REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

Good photo no dog involved, and a freaky optical illusion

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


"maybe using the background images to help give itself form".

Come again? What does that even mean?

It means speculating at how demons might give themselves form in our physical realm. Since they don't actually have a physical form in the first place.

Anyhow you're the last person I'd be interested to speculate with about how demons might give themselves form to appear in our physical world.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Color-enhancement does not change the actual image.

It clearly does. It changed it looking like someone holding a bouquet of flowers to a weird dog.

And if there is some enhanced sharpness or contrast, it still was minimal, as you can see the guy's face is still blurry and identifiable as the typical blur of a film photo.

Which is even MORE photo manipulation.

"Look ma! If I MANIPULATE this image, I can make this thar thingy look like a dog!"

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Good photo no dog involved, and a freaky optical illusion

Hey fair enough.

Especially if the freaky optical illusion was caused intentionally by a non-physical entity.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Especially if the freaky optical illusion was caused intentionally by a non-physical entity.

Or by someone manipulating the image to make something look like a dog.

a reply to: peacefulpete



Good grief. Double exposure can happen accidentally. Got that?

a reply to: peacefulpete


Oh dear. Getting all personal again. Do grow up.

Are you an expert in Demonology, by any chance?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete



Good grief. Double exposure can happen accidentally. Got that?

You're trying to talk to a person who thinks image manipulation keeps the image the same as the original lol

a reply to: peacefulpete

Makes sense I suppose, if demons are dogs, because "dog" is "god" backward.

I mean the logic is inescapable.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Color-enhancement does not change the actual image.

It clearly does. It changed it looking like someone holding a bouquet of flowers to a weird dog.

And if there is some enhanced sharpness or contrast, it still was minimal, as you can see the guy's face is still blurry and identifiable as the typical blur of a film photo.

Which is even MORE photo manipulation.

"Look ma! If I MANIPULATE this image, I can make this thar thingy look like a dog!"

Christ are you guys going to turn this into another 100-pages of arguing about color manipulation.

No, amplifying colors absolutely does NOT change the image, only the colors of the image.

And we don't even know if sharpness / contrast was manipulated, but like I said a few times already: If the sharpness / contrast WAS manipulated, it was minimal, as you can still see the guy's face as a recognizably blurry film photo.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Especially if the freaky optical illusion was caused intentionally by a non-physical entity.

Or by someone manipulating the image to make something look like a dog.

The dog face shows the same blurriness and consistency with the rest of the photo.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete



Good grief. Double exposure can happen accidentally. Got that?

It's extremely rare and typically requires a broken or malfunctioning camera. Got that?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

A much more relevant link would show accidental double-exposures, especially with evil demonic dog faces.

Oh yes, there must be loads of those. Hang on, I can't seem to find one for some reason.

a reply to: peacefulpete

No, amplifying colors absolutely does NOT change the image, only the colors of the image.

Changing the colours of the image does, in fact, change the image. It goes from the original, to the edit, changed image. That means, not the original.

And we don't even know if sharpness / contrast was manipulated, but like I said a few times already: If the sharpness / contrast WAS manipulated, it was minimal, as you can still see the guy's face as a recognizably blurry film photo.

If sharpness/contrast was changed, that would make more changes to the original which would make it no longer the original.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Especially if the freaky optical illusion was caused intentionally by a non-physical entity.

Or by someone manipulating the image to make something look like a dog.

The dog face shows the same blurriness and consistency with the rest of the photo.

AFTER manipulating the image to get the dogs face to stand out.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


Oh dear. Getting all personal again. Do grow up.

Are you an expert in Demonology, by any chance?

Who's getting personal? I'm not interested in you personally lol.

No I'm not an expert in Demonology, how about you?

a reply to: peacefulpete


No, just the film getting stuck. No broken camera required. Please re-read my linked article.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete



Good grief. Double exposure can happen accidentally. Got that?

You're trying to talk to a person who thinks image manipulation keeps the image the same as the original lol

Well color manipulation doesn't change the forms seen in the image, obviously.

I also don't believe that you think it does.

a reply to: peacefulpete


"Christ are you guys going to turn this into another 100-pages of arguing about color manipulation."

No, but I expect that you will.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Well color manipulation doesn't change the forms seen in the image

Actually, it did.

It went from not a dog, to a kinda dog after whatever changes to the original were done.