I've been waiting for someone to start a topic on these but since no one has.....

Cryptomundo link to images

Here's another photo where a hundred folks will see a hundred different things.
The human brain is notorious for filling in the blanks.

I see a guy with short hair in a jacket with his back to the camera.
Of course, I'm not saying that's what it is.....it's what my mind is telling me I'm seeing.

Can't wait to see the many red circles and wavy lines on this one.

Blobsquatch until supporting evidence is produced

blob squatches are IMPORTANT to some research groups.

Hi

I can't make anything out of that


Peace
Tim

That's OK it was off the cuff.

You're supposed to be thinking about basketball today.

I've seen where some claim body motion can be seen between the two game camera photos, but the subject look static to me. It does not appear to change position, as would be expected with a one second delay and a walking animal. The illusion of movement of what might appear to be a left arm is the result of shadows and blowing vegetation, IMO. It seems that it was quite a windy day. I'll try to attach a small movie showing an overlay...

Click to view attachment

It´s a blobwie

Here are the photos. I haven't seen them posted anywhere else at the BFF.

Click to view attachment

These are posted up on the MABRC as well but inconclusive to me.

I'll go ahead and comment about these here, since I'm having problems with the cryptomundo site. While these photos are not my property, I'm the one who found the "object" and did the enlargements you've posted here. What I see is some humanoid bipedal form walking left and away from the camera area. In the two photos taken consecutively, the form seems to slightly change it's position. What has failed to be mentioned is that in the other photographs of the series (it's not just two random photos, it's a series of at least 4 photographs) the object seen is no longer there in the other photographs, and enough time has elapsed that it could have left the area, or at least view of the camera. In the following photographs another form appears in an area of the photographs where there was nothing previously.

To me the object in the photographs are fairly obvious. In my opinion there is really no question as to the form that is apparent. I can clearly see a torso, head, legs, and arms. All of which appear to be proportionate to what is described by eye witnesses. Now, can I say for sure what species the object is? No, not at all. Can any precise details be pulled from the photo to make this determination? Probably not, and if so, not by me. The photos are what they are. What they are not is a tree stump, a rock, or a trick of shadows.

I think I'm at my blob-squatch limit. Seriously, why even post stuff like that?

I guess if I had a real encounter, I'd post the crappy picture, and tell the story anyway, but I'd at least apologize up front for the crappy photo!

It's a a tree stump based on these two if you ask me. The photos are taken at completely different angles. In second photo the cameraman has moved to the right a few feet and taken the picture giving the stump/tree the appearence of movement to the left.

I'm going to say fake, but if someone can provide the other two photos I'll be more then willing to re-think my stance on these.

Chris,

If you flick back and forth between the two pictures I think you'll see that the wind blowing the small trees in the foreground is what creates the appearance of camera movement. The so-called figure itself does not move.

Well, you can choose to ignore me all you want, but I'm explaining the photos to you. There is no camera man. It is a game tracker camera. The camera does not move. It is not a tree stump. If it were a tree stump it would appear in the rest of the series of photos. The rest of the series you have not seen apparently, as they have not been posted here. This is what happens when people take photos from another source and post them without knowing the context. They were never posted as "Bigfoot photos." Nobody posted "crappy" pictures claiming they were anything. What has happened is someone has snagged some photos from another source and has posted them out of context, doesn't know what they are, or what the story is behind them, and now everyone is ripping them apart as per the norm.

I agree that these photos are of poor quality and unlikely to convince anyone of the existence of the Yowie.

However, I do not question Mr Compton's sincerity nor the quality of his research. I contacted him independently a few months ago and well before these pictures were taken and had a brief correspondence in which he told me of his extensive research going back many years. This is not just a bloke who last week thought it would be a great wheeze to snap a tree trunk and pass it off as Bigfoot. For those interested, Paul features in Cropper and Healy's book in which he describes some of his work to date.

