Wow, I do. The leaf looks shredded and crumpled, just compare the striations on that palmetto with the others leafs in the picture.

Click to view attachment



You used the largest palmetto in the scene for your calculation, instead of taking an average, but we end up with the same measurement: the length from shoulder to hand is under four feet, I've said this in two previous posts. But this is a measure of arm length, not height. The head rises up a lot in the next picture, anyway.

So the overall reach of the animal is over 8 feet, maybe even 10 feet. An adult orangutan can have a reach of 7 feet at most. We don't know the height. But it is positioned way up behind the palmettos, check the FULL picture, especially the second one. If this was a figure of human proportions, then reach equals height. For an Orangutan, the height would be somewhat less than this. But all Giganto and I were trying to establish is that it is BIG.



I don't agree with this, however. First, the right arm moves backwards in retreat, and the left arm is holding palmettos and also moving up. But look at the muscle definition of the right arm. You can see some of the major muscle groups under the fur.

Click to view attachment

So while I agree that this picture has some strange quirks, I don't think there are any more than, say, the average amateur photograph. Probably less than the PGF, for example. I also think this picture is a likely hoax, but why hoax a giant orangutan? The most suspicious thing is the lack of landmarks, and the ransome-style letter.

God bless,

I prefer to remain anonymous.

Show the bite marks then.


Yep, I used the palmetto with the maximum length, the average you gave was for a maximum length. I also used the best measure for scale as this palmetto was the clearest from beginning to end, also I'm not going to go through all the other little palmettos and find some length half way between them, I'm using the maximum length because the average you gave was for that maxmum length. Click the animation to see the head raises just above the four foot mark, definitely not five, maybe 4 1/2 feet. And we can't see where the feet are, the hand is the lowest point we can use, so there is no proof this animal is bigger than 4 1/2 feet.


Yeah, you were trying to establish that, but the only evidence (and that's shaky) you have is that it is around 4 1/2 feet tall. Arm proportions relative to body proportions is irrelevant, it's a suit.



No offense, but if that is the muscle definition than this is without any question a hoax. It is out of proportion and now your changing your shoulder placement so that it makes the arm length 3 feet. Also, there is no indicaton of unaided movement in those arms, as these are photos. There is no indication of any movement in the fingers, and any "Movement" concides with the body pulling the arms along as it straightens.



Because Gigantopithecus is related to the orangutan.

The most suspiscious things are:

Change of angle and positions of photographer between photos
leaf stuck on upper jaw, not in lips and not in mouth, no bite marks
mouth does not change positions, indicative of mask
no articulation in arms
anonymous letter from someone worried about the safety of their grandchildren and animals, yet doesn't give name, address, or call anybody but writes this letter 2 months after the event
eyes have eyeshine, apes do not

What about sasquatches?

Are sasquatches apes?

This is a fallacy of division and composition. How about: apes are not nocturnal. Sasquatch are apes. Sasquatches are not nocturnal.

Can sasquatches divide and compose?

I'll settle for a clear understanding of what "average" means...

The biggest red flag here is that the person(s) who submitted the material are unknown. In every other case where the originators and circumstances of the materials are questionable, or worse, unknown, it has turned out to be a fraud. Not a misunderstanding - a fraud. (Sanoma anyone?)

There is no way to verify that the letter writer is who s/he says s/he is, so you cannot take anything in it at face value.

That the writer professes concern but prevents any follow up on that concern by shielding his/her identity is highly circumspect. Photo analysis aside, this has all the trimmings of a classic hoax.

Sorry.

Fallacy of division
Fallacy of composition

This whole time I was thinking the "whither myakka?" thread was were all the action is for this photo. Now I feel like a goofus.

Gigantofootecus has eyeshine!

I think that it is unwise to claim that since this must be a suit it is irrelevent to discuss limb porportion, just as it would be unwise to claim that it's an animal so it is relevent to talk about what we can say about it's digestive tract from the photo. Who knows?

I think that a feral orangutan is an interesting explanation where it concerns the hair length and facial details.

No, it is not a "fallacy of division and composition", it is a fact that apes do not have the tapetum lucidum. Sasquatch are apes. Therefore, Sasquatch does not have the tapetum lucidum. Therefore, this photo of a figure that does have eyeshine cannot be a sasquatch or ape, though it can be a mask with something reflective in the eyes.



