Hello all, It has been a very long time since I have been back here at Bigfoot Forums.. I usually spend my time outdoors and working on catching some glimpse, some footprint, some sort of encounter.. but to no avail. Last week a friend of mine who just happens to be visiting from out of province, says he saw and captured a photograph of 'some sort of ape' while walking with a long time childhood friend, taking photos of the vancouver island rainforest. I immediatly was intrigued by the photos and thought the best bet would be to show the community. The following is a scaled down version for the boards. I also have the full resolution picture directly off of his camera card. This guy has no computer knowledge and would not know how to alter photographs.

Where is it? I need a red circle.

Uhhhh.........what am I looking at other than a nice shot of the woods?

Click to view attachment

If that is it, isn't that height around 2-3 ft. tall? Or are they Sequoia trees and ferns?


Or am I really misjudging the distance somehow?



Edit: I wouldn't mind looking at the full resolution pics--maybe I can get a little more detail into the object in question?

It does look interesting. But the fur reminds me of a costume.

So... based on the size of the Sword Ferns, Western Red Cedar boughs, and leaf litter, is your friend suggesting that the circled tree root that's about three foot high is the so called "ape?"

Wow... I'm speechless.

Click to view attachment
That arm seems too small and odd unless it has something slung on its back?

Hairy leprechaun?

Hi

I can see what could be a back line down though what could be a buttocks as the object is walking to the right , there are some curves to it that don't add up to being a tree


Peace
Tim

Interesting... just another case where it would have behooved all of us if this guy would have shot at this thing with a rifle, and not a digital camera.. Then at least we would know if in fact what we would be dealing with...

That's what I was thinking, RRS.

Blackops, did your friend say it was actually moving around? And there were multiple witnesses?

What happened to Bigfoot's head?

Click to view attachment


Yes, I'm being a smart ass again.

It looks like a tree that looks like an ape that resembles a cut tree.

Hi

I will agree no head shot, possible it or what could be leaning forward, that line in the back could also be looked at as the back of a right arm i guess ?

Peace
Tim

It's Gumby! in a fur coat!

Hi


Unless i get a BF yelling in my face and getting spit all over my camera i am always going to be skeptical about pictures, but i like to throw in some input and keep my thoughts alive, i see what i see , i say what i think thats what were all about here

Peace
Tim

Could it be a broken or cut trunk or limb from a tree? That could easily be a plant in front of the object that appears to be a gap (forming the legs).

At least there is SOMETHING in this picture and we're not just seeing an extreme close-up of trees and brush. This is my kinda blobsquatch.

well from what i can tell from the pic at the start. it looks to me like a tree stump or a root i have never seen a root grow that way but if the tree fell it would look that way

hey i got a idea post it on the other BF page and they will tell you it is BF heck they think bushes and trees are so why not that

jedi

Having a hard time with this i can't see any part of Pokey in the picutre


Peace Brother
Tim

I have read some of your posts and thought I should clear up some stuff about the encounter. My friend claims this thing was on all fours when they came upon it from a distance, at first they thought it was a bear with its head down, but as they walked and cracked some sticks, it got up on two legs and walked into the bush line. They did not pursue as they were quite shaken. This is no stump as it WAS moving. As for size, it is hard to tell with the size of those trees.. If any of you are familiar with Vancouver Island, it holds the largest Red Cedars in the world, among other massive trees..He said it must have been around 6 feet tall.

Interesting, but the scale is one problem, although a small juvenile is a plausible explanation for that. The other thing that looks odd to me is the sharp 'cutoff' lines down the right side, almost vertical and then almost horizontal.

Not sure how to interpret those. If it's a Photoshop job, it's odd that the rest of it would look fine, and then that there would be such obvious 'cut' lines.

A cardboard cutout is a possibility i guess.

hey everyone wow very interesting new possible sasquatch photo but its needs more research enhandsments etc indeedy. wow the above comments are getting very interesting as well. thanks bill

Gumby is now a pimp and livin' large in the deep Canadian forests.

I don't understand what you are seeing. Do you see a second ass?

blackops, could you please attach the full-size version; including any sides that were cut off....

T

Yeah,

I'd love the full resolution to work with. This looks interesting, and those cedars are huge there--as much as 15m diameters!?

After looking at quite a few pics of Vancouver cedars, one showed some guys standing in front of one. The tree was large, but the ferns interested me more--some came to waist height.

This lesser resolution pic is interesting, but the real deal would be great!


Thanks.

Given the shape of the apparent head area "Gumby in a fur coat" seems more of a feasible explanation than Bigfoot.

The front, back and top of the head area is obviously flat or straight if you will.

Click to view attachment

I believe that may be a stick at that angle, giving the appearance of the head being gumby-ish--or 'gumbirific', the proper scientific name for the gumbification of heads.

The long, straight-line edge along the right side above the 'knee' looks very suspicious to me. No straight lines like that in nature. Definitely appears altered or spliced in somehow.

If he was so spooked, why did this picture come out so clear, unshaken, and focused? It doesn't seem right to me...

It could be clear because he was shooting with an average focal length lens (like 50 mm or maybe even wider) and a fast shutter speed with fast film/high ISO.

It's not that mysterious looking to me. It looks exactly like a gorilla walking off to the right, with the head disappearing behind the brush. the back of the neck is large and jutting out either with muscle or vertebrae. The forearm on the right arm looks massive in comparison to the size of the legs, like you would expect from a creature that spends an equal amount of time walking on all fours as on two legs, or does a lot of tree climbing.

I don't get it. What's the mystery about this photo? The size of the creature is very hard to judge, but otherwise it's about the clearest photo of one of these things I've ever seen.

