I don't believe this is supported by nature all that well. For example, dogs have excellent night vision, and yet they still have excellent day vision as well. There have been numerous studies trying to determine the visual ability of dogs, for example, and still there is much controversy between studies. This is one such summary for a particular study:

"The authors conclude by stating that although the canine visual system may be considered inferior to the human visual system in such aspects as degree of binocular overlap, color perception, accommodative range, and visual acuity, the canine visual system is superior to the human visual system in other aspects, such as functional ability in low light conditions, retinal response rate to another image (flicker fusion), field of view, ability to differentiate shades of gray, and possibly the ability to detect motion. The canine visual system is optimized to exploit a different environmental niche than our own, and hopefully by better understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the canine visual system we will be better able to understand our hunting companion's capabilities. Let me conclude by encouraging those of you interested in this issue to read the complete article, which includes 68 references to other works. I wish to personally thank the authors for greatly improving my own understanding of the canine visual system."


And so, as far as something as familiar as a dog goes, we know they can see very well at night, and also very well during the day. I don't think anyone ever recognizes a dog's disadvantage in broad daylight. I certainly don't see any handicap in our dogs' ability to see at night or during the day. Likewise, when it comes to trying to figure out what sort of visual capability a truly unknown community of animals or people may have, the only thing that is 100% is that it is 100% guesswork. We may "assume" that these "folks" exist based on the abundant evidence, but we do not "know" that they do. We may assume that they have excellent night vision, but we don't know that either. And we may guess what sort of vision they have in daylight, but if we compare to any other animal or person, it only makes sense that they would have excellent day vision.

Aaron

Here's yet another quick experiment with the original image. I split the three color channels into red, green and blue, since all three channels capture different information in a camera. The red channel shows the most detail, or I think I should say the most interesting variation. because the image was so poorly exposed on the subject, the subject being a mere silhouette being backlit, the camera shot the images with an improper white balance (set to indoor lightbulbs, which is why the bluish cast since indoor light is yellow and the camera was set to compensate for this color shift), the abundance of snow caused the camera to "stop down" its exposure, trying to darken the white of the snow to a grayer tone (all camera's meter towards an 18% gray tone, and extreme whites or extreme darks are automatically exposed to bring them closer to that 18% gray tone), so regardless of the true color of the subject, it is not able to be seen because of the bright light situation. The true details and color of the subject was not able to be captured.

That said, in the red channel, we can see something that looks like surface details. It could be artifacts such as digital noise (the random firing of light receptors on the digital sensor due to the extensive white light bouncing around within the sensor chamber). The same details do not show up on either the blue or green channels. Those details may be false information, or they may be true information, one can only guess, once again. But in the spirit of finding dragons in cloud formations, one can imagine that the red channel shows a front view of a human or human built subject, complete with pecs and abs. And a shirt or gasmask over the head!

My suspicion has been ever since I first saw these photos, was that the subject was not a bigfoot, but a normal human. If the photographer was genuinely seeing something that he was not a part of, then I thought it was a hiker catching some sun after making it up to the top of that slope. Pulling his sweater up over his head to be able to sweat and sun a bit before heading back down. Everything about the figure says human to me; the slender build, the arms that seem bare of either clothing or hair, the ability to see deltoids, biceps, the narrowing at the elbows, the forearms, plus a distinct waist. There are plenty of footprints running the ridge of snow between the photographer's location and the subject's location. Who knows why? But one cannot dismiss those trails. Someone or something has walked that path several times, whether it was one individual going back and forth several times, or several people or subjects going over it in just one direction, but there are a lot of tracks between the shooter's location and the subject.

I don't have any solid conclusions, but to me it is a person on that other hill. Whether it is a hoax attempt or not, is not up to me to determine or judge. But it is questionable at best, to me anyway. A well worn trackway in the snow, a size no bigger than a normal human, slim, hairless limbs in November in the snow, a narrow waist (which seems to flare out into what, hiking pants or wide set hips), a camera set to indoor lighting and not set on automatic, shot on a clear, sunny day, with no followup shots of the trackway or an attempt to go see where the subject went. A mystery left unsolved, with hanging chads. I think it is not a bigfoot, as much as I wish it were.