The figures limb proportions are not relevant because this is not a moving image, these are 2 photos. In a moving image limb proportions that are faked can be detected by the movement of the joints, whereas in a photo the figure can be posed in any way and fixed so you wouldn't be able to detect limb extension, or hanging arms with nothing inside of them.

Hi all, I"ve been lurking for over a year now and I think the forum is great everyone has valid points to make and people let them do that ( most of the time ) but it's taken a remark in this thread that made me want to post. I have a little research to back up what i think already so just wanted to say hello to everyone for now.

I'll post my response to this thread as soon as i get my facts straight.
thanks
Tony xx

I think you've made some excellent points in this thread, and agree on a whole that the subject matter is almost certainly hoaxed. However, I must take exception to one point you've made. That is if you're willing to assume that I'm a primate.

Unfortunetly, plenty of Sasquatch sightee's report eyeshine. What does it all mean..........

What about other primates? Excuse me while I read up.

Prosimians posses a tapetum lucidum.

Okey Dokey.

This subject has been touched on before in Sasquatch research, I found an article on Bigfoot Encounters.

Though it seems that primates generally should not show eyeshine: Primate charactersitics

2 questions:

1) What is the context in which this photo was taken? Was this using some sort of night-vison, was it in color, etc.

2) If it has been changed to black and white, can you show the image in it's original context, and if it's from a digital camera, can you post it at the original resolution? I understand that RAW images will be at 4mb, so if this is a problem messing with the res PM me and I'll give you my email. If this is a scanned image, can you scan it at a higher DPI? 300 dp would be great, and again if the mb's are too high send it to my email, I will post it for you.



Sure, out of the prmates themselves the Prosimians posses a tapetum lucium. The Prosimians (Lemurs and lorises, Tarsiers have traits of the Strepsirhines and Haplorhines but do not have the tapetum lucidum) were the first primates as far as we know, but the Haplorhines (monkeys and apes) split and evolved 50 million years ago, and do not have the tapetum lucidum.

So is sasquatch an ape or an evolved lemur that somehow lost all of it's Strepsirhine traits and adopt Haplorhine traits independent of the Haplorhine line?

And in that pic you're not wearing glasses I presume?

Aww, Tarsiers really shouldn'y be considered prosimians any more, I hope that's what you were implying.

However, eyeshine is still abundant in Sasquatch reports, so perhaps covergent evolution?

New World Monkeys evolved some odd traits, like a prehensile tail. So maybe a isolated population of apes could have evolved a weirdo trait like a tapetum lucium. While eyeshine is often mentioned in Sasquatch sightings, I doubt that this is a Sasquatch. I'm leaning towards feral Orangutan or a hoax, but whatever it is really doesn't match up to details we hear of Sasquatch.

No, Tarsiers are now considered Haplorhines but still have some Strepsirhine traits. They just happen to have more Haplorhine traits than Strepsirhine traits.

In reports that I know of the "Eyeshine" associated with sasquatch is a red glow, and humans do have red-eye when the retina reflects the flash back at the camera lens. This red-eye is caused by the blood vessels reflecting light and the pupil being dialated to adjust for darkness. Sasquatch have also been reported to have huge eyes, and the red-eye may be an extreme dialation of the pupil to absorb the little ambient light in the surrounding darkness. However, this is completely unsupported in science or any observable behaviour in apes and Haplorhines and therefore totally unreliable.

One problem in this case, however, is that after the inital flash of light the pupil will contract and the red-eye effect is reduced, however in the images of the subject the eye-shine is the same, has not been reduced, and is yellow instead of red.
http://www.colorpilot.com/redeye_effect.html

Anyways, Orangs, being apes, also would not have this eye-shine.

It's a low angle infrared image I took while testing my game camera. The camera itself is digital so the image wasn't scanned, and the lack of color is explained by the infrared nature of the camera. I imagine the reason the eyeshine appears is because the eyeshine isn't eyeshine at all.

If you look on my left foot you'll see the same type of "shine". That spot is a white cotton patch on the tongue of the shoe. Note that it is a simple cotton patch and not one of the reflective types you see on some shoes today. My hypothesis is that the white in the shoe and the whites of my eyes (sclera) were both able to reflect enough IR light from the flash to produce the shining effect. Normal eyeshine is a result of the tapetum lucidum reflecting light and not the sclera.

