Entertainment, Ghosts, Paranormal, Unexplained
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Children, they are the future–the light of our lives…but where there is light… sometimes there is darkness, and not all children are good-natured. In fact, some children are just born evil, fertile with the seeds of a pathology that will later grow into sociopathic behavior or worse. Remember, all the serial killers who ever lived were once children. Blame it on nature, society, bad parenting–the chaos of perversion has no logic–and behind those child-like eyes lives a gestating monster.

The following photos you’d expect to find in a possessed, demonic exorcist-style movie, but take our word for it, many of them are real. So sit back and enjoy this freaky photo collection and be thankful none of the kids are yours! You never know which one could be possessed, homicidal, or even the son of Satan himself.









ESP girl











Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
  • Carol

    I really don’t think most of these kids are evil – Some just look terrified to me. Others are posed as their elders posed them…

    • http://theghostdiaries.com theghostdiaries

      I guess evil is in the eye of the beholder… 😉

  • Dave Parker

    After seeing all these “old photos” posts (and having my dreams haunted!) I am going to tell my mom the next time I see her “You all were WEIRD back then!!”

  • Dave Parker

    Even the rocking horses are haunted!

  • Flashbak420

    Most of these photos are victorian era post-mortem photography. Just as painting portraits of the deceased was a common practice for centuries the relatively new tech of photography offered a much cheaper alternative to that. One of the reasons so many are children is, well, mortality rates were high and if you lost your kids due to cholera or dysentery then you might also want a memento. Plus, most children couldn’t be photographed in those days, alive at least, because the time required to get a good exposure would require the subject to sit still for extended periods of time. If you did want to get a pic of just the kids, then it would look not unlike the headline photo of the three children. Under the sheet holding the baby is most likely mom keeping the baby still lol.

    There are some great examples here: http://twentytwowords.com/victorian-parents-hiding-pictures-keep-babies-still-long-enough-portrait-20-pics/

    • Dave Parker

      You gotta be kidding me! These kids are DEAD in some of these pics? How can you tell??

      • Flashbak420

        The art form is called Memento Mori. There isn’t enough space to go into how you can tell. There are half a dozen disciplines from history to physics that I would have to touch on. :)

        The simplest explanation is that children cannot sit still for 30s to a minute without moving. This is how long it would take to get an exposure. If a child is not being propped up it is being held. Furthermore not every village had a camera, certainly not every household getting a portrait taken was a big deal. Imagine your family portraits and what you went through on photo day, now multiply the obstacles by 10 and take out driving to the mall 😉 All that to say going and getting a picture taken was not something people usually did until death. Why do you need a photo when you have the person there with you? And if it cost 6 months wages to get a photo it isn’t something you’re likely to do because its Christmas if you get my drift. Finally, in the 19th century kids died. Quite often. Whether it be getting kicked in the head by a mule, being run over by a wagon, dysentery, measles, mumps, flu, polio, cholera, bubonic plague, lyme disease, malaria, warfare, and animal attacks just to name a few right off the top of my head.

        There are some truly sad ones where you see a live woman with her dead husband and three dead children. This is one reason in particular every photo shows so many grim faces from the 19th century. Also like the Seth MacFarlane movie said, you’d look like a loon if you stood there smiling at a camera for 30s :)

        • Dave Parker

          I have heard the term memento mori, of course, but it still makes these pics even creepier. But can you really tell?? They all basically look “alive” to me. For instance, the first “header” pics – like the one with three kids??

          • Flashbak420

            Some of it comes from familiarity. As I mentioned I have studied art history. I was also an investigator and forensic photography is something I had a knack for.



            The headline image of the 2 girls, baby and sheet clad figure…. the baby is dead. Its just how it is. This is what is referred to as Hidden Mother photography. The mom, I assume, is the figure under the sheet. If you look at the baby’s shoulder you can clearly see the outline of a hand holding it up under the sheet. And from the way the sheets are falling behind the baby’s right shoulder it looks like the baby’s head is also being supported. How many babies are going to sit there for 30s or longer and not move a hand or a foot? Babies don’t sit still for 30s. In the 19th century they didn’t take
            baby pics unless the baby was dead. In large group family photos they
            would have live babies, but always swaddled so they wouldn’t move.
            I think the older girl on our left is probably dead. Look at her feet and look to the left behind her you can see the outline of a stand that was propping her up. Also her dress’ neckline is not fastened, her left arm is just flopped over the arm of the chair, her belt/sash is in an unnatural position indicating that it is strapped to something behind her and her feet are thrust forward a couple of inches such that it would be categorically impossible to stand in that position for the 30s to several minutes required for a photo.
            The girl on our right, I cannot be sure. However if you look just below the hemline of her dress you can see what appears to be a rope binding her legs together and like the older girl her belt/sash appears to be tugging her back as though it were tied to somethign holding her up.

            Daguerreotype photography is not developed like photos. The plate is covered in a specially prepared silver. Silver wasn’t cheap in the 19th century. Furthermore because of the nature of the chemicals being used you didn’t prep hundreds or thousands of plates or go to a store to buy plates, no. You had to prepare the plate right before you used it. This plate was then covered with a light blocker, then carried from preparation area to be placed in the daguerreotype and the light blocking sheet was removed. Then the operator would move to the side and remove the camera lens. Depending on the chemicals used it could take up to 15 minutes to get a solid image.

