Giant Winged Demon photographed

[Thorvir]

10 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Is that Thor's chicken demon?!!?

From rashore's link:

The Rooster in Noblesville stood in front of a former antiques store when these photos were taken in 2006. The rooster and building had been freshly painted white and a new business was moving in. The rooster may have been installed when Aunt Bee's Restaurant was here. The rooster had been quite colorful before. By 2013, the business in the building behind the rooster was Hamilton Hills Animal Hospital. The statue remains and is still painted white.

I can confirm it is still white, and I am thankful that I don't actually have to stop at that place, in dead cold of winter, and make a fool of myself trying to get a good pic of it.  Notice the cables anchoring it to the ground...those aren't original.

It is quite demonic-looking (in so much as the physical manifestation of a made-up demonic entity should look like).

[freetoroam]

@ Thorvir

I am loving the sign at the bottom:

comfort provided by LOVE. and what a lovely chicken demon it is.

[XenoFish]

On 1/4/2017 at 3:23 PM, seeder said:

here it is

Maybe it's the pareidolia playing with my eyes, but does/did anyone else see someone standing in front of it with a blue shirt, white hat, and white shorts on?

[roBORAT]

and all we got is one grainy picture

[Thorvir]

1 hour ago, roBORAT said:

and all we got is one grainy picture

That's all some people ever need.

[Princess Serenity]

When I first heard about this was on the Mysterious Universe website. And if I recall Facebook deleted the page? I don't know if that's true or not. 

Looks too tall to be a freaking palm tree to me and way to close to the "camera."

[Prehistoric Rex]

If you look closely there is another palm in the foreground. Looks just like down here in florida where palm trees line the streets. It is a palm tree. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

[Farmer77]

I think the only way its a palm is if its been physically manipulated, I.e tied down in the middle to look like that. 

 

Edit to add, certainly not saying its anything paranormal or fun 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Farmer77

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Prehistoric Rex said:

If you look closely there is another palm in the foreground. Looks just like down here in florida where palm trees line the streets. It is a palm tree. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

And you can see the power line above the palm tree. Occasionally the power companies go through the neighborhoods and trim the trees so they don't damage the power lines. They sometimes just butcher the trees, without any regard for aesthetics. I used to live on a street where they did that once, and the trees looked just like the one in the picture.

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

And you can see the power line above the palm tree. Occasionally the power companies go through the neighborhoods and trim the trees so they don't damage the power lines. They sometimes just butcher the trees, without any regard for aesthetics. I used to live on a street where they did that once, and the trees looked just like the one in the picture.

[+Hammerclaw]

Too blurry to take serious.

[+Hammerclaw]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 0:31 PM, XenoFish said:

Maybe it's the pareidolia playing with my eyes, but does/did anyone else see someone standing in front of it with a blue shirt, white hat, and white shorts on?

No, but I see the two Mormons on bicycles in the background, with black pants, white shirts and black ties.

[jarjarbinks]

It's the Mothman. Something bad will happen there this week.

[Torviking]

Keepers creepers, where 'd ya get those peepers.......

[Mark One]

We all blame everything spooky on demons.  It could just be an angel in silhouette - it is night time in the image folks.  Nip down to your nearest grave yard after dark and study the angel statues.  Are they demons in disguise?

[DebDandelion]

7 hours ago, seanjo said:

A fuzzy photo of a "Demon" (come on FFS) is not proof...

Question remains... So it needs to be a crystal clear photo before we (humans) will accept it...Oh wait.

 

Then we will ask why they had their camera ready for the photo if this happened just now.

Point I was trying to make was we(humans) are sceptics.  

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

Question remains... So it needs to be a crystal clear photo before we (humans) will accept it...Oh wait.

Why do you think *that* is the (sole) issue??  That's a strawman argument.  Just do a simple comparison - let's assume you own a bicycle.  To prove that you own it, you could do an awful lot of things - post a 'clear' picture, post the receipt you got when you bought it, describe it in detail, invite your next door neighbours over to see it, etc, etc.  Eventually I think even a hard-nosed skeptic like me would accept that you do own that bike..  In fact I'd relax all that and only ask for a couple of bits of evidence, at which point I'd probably be satisfied enough to buy it on eBay...

Do you see where I'm heading with this, at all?  If It was important to me that you really owned the bike, I might want at *least* a clear picture...

Do we have ANY of that evidence here?  Do we have any other witnesses?  Do we have anything except a picture that could be a number of things including a cardboard cutout?

