I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.





The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

I thought Polaroid cameras pretty much instantly shat the picture out after taking it. But I see now there is something called Pack Film. Never heard of it.

POLAROID FILM DOES NOT REMAIN IN CAMERAS AFTER BEING EXPOSED!

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.





The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

Because it's a feel good story. Obviously the reporter didn't bother checking the story. You should probably email them to make them feel bad. They won't retract their story and just let it quietly die.

Unlikely tab throws it's hands up in disgust.

That's just creepy.


/The Polaroid pic is also creepy

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

I bet he doesn't even go to Harvard, either.

FTFA: "Jeff, 53, the oldest brother, was a year older than Scott, and very close to him. They played a lot of golf tournaments together. Every time Jeff plays in one goes to one, he thinks of Scott wears his seat belt.

Hey kid, your uncle had nice taste in women.

Made me think of this Link

True or not, the story went well with the movie on IFC I've got playing in the background.

Carnival of Souls

cheap_thoughts: Because it's a feel good story. Obviously the reporter didn't bother checking the story. You should probably email them to make them feel bad. They won't retract their story and just let it quietly die.

Eh, biatch about it on Fark, fill a weekend blog post with no real effort, and snarky comments to FB is enough for me.

The kid made up the story, big whoop, shiatty paper runs it without ever thinking to check it out, slightly bigger whoop, in the grand scheme of things nary a damn should be given.

Is anyone else bothered by the deliberate HARVARD shirt? Perhaps this pre-college kid was gonna submit this story with his Ivy League application? This is almost as bad as the dad who called the news over the Native American "swastika". Same religion?

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

I was going to call bullshiat myself, but I am obviously farther down the CSI chain and will keep my reasons to myself. Well done.

2 to 1 odds, within a year the kid takes a photo and "finds" an image of Jesus in the background.

Here's the next picture the kid is going to say he pulled from the camera



And grandma's gonna believe him.

Nick Nostril: I thought Polaroid cameras pretty much instantly shat the picture out after taking it. But I see now there is something called Pack Film. Never heard of it.

It helps if you are a camera nerd. Well...maybe not "help", but you know things like this is you spend all of your time playing with classic cameras instead of talking to women.

Looks like he's wearing a HABVARD shirt.

An auto-play video that you you cannot close for 30 seconds? This article gets an automatic "ctrl - W" no matter how interesting it might be. I wish people wouldn't share links to such trash. It just encourages the practice.

Here's what I found at the same rummage sale and this story is full of it.

Did he have to shake it first?

Maybe the camera was stuck in a box of prints not taken with it, and that one managed to work its way in? Maybe a kid was playing with it and did the same thing.

Someone should tell these people about seat belts.

HighlanderRPI: Did he have to shake it first?

I'm old enough to remember shaking Polaroids. It was a big deal when you didn't have to anymore.

Polaroid cameras made it possible to shoot your own porn pics at home. Ah... what sweet memories!

All you guys calling bullshyt didn't really read the story. It's a sign from her long dead son. It must be true!

In the 70s my dad had a polaroid that you would take the picture, and then it had a little white paper you'l pull out with the picture and a cover thing on it. The camera had a little wind up timer, and when it finished timing you'd take the paper off and voila, there's your picture.

Wouldn't it overexpose if it was left in there that long? Also, that would have expired years ago.

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

So grannie won't break his other arm for snooping through her stuff?
Maybe he's covering up that he found her doggie porn.

ChrisDe: HighlanderRPI: Did he have to shake it first?

I'm old enough to remember shaking Polaroids. It was a big deal when you didn't have to anymore.

Yeah, but everyone I knew insisted on doing it anyways.

Scott Logan died in a car accident in 1989.

Maybe he is back and trying to tell the kid something.

Dunno, maybe it wasn't an accident?

TheGreatGazoo: In the 70s my dad had a polaroid that you would take the picture, and then it had a little white paper you'l pull out with the picture and a cover thing on it. The camera had a little wind up timer, and when it finished timing you'd take the paper off and voila, there's your picture.

Wouldn't it overexpose if it was left in there that long? Also, that would have expired years ago.

Yes, And yes

sweet-daddy-2: Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

So grannie won't break his other arm for snooping through her stuff?
Maybe he's covering up that he found her doggie porn.

Yeah, that was my reaction, too.

Oh, and, even if not fake, still hate the spiritualist slant presented by the family.

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.





The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

This is why I love Fark. You debunked this story in about 6.2 seconds. I know nothing about cameras, the most impressive one I own is on my phone...until you spoiled the story I kind of bought into it.

If there's one thing I've discovered in my years as a conceptual performance artist, it's that the "reality" is not as important as the overall story, or message, if you will.
Facts are merely that....facts. Important to accountants I guess.
"Dance like today is the last day!....Love like there is no tomorrow!!!"

vdawg: You debunked this story in about 6.2 seconds.

Behold the power of Fark!

I feel it is the responsibilities of Farkers, whatever their expertise, to ruin feel good stories for the world. It is Drew's raison d'être, well that and beer money.

uttertosh: sweet-daddy-2: Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

So grannie won't break his other arm for snooping through her stuff?
Maybe he's covering up that he found her doggie porn.

