The RSS feed in the other thread must not be letting posters upload pictures. Maybe that was the intent all along… just to notify BFF members of the report, not to have posters there. Here is #5 through Focal Blade. First attempt. What was my first impression of a gorilla silhouette changed after seeing this profile. The head doesn't look right for a gorilla.

Wish he would have had a better camera. I wonder who left the sword sticking in the ground?

Doesn't look right at all
Almost appears to be someone with a ball cap backwards wearing a hoody.
but very blurred.
Maybe they are looking for the sword they lost lmao

Rob

Maybe what looks like the subject's rear-end seen behind the other side of the tree isn't part of the subjects body, but maybe a stump or a shadow?

That would make the subject's posture less gorilla-like anyways .

It is all becoming clear to me.

Does the BFRO analyze the photos submitted to them or just take them at face value? Some of the former members must be able to answer this question.

In addition to the illuminations not matching- DDA's enhancement clearly shows a manmade object ( looks like a light sabre) right there in front of it ( it doesnt mean anything but its out of place)

One can also make a case that "rear end" isnt part of the object.

I have to second your question- what exactly do they analyze or is any story that just "sounds good" become a report? ( and if it has some fuzzy pictures it becomes an A sighting?)

For discussion purposes I have placed numbers around the subject of this picture. I thought it would be easier to discuss those areas by using the number map instead of other descriptors. The picture is further enhanced from the one above. I don’t think anything more can be had from it.

The foreground object that looks man-made could be some type of fence post sticking out of the bushes. Right now that is the only thing that makes sense to me since light sabers are very expensive to leave out in the woods to rust.

As far as hoaxing is concerned, I thought about that the first time I saw these. I thought maybe it is a cardboard cutout painted black, or something inflated like those ape balloons they have floating over car dealerships or mattress companies to draw in passerby traffic. Could this strange foreground object be an air line connected to a balloon ape? I have also seen large stuffed gorilla toys that are life sized.

Looking at this long enough, yes I can see something that could be a baseball styled billed hat, with the bill facing the camera. I can sometimes see a human looking face in the pixels in the #1 area as well. I kind of think that might be too far of a stretch to get that much detail out of something so dark, possibly moving, blurred and apparently edge obscured.

I did make a moving gif file of the three images showing the dark subject the best and having alignment objects in them. It could be further refined by altering the perspective of each image so as to better match the others since the truck containing the camera was moving, but I haven’t done that yet. I think I see some movement between these images that doesn’t appear to be from the camera. Hopefully the BFRO will post it.

I would like to keep this discussion intelligent and constructive.

DDA
If you look at the two pictures taken after the encounter using the witness and a 10 foot marking stick, it appears to me that what you have highlighted as a stake or man made object is really the bottom of a tree in front of the witness which shows up more clearly. I think because of the dark color of the subject in the cell phone pictures the dark part of the tree is not showing.

Here is the witness standing in the position he thought it was at. Now there seems to be a problem with the trees. Check out the gif in the next post. The creature seems to have been closer. The witness is behind both trees.

I tried to align the trees as best I could.

DDA I put a red box around an area, and I am hoping you can tell me what those lines are? Are they sticks or branches???

Those are small horizontal branches from a tree outside of frame.

I think these photos are very interesting. Taken in context of the witness's statements, this appears to be an 8 foot sasquatch bending over to conceal itself. The sasquatch appears very gorilla like. It's size precludes a hoax, for instance a homey in a hood with a cap. The shiny section is its facial skin, which the witness said was shiny (probably due to the heat). The so-called "sword" is an artifact from the photo manipulation.

Thank you DDA.

So, then if those are branches.. I can see nothing between the witness and whatever this is, as far as a man made enclosure. Can anyone point out the wires or fencing?

This looks like a gorilla to me, but I cant find any kind of enclosure..

My best guess with these photos and the overlay is that the dark object is 8’2” tall, as it appears and quite a bit more massive than the witnesses frame. It isn’t a parting of the bushes in the background, showing black. This is something massive and tall. As to its strange posture throughout the series of pictures, all we have is the witness’s observation.

Is there a zoo out there that has this type of vegetation for a gorilla enclosure? I have been to maybe 10 zoos throughout the US and abroad and haven’t seen anything like it. The closest would be Oregon’s (but I am not sure if they have gorillas) and Washington state. Woodland Park (Washington) doesn’t have this much area or those types of trees and underbrush. I don’t think it is a zoo.

