Scary stuff

eddie wrote:Fucking hell! Ive had hardly any sleep and that totally freaked me out

Ben Reilly wrote:
Hayzeuss! ("Jesus" in Spanish)

And look, y'all, don't blame me if your monitors are woefully small, I scaled that first image down to a measly 800 pixels wide. If you couldn't see it on your phone, then for Hayzeuss' sake look at it on a proper screen.

4EVER2 wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Hayzeuss! ("Jesus" in Spanish)

And look, y'all, don't blame me if your monitors are woefully small, I scaled that first image down to a measly 800 pixels wide. If you couldn't see it on your phone, then for Hayzeuss' sake look at it on a proper screen.

Well,  Ben ...your measurements are woefully WRONG even for this forum - the widest pixel image that will be viewed in it's entire image can't exceed 550 pixels wide --- 
So even on our PC's only 3/4 of your image was showing up and most assuredly not that section that had the hand in it
Don't you 'preview' your post when you put an image in there {especially} when there's an image in the article or a photo of your own prior to sending?

4EVER2 wrote:
No - NO - Noooo, what would help if Ben would learn how to place a photo into this topic that every one could SEE~~~ Sweet Jesus people only ¾ of the photo was showing up because it wasn't sized right for the topic box!  WELL, HELL YES, I SEE THE HAND NOW, plain as the nose on my face!

Ben Reilly wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Hayzeuss! ("Jesus" in Spanish)

And look, y'all, don't blame me if your monitors are woefully small, I scaled that first image down to a measly 800 pixels wide. If you couldn't see it on your phone, then for Hayzeuss' sake look at it on a proper screen.

Well,  Ben ...your measurements are woefully WRONG even for this forum - the widest pixel image that will be viewed in it's entire image can't exceed 550 pixels wide --- 
So even on our PC's only 3/4 of your image was showing up and most assuredly not that section that had the hand in it
Don't you 'preview' your post when you put an image in there {especially} when there's an image in the article or a photo of your own prior to sending?

Previewing is for the weak.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

NOT ONLY do I see that apparently body-less hand on the right side there;  but looking across to the left a couple of hands seem to be too far away from the arms they supposedly belong to...

FROM SEEING a couple of skits performed at school and uni' back in the day --  a practical joke/trick photograph like this isn't all that hard to set up..
A couple of lairs squatting down behind those girls, and placing hands into unlikely/improbable/unnatural positions --  and then throw a dark/same colour cloth over them, so that no other body parts show up in the photo.

Simple camouflage..        

eddie wrote:Fucking hell! Ive had hardly any sleep and that totally freaked me out

Miffs2 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
No - NO - Noooo, what would help if Ben would learn how to place a photo into this topic that every one could SEE~~~ Sweet Jesus people only ¾ of the photo was showing up because it wasn't sized right for the topic box!  WELL, HELL YES, I SEE THE HAND NOW, plain as the nose on my face!

Blimey o Reilly 
Thank gawd for that. Seriously, I thought I was losing the plot!
I know I know, that ship has sailed 

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:the "thing" in the washng machine? in pic 1?
and the face in the door way in pic 2...

There's nothing in the washing machine.   It's the 'thing' in the window.  The first shot is blank, the second two show the thing moving across the window.  You think it's outside but it's not.  It's inside.  Where the washing machine is, used to be a sink.  The area where the chair and french windows are, used to be the garden.  So...the thing reflected in the window is actually standing at the sink.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

NOT ONLY do I see that apparently body-less hand on the right side there;  but looking across to the left a couple of hands seem to be too far away from the arms they supposedly belong to...

FROM SEEING a couple of skits performed at school and uni' back in the day --  a practical joke/trick photograph like this isn't all that hard to set up..
A couple of lairs squatting down behind those girls, and placing hands into unlikely/improbable/unnatural positions --  and then throw a dark/same colour cloth over them, so that no other body parts show up in the photo.

Simple camouflage..        

Are you the boy that tells us that rainbows are all illusions of water and air and something unpronounceable whilst we are looking for  the pots of gold?

eddie wrote:Horatio, do you believe in ghosts?

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Horatio, do you believe in ghosts?

yes

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, here's an easier one. See if you can find the creepy thing in the photo below:

eddie wrote:It's not so much chicken as a blind mouse.
I can't see any of them.

I'm the only loon who likes a conspiracy and yet I can't see the fucking ghosts.
Fucking irony.