Debunk famous unsolved mysteries! 🗿

[PiecesOfKate]

I watched a documentary about that once, and really liked that it’s so simple. Almost like they fooled people because everyone was looking for a complex explanation and ignoring the obvious.

[milanfahrnholz]

@PiecesOfKate

I watched a documentary about that once, and really liked that it’s so simple. Almost like they fooled people because everyone was looking for a complex explanation and ignoring the obvious.

It amazes me really. I mean black and white or not, they don´t really look like anything else but drawings.

And the case of Arthur Conan Doyle just shows that some people just want to believe something so hard they cling onto everything.

[Ema]

That image and the explanation was on a book about ghosts which I had as a child. Its title was “il manuale del cacciatore di fantasmi” which means “the ghost hunter’s manual”. But, more than that, it was a hoax hunter’s manual. It contained many many ghost stories, legends and pictures from all over the world.

[milanfahrnholz]

That sounds like a really cool book!

[PiecesOfKate]

Hm, I’m not sure I would’ve thought anything odd about that dude/ette. It doesn’t even look like they’re carrying a phone to me.

Are they pulling up their coat collar? Are they mumbling because the zebra made them jump? (“Frrrrr, it’s cold tonight, I wish I brought my- Holy bejesus!”)

[milanfahrnholz]

Note that in this case the common explanation is the best theory and not officially confirmed as far as I know, so your guesses might just be as good.

[Frenzie]

@milanfahrnholz

This is the most famous photograph of what is said to show the Loch Ness Monster. It was taken by a doctor (who was not actually a surgeon) in 1934. Does it show the famous gigantic sea creature from prehistorical times? Or is it something else?

WIthout something for size context, it could be anything. I’ll go with baby Nessie.

(But come on, the most obvious explanation is some random floating wood, whether deliberate or just by coincidence.)

@milanfahrnholz

This picture taken in 1917 in Cottingley, England taken by the girl´s cousin that is shown in the picture is said to show her playing with the little fairies in their garden. They said they regulary met with them.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle firmly believed this to be real and genunine evidence that fairies exist.
But what to do you think this actually might be?

I can think of several ways to do that on film… the easiest one being to have an old or broken camera that doesn’t automatically advance the roll of film. Maybe rolls hadn’t even been developed (harhar) in 1917 yet but you get my drift.

Fancier, some tricks with mirrors besides or on top of double exposure, probably more…

Of course they could also look fake simply due to being even more fake than alluded to above, i.e., being painted figurines.

@milanfahrnholz

It shows a woman (or a man in drag) walking through the picture holding to their ear something that appears to be a cell phone. Look at the end of the gif how the person turns around and appears to be talking to someone. Is this a person that travelled back in time only to be cascually caught on film while trying to get some cell phone reception in the late 20s? Or what do you think is going on here?

Too unclear to tell if they’re not just scratching their ear, but if there is a device, somehow a portable radio or something seems a bit more plausible than some far-fetched talking on the phone nonsense…

[Ema]

@milanfahrnholz

That sounds like a really cool book!

I loved it. It had also a small section with ghost games, ghost recipes and suggestions for a small ghost party. And a small section about how to make yourself an equipment for ghost hunters. But 80% of the book was either old stories or a wiki chapter about the various kinds of ghost: here I learned what a doppelgänger, or a poltergeist were supposed to be, for example.

[milanfahrnholz]

@Frenzie

WIthout something for size context

That´s the point, you are really close!

@Frenzie

but if there is a device, somehow a portable radio or something seems a bit more plausible than some far-fetched talking on the phone nonsense…

Also very true!

[Frenzie]

@milanfahrnholz

That´s the point, you are really close!

If I’m close I guess that would imply a different material than wood?

[milanfahrnholz]

@Ema

here I learned what a doppelgänger, or a poltergeist were supposed to be, for example.

Both german leanwords.

Yes, I think the difference between a haunting and a poltergeist is that one thing is attached to the place and the other to a certain person that is said to be specially receptive.

It´s funny how these pseudsciences make themselves sound almost legit like that with categorising that sounds like it could make sense even if it doesn´t.

[PiecesOfKate]

Is it just really loud so she’s covering her ear? And, er, still mumbling.

[milanfahrnholz]

@Frenzie

If I’m close I guess that would imply a different material than wood?

No you are correct on the material and also good for pointing out the lack of size reference. There is an uncropped version I will show later.

[milanfahrnholz]

@PiecesOfKate

Is it just really loud so she’s covering her ear?

It actually does have to do with noise. And a device related to that.

[PiecesOfKate]

Very early hearing aid?

[Ema]

I said wood, too, since it’s the most obvious material. And I didn’t mention the size, but I thought the shape was little.
Because of the size of the waves, and because there’s no point in making a big shape.

[milanfahrnholz]

Yes, she might be fumbling about with it. That´s why she stops and looks around. That particular 1910s/20s model was really big.

[PiecesOfKate]

So is that the common explanation, or just a possibility?

[milanfahrnholz]

The thing is actually really small. The guy who made this crafted the neck and head out of wood and mounted it onto a toy submarine. Then they took the picture and gave the photo to their friend who was a doctor to give it to the press and tell the story to make it seem legit. Because we all know doctors never lie right?

[milanfahrnholz]

@PiecesOfKate

So is that the common explanation, or just a possibility?

I think that is the common explanation. But I´m not sure if it´s possible to really confirm 90 years after the scene was shot.