Although this doesn’t constitute any kind of proof in the animals’ existence, it will validate many researchers’ prolonged, and for the most part, fruitless pursuits. I think this sighting and picture series is very important and should cheer on further investigations. I would also like to mention that with all the bad mouthing the BFRO has received over the years, not too many groups can claim such transparent disclosure of a recent event, in a timely manner. Kudos to the group and a hardy well done.

Oregon zoo does not have gorillas and the primates they do have are in fairly dismal enclosures.

RW

It would be nice to have a picture of the spot without anyone or any giant measuring sticks in it.

There is something black sticking out between the witness holding the bar, but he blocks it. The thing could be stationary, but the moving truck, is giving the illusion of the thing changing positions.

DDA. Can you post pics 4 and 5 side by side from the sighting report?
Go to the report, look at pictures 4 and 5. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160 The trees are spaced differently, to me it looks like this.

Mods- Could you close the other thread, for the reasons DDA mentions?

Sometimes coming back to the pictures I can't get the image of a motorcross rider out of my mind running along a trail obscured by the salal. Someone on a bike would be taller and would most likely wear a helmet.

I don't know but I'm pretty sure there's only one person who can get it out.

Click to view attachment

On a more serious note, nice clean-up DDA. Too bad there isn't more to work with.

-A

hey melissa & everyone wheather this a primate or a sasquatch in these photos need serious research done to them etc. has there been any other sightings or footprints in or around the sighting location in past couple months. are the eyewittnesses going to be reinterviewed by certain researchers here in this great forum. thanks bill green these possible sasquatch photos are very interesting indeed.

Bill, on January 26th, 2008, Owen Caddy, Bob Gimlin and I gave two presentations each at the Historical Museum in Olympia Washington, on Bigfoot. At that time, the principal investigator of this report brought the two witnesses, their cell phone and pictures they had printed out at a camera shop recently, to the event. I was able to talk with the two witnesses and was impressed with their story and field experience. I then worked on the photos as much as I could. I had received the pictures about a month beforehand but had computer problems was really only concerned with that until the presentations.

This is a BFRO report and it is up to them how they proceed with it. I think the area is under surveillance of one type or other. Any other follow up information would have to be asked of them. Hopefully something more will come of this. It was a multiple sighting after all.

Took the words right out of my mouth. And like Apeman stated, nice job Rick, cleaning these up the best you possibly could.
And hats off to my fellow members, Kristine Walls, and those who assisted her- John, Tracy, David & Scott, who I thought did a great job with what they had to work with.
I admit when I first heard about this incident a month and half or so ago, including the fact that 5 pictures were taken with a cellphone & obviously weren't highly detailed due to what they were taken with as well as the circumstances of the encounter, I was a little concerned about how we (BFRO) would be sharing this visual evidence as well as the investigation results. After seeing the final product several weeks ago before it was publicly viewable, and seeing the photos themselves, the fact that most of the resulting investigation was publicly disclosed including the witness interview- I feel much better. The visual evidence provided as well as the details of the encounter are intriguing, the general location makes sense. Unfortunately, do to the poor quality of the pictures we are no closer to solving this mystery, but I think the majority of persons here appreciate the fact that they have an opportunity to assess this event for themselves as well as the adjacent pictures. In my opinion, your either looking at a Sas or a hoax of somekind, which, I don't care who you think you are, the possibility of a hoax can never be eliminated 100% by the quality of the evidence provided. All 5 investigators were impressed with the witnesses and it's my understanding that more follow-up and experimentation will take place when the area has more viable access for investigating parties to reach. It is what it is, a highly detailed account, thoroughly investigated by 5 competent investigators who performed necessary due dilligence and the photos, are what they are and never claimed to be more by either the witness who took them (meaning definitive clarity of subject), the investigation participants or the BFRO.
If Morgorth is around I'd be interested to see what he can do with these pictures, if anything.

Whatever it is it is big. Theres is no doubt about it. As to where it was taken that would just take a simple trip out with the witness who seems like a highly unlikly canadate for a hoax countining his son being involved. Has the BFRO been to the sight? That could answer a few of the questions.

Is there a trail back there that a bike could be on? I like that thought DDA.
I'll post the photos, I don't know why I asked you to do it DDA, you are a busy man.
Also, wouldn't a moving camera/stationary subject, have the same effect of a stationary camera/moving subject, even perceived movement could be attributed to difference in angles. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160

Nightwing has a nice animation on the other thread
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=447480

hey friend wow thats a awesome above reply to me regarding these new photos yes i do hope the area is still under investigation etc i agree i with you i hope more info comes about these new photos. thanks bill

Now that I've skimmed this report I have to say the story really stinks.

