posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:23 AM
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying this. It feels like the OP is just pulling our legs.
Firstly, despite being asked (see my previous post further up), he has offered no rhyme or reason whatsoever for taking the picture in the first
place. He claims he didn't notice until looking at the picture so it wasn't for that. Far as I know, it's not usual to just take random pictures of
the back of your daughter's head. The fact that she is must centered in the photo I have assume she was the subject of the photo.
Secondly, he claims the dog had been acting strange lately, barking at nothing a lot more than usual. Yet, the dog in the photo, not more than a few
feet from the supposed anomaly, is in no way alarmed or agitated. It's not baring it's teeth, barking or raising it's hackles. It does, however,
appear to be contentedly following the "anomaly" through the room as if it were a known and trusted member of the household, perhaps with the
promise of food or a walk.
Thirdly, there is this "anomaly" itself. Nothing in the room, not the dog or the child, seem at all disturbed by its presence in front and to the
right of the child. Conveniently caught in a random picture with the back of the child's lined perfectly between it and the camera. As started by
others, this fortunate freeze frame looks for all the world like nothing more than just a person passing through the room with dog in tow.
I got to call hoax on this, the whole thing just feels like a put on.