            After that they had to perform several steps otherwise it would tarnish almost immediately and the image would be lost. Google Daguerreotype for a complete description and you will see that this was not something you allowed a child being a child to screw up. And you really have to look at it from the perspective of the 19th century, not with our 20th/21st century eyes.

          • Dave Parker

            Wow – truly fascinating. Adds a whole different level to the viewing of these photos! Thanks for all the informative feedback.

          • Mrs. Smith

            Photo # 18 they are both dead as well, can see the wooden stands on the ground behind them to hold them up…and the bird has to be symbolic.

    • Rhonda Galigan McLeod

      These are NOT post mortem. My daughter and I are avid collectors of specimens in this genre and the only one where the child is deceased is in 17.

    • Salem

      Only a couple of them are, if any. In layman’s terms, the EYES give them away. These are pictures of the LIVING. If you know anything about what happens to the pupils at death (fixed, dilated, ‘righting’ themselves to the centre) you’ll know it is absolutely impossible to have pupils that are pinpoints and positioned to the sides – sorry, it just doesn’t happen. Not to mention that rather than having that ‘glazed’ death look, most look VERY alive and ALERT. A dead person’s eyes do not, I repeat: DO *NOT* look like THAT. Research for yourself. Memento Mori is a real thing, but none of these are that. Sorry.
      Just not possible, sorry to burst your bubble.
      *Experience: many years on snuff sites such as Documenting Reality.

      • Julie Ann Frontroth

        number 17 is obviously a post mortem death photo of the girls. the stands holding them up are visible near their feet. If you know about memento mori then you know this to be a true form of how they were positioned.
        but i dont believe most of the photos of the children being held by someone under a black sheet are death photos. although some can be some also can not be. and just for information sake as a avid photographer enthisiast i can say that some of the first cameras captured photographs in a different light than new age cameras do. so although now a dead persons eyes will literally look dead in the olden days their eyes looked very much alive.

      • Lyssa Caruso

        The eyes were painted that way, over the eyelids. You can see it most clearly in the first photo beneath the opening paragraph, the yellow washed photo of a baby in a wooden chair.

  • Jennifer Bristol

    Children and adults with blue eyes will always look creepy in black and white photos, because their eyes look white. Plus, some dead children were posed with eyes open to make them look alive, like the dead baby on the rocking horse with his parents. Any photos with gas masks are either during WWI or the Cold War era.

  • Corinne Cartwright

    For sure, some of these kids a creepy, but a lot of them are babies posed with props, that doesn’t make them evil, it makes the parents or photographer freaky.

  • Corinne Cartwright

    Not creepy kids, most of them are dead. That in itself is kinda creepy, but it was the done thing back in the day

  • Eric

    These pictures are made up by apps you can download. I’ve done it before. Some might be real because children back then did look like this but I agree with carol, they’re not evil. Some are fake I believe because the tears in the pictures are straight.

  • http://medhy.com/ Medhy

    Ma dove le trovate tutte ste foto?

  • Tracy Lynn Kelly

    To me these are not evil kids, a few of these photos are postmortem. The picture of the woman covered up holding the children, that was common during the Civil War era, they were known as the hidden mother, they needed to hold the baby but didn’t want to be in the photograph.

    • The Ghost Diaries

      Several ppl have made this observation. I guess we’re saying they’re creepy and kind of look evil. I’m sure none of these children were climbing walls and speaking in tongue, but their photos can still conjure feelings of evil.

  • Josh

    Actually, a lot of these are pictures of dead children. It was very common in that era to pose dead people as if they were alive and take there picture. As you can see in one photo, often someone was hidden under a drape to hold the dead child in position.

  • rosebuddblooming

    These children are not evil!! They look scared… Some of them were in need of a bath and a good haircut. Others have really light eyes. I can only imagine all the superstitious comments made about them. And then there are the ones taken with slaughtered animals, hair in the face etc?!? And the dark black and white, depressing look of it? Nothing evil… Just signs of the times.

  • candy martin

    While the kid in the 1st pic definitely looks creepy, the rest only look strange because of either the props or the lighting. One poor kid looked scared to death of the doll next to him. Not sure what to make of the 3 girls with their hair in their faces and the girl w/ the blindfold seems to be part of a psychic or psychology experiment.

  • Suzanne

    Wooden Brady stands were common in photography studios back when exposures were lengthy, to hold people still. They were used for the living, not the deceased, as they weren’t strong enough to support the weight of a dead body. Postmortem photos generally posed the person in a chair or lying down, and later in coffins. Photo #16 is a typical postmortem portrait, likely the only photo the parents had of their child.

    The twins in photo #7 are obviously albino.

  • griesou

    They don’t seem evil looking to me,some have very light coloured eyes others are posed in weird position’s other than that they look freaked out.

  • Julie Ann Frontroth

    many of these photos are death portraits of children. you can tell because you can see the stands behind their feet that hold them upright and in place. back in the day when people would die their family members would get photos taken of them or with them as if they were alive. also many times if they didnt have stands a person would sit with a black sheet draped over them and hold the dead child in place to get the photo to make the child look alive.

  • Corinne Cartwright

    Some of these children are actually dead, post-mortem photos were the thing in the Victorian era. Granted, the photos are creepy, but I wouldn’t say they’re evil

  • Hasinah

    I think that number 15 is also a picture of a deceased girl

  • Hasinah

    Number 2 is also a pic of a deceased girl