He strikes me a level-headded guy who was wary of making too bold a claim and sceptical of some of the wilder Yowie claims emerging from Australia.

As Oklahoma has stated, Mr Compton has not made any wild claims about these photo's. In fact, he would very much like to have some imput, and answer people's questions about his photo's, but is unable to do so, since his account has been disabled on this forum. Instead of continuing to bash him without the facts straight from the "horses mouth", why don't you reinstate his account so he can join this discussion? As some others have said, he is a very level headed, open to discussion person. Give him a chance to tell his side about these.

1. Youre right we haven't seen any other sequence of photos can you link to them?

2. It is another blob.

I've seen the other photos, and there is nothing there. It is a contrast. In these, it's a blob, but it is something. Problem is, blobs aren't good enough anymore. The bar has been raised.

Listen about it on this episode of the Mysterious Universe Podcast:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2008/04/03/e...rious-universe/

Short summary on the MU site here:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2008/04/03/f...film/#more-2106

Coming from Australia, MU was able to go straight to the source. It’s good to hear from the guy who got the shots, but a few things jump out. He says it wasn’t the Yowie’s movement that set off the camera since they’re out of range, but pure chance on closer movement of branches and leaves. He also claims to have had ~five encounters with Yowies. Most reputable researches I’m familiar with claim zero or one.

P.S. – There’s also a discussion of this article on Dr. Jeff on the podcast.

http://media.www.utahstatesman.com/media/s...s-3284316.shtml

Why is it that every Bigfoot picture brings along with it lousy picture clarity and even lousier subject distance? Can't we do better?

And if it is a game camera, how could movement from so far away trigger the photo?

Hi,
I am a researcher from Australia, that knows Paul Compton through his research, I have seen the pictures and have spoken to him about them.
As wild women has stated he isn't making any claims that its this or that, he posted the picture on the MABRC site and in his local paper and it has balloned from there.
If this forum or anyone on here would like to discuss these pictures he can be contacted
yowiie@hotmail.com
Since he was banned from this site for what ever reason, I think it only fair that he be allowed to defend himself with the evidence he has.
Good to be here.

I suppose I should mention that the Paul Compton interview starts at 27:57 in the podcast.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/


?why for can't I edit my posts?

This particular forum is for analyzing photos. I've not bashed Compton, nor has anyone else that I've seen. The photos have to stand on their own, as far as I'm concerned. What can anyone say that would make the photos clearer? What I can see informs me that this supposedly walking creature does not change position. Nothing else indicates to me that we're looking at a bipedal animal, or any kind of animal. Compton apparently disagrees, which is his right, since he has gone public with his claims and will (apparently) be discussing the photos this fall at the Honobia Bigfoot Conference.

You ignored me to, I said until I see the other pictures this is what I think.

Well the only way your going to get to see these pictures is to get Paul back on here and then you can pick him to pieces but until then.
This guy has nothing to hide, he would have more evidence than most researchers on this planet when it comes to yowie and BF research. Thats why he is being a keynote speaker along with Dr Meldrum at the Honaobia conference.
As Neil from Australia said Go for it Paul, you deserve it

I'm with you guys - let's bring Paul back to the BFF

I agree......Bring him back. Otherwise, it's pointless to even continue discussing these photo's. Paul has work hard at his research, and has many viable explainations for most of the concerns people are presenting here. Man up, and hear him out.

Hi

Even if he was to become a member again the pictures are still too far away and blurry to be useful, I don't know why he was banned, coming back to defend these pictures would not be a good way to start over , IMHO

Peace
Tim

The pictures are quite easy to see when looking at the originals.
I'm not sure why he can't post it's a shame, he is legitimate.
Anyone have any idea why he can't post on this forum, he appears to be welcome on the other forums he is associated with.

Gday OzzieBigfoot

Have you seen the other photographs (taken 4 mintutes after) claimed by Paul to depict the Yowie as mentioned in the Mysterious Universe interview.