Aaron

RedRatSnake ~ Edit to fix double post

Here is a website that has a wealth of images and info about Silver Star.
http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?...ntext_id=151376

And here is a shot that shows the second summit where the images were taken.
http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/183921.JPG

This image says that you can still climb Silver Star in November and find no snow on it. Apparently this will vary with each year, but this shot is in November, with no snow visible. A year later, and there was snow, but the image of the subject shows bare rocks and grasses and short trees exposed, so it looks like the snow was not excessive at that time.

http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?...ntext_id=151376

There are two original 2005 photos available, taken 17 seconds apart. The first photo does not include the rocks in the foreground, the second one does. Overlaying the two and toggling the top one on and off, you can see the relative movement of the elements in each photo, such as the background mountain range, the grass and trees and rocks on the slope of the second summit (where the subject is standing). The shift in the elements from the first to the second shot indicates that the photographer moved to his right a few feet, which brings the rocks into view.

Additionally, the location of the subject indicates that it moved upslope and to the left from its initial location. Attached is the composite of image #29 and #30. The second photo, called image #30, is layered over #29, and made 50% transparent so that each image shows its own details. You can see that the spiral blurring, which is the displacement of the grass and trees on the summit bump, indicate a lateral movement by the photographer from the first to the second shot, but it was a very small movement to the right. Not enough to cause the subject to shift positions on the hill. The background mountains have shifted, the rocks have moved into view in the foreground, and in the 17 seconds that separate the first form the second photo, the subject has moved closer and upslope to the left from its initial position in shot #29. I think this is something to take note of, since the report says that the subject only moved down slope, not up. Were the two positions reversed in the two photos, then that would make more sense, BUT that is not the way it is. The time stamps on the photos, as well as the numbering sequence of the photos, indicate that one preceded the other by 17 seconds, and the second shot shows the subject further upslope and nearer the summit and photographer, and even then in both shots the subject appears to be facing downslope to the right, either towards "us" and to the right, or away from "us" and to the right, but in either case, to the right. Doesn't jive with the report that the subject only moved away downslope. It doesn't account for it moving upslope to the second position.

Aaron

That's a very interesting interpretation, Aaron. It seems plausible to me for a hiker to do what you've described. And it explains the V-shaped torso, thicker looking neck, and slender arms.

Aaron, thank you for addressing my question about the foreground rocks.

In an attempt to mesh the report with the photos, if I remember correctly, the report stated that the subject "stood up" and then walked away. Would this action account for the appearance of it moving upslope? Also, might the photographer's slight movement to the right for the second photo account for the appearance that the subject moved to the left?

Well, check out the photo montage and see what you think. Imagine where the "sitting" subject is and where the "standing" subject is. It appears to be at least a full body length, and if the body is 6 feet tall, for example, I'd guess that we are seeing at LEAST 7 feet of movement, since extrapolating a line to the feet of the standing subject to the feet of the sitting subject would indicate that much distance.

As far as the camera location causing that sort of movement in the frame, no I don't believe so. The center of the rotation is the subject on the peak. You can see everything rotates around that center point. The shift in object placement is virtually nil in the center of the frame, while the movement of objects becomes more pronounced towards the edges of the frame. So, no, I don't think that the shooter moving a couple of feet while shooting would cause the subject to appear to move upslope. The subject and everything in the center of the frame have been matched up in the overlay to get that area aligned properly, and if the subject is then noticeably to the left, then it moved to the left. Maybe in the shuffle to stand up and get balanced, but just the same, movement to the left.

And by the way, its is a rather testy looking pose, wouldn't you say? "Go fer yer guns, pardner..."

Oh, and I might add, I don't think that the discrepancy between what the observer said he saw, no movement upslope, but only movement downslope, not jiving exactly with what the photos show, is that big a deal. I don't think it is a deal breaker, in other words. It's just something to take note of.

Aaron

Here is a fast and dirty modification of the image. I really don't mean to discredit the images nor the photographer, but to illustrate a few things, I added a couple more subjects. One is the original, the others are copies of the original and a gorilla added for flavor. The original has a halo around the subject, the effect of sharpening of the subject, either in the camera or post processing. I added a copy of the subject and added more sharpening to illustrate the effect of sharpening, and added another couple with the sharpening halo removed. At first glance, which is the real subject and which are the added ones?

Aaron

Yes, it is, and that is another thing that could be explained by the "shirt over the head" idea. I looked for a pic on the net with no luck, so I asked my husband to model it for me, and the shirt stretched over his head and around the back of the neck pulls his arms up in that same position.