On top of what Nigthwing did:

The first two photos are virtually identical: trying doing that from a supposedly moving truck (?contradiction in the report) with a cellphone cam that takes seconds to shoot a frame (usually). And the figure supposedly came 20 yards or 40% closer between these two shots? Bull****. It's almost exactly the same.

I also can't tell if it's into digital zoom (we should be able to check that on the original images? and why didn't the BFRO report on the specs of photos rather than just the camera) and if it isn't zoomed, the figure is no where's near 150, then 90, then 40 feet away? DDA, do you know any of these details?

Why did they stop taking pictures if they supposedly watched it STOP on, look and them, and then cross the road? And why didn't the BFRO ask this?

I think they either pulled one over on the BFRO (as shocking as that might sound. ), or the BFRO totally botched this report. But I assume DDA would be able to see through both those possibilities having met them and seen better quality images???? Are you really that impressed with the possibility these are real DDA?

I can understand a few errors in recall, but something just doesn't smell right when the story and photos don't even go together.

My 2 cents,
-Apeman

PS- Also, what is this brown squarish thing? I can convince myself it's just a bush but it seems to have hard edges, like a log?
Click to view attachment

This is another example of P T Barnum

It sadly illustrates many of the flaws of the "investigation" as well as the conclusions.

The discreptancies aforementioned are visibly evident ( and there are more when lighting is considered)

Theres also the lack of physical evidence of such a large animal passing ( people leave trails but something this big doesnt?)

There is a lack of a proper follow up ( where were the dogs? or any attempt to find a trail) Theres a lack of cross examination ( searching for details that dont fit the story, searching for stories that dont fit the details and such)

Always excuses- never a valid reason or explanation- never anything of any substance, never anything that withstands an acid test.

Its "belief fodder" and nothing more- again ( the unpopular scenario)- if anyone ever wonders why, here is a textbook case

I am not very impressed with the picture. The first thing that stuck out to me was that the position of the "object" never changed. This is inconsistent with the statement that the object was in motion. Sorry, this is a hoax.

DDA - I was wondering if you were also able to do an over lay of the 3 images for comparison since you have or had access to the origionals? No need to post it as far as I am concerned, If you look at them closely and can confirm that there is no change in the subject in question and comment. I know how deceiving images can be if they are simply downloaded from the net.

I'll drop this on here two.
The three photos of the "creature" in the show that even with moving around(either the truck, the subject, or both) the subject is identical. There is no apparent change in shape, which WOULD happen if this was a live animal moving around at all, or if it was 3 dimensional and the photographer moved in relation to it.(try it yourself...pick an object, take 3 photos from 3 different angle, and you will see that different parts will be visible in each photo, enough that even as poor a photo as this, it would be noticeable.). On top of that...the chance of a living animal ending up in EXACTLY the same position, stance, angle and distance(and..even with the same shading), as related to the photographer over 3 different photos, from 3 different locations...is astronomically small.

The following animation simply overlays the subject in all 3 photos..and it's obvious that it's effectively identical.

Stabilizing on the subject makes it look like it does turn a bit towards the camera.

Where as, stabilizing on the center tree gives us a problem. Is the subject moving backwards? Which side of the truck were the pictures taken from? Was the subject visible at the front of the vehicle or at the rear? Which direction was the subject traveling, towards or away from the vehicle? Did it cross the road in front of the vehicle or behind?

The last picture is #5 and it shows the widest distance between the two center trees (shouldn't it actually be the narrowest?), the distance getting foreshortened in picture # 4, yet the subject appears to be further away from the trees.

I don't know, I still think what is being seen is an illusion due to differences in coloring due to the different look of the 3 photographs giving an impression of slight movement. Even in the stabalized image, if you look at the key points(edges, light/shadow, apparent limbs), they appear to overlap and occupy exactly the same space. I think the turning is just due to the image itself getting lighter and darker. Certainly...there is not the amount of difference one would expect for 3 different photos taken at 3 different(and fairly pronounced) distances and locations, IMO. On the other hand, it may be as Bart suggested, that it's a stump...the slight movement that the stabilization shows could also be a stump in "3-D", as the movement, if it's there, does not seem to be restricted to just the head/shoulders..but the entire image jumps slightly.
Sadly...it really seems to be just another blobsquatch in a long and illustrious line of such.(although..at least it does not seem to be a bear..).

