Demon Dog in Photograph, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 12:09 AM by Osiris1953
reply to post by sandman441



Very true, it doesn't fully discount a practical joke of some sort, but when those cakes are so friggin expensive seems pretty foolish to let anyone get away with it considering the possibility of a cake being ruined.


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 12:15 AM by sandman441
Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to
post by sandman441



Very true, it doesn't fully discount a practical joke of some sort, but when those cakes are so friggin expensive seems pretty foolish to let anyone get away with it considering the possibility of a cake being ruined.



Yeah and this was I think 1973ish?. All I know is that it's a weird picture and it's going to be hard to be hard to say it isn't a being because who knows what that thing really is. to me it looks like a dog.



reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 12:17 AM by Osiris1953
reply to post by sandman441




Ok, one more post. I think they said that it was from ten years ago. So 1997, I think they were both just stuck in the 70's in appearance. You'd have to re-watch the video for a more exact date. I don't recall with absolute certainty, and I don't think I could focus enough to watch it again. Goodnight.


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 03:12 AM by cappuccino
Originally posted by warvine
ITS A F****N NEPHILIM!!!!!




It does look like it, gheghe.

It strikes me that appears to be looking into the camera.


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 10:35 AM by BCB7B
There can be only two explanations: 1) the photo is a fake; or 2) the photo is authentic.

Despite the image's quality, people who have examined the image proclaim it to be authentic and untampered with.

If that is the case, we then have to go back to the theory that it is either fake (these people really have a dog and it got into the picture and they are making false claims about the image), or that it is genuine.

If we go the "genuine" route, which all evidence including the testimony of the couple themselves seems to portray, then the image is truly "unexplained paranormal" activity.

The man says "it's a demon" and that shouldn't be taken too lightly. His instinct tells him the "dog" is "evil." Is this a demon? Perhaps...

Several things point to this possibility:

1) The man has an instinct the "dog" is "evil."

2) He claims to have had a persistent addiction - something he wants to get rid of or now claims may have been "influenced by" a demon.

3) It is well known in the religious Christian community that "demons" are real spiritual entities who are in fact fallen angels.

4) It is also known these "demons" can follow a person or family for generations and basically "demonize" them with illness, altered thoughts (inclinations towards evil, harmful addictions, suicide, etc.)

5) Finally, the Bible (Old Testiment) is clear (as well as ancient texts from the Hebrews) that "demons" are spiritual polymorphs, having the ability to take on virtual (sometimes physical) appearance in any from they conceive. That can be animal, human, or a combination of the two (i.e. hybrid looking 'monsters').

In this case, perhaps a "mean looking dog" was the image the demon chose to portray. This demon is likely one that has been inflicting this man's addiction for years.

Why would it make itself appear in a photo? Many hypothetical reasons:

1) The marriage itself may present a threat to the demon's work of inflicting addiction - it may sense the man will leave his addictions through a relationship that brings change to his life.

2) Making itself appear in a photo perplex's people (as it is doing in this thread), making people "guess or theorize" the existance of demons or evil. This not only brings attention to the demon, but also causes more layers of confusion about life, spirtual thought, belief in Christ, etc. (something demons strive to do).

3) The demon may want attention for the mear sake of being honored, wondered about, or perhaps 'worhiped' by having a physical presence in an image.


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 10:45 AM by jbondo
reply to post by BCB7B



Excellent post!

You talk about many things that most people would just shrug off but in a logical and researchable (via text) manner.

My hat's off to you!


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 12:09 PM by Nola213
yea nice find. It doesn't look like a trick of light or shadow, or something within the backround texture, I mean the outline of it is too clear.

Maybe, and I say that loosely, maybe....you could account for the mount of the Dog, as being flowers behind him, red and white, but that's really stretching it to begin with, and there's no accounting for the head shape and the two symetrical eyes.

I'm sure "devil dogs" we're believed to be a real thing back in the day of succubi, and incubi, ect. Perhaps this one got caught on film.

I dunno I don't much believe in the paranormal, like ghosts and such, but demons and angels, and/or their pets are a different ball of wax in my opinion. But I don't really believe in God/Satan, or Heaven/Hell.

Howeber, for believers, doing drugs can definitely let your weakened spirit open to attacks from satan, or so I've been told in the numerous rehabs, and detoxes I've been in.

I don't know the guy doesn't look high in the picture, and even if he was, wouldn't the bride, or the cameraman have noticed this thing?

It's either:

A) Real (the least likely in my opinion)

B) A Hoax -set up by three people.The two in the picture and the cameraman, to get attention. (more likely than it being real, but I just don't see it, the man looks very moved by the whole thing, when interviewed.)

C) Some crazy accidental double exposure, or trick of lighting and ordinary objects to catch a split second where this image was available, like the Potato chip bag in the Reptile woman video. (this is the most logical of the possiblities, again in my opinion, given the little bit of information we have so far.)

Until we get some more info on these people involved, and more people at the wedding are questioned as to where they were when this particular picture was taken(it's wierd but the picture gives me the feeling like it was taken in privacy, not with a crowded room of people behind the Cameraman. So it would be good if we can find that out, that would give the Hoax theory a little more oomph so to speak.

Or maybe we get some higher quality images of this, and find out that it is scenario "C" posted above.

Either way, it's very intriuging, and looks extremely genuine. Creepy as heck too.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Paranormal photos: separate the wheat from the chaff.
  Posted 7 days ago with 67 member flags
What the hell is this next to my son....?!?
  Posted 19 days ago with 42 member flags
Shared Dreaming Experiment
  Posted 12 days ago with 10 member flags
To those who can have OBEs
  Posted 4 days ago with 9 member flags
My Ghost Radar Predicts a Mega-Quake on June 15, 2012 at Noon!
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags
Bompa
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags