What's up with John Paul II's shadow?

I thought this might deserve its own thread as it is a bit weird and there is a bit of information on the internet anyone can research independently. For my uncle, I am debunking this picture of his in his basement.

I don't usually "do" religion or popes, but I found this picture especially interesting. My uncle has an original Toronto newspaper article on the wall in his workshop, I think it was published in 1984. Pope John Paul II, the successor to the 33 day pope, John Paul I, came to Canada on tour (you'd think he was an efing rock star LOL). When he arrived he kissed the ground. Below, is the picture of him kissing the ground, look at the shadow. What's wrong with this picture?



Now, first thing that popped into my head when I looked at this was that my uncle was playing a practical joke, so I examined the newspaper picture/article closely and there were no modifications to the low resolution picture except some water staining. I still didn't believe it though, that this picture was run in a major newspaper this way, so I did a little searching. Well, I found the picture on multiple sites, what looks like a copy of the original and it is exactly the same, just clearer and more well defined.

Montreal Gazette

You might want to say that there is something under the pope's head (there is). In the next two different pictures, you'll notice that there are shadows, but in both cases, there is nothing under the popes head, but the ground. The only time the pope used a mat or anything else was when it was raining. You can use google to find the pics pretty easily, but in both the other pics, the pope is wearing his "beanie."



In a not so well defined photo you can't really see what is on the ground and looks instead like this may be just a trick of the light and shadow. However, it appears his little white "beanie" fell off onto the ground and into the shadow producing a very unusual photographic effect (in low resolution copy). The Montreal Gazette and the Telegram, Star or Sun ran with this picture, and it almost looks like a practical joke. Taken the wrong way you'd think there might have been an incredibly large backlash (it was a less PC time when people had thicker skins)? As in the pope possibly has a demon's shadow or at least the shadow of some strange hooded entity (due to the graininess of the newspaper copy) and published not terribly long after his predecessor had died questionably? Maybe it's just the PTB's way of hinting at what actually happened, re. running the pic this way in the newspapers?

I am not RC or with any other organized religion as I find them all to be rather hypocritical, guilt driven, pointless and parasitic. I do find it interesting however, that it appears this picture is real, not retouched in any way and was run in the newspapers of the time.

Any idea why this would be run this way? Could it just simply be good ole fashioned human stupidity and rushing/deadlines to get a picture out there. Ball's in the forum's court ;-)

Cheers - Dave

When you live long enough hiding from the monsters in your head, you start seeing them everywhere. It's amazing what perspective does.

He put his hat on the ground making the shadow look weird. It's his hat.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I thought this might deserve its own thread as it is a bit weird and there is a bit of information on the internet anyone can research independently. For my uncle, I am debunking this picture of his in his basement.

I don't usually "do" religion or popes, but I found this picture especially interesting. My uncle has an original Toronto newspaper article on the wall in his workshop, I think it was published in 1984. Pope John Paul II, the successor to the 33 day pope, John Paul I, came to Canada on tour (you'd think he was an efing rock star LOL). When he arrived he kissed the ground. Below, is the picture of him kissing the ground, look at the shadow. What's wrong with this picture?

Now, first thing that popped into my head when I looked at this was that my uncle was playing a practical joke, so I examined the newspaper picture/article closely and there were no modifications to the low resolution picture except some water staining. I still didn't believe it though, that this picture was run in a major newspaper this way, so I did a little searching. Well, I found the picture on multiple sites, what looks like a copy of the original and it is exactly the same, just clearer and more well defined.

Montreal Gazette

You might want to say that there is something under the pope's head (there is). In the next two different pictures, you'll notice that there are shadows, but in both cases, there is nothing under the popes head, but the ground. The only time the pope used a mat or anything else was when it was raining. You can use google to find the pics pretty easily, but in both the other pics, the pope is wearing his "beanie."

In a not so well defined photo you can't really see what is on the ground and looks instead like this may be just a trick of the light and shadow. However, it appears his little white "beanie" fell off onto the ground and into the shadow producing a very unusual photographic effect (in low resolution copy). The Montreal Gazette and the Telegram, Star or Sun ran with this picture, and it almost looks like a practical joke. Taken the wrong way you'd think there might have been an incredibly large backlash (it was a less PC time when people had thicker skins)? As in the pope possibly has a demon's shadow or at least the shadow of some strange hooded entity (due to the graininess of the newspaper copy) and published not terribly long after his predecessor had died questionably? Maybe it's just the PTB's way of hinting at what actually happened, re. running the pic this way in the newspapers?