In the interview Paul says:



I've heard that two commercial current affairs programs are looking at the photos. Are these other photos going to be released at all.

Yes, I have the pictures clearly showing an animal approx 6ft in height and appears to be in 4x4 mode.
An no I am not posting them on this site, sorry.
They are Paul Comptons pictures, I'm not sure which way he is going to go with them. Its his call, he did have the picture on the MABRC / Stan courtney sites and had them removed until he decided what he wanted to do.
Can't tell you any more than that

Trust me, had I assumed you were going to post them, they would have been out already! I respect that they are Paul photos and am looking forward to an official release.

What exactly would that consist of?

What was Compton's BFF name?

Hi Teresa

Paul Comptons BFF name was "yowiie". He use to post a lot in the "Yowie Thread" in general discussion. Does anyone know why Paul was banned? It was a shame considering all the great work he has done.

Just an FYI:

It's not a policy of the BFF to discuss the reasoning behind someone being banned, though not prohibited.

carry on...

Hi Oregonfooter

I respect that, though it is a question on the minds of many members considering the hype around the current photo claims.

Yowieman,
Proving the existance of bigfoot is one thing, but trying to prove that Australia has Yowies is another story.
According to some its was impossible for the bipeds to have reached Australia. I don't know why they wouldn't get here but we are closer to Asia than the USA and yet they have bigfoot!.
Anyway what are Pauls pictures going to prove, nothing!!!!
Why because we don't have Yowies in Australia. apparently.

Hi OzzieBigfoot

I agree that there are many people on these forums that deny the existance of Yowies in Australia based on theories that it could not have migrated here, but they are only theories. This is a forum for discussion though so you are going to get many view points, especially against us as the Yowie topic is a small part of this forum. Irrespective of skeptics beliefs, it does seem that the phenomenom is very real here (as you, and researchers like Paul would agree) when you look at the native traditions and around 200 years of sightings describing the same creature. Personally, I feel that although the theories against migration are strong (particulary when considering biogeographical borders like the Wallace line), all the evidence suggests to me that Yowies managed to make it here somehow. That is why I like to keep an open mind to other theories such as alternative migration routes or the possibility that similar bigfoot like bipedal creatures evolved here independently. So what will Pauls pictures prove? maybe nothing, or maybe something. It will all depend on the quality. It's a known fact today in a world of digital minipulation that photos will never provide 100% proof, though a well shot photo may provide a catalyst for further investigation. Even if Bigfoot and Yowie are not related, a photo of an unidentified creature only 6 meters from a trail cam is sure to awaken the realisation that unidentified creatures still exist undetected in our forests, and this is where it can support the possible existance of crypids like BF in the US. Whether they are the same creature or not, their official discoveries in either country would be earth shaking. Paul is sure to receive a lot of criticism for his claims until the photos are released, and i'm sure he's very aware of this. Personally, I am giving him the benifit of the doubt with respect to the photos and look forward to seeing them eventually. I'm sure it's frustrating to you to have Paul claims attacked considering that you know him personally, though this is sure to happen in a large forum like this. Hopefully the evidence will speak for itself!

Cheers

Hi

I am very interested in the yowie, I don't know as much about it as i do BF, And that is very little still, But i am interested, I have always loved Australia for it's cool down to earth folks, The landscape and those aw-some animals, Some of my Favorites, I don't see why there would not be a Yowie if folks have been sighting them for so long,

I hope Paul has some good pictures and gets them out soon, Like i have said many times if there good and you can clearly see what is in them, i would be happy as ever, Until then he is going to take some heat, ( the fact he was banned ain't helping )

OzzieBigfoot : keep your cool This forum is not a place to just take everyones word or what ever people have for pictures as real until they can prove themselves,

Peace
Tim

its to bad that every photo i have seen has been photo shop no originals
which is a instant credibility issue

EXIF: FILE

TAG / VALUE
--------------------

Width / 1240
height / 930
72 dpi
date created 2008; 02;12 ; 15:10:50
software / photo shop 7.0
color depth /24 dpp

-----------------------------------------------

and i see another interesting thing in this photo i didn't see mentioned

I'm thinking where did that white line come from i don't see a birch tree in there

Tim,
No drama here, mate. ,
I'm glad I'm on this forum its very informative Cheers

It is one of the more defined blobs I have seen recently and fits the general shape you would associate with yowie/bf/sas clearly to me, but that means nothing. Just another conversation starter here at the BF forums.
Cant, doesn't, will never prove or disprove anything.

