The Mothman of WV

[BuzzKill]

In the spirit of "this is odd and interesting", as opposed to just being argumentative, I'll offer these additional thoughts:

A double exposure would require an actual dog to have been photographed.  If so, said dog would be familiar to the family. It would either be the camera owners dog, or a friends dog - but in any case, a familiar dog. There would be no mystery. The man in the photograph might be startled at first seeing it, but he would recognize the dog; or if not, other family members would. They'd be laughing at the odd effect of this "double exposure", but other wise be unaffected.

Instead, the man and his wife were frightened to the point of life style conversion.  

Also, I stand by my assertion that while generally K9 in appearance - this thing is clearly not an actual dog. This is a matter of opinion - but knowing dogs very well, I hold strongly to it.

I'm also of the opinion that this looks unlike a double exposure. I have a few myself and the effect can be quite interesting and deceptive - however, it takes only a brief examination to determine exactly what it is - a double exposure. As mentioned earlier, in the filmed story, the interviews were more detailed that this print version. It was much more apparent that the forensic experts were baffled. They would not have been baffled by a double exposure.

So, while I don't feel one can logically conclude this is a double exposure (or a plush toy) if this is the explanation your happiest with - so be it.

Myself - I'm not sure what it is - except that it is not a dog or a child's toy.  I believe it could be something belonging to the spiritual realm.  On appearance alone I'd guess something demonic.

[Anne Bonney]

In the spirit of "this is odd and interesting", as opposed to just being argumentative, I'll offer these additional thoughts:

A double exposure would require an actual dog to have been photographed.  If so, said dog would be familiar to the family. It would either be the camera owners dog, or a friends dog - but in any case, a familiar dog. There would be no mystery. The man in the photograph might be startled at first seeing it, but he would recognize the dog; or if not, other family members would. They'd be laughing at the odd effect of this "double exposure", but other wise be unaffected.

Instead, the man and his wife were frightened to the point of life style conversion.  

http://www.prophecynews.co.uk/content/view/463/

A Colorado man has reported that he was able to kick his drug habit after a photograph taken of him and his wife during a relative's anniversary celebration revealed what he believes to be a "demonic spirit" leering over his left shoulder. Joe Martinez says he always prayed to the Lord about his addiction, saying he could not be delivered from drugs by his own strength. But when Joe saw the photograph of him and his wife Patty, with what she describes as "Satan" at his left-hand side, he was determined to kick his habit. As soon as Patty saw the image she thought, "You're really walking with Satan". Photographic experts have examined the image and do not believe the dog's head was spliced into the photograph or that it is a double print. In order for a dog's head to appear in the photograph, it would have to be standing on the table behind Joe and Patty.


See...now right there it makes them susceptible to 'other worldly' explanation.  People are searching for something to believe in or to help them in a given situation.  They see something not readily explainable and automatically attribute it to the supernatural.

Also, I stand by my assertion that while generally K9 in appearance - this thing is clearly not an actual dog. This is a matter of opinion - but knowing dogs very well, I hold strongly to it.

I'm also quite familiar with dogs.  Used to train them, have had several of my own and I can tell you that it looks pretty much like a friend of mine's rottweiler.

As mentioned earlier, in the filmed story, the interviews were more detailed that this print version. It was much more apparent that the forensic experts were baffled. They would not have been baffled by a double exposure.

They vary in appearance, depending on how much bleed through there is.

So, while I don't feel one can logically conclude this is a double exposure (or a plush toy) if this is the explanation your happiest with - so be it.

Meh...it's one explanation.  Another might be forced perspective mixed with a little wishful thinking, as with the people that see Mary or Jesus in their toast or on a window.

Myself - I'm not sure what it is - except that it is not a dog or a child's toy.  I believe it could be something belonging to the spiritual realm.  On appearance alone I'd guess something demonic.

Something demonic.....I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by that.  Would you elaborate a little please?  I'm honestly asking, not trying to argue.  I realize that you and I hold very different beliefs regarding this area and a very dear friend of mine believes very much as you do so I'm trying to understand.

[BuzzKill]

Something demonic.....I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by that. Would you elaborate a little please? I'm honestly asking, not trying to argue. I realize that you and I hold very different beliefs regarding this area and a very dear friend of mine believes very much as you do so I'm trying to understand.

I'm willing to try. There are theologians with doctorates who specialize in demonology but I'm not one of them.  That said, In general, I accept that there are angels. I understand that there are different kinds of angels - or maybe its more like angels who have differing work and job titles - anyway, some have more power and authority than others.  They are individuals with free will.  