When I stabilized it, I keyed on the subject itself instead of any of the surrounding landmarks, specifically because it appeared to be nearly, if not exactly, identical from one photo to the next. This I still think is very unlikely if this is a live subject moving between photos. It's very difficult given the quality of the photos to get any handle on distances...but if it's an artificially positioned cut out, it could indeed be moved from one location to the next and thus satisfy the questions you posed. On the other hand, perhaps it is a live animal that just happened to "freeze" in the exact same position and orientation 3 different times. I still think that is very unlikely if not impossible...but I could be wrong also.
Sadly, the poor photo quality is not likely to allow any definitive answer here..which in the end I guess leads us full circle to the blobsquatch.

hey nightwing wow very interesting above reply regarding these new possible sasquatch photos. thanks bill but more research etc needs to be done these photos

I guess what sets me back on my heels is that we are left with assessing the credibility of this matter based on a few low quality photographs and virtually no access to the written investigation. For an investigation that is assessing the credibility of a sighting that alleges a major issue in natural history, a variety of information sources need to be examined such that the pieces of information corroborate, or discredit, the claim. Among other things, the investigation should be looking at: is there still data on the phone that would be of value in assessing the claim( like a time reference on the photo files that might give us some idea of the times these photos were taken; the phone was apparently turned on, so the claimant could give access to cell site information that would tell us at least an approximation as to the location of the phone at the time of the claimed encounter; and how bout access to the toll information..the claimant could allow access to that for verification of date and time considerations and names of people that were contacted immediately before and after the claimed encounter. And then there is the issue of the interviews. Was the claimant and the corroborating witness (the son) interviewed individually and were they interviewed simultaneously? In my mind, that would have made a big step in vindicating the primary witness. Yeah, worst case scenario, they could have gotten some story together, but I really doubt they could have covered all the bases in such a way that trained investigators wouldn't see red flags. And then we get into the interviews of people close to the witness and his son. There is a lot that an investigation can learn that would either corroborate the two, or tend to discredit them, but we don't see it yet.

I personally have a question about the time line of this investigation. I think I know when the event occurred, but I am unclear as to when the matter was reported and to whom. There is some reference as to the involvement of a Forest Service employee (was that person interviewed?) and there is mention of a phone report to BFRO, but I really can't tell when the site was examined, nor by who, and when the follow up investigation occurred. Yeah, I know, some people think this is way too detailed to be practical. I disagree. Opinions should not be based on just single pieces of tantalizingly information. There are a number of pieces of information that should be viewed as evidence, evidence that works for or against the claims of this witness and his son. And, presuming the witness and his son are legit, they should welcome the examination. For god sakes, look at all that has been argued about the PGF. That event had film images, plaster casts, a witness and a corroborating witness, and it was immediately reported to anyone that would listen, and we still, after 40 years, argue and anguish over that one. Look at the humiliation that Bob Gimlin has has gone through because the encounter wasn't seriously investigated at the time it occurred. And I guess, if there is supportive information of this alleged encounter, why isn't it presented? It has been three months.

It may well be that all these questions have been answered and that we just aren't privileged to the information. I look forward to seeing a report one day, and, at that time, I can give an opinion. HMB

For what it's worth... (probably not a lot)

Taking inexact measurements, and correlating them to a standing position and adding hands for visual effect (even though most likely half, or more, of an ape hand would be used to knuckle walk, therefore adding the full length is probably gratuitous) I came up with a basic outline of what the subject may look like.

Who knows what the heck this really is, but the dimensions seem pretty neat... (measurements from original full size photo posted here bumped up to 300 dpi)






Inexact, quick, probably deeply and fatally flawed, but...we're talking about a blobsquatch so what the hay.

Oh, and the mustache indicating head width...that was just too hard to resist.

GRRRRRRRR LOL- when I go home next, I'm going to have to load more software on this laptop- I can do almost nothing with a picture on this one.

One thing that should have been done is a back shot from the position of the "object" back to the observer as well as a measurement of that showing field of view, shooting positions of the series, elevations etc.

One of the detail points I would focus on is this "light saber" fence post thingie. Given its distinctive outline, capturing reflections of light etc- its clearly not an imaging artifact but a real 3 D object. I see no outline of it or evidence of its presence in 3,4 and 6,7 ( especially in 7) and theres no mention of it at all in any report.