Hmmmm, I would pick the middle one as the real subject, and the one on the far right is the gorilla! lol

hopeful,

Pardon my absence from this thread. I thought I had it pegged early, but I find my self more confused than ever as to what the image is.

Gcan, would a difference as slight as the 2005 photo being taken from a squatting position vs. the 2009 being taken from a standing position be enough of a difference to create the misalignment of the mountains?

I would think so, as a small angular change at the origin amounts to a huge change at a distance -- think of sighting in a rifle: adjusting a scope by 1 minute of angle (1/60th of a degree) translates to a movement of 1.0 inch at 100 yd down range; at 10,000 yd (5.7 mi) down range, 1 minute of angle translates to 8.7 ft. In the photos we're dealing changes at the origin far greater than those involved in scope adjustments, and distances that are far greater than shooting ranges, too.

G. canadensis

Following up on the questions concerning the lighting differences between the 2005 photos and the 2009 photos, here is a reference image to illustrate why. In November 2005, the sun set at 4:34 pm, at 243°, which is to the southwest, and the photos were taken approximately two hours before sunset. The sun would be quite low, and lighting the opposite side of the subject. In May, 2009, the sun set at 8:43 pm, at 301°, which is to the northwest, and the photos were taken approximately 6+ hours before sunset. The sun would be rather high, and shining from in front of Randee, so he would be well lit for the camera. If Google Earth and my estimates are accurate on the map, then the distance between the camera and the subjects would be just over 200', and the lower summit the subjects are on is around 20 something feet lower, according to the climbing guides.

Aaron

Daniel contacted me some months ago and offered me the chance to go to the top of SSM with them. Unfortunately, my age (and heart) wouldn't allow me. I'm hoping he (Daniel) will share some of his photos with me so I can work on them along with the three originals. I have all three originals given me by the photographer through another party (BFRO investigator), but do not have his permission to release the third. The third is available on Cryptomundo, but is a reduced version.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/...ar-mtn-bigfoot/

I have done some work on these three photo's and have posted it in earlier threads on this board. For what it's worth, here it is again.

http://www.hmds.ws/is_it_real.htm

Interesting thread and interesting comments.

Nice Site you have there Jack..

Thanks, Bobby.

One question I have never heard addressed is the one of other footprints on the trail or mountain top. There was snow, at least in places, on the trail to the mountain. Tracks, of any kind might shed some light on the possibilities. The presence of fresh tracks ahead of the photographer would, of course, indicate the presence of someone (or something) else on the mountain. If there were tracks, did they go up only, or back down? Boots? Or barefoot? Barefoot would likely catch the photographers eye. Few people are going to hike barefoot...and in snow..? No way! No tracks? It seems doubtful that a hiker (backpacker) would attempt a climb without benefit of trail. Not impossible, but not likely, especially in snow.

How come this 3rd photo hasn't been discussed as much. It obviously doesn't prove anything,
but the photo whizzes around here could slice and dice the shape for us?

This is the first I've seen of that one, Squatchaholic. Thanks for posting it.

I agree it would be great to look at if it were enhanced like the ones on Jack's site. (see next page.) More of the subject appears to be visible in this one.

The following is from Jack's website with his permission. Thanks, Jack.

http://www.hmds.ws/is_it_real.htm

Try this one. There's no question that it is a very compelling pose. But the head is different, it has a neck, and there's some small protrusion on the forehead or something that looks like it. Like a baseball cap bill. Could be anything I suppose.

Aaron

OK. Here it is. A blow-up and enhanced view of photo three. I don't think I am breaking my word to the photographer. This can be done with released versions.

In this view, I can still see light spots where breasts should be. Clearly the subject is turned (at the waist), looking at the photographer. This is jsut exactly what Patty did. I can see faint the markings of a face, right arm, thigh muscle, etc. Everything I see, closely matches what I see in PGF. The color is similar throughout. If it's clothing, it has to be a jump suit or costume. The dark spot to the inside of the right shoulder is the hollow area seen in almost everyone (without clothing). This thing....what ever it is....is nude. See the "diaper" line? Very similar to Patty. Only difference I see is Patty was heavier looking (thicker waist).

QUOTE

Like a baseball cap bill. Could be anything I suppose.

