A Strange Photo (Little Girl With Monkey(?) Figure)

[IbisNibs]

I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth . . .

the little girl's apparent hands at the figure's left elbow and right torso don't seem to be grasping the figure at all. The girl's right hand can be construed as holding the figure upright with only a single finger touching it.

The right hand on the girl is completely wrong. The fingers are far too long compared to the thumb.

The thumb (outlined in pink) is foreshortened, so appears out of proportion relative to the other fingers.
The left elbow of the toy/ET/the ectoplasmic Mr. Daniels is resting on the base of the girl's thumb and her palm.
The index finger (outlined in blue) is hooked around the elbow.
The middle and ring fingers (outlined in green) touch the side of the toy/ET/the ectoplasmic Mr. Daniels.

I think the out of proportion finger like lines at the nape of the . . . whatever's . . . neck are actually part of the design of the back, and I agree that the eye like weirdness on the side of the head must be an ear. I can see it as an ear. Agree that loss of half tone dots would due to compression. No photoshopped manifestation of any toy/ET/ectoplasmic Mr. Daniels.

Poor Mr. Daniels! Such is fame!

 

[maximus otter]

View attachment 28841

This picture is of a young girl by the name of Betty Cooper. She is long passed and is buried in St Oswalds, Filey. Her father, named Oswald Cooper, was a Head Master in Scarborough at Bramecote school.
The picture was taken on West avenue, Filey. WTF is she holding?

Could this be the very house?

Bella Vista, 96, West Avenue, Filey, YO14 9BE

The iron railings on the wall probably went in 1940 “for the war effort”.

Oswald Cooper was headmaster of the Bramcote School from 1930 to 1957.

maximus otter

 

[maximus otter]

The Find a Grave page for St. Oswald’s church lists several graves for women whose first or middle names were Elizabeth (“Betty”), but none seem to tie up with the apparent age of “Betty” and date of the photo.

maximus otter

 

[Ermintruder]

A hand retouched photo

there's something that seems "off" about the figure's surface textures

Exactly. Plus....

Look at the image in photonegative:

The cast shadow is far too sharp & defined, it has no penumbra edge rolloff relative to real elements within the picture (especially when compared with the soft-edged rooflines shown mid-way/right of the depicted subject).

Again on the 'shadow': it is much too broad & bulky for the adduced sun-angle (remember, the 'held' object is below the upper torso of the girl). The represented independant shadow of the tail is highly unlikely, and an inverse ray-trace would show this. The accute shade/light transition c50mm below the tail root is extremely-improbable without a secondary light-source or local reflection. There may be some suggestion of a light triangle infill to the left of this effect.

The object's face is heavily overworked (the entire image has edge sharpening/lining in numerous places, but care seems to have been taken to not over-accentuate the head), and is clearly the focal point of the composition.

I cannot agree with anyone who thinks we see an ear, centrally, rather than an eye: please convince me otherwise.

The understated (but evident) joint-line between the creature's upper-arm & shoulder (toymaker pivot-pinned limb style) makes me wonder if what we are seeing here, in total, is a photocomposite of:

- a girl, holding something extremely light/small and NOT what we see represented (there is no effort brace/ handled heft as would be the case for a true handling stance), overlayed by;

- a rescaled photograph of a real-world stuffed toy, but with a lot of subtle & creative added features, grouped into a

- real setting, where the original picture of the girl was taken, with the context-binder being the 'painted' shadow.

It's gripping, it's well-done: but I really doubt that it is actually anything more than a skilful artwork.

(ps I've a day off today. Not had many of those since the end of March....it's good for a change)

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

EnolaGaia wrote:

"The strangest part is the head. It seems to be "un-furred" and shows banding reminiscent of Polynesian / Maori tattoos. "

Or indeed Mayan carvings and battle-masks, in which the howler monkey featured regularly:

 

[PeteS]

What is fascinating about the photo is how viewers have completely different perspectives of what they are seeing. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. The speculation is fun though. I wonder if in fact the original image did not come out all that well and the anomalies people are seeing are in fact retouching as per the Cottingley Fairies images which were heavily retouched.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's gripping, it's well-done: but I really doubt that it is actually anything more than a skilful artwork.

Brilliant and compelling!

Two thoughts:

- that would explain why it's making little sense as authentic

- what would be the point doing so?

Looks like we would need to investigate the source of this image further.

See next post!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

A friend who lives in Scarborough posted it on Facebook. I don't use FB myself but my brother brought it to my attention.

