Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

Giant Winged Demon photographed

142 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Thorvir
10 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Is that Thor's chicken demon?!!?

chant.jpg

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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

@ Thorvir

I am loving the sign at the bottom:

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
On 1/4/2017 at 3:23 PM, seeder said:

here it is

demon%20sighting%20picture_1483455619467

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roBORAT

and all we got is one grainy picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
1 hour ago, roBORAT said:

and all we got is one grainy picture

That's all some people ever need.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Yup that's a demon...back to church for me...burn in hell unbelievers!!

 

 

Or it might be trees....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

:tsu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Too blurry to take serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jarjarbinks

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
On 1/5/2017 at 4:43 AM, DebDandelion said:

I mean no offense at all, I find it ironic though that we always chase after proof. Photos etc, documentation etc. Now we have a photo, and we (humans not UM) are all in arms trying to debunk it cause it simply can't be true. So at what point will we accept proof? Or are we going to remain sceptics... 

The irony. We want proof, when we have.proof we want to debunk it.

What a journey! Life indeed is interesting! 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torviking

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
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.  

 

And so we should be...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DebDandelion
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.