Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentI finally had the opportunity to follow up on the Silver Star Mountain, Washington state photos of an unknown something shot with a digital camera in November 2005. When I was in a position to do something about it, I drove there from Los Angeles in 2006 and approached the area from the north side. This time, with the man who took the pictures, Randee Chase, I was able to go to the exact area on May 17, 2009, Randee leading the way. I took many photos and later did a videotape interview about his encounter. In my preliminary opinion, I am both intrigued and fascinated by his pictures. The witness does not strike me as a hoaxer. Randee is 5 feet 7 inches tall, the same height as me, so I didn't bother to measure him. He is 180 pounds and that sounded about right. Anyway, here are some pictures I took of the area. One, of the camera in question. One of us together at about the same immediate vicinity (within feet) of where he took his three pictures and another shot of Randee standing in the immediate vicinty of where the subject was in November 2005. I did pull some measurements. On the subject side, there is a spike in the ground, presumably put there by the forest service and I would venture to say the subject wasn't far from that point. The difference then, of course, was there was snow all over in November 2005, at least on the peaks. This time there was no snow. The spike is 46 feet from the nearest tree, to the right. The distance the camera man was from the subject was 275 to 300 yards, and there was a hunter atop the mountain the same time we were there and he guessed about the same. It is hard to pull a tape from point A to point B as the terrain is not flat. As the crow flies, there is a huge drop off between point A and B. Otherwise, I would have put a tape measure to it. At no time in my two interviews with the witness (one by telephone, one by videocamera) does the witness state what he saw was Bigfoot. He just said it was something big, unknown and got up and walked away, or, at least that is what it appeared to do. Perhaps someone on this discussion board can put a known quantity (Randee, 5'7"; 180 pounds) next to what was photographed to get some feel as to how they compare.

My Best,

Daniel Perez
Editor: Bigfoot Times
(publication now over
10 years old. Go to
www.bigfootttimes.net
for more information)

Hey Daniel,

Where are the three original photos? They are not here or on your website (that I could see). I would love to see them.



............... you put one too many t's in your .net address above

Here's two, FG.

Good job, Daniel. Very cool! Thanks for sharing with us. I've been curious about the Silver Star Mountain photos and am glad you're looking into them.

You're saying these two pictures were taken roughly from the same distance and location?

How do the cameras/lenses compare?

Thanks Squatchaholic.

It looks like the Daniel's picture might have been taken at a higher elevation due to the mountains in the background. It also looks like there is a sizable difference between him and that other torso. Great job Daniel. That's good stuff right there.

It is hard to line up the two photos, it appears as if the original photos were taken from a slightly different location. The photos you took appear to be from a position more to the left (pov). To clarify, it seems like the photos of the unknown subject appear to be from a position a little more to the right of the pov from the photos you took. I tried lining up the background mountains, and found the perspective was off slightly. Also you can see a little more of the right face of the hill in the unknown subjects photos.


Subjects height seems to be fairly close to man sized if my estimations are correct in sizing the photos.

With regard to the replies about the Silver Star Mountain photos, here goes. With regard to website, you are right: it is www.bigfoottimes.net and I stand corrected. Pretty bad when you can't spell your own website. To the best of my knowledge, the images were originally posted on the BFRO website, but only two shots. I am not sure whether a third image was provided at that time but later, on another website, perhaps Coast to Coast or something similar, all three images were posted. I am certain all three images are out there on the net. As for lens and comparing lenses, I haven't done anything along those lines and really don't know where to start. We did take pictures using both my digital camera and his, Randee Chase, to get the exact comparision. I don't know whether the photos that I took were higher up or lower down, I just tried to position myself where Randee said he was. It was different at the time of the incident, Randee told me, as he was more than knee high in snow, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Where the subject was, November 2005, the whole area on top looks snow covered but when we were there, May 17, 2009, that top has a little saddle in it, so when you see the high point of the snow closest to the camera, after that it drops down a little then the mountain goes back up. But when that snow was there I think it covered everything up, eliminating the saddle.

After I got home in May or June 2006 when I first hit the location, I pretty much dropped the whole matter because I was doubtful if there was a real name attached to the witness. I thought maybe it was just some hoaxer and his photoshop work or whatever. In December 2007 Cliff Barackman, while visiting my home for the better part of the day during the holiday season, told me he knew who the witness was and his contact information. He ran it by Randee and Randee gave the OK to get in touch with him, and so I launched, so to speak, phase two of the investigation/research on the Silver Star Mountain photos. Randee if an electrician, homeowner and quite responsible in my view. He does not strike me as someone who is a practical joker. He absolutely loves the outdoors. In fact, he told me he tried to get a buddy of his to go on the trip in November 2005 and was politely declined. Once again, according to Randee, it was hiking alone. And this guy hikes in all weather. When he got the shots, he told me, there was a lot of snow and when he got to the top it was quite windy.

