I took these pictures on 083008 in Kansas. They were taken at a little after 4PM on a Sony DSC-H7 at full 15x zoom from a window mount tripod. The trees are about 200 yards from the camera. The camera is facing east.

I located the area as a result of a sighting report, and started searching for any signs of activity. I have been photographing the group of trees for 2 summers and have a few other images that are pretty rough but possibly of interest, they are posted on my site. I began a modest feeding effort this last spring about a thousand yards to the north of this location and had a few results. The area is on private property and is heavily posted so I have not attempted to get any closer.

I have satisfied myself with keeping a distance and not visiting more than at 2-3 week intervals. I finally came up with a couple of images that I hoped the photo gurus on this board would take a look at.

No one besides myself knows the location or my schedule, so I can vouch 100% for the authenticity of the images, but because of the distances involved, they are not clear enough to be conclusive.

The supporting photos can be found here.
http://www.shadowfolk.com/thegroup.html

These are the best I've been able to come up with as yet..... enjoy
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

More please!

If it is a baited area then I would suggest a mower on those grasses in front. Is that a crop field? A great idea would be to plant that area with spread cast yummies. Everybody's happy to find surprise beans and strawberries! And spread casting is a way to make it much more "natural" in appearance.

You need to talk to that landowner. Ima very direct kinda girl so I would just come right out and say what I was doing, with the photos you have already taken as backup. As a long range project I think it is the only way to go.

I have to admit I wish they were a little more clear, I was waiting for the red arrows and maybe some circles in these pix. But it seems promising enough to take that next step.

Understand this is all coming from a gal who is pinning her hopes of getting "the picture" just by being out in the wilderness hoping to be at the right time in the right place.

Good luck! Keep us posted!

Teresa

interesting new possible photo. but more research etc needs to be done it. thanks bill.

Thanks Ilikebluepez and Bill,
That was corn in the foreground, it has since been harvested and the area seems to have been abandoned. I took this picture on 101208 about 1500 yards north of that area.

The supporting photos are here.

http://www.shadowfolk.com/thesquatter.html

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Click to view attachment

2nd set of pics.. is that two supposed objects? One looking into the field, and the other with it's back turned just to the left? Interresting pics to say the least.

Forgive my age induced blindness- but those are all shots of the same approximate location? With the second set having moved slighter further left? And in the second set, does it appear that something is actually sitting on a tree branch? Or is that just my overly hopeful, overactive imagination?

What about scale? I know you said you can't get onto the property, but are these trees just sort of small scrubby ones, or are they big? Do you have other comparison shots, taken from the same place, at about the same time of day where no Blobsquatch is evident?

Thanks for any additional info you can provide!

This was taken last winter, 111607. There appears to be a pile of brush back in there, in front of the larger cedar tree in the center. I would guestimate the elm trees at 30-40 feet tall, but I might be off.
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

If you look at it with an open mind you can make out a Patty like face in one of the images. I am trying to understand if you saw movement and snapped photos or is the the Sony DSC-H7 a trail cam? I could imagine if you were sitting and monitoring an area 200 yards away the shadows and swaying tree branches would start messing with your mind. So hard to read blobsquatch photos but they are interesting, would like to see more.

I know it's probably foliage creating an illusion, but rather odd.

Blow up in original post:

Click to view attachment

Blown up further:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment


Just looks kinda odd to me. Like a coat jacket.

T. Just saying.

Ilikebluepez,

If you are suggesting that these were somehow hoaxed, I assure you that is not the case. I have never nor would I ever hoax a photograph and no one knew I was going to be there one either occasion so I could not be the victim of a hoax. That is why I provided all 33 images that had that subject in them and included the other pictures taken that day. The whole sequence of shots were taken in less than 3 minutes.

I understand that there are a number of hoax attempts in this field and don't blame folks for looking at everything that comes along with a jaundiced eye, but I am not trying to make a dime and could care less about fame. I have been experimenting with a new approach at getting a picture and am just sharing the results...... Thanks dl

I think it is great that you are putting them up here for all to see. I appreciate the effort as I can't get anywhere near BF country so I enjoy seeing and hearing from others that are out there. I had the jacket thought as well but don't take it as accusation of a hoax just like an ink blot everyone sees something different. I do agree that there is something going on there be it a play on light/shadow or an animal you caught something there. You may not want to reveal your methods but did you detect movement and fire off some pictures or is it just random?

Saycheez,
What time were the pictures taken in the day? What are the directions in the picture? (i.e. north, south, west and east.) Your comparison pictures, what time of the day were they taken in?