If this has been made public, is there any possibility of identifying the Facebook account - could maybe be followed up further from there?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The index finger (outlined in blue) is hooked around the elbow.

Superb - yes, so it seems!

Also, the left hand fingers seem to be holding on underneath the artefact's arm:

 

[Ermintruder]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it

@PeteS I refer you to my points above:

The implicit light-source intensities producing each of these sets of shadows are just too different, either by time-of-day/location or both. A reasonable inference is that the image of a shadow associated with the composition subject is itself a probable fabrication.

I wonder if in fact the original image did not come out all that well and the anomalies people are seeing are in fact retouching

Is that a proportionate conclusion to make, though?

Would it not be more accurate to say that the tonal contrast between just these two heads (which is simply a negative crop from the OP's original) is, subjectively and measurably, so different as to make the entire image impossible to trust? It is, inarguably, a represented composition rather than a realistic depiction. I'd rather like it to be real (in exactly the same sort of way that as a child last century I really wanted the Cottingley Fairies to be real) but I cannot see how that can be the case here.

what would be the point doing so?

True Art knows no master; true artfulness knows no real rules.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Sticking with the primate scanario for a moment, there are seemingly precedents.

The closest match I can find is something like...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

True Art knows no master; true artfulness knows no real rules.

I remain 50/50 on this explanation, for the moment!

It's the background story, which makes all so bizarre.

 

[maximus otter]

My guess? Someone’s found a snap of the real Betty holding something - a doll or cat, for example - and has decided to test their ‘shopping skills by producing a woo picture, then slyly releasing it into the wild to see what comments it engendered.

maximus otter

 

[Zeke Newbold]

I think I am detecting a degree of historical chauvinism in people's reaction the the photo.

A girl in the 1930s or 40s (has anyone effectively dated it yet?) is holding a weird looking toy. So what!?

Back in the 1930s and 40s people had imaginations - just as they do now - and toys were produced for children which reflected this - just as they are now.My guess is that it's a doll based on a character from a cartoon, children's story or matinee film of the time..

I have no idea what that monkey thing is: no doubt it has been lost in time, just as The Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles will be a few decades down the line.But let me remind people that this was the era of Rupert the Bear, Tin Tin Dan Dare and a whole lot of other whimsical stuff much of which will have been forgotten about.

Girl Holds Strange toy in Our Grandparents Day. Hold The Front page - It Must Be a Fake!

 

[Ermintruder]

Sticking with the primate scanario for a moment

Hold on: the cranial proportions are actually quite higher primate/human in scaling, which is one of the subconscious reasons for the picture having an added oddness about it.

There's a lot of upper forehead/fore-brain being represented there, with the skull orbits resultantly-central....less like a monkey, more like a human(iod). It's undoubtedly ambiguous, and I think deliberately so.

a degree of historical chauvinism in people's reaction the the photo

You might be right, in general arguable terms, but in this represented picture there is far too much of a differential between the main subject and its overall context. It looks wrong because it's not real (@maximus otter puts it a lot more succinctly than I did, but he says it like we should see it)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There's a lot of upper forehead/fore-brain being represented there, with the skull orbits resultantly-central....less like a monkey, more like a human(iod). It's undoubtedly ambiguous, and I think deliberately so.

Absolutely...

Comprehensively realised and simply making 'allowances' in speculating here.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Zip-up pyjama cases became popular early last century.

A search for antique monkey pyjama case turns up many images not a million miles away from the original strange photo.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It looks wrong because it's not real...

It's always troubled that the artefact just doesn't seem to, 'sit right'... looks awkward as regards being 'held'.

In essence now... can't see any justification for a primate scanario (also had a look at monkeys used by organ grinders around the Scarborough area!) and unless something else materialises re our Facebook genesis, have to side with, 'dubious authenticity', for now.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The fact a toddler is holding it off the ground indicates it's too lightweight to be any actual creature of that

That, is critical...

We seem to have come full circle from your earlier astute summations!

 

[Ermintruder]

A search for antique monkey pyjama case

Neither I (nor my pyjamas) may ever be the same again, after seeing those....eviscerated furry nightshirt nasties!!

If form follows function, irrespective of biology, toys, and even clothing storage....what the heck was that massive and distinctly-unprehensile tail for?

