" about your mundane explanation is that every idea is based on either a deliberate hoax, or a dog leaning against their wedding-anniversary cake, or a film processing issue which isn't even a thing. I grew up with film photos and no, they don't include evil looking dog faces being superimposed onto unrelated photos.

"Most rational people would accept a mundane explanation over some woo-woo paranormal one" only IF you start with the premise that there's no such thing as the paranormal. Which is not automatically part of being "rational people."

It's more rational to be open-minded about the paranormal and to allow the possibility of its existence, in which case it's a much better explanation than assuming they had a dog leaning against their cake and ruining their food.