3. Demon in Photo?

Joe Martinez discovers a strange image of something looking like a weird dog over his left shoulder in a photo he took several years ago. The Paranormal society that studied the picture did not suspect a hoax, as there was no evidence of double printing. Others who took a photo of that incident did not spot any dogs around Joe on that day. What do you make of it?


[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t87rJxKaoQ&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Source: YouTube

I love it how when a Christian speaks up, suddenly these irrational buffoons [or atheists - whatever you call them] say they are being judgemental, bigoted, and close-minded. Claiming christians are uneducated, yet their ideas are hailed intellectually superior and logical. Morons!

H2O2:

I love it how when a Christian speaks up, suddenly these irrational buffoons [or atheists - whatever you call them] say they are being judgemental, bigoted, and close-minded. Claiming christians are uneducated, yet their ideas are hailed intellectually superior and logical. Morons!

Well, to be fair, we can't assume that all atheists are morons or buffoons. There are certain things that happen in our world which even some of us Christians (speaking especially for myself) simply have no clue. I think that some atheists are seriously seeking to understand these phenomena as well, even though the questions they ask are of somewhat a different nature. All they are asking is this (IMHO): is there no other way one could understand these phenomena other than in supernatural terms? Yes, we as Christians should speak up - when need be; and we should listen as well. Most people may not take our answers, but the rejection does not change our convictions about the reality of these supernatural phenomena.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

Well, to be fair, we can't assume that all atheists are morons or buffoons. There are certain things that happen in our world which even some of us Christians (speaking especially for myself) simply have no clue. I think that some atheists are seriously seeking to understand these phenomena as well, even though the questions they ask are of somewhat a different nature. All they are asking is this (IMHO): is there no other way one could understand these phenomena other than in supernatural terms? Yes, we as Christians should speak up - when need be; and we should listen as well. Most people may not take our answers, but the rejection does not change our convictions about the reality of these supernatural phenomena.

Regards.

That's not the point I'm driving at. I wouldn't lump them all under one category because that would be hypocritical of me as well - guess I should have specifically stated "some" .  The problem is with agnostics, non-theists, etc who believe their opinions are superior to those of Christian bible thumpers.  We are all granted the rights to express ourselves in forms that include religion; they choose science-fiction and others choose their faiths, so whose is superior to whose?  And I don't completely agree with your assertion that all they're after are "other ways" to understand these phenomena.  How else can you explain the obsession with bashing religion? I know you can't claim they won't understand these phenomena without chastising other people's beliefs.  Yes, we should speak up, listen, but we reserve the right to be respected and have our opinions heard, too.  Alas, you're right, their convictions do not change the reality of what the people believe in.

H2O2:

That's not the point I'm driving at. I wouldn't lump them all under one category because that would be hypocritical of me as well - guess I should have specifically stated "some" . The problem is with agnostics, non-theists, etc who believe their opinions are superior to those of Christian bible thumpers. We are all granted the rights to express ourselves in forms that include religion; they choose science-fiction and others choose their faiths, so whose is superior to whose?

I can understand how you feel about these things; but that would seem to make the point that people are guilty of the same on either side of the divide. How? Just as some agnostics and non-theists have compounded the debate between the supernatural and the natural, so some theists who are ill-informed have only made things worse for themselves by throwing science overboard. It's sad when even some Christians do this - eg., when they say that "science" is a lie and not to be believed; whereas, they misunderstand that science asks a totally different set of questions than we should be asking in investigating the supernatural realities of our world.

H2O2:

And I don't completely agree with your assertion that all they're after are "other ways" to understand these phenomena. How else can you explain the obsession with bashing religion? I know you can't claim they won't understand these phenomena without chastising other people's beliefs.

Well, I appreciate your disagreeing with me on that point; just that I know firsthand some of these folks who have been asking such questions without necessarily seeking to bash religion. Some would even be daring to be that honest in saying that, though the things we present to them are intriguing and actually convincing, they simply do not want to believe. However, for those who bash religion, we know they are not helping themselves - just as some with a religious inclination have not helped the dialogue by reacting in just the same manner to bash "science" or even anyone's worldview. What I think could be more helpful is for people to engage openly and respectably on issues, minus the over-reaction that is all too evident both ways. What do you think?