I hope I have addressed as much as I can. Just so you know, I don't have a whole lot of time to post. I work full time and I also work for myself on the side quite a bit. Like Randee Chase, (a coincidence, I suppose) we are both union licensed electricians. And I work on my newsletter, a labor of love, the Bigfoot Times. Right now I am putting together the May edition with my in depth write up on the Yakima Bigfoot conference, which I attended. If I don't reply after this, I am not ignoring you, I am just busy.

Since I don't go by nicknames or stuff like that, my e-mail address is perez952@sbcglobal.net and my real name is Daniel Perez. It is no big deal, people e-mail me all the time and I do what I can do to accomodate everyone.

PS: Randee told me someone else went up to the area to take comparison photos but he commented that after seeing them they were in the wrong location for the camera. Right mountain peak, wrong camera location. That is why it was imperative for my study to bring the witness with me. The photo of the animal is my dog, Pre, who has been to the P-G filmsite twice and twice to the Silver Star Mountain location.

Over and out,

Daniel Perez

Which is what we'd expect if it was either a Man, a Man in a Costume or a BF wouldn't we ??

From a different elevation as it seems, from a different location & from that difference, i'm not sure how we could really judge the actual Size of the Subject, if we could at all without having actual comparables in correct positions..

Fantastic of you to go up there though Daniel & i'm not knocking what you done in the slightest, i thank you if anything..

What I did to get an "estimation" (because this is far from an accurate way to do this, considering the perspective is not the same) was to line up the horizon lines and the ridge lines by resizing one of the images until it was a close match. This would to a certain extent equalize any zoom used or cropping done. (roughly, as I said not very accurate, but it seems to be all we have right now to compare with)


I also applaud Daniels efforts in investigating the photos.

Daniel,

It appears as if the 2009 comparison photo was taken with a wider lens? Can you blow up that photo and crop it so a more direct comparison can be made? The 2009 subject looks much thinner than the 2005 subject, but I think part of this may be due to the lens focal length in 2009 being smaller (i.e., wider). I assume, given that you were guided to the camera location by the 2005 photographer, both the camera location must be pretty accurate.

Thanks,

G. canadensis

I got photoshop last week and this was the first time I tried to use it so don't poke fun. Well, I guess you can. Maybe someone can make a better version. I used the size of the hills in the background as well as those little bumps to the right of both subjects in the foreground for a size reference. The lines on the hills in the background and foreground don't line up nor do the little bumps (some of which are in both photos) because I think the photos were taken at slightly different angles. This accounts for the slight double image of the hills in the background. The peak in the foreground of the opaque photo has more snow. I'm not sure if what I did is even close to being correct.
I hope you don't mind me butchering up your photo Daniel. Just say the word and I'll ask a mod to delete it. I think you did a bang up job. It's absolutely great that you went there and took that photo which is very close to original IMO. You have skills.

Click to view attachment

Well done Daniel for the effort put in...and furious george for not a bad first up attempt at photoshop...well done boys...

Anyone know if this sighting was reported and, if so, can you provide a link?

Silver Star Report

Thanks Squatch, can't access this for some reason though.

Huh, was just working for me. It's on the BFRO features page, then the Video clips, Photos and Sound link.
It's the first report under Photos heading.

Thanks, I'll find it. The link just sends me to "This page cannot be found" yada, yada, yada. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction though. I checked the BFRO initially, but I don't know squat about Washington State.


**I found it. Your link was missing the "s" in "/news/"

http://www.bfro.net/news/silver_star_mountain.asp

To me, it's looks like it could be a person wearing something similar to this:

Click to view attachment


It'd be nice to get some sense of scale or size though.

Yes MB, that was the general conclusion when this was first hashed out here.
Another inconclusive picture, yet probably not a deliberate hoax.

If it's a hooded coat how does that explain that the forearms appear to be thinner than the upper arm area? My point being that if it was a heavy coat then the whole arm should be an consistent width.

It may not be a "heavy" or "lined" coat, I noticed the arms also- They do seem thin.

hey, it looks like there may be a line of tracks in the photo of the proposed creature. Look just right of the face of the slope where the snow drops off and just left of the tops of those trees buried in the snow. There looks to be a line of something that may be tracks in the snow. I don't have the skill to 'work' the photo and give it a closer look, but I know others do. Does anybody else see what I am seeing?