I'm pretty sure its a baseball cap, and on closer inspection I think it's trying to tell us something, "the answer is........, yup"

Click to view attachment

Seriously, pretty good thread revived here, good analysis, can't wait to look at Jack's website

Is it just me or does anybody else see the similarities here? (many have questions whether the bodies are real, is it genetically possible?)

Click to view attachment

The theory of the "absent" butt crack is even entertained (at Patrick Swayze's expense)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4184/saturday-ni...-hans-and-franz

BTW Nice website Jack!

First time i saw that particular too H, it's a good one though i think..

Thick set body tapered down to the smaller waist area, i don't particulary see a neck visible either like someone said, different looking posture to what i'd assume a regular Human, or certainly a well conditioned Hiker, to have..

Not the worst Picture in the World of a possible Non Identified North American Primate..

Edit : Looking at it again, it looks like Patty if you ask me..

Looks to me like the subject in question is traveling at an angle, downslope, behind the peak and away from the camera. So we are looking at the back and the right upper limb or arm.

Yep, that's how i'm seeing it Rick..

Color removed to help clarity

I'm seeing it differently Jack, i'm seeing the Creature's back towards us in all Pictures & it walking downhill away from teh Camera, hence it's hunched over/stooped posture..

For example, in your Frame 3, i see where you have the Subject's Left Arm & Hand, i see it as it's Right Arm & Hand, in fact i see that in Frame's 1 & 2 also..

If it was the way you see it Jack, would you not say that the Subejct would be bending kind of backwards ??

The Brow would coincide with the figure walking downhill from the way i'm seeing it..

As I see it:
* Photo 1, subject's torso front is about 45 deg (facing NW) and head is looking almost due West and in full profile (about 90 deg. away from photographer).
* Photo 2, subject is aware of photographer and stands and faces him.
* Photo 3, subject is beginning to turn away, but is still turned at the waist and more at the head to see photographer. This is much the same way Patty looked in her "turn back" frame. Twisting at the waist to look back.

I see subject bending forward, not backward.

When I first saw these pictures, I also felt that I was seeing the backside....until I lightened them to see more detail.

I can clearly see both arms in photo 3 and the right arm is in front of the torso. If that were the backside, there would be some horrible growth there.

In photo 2, I see dark spots that would correspond to a centerline of a muscular stomach. This imaginary line is to the right side in this photo. If that were the centerline of the back, it would be off center. I know what I'm saying is not clear.....I'll need to do some sketches to explain what I'm trying to say. On my website there are photos of Patty and a gorilla side by side showing the backs. Notice that centerline of the back is to the left in these photos and this angle would be similar to what you're seeing if the subject in SSM is showing a backside.

I'll try to do some sketches to help explain my point.

I'm with Jack on this one.

When you change the saturation and color levels there definitely appears to be bulges we would call breast, not back muscles. The tops of these bulges are brighter.

I don't think the lump is a brow, I think it's a tuft of hair on the side of the head.

The more I fool around with the contrast, sharpness, exposure etc the more I see a physique which aligns with Jack's statements.

You are looking at the originals at around 500 - 600 X ?

HERE and HERE



.

One thing that people should be very careful of is projecting desire into analysis. It's very hard to be truly objective while analyzing photos, or sound files, or video footage of something that one really wants to see revealed as a genuine creature. probably most of us on this forum want bigfoot to be a real entity. However, it is very true that there quite a number of people that create hoaxes in order to fool people, whether it is because they want to make fools out of believers, or alternately want to provide a greater degree of proof for their belief in the absence of proof. Forget the malicious hoaxers for the moment, and consider the people that really believe in bigfoot and want to prove to the world that they exist, but just can't seem to get the real deal on film, tape, or sensor. Providing a convincing hoax of what they believe is the real deal is not exactly lying, they might think, because they are only inspiring more effort from additional people to conduct more research and expeditions in order to really find the real deal, so in their minds there is a justification to the hoax. The end justifies the means.