In my earlier post I made a mistake by using the word "exception". I still can't think of the right word, but the whole point of my post (and the picture) was to point out that even the eyeshine isn't indicative of the subject being alive (even though I am a primate and seem to be exhibiting just such a trait). By that I mean the Myakka photos and not myself.

I was also pointedly pointing out the prosimians as being the only example because they do seem to be an incredibly unlikely source for the sasquatch. That said, it is still vexing that so many (including myself) have had experiences with eyeshine that can't easily be explained away, not to mention those who have actually seen the creature producing the eyeshine.

Irregardless of all this, even if there is eyeshine in the photo as is evidenced, it would be easy to replicate using several simple techniques and should therefore not be used to give the image any special validity.

To illustrate the point further, here is a photo taken with the same camera showing real eyeshine.

Can you post the image in a higher resolution?


What color was the eyeshine you saw? is the incident (yours) reported anywhere that could be read?

Yes yes, I know, I was just making sure that's what you meant. I love Tarsiers with every inch of my body.

Yeah, a red glow is the norm, usually in car headlights or whatever. This ape/monkey suit/whatever has a red glow too though.

I am not familar with reports of Sasquatches having huge eyes, except when commenting on the overall size of the creature. In fact, it seems the animals eyes are usually smaller and deep set. Could you please cite what reports you are speaking of?

I don't rely on reports for evidence of anything, and granted the ones I read were in the past, but a quick search for "Big eyes" brings some of these up:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5909
http://www.answers.com/topic/bigfoot
http://www.texasbigfoot.com/Jeffdavis1.html
http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunter.html

This photo shows yellow eyeshine.

The reports you mention do not emphasize the animal having large eyes. While reports do not constitute evidence in a strictly legal form, they do represent knowledge, in fact almost all that we know about the sasquatch comes from eyewitness accounts.

Nobody would discount eyewitness accounts of say, chimpanzee behaviour, so why should we?

Couldn't an ape evolve to become nocturnal? Creatures do adapt to their environment, couldn't it be possible? We don't have a Sasquatch to study so it might be a stretch to say Sasquatch does not have the tapetum lucidum wouldn't it?

The eyeshine we saw was back in January. The eyes appeared whitish yellow and were widely separated. The eyeshine was seen twice in the headlights of our truck, first moving across the edge of a food plot and then into the wooded hillside beside it from left to right. There was a 4' earthen berm between the edge of the road and the food plot. There was also a tree beside the plot that had branches extending out over the area where we first saw the eyeshine. The lowest branches of the tree were 12' to 14' above the ground. The eyeshine appeared to be roughly centered between the berm and the branches.

I wouldn't say that what we saw that night was a sasquatch, simply because we didn't see the source of the eyeshine. It would be difficult for me to explain what we saw using the known animals of the area, but I don't think that should automatically exclude them. It does make me wonder though about cases like mine (where the source is not observed) that are attributed to sasquatches. If the subject can't be identified, but for whatever reason is then attributed to the sasquatch, then a body of pseudo-evidence begins to grow that only muddies the waters of the subject. However, if we are to accept other attributes of the sasquatch based on eyewitness testimony, then we at least have to consider those where the subject and eyeshine are directly observed, even if in the end only to establish a fallacy.

As for the original camera pics they were deleted long ago. It was just luck that I was able to find the copy that I posted. I do think though the yote photo helps demonstrate what real (and unreal) eyeshine looks like.

"This photo shows yellow eyeshine."

Wolf;

Color film at night under artificial lights is a most unreliable mediums to use to recreate the actual colors seen by the naked eye. You might see "yellow" eye shine, but that offers no guarantee that "yellow" was the actual color reflected by the flash which was not strong enough for a great night shot.

The eye shine could actually be reflection from the sclera and not the opening of the iris. When I walk my dogs at night, their eyeshine from dim light is obviously from the opening of the iris. The effect is as if the lense itself is glowing which of course we know it's not. The eyeshine from this creature...or suit...encompasses the entire eyeball. Why would this be? Because in dim light, the glow from tapetum lucidum becomes the brightest light in the photo or scene, where as in the photo of this creature, the brightest light is reflected from the sclera and it overpowers the opening of the iris and literally floods the film with light. You don't see the iris.

Dan

To me, the photos show a yellow red eyeshine, the same kind I have seen on photographs I have taken of people. This is caused by the choroid layer in the back of the eye behind the retina. I also think the reason we don't see an iris is because they would have been fully open in the dark before the shot was taken.
For the record I'm undecided about these particular shots.

