The Clarens Photograph
This photo was taken at Clarens, Swizerland in 1925. It is a picture of the family of Major Wilmot Allistone. Notice the little boy's hands. In his left he is holding a toy rabbit. But what is up with his right hand?
A few days before this photo was taken, the boy's kitten was mauled by a dog and died. A translucent kitten can be seen just right of the toy rabbit. For years I believed that this was proof of life beyond the grave.
Major Allistone and his wife were Theosophists. Theosophists were responsible for publicizing the ridiculous and very obvious fake photos of the Cottingley fairies, which would have been dismissed out of hand were it not for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle throwing his weight behind them. These pictures brought in a fortune for the Theosophists, one of the girl's mothers belonged and she gave them to the society. Just try reading Annie Besant Theosphostry books, this gibberish is still in print.
Ha ha ha! These were conclusively proven fake in 1978 by James Randi and his merry men of the skeptical inquiry crowd, not that they needed to bother.
Princess Mary's Gift Book, 1917.
Cottingley photos vs. gift book picture.
Sir Arthur and his son Kingsley, who died of the pandemic in 1918. Conan Doyle was pushed over the edge by this. He was a very good man but a complete fool about mystical matters. He did, however, think that many cases of demonic possession were caused by mental illness. I feel just the opposite way about it.
The celebrated 1936 photo of the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall, an obvious double exposure, probably of a statue of the Virgin Mary.
All fakes or otherwise explainable. If it ain't there when you click that shutter, it won't show up on film.
I sure would like to believe that this really happened. More likely this is a cat model or celluloid picture mounted on a wire. It looks like he is pressing the rabbit against it to steady the image. This has to be a hoax. It is very well done and I don't see how but it cannot be a cat ghost.
What a fool I am. (added Sunday Mar. 25). This is an in camera double exposure. All it took was a measuring tape, a dark room, a kitten, a light source and lots of film. All the newspaper editors in the world must have horselaughed this into obscurity. That is why it is not one of the more celebrated hoaxes, although I think it very clever. The kid is holding his hand like that
so that his father could frame the kittens head in the shot that he finally got right.
What a fool I am. (added Sunday Mar. 25). This is an in camera double exposure. All it took was a measuring tape, a dark room, a kitten, a light source and lots of film. All the newspaper editors in the world must have horselaughed this into obscurity. That is why it is not one of the more celebrated hoaxes, although I think it very clever. The kid is holding his hand like that
so that his father could frame the kittens head in the shot that he finally got right.
Meow.
Shame on you -- these are all clearly genuine, un-retouched photographs. Some people have to be such Interwebz trolls.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to wait for my expose of the Zapruder hoax. It was Stanley Kubrick all along. One more thing, and most important. Dad was in Dallas that day, downtown, and NOT ONCE did the FBI ever bring his name up in any report. This must get out to the American people!
ReplyDelete