The Houston Photograph: Difference between revisions

The Houston Photograph (view source)

Revision as of 18:44, 19 July 2013

791 bytes removed , 10 years ago

no edit summary

Believethesign

Bureaucrats, Administrators

3,880

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |
 [[Image:Pillar_of_Fire_smallpic.jpg|frame|Picture taken in Houston, TX by Douglas Studios on January 24, 1950]]
-In Houston, Texas, on January 24, 1950, an amazing photograph was taken by the Douglas Studios. In the photograph, there appeared a halo-like Light above the head of Rev. [[William Branham]]. The negative was taken to George J. Lacy, Examiner of Questioned Documents (who had acted as an external specialist for the FBI).  George J. Lacy was asked to determine whether or not the light could have been the result of improper exposure, developing or retouching. This investigation served to completely authenticate the fact that the unusual brightness was definitely caused by a light striking the negative.
+In Houston, Texas, on January 24, 1950, a strange photograph was taken by the Douglas Studios. In the photograph, there appeared a halo-like light above the head of Rev. [[William Branham]].  Gordon Lindsay took the negative to George J. Lacy, Examiner of Questioned Documents (who had acted as an external specialist for the FBI).  George J. Lacy was asked to determine whether or not the light could have been the result of improper exposure, developing or retouching.  This investigation concluded that the unusual brightness was caused by light striking the negative.
-An interesting question is: '''''"If the Halo photo is the Pillar of Fire, why didn't anyone see it in the audience when the photo was taken?''''' If the light struck the lens, people should have been able to see the light.
-Because of this, some have suggested that the out of focus light over the head of William Branham could have been caused by a floodlight in the auditorium that would have showed up as blurred in the photograph <u>if</u> the depth of field was narrow.  Cameras in the early 1950's would have had a lot less dynamic range than those of today.
-According to WMB, the building was dark and there were not really any lights on the platform area. However, newspaper articles about the Coliseum around that time show that there were flood lights in the building.
-If the pillar of fire was directly over William Branham's shoulder, it would have cast light on top of his head and the pulpit. Instead, the top of his head is not lit as it would be if the light was coming from over his head.  It appears to have been illuminated primarily from the flash of the camera taking the picture.
-{|style="background-color:#cedff2; border:1px #a3b0bf solid; text-align:center;"
-|''And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.'' (Acts 9:3-5)
-|-
-|}
@@ Line 28: / Line 14: @@
 Immediately following the meeting Mr. Ayers went to the darkroom of his studio to develop the negatives that had been exposed. He was surprised that over the head of Rev. Branham, was apparently a supernatural halo of light. Mr. Ayers and others who viewed the photo were puzzled by the presence of what appeared to be a halo of light.
+==Scepticism==
+George J. Lacy's report did not comment on whether the source of the light was natural (i.e. electric indoor lighting) or supernatural.  While newspaper articles about the Coliseum around that time show that there were flood lights in the building (including photographs of a concert by the Beatles), William Branham claimed that this was a supernatural light.
+Some observers note that if the pillar of fire was directly over William Branham's shoulder, it would have cast light on top of his head and the pulpit. Instead, the top of his head is not lit and the light appears to be from a source beyond William Branham.  If the light was not from indoor lighting, it may have been the result of the flash from the camera reflecting off a metal pole or beam in the background.
 ==Local newspaper reporting==