I ask these questions, because it looks to me like it is nothing more than shadows, a timeline of when the pictures were taken could resolve whether they are or not.

Saycheez, how can you be sure you are observing anything of note when you are taking these long distance images? I'm having a hard time seeing anything more than trees.

Also, I looked at your site, and had a hard time finding anything more than "suggestive."

I know you don't claim these images as "proof," but you seem pretty confident in your evaluations of the images on your site.

I hope I don't sound to dismissive, I don't mean to offend.

FanofSquatch,
I welcome the questions and scrutiny, I would not have posted the photos here otherwise. I'll answer questions as best I can.

Last year a friend of the family had an encounter here in Kansas and I started looking around the area for any signs of BF activity. I found a few things and started taking pictures of the area and looking closely at them later. I found several areas that produced occasional Blobsquatchs and I started to work on the techniques and equipment I was using. I have openly posted the results of the experiment on my site.

Now, I will be the first to say I'm not a scientist, I'm a photojournalist with television news. Still photography is a hobby. I don't consider myself a researcher, i'm a dabbler.

Through taking hundreds of pictures of three different areas all within 2 sections, keeping a distance of several hundred yards, I've been able to get a few pictures that are good enough to show others. Because of the distances involved they are not clear or conclusive enough to argue about, but I've always been very open and shared the ones I have gotten.

I hope I presented the photos with enough supporting material to give someone with some computer photo editing skills a chance to have their own look and determine for themselves what is represented in the images. That's the best I can do and if someone else sees or doesn't see what has me interested, that's OK. Thanks and again I do welcome any questions, the only thing I can think of I would hold back is the locations.

todkaufman,

Both sets of images were taken in the late afternoon of early evening, with the camera looking east. If you look at the original image, the properties will give the exact time it was taken. The comparison photo was also taken at 6:30 pm. The only way I've had any success, is when the sun was at 45-60 degrees or so from the horizon and full on the subject. Cooler and drier has been better and causes less "shimmer".

Rio Bravo,

I wouldn't bother if I wasn't convinced these were pictures of BF, crappy pictures I admit, but I think that's what i've got. At the end of the day they're just Blobsquatchs, though and wouldn't convince most folks.

Saycheez, what about these pictures specifically convinces you these are BF's?

Ilikebluepez,

This is a comparison shot taken on 062408, is this what your looking at.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Although we all know the blobsquatches are inconclusive,the face sure does resemble that of our girl,Patty. I see the blobsquatch which is more than I can say for most..LOL. Thanks for sharing the pics.

I look for faces, but I don't get excited unless I can also see other parts of the body. Then I look for identifiable movement from one pic to the next, and a very clear comparison of the same area without the image. I'm taking all of these pics from the same several vantage points. Last year I tried getting closer and that area went dead.

I'm hoping to get into a couple of places this winter and look for trace evidence. I have my handy, dandy microscope and am hoping to find some hairs to look at for fun.Click to view attachment

saycheez, what else can you tell us about this possible troop of BF's you are observing?

Hair color, height, weight, limb ratios, behavior, that sort of thing.

I find it amazing that a number of these (tree dwelling!) creatures having been hiding out in eastern Kansas for so long without ever being observed.

Have you ever thought of using your news station's high powered shoulder mounted cameras? I bet those things could pick up some pretty clear footage from quite a distance.

Hard to tell without the two photos side by side. I am not a photographic expert by any means. I think it is great that you have:

1. The opportunity to take these pictures
2. The skill to maximize your chances of an eventual great shot
3. An area of interest with previous sightings
4. The desire to follow this line of investigation

So don't mind my little photobucket inquiries too terribly much. I know that shadows and foreground foliage can create images that are not there. I just like looking at Blobsquatches.

Keep em coming!

Thanks for the info, keep us updated!

Here is a close-up of the second image posted. The image detail has been enhanced using dodge and burn tools, and levels in Photoshop, on a Mac. A version without enhancements has also been provided for comparison. Any comments or questions concerning the image are welcome.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Very interesting to say the least.

When you made these photographs, did you witness any movement of the subject prior to or after you had taken the picture?

This one.... no, the first pictures posted .... yes. I usually concentrate on covering the target area without any camera shake. At those distances the slightest movement affects the detail a lot. When I took the first picture posted I could see dark objects disappearing into the fork of the tree, that's how I came up with 33 shots of the area with the subjects. I was banging away as fast as the camera would go. I seldom see anything recognizable in the LCD as I'm shooting.

