Psychic Photographer Takes Pictures of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson

imageJon-Erik Beckjord has taken photographs that show images of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, as well as OJ Simpson, he claims. The photos were taken at the scene of the murders, and Beckjord believes that the images are an accusation from beyond the grave. He says that the photographs show OJ's face alongside those he was acquitted of murdering, and his theory is that the spirits of Goldman and Simpson are making a statement.

Beckjord is a keen observer of the strange. "He acts as perhaps a psychic “lightening rod” for anomalies, since he has filmed Nessie, filmed UFOs at Area 51, photographed strange beings in crop circles and also has recently photographed a ten foot tall Bigfoot in the Sierras."

UPDATE: Chuck has noted that Beckjord is selling these images on ebay for a minimum bid of $100, 000. I can't see anyone paying that much for fuzzy images that can be barely be interpreted as faces at all, let alone any specific faces.

Celebrities Death Paranormal Pareidolia Photos

Posted on Sun Nov 26, 2006


*Groan* A "lightning rod"? You took that from the lunatics own publicity, didn't you. ?Seriously, Beckjord has been foisting this "I took a blurry picture of a tree, and it shows the face of _____" for way too long now. No UFOlogist, cryptozoologist or other honest scientific explorer of the unknown takes this idiot at all seriosly, since it's the same bad joke every time. I know for a fact he has been banned from a number of crypto conferences and is especially hated by Bigfoot researchers, thanks to the bad press he brings the subject with his completely unscientific theories (Bigfoot is a psychic alien).
Posted by Fred  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  04:02 PM
Just looks like a big pink blob to me...
Posted by Dale Irwin  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  04:06 PM
*Groan* A "lightning rod"? You took that from the lunatics own publicity, didn't you. ?

It's a quote from the page reporting on it, yes. Hence the italics and quotation marks.
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  04:16 PM
I say it's a picture of a nymphomaniac spectre from the 5th Dimension. Nymphomaniac spectres are only able to get their sexual pleasures after convincing their intended victims that they are indeed real. If the intended victim does not believe the nymphomaniac spectre is real there is no way the nymphomaniac spectre can have sex with the intended victim.

This particualr nymphomaniac spectre looks incredibly angry as Jon-Erik Beckjord is such a jerk that there is no way he can convince anybody he is real ever again.
Posted by Peter  in  Melbourne, Australia  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  04:19 PM
Maybe he's related to this guy:
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  05:16 PM
I looked at the guy's website, and he remarks that it's common for people to see faces like this in photos taken at Gettysburg. I'd love to send them some random photos of fields (that could be Gettysburg, but aren't) and have him find all sorts of dead Civil War soldiers in it.
Posted by JoeDaJuggler  in  St. Louis, MO  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  10:11 PM
Man, I remember when this website was all about entertaining, thought-provoking hoaxes and urban legends.

Now its just silly, and fast becoming the equivalent of the national enquirer, with an anti-Bush political slant as well.

Anyone know of similar sites out there?
Posted by coit  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  05:10 AM
quote from coit...

"Man, I remember when this website was all about entertaining, thought-provoking hoaxes and urban legends.

Now its just silly, and fast becoming the equivalent of the national enquirer, with an anti-Bush political slant as well.

Anyone know of similar sites out there?"

I almost took your post seriously until you revealed your farce with the "anti-Bush slant" comment.

and if you are seriously bitching.... 😛
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  07:09 AM
Sorry if it sounded like I was exasperated at you, Boo. I'm just sick of a self-serving charlatan like Beckjord getting semi-positive press attention (not that getting yourself noted on the Hoax Forum is positive for a probable hoaxter), while true scientists like Jeff Meldrum have to fight for their survival. The anti "lighning-rod" sentiment was really aimed at whoever put it in the page you linked to, which I suspect was written by Beckjord himself.
Posted by Fred  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  11:59 AM
Oh man this dude is a scumbag! (Bekjord)

If you want to see something that will make say, "you have got to be f'in kidding me!"

click the link below

Thankfully no one has made any bids
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  01:33 PM
"... his theory is that the spirits of Goldman and Simpson are making a statement."

What statement? Are they saying, "O.J. murdered us," or are they saying, "O.J. was falsely accused"?

Or maybe they're saying, "Check out O.J.'s new book on how he would have killed us, if he had done it, so our families can attach all the book royalties in civil court."
Posted by Big Gary  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  02:19 PM
if I were to attempt a substandard hoax, here's how I'd do it.
Posted by sid bators  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  10:55 PM
"Beckjord is a keen observer of the strange." -- Flora, your sense of humor might be a little too subtle for some. I must say I enjoyed that lovely understatement, but you might want to try going for something more straightforward, in order to allow the MoH's position to transpire more clearly. Just my 2c.
Posted by Gutza  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  03:42 AM
Chuck, who seems to have taken on the role of monitoring my every post, said:\

"I almost took your post seriously until you revealed your farce with the "anti-Bush slant" comment."

