11,141
edits
Supernatural photographs: Difference between revisions
→Pillar of Fire on his shoulder?
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<p><span style="background:#FFF;color:#000;text-decoration:overline"><u>[[File:WMB and JB on rock.jpg|250px|top]]</u></span></p> | <p><span style="background:#FFF;color:#000;text-decoration:overline"><u>[[File:WMB and JB on rock.jpg|250px|top]]</u></span></p> | ||
'''The conclusion:''' The photograph of William Branham and his son Joseph does not contain anything other than light bleed from a defective camera. | '''The conclusion:''' The photograph of William Branham and his son Joseph does not contain anything other than light bleed from a defective camera. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 22: | ||
<p><span style="background:#FFF;color:#000;text-decoration:overline"><u>[[File:Pillar of fire shoulder low res.png|250px|top]]</u></span></p> | <p><span style="background:#FFF;color:#000;text-decoration:overline"><u>[[File:Pillar of fire shoulder low res.png|250px|top]]</u></span></p> | ||
Please note the door is slight ajar in the top left of the photograph letting in a small stream of light which hits William Branham on his shoulder | Please note the door is slight ajar in the top left of the photograph letting in a small stream of light which hits William Branham on his shoulder. | ||
'''The conclusion:''' There is a light on William Branham's shoulder, but it is sunlight. There is nothing supernatural about this photograph. | '''The conclusion:''' There is a light on William Branham's shoulder, but it is sunlight. There is nothing supernatural about this photograph. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 42: | ||
[[File:Analogue Double Exposure Photography of Pre-Wedding.jpg|250px|top]] | [[File:Analogue Double Exposure Photography of Pre-Wedding.jpg|250px|top]] | ||
'''The conclusion:''' The picture of William Branham with the streaks of light is an accidental double exposure, something that was fairly easy to do accidentally on the cheap cameras that were common in the 1950's and 1960's. | '''The conclusion:''' The picture of William Branham with the streaks of light is an accidental double exposure, something that was fairly easy to do accidentally on the cheap cameras that were common in the 1950's and 1960's. | ||
=Houston photograph= | =Houston photograph= | ||
[[File:Pillar_of_Fire_smallpic.jpg|right|]] | |||
[[The Houston Photograph|The iconic image of William Branham in the Sam Houston Coliseum]] has an entire article on this website devoted to it. | [[The Houston Photograph|The iconic image of William Branham in the Sam Houston Coliseum]] has an entire article on this website devoted to it. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 52: | ||
The picture below is available from Voice of God Recordings for purchase. The original photograph was taken in Houston, TX by Douglas Studios on January 24, 1950. However, the original photograph was black and white and therefore the photo below has been manipulated to add colour. | The picture below is available from Voice of God Recordings for purchase. The original photograph was taken in Houston, TX by Douglas Studios on January 24, 1950. However, the original photograph was black and white and therefore the photo below has been manipulated to add colour. | ||
[[File:WMB colour Halo.jpg|250px|top]] | |||
William Branham was adamant that this picture was supernatural in nature. But there are a number of problems with the statement that the photograph is of the pillar of fire. | William Branham was adamant that this picture was supernatural in nature. But there are a number of problems with the statement that the photograph is of the pillar of fire. | ||
| Line 64: | Line 58: | ||
If the light passed through the lens and struck the film, why did know one else in the auditorium see the light. Could it be that the light was seen by everyone but just not from the specific angle of the camera. It should be added that a flood light bank would appear "blown out" on a normal exposure of a portrait photograph such as that of William Branham. Here are other example of flood lamps in a stage setting. Notice the similarities with tthe "pillar of fire in the Houston photograph. | If the light passed through the lens and struck the film, why did know one else in the auditorium see the light. Could it be that the light was seen by everyone but just not from the specific angle of the camera. It should be added that a flood light bank would appear "blown out" on a normal exposure of a portrait photograph such as that of William Branham. Here are other example of flood lamps in a stage setting. Notice the similarities with tthe "pillar of fire in the Houston photograph. | ||
[[File:Beatles with Ed Sullivan.jpg|250px|top]]<br> | |||
<br> | |||
[[File:ED SULLIVAN floodlights 2.jpg|250px|top]] | |||
For more details on this photograph, please see our article on [[The Houston Photograph]]. | For more details on this photograph, please see our article on [[The Houston Photograph]]. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 70: | ||
Sometime in 1955, a series of three pictures was taken in Germany. William Branham stated that the light in the photographs was the angel of the Lord and that scientists had attested to the fact that the light in the photographs was supernatural in nature. | Sometime in 1955, a series of three pictures was taken in Germany. William Branham stated that the light in the photographs was the angel of the Lord and that scientists had attested to the fact that the light in the photographs was supernatural in nature. | ||
[[File:Flash in Switzerland 2.jpg|250px|top]]<br> | |||
<br> | |||
[[File:Flash in Switzerland 3.jpg|250px|top]]<br> | |||
<br> | |||
[[File:Flash in Switzerland.jpg|250px|top]] | |||
The light that is reflected from the glass on the far wall is obviously that of a flash from the camera that took the picture. Again, anyone that is familiar with photography can spot this in an instant. Here are a couple of examples that we found on the internet. | The light that is reflected from the glass on the far wall is obviously that of a flash from the camera that took the picture. Again, anyone that is familiar with photography can spot this in an instant. Here are a couple of examples that we found on the internet. | ||
[[File:Flash in the mirror.png|250px|top]]<br> | |||
<br> | |||
[[File:Flash in the mirror 2.jpg|250px|top]] | |||
'''The conclusion:''' The light on the far wall was simply a reflection of the photographer's flash. The light was not supernatural. | '''The conclusion:''' The light on the far wall was simply a reflection of the photographer's flash. The light was not supernatural. | ||
| Line 90: | Line 92: | ||
{{Bottom of Page}} | {{Bottom of Page}} | ||
[[Category:William Branham pointing to himself]] | |||
[[Category:Critical analysis of William Branham]] | |||
[[Category:The Message]] | |||
[[Category:Supernatural vindication]] | |||
[[Category:Honesty and Credibility]] | |||
[[Category:The Weird]] | |||