But more damningly, have you not read the thread?  Assuming you haven't... the person who took this photo has vanished and has not answered any questions, the first one being -where was this taken, as we'd all like to have a little look on Google Streetview....  This isn't about changing goalposts, this is about the owner of a claim standing up and backing it up by answering questions.  When they DO that, mostly we can identify the 'apparition'.  That's a good thing, isn't it?  And if there isn't reasonable evidence, then I think it's quite appropriate to shrug it off, especially when we know that a lot of folks love to troll and make up stories and even fake photos.

Quote

Then we will ask why they had their camera ready for the photo if this happened just now.

And IF that question was asked and it was unfair, you could point out why. I don't see the problem as long as everyone is reasonably polite and the claimant sticks around to talk about it.  Or are you suggesting something other than free discussion?

Quote

Point I was trying to make was we(humans) are sceptics.  

Yes, that's how we survive, and the better you are at it, the less you will be ripped off / trodden on as you go through life.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by ChrLzs

[DebDandelion]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why do you think *that* is the (sole) issue??  That's a strawman argument.  Just do a simple comparison - let's assume you own a bicycle.  To prove that you own it, you could do an awful lot of things - post a 'clear' picture, post the receipt you got when you bought it, describe it in detail, invite your next door neighbours over to see it, etc, etc.  Eventually I think even a hard-nosed skeptic like me would accept that you do own that bike..  In fact I'd relax all that and only ask for a couple of bits of evidence, at which point I'd probably be satisfied enough to buy it on eBay...

Do you see where I'm heading with this, at all?  If It was important to me that you really owned the bike, I might want at *least* a clear picture...

Do we have ANY of that evidence here?  Do we have any other witnesses?  Do we have anything except a picture that could be a number of things including a cardboard cutout?

But more damningly, have you not read the thread?  Assuming you haven't... the person who took this photo has vanished and has not answered any questions, the first one being -where was this taken, as we'd all like to have a little look on Google Streetview....  This isn't about changing goalposts, this is about the owner of a claim standing up and backing it up by answering questions.  When they DO that, mostly we can identify the 'apparition'.  That's a good thing, isn't it?  And if there isn't reasonable evidence, then I think it's quite appropriate to shrug it off, especially when we know that a lot of folks love to troll and make up stories and even fake photos.

And IF that question was asked and it was unfair, you could point out why. I don't see the problem as long as everyone is reasonably polite and the claimant sticks around to talk about it.  Or are you suggesting something other than free discussion?

Yes, that's how we survive, and the better you are at it, the less you will be ripped off / trodden on as you go through life.

 

 

Hello there, thank u for the thought out answer,  my response would follow as soon as I have time. 

Quick answer - I enjoy free discussion. 

Never implied that it was real. 

Yes, did read the thread.

[Aftermath]

11 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

Question remains... So it needs to be a crystal clear photo before we (humans) will accept it...Oh wait.

Then we will ask why they had their camera ready for the photo if this happened just now.

Point I was trying to make was we(humans) are sceptics.  

 

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why do you think *that* is the (sole) issue??  That's a strawman argument.  Just do a simple comparison - let's assume you own a bicycle.  To prove that you own it, you could do an awful lot of things - post a 'clear' picture, post the receipt you got when you bought it, describe it in detail, invite your next door neighbours over to see it, etc, etc.  Eventually I think even a hard-nosed skeptic like me would accept that you do own that bike..  In fact I'd relax all that and only ask for a couple of bits of evidence, at which point I'd probably be satisfied enough to buy it on eBay...

Do you see where I'm heading with this, at all?  If It was important to me that you really owned the bike, I might want at *least* a clear picture...

Do we have ANY of that evidence here?  Do we have any other witnesses?  Do we have anything except a picture that could be a number of things including a cardboard cutout?

But more damningly, have you not read the thread?  Assuming you haven't... the person who took this photo has vanished and has not answered any questions, the first one being -where was this taken, as we'd all like to have a little look on Google Streetview....  This isn't about changing goalposts, this is about the owner of a claim standing up and backing it up by answering questions.  When they DO that, mostly we can identify the 'apparition'.  That's a good thing, isn't it?  And if there isn't reasonable evidence, then I think it's quite appropriate to shrug it off, especially when we know that a lot of folks love to troll and make up stories and even fake photos.

And IF that question was asked and it was unfair, you could point out why. I don't see the problem as long as everyone is reasonably polite and the claimant sticks around to talk about it.  Or are you suggesting something other than free discussion?