Oh and the addition blob found on the left. See above comments


Actually I think I found Waldo

Not to be Captain Obvious but the highlighted and magnified areas should have made that, well, obvious. As for the originals I think it's been made equally, well, obvious as to why they haven't been posted here.

The original pictures are quite plain to see without the highlighted areas, I have seen the pictures that Paul has.

I see Paul has posted some pictures on the Bigfoot discussion forum, but there are a couple that he hasn't posted yet.

Hi, yeah, once again. Matt here, the guy who found the "blob yowie" in question. Paul asked me to take a look at the other photos where the POSSIBLE creature that is POSSIBLY on all fours was seen. I asked him if he had any other photos for comparison, so I could see if the object in question was in all of the pictures, such as a tree stump, rock, or some other natural object would be, or if it actually moved into frame such as a living moving creature would do. That's when Paul said yes, there were a couple photos where the camera had been triggered a few minutes prior, and he sent me those photos. I loaded them into photoshop, which is the program I have and use, and laid them out in chronological order to look at. The process I used was fairly simple. I clicked on image size, and then enlarged the image. That's when I first noticed what appeared to be a bipedal object with somewhat long arms, and no visible neck to speak of walking from right to left at the tree line. I took a look at photo number two, and it was still there, only the area that appeared to be the arms and torso seemed to have changed angle a bit, depicting what I would consider movement. I then looked at photo number three, and the object was no longer there. I went back and looked at the times the camera had registered, and saw 1 and 2 were taken in succession, and then 3 and 4 were taken several minutes later. I then went back and cropped out the object in question, enlarged it once again, and then adjusted the brightness and contrast a bit to try and see if I could bring out a little more detail, which I couldn't. So I just pasted it over onto the the original photo, put some red lines to reference where it was in the photos, and sent them back to Paul to ask him if he knew what it could possibly be. Up until that point nobody, including Paul, had even noticed it. Up until it was snagged and posted here, everyone who looked at it saw the same thing I did. Of course nobody ever claimed it WAS FOR CERTAIN anything, just that it APPEARED to POSSIBLY be something.
Yes, I agree it's a blobsquatch. No I don't think it proves anything. Questioning as to why someone would post it here and claim that it was something, and acting as though it just really put you out to have to waste so much of your precious time to look at it and post some snide remark about it, is really not necessary considering the people involved with the photo did not make such claims, nor were they responsible for it being posted here. If you don't want to look at them I guess I could ask the forum admins to remove those particular images since they are in fact protected under copyright. And guess who the owner is.

So, if you're gonna blast off at someone, please redirect your fire towards me and not Paul. And I apologize for photoshop being my default image software.

Its pretty blured....its real hard to see. If anyone has a quality picture adjusting program may you please use it and focus it on the picture in the corner. There really isn't a way tp determine what this is.

Only the photographer knows what was seen. It's too bad that a telephoto camera was not used since the "BF" was too far away to be discernable. This is a common problem. A BF is seen, someone has a camera, BF stays too far away, and a picture is taken with much excitement. Later, with disappointment, the BF is poorly depicted.

This type of picture is more believable, than a crystal clear closeup that could easlily be faked. It doesn't make sense to publish a fuzzy shot unless you really saw a moving BF prior to filiming. Most people don't carry a $1000 digital camer with huge zooming capacity. I will withhold judgement until a nonbiased investigator interviews the photographer and provides us with a report.