I would sure like to see the full sized version, though. It could be a photoshopped image, of course.

BF picture lesson #1. Never post picture on BFF before consulting a researcher. You are setting yourself up for numerous insults and criticism. Personally, I find the photo intersting and say Thanks for sharing! I'd be curious what some of the BFF Field experts think but until then the 3rd grade ridicule will continue. I hate that for you.

While my last comment may have come off as 3rd grade humor, I was simply indicating that the subject, if a sasquatch, looks to be quite small. The best thing the witness can do at this point, IMO, is to take some comparative photos at the same spot with something for scale.

Blackops,

When did your friend take this picture. You said he was visiting you last week. Was that when the picture was taken as well?

If this brown object is moving, walking parallel to the camera line of sight we should see movement blurring. More movement is seen in this direct and then any other under exactly similar conditions. It does seem to be a dark forested area with little break through of bright light from the sun. Looking around the picture I think I can see some movement in the plants though, maybe from wind, so why not with the darker brown object? It also looks like a trail is in front of the camera.

Either this is a posed subject in costume, holding still while a picture gets taken obscuring just the right details or it is something ordinary that looks extraordinary in 2D. There must be more pictures showing the area without the brown object unless they see this type of thing regularly. Anyone coming across a deer or a bear and taking a picture like this would of course take more than one picture so why not with a Bigfoot?

Recommend providing the full rez pic to some of the photo folks. Also, any details pertaining to scale would be helpful.

Guess I could explain a little better.

It is a dark forest no matter what the picture is telling you. The sky is blown out telling me that there was a marked difference inside that forest, light wise that is yet there is no bright shafts of light coming through to the ground. My guess is that the camera was on a tripod and it was a slow shutter speed (look at the depth of field and framing, great leading forground to a background, all in about the same amount of focus so that was a very small aperature thus the need for a slow shutter speed and since there is no camera movement, most likely a tripod for sturdy support).

DDA,

What if it was taken with a wide angle lens (which would naturally give it more depth of field) and with a very fast ISO or high ASA film? 800 ISO and a f5.6 wide angle lens at about 125 shutter speed could freeze the figure, but might not completely freeze the moving ferns if the wind was moving them around rapidly.

I wonder if this is film or digital.

It does look like a wide angle lens was used but it doesn't look like a fast ISO film (shadows have very little grain or color noise in them). Higher ISO also gives higher contrast which I don't see. The quality looks like digital to me. IMO if the ferns were moving that much that it showed with a 125 shutter there should be even more movement then is seen.

I think it looks to be the inside of a fallen lof that has hollowed out a bit. I'll redline it for you

I understand what you are saying, but it's hard to tell without the original. Are you sure those ferns you circled are blurred because of movement and not just 'hazy' because of lens quality? Granted, it's a pretty sharp picture, but I see a number of fine ferns and coniferous needles that aren't too sharp. That could just be the glass. If I had the original I could download it into Photoshop and get a really good look.

I wonder if blackops will be able to provide us with that.

The image summary of the photo that was uploaded says the photo was taken with a Panasonic DMC-TZ1. At ISO 400 with F-Stop of F/2.8

Behold Logsquatch

Hi All,


Thank you guys so much for all of your help in identifying this subject, I really believed it was just a log, or stump of some sort until I saw the multiple other photographs taken before and directly after this photo was taken. This is no stump as I was told it was walking 'like a man' at a rather fast pace into the thicker vegetation.. The camera was a basic Pansonic Lumix (No idea on the specs) you can buy at any department store.. The image I have provided was not cut or cropped in any way. This is the original image directly off the SD Card, except for a resizing in photoshop in order to post it on these boards. I am currently at work so I will come back on here later tonight while I have time at home. Thank you guys again.


EDIT: Never was it implied that this subject is large. It was stated to be around 6 feet tall.

Is Logsquatch already part of the lexicon? If not, I nominate it.

I'm reserving judgement on this one for the moment. I am perceiving] something that is small in relation to the landscape, not something large, photographed at a distance.

2.8 just doesn't make sense at all, even if shot with a 20mm lens. I see it states a 52mm lens with a flash fired at 2.8? Something is amiss.

Just checked with an online DOF and it states that a 52mm lens at 2.8 focused at 10 feet would have a DOF of 9.5 to 10.5 feet. Check it yourself. That picture has just as sharp foreground as background. So now the question is... is this a picture of a picture?

I think the fur looks too neat and perfect. It looks like a teddy bear's fur.

So there is more pictures? What about any photos showing something to base a size comparison.

By the way, I see what you are saying DDA.

OK, I'm looking at it in Photoshop. The above specs are correct. Here's some more.

Shutter speed 1/30 (this is the minimum speed needed to 'freeze' human action, btw)

Focal length is 5.2 mm. That's wide angle, and because this is a digital photo, from a camera I'm not familiar with, I assume that's a wide open wide angle focal length for this particular camera. On my Nikon that would be a 'fish eye' lens.

Date the original photo was taken is 2006:09:03, which I assume is year, month, day. If so, that's this past September 3rd, folks. Is Vancouver Island this green at the beginning of September? Time of day 1:32:53. I assume p.m., not a.m.

File source: 'DSC'. Scene type: 'direct photographed image'.

Here's something else, Software: 'Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0.'

This tells us that it has been manipulated through Photoshop Elements, which blackops says he used to resize the image.

Click to view attachment

I sharpened it a bit, but there just aren't enough pixels there to do much more with.

Does anybody think this might be a Kodiak or Grizzly walking on its hind feet?