What we have here in these three photos is a very compelling set of images. They look good. They look non-human, sort of. They look like they may be the real deal, and the photographer seems like an honest, straight up guy, innocently enough stumbling upon this figure in the middle of nowhere and not being able to tell what it was. It all makes sense that it could be and should be a real sighting. And so, in our desire to see bigfoot confirmed as a real creature, we read into the images what we want to see. It has happened with virtually every single photo and film clip that has been presented. We see a face, or a hand, or a thumb movement, or an ape muzzle, or breasts, or a navel, or whatever it is that we think should seal the deal as it being an authentic photo of an authentic creature. But in this case, like so many others, it is a case of wishful extrapolation. details and body parts are seen and elaborated on where there are no details to be seen. Or worse yet, exposure or digital artifacts being translated into said body parts. Like the fusion of the background spot in the PGF with the facial profile of Patty being "confirmed" as mouth movement, even extrapolated as her mouthing "ouch" as a fantasy bullet nails her in the thigh.

Anybody know the term, "jumping the shark"? At some point, even the best evidence can be presented as wonderfully authentic all the way up to the point where the researcher "jumps the shark" in his or her theory or analysis. For example, the Sierra Sounds. I was on board with the digital breakdown on the sounds as a probable language, purposeful manipulation of the sounds by the vocalizer, up until the analysis went to the point of translating the sounds into pigeon English, with sentences being "heard" along the lines of "no, stay watch food". At that point, the reasonability of the analysis and research is totally lost with me. Like trying to keep traction while driving up an ice covered hill, it gets harder and harder to maintain traction, and once the tires start to spin, the car slides back downhill, unable to even stop at the highest point reached before the tires started spinning. Once people start seeing stuff that isn't really there, for me the evidence starts to fall apart into something a bit silly.

In order to really prove that bigfoot exists, honest and authentic photos need to be taken, and honest and truly objective analysis needs to be done. I want to see bigfoot confirmed as much as anyone else before my time on earth is up, but I want it to be certain, not imagined or extrapolated from questionable evidence. These photos are great, but they lack crucial details which might confirm them as authentic bigfoot or just a mistaken unknown hiker, or worse yet, a nicely done hoax. I don't have any conclusions as to what they depict, and while they look compelling, and while I want them to be real, I don't see what would confirm them as real bigfoot, and I don't see the face or the anatomical details. The blobs are inconclusive, as much as I may want to see anatomical details, I have to conclude that I don't. The varying shades of light and dark in the silhouette are more like a Rorschach test than true details.

Aaron

Here's another thing to consider about evidence. The image represented in post #68 is a pixel for pixel enlargement of the original. In other words, you can see the actual pixels as they are in the original image. Images shown in posts #69, 73, and 75 are all altered and therefore inaccurate representations of the original image and subject. In Photoshop, when you resize an image either up or down, the computer interpolates the image data, essentially guessing what the new information should be. Resizing an image where the subject is perhaps 20 pixels wide, up-sampling it so that it is now more than 80 or 90 pixels wide, as an example, requires that the computer looks at the tones and colors of each original pixel, then estimating what the tones and colors should be of the many more pixels that will be created as the original pixels are sliced and diced into smaller pixels. Completely new information is created, altering the shapes and positions of shapes of the original image. Sampling up or down (scaling an image larger or smaller), changes the characteristics in that image, and so basing an analysis on the new image is unreliable and error fraught. Only by analyzing the original pixel layout can anything be reliably seen, and in this case the original pixel data is of such low resolution and of such low dynamic range, that all the contrast bumping and channel separating can't really expose anything that is truly conclusive.

So we guess, and we guess as to what we want to see. One observer will see a for sure rear view, while the next one sees a for sure frontal view. It's guessing. And guessing is not good research. Better yet, more expeditions into the woods, up to the tops of ridges, into the dense forests where few hiking trails exist is likely to reveal more evidence than anything that these three images can produce beyond the basic silhouettes that we see at first glance. Stare at them long enough and things start to emerge, but I'd say that information is a lot less reliable than we may want to believe. Chalk these up as a very good effort, but one that is inconclusive as it stands. unless there are others in the series yet to be seen. And personally, I'd like to see the pictures taken immediately before and after these three, in the sequence with the camera numbering information. If these are photos #29, 30 and 31, I want to see photos 25-28 and 32-36, something like that.

Thank you for those lengthy lessons in skepticism and objectivity. We knew something was lacking in this thread, we were just waiting for you to show up and point out the obviousness. We can all go home now.

Without the time you spent to lecture on pixelation and projecting our efforts would be meaningless and futile. I think it was the whole rorschach thing that had us stumped.

Does it occur to you that what we have to work with here is what we have to work with here?