I'm sorry and please correct me if I might be mistaken, but didn't you have some problems with another group concerning, giving you the benefit of the doubt, your tendency toward a very generous allowance in interpretation and a distinct lack of any critical examination of your own photographed shadows and, in fact, even some alleged hoaxing? Is any of this true?

I let the photos speak for themselves. As far as hoaxing, I have never nor would I ever hoax any evidence.

Interesting photos. But at the end of the day a blobsquatch is a blobsquatch and 20 blobsquatches still don't equal 1 decent piece of photo evidence. These photos and the backstory should be taken with a grain of salt. The photographer admits to having Photoshoped some of the pics and the Patty face raises a red flag IMHO. There is IMHO a better than even chance that the PGF is fake and copping that face for a blobsquatch is less than convincing. I hope I'm worng but this will run its course just like the GA freezer hoax and the stranded on the island Sasquatch . Its worth remembering that both these hoaxers were adamant that thier offerings were real.

I knew that by posting the pictures here they would receive an examination under the harshest of lights and I welcome that. I provided the original, untouched image files so anyone with the expertise can examine them for themselves and decide what, if anything, is in the photos.

I have always held to a "no profit" stance as far as my studies into the BF mystery.... I'm not selling anything and have not sought recognition.

Youtube has dozens if not hundreds of Bigfoot videos all of which are up there in a not for profit posture. But those same dozens/hundreds of videos are in some cases outright fakes while others are clever fakes and some are offered as real. Recently there was the Lake Tomagami photos which were tauted as authentic and not for profit. The entire affair was a hoax. I don't put a lot of stock in the not for profit angle when it comes to this stuff anymore. I would much rather have a done for profit presentation that offers excellent proof positive evidence than a "generous" display of ambiguous evidence offered freely. My guess is that this will be just another dead end.

Hi sayC very interesting photos i looked threw a few of them threw a few of my programs , i must of missed the original photos as the ones i looked at dose not have any file info in them so they must be a copy , as with a Sony h series camera there should be all shooting info embedded into the photo , if you could re-post a original i would like to try and go threw it see if i can get any thing to come out of it ,
edited
; i got the link to work

but it sounds like you have a very good spot to possibly get a photo , if only you had better camera set up for this , its not the distance its the ability of the camera on this ,

I wish i was closer i could go out with you , but oh well , here are a few long distance shots with a little better camera set up

this pic was shot at about 350 yards and cropped and enhanced shooting into a shadowed area late in the evening

The supporting pics are posted at my site and are available for download, help yourself.

http://www.shadowfolk.com/thesquatter.html

I've had more trouble with heat distortion than anything else. The warmer days and late afternoons have been best.

shadows do make interesting shapes , and at that distance with only a 75mm lens isn't going to get a lot of detail out of a pic , when i ran the big tree limb one , when i did enhancements , it defined the Shadow's a little more and created better shapes ,, BUT we still are at the point of self interpretation of what our eyes are seeing , as it still is blob unfortunately

the one i seen did spike my interest tho,, i need to look closer at it , and work on it more i will post that one when i get done , i will run that one threw more programs as each program dose a little better at certain things


DSC-H7
2008/08/30 16:04:55
Image Size: 3264 x 2448
Focal Length: 75.1mm
Exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
Metering Mode: Center-Weighted
1/500 sec - F/4.5
Exposure Comp.: -0.3 EV
Sensitivity:
White Balance:

The photo of the deer is exactly the type of photo need of a supposed Sasquatch/Bigfoot. If you can get a photo that good at that distance then why not of Bigfoof (if hes out there at all). The fact that its 350 yards away is impressive and regardless of how wary Bigfoot may be I doubt it can out fox a camera from nearly a quarter of a mile away. Interesting that we don't end up with deerblobs or bearblobs, wolfblobs etc. Why only Squatchblobs?

Sorry, I just dont see it. My eyes are all messed up from looking at these photos.

We only get squatchblobs because most of the people here want to see BF, and our brains use that image first in analyzing these kinds of photos. "I've got some sort of blob in this picture!! maybe its BF!!" I would be willing to bet that hunting forums DO have bearblobs, or whathave you. Its all in what you want to see.

The other thing is that most of these blobs are either hoaxes. There aren't a lot of people out there taking intentionally blurry photos of bears and deer.

First off-

What are these apparent markings on the tree?



Or is that just some strange oddity that I'm seeing...

Second-





I don't know what to say--you have two very fine blobsquatches. They're fascinating, which is great is that's what you're after, but they're so stretched at that resolution as to render them useless for anything more.