H2O2:

Yes, we should speak up, listen, but we reserve the right to be respected and have our opinions heard, too. Alas, you're right, their convictions do not change the reality of what the people believe in.

Okay. Let me just add a small observation: if we would draw the respect of anyone, perhaps we would only be able to do so by presenting an enabling atmosphere for our convictions to be taken seriously. It takes time to gain respect; and if we "demand" it forcibly, it may be counter-productive. All the same, I appreciate your points.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

I can understand how you feel about these things; but that would seem to make the point that people are guilty of the same on either side of the divide. How? Just as some agnostics and non-theists have compounded the debate between the supernatural and the natural, so some theists who are ill-informed have only made things worse for themselves by throwing science overboard. It's sad when even some Christians do this - eg., when they say that "science" is a lie and not to be believed; whereas, they misunderstand that science asks a totally different set of questions than we should be asking in investigating the supernatural realities of our world.

Which is the point I'm hoping the agnostics and non-theists would realize, too, that both sides of the argument are equally acceptable. I've heard it re-hashed time and again that faith-based logic is inadmissible in their "superior intellectual" discussions of nature, but I don't understand how they can fail so horribly to see the invalidity of that statement. They are just as incorrigible --maybe even more incorrigible- as those they're ridiculing.

Well, I appreciate your disagreeing with me on that point; just that I know firsthand some of these folks who have been asking such questions without necessarily seeking to bash religion. Some would even be daring to be that honest in saying that, though the things we present to them are intriguing and actually convincing, they simply do not want to believe. However, for those who bash religion, we know they are not helping themselves - just as some with a religious inclination have not helped the dialogue by reacting in just the same manner to bash "science" or even anyone's worldview. What I think could be more helpful is for people to engage openly and respectably on issues, minus the over-reaction that is all too evident both ways. What do you think?

That I agree with. We don't always have to see eye to eye, but we can respect one another.

Okay. Let me just add a small observation: if we would draw the respect of anyone, perhaps we would only be able to do so by presenting an enabling atmosphere for our convictions to be taken seriously. It takes time to gain respect; and if we "demand" it forcibly, it may be counter-productive. All the same, I appreciate your points.
Regards.

General advise.

H2O2:

Which is the point I'm hoping the agnostics and non-theists would realize, too, that both sides of the argument are equally acceptable. I've heard it re-hashed time and again that faith-based logic is inadmissible in their "superior intellectual" discussions of nature, but I don't understand how they can fail so horribly to see the invalidity of that statement. They are just as incorrigible --maybe even more incorrigible- as those they're ridiculing.

Well, that submission can be carried - in so many instances, there are people who assume the "superior intellectual" complex without understanding that believers are not clueless.

Time Travel - Without Machines?

[list]Håkan  Nordkvist - he is said to have time-travelled, and even filmed himself (with a mobile phone) standing with 'himself at 70 years old'. Things happen, the dude didn't need a machine or spell: it just happned and he came back to tell his story.[/list]

      [flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2sp-clMk8s&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Time Travel - When Machines Are Made Possible

[list]Dr. Michio Kaku tries to explain 'Physics of the Impossible' in the vid below. According to Wikipedia, Physics of the Impossible "examines the technologies of invisibility, teleportation, precognition, star ships, antimatter engines, time travel and more—all regarded as things that are not possible today but that might be possible in the future. In this book, he ranks these subjects according to when, if ever, these technologies might become reality. In March 2008, Physics of the Impossible entered the New York Times Best-seller list, and stayed on for 5 weeks."[/list]

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

A nun has the secret to eternal youth and beauty: much good it'll do the rest of us. She's dead. And it still worked,cause she's perfectly preserved. This has to be one of the few threads I've read in its entirety. The puppies distracted me, so adorable, but then I moved on. My mind boggled. Any more mysteries? These cant be all there is. It would be lovely if the thread could be a one-stop source to all things impossible. The ones I've seen so far gave me plenty to chew on. But there has to be more.

What enchanted me this year is the discovery that,from outer space,the planet we inhabit gives off strange noises,indiscernible to the human ear. The closest thing scientists could compare it to are musical notes.

Mad_Max:

Any more mysteries? These can't be all there is. It would be lovely if the thread could be a one-stop source to all things impossible. The ones I've seen so far gave me plenty to chew on. But there has to be more.