Yes, that's how we survive, and the better you are at it, the less you will be ripped off / trodden on as you go through life.

 

 

What ChrLzs wrote, plus I would also add that due to the nature of these sort of things, i.e., that if taken wholly as real would change reality for everyone, that everyone, skeptics and those people more prone to believe, should look at what is being presented like if it was a court room.  The claimant must present irrefutable evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt.  If that standard isn't satisfied, we cannot accept what is being claimed.  

For instance, if a man was on trial for murder, and all the prosecution had as evidence was a fuzzy, dark picture of a man standing at the end of a street with a gun, could you in good conscience find him guilty of that murder?  I would hope your answer is 'no'.  We need the prosecution to provide more substantial evidence than that picture.  This is no different.

What we have here is a mind-blowing claim - that if truly real - would change our world, our perception of this world, and the foundation of many beliefs.  We therefore set the burden of proof "bar" very high.  In this case, although we can agree it is compelling, we cannot base such a significant paradigm shift on merely a single, dark, fuzzy picture.

[DebDandelion]

@ChrLzs once again thank. U for the reply. 

If we look at the comments before my first post#19....look at #18, we see that it is asked why not video creature instead of.photo. My reply was based on the fact that we have a photo yet would prefer a video. Or we have a photo but would like a clear one.  Last sentence of first post reading: What a journey! Life.is indeed.interesting. The point (I thought) I was making was that what we get we always need more. Taking your post.into account about the bicycle (thanks, example grasped) I never.implied this particular photo was true, I didn't mean to imply that we should not find a clearer picture, I simply meant to say that we might.one day find a true picture,  blurry,  but we will disregard it. Hence we stay sceptical. I get the poster (of photo)  cannot be found hence the truth of the photo is brought into question,  I was simply raising a philosophical statement. Am I making sense on what I meant?

I want to ask Chrlzs,  do u drive with a camera with you ready to take a photo (clear one)?  I for one might actually also capture a blurry picture, although I wouldn't dissappear,  I would answer logical questions u posed like, where it happened,  circumstances etc. So yes, I get that one would be able to answer at least some.of the questions posed by critical thinkers.

I myself looked at the picture and questioned a few things (internal discussion with myself). I did not say I believe this is a true and correct method done by the photo poster,  but I realised that I myself might be very weary to accept 'proof' of any kind... Hence I posted previously explained statement.

@seanjo I never said it is proof of a demon. That statement wasn't typed. I posed a question asking if we would ever be satisfied with the 'proof' that people submit, or whether we would stay sceptical even if (we wouldn't know this) the photo was actually real.  Nothing wrong with us being sceptics, I was as previously stated making a philosophical statement.

@Aftermath thank u for ur reply.  I liked ur.post cause I don't disagree with any statement there. I just want to answer the question posed- no, I wouldn't find them guilty if not proved beyond doubt.

Edited January 12, 2017 by DebDandelion

[Merc14]

26 minutes ago, DebDandelion said:

 I never said it is proof of a demon. That statement wasn't typed. I posed a question asking if we would ever be satisfied with the 'proof' that people submit, or whether we would stay sceptical even if (we wouldn't know this) the photo was actually real.  Nothing wrong with us being sceptics, I was as previously stated making a philosophical statement.

Deb, I am not to answering for seanjo, just my two cents.  

If the evidence presented was indisputable that what we are seeing is indeed a demon, as commonly defined, then we would be forced to change how we think about heaven and hell and accept this new reality as fact even if it goes against everything we ever believed in.  That is how this works.  

That said, it is going to take a whole helluva lot more than a photograph, clear or otherwise, to change how I think about heaven and hell or accept as true that an evil being from another reality is walking amongst us and taking over people's souls.  It would also produce even more questions like do we indeed have souls and how does this creature take them over, etc.   I'd expect a DNA analysis, research into how this creature travels between realms, what are those realms and where are they, what is a realm, are there other being there etc. etc.? 

In other words, proof that demons are real would be a paradigm shifting event that would shatter much of how we understand our physical universe and therefore the proof should be of a magnitude that no rational person could dispute this new reality.  My question to you is would any picture be enough to cause this kind of paradigm shift?

Edited January 12, 2017 by Merc14

[DebDandelion]

2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Deb, I am not to answering for seanjo, just my two cents.  

If the evidence presented was indisputable that what we are seeing is indeed a demon, as commonly defined, then we would be forced to change how we think about heaven and hell and accept this new reality as fact even if it goes against everything we ever believed in.  That is how this works.  