Jane Goodall's observations of chimp behaviour and tool use WAS discounted by scientists initially.
http://xinkaishi.typepad.com/a_new_start/2...9/17/index.html

But here is a reason why we shouldn't rely on eyewitness accounts:


Not at all to disrespect Bittermonk, he's doing the right thing by accepting he didn't see the source of the eyeshine, and in truth it could be a variety of animals that we KNOW have eyeshine. But why was it associated with sasquatch?

Because at one time or another someone said sasquatch produce eyeshine. They could have seen any animal in the dark and thought it was sasquatch, based on their interest in sasquatch. Their mind may have been playing tricks on them, happens all the time in the woods at night. They could have made up a story of sasquatch and it's eerie glowing eyes for that extra scare factor.

People read a false report, and one thing leads top another, see eyeshine and think it's sasquatch, and report it. Other people make up stories about sasquatch and eyeshine, on and on.

Next thing you know, some person wants to make hoaxed photos and includes this feature to add that extra touch of realism.

Sure, there is some possibility sasquatch does have eyehine, but the physical evidence as seen in apes and monkeys goes AGAINST that.

That is why witness accounts are unreliable.



Were you wearing glasses in the photo?



I was next going to point again to the link showing eyeshine and how the glow is in the shape of the pupil, and am glad you also pointed that out, however the sclera reflection as seen in BM's photo was with an IR camera, not only that but the sclera is a dominant feature in human eyes but not in other animals, meaning animals do have the sclera but it's not as visible as humans. You would still see the pupil shaped glow in the subject, instead it fills the entire eye, because in truth the entire eye is some sort of fake reflective material.



No, that would be the other way around. It would be a stretch to say the sasquatch has a tapetum lucidum as this is not seen in monkeys or apes. It may have one, but the observable evidence we have is that they couldn't.

Look, we all know this is a hoax. C'mon, you see an ape in your backyard, and you're not going to call the police or animal control? Especially when you are afraid for your animals and grandchildren? You know better. You're not going to wait 2 months to do somehting about it, you're going to make a call right then and there.

Every question posed here about why the hoaxer did this or that can be answered. Why did they say the thing was eating apples yet take the pic of it behind the palmettos? Probably they needed something to hide it's body and legs behind. Why would they go to the time and expense to make a suit for only 2 photos? Well, why would people do that once a year for Halloween? Coincidentally, these photos wre taken in October. Hmmmmmm....

The anonymity of the witness, location, the faked fear, the mouth not moving, the leaf outside of the mouth, the hanging arms, the long white beard, the glowing eyes, all can be hoaxed and are indicative of a hoax.

I swear you and I are on the same side of the fence on this matter but for some reason it just keeps being difficult to establish that fact. :wink:

To clarify, I wasn't associating what I observed with sasquatch. I recounted what I saw, and the resulting measurements. Do those measurements seem to put it out of the possibility of known animals? Possibly, assuming that my observation was correct. Can I remove the possibility of it having been a known animal? Of course not, and I would never claim that to be the case, nor would I attempt to associate what I saw with a sasquatch for that very reason. Your following comments to the one I quoted are exactly the point that I was trying to make in regards to observations like mine. It still does not address the issue though of witnesses who have reported eyeshine in conjunction with a clear sighting, unless we are to assume that they are all either lies and/or misidentifications, but I honestly think this point is becoming a thread-jack worthy of its own discussion outside this thread.

In regards to your question I wasn't wearing glasses at the time the photo was taken. As you pointed out to Dan, and as I pointed out myself, the fact that it is an IR image and in comparison to an IR image showing real eyeshine it becomes apparent that looks can be deceiving.

Oh I wasn't saying the photo's were real, not even close. But I know that quite a few sightings in this area have been at night, which led me to wonder if maybe they were more nocturnal than diurnal. Admittedly all of my "not sures" have been during day time except one. Once I get my new quad I'll be able to get farther out and do more night time looking listening, it will be interesting to see what kind of eye shine I can pick up from various animals just to be able to say no this is X animal, and that is Y animal.

Yes, Bittermonk, I understand what you are saying, thanks for clarifying, I was just keeping this in context with sasquatch in the general sense.