Hi @Mad_Max,

Indeed there are more. I often feel guilty that this thread has been a little slow to grow - especially because I was avoiding the risk of sounding alarmist. There is always the tendency to counterfeit every phenomena that tends to be 'orphic' - such as in the case of crop circles and fake UFO reports. Just trying to double-check those available at hand before posting them. Alas! sometimes we can't always notice the slips and may make errors in judgement. A few would follow this week, as I hope to have some more time to sift them.

Enjoy.

Pls can someone post a link to the thread containing Pilgrim's conversion story.
i will love to read it.
thanks

i really enjoy this thread (apart from the distractive off topic posts).
while i try not to bother myself with most orphic tendencies as i feel there are enough that i see and have no concrete answers to bother myself about the orphic.
however, i find the post on the photo of friends on their way out with the baby ghost theory very interesting.even before i completed the story, i was already leaning towards the explanation given by the paranormal expert.
keep posting these and i believe i will enjoy perusing them but beyond here, i do not send for these orphic tendencies.
life is spooky enough.

Hi all,

I did promise to come back sometime last week to post more articles about orphic phenomena. One of the hardest things to do is sepearate the real from the jives; and for that very reason I have been quite slow in growing this thread. Why? Because sometimes when we assume that some news are the "real" thing, we may not be aware that we've been had big time!

While researching some of the articles already prepared for posting, I was fortunate to have come across another guy who visited this thread and tried to contact me directly. He doubted most of the articles and showed me his reasons for that. He was not in any way offended, and I deeply appreciate what he shared. Being himself an investigator of thse phenomena, he also offered me some other very interesting articles that are "confirmed" genuine and authentic (but I'm reserved for now because I would first like to confirm them independently).

But here's one that he offered was not a genuine case but which I had posted: Dead Girl Causes Accident? Well, have we been had big time? As I wasn't sure, I posted it as a question rather than a declaration. Here's what he offered to show that someone has been playing pranks on us with that story: "Nota Do Auto" - it was supposed to be a short film produced by David Rebordão, and not to be taken as an authentic orphic event! My apologies, folks.

"Orphic" would be back as soon as I can get confirmation of the authenticity of the other articles. Please bear with me on the delay, and many thanks for your patience.

@ Pilgrim,
I have been reading the posts in this thread and I must say that I've quite enjoyed them. It's a wonderful breather form doctrinal issues etc .
I saw the videos of the 'ghost' with the 2 girls and the accident caused by a dead girl and I had my doubts on them. I posted them here but I think the NL website had a problem at that time, so my posts didn't show up (it was showing me 'gateway 502' or sth of dat nature).
Let me repost my thoughts on them now :

1. The girl who caused the accident is a bit funny for the following reasons : the girl's faacial expressions were incongruent with her experience of having being involved in a fatal accident. She seemed a litle detached when she got into the car and was asked questions by her helpers. She showed animation when they arrived at the death spot. Why the disparity??

Secondly, why would any1 focus a video cam on some1 in distress? In reality, if my firends and I pick up some1 in distress, we would not put our video cam in her face. We would rather put it down, and attend to her. The way the video footage was done showed that some1 was filming deliberately ie to show a performance. In other words, they were all actors.
I will watch the video again and look for more flaws in it

2. In the video which showed a ghost coming behind 2 ladies, here's my take on it :

The video never showed us the whole room in one sweep, it showed us in parts, hence some1 could come into the room and not be picked up by the video.
The room also seemed to be one dat had corridors or partitions in it where some1 could hide. The partitions aren't solid wall made of stone, brick,mortar etc, but of something with less density.
The 'ghost' was definitely crouching before rising, but where was 'it' before the girls turned round the corner? Was 'it' at the otherside of the partition where the girls turned into? Hence, they met at the same place?
Could it have been a trick with lights where there was a projector fooling our eyes too?

I really dont know, I may have to put on my thinking caps and look at those videos again. In this age of 'thoughts flying' and 'iron not sinking in water' anything is possible. I prefer to look at the science/tricks first before I put up my hands and say 'It's beyond d natural'.
Any insights on the videos from you?