The question is- did anyone doing enhancements see evidence of it in any of the other pictures? If theres no evidence of it in the other pictures- you could stick a fork in this one because then it was put there and removed ( inbetween sequential pictures)

Also, while analyzing the camera was any attempt to obtain timestamp information of the pictures? For example, if there were several minutes between any given photo- you could also put this to bed. ( that would directly contradict the account as well as give plenty of time for scene manipulation) ( worked for us in the Duke case)

I too would ask were these witness "interviews" conducted with set questions and interviewed independantly and reviewed for inconsistancies or were they just accepted at face value as being "credible" ( whatever that means)

Another point- the witness states he didnt notice a trail from where it came from but noticed rather where "it went"- was there any attempt to serach the trail "where it went" as this was an alleged deer path and should contain some evidence of passage.

Does our regular dilligence (and cleverness) in 'evaluating' these types of purported Bigfoot photos really trump our seeming credulous gullibility in believing these types of pictures are worthy of being 'evaluated' at all? IOW, just because it's a "yeah, I guess it could be a Bigfoot if you look at it just right with your eyes closed" photo, does that alone make it worthy of further 'research' when, at face value it's hardly an at-best-dubious-quality blobsquatch? I mean geez, these pictures look about as much like a 'Bigfoot' as they do of Bea Arthur. I can see the guys out there now, "Hey Murray, doesn't that stump over there look like Bigfoot? Take a pic with your crappy phone camera and send it out. That outta keep 'em busy for 6 weeks." Yes I know, the irony is such 'further investigation' usually produces the result that it really is just a blobsquatch - which is exactly my point. If it looks like a donkey and smells like a donkey and farts like a donkey, it's probably not a zebra (the corollary to that being 'painting stripes on a donkey does not make it a zebra'). Not a lot more 'research' needs to go into some of this...stuff...people!

Okay fine, it's Bigfoot.

Good point longtabber. I was wondering about the path where it went also and if anyone tried to track it.
Nightwing, that dissolve is great.
Most of the analysis of these photos here is good. It looks to me like a fake blob, rather than a real blob.

I'm looking at it this way- there are really only 2 possibilities here ( there is a 3rd being this photo was a creation of photoshop and the object was simply put there but if the pictures were directly downloaded from the camera and there was a chain of custody for the cell, thats unlikely)

1) this is a biological entity ( BF, gorilla or simply "other")

2) this is a deliberate constructed and fabricated hoax with intent to deceive

Theres really no middle ground.

That light sabre thingie and the objects seemingly "identical" posing ( lighting etc) are the 2 things I see as being most critical in making that determination ( cant use witness statements because if its "other" in the choices above, they could be mistaken and its an honest mistake- any other chice makes them good story tellers as the indicent was fabricated)

Also, relative to point 1- if it was there, it simply had to leave a trail coming to that point and proceeding forth ( theres no getting around that either)

I must question the veracity and quality of the investigation if they didnt concentrate on finding the alleged trail ( say 100 meters each direction) and really scour the ground where it was allegedly standing.

That light sabre thingie is another- it should be clearly visible and since the "object" was standing almost right beside it- why isnt it mentioned and defined?

I must be missing something here.

We cant tell what the subject of the photo is for certain. Ok, I can go along with that (Im easy to please).

But - we know there is a light sabre in this photo? Could it be a stick that is just a really cool shape? Isnt the "light sabre" smaller than the subject of the video?

Could I get a red circle - I cant seem to find the light sabre - or really cool stick.

To our photo and photoshop experts out there is it possible to set up a series of pictures using photoshop and afterwards take pictures of the photoshoped images with a cell phone to make it look like original pictures?

For Melissa

I nominate nightwing for the " Golden Fork " award ..

This one's done ...

I agree SG.

Thank you Drew. That is a curious object, and I have spent hours this morning looking for light sabres on the internet - and have yet to find one that looks anything like that.

But - before I am ready to call this over, someone needs to explain the dramatic weight loss the subject of this video had.

If I am counting right - there are 3 frames beings shown. Now if you look at the second and third images - pay attention to the back legs. Note that there is a size change between the abdomen of whatever this is - and its back legs. Its almost as if whatever this is has put its legs further back (or someone stretched out the cardboard cut out )

Oh God....Not the dreaded fork of finality.

Hi


Don't stick a fork in it yet


Peace
Tim

Hi


This Thread is on the rocks, Can she be saved Captain, has anyone got new info





Peace
Tim

Ferrrr god's sake Tim, I'm just a bigfoot researcher, I'm not a magician!