17x7

To get to the trail head is about a one hour drive on rough dirt roads and add additional time to drive to Gifford Pinchot National Forest from wherever.

Then the hike is fairly intense, not killer, but not easy either. Add the snow that would be there in February (the time of the sighting) and the hike would require a very healthy effort to complete. Frankly I can’t imagine the road to the trail head being clear of snow in February either, but I don’t know what the conditions were that year.

What I’m getting at is that this would require as insane amount of effort to hoax, and if it was a hoax, why not try to get better pictures?

My take is that it’s genuine biped…species, well you decide.

NOTE: This is the Silver Star Mountain in Skamania County (there are two Silver Star Mountains in Washington) and despite what Wikipedia says, there is NO road to the top, there is an old jeep trail that goes up, up, up at a steep angle that conceivably could be navigated with a rock climbing capable jeep, but the trail is blocked off at the trailhead.

My truck parked at the trail head last September.
Click to view attachment

Turn around 180 degrees and this is the very start of the trail.
Click to view attachment

I think you did a bang up job yourself, FG!

From what I've gathered about working with photos, it's way better to work with the originals.

For the actual full size images of the Star Mountain photos go here: http://www.bfro.net/avevid/calender/Silver...t._030_orig.jpg

and here: http://www.bfro.net/avevid/calender/Silver...t._029_orig.jpg

According to the BFRO site, these are the originals that "were copied by our own investigator straight off RC's digital camera."

For past discussion about these photos -

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15185

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...ver+star+photos

Greatly appreciated, Thanks.

Thanks hopeful

Furious George,

Thanks for superimposing the two images. You have a future in Photoshopping.

The 2009 image is taller than the 2005 image, but the person in 2009 could be closer and higher, or the 2005 subject could be sitting down?

The person in 2009 appears much thinner, but he's presenting a side view vs. the more frontal view presented by the 2005 subject.

Until looking at your effort I was leaning toward the 2005 subject looking bigfootish, but now I'm far less certain.

One thought -- what would a bigfoot being doing on top of that mountain? To see what he could see? To get above his predators? I can't imagine anyone preying on him, especially in Skamania County, an official sasquatch reserve. A mountain top seems to be a poor place to look for food or shelter.

G. canadensis

G. ...

I see no reason why one wouldn't be seen up there, I've heard mention them bein' called ridgewalkers in the past. Who knows...relocatin'...?

Pat...

ps, Good stuff Daniel ! Lookin' forward to the May issue of Bigfoot Times. Folks, if ya haven't subscribed...ya don't know what you're missin' !!!

Also, Randee is wearing summer clothing whereas a human in 2005 would have been wearing bulkier winter clothing resulting in a larger image. (As stated by MB, although as Ronnie said, the forearms look very thin to be a puffy coat.)

And the 2005 figure also is on the other side of the ridge. Perhaps this pic would be a better comparison since the figure is standing and can be seen from what appears to be just below the waist and up.





You're welcome, FG!

Daniel, I'm still amazed at how you went there and did this, and how great it turned out. Your pictures are awesome. These silly things I did are not meant to demean any of your accomplishments.

One mo try.
Upon hopefuls advice, I used a copy of the original file that you posted. Picked 9 different identifiable features in the background. Enlarged Daniels great photo to 140%, which sized up all 9 features to the 2005 photo. They were all the same size. Made the opacity of the 2005 to 60%. Then I slid the 2005 photo to the right in order to line up the features in the foreground (those little bumps to the right of the subjects). I'm not saying it accurate and the 2005 subject is at and unknown distance from the 2009. I just made this to see what it looks like.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Pat,

I guess a bigfoot would likely visit all parts of his range at one time or another -- mobility isn't a problem for them.

I've never heard the ridgewalker name used before. Interesting. American mountain men used to avoid exposing themselves on ridges so as to stay out of sight of Indians. For such a stealth creature to skyline himself in mid day has always seemed a bit unusual to me.

Thanks for your reply.

G. canadensis

hopeful,

Good advice.

Furious George,

Another excellent Photoshop effort. My neighbor is giving me a hard time. Would you put the head of a pig on a photo of him, per chance?

It looks as if the 2009 image is somewhat camouflaged with the background haze due to the light color of his shirt. Your super closeup shows the orientation is more similar between the two subjects than I first thought. It still appears that the 2005 subject is a bit further away, but it does not look like the hulk it did before the comparison was available. In fact, the 2005 subject appears to me very much like a guy in a hooded jacket, and looks to svelte to be a bigfoot.