(ps it's before mid-day on a Friday, and yet I've already had occasion to use the word 'unprehensile'...better check my seatbelt)

 

[Krepostnoi]

(ps it's before mid-day on a Friday, and yet I've already had occasion to use the word 'unprehensile'...better check my seatbelt)

"Unprehensile"? Get a grip, man!

 

[Krepostnoi]

It's always troubled that the artefact just doesn't seem to, 'sit right'... looks awkward as regards being 'held'.

In essence now... can't see any justification for a primate scanario (also had a look at monkeys used by organ grinders around the Scarborough area!) and unless something else materialises re our Facebook genesis, have to side with, 'dubious authenticity', for now.

I dunno about that, I've seen strange fauna around there, and not just because it's the Cromer of the north*. I say this, as I once nearly crashed a car near Scarborough when I came round a corner and beheld an elephant in a field.

Spoiler

All was explained round the following bend, by the technicolour pantechnicons and the big top in the adjacent field.

* To be fair, Brid has a stronger claim to this, er, crown.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Could this be the very house?

Definitely looks like it and there's the crazy part... the background story apparently checks out and someone has seemingly obtained a bona-fide photograph - that's the house.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

(ps it's before mid-day on a Friday, and yet I've already had occasion to use the word 'unprehensile'...)

At one point this morning and even before breakfast, I found myself asking, have I seriously, actually just queried, "Scarborough organ grinders'...

 

[Sabresonic]

You like it don't you? But not a lot......

That's what I say to the wife.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Find a Grave page for St. Oswald’s church lists several graves for women whose first or middle names were Elizabeth (“Betty”), but none seem to tie up with the apparent age of “Betty” and date of the photo.

I have contacted the local newspaper and let's see if they both take an interest and can assist.

 

[Rushfan62]

If our little girl, Betty Cooper, is the daughter of Oswald Cooper, later a headmaster in Scarborough, there is an online reference from 1915 - "Lieutenant Oswald Cooper, youngest son of the Rev. Canon and Mrs Cooper has been invalided home after being wounded [at Gallipoli], and having had an attack of enteric fever". Also, "Oswald married Beatrice, the only daughter of Henry King, about three weeks before the war ended". Could the photo perhaps date from early 1920s?

https://lafredux.blog/2019/11/09/willersley-house

I believe that is the case.

 

[PeteS]

I think I am detecting a degree of historical chauvinism in people's reaction the the photo.

A girl in the 1930s or 40s (has anyone effectively dated it yet?) is holding a weird looking toy. So what!?

Back in the 1930s and 40s people had imaginations - just as they do now - and toys were produced for children which reflected this - just as they are now.My guess is that it's a doll based on a character from a cartoon, children's story or matinee film of the time..

I have no idea what that monkey thing is: no doubt it has been lost in time, just as The Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles will be a few decades down the line.But let me remind people that this was the era of Rupert the Bear, Tin Tin Dan Dare and a whole lot of other whimsical stuff much of which will have been forgotten about.

Girl Holds Strange toy in Our Grandparents Day. Hold The Front page - It Must Be a Fake!

EXACTLY my view. You only have to look at images of " vintage rag doll monkey" or similar on Google or Pinterest to see some of the very weird stuffed toys that were produced either commercially or otherwise. I wonder how the images of a child holding say a wookie will be viewed in a 100 years time?

 

[Spookdaddy]

EXACTLY my view. You only have to look at images of " vintage rag doll monkey" or similar on Google or Pinterest to see some of the very weird stuffed toys that were produced either commercially or otherwise. I wonder how the images of a child holding say a wookie will be viewed in a 100 years time?

I think that's a very fair point - and I think it's always advisable to begin any such enquiry with the question: what do I think I know about the background to this - and is that actually backed up by preliminary enquiry? I'm pretty sure such background assumptions lay at the heart of many images of the supposedly anomalous. And - you are right - many toys of the past do look borderline (and well over the borderline) terrifying to modern eyes. (I've mentioned a trip to Pollock's Toy Museum elsewhere; Crikey, who needs horror movies when you've got those things staring at you from the foot of the bed?!)

That said, I think it would be equally erroneous not to question something simply on a 'the past is a foreign country' basis - and leave it at that. I think there are a couple of things that don't look quite right in that image, which are independent of the (to modern eyes) off-putting appearance of the demon/monkey/whatever thing.

Yes, they did do things differently there - but not always, and not always that differently.

 

[Shady]

The body looks like a huge turkey with no head, but it looks like one half has fur, dont suppose it can be a balloon of some sorts? nope lol