Some angels, exercising their free will, have turned away from their Creator and seek to degrade and as far as possible destroy His creation.  I've always thought of them as demons. Like angels, they are individuals who vary in strength and intelligence.

The Holy angels never seek attention or adoration. In the rare cases that they have made themselves known they refuse worship and always direct ones adoration toward God alone. They may insist on respect (Luke 1 vs 18-19) but never allow themselves to be worshiped.  

The demonic on the other hand, covet attention and  worship and get it how ever they can. They seem to like to torment and terrorize given the chance, but are wiling to pretend to "goodness" if that will better achieve their goal. Likewise, I think they are willing to display themselves in ways that confuse, frighten and misled, such as aliens or mothman.

I think one can invite the presence and activity of the demonic into their lives and homes, and encourage their strength and numbers by how they respond to them.

The same is (for me) no doubt true with regard to the Holy angels, altho you'd not be so clearly aware of them as they do not seek attention.

Satan (the accuser) and Lucifer are in my mind one and the same. This was an Arch Angel. His Holy equivalent would be Michael or Gabriele.  Apparently, he was the greatest even of all the Arch Angels.  This is a frightening prospect, as he very much hates you and seeks your destruction.  Your only hope is in the fact God loves you and took the blame the accuser would use to condemn you upon Himself to save you.

It gets more complicated as you focus on the kinds of demons as they are not all the same. Also, when you begin to consider the Nephilum - what they are and how they relate to all this.  So, when I say something demonic, I mean something in this general category of deceptive, evil and destructive being.

[Anne Bonney]

Thanks.....I appreciate the explanation.  I don't understand believing in it, but I appreciate it very much as I seek to understand my friend.  I love her dearly.

I get the concept of good and evil, I just don't accept that there's an actual being or entity (good or bad) that watches over us or tempts us.  I think it's just an attempt to put a "face" on regular ol' everyday good/evil.  Human nature drives us to try and understand things that are not readily explainable.  That's how all gods arose in human culture throughout the ages.  People were trying to gain some control over, or at least input, on their lives.   Endeavoring to do that they came up with various gods that, if prayed and sacrificed to properly, would bless them with a good harvest.  Or fertility.  Or a good smiting of their thieving neighbor.  Or protect them from the volcano.  

I don't mean this to come off as flippantly as it's going to sound, but the Marxist phrase applies.  Religion is the opiate of the masses.  I don't mean that disparagingly either.  It's a comfort, a security blanket.  And I'm fine with that if that's what makes someone feel better.  We all have and need our vices.  Where I have a problem with it is when it's forced upon others "for their own good".  Or used as an excuse to obliterate a people or group or culture.

Thanks again for the discussion.  

http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm

      Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Usually all one gets from the above is “Religion is the opium of the people“ (with no ellipses to indicate that something has been removed). Sometimes “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature“ is included. If you compare these with the full quotation, it’s clear that a great deal more is being said than what most people are aware of.

In the above quotation Marx is saying that religion’s purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them that this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Although this is a criticism of religion, Marx is not without sympathy: people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.

[BuzzKill]

I understand fully that on the surface all this supernatural stuff sounds like a fairy tale.

I believe it b/c I have had some experience with it. I could tell you about it, but there is no reason why you should believe me - I could be a little psychotic or just a plain ole liar. But, I know I'm not - I know it was "real" - I know others saw and heard it too. So, I know that there are things that defy natural explanation.

But greater proof than this is available to anyone who cares to look - the very real existence of Biblical Prophecy.  It is real, ancient, and absolutely reliable; in other words, proof of an omniscient Supreme Being.

Where I have a problem with it is when it's forced upon others "for their own good". Or used as an excuse to obliterate a people or group or culture.

Me too.  I would argue that when it leads to this kind of thing it is a result of men following after false gods, false prophets, false teachings - in other words - the demonic pretenders.

[Anne Bonney]

I understand fully that on the surface all this supernatural stuff sounds like a fairy tale.

I believe it b/c I have had some experience with it. I could tell you about it, but there is no reason why you should believe me - I could be a little psychotic or just a plain ole liar. But, I know I'm not - I know it was "real" - I know others saw and heard it too. So, I know that there are things that defy natural explanation.

I wouldn't think you're either lying or psychotic.  Probably more along the lines of someone who wants to believe in something, so you do.  I believe that you believe what you experienced was supernatural.  You seem an honest person with integrity.

But greater proof than this is available to anyone who cares to look - the very real existence of Biblical Prophecy.  It is real, ancient, and absolutely reliable; in other words, proof of an omniscient Supreme Being.