@ Pigrim,
I've checked out the time travel story by Hakan N. Reminded me of the movie ' Frequency' . Well, Hakan isn't a time-lord like Dr.Who ( I prefer the series that had Tom Baker in it) but he's a mighty-fine liar. I leave the theories of time travel to the physicists, but the evidence which Hakan has brought to us is fishy.
He said he took the video of his 70year old self and his present self on his mobile fone but that vid was taken by a third party. If you are taking a vid of urself with or without a friend, u wont get such a wide view as we saw in the video ( look at the sun's reflection, the angle in which the vid was taken, the video was not jerky or shaky,the recording was too smooth to be done by the same person, the 70 year old Hakan was not very clear in the vid for us to see signs of aging properly etc). The view we saw was a larger one which is got from a third party being present (abi, it was his 100yr old self taking the vid just kiddin').
The cameraman was being a wee clever by not showing us the full extent of Hakan's left upper limb.If he truly was taking the vid by himself, the left upper limb should have been raised and lowered intermittently to get the right pix and this will be seen as movements at the shoulder joint. This video shows the shoulder joint to be 'stable', it wasnt moving as expected normally
The tatoo is another suspicious thing here. I couldn't zoom into it and have a better view even after pausing the video. What I noticed however was that the tatoo was a little darker in the 70yr old Hakan. Or was I seeing stuff? With age and time, the tatoo should be less dark. Symmetry of the tatoo was difficult to compare, but it could have been the same if done by the same aritst
The hand of 70year old Hakan was too smooth for me, I wanted to see signs of aging like prominent veins, wrinkled loose skin etc, but I was disappointed.
I think it's a hoax anyway,

@ Pilgrim,

I forgot to add something concerning the Time Traveler. Is he like Mr.Fantastic of the Fantastic Four where he can stretch his limb, in this case his left upper limb, so as to take a vid of himself and his future self? Ironically, the right upper limb remains normal. The distance from which the vid was taken is too far from the body to accommodate the length of his limb . It just shows that it was a third party doing the filming and it smells of a hoax. I wonder how much Hakan was paid to do that.

He didn't say much about his plumbing , but let's look at it this way. Was the hole in the wall or in the floor? If it was in the wall, he couldn't have entered the hole 'cos there was a little distance (which will accommodate only small animals like rats, roaches and lizards) between the inside of the wall and its outside judging by the window above the sink. Such walls are not built to accommodate the length of a human body, but for a human hand to make repairs like the plumbing stuff he was doing.

If the whole was in the floor, I would expect him to have a torch to light his way, then he shouldn't have said in the video ', and there was a light, ' implying that there was no form of light originally until this llight of the future came. But really, would he have been able to lower himself into the hole? The space under the sink looked too small to accommodate a man,besides, he wouldnt fit into it with all the tubes and pipes criss-crossing underneath the sink.
So which hole did Hakan get into?

Hi MALAMA,

Thanks for your comments. Very enlightening, I might add. Those who contacted me directly had asked some of the same questions and even tried to "debunk" the possibility of time-travel physics. What is my take? I simply say I don't know - that has been the position I had held all the while I was posting them. It was great that the gentleman who pointed out the 'prank' of the dead girl vid had fewer questions and only pointed me to the source of the vid.

However, while not defending or affirming Håkan Nordkvist's story, I think it is fair to understand that some of the questions you raised may not even make for a serious case. Take for example the idea of a "jerky or shaky" filming with a mobile phone. That is actually a non-starter, because I have used an LG Shine mobile phone while walking and obtained a very smooth vid capture. A friend of mine has also filmed us with her own LG mobile phone and when she showed them to her fiance, he swore someone else (a third party) was filming us! People might try to label Mr. Håkan this way or that based on their own speculations - and as the example above demonstrates, some of these are not even close to balanced reasoning.

Now, is the "hole" large or small that Håkan crept into? I think when you do a bit of time-travel physics (even if only theoretical), you can't sustain your arguments or assumptions. Dear MALAMA, a "hole" in such sciences does not have to be huge or bigger than the object it could contain - an example of this is the "black hole" phenomena. The black hole is understood/believed to be just a tiny point, but the amazing thing is that it sucks in anything that hovers around it, even if the object is many times bigger than its point of entry! As this article summarily describes it, it is "[an] extremely small region of space-time with a gravitational field so intense thet nothing can escape, not even light". One does not have to speculate on how big or small the "hole" was in Håkan's case, for such speculating is missing the whole point of space-time travel. Which was why I followed that with Dr. Michio Kaku' 'Physics of the Impossible' for readers to get a bit of the gist from physicists who theorise on the time-travel possibility sciences.