I am not RC or with any other organized religion as I find them all to be rather hypocritical, guilt driven, pointless and parasitic. I do find it interesting however, that it appears this picture is real, not retouched in any way and was run in the newspapers of the time.

Any idea why this would be run this way? Could it just simply be good ole fashioned human stupidity and rushing/deadlines to get a picture out there. Ball's in the forum's court ;-)

Cheers - Dave

His snow white cap is on the ground next to the shadow, in front of it horizontally speaking, in the camera's frustum.

OMG.

originally posted by: Indigent
He put his hat on the ground making the shadow look weird. It's his hat.

That's what I said, it's his "beanie." I just wanted to post this to show him that everything is not always what it seems. It is interesting that the shadow of his hair in the high res pic can be seen and almost looks like smoke rising from the top of his head LOL.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Indigent
He put his hat on the ground making the shadow look weird. It's his hat.

He never puts his "hat" on the ground, it fell off into a most unusual place from the camera's perspective.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'm interested to know what you think looked odd about the shadow in the first place, and why it would be odd to run the picture?

I'm just not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

Notice the cowl on his cape is lifted up? A gust of wind appears to have blown his garments into disarray and blown the cap off his head.

originally posted by: nugget1
Notice the cowl on his cape is lifted up? A gust of wind appears to have blown his garments into disarray and blown the cap off his head.

No, it's not blown off. He's quite clearly holding the cap in his left hand. Look closer.

Edit: here's a video of the moment in question. You can even see the photographer taking the picture at the right of the screen.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
The question I have is about the color photograph where his hat is still on his head.

In that photo, it appears that the shadow created by his head is shorter than his head. Shouldn't the shadow be at least as long as his head in that photo?

I know it depends on the position of the sun, but it still seems that the shadow is small.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'm interested to know what you think looked odd about the shadow in the first place, and why it would be odd to run the picture?

I'm just not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

My uncle was the one who pointed this out, I just followed through with debunking it. In the low resolution picture in the newspaper, because it is low resolution it kind of blurs things together making the lines less defined than they could be in a higher resolution image. We see this kind of thing in a lot in the NASA pictures of the Moon and Mars, where Pareidolia takes over, the mind sees what it wants to see or what can be familiarized out of a potentially random sequencing within an image.

As to your actual question, the shadowing looks odd, something like a hooded figure or even possibly a horned figure, if you didn't know the popes beanie had fallen off. As to the reason not to run the picture that way, Pareidolia. You just don't know how many people will rationalize the combination shadow/beanie as something it is not. Finally, concerning running the picture, the beanie fell off in a rather untoward location to produce what looks like a strange shadow. In every picture of the pope kissing the ground, his beanie has never fallen off, so it is an unusual set of circumstances.

Cheers - Dave

In his shadow, what I see from that picture is that it seems like the pope has two horns in his head, not sure if this is what everyone saw. Now of course this only happens because of his hat, but very interesting

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Hmm, I would never in a million years make that connection. He's just holding his hat in this hand while he kneels. Even in the grainy pic that is pretty clear.

Mind you I struggle to see the pareidolia effects on the Mars thread that get posted. Maybe I am too literal minded...

It's a hat and his shadow. No horned demons. Nothing going on .....

a reply to: Rob48

I was looking for a video like that and could not find one, you can see it is a video of exactly the same location from a different angle, there are the same markings in the concrete lines, thanks. It does show he took the beanie off, still the placement is odd per the shadow. One thing I did notice is that there are no fingers from his left hand holding onto the beanie (for such a windy day), even though you can see his watch on his wrist and where his hand is located. As I said before, low resolution Pareidolia.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Indigent
He put his hat on the ground making the shadow look weird. It's his hat.

He never puts his "hat" on the ground, it fell off into a most unusual place from the camera's perspective.

Cheers - Dave

What unusual place; the ground..?

I can see how at first glance it COULD look like the ground with no shadow, but anyone looking at the picture can see it the beanie is not the same shade as the ground, and that you can actually see the shape of it. Heck, you can even make out the tassel-thingy on the top!

..add to that, that that the beanie is not on his head .. well let us just say, that if you see a "demon shadow" and not just the bloody beanie, then you must really want to see it!



Mystery?

"What a weird picture! Not only is the pope's beanie missing, he also has the shadow of a demon!"

No. No mystery.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Hi bob.

Here is another to sink your teeth into. I'm not sure if this has been discussed/debunked...

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'm interested to know what you think looked odd about the shadow in the first place, and why it would be odd to run the picture?

I'm just not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

i saw horns. devil type.

thought it was spooky at first until i saw the better picture, its his hat.