I don't know what, if anything other than plays of light on the trees, is shown in the pictures. They're kinda cool to look at though.

Remember, calling anyone a hoaxer is like calling them a liar. Unless you have proof that someone here is hoaxing information, you need to be very careful with the accusation.

Because BF's are not in the habit of posing in the middle of Fields, like Deer's are ??

And yet there are excellent clear photos of rare stealthy animals in dense habitat. On the issue of Bigfoots stealth I find myself saying more and more "Oh come on now nothing is that consistantly stealthy.

I'll be the first to admit that what we have named "Blobsquatchs" have no value as evidence and have made that clear from the beginning. If these or any still pictures of a purported BF were as clear as that deer, they would still have no value as evidence. I take these pictures as a challenge to myself as a hobby. My hope is that some can look at them with a grain of salt an enjoy.

plaidlemur,

I don't know what that is. As has been pointed out once you go in so far on these photos, what we are seeing becomes less reliable.

SayCheez, definitely interesting photos, the last one is pretty good IMHO for a blobsquatch. Keep up the good work and don't let the naysayers bring ya down and please keep posting your photos on here.

Thanks AlbertaSasquatch,

IMHO, some of the things that go on in this field could bring out the "naysayer" in any one of us. The images I've been collecting might be nonsense to some, but to others it might give a glimmer of hope that these guys can be photographed under the right conditions. I hope folks don't become so automatic in their conclusions that they throw out the baby with the wash water.

Appreciate the photos ,no matter the fact that they are inconclusive, they are intriguing to look at.

I beg to differ that if we were to be presented with photos as clear as the deer posted earlier we would have something of value to work with. Consider the Patterson Gimlin Film it is reasonably close up reasonably clear and there is no mistaking that the subject of the film is not a shadow or play of light. In the long run posting ambigous images are doing the subject a diservice. Please do not consider this an attack on you personally. However the state of the art so to speak is so riddled with the exact type of evidence/information stemming from every manner of motive that IMHO anything less than the level of detail of the Patterson Gimlin Film may as well be tossed out. There are thousands of blobsquatches and not a single one has produced a meaningful advance in the potential of proving these things real.

I can appreciate your own private interest and quest and there is nothing wrong with that. However you've made the crucial mistake of presenting weak and or premature evidence.

I don't think he is presenting this stuff as evidence, I think he is saying "Hey everyone, look at these photos. What do you think?" The title of the thread says it all, blobsquatch, and that's exactly what he is presenting it as. So should all blobsquatches be thrown in the garbage, never to be seen by anyone? I don't think so.

I leave it up to the owners and administrators of a forum to decide what should or shouldn't be posted or shared.

I post in the spirit of sharing what I find freely and let you folks decide if a picture has value other than as evidence. Some of the things we see in this field just make you go Hmmm.... and keep looking.

Some folks don't want to hear about tracks or vocalizations or hairs or scat..... I find it all interesting as a layman.

I appreciate your sharing them, saycheez. You don't seem to be hyping them, and you seem to know that they are what they are.

You have a good attitude saycheez. Blobsquatches are what they are and digital enhancements on blobsquatches only emphasize paradoilia. It's more important to establish some scale for your blobs. The only thing we can do with a blob is to rule out BF, since a BF can never be confirmed. But if we can't rule it out, then at least the case for a BF becomes stronger.

I was unable to match up the last photos you took a year apart since they weren't taken at the same camera position. I used my red crayon to outline 3 areas on both photos. Note the bush in the foreground is in a significantly different position in both photos. The photo with the BF image (2008) was taken considerably left of the 1st photo (taken in 2007). The dark areas (with the BF) are common to both photos but they are being viewed from different camera positions.

The 2007 photo is useful, however, for confirming the relative height of the BF image with respect to the background. If the BF was situated somewhere between the bush in the foreground and the closest trees, then it would appear that the BF is not standing on the ground. It would have to be sitting in a tree. Which IMO, doesn't help the blob's case.

The only way to scale these photos (at this point) is to find the exact same camera position, at the same time of year, then attempt to insert a person of known height into the scene. This is to see if it is even possible for a BF to be in this position. Unfortunately, too much time has elapsed to do a before and after comparison that might show that an animated object was present. We can only test to see if it's possible that an object was standing at that location. A person at the site will at least give us some scale and tell us whether this blobsquatch is even possible.

Give it a shot, and good luck.

GF

Click to view attachment

I believe there is a pile of brush in front of the larger cedar tree. I will be trying to get a set of shots that are properly registered.