If you've got actual proof, or can at least point me in the direction where I might find it, I'd sure love to see it.  But I have a feeling that your definition of proof and mine might be a little different.

[BuzzKill]

Do you own a Bible? You'd need to own one and be wiling to read parts of it.

[Anne Bonney]

Do you own a Bible? You'd need to own one and be wiling to read parts of it.

Yep and I've read it fairly extensively (edited to add:  actually, reading the bible is what 'converted' me to being a non-believer).  Not completely, I'll admit but damn near.  Sure....give me the passages and I'd be glad to.  It'll make for a good discussion with my friend as well.  She's obviously aware of my non-believer status and loves me just the same.  

But....I have to say.....I hope it's not just the bible that provides the proof.  Because that would be kinda circular logic, wouldn't it?  God/heaven & evil/hell are true because the bible says it's true?

[BuzzKill]

Well, in some cases it is the Bible proving the Bible, but even in theses cases there are other aspects one should consider that give weight to the accuracy of the prophecy.  But in your case, I suppose I'd most turn your focus to recent world history and current events that were predicted by prophetic scholars long before they occurred and when such things seemed impossible.  If your interested fire me off an email.

[Froderik]

The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
By Levi H. Dowling
Introduction by Eva S. Dowling
[1920]

This book is an extensive reworking of the Jesus story with strong Theosophical and Spiritualist influences. Of interest is the attempt to fill in the two decade gap in the Jesus's traditional biography. According to Dowling, Jesus spent a lot of time in the mystical East where he learned esoteric methods from the masters, while rebelling against the caste system. The narrative, unfortunately, has numerous historical inconsistencies, including Jesus meeting historical figures who lived hundreds of years before or after the first century, e.g. Mencius. The book has Jesus studying in India in the Orissa area; while this is an historically important ceremonial area, it didn't come into prominence until nearly a millenium later. In addition, this work appears to be derivative of The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ.

None of this lessens the charm or the esoteric insight of this book. Nor should its subterranean impact on popular spirituality in the United States be underestimated. The Aquarian Gospel was rediscovered during the spiritual ferment of the 1960s; a beat-up paperback copy of this book was de rigeur in every hippie pad, and it no doubt played an unsung role in naming the 'Age of Aquarius'. The Aquarian Gospel was probably one of the catalysts for the 'Jesus freak' movement. Although they would never admit it, many a staid evangelical Christian probably had their spiritual awakening while browsing this book in a head shop.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/

[Anne Bonney]

Well, in some cases it is the Bible proving the Bible, but even in theses cases there are other aspects one should consider that give weight to the accuracy of the prophecy.  But in your case, I suppose I'd most turn your focus to recent world history and current events that were predicted by prophetic scholars long before they occurred and when such things seemed impossible.  If your interested fire me off an email.

Sent you a PM last week.  Would love to have that info.

[BuzzKill]

Sorry Anne - I didn't get it.
Try again if you'd like.

Fro - Funny how frequently people try to remake Yeshua Ha'Mashiach into an image they are more comfortable with. This inevitably creates a false  Messiah and false teaching that will (in my view) lead many astray.  You don't see this same phenomenon with Buddha, Mohamed, Das Ram, Sung-Yohng Moon or whom ever else you might care to name.  Any thoughts on why this might be?

[Pile of Dead Kids]

ou don't see this same phenomenon with [...] Mohamed

:rofl: :roflmao: :beat:

Yeah I mean it's not like there's two whole major sects of Islam and a whole bunch of sub-sects killing each other like flies in the desert over that.

When the Quran was first being written, the editors had to pick and choose between many thousands of contradicting Hadith, trying to figure out what was actually the words of the Prophet based on how many witnesses they could find to support them. Basically, the Muslims' choice book of fiction had a better editing team and they're still butchering each other over it. The comparison between Shia/Sunni and Catholic/Protestant is obvious. Who are you kidding?

[Anne Bonney]

ou don't see this same phenomenon with [...] Mohamed

When the Quran was first being written, the editors had to pick and choose between many thousands of contradicting Hadith, trying to figure out what was actually the words of the Prophet based on how many witnesses they could find to support them. Basically, the Muslims' choice book of fiction had a better editing team and they're still butchering each other over it. The comparison between Shia/Sunni and Catholic/Protestant is obvious. Who are you kidding?

Council of Nicea?

[Pile of Dead Kids]

Council of Nicea?

The Muslims wrote theirs in less time after their prophet bit the dust, depending on who you believe; however, the general consensus is that it didn't take them nearly as long as the Christians and that the Koran is generally more self-consistent. Hence: Better editing team.