REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
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.

Nope. The dog face is perfectly visible without the colors being manipulated.

Are you really trying to tell me that image you just posted it just a crop of the original image? How very dishonest of you.

That image has been zoomed in and enhanced.

I don't think it's enhanced, besides obviously being zoomed in.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't think it's enhanced, besides obviously being zoomed in.

You should have left this sentence at the first 3 words.

It's clearly been edited after it's been cropped.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


What were you saying about another 100 pages of arguing about colour manipulation?

I get the impression that if you were in a locked room on your own you would probably end up having an argument with yourself.

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

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


What were you saying about another 100 pages of arguing about colour manipulation?

I get the impression that if you were in a locked room on your own you would probably end up having an argument with yourself.

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

Only because you think manipulated images are the originals lol

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


No, that's you, that is. I'm telling my dad about you and my dad is bigger than your dad. Am I finding your level yet?

I don't know WTF you're even talking about.

Is your "dad" what you call your gay lover? So are you bragging about the size of your boyfriend? I'm really not interested in that lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

The close up is 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.

It could even be something like feet in ugly shoes from someone in a costume or an 80s dress, and as they bent down to fix their dress, they 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.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Colors can be changed while the images remain otherwise unchanged.

Changing colours CHANGES the image.

And the dog face is visible in the version that doesn't have colors changed.

That image? Yeah, that's different from the original too as it's been "cleaned up".

Original with only a crop done...

Your manipulated image that you're trying to pass of, dishonestly, as the original...

There's nothing dishonest from me. But there is from you.

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.

I haven't personally manipulated ANY of the images.

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

I've just gone in and changed the colours of the original image! Keep in mind, this still is the original image!

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!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Colors can obviously change without changing the forms seen in an image.

False.

Take 2 triangles that make up a square. Original image are 1 black, 1 white triangle. There are 2 triangles.

Change the image to make them both the same colour, you have a square of one colour.

But it was only the colour that changed.

good one! huh huh huh

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.

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!!!!!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't think it's enhanced, besides obviously being zoomed in.

You should have left this sentence at the first 3 words.

It's clearly been edited after it's been cropped.

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

It looks exactly like a normal film photograph.

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".

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


What were you saying about another 100 pages of arguing about colour manipulation?

I get the impression that if you were in a locked room on your own you would probably end up having an argument with yourself.

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

Only because you think manipulated images are the originals lol

There's no reason to think that anything was manipulated. Zoomed and colors amplified, but that seems to be it.

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?

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's true and the amount of change can vary. It is being overlooked to remove a possible explanation. You see this.

May or may not be the reason in this case but it can't be stated as not possible.

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.

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.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I've just gone in and changed the colours of the original image! Keep in mind, this still is the original image!