Thanks,

G. canadensis

Communication? I bet vocalizations travel further across open ranges without a lot of tree line.

If you want to know where you are and the best way to get from one place to anotheer, do you A: meander along a valley and cross your fingers; or B: walk up to the highest ridge and see where the hell you're at and where you can find a good booty call?

If you can't find water between two ridges, do you A: do a rain dance; or B: walk your thirsty butt up to the top of a ridge and try to scope some out in each direction.

If you want to walk a long distance in a mountainous area, do you A: climb up and down and up and down and up and down; or B: Just walk along the ridges and save lots of time and energy.

I know I can't see anything clearly at 1\4 mile with my glasses, let alone 1\2 mile. Perhaps these guys can. There seems to be some discussion of them having really good eyesight.


Of course I wouldnt know any of this as a fact, I'm just really lazy and it seems logical to me, I'm looking for shortcuts to the refridgerator.


.

Wow, cool work, FG! I love the cropped one. It kinda makes me want to warn Randee! "Randee, behind you!!!"

Seriously, though, your work with these photos isn't at all silly. I can't speak for Daniel, but I would think that the entire reason he went to all this trouble would be so that the 2005 and 2009 photos could be thoroughly compared against each other by anyone with the inclination to do so in order to learn as much as possible. Otherwise, I don't suspect he would have posted them here.

What strikes me is that the details in Randee's clothing are so easily seen and he is so obviously a human while the 2005 subject is totally dark with no discernable clothing what-so-ever. This is undoubtedly to a large part due to the different times of day when each picture was taken. 2005 was either quite a bit later/earlier in the day depending on which direction is east/west. The sun's angle creates silhouettes in the 2005 photo, although I do see a *hint* of green in trees on the far left of the photo below.

Well my 2 cents worth, it does look like a sasquatch. The posture doesn't match a figure in a hood, there is too much musculature visible in all the right places, it's bigger, and all black (notice you can see colour in the human comparison figure). Was there another vehicle present in the parking area of the hike? Was it the mid part of the week, ie a down time, or not?

I've always thought this one was real, just wished there had been more info about the sighting than was given. Very glad you found the guy and checked it out!

G. canadensis,

The subject is on the opposite side of the ridge, easy enough to slip outta sight, an get gone. You'd get a good view up there, spot somethin' ya don't care for, go the other way, as it sounds like it did.
As for them bein' stealthy, I reckon I've read enough reports to suggest they don't always care bout bein' seen.
Us injuns used the ridges to spot mountain men, that's why they're nearly extinct ! ha ! ha ! Just kiddin' !

Pleasure to chit-chat with ya G. canadensis.

My Best ! Pat...

ps; Based on the size of the head in relation to width of shoulders, kinda strikes me as bein' a shorter subject. Torso doesn't appear right, hourglass shaped. Elbows sit a little high relative to waist line...I don't know bout this one ? I've not spent much time reviewin' the matter, so... nothin' definate.

Night Stalker,

There seems to be some discussion of them having really good eyesight.

They seem to have excellent night vision, but don't animals with good night vision tend to have poor daytime vision?

The shortcut to my refrigerator is too hard to navigate; thus, I'm installing a tramway from the refrigerator to the couch.

G. canadensis



hopeful,

What strikes me is that the details in Randee's clothing are so easily seen and he is so obviously a human while the 2005 subject is totally dark with no discernable clothing what-so-ever.

Good point. Would difference in camera quality help explain the difference? The two objects don't look that far apart. Are we seeing about half the height of the 2005 subject? If so, perhaps 2005 is further back from 2009 than it seems?

G. canadensis

Pat,

The subject is on the opposite side of the ridge, easy enough to slip outta sight, an get gone. You'd get a good view up there, spot somethin' ya don't care for, go the other way, as it sounds like it did.

Wouldn't the subject be exposed from the other side of the ridge? I guess that depends what's on the other side of the ridge, eh? You're right, it's not poised right on the ridge crest -- looks like we see only half of it.

Us injuns used the ridges to spot mountain men, that's why they're nearly extinct !

Foolish mountain men. The Indian who sold Manhattan for $24 (the one who didn't own it in the first place) probably also sold a mountain man some bad advice: "Stay away from the ridge tops!"