Glad to know we're pitching for the same team. Perhaps we could branch off somewhere else in the forum and actually try to put some of this eyeshine business to the test.

I photographed my daughter tonight in the dark from a distance. Her eyes looked decidedly simlar to the second photo of the creature, right down to the color of the shine. I don't post photos of my daughter on the internet, but the experiment is easy to do. Anyone who says the photos are hoaxed solely because of the eye shine observed in them, is simply mistaken. It is a simple matter to do. Step out from behind your computer to test your opinion.

Dan

Neither are they an indication that the subject is real.

You're saying the photo of your daughter shows a yellow eyeshine?

Of course not! But I've read a lot of "learned" opinions about how it cannot be a real ape because apes don't have tapetum lucidum or that the eye shine looked hoaxed or that the palmetto is outside the mouth, yet there is clearly a fang visible over a palmetto leaf. Now, I know that the eyeshine is in fact something you might expect to find in a photo of a creature, ape, person or what have you, that is standing on the outer edge of the camera's flash limits. So, while we cannot say it's a living creature, anyone who says it is not a living creature merely because of the eye shine is pretty much all wet. So, I guess they have to go back to the palmetto leaf dental floss.

Dan

No. I said the photo of my daughter looks decidedly like the second photo.

Dan

Well the eyes in the second photo (shown here) and the first are yellow.

Clearly there is a fang? Well, there s some light reflecting on the palmetto leaf going horizontally across that in the second image looks blue, along with what is said to be a fang, but if that is the fang it would be used to hold the leaf on. However, it is going through the middle of the leaf, the edges of the leaf are outside the mouth, an that mouth never moves.

Click to view animation.




Prove it.

I thought I'd give that a shot. Here are some photos I took tonight, the first shows the test equipment, basically a wig stand and a mardi-gras mask, along with reflective tape, bike reflectors, aluminum foil, etc.

Click to view attachment

Here are the best results: yellow reflective tape. It also comes in red.

Click to view attachment

Very cool...

I'm just kind of idly following this thread and thought this bit of info might be helpful.
I've noted on several occasions that video of our troops in Iraq on night-ops sometimes show a distinct "eyeshine" when they look at the camera or the IR source near or on the camera. I do not recall seeing glasses or goggles on the troops at the time. These were lights-out kind of operations and everything being filmed has that night vision greenish cast.

I believe the source is Fox Cable News as that's the only non-local news I watch.

From what I'm seeing the mouth DOES move and the eyeshine changes size which would indicate to me that the flash caused the iris to close and give a smaller eyeshine on the second pic.

As for the photographs, they stand alone as evidence it isn't up to anyone on here to prove the authenticity, but for someone to say it's a hoax THEY are the ones who need to provide proof.

I did not lie and I don't have to prove your opinion is incorrect. I took the photo with digital equipment. To post it would open myself up to criticism by the likes of you that it could have been manipulated.
I have already taken photos that proves it to me. Now I can read what you write with a grain of salt and consider what it's worth.

I get a kick out of this. There isn't a still photograph of an animal in existance, that couldn't be faked. To look at a photo and say it is a hoax, because it would be possible to fake it is beneath a critic. To find constant fault without acknowledging the possible virtues is not good discussion. I have found the proponents to the bigfoot phenomenon more readily acceptable of valid criticism when it occurs, than are the skeptics willing to judge a photo or video fairly. To constantly fall back on "It could be faked, therefore it must be faked is effortless. Perhaps that's why it appeals to some.

Dan

But not as convincing as the original. I'm going to try tonight with an assortment of halloween masks, and see if we can get the subtle shading in the Myakka photo. My mardi-gras mask has a hard, fake looking line and a flat color.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

No, click to view animation, it shows even though the face is changing angles there is that same gap between the leaf and the lower jaw.


No, you'd also have to prove this authentic, but it's being proven a hoax with the evidence presented.


Then you have nothing to support your case.

The only reason I think it might be a hoax is the lack of landmarks in the photos and the ransom-style letter. But as far as the actual photos go, these are in some ways MORE impressive than other photographic evidence I have seen:

Multiple Pictures
Clear images (not blobs)
Muscle Definition
Facial Expression
Convincing Fur
No Seams
Eye Shine

The tooth thing doesn't bother me. I have seen startled animals leave their mouth hanging open before.

Remember, this thread is about the details of the photos. If they are a hoax I still want to know: when, why, what, and who.