• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Photos You Need To Really Look At To Understand

When I first saw your post I saw the child straight away and though 'good old Gordon' because I couldn't see that in the original post by Mytho.
Then I briefly went back to his post, but when I go back to yours, this time, it still takes me a few seconds to see the child for some reason, even though I know it's there.
I still can't see the child in the original photo.

I couldn't see the child in the original until I got the cues from Gordon's pic: I can now see the child in the original if I concentrate on the man's eye until it becomes her face. If I look at the man's hair, nose, moustache or chin - pretty much all of it - it remains the man's face.
 
Rather like the infamous Cumberland spacemum, which in the colour-corrected photo, clearly shows a rear-view of the mother, now that the cleaned-up version of this very old photo has been posted, I can only see the baby wearing a bonnet in the original photo.
 
I couldn't see the child in the original until I got the cues from Gordon's pic: I can now see the child in the original if I concentrate on the man's eye until it becomes her face. If I look at the man's hair, nose, moustache or chin - pretty much all of it - it remains the man's face.
I tried exactly that too- using the eye knowing that it was the child's face but still couldn't see the child.
I was on my crappy old phone last night, but even now I'm on my desktop, I still can't see the child in Mytho's post, but can now only see the child in Gordon's!
 
When I first saw your post I saw the child straight away and though 'good old Gordon' because I couldn't see that in the original post by Mytho.
Then I briefly went back to his post, but when I go back to yours, this time, it still takes me a few seconds to see the child for some reason, even though I know it's there.
I still can't see the child in the original photo.
Took me a while to see it too, as I thought it was something that Gordon had put together himself as an 'Diptych' photograph, but it ain't as I found out a little later on!
Thought this might outline the images within the images a little bit clearer - with an hidden image within an hidden image so-to-speak.
Face.png
 
So does no one see the lettering on Myth's photo? It is on the 'hair' where it looks like it is either shorter or shaved. Is that a watermark? I don't see it on Gordon's when I enlarge it.

The crease in Myth's photo does make it difficult for me to see the child. I had to scroll back and forth between Gordon's and Myth's pics before I could work it out.
 
So does no one see the lettering on Myth's photo? It is on the 'hair' where it looks like it is either shorter or shaved. Is that a watermark? I don't see it on Gordon's when I enlarge it.

The crease in Myth's photo does make it difficult for me to see the child. I had to scroll back and forth between Gordon's and Myth's pics before I could work it out.
I can see the lettering if I zoom in, it does look like a watermark of some kind, it goes across the lady's dress as well; B--p? I did think there was a W at the start, but I think that's just the 'hair'.
 
Oh flippin' heck. I'm beginning to think I've got a previously undiscovered disability or something! I COULD NOT see anything but the face. It took Gordon's post before I even had a clue as to what I was supposed to be seeing, and I STILL CAN'T SEE IT.

Send help. Or donations. Yes, better that, send donations.
 
I'm the proud owner of this pebble that the Mrs found on our local beach around 2016. I was with her when she found it. After getting into a couple of local newspapers (with a billboard poster which we've got somewhere), it got itself into Fortean Times magazine. I think it looks more like Jim Morrison in his heroin abuse years. I've still got it in a little box on top of our fireplace. If you rub your thumb over the surface, the 'face' part bulges out.

View attachment 65605

View attachment 65606

I think it looks more like Lord Lucan when he was living in Goa in the 80s!

Google "Jungly Barry" for more information (though not necessarily 100% facts).
 
I think it looks more like Lord Lucan when he was living in Goa in the 80s!

Google "Jungly Barry" for more information (though not necessarily 100% facts).
LOL .. and we used to beach combe so I'd even said "You know what would be funny? .. if we found a stone with a Jesus on it! .. like those people in America sold that slice of toast to an arcade! .. like they show in Fortean Times magazine!" ..

... then she only f*****g went and actually found one .. the only downer is that that's going to extremely hard day to top now.
 
LOL .. and we used to beach combe so I'd even said "You know what would be funny? .. if we found a stone with a Jesus on it! .. like those people in America sold that slice of toast to an arcade! .. like they show in Fortean Times magazine!" ..

... then she only f*****g went and actually found one .. the only downer is that that's going to extremely hard day to top now.
Isn't it strange that so many of these things found on pebbles/planks/muffins/pancakes/pizzas/ turnips/whatever which happen 'coincidentally' to look like human faces so often tend 'coincidentally' to look like (what we think) Jesus Christ looked like? Just a coincidence within a coincidence?

Any thoughts or theories?
 