Well, Chuck, if you go back a week or 3, you'll see the entry regarding Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier after the primary Iraq campaign was finished. The entry is listed as "historical revisionism" or some such, and claims that the White House deliberately removed a banner that said "Mission Accomplished," which it was, BTW, since one mission does not represent complete victory.

Anyway, it has been noted many times in the media that the banner was not missing, and the footage is identical to that posted on the Washington Post's website as well. No one in charge here at the "hoax" website saw fit to edit their entry to reflect the facts.

Now, I don't really care about Bush, but I do prefer my hoaxes to be political message free and unslanted. Just as I prefer Barbra Striesand to shut up and sing, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure my opinion means nothing, but this site has really gone down hill as of late. It is turning into a 5-minute blog rather than a site where issues are carefully researched before being published. Like this entry, which is actually very old news. And the craigslist entry, which is no news at all. You can find salacious entries on craiglist every day if you want. They are anonymous, so there won't be an easy way to track down the perps... Not a hoax at all!
Posted by coit  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  06:29 AM
Yeah, and you know what? Alex didn't update the Vegemite ban post either, when the FDA announced that there was no such thing. Clearly this site has an anti-yeast-by-product slant, or perhaps is in cahoots with those commie europeans on a secret PR campaign to make the FDA and other fine American institutions like it look bad!

If you are a regular reader of this site, you'll remember Alex posted awhile ago about how his time will be consumed with writing his new book and that he wouldn't be able to give this site the attention it normally gets.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  07:38 AM
:lol: Well said Mad

Coit, 3 weeks ago? That's your rebuttal? A story from 3 weeks ago? :lol:
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  07:57 AM
MadCarlotta, good point about another inaccuracy...

I also wasn't aware that he was doing another book. Thought he had just done the one.

I really don't know why I even bothered to point these things out. It was pretty stupid on my part to think I could change anything!

Chuck, you are still a schmuck.
Posted by coit  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  10:42 AM
Oh that hurts Coit....luckily my family and friends whose opinions actually matter strongly disagree with you.

Also, I won't sink to your level by hurling about personal insults, it's juvenile.
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  11:07 AM
Let's say that I'm out shopping. In the store, there is a woman who clearly is not happy with her own shopping experience. She's standing in the middle of the store yelling to no one in particular, "This store sucks! The service is awful! This USED to be a great place to shop but now the clothing is cheap and outdated and the buyers have their heads up their posteriers" etc etc.

Do I say to myself, "wow, this place must be terrible, I'd better leave"? No. I say "wow, that woman is crazy!" Maybe she is right - perhaps she has a perfectly justified reason to be so indignant - but the way she is expressing herself only serves to diminish her own character.

When I am displeased with the service I am getting, I either find a manager and relay my concerns to him, or I write a letter to the company when I get home. Depending on the response I get, I may or may not frequent the establishment again, at least until I have received some kind of assurance that things have changed there.

If there are concerns or criticisms about the direction the website is taking, the most effective course of action would be to email Alex and express those concerns directly to him. Of course, he is not SELLING a service, so it's not like anyone really has a right to feel cheated if the site content doesn't meet their expectations in the first place. However, even people who publish things for free want their audience to be happy, even if they didn't have to pay a red cent in the first place.

And just for the record - personally, I have no complaints.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  02:31 PM
Wow, this post has turned into one of those "white dwarf" posts. It started as one thing and then morphed into something completely different, killing the original topic.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Tue Nov 28, 2006  at  04:32 PM
Can I take a picture of an orange grove and sell it saying I found "OJ"'s image in a tree?
Posted by Dily  in  West Virginia  on  Thu Nov 30, 2006  at  11:31 AM
Looks like a rotting potato.
Posted by brian  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  04:34 AM
do you know who beckjord is?
check his website...

He was selling an original copy of the legendary patterson big foot video for 1.000.000 dollar!
And those pictures of OJ are at least 5 years old(he had them on his internet site for ages
Posted by better no tell my name  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  07:00 AM
wow this is a amegine artical, funny.. lol 😊
Posted by Sarong  on  Tue Sep 02, 2008  at  11:39 AM
That's pretty interesting, though a tad wierd. Still, thanks for the post!
Posted by Uptime Monitoring  on  Sat Oct 04, 2008  at  02:41 AM
First time here, but it seems like a lot of ranting goes on. Why get uptight about someone like Beckjord. By doing so, and having links to his site, you are only adding to his notoriety.

People will soon discover if what he has is genuine or not 🧛
Posted by ancient arcana  on  Thu Dec 11, 2008  at  02:15 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.