REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

originally posted by: oldcarpy
It could be this:

Double Exposure

Apologies to the OP as he does not like mundane explanations but there you go.

It's just not compelling. The photo doesn't show large images mixed together like your link does, the photo only shows that one small anomaly (unlike your linked examples).

And like I said, we could blame broken digital cameras for anomalous digital photos too, just as well as blaming broken film cameras for their anomalies.

There's no particular reason to blame broken cameras for every anomalous photo that turns up.

a reply to: peacefulpete If you look closely at the doglike creature, it really has some differences from dogs. The nose is distorted and the blackness of the nose extend too far down. The creature looks rabid, look at the eyes, I have never seen a dog with eyes that color and looking the way they do, and I am a life long dog lover. The ears are also strangely positioned. I love dogs and if I saw that creature coming at me, I would run, it really is terrifying.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Oh dear. I am not starting with the premise that there is no such thing as the paranormal at all. I have not suggested that this is a hoax.

Film processing issues are not "even a thing"? Of course they are a "thing". Have you read my link about double exposure? It is a thing.

Please lose the unnecessary attitude. It's childish.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: peacefulpete

Could be a ghost dog. Not even joking. My ex has the pictures or I'd post them but a dog I had for years had been dead about a year and he showed up in a few pictures taken at the house we lived in at the time. He only showed up in pictures with me in them, which makes sense because he was always at my side.

The unconditional love and loyalty travels beyond time and space. What a lovely account.

a reply to: peacefulpete


I haven't said anything about "broken cameras". Don't put words into my mouth that I have never used - that's just dishonest. Double exposures can be simply due to the film getting stuck. Quite simple, really.

originally posted by: pointessa
a reply to: peacefulpete If you look closely at the doglike creature, it really has some differences from dogs. The nose is distorted and the blackness of the nose extend too far down. The creature looks rabid, look at the eyes, I have never seen a dog with eyes that color and looking the way they do, and I am a life long dog lover. The ears are also strangely positioned. I love dogs and if I saw that creature coming at me, I would run, it really is terrifying.

I agree. It resembles a dog but the features are wrong.



Yes, the nose looks distorted, it looks too big and bulbous / round. Very unlike real dog noses which keep the same contour of the snout. It's like a cross with a human's bulbous nose (or a clown nose). The black stripe of the snout looks off-center with the bulbous nose, like the snout and the nose don't really match up.

The mouth looks too small to go with that large snout and nose.

Also THERE SEEMS TO BE NO EARS on the creature.

It's also really creepy that at a distance, it looks like it's biting the guy's shoulder, but when blown up, we can see the mouth is OPEN, like it's just ABOUT TO bite the man.

The dark-yellow eyes are a bizarre color and they seem to be looking straight down at the guy's shoulder, as if about to chomp on it.

It's a jumble of mismatched physical features. And the expression looks rabid and malicious, like it's about to attack the guy. It truly looks evil. I have pitbulls and they look physically tough but they don't look evil.

I'm convinced it's a demon, as Joe Martinez himself is convinced.

It is very terrifying and I get chills just watching my own little video about it lol.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


Oh dear. I am not starting with the premise that there is no such thing as the paranormal at all. I have not suggested that this is a hoax.

Film processing issues are not "even a thing"? Of course they are a "thing". Have you read my link about double exposure? It is a thing.

Please lose the unnecessary attitude. It's childish.

Hmm I got the impression that you don't believe in the possible existence of the paranormal. Because if you have any open-mindedness about the paranormal possibly existing, then it's by far the best explanation of the photo.

If you didn't suggest it's a hoax, then the other "debunker" members did, which you seem to be on the same page with.

Film processing issues are not a thing, meaning that they were never common with film photos, just like they're not common with digital photos either. It practically requires a broken camera for either film or digital photos.

Yeah I saw your link and the large mixed images do not bear a resemblance to the photo that's the topic of this thread, which only shows that one small anomaly, not a huge mixed image like your link shows. Not to mention that the link is showing deliberate mixed images anyway lol. It's not showing accidental double-exposure, it's showing deliberate effect for artistic purpose. Bearing no resemblance to Joe Martinez's photo.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


I haven't said anything about "broken cameras". Don't put words into my mouth that I have never used - that's just dishonest. Double exposures can be simply due to the film getting stuck. Quite simple, really.