As for the two girls and a ghost vid, I think again that many people jump to speculative conclusions. If someone was crouching on the floor, he/she would rise the way someone normally would. But in that vid, the figure rose unconventionally, like someone who was lying down on his back and just floats up rapidly from the ground to join the girls. If the camera was blurry on that one, so also would the two girls be blurry as they walked away. The one question that paranormal investigator would ask is: why the anomaly in the same vid? Why allow for one moving figure to be blurring on movement and not the other two which also moved? I have not been able to answer that question, and I think it is worth noting that as you make speculations as in yours. This does not mean that I would be defending/affirming them as authentic; but one should ask questions that account for these insights and not just merely trying to fault a phenomena for the sake of it.

All the same, there are actually authentically orphic phenomena. Those who doubt them are free to do so; but merely speculating to doubt is not the same thing as providing answers to the reality of those which are genuinely confirmed. I appreciate your observations - and I was quite relieved that someone could grant me the fortune of contacting me directly to point out the fallacy of the case on the ghost girl causing an accident.

Pilgrim,
u misuderstood me on my take on Hakan's video. The hole I was referring to isnt a blackhole/wurm hole thing. I have also come across the theories of time-travel and blackholes etc. What I'm disputing is the evidence brought forth by Hakan. I was referring to the hole he had to pass thru to repair his leaky sink/pipes. In that if he had to make a hole in the wall where the sink is attached to, he wouldnt fit into it at all.Same with a hole he might have made in the floor below the sink.

Let's say he's got a very good fone camera to take his video (to obliterate all forms of shakiness and instability), it still doesnt explain the long distance btw his body and the fone ( he would have to be either an orang-utan, a chimp or Mr.Fantastic to do this). The left upper limb which isnt shown in the video, which we are supposed to assume is holdng the fone,definitely seems to be much longer than the right upper limb. Did u look closely at the left shoulder joint? It was stable, and this isnt expected if he was holding the fone in that upper limb and moving it from up (showing the faces) to down (showing the tatooed arms). Besides, did u notice that we didnt get a good view of 70year old Hakan's face whereas it was the opposite for the younger Hakan? Dont u think that was deliberate? Was the face a younger one which is incongruent with a 70 year old's?
What do u think about the tatoos? Why is it darker in the 70yr old Hakan? It should be less prominent/ darker in him and longer too because with age, the skin loses its elasticity, and tatoos should appear longer.The skin doesnt show signs of being wrinkled either.
I still think it's a hoax.

About the demon dog in the fotograph, there are some missing parts to that story. First, is the Hernandez dude (the guy in question)and his wifey really telling us the truth that there was no dog present at the party and whch appeared in the photo? If there was a dog at the party, that would tally with what the experts in such phenomena said about the grain of the dog being the same with that of the rest of the picture.
Hernandez claimed that others who took pix at the same spot did not see a dog in their own photograph,yet, he did not provide us with pictures of these other people who took fotos at the same spot to verify. All we have is his word. Even if these other people claim the same thing ,can they be trusted? Where are their own fotos (it will be important to note the time they were taken too)?
Lastly,since Hernandez was on drugs at the time he took the fotos,could there have been a memory lapse: wherein there was a dog present at the party but he had forgotten about it?
I dont have all the answers to such stuff, but his story is fodder for a skeptic.

Dear MALAMA,

I have carefully gone through your queries and I must say at this point that they sound quite skewed.

Let's take the case of Håkan again. I don't remember where he ever said anything about making a hole in the wall. What are you all about? Even if someone is to question his story or suspect it as a hoax (possible), your conjectures are not even centered around the narratives; so I'm just wondering what you're all about.

The shoulder of his left arm when taking the vid is another. I have also tried to have a close look at the angle if he was holding it; but that cannot be dismissed out of hand because I have seen cases where people have done the same thing - like my friend who took a vid of us on one occasion and his fiance swore to this day that there was a third party taking the vid.

