A photo of six friends has gone viral on Reddit after disturbed users spotted something incredibly creepy.
Advertisements
The seemingly innocent selfie shows the group enjoying a hike in Chile, posing for a cheerful snap against a lush, green backdrop, with other hikers visible in the distance.
00:16
03:36
Read More
At first glance, it seems picturesque – until a closer look reveals something unexpected.
Upon deeper inspection, what initially appears to be just another friendly group picture contains an eerie surprise.
Hidden between two women on the left side of the image, an additional face can be seen peering out, almost as if it doesn’t belong.
The finding has left many Redditors on the r/whenyouseeit thread rattled.
In the comments, one person wrote: “I am not exaggerating when I say that when I finally saw it, I got goosebumps and felt genuine fear. What the f***. I believe in ghosts again now.”
Another added: “My dumba** was looking at the red thing in the bottom left corner. I was like, ‘Uhhh, looks like someone was just cut out the pic…’ Then BOOM, I saw it. Runs to hide under the covers.”
“That is the creepiest thing! I did not expect that!” somebody else commented.
Meanwhile, others have offered a more rational explanation for the ‘seventh face’ in the image.
“It’s just a person that’s also in the group with their face being hidden in shadow by the two around it, and made to look creepy with that intense blue filter,” one person suggested.
“You can even see the top of the person’s head and hair illuminated normally by the daylight.”
However, not everyone is convinced by this explanation.
Another Redditor said: “It gave me chills, for sure. Usually, I just laugh these things off or assume the photo is doctored in a way I can’t really detect, but not this time.
“And once you see it, you can’t try to make it be something else, like the way the guy’s jacket is bunched up, or a combination of that and part of the hair from one of the girls. Nothing else fits.
Want more stuff like this?
Get the best viral stories straight into your inbox!
Don’t worry, we don’t spam
Share
Scientist Makes Chilling Prediction On The Exact Date Of The End Of The World
A scientist made a prediction about the exact date the world will end, and it’s just around the corner.
Doomsday predictions have existed for as long as human beings have been capable of imagining their own extinction.
From ancient prophecies to medieval plague theology to Cold War nuclear anxiety, every era has produced its own vision of how it all ends.
Most have come and gone without incident, footnotes in the long history of human catastrophising.
But a prediction made by a respected physicist in 1960, arrived at not through mysticism or conspiracy, but through rigorous mathematical modelling, has resurfaced on social media with renewed urgency.
Because the date it names is not centuries away, it’s just weeks from now.
The man behind the maths
Heinz von Foerster was not a crank or a doomsayer. Born in Vienna in 1911, he was a serious and highly regarded scientist whose work spanned cybernetics, cognitive science, and systems theory, per the Mirror.
He helped found the Biological Computer Laboratory at the University of Illinois and contributed to fields as diverse as artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind. He is not the kind of figure whose work is easily dismissed.
In 1960, von Foerster and his colleagues published a paper in the prestigious journal Science in which they presented a mathematical analysis of human population growth.
Working from historical data, they modelled the trajectory of global population and identified what they described as a critical threshold, a point at which unchecked exponential growth would push humanity toward a mathematical singularity.
The paper described this as the point at which population growth, if it continued along its historical trajectory, would theoretically reach infinity, or, as they more practically described it, the point at which humanity would ‘squeeze itself to death’ through sheer numerical pressure on the planet’s finite resources.
What the theory actually claims
It is important to be precise about what von Foerster’s model predicted, and what it did not.
The paper was not claiming that every human being on Earth would die simultaneously on a specific date.
It was not a prophecy in any mystical sense. What the mathematical model showed was that if population growth continued at the exponential rates observed between the 1600s and 1960, the growth curve would reach a vertical asymptote (a mathematical point of infinity) around that date.
In practical terms, this represented a ‘doomsday’ not through a single catastrophic event but through the inevitable collapse that would follow from a population growing faster than the planet’s carrying capacity could sustain.
The mechanisms of that collapse, as von Foerster and his colleagues described them, would include environmental breakdown as natural systems buckled under the pressure of billions of people demanding resources from them, resource exhaustion as food, water, and energy supplies became insufficient to meet demand, and societal conflict as competition for diminishing resources created the conditions for war, famine, and systemic breakdown.
The Friday the 13th date is, von Foerster himself acknowledged, a piece of dark humour embedded in an otherwise serious calculation, a wry acknowledgement that the numbers, when he ran them, produced a result that seemed almost designed to unsettle.
So should we be worried?
The honest answer, according to modern demographers and population scientists, is: not about the specific date, but perhaps about the broader warning the model contains.
The most immediate counterargument is simply empirical. Global population in 1960, when von Foerster published his paper, stood at approximately 3.02 billion. Today, it stands at around 8.3 billion, a significant increase, but a very long way from infinity.
More importantly, the trajectory of population growth has changed substantially since 1960.
Global birth rates have fallen dramatically, driven by improved access to education, particularly for women and girls, better family planning resources, and the well-documented demographic transition that tends to accompany economic development.
The United Nations projects that global population will peak somewhere between 9.5 and 10 billion people later this century before beginning to level off or decline.
In other words, the exponential growth curve that von Foerster was modelling has not continued in the way his 1960 data suggested it would.
The specific catastrophe his mathematics described, a human population growing without limit until the system simply breaks, has not materialised in the form he predicted.
But to dismiss the prediction entirely on those grounds would be to miss what it was actually saying.
Von Foerster’s work was less a literal forecast and more a warning: a demonstration of where unchecked growth leads when you follow the mathematics to its conclusion.
The point was not ‘this will definitely happen on this date’ but rather ‘this is what happens if the trends we are observing continue without intervention.’
The fact that they did not continue without intervention, that birth rates fell, that family planning expanded, that education reduced fertility, could be read not as evidence that von Foerster was wrong, but as evidence that the warning was, in some sense, heard.
A second doomsday theory
Von Foerster’s is not the only mathematically grounded doomsday argument to have attracted serious attention.
In 1983, astrophysicist Brandon Carter, one of the scientists who contributed to the development of the anthropic principle in cosmology, published what has become known as the Carter Catastrophe, or the Doomsday Argument, per VT.
Carter’s reasoning was different from von Foerster’s and in some ways more philosophically unsettling. His argument begins from a statistical premise: if you were to draw yourself at random from the total set of all human beings who will ever live, what would you expect to find about when in human history you exist?
The argument proceeds from there to suggest that any given person alive today should update their expectations about the future of humanity based on the simple fact of their own existence.
Because the total number of humans who will ever live is, in principle, fixed by the eventual end of the human species, a randomly selected human being is more likely to exist somewhere in the middle of that total count than at the very beginning or end of it.
The uncomfortable implication is that the total number of humans who will ever exist may not be vastly larger than the number who have already existed, meaning that the end of the human story may be closer in time than an optimistic view of the future would suggest.
Carter’s argument is a matter of ongoing debate in philosophy and cosmology. Critics point to multiple assumptions embedded in its logic that may not hold. Supporters argue that it represents a genuine and underappreciated probabilistic insight about the likely duration of human civilisation.
Neither argument should be a cause for immediate panic. November 13, 2026, will almost certainly pass without incident.
But as a prompt for thinking seriously about population, resource management, climate change, and the long-term sustainability of human civilisation, the work of both von Foerster and Carter remains as relevant as the day it was published.