That said, it is going to take a whole helluva lot more than a photograph, clear or otherwise, to change how I think about heaven and hell or accept as true that an evil being from another reality is walking amongst us and taking over people's souls.  It would also produce even more questions like do we indeed have souls and how does this creature take them over, etc.   I'd expect a DNA analysis, research into how this creature travels between realms, what are those realms and where are they? 

In other words, proof that demons are real would be a paradigm shifting event that would shatter much of how we understand the physical world and therefore the proof should be of a magnitude that no rational person could dispute this new reality.  My question to you is would any picture be enough to cause this kind of paradigm shift?

That's sort of my point. There (for me) needs to be a lot of proof (like Chrlzs said).  When I looked at the photo I started questioning the reality (of the.photo)and I realised that for me a blurry photo isn't enough, heck a video won't do, then I thought if any point I would be satisfied. So us humans being sceptics wasn't meant as criticism.

I made (and I guess I did it wrong) a philosophical statement that even if we do have a photo of something real we wold question the heck out.of.it...(as we should,  not criticising the fact that we question it...)

 

[Aftermath]

5 minutes ago, DebDandelion said:

That's sort of my point. There (for me) needs to be a lot of proof (like Chrlzs said).  When I looked at the photo I started questioning the reality (of the.photo)and I realised that for me a blurry photo isn't enough, heck a video won't do, then I thought if any point I would be satisfied. So us humans being sceptics wasn't meant as criticism.

I made (and I guess I did it wrong) a philosophical statement that even if we do have a photo of something real we wold question the heck out.of.it...(as we should,  not criticising the fact that we question it...)

 

Right.  This then leads us to ask: what sort of evidence would we need?

A photo and/or video certainly is not adequate.  Would we need multiple, independent eye witnesses coupled with photo/video?  In this day & age, I'm not too sure that's enough.  Just look at some of the YT videos, people are getting better and better with this stuff.

This might be a good topic to explore in another thread.

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

@ChrLzs once again thank. U for the reply. 

No problems - and I thank you for not taking it in the wrong way - I enjoy your comments and observations!

5 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

...I simply meant to say that we might.one day find a true picture,  blurry,  but we will disregard it. Hence we stay sceptical. I get the poster (of photo)  cannot be found hence the truth of the photo is brought into question,  I was simply raising a philosophical statement. Am I making sense on what I meant?

Yes, I agree and that is a risk, but it is a sensible risk - while there is a very small risk that we might stumble across something of importance and dismiss it as the evidence is not very good, but if we lower our standards, then for one thing it increases the incentive for fakers..  Deity knows we have enough of them already.  Plus, if something happens only once, fleetingly and leaves no lasting evidence.. I have to ask, why is it important? 

5 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

I want to ask Chrlzs,  do u drive with a camera with you ready to take a photo (clear one)?

The honest answer is yes and no..  First up, I do have a powerful DSLR, and I do take it with me often, probably at least half the time I'm out (including work-days).  That camera is always ready, charged battery and a wide range (but very high quality) zoom lens, takes exceptional quality stills and movies - and it takes about 15 seconds for me to get it out of the bag and operating.

At all times I have relatively cheap, but very recent smartphone at hand.  It has a medium quality lens and sensor, and in the situation shown here, I'd guesstimate that it would create an image at least 3-5x the resolution/quality of the one shown.  More importantly, I have spent time learning how to use it, so unless I was scared out of my wits or the thing rapidly vanished, I would then proceed to take another shot up closer, and also switch to video mode to film the object and it's surroundings.  I would also give the rather obviously missing information, namely the actual location where I took the shot.

5 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

 I for one might actually also capture a blurry picture, although I wouldn't dissappear,  I would answer logical questions u posed like, where it happened,  circumstances etc. So yes, I get that one would be able to answer at least some.of the questions posed by critical thinkers.

Exactly!  We eagerly await *your* sighting!!

5 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

I myself looked at the picture and questioned a few things (internal discussion with myself). I did not say I believe this is a true and correct method done by the photo poster,  but I realised that I myself might be very weary to accept 'proof' of any kind... Hence I posted previously explained statement.

I think we're on the same page..  I'd love to see something genuinely 'off-the-planet', but genuine mysteries are rare, and genuine claimants who stick around after posting stuff like this are even rarer...  I think that's because they are trolling (or perhaps just genuinely inept!) in the vast majority of cases, and, like this one, it is often impossible to get anywhere.

 

[Crystal Rose]

If it isn't palm trees, it could be an angel. Demons don't actually have wings.