Now to the wrinkled skin - at 70 years old? Neither you nor I can precisely state what someone's skin would look like at that age with every single person. There are so many examples of people above that age who don't look it; and let's just tease ourselves with a man over 60 years and going on to 70: Jesus Miranda. There are others above his age that look far younger, and I know of a man in my neighbourhood who is 76 and is often mistaken for a 50 y.o. Again, I know of another guy who looks his age at 45; but when he stands near his dad, you would mistake them for brothers!

The theory that a tatoo would be longer or stretched with age - that I cannot begin to argue this way or that. Did Håkan make up the story? I don't know, and it would be unfair to just brand him a "liar" on our mere conjectures, especially when inferring things about holes in the wall which he never even referred to in the first place (I may be mistaken, but wherever did you get that idea from?). When the verdict is in, I shall post it - as I did with the case of the dead girl that caused accident hoax. One could be skeptical about these claims; but it is quite another to interject our own inferences and use them to brand people just this way or that.

MALAMA:

About the demon dog in the fotograph, there are some missing parts to that story. First, is the Hernandez dude (the guy in question)and his wifey really telling us the truth that there was no dog present at the party and whch appeared in the photo? If there was a dog at the party, that would tally with what the experts in such phenomena said about the grain of the dog being the same with that of the rest of the picture.

Lol, are you hoping to force the story to read the way you want it to read just to suit your curiosity? The "experts" were not at the scene; those who were at the venue should know - and if there were to be a dog at that scene when the pic was taken, could you explain what it would have been doing at such a height - over his shoulders? If it had appeared on a lower height or elevation, then we could be looking at fillers; but at the angle it appeared in the picture? Did that even occur to you in the first place?

MALAMA:

Lastly,since Hernandez was on drugs at the time he took the fotos,could there have been a memory lapse: wherein there was a dog present at the party but he had forgotten about it?
I don't have all the answers to such stuff, but his story is fodder for a skeptic.

For the skeptic, before he feeds on his fodder, he should first have to explain the appearance of the dog image at such a height - over his shoulders. Take a good look at the vid rather than just think up conjectures. Evidence for or against a narrative should be based primarily on what is provided, not on what we hope to interpolate into the narratives. Someone does not have to be drunk, drug-stoned, or suffer dementia for the dog to appear over his shoulders - why not at a lower level like on the floor, next to his legs?


Again, it may be a hoax. . . and a clever one indeed it could be, if someone was holding a happy-looking dog over his shoulders behind him when the photo was being taken. Questions should be asked on issues as such, I think.

Thanks again for your observations.

Pilgrim,
I got the hole thingy in Hakan's story from the part where he said he had to crawl under the sink and didnt realise that whatever he was looking for was further back than he thought.
My queries aren't skewed,the evidence before us does not add up. The view we were presented showing the 2 Hakans isnt a view that was taken by one of them. A third party took the video. No need to repeat why I think so. Let's think of the year this phenomenon happened : were the pix/videos taken by camera phones as good as the one in this video ? Was it really taken by a camera fone? What year was this video taken? I wont dwell much on the skin appearance of the older Hakan,cos the vid isnt focused on it.It doesn't show an older man's skin ( I agree that there are some cases where 70yr olds may look 45 yrs, but the fact still remains that as we age, we lose elasticity in our skin). The way ur skin was when u were 10 years old is different from the way it is now.This loss of elasticity makes tatoos stretch. The length of the tatoos in both Hakans are the same but it shd be longer in the older Hakan. Besides, it shd be lighter in the older Hakan to tally with the passage of time (but it isnt).

The 'demon dog' could have had been placed on sth to appear at the man's shoulder, but then, does it really matter? If a trick's going to be played , it will be played. I'm not trying to force the story to read in a particular way, but he could have shown us pix of other guests at the party who took their own pix at the same spot at about the same time. He could have 4gotten that there was a dog present at the party,then remembered later, and decided to stick to the story of a dog being absent at the party . Can we believe their words on their claim that a dog was absent at the party? Could it be that all the people in the vid are actors? Could it also be that we saw a 'demon dog' in the vid because we wanted to see such ie we see what our eyes want to see?
Conjectures would have to come up when evidence seems to be lacking. I will wait for u to get more evidence on the veracity of these videos

