REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: peacefulpete

The close up us touched up.

There is too much going on in the picture for me. Why is there a huge black feathered, (peacock) decoration or costume on the stairs? The wall and room are highly ornate.

This area of the picture could be anything. Even a foot of someone in a costume as they bent down to fix their dress, and stuck their left toes through the gap in the railing.

The original foto had a green "nose" area and no visable red or white fangs.

Also him thinking its a demon is on him. He could have easily said dead dog ghost from childhood, or alien creature, whatever.

The fact that the guy went hard core christian makes sense being that he was already seeing "demons" in old pictures.

There's just no reason to assume that anything was edited or manipulated.

Here's the pic with its original colors, and the sharpness / blurriness looks exactly like an old film photograph.

But that's just a lie. The original image that's only been cropped, looks like this...


That image you posted is A LOT larger from the original. It's been colour enhanced and cleaned up to show the dog.

It's been changed from the original.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Thats enhanced. The green blur from the flash is gone.

Sorry, there seems to be a person in an ugly, extravagant dress on the stairs. They are thin and bending down. This could be a purse, shoe, or prop of some sort if they are performers.

I think there is a second object on the ground floor behind the guy. The top of it may be showing.

Like a chocolate fountain on a table, or cake with strawberries or something garnishing the top tier.

a reply to: peacefulpete

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

so again you are going obfuscate what said?


every thread?


The poster quoted what they were replying too,


Why do you keep doing this nonsense?

They didn't say there is media attention towards this but were countering what you said and what they quoted you saying.

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

NO one has said otherwise.

Regardless of what anyone present at the event claims, and regardless of weather it's a demon, dog or monkey on his back, it was a catalyst to promote positive change in his life. Without knowing the parties involved personally or being at the actual event, it's impossible to just outright claim "It's a dog", or "It's a demon". Sometimes things just aren't meant to be questioned or solved.

My personal opinion, I'd name him Marley and give him a few milk-bones. I think in one of the photo's I can see his tail on the other side of the guy. I think someone is holding the dog and crouching down behind him for a proper canine photo-bomb. I also don't get any kind of ill, strange, nervous or nauseous feelings when I look at it.

Whatever the case may be, it's a crazy looking little critter isn't it?

Question - Does anyone know where these people are today?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

Are you reading the thread? Your debunker buddies are doing exactly what I predicted, babbling about color manipulation "changes" things, and zooming "changes" things, blah blah blah

My "debunker buddies"? What are you like?

So what's more likely:

the only picture ever of a demon

*OR*

looks like a dog, probably is a dog

a reply to: jjkenobi


Let me think about that for a bit - it's a tricky one.

There is this little chap:

Demon Dog

And if you want to see a cat turn into a demon then just try giving one a bath.

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.

a reply to: peacefulpete

It's Peacock feathers "Pareidolia"

that's a dog
blibical demons looked way way weirder, and not like a dog peering over you

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!

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


I think that went straight over your head. Do try to develop a sense of humour, there's a good chap?

Homophobia is not a good thing, by the way - you need to have a word with yourself.

I'm not homophobic. I completely support you and your boyfriend.

You need to have a word with your "daddy" that you were bragging about lol.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

The fact that there are different blurred versions of the same photo seems chalked up to the guy presumably using old outdated scanners or something like that.

So an old, outdated scanner magically enhances images and changes the colour of an image?

I haven't personally manipulated ANY of the images.

So? It's still a manipulated imaged

I believe that the clearest shot (the zoomed-in shot) is showing the most accurate look of the original film photo.

So the clearest shot of the image which shows less pixelation, more colour enhancement and drastically changed the image, is somehow more accurate than a non manipulated crop? LOL!!!!!

Blah blah blah

trolling trolling trolling

blah blah blah

As for why the larger images are blurry, yes my best guess is using an outdated scanner from a couple decades ago. I really don't have experience with such things but that's my best guess. Does anyone have a better guess?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Does anyone have a better guess?

Image manipulation to make it appear more like a demon kinda dog.

Simple.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

There's no reason to think it's been edited.

I've just shown it's been edited by cropping the ORIGINAL image and getting a different result than the crop you're trying to pass of as the "original".

You haven't shown anything at all.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

There's no reason to think it's been edited.

I've just shown it's been edited by cropping the ORIGINAL image and getting a different result than the crop you're trying to pass of as the "original".

You haven't shown anything at all.

Apart from all the things that I have shown?

No wonder you believe the nonesense you post.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

There's no reason to think that anything was manipulated.

Zoomed and colors amplified

You really wrote both of them straight after one another?

Yep because zooming and amplifying colors doesn't change the original imagery, beyond zooming and amplifying the colors. The forms of the image stay the same.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

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.

yes,

It may look like one but its simple a part of the decorations on the wall behind them.

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.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Yep because zooming and amplifying colors doesn't change the original imagery,

Actually, it does.

Your lack of comprehension is just amazing.

“Hey guys! If I change this image, it’s still the same image!” DERP!

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: peacefulpete

The close up us touched up.

There is too much going on in the picture for me. Why is there a huge black feathered, (peacock) decoration or costume on the stairs? The wall and room are highly ornate.

This area of the picture could be anything. Even a foot of someone in a costume as they bent down to fix their dress, and stuck their left toes through the gap in the railing.

The original foto had a green "nose" area and no visable red or white fangs.

Also him thinking its a demon is on him. He could have easily said dead dog ghost from childhood, or alien creature, whatever.

The fact that the guy went hard core christian makes sense being that he was already seeing "demons" in old pictures.

There's just no reason to assume that anything was edited or manipulated.

Here's the pic with its original colors, and the sharpness / blurriness looks exactly like an old film photograph.

But that's just a lie. The original image that's only been cropped, looks like this...

That image you posted is A LOT larger from the original. It's been colour enhanced and cleaned up to show the dog.

It's been changed from the original.

Thankfully cropping and enlarging a photo doesn't change the actual imagery. Same with color enhancement. It all leaves the original imagery unchanged. Troll harder.