Yeah, that was my reaction, too.

Oh, and, even if not fake, still hate the spiritualist slant presented by the family.

Actually, on the re-read, this was prolly a plant by the religious grandmother to get the kid believing in spiritual hokum.

/had a highschool friend who was told lots of lies as a kid in an effort to bring him closer to the flock
//we re-met in rehab in our 20's
///I'd just discovered that I actually had a soul, whilst he was trying to dismantle the one created by his parents.

It's a flippin' Instagram....

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?

This. I happen to currently have both a 600-class (the 680) and a packfilm camera (one of the automatic ones that I use with a jury-rigged battery). It is impossible to stick the packfilm pack in a 600-class.

Also, as others have mentioned, the packfilm is peel-apart - the chemicals in the "pod" get spread across the negative when it is removed from the camera, you wait for the prescribed time, then you peel it apart and get your picture. The pic in question would have had to have been developed shortly after the pic was taken - in addition to an overdeveloped image if left to develop longer than the prescribed time (the colour film is more sensitive to this than the black & white), the pod chemicals dry out over time, and it is highly unlikely an image would have still been there after all this time if it was left undeveloped. So, basically this pic was *somewhere*, just not in the place or manner described.

Ed Land was a cool engineer. Sucked as a manager, but......
My father once called in to polaroid due to an issue with a scientific piece of equipment. Ed Land was connected to the phone and went "Does this look like a piss pot on wheels?" when the answer was "yes" he went "Yeah - we screwed up on that. Give me your address and a replacement will be delivered" (this was local in Cambridge)

TheGreatGazoo: In the 70s my dad had a polaroid that you would take the picture, and then it had a little white paper you'l pull out with the picture and a cover thing on it. The camera had a little wind up timer, and when it finished timing you'd take the paper off and voila, there's your picture.

Wouldn't it overexpose if it was left in there that long? Also, that would have expired years ago.

The older ones didn't contact any development chemicals until you pulled the pic thru the rollers and the development process started.

Chevello: FTFA: "Jeff, 53, the oldest brother, was a year older than Scott, and very close to him. They played a lot of golf tournaments together. Every time Jeff plays in one goes to one, he thinks of Scott wears his seat belt.

This. I find it odd that two of them died after being ejected from cars. But even if that's true, Jeff better drive extra-cautiously,

/hope he's not a John Denver fan

/obscure?

Ennuipoet: I'm just going to step up and call bullshiat on this story. First, the camera pictured in the photograph must have traveled through time because it is a Polaroid Impulseit was first produced in 1988.

[media.kansas.com image 194x300]

[media.kansas.com image 300x275]

The film for the Impulse was 600 Film which produces the more familiar Polaroid Print.

This print is from a peel apart Pack Film, not the 600.

So, WTF? Why lie about something as stupid as this?



It's possible the original camera malfunctioned and didn't pop out the pic, owner tossed the camera in a pile; somebody picked it up at a sale and popped the cartridge in a camera it wasn't made for then threw it in another pile, eventually winding up in another sale. This shiat happens....

Ha! The stories kids will make up to cover for rummaging in a closet they shouldn't have been looking in.

I was once walking through a old graveyard, and for some unknown reason, was drawn well off my path directly to a small plot fenced in with wrought iron. I walked around the other side, and the tombstone had my exact name on it. And it's an uncommon old English name too. I laughed so hard, a nearby gardener thought I had gone insane.

BTW, I'm buying the guy a new tombstone! It's from the 1800's and I don't like seeing my name dissolving away! lol

adeist69: It's possible the original camera malfunctioned and didn't pop out the pic, owner tossed the camera in a pile; somebody picked it up at a sale and popped the cartridge in a camera it wasn't made for then threw it in another pile, eventually winding up in another sale. This shiat happens....

No it's not possible. The picture in question does not come in a package that fits into the camera shown. It's like claiming to find a cannon shell inside a derringer.

pecosdave: ChrisDe: HighlanderRPI: Did he have to shake it first?

I'm old enough to remember shaking Polaroids. It was a big deal when you didn't have to anymore.

Yeah, but everyone I knew insisted on doing it anyways.

Heck, I still find my self shaking my digital pics. I go through a lot of monitors.

Thunderboy: pecosdave: ChrisDe: HighlanderRPI: Did he have to shake it first?

I'm old enough to remember shaking Polaroids. It was a big deal when you didn't have to anymore.

Yeah, but everyone I knew insisted on doing it anyways.

Heck, I still find my self shaking my digital pics. I go through a lot of monitors.


I always wanted to pull it out of my sisters hands and tell her to stop shaking it.


/no, I'm not intentionally setting up for an out-of-context reply - why do you ask?

bim1154: Polaroid cameras made it possible to shoot your own porn pics at home. Ah... what sweet memories!

We lived out in the country when I was a wee lad. We had a big trench in the back yard in which we dumped trash after we burned it in a 55 gallon barrel.

All I can say is, may the FSM help you when you find old Polaroids of your parents getting sexy in the trash barrel.