If it's not good enough, then just let people project and pixelate and speculate to their own contentments.


.

Why go home? Why not go to Silver Star Mountain, or some other likely place and try to get additional, and perhaps more revealing evidence?

Like you say, the evidence is what it is. I have spent considerable time myself looking into what can be extracted from them, I'm not just trying to burst everyone's bubble. But I guess it boils down to the difference between wanting to believe and wanting to be sure, and from what I see there can be quite a difference between the two.

And just FYI, about going out and looking for evidence. Not everyone can get out into the woods, or the swamps, or places where bigfoot may habituate, but fortunately for me I live in an area that is historically fairly active. And I do plan on putting my money where my mouth is and making a few trips into the woods this summer. Maybe I will get lucky, maybe not. But it will be a serious effort on my part.

Wow Tontar, you sure handled him better than I would have. FWIW, I thought your two posts above were very good.

Without quoting the body of both of your posts I would say they were both eloquent and accurate.

Image #2 -Head to shoulder width has me wonderin', more suggestive of a shorter individual. Not to mention how high the head comes above the shoulder level. Then there's the tapered waist which is rarely described. The bend in the arms(elbows) suggests rather short arms or...more human like . Just some off the top observations.

Pat...

ps; Glad ta hear you'll be gettin' out in the field Tontar, good luck an enjoy !

I'd never seen these photos this way before. Interesting. Updates as they come....

It might be possible that the "Brow" shown on the right in the enhanced photo could be the top portion of a hood on a hooded jacket or parka with the darker eleptical area below the brow being the front opening of the hood?...Just throwing that out there.

I did a little more tweaking with colors and levels and contrasting and all, and a few more details are beginning to surface.

Yep, Tarzan with a six-pack! (and a pretty good crick in the neck)

You're pulling my leg, right Tontar?

dittwo *




* TRANSLATION: double ditto)

Can we change this to "inhabit"? It sounds better...

Reminds me of this guy...

Click to view attachment

So I was poking around on the PortlandHikers.org Forum tonight looking for trail and road information and came across this. I think this is interesting...VERY interesting.

I don't know if it's breaking rules quoting from another forum, but since it's definitely applicable to this discussion, I'll put the quote here. It's from this URL, about 2/3 of the way down the page.

Portland Hikers Forum



edit for spelling and to note that I added the bolds and italics

Pretty interesting

Wow, good find OregonMan.

On that forum, it's funny to me how that guy and the next guy almost hijack the thread by talking about bigfoot, but then it goes right back to talking about hiking.

I did some searching on that forum for bigfoot/sasquatch, I thought it might be a good source, since these guys/gals hike all over the PNW. However, the tone on that forum is strong that BF doesn't exist. In most threads I read if BF comes up, it's quickly dimissed as a joke.

This is a common attitude I've found with outdoorsy types (hunters/backbackers, etc) here in the PNW. Something like this; "I've hiked/hunted these woods all my life and never seen one, therfore it's a myth".

My brother lives in the PNW and hikes/camps/fishes all year round. He says the same thing to me all of the time. I usually tell him what to look for and what to listen to and then he laughs..... and I can hear him rolling his eyes on the phone. Then he'll make fun of me for a while. One time his wife took a picture of him in front of a "Bigfoot Crossing" sign with a terrified look on his face, as a goof. It's almost impossible to convince someone to just take a look at the data when they don't believe.

The posture of the subject in the photo has always baffled me. How many mountain climbing hunchbacks were out there on the mountain that day? Most human beings that climb mountains to enjoy the splendind view are going to stand up straight with there hands on the hips, folded across the chest or even locked on top of their heads to gaze across that valley. They arent going to stoop over with their arms hanging limply at their sides like some Neanderthal, unless of course they happen to be one. Is it what you would do? Doubtful. Then there's always the hoax gimmick. If someone were hoaxing a Sasquatch being up there and striking that pose just for the camera to emulate Bigfoot posture then I would say they did a great job.

Aaron Swepston has informed me that someone has recently come forward with the claim they were, in fact, the subject in Randee Chase's pictures from November 17, 2005. Since this person has hiked in the snow, it would be interesting if he would be willing to go with us back up the mountain in Novmber so we can test his claim photographically. I have doubts that anyone currently living on the planet has a profile similar to what is shown in Randee's pictures.

Daniel Perez
editor-publisher, Bigfoot Times