@MALAMA,

MALAMA:

Pilgrim,
I got the hole thingy in Hakan's story from the part where he said he had to crawl under the sink and didnt realise that whatever he was looking for was further back than he thought.
My queries aren't skewed,the evidence before us does not add up. The view we were presented showing the 2 Hakans isnt a view that was taken by one of them. A third party took the video. No need to repeat why I think so. Let's think of the year this phenomenon happened : were the pix/videos taken by camera phones as good as the one in this video ? Was it really taken by a camera phone? What year was this video taken? I wont dwell much on the skin appearance of the older Hakan,because the vid isnt focused on it.It doesn't show an older man's skin ( I agree that there are some cases where 70yr olds may look 45 years, but the fact still remains that as we age, we lose elasticity in our skin). The way ur skin was when u were 10 years old is different from the way it is now.This loss of elasticity makes tatoos stretch. The length of the tatoos in both Hakans are the same but it should be longer in the older Hakan. Besides, it should be lighter in the older Hakan to tally with the passage of time (but it isnt).

Okay, your ideas are noted. Again, I worry where you ever got the idea of making a hole in the wall. Do you mind sharing on that? I think the way your questions come across is like making these conjectures to interpolate them into the narratives where they were never so suggested. I may again be mistaken; but was he stating that he had to make a hole in the wall? Which wall?

And the skin elasticity thing. That is not even a case on this point. If we are to force the idea your expressed into the narrative, then we should also be willing to force the impossibility to make every 70 year-old to have wrinkled skins. . . which is simply untenable, for the fact remains that there are quite a lot of people who at that age do not appear to have such wrinkles as you argue.

MALAMA:

The 'demon dog' could have had been placed on sth to appear at the man's shoulder, but then, does it really matter? If a trick's going to be played , it will be played. I'm not trying to force the story to read in a particular way, but he could have shown us pix of other guests at the party who took their own pix at the same spot at about the same time. He could have 4gotten that there was a dog present at the party,then remembered later, and decided to stick to the story of a dog being absent at the party . Can we believe their words on their claim that a dog was absent at the party? Could it be that all the people in the vid are actors? Could it also be that we saw a 'demon dog' in the vid because we wanted to see such ie we see what our eyes want to see?
Conjectures would have to come up when evidence seems to be lacking. I will wait for u to get more evidence on the veracity of these videos

Hmm, I don't understand why someone would be too suggestive as I read in yours. My position on things like this is that I cannot argue this way or that to either affirm or debunk the claims. The highlighted part in yours is simply thrown out by the fact that the "experts" (with over 20 years experience) do not even make such a suggestion. For such an image/object to have been placed as you suggested simply begs the question - because it seriously and frivolously ignores the initial question I pointed out: what is that image doing at such a height over the man's shoulders instead of on the ground at a lower plane? Who would be trying to place that image there when the investigation does not suggest any double printing? What about the shadows of anyone who might have been hiding behind them?

Take a closer look at the proximity of their position - how is it that if someone was hiding behind them to place that image there, there's no clue to the shadows, of pointers to such a person behind them? Now, if it was a case of APOPHENIA, could the image have been so distinct that it just does not have anything in the background to blend into? How is it that the investigators could not have spotted a case of apophenia when they examined the photograph? Infact, if there were any dogs at the venue, what would it be doing at that height over the man's shoulders? To say it does not matter is a poor attempt to ignore a very important point here - because if a dog was to appear over your shoulders in full standing length, I'm sure you would not be dismissing it with the same cliche: "does it really matter?"

Again, I'm not affirming or debunking the story. Like the paranormal investigator says, it is "interesting", and we do not have enough on our hands to dismiss it outrightly as a hoax - until the verdict is in. That verdict is what I'm still searching for, and with some fortune someone might find something more cogent than our musings and conjectures.

Regards.

Fox News Ufo Sightings

For some of us, we just watch and shy away from drawing hasty conclusions;
others have their reasons for concluding these reports are authentic and that
there's no reason why anyone should disbelieve them. In the YouTube vidclip
below, a pilot supposedly recounts an experience he had in one of his flights:

[flash=340,285]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVMn1cpQTK8&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

I remember this thread from way back with nostalgia. Those were the days when we had quality well thought threads on NL