BelieveTheSign

The Houston Photograph: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The Houston Photograph (view source)

Revision as of 19:29, 19 July 2013

207 bytes removed ,  11 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:


Rev. Best secured the services of Mr. James Ayers and Mr. Ted Kipperman, professional photographers from Douglas Studios in Houston, to document the evening.  They were there in addition to the newpaper photographers.  After taking several photos of Rev. Best, the photographer snapped a picture of William Branham, who spoke briefly just before the service closed.
Rev. Best secured the services of Mr. James Ayers and Mr. Ted Kipperman, professional photographers from Douglas Studios in Houston, to document the evening.  They were there in addition to the newpaper photographers.  After taking several photos of Rev. Best, the photographer snapped a picture of William Branham, who spoke briefly just before the service closed.
Immediately following the meeting Mr. Ayers went to the darkroom of his studio to develop the negatives that had been exposed. He was surprised by the photograph of a light over the head of Rev. Branham. 
==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.




Line 36: Line 28:
'''William Branham also said that it was George J. Lacy who first called it a supernatural light'''
'''William Branham also said that it was George J. Lacy who first called it a supernatural light'''
:''Mr. Lacy said it was the first time in all human history that a--a supernatural Being was ever photographed. They said it just a... that it's been said, a lot of times that those lights around the saints, and the unbelievers say that's some artist painted that picture. But said, "It surely must have been there, for that optical lens--mechanical lens of a camera won't take psychology. It was... It was there."'' (Minneapolis, July 14, 1950)
:''Mr. Lacy said it was the first time in all human history that a--a supernatural Being was ever photographed. They said it just a... that it's been said, a lot of times that those lights around the saints, and the unbelievers say that's some artist painted that picture. But said, "It surely must have been there, for that optical lens--mechanical lens of a camera won't take psychology. It was... It was there."'' (Minneapolis, July 14, 1950)
==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.




Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/15827"