Yeah, and it practically requires a broken camera for that to happen. So your explanation of double-exposure implies a broken or malfunctioning camera.

Anyone who grew up with film photos can tell you that it's not at all common. I don't think I've had a single film photo ever show double exposure. Of course, I wasn't using broken cameras though.

originally posted by: Fisherr
looks nothing like the original photo.
www.beamsinvestigations.org...

maybe they took the picture there because it had something cool on the table behind.


beat by seconds ha. nice one.

Reposted this as it all hinges on this original. I remember this case from as far as the early 2000, when I roamed on the 'Fortean Times' forum. We came to the conclusion that it is either a doggy or actually nothing, just some pareidolia of stuff in the background. Which is what I am going with.

Its neither a dog and especially it isn't a demon. I am quite into demonology and if anyone cared to forget about the man made bible crap that demons are evil, read the first paragraph.
en.wikipedia.org...
The original Daemons were anything but nasty. They could be summoned for help and knowledge.

Trust the religious to completely lie and make what were once benevolent beings into nasty b**tards just to scar ethe bejeezus out of the great uninformed.

Just like now. It's stuff in the background, looking vaguely like an excited doggy. But even if it was a demon, it would be most likely benevolent and not after anyone's soul!

It really helps researching things and not just to be a scared religious person. Of course religion doesn't want you to get informed, as you'd find out that most of your fears are for nothing and that religion is just tyranny and oppression. Be spiritual but don't be religious and your life will soon be much less stressful.

originally posted by: Fisherr
looks nothing like the original photo.
www.beamsinvestigations.org...

maybe they took the picture there because it had something cool on the table behind.


beat by seconds ha. nice one.

Based on the original (as shown in the post I’ve quoted), I would say it’s possibly the woman on the left holding a bouquet of flowers. You can see green and pink quite well.

It’s funny how people jump to paranormal from the word go, without contemplating other, more rational options.

a reply to: peacefulpete


I am not related to other posters so don't lump us all in together. Your impression of me is wrong.

I guess you missed this part from my link:

"By accident. It happened when the film got stuck, or when we used a used film again by mistake."

I jump to the conclusion of paranormal because it looks like a distorted evil dog's face.

I do agree that it somewhat blends into the background though, for color, but I think that makes it all the more creepy and paranormal. As if it was somewhat hiding in the background colors, or maybe using the background images to help give itself form.

Maybe that's how the entity gives itself a visual form, by embracing the forms around it.

We certainly don't know how the forms and physiology of demons work.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Broken cameras? You are more like a broken record.

Film can get stuck, especially on manual wind cameras. It is pretty common. I grew up with these things.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


I am not related to other posters so don't lump us all in together. Your impression of me is wrong.

I guess you missed this part from my link:

"By accident. It happened when the film got stuck, or when we used a used film again by mistake."

Regardless, your link shows deliberate double-exposure for artistic effect.

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

a reply to: peacefulpete


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

Come again? What does that even mean?

a reply to: peacefulpete

I jump to the conclusion of paranormal because it looks like a distorted evil dog's face

It only looks like that AFTER the image has been manipulated. Look at the original then look at what you posted.

a reply to: peacefulpete


What part of "by accident" are you not understanding?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


Broken cameras? You are more like a broken record.

Film can get stuck, especially on manual wind cameras. It is pretty common. I grew up with these things.

I grew up with film cameras too, and no it's not common at all for the camera to break or malfunction to cause double-exposure.

It never happened once in my entire childhood through the 80's, 90's, and then the 2000's.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


What part of "by accident" are you not understanding?

What part of your post is supposed to be meaningful?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

I jump to the conclusion of paranormal because it looks like a distorted evil dog's face

It only looks like that AFTER the image has been manipulated. Look at the original then look at what you posted.

I went over this already. Color-enhancement does not change the actual image.

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.