G. canadensis

ENTIRELY possible, I agree 100%. But who knows. I have no idea how many rods or cones one could have if in fact they exist. Some indicate they have a sort of eye shine, but maybe they just have some bigassed eyeballs. That's #87 on the lists on 101 things I don't really know about BF.

It looks to me like the horizons of the mountains in the background don't line up in these pictures, which I believe indicates the pictures were taken at different focal lengths (where the zoom was set on the camera).

I'm not an optics expert; maybe some others can chime in. Since the pictures apparently were taken at different focal lengths, that would also affect the height of the two figures relative to each other, yes?

Look at the pictures side by side in post #4 in this thread and it's very clear the the background mountains don't line up.

Click to view attachment

BTW, good work Daniel, getting these pictures.

EDIT: And as Furious George noted in post #11:
"The lines on the hills in the background and foreground don't line up nor do the little bumps (some of which are in both photos) because I think the photos were taken at slightly different angles. This accounts for the slight double image of the hills in the background."

Maybe some experts could step in, I don't think it's angle as much as the different focal lengths the pictures were taken with?

G. canadensis,

Yes, the subject would be exposed from the other side, but as it seemed to do, spottin' the human, ''it'' headed off. Based on reports of eyeshine, we can expect they have at least decent nightvision, but I'd still figure with thier daytime activities, they'd have decent vision even durin' the day.
It would be interestin' to get the two images better lined up for size comparison, however I'm still wonderin' bout the physical characteristics I mentioned earlier.

Pat...

I'm not an expert but just playing around with the photo I was able to tell that they were taken at two slightly different angles. After blowing up Daniels photo, I could match up several points (all visible points) with each other individually but not all together. Meaning they did not overlap. I looked at all of the mountain peaks individually and the distance between the rolling hills and the sizes of each and all were the same (eyeballed measurements).

Regarding the "double image" of the mountains in the background: A slight difference in the camera angle would translate to a great distance on the horizon, correct? If so, the slight misalignment of the mountains in the far background don't upset me.

I took this photo of a cut-out of Sasquatch at Larry Lund's house in east Vancouver, WA about five years ago
Click to view attachment
and it has always looked to me that if the figure was turned around it would look like the shape on the top of Silver Star. And no, I am not accusing Larry Lund of having anything to do with hoaxing these photos.

Would be nice if someone could get a profile shot of Larry's "squatch-crow".

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?

The photo below appears to have been taken from a level lower to the ground judging by the rocks in the foreground. (I'm assuming the photographer wasn't standing behind a tall pile of rocks at the time.)


....................................said foreground rocks ^


edit: speelling

I would agree that we're seeing about half of the height of the 2005 subject. There is no way of telling how far in the background he is compared to Randee, but it looks to be 'quite a bit.'

I'm wondering if the camera angles create a bit of an optical illusion here. Randee can be seen down to about his ankles, and I assume that photo was taken from a standing position. If 2005 was taken from a squatting position then the subject might even appear closer to Randee's position than it really is. If so, then would this mean that the 2005 subject is actually larger compared to Randee than it appears to be in these comparison photos?

Okay, I did a bit of comparison work on these photos. I overlaid Daniel's recent photo on top of the original #29 image. The background mountains did not line up, meaning that both were taken at a bit different location. Not a big distance, only a matter of feet as an estimate, since the background range is visible in both images. I traced the mountain ranges in both images, then lined them up. Daniel's image is taken with a different focal length, which would affect everything in the shot to some degree, but the focal length was pretty close. I scaled the images so that the background ranges matched exactly. I then shifted one sideways so that the foreground peak, where the subjects are, lined up. This compensates for the different shooting position.

So, with the scale and positions both corrected, the two subjects can be compared for scale. The known human is turned sideways, and as indicated is not a tall person. People are wider than they are thick, as in shoulders and hips and so on. As a better reference for that I popped over to an online bathing suit shop, snagged an image of a guy in a similar pose to the unknown subject, and scaled it to the size of the known human. he appears bulkier partly because he works out, and is turned sideways. He's got a similar puffed up pose as the unknown subject, elbows out, one shoulder lifted, the standard casual lat spread of an athlete or wanna-be athlete.

So, from a reasonably executed photo comparison, I don't see a big difference between sizes in the unknown subject and the humans used for comparison. I would not expect that the subject was all that big, unless it was significantly further away behind the peak, but it sounds like it slopes away enough that if it were further back, it might be too low to see. I'm not feeling any particular affirmation that this is anything unusual in terms of size or shape from a normal person.

Aaron

Good to see. I used the same technique and had the same results. (post #31) Minus Vinnie Barbarino.