Isn't it strange that so many of these things found on pebbles/planks/muffins/pancakes/pizzas/ turnips/whatever which happen 'coincidentally' to look like human faces so often tend 'coincidentally' to look like (what we think) Jesus Christ looked like? Just a coincidence within a coincidence?

Any thoughts or theories?

Well, if people said that the faces looked like their sister's friend's brother Mick, it wouldn't get their pebble or slice of toast in the paper. Also, I suspect that those who really want to see the face of Jesus are strangely more likely to find it!
 
Isn't it strange that so many of these things found on pebbles/planks/muffins/pancakes/pizzas/ turnips/whatever which happen 'coincidentally' to look like human faces so often tend 'coincidentally' to look like (what we think) Jesus Christ looked like? Just a coincidence within a coincidence?

Any thoughts or theories?
All the ones that have the likeness of say, Trev, get chucked away and we never hear about those.
 
Well, if people said that the faces looked like their sister's friend's brother Mick, it wouldn't get their pebble or slice of toast in the paper. Also, I suspect that those who really want to see the face of Jesus are strangely more likely to find it!
Coincidentally, my sister's friend's brother Mick has a face that looks like a pizza.
 
I think it looks more like Lord Lucan when he was living in Goa in the 80s!

Google "Jungly Barry" for more information (though not necessarily 100% facts).
'Wild Bill Hickock' even!
 
I can see the lettering if I zoom in, it does look like a watermark of some kind, it goes across the lady's dress as well; B--p? I did think there was a W at the start, but I think that's just the 'hair'.
I see what you mean, but I'm sure it's just a great example of Pareidolia!
P.S. The 'marks' do exist in both Myth's & Gordon's, only the variation in exposure makes it seem to look more obvious in the darker view of the photo.
 
It was claimed in 2010 that the Mona Lisa had microscopic letters in her eyes.

In what's being called a "revelation" that "could have come straight from the pages" of Dan Brown's best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, an Italian researcher says he has discovered tiny letters and numbers in the eyes of the Mona Lisa.

There doesn't appear to have been an update to the story so they're probably another example of pareidolia.

https://theweek.com/articles/488579/secret-code-mona-lisas-eyes-instant-guide

Of course, if that photo really does have little letters it could mean that it's a code to tell us that the photograph was taken by Leonardo da Vinci!
 
It was claimed in 2010 that the Mona Lisa had microscopic letters in her eyes.



There doesn't appear to have been an update to the story so they're probably another example of pareidolia.

https://theweek.com/articles/488579/secret-code-mona-lisas-eyes-instant-guide

Of course, if that photo really does have little letters it could mean that it's a code to tell us that the photograph was taken by Leonardo da Vinci!
The Monalisa Painting 'secrets' are here. . .
http://leovincit.blogspot.com/2015/08/mona-lisa-tell-us-her-secret.html
 
This exhibition in the Scad Museum, Atlanta, looks rather like a large carpet in the style of an animal skin.

carpet1.png


.... until you look closely.

carpet2.png


It comprises 500,000 cigarettes - supposedly the average that a life-long smoker will consume.
The artist is Xu Bing, a non-smoker, but whose father died of lung cancer.
 
This exhibition in the Scad Museum, Atlanta, looks rather like a large carpet in the style of an animal skin.

View attachment 65851

.... until you look closely.

View attachment 65852

It comprises 500,000 cigarettes - supposedly the average that a life-long smoker will consume.
The artist is Xu Bing, a non-smoker, but whose father died of lung cancer.
Amazing work of Art, but maybe the shape should have been that of a set of lungs?
Or, maybe, a headstone with the filter ends forming the words 'Yes it can, and it Does?'
 
Last edited:
Took me a while to see it too, as I thought it was something that Gordon had put together himself as an 'Diptych' photograph, but it ain't as I found out a little later on!
Thought this might outline the images within the images a little bit clearer - with an hidden image within an hidden image so-to-speak.
View attachment 65673
I've looked at that photo many times, it's all about being black and white (if it was in color it would so obviously be the baby) and just like the Ilkley Moor alien photo, the blobs and blurs of all that foliage add to the confusion.
 
This exhibition in the Scad Museum, Atlanta, looks rather like a large carpet in the style of an animal skin.

View attachment 65851

.... until you look closely.

View attachment 65852

It comprises 500,000 cigarettes - supposedly the average that a life-long smoker will consume.
The artist is Xu Bing, a non-smoker, but whose father died of lung cancer.
Half a million cigarettes? .. a pack of just 20 is almost £20 in England now.
 
Back
Top