I don't really know where, when or from whom I got these two pictures, but I finally got around to looking at them. I believe they are Paul Freemans.

There are two pictures:

1. Scenic mountain picture with a dark object in the center, at a distance, but on the forground hill side, apparently standing upright, but at an odd angle to the trees on the same slope that would be indicating the normal gravity direction. (tolgate1ax.jpg)

2. Scenic mountain picture, taken at a similar time of day, for the shadows and lack of movement in any foliage indicates so, with a smaller dark object in the center, at a distance, but on the forground hill side, apparently gone. (tolgate3ax.jpg)

I think that these pictures were suppose to be of a possible bigfoot in the Walla Walla area of Washington State. After carefull review it looks to me like a maniquin of some type that was proped up (you can barely make out a base structure in tolgate1ax.jpg, then pushed, blown or shot at till it fell over then another picture was taken of it, showing a dark spot where either it has the top or bottom pointed towards the camera.

I resized the two pictures to a best fit, enhanced the resolution and tried my best to color correct. I wanted to make a moving gif file of the two on different layers but convinced myself that thes two pictures are either a hoax of Paul's or are being pawned off as such by others and is just a waste of time.

Don't see it? You try standing like that on a hillside. Legs and arms close in to body, leaning downhill. Yes I also looked down hill for the subject in the next picture but where the subject was upright in the first there is now a smaller dark object in it's place. Same spot.

These photos were taken by Wes Summerlin , the first with the object was while he was on horse back, he took a senic photo and after development saw the object, Wes then went back and took another photo to see if it would be there and it was not there. It was taken on sawtooth ridge in the wenaha wilderness area. I also thought the anlge was off also. i know that Freeman hoaxed stuff but Wes also seemed to be removed from that. I do know the Wes had caught Freeman on numerious times faking tracks and told Freeman to knock it off, he is whats wied about it, Wes said that when he would catch freeman faking tracks that there were real tracks in the area and freeman would be filling in where other tracks should be, also he was caught using his fingers to deepen toe impression in actual tracks, in fact on his mill creek track you can clearly see Freeman finger prints in hte toes. I dont know i would say that these photos are a better blob squatch than what i put up from our trip last summer. It sure would be a lot of work to put a maniquin out there, Sawtooth is a rough area. In wes Summerlins photo album he has the origianl photo in it, he did not keep negitives. Could Freeman had taken the photos and passed them of to Wes? could have but i really think Wes was above all that, if he said he took the photos then im sure he did. Now thats not to say he did not stumble across a hoax of freeman without knowledge of it, but freeman had a bad leg and could not have pulled that off unless he had his son do it. Im sure that some of the Tracks Wes has in his collection are fakes but im sure that Wes found them not knowing freeman made them. Actually all the bigfoot activity that did go on here when freeman and Wes were around is a huge clusterf%ck, Nothing was documented that well, few pictures taken and to many rumors. What i can say is that I have had great luck in hte same areas that they once stomped around in.

From past experience with airphoto interpretation, at first glance the "object" looks to be an artifact - a flaw in the print. It also appears darker than the darkest shadows present anywhere else in the photograph. Images of objects present in the landscape always fall within the range of lights and darks found elsewhere in the photograph. To check it out I imported the image into photoshop.

The color values in the dark object: 0D0200, 0D0300, 070200, 0E0400, 0F0500,

The darkest values elsewhere in the landscape: 120904, 151C26, 141102, 060807, 050C16, 120E0F, 09121B

The darkness of the values found in the "object" are much, much darker than any other shadows found elsewhere in the photograph; which supports the theory that the object is only a flaw in the print. This is a simple test used by people doing airphoto interpretation to detect flaws in processing (ie. dye smears, dust, etc...). Check it out yourself.

Having formerly run a photography business yourself, I'm sure you will follow my reasoning DDA.

Excellent point colobus. That is the only explaination that really fits everything. We cannot forget that a photographic print is much like a cast of a track (which is just a replica of the foot that made it, but in reverse) in that it represents the film negative, only in reverse. We need to see the film negative of this one or it stays as labeled just as we need to see the foot that is making all these damn tracks we have been casting.

I thought I had seen these pictures somewhere...

Is it fair to call pictures like these 'Hoaxes' ?

Surely a 'hoax' photo is something deliberate like Ray Wallace's wife dressing up in a gorilla suit.

These photos (and others like them) strike me as more the product of an overactive imagination.

One step up from out and out blobsquatches in my opinion, but I wouldn't put them in the same category as wallce, snow walker et al.

definitely looks like a photographic artifact, perhaps a hole in the negative?

If it was deliberately faked, it looks like i was done with ink on the positive photograph...

good observations you guys, i agree with you. what struck me first was that the spot in question is so very crisp and well defined with sharp edges, while nothing else in the photo is.

gael

When I first spotted the *object in question*, I thought *Is that little magic marker dash what he is talking about?*

I am with the you all. Its a glitch either on, or in, the photo.

It is in a highly sunlit area, and reflects no light, whatsoever, and as someone else said, the edges are too sharp.

Its a magic marker slash that someone made while counting photographs!

Even if the object was a sas this is another pic that means nothing. It has merit simply to show what other people are claiming as possible evidence - this probably gives an example of the tone of professionalism sensed by the general public where bigfoot is concerned. Looks like more smoke and mirrors to me.

im going to have to look on hte net but the original is floating around somewhere and the object is brown, not black, plus Wes drew a circle around it and wrote sawtooth on it on the photo, now im thinking Freeman had copies made of it from the negitives at the time when Wes had them. I would get it from Wes family but im not going to have them dig it all out, wont mean much anyway to show the differance in hte photo.

Hi DDA,
Since you used to have a photography shop perhaps you can answer this question. If a person had taken this picture with an expensive camera like a Hasallblad system would the picture have turned out any clearer?
What is your advice to someone thinking of purchasing a used Hasallblad with a range of lenses including a 500 mm? Would I need a lot of photography classes to be able to make such a large purchase worthwhile? Would this quality of camera make that much difference in getting some clarity in these types of distance pictures. Thanks again for all your help with my questions.

goldie

P.S. Regarding my last question on how to figure out the size of an object in the distance I came up with a creature that might be 10 feet tall with 18 inch feet and the length of the arms and head all seem to jive. Thanks. Used this method with several pictures and was very happy with the result. Used a sheep and a pinecone as the comparison figures. Doesn't prove anything but I felt like it sure put me in a reasonable ballpark.

Definitely nothing there. It's a mark on the photo.

DDA or others can probably answer better than me, but I think using a medium format camera simply isn't practical for situations where you would have to whip out the camera and snap of a bunch of shots. I think (but don't quote me on this) that medium and large format cameras are almost exclusively used for landscape and posed shots. Of course, the detail you can get is astonishing.

-robo

Thanks Robo,
Now to expose my ignorance here. When you talk about medium and large format cameras can you tell me what this means. I currently have a SlR 35 millimeter auto focus and zoom camera. I get some nice pics with it but would really like to have something that can zoom in a little farther and get more detail.
Thanks. goldie

Hey I used to have a photo studio and medium format is create for things that you can position and mess with the lighting around and otherwise manipulate. For nature photography...unless you want to do flower photography or tree photography...that size format is rather unweildy. It is also awkward unless you have a speed finder...

For BF I would highly recommend 35mm for physical weight and ease of use. Even 35mm can get heavy tho if you use big lenses and a tripod....

Those photos are wide angle shots...more for scenery....not for showing a particular animal...a 300 or 400 zoom woulda picked that off it is was an animal.
It's the lenses that give you the ability to get close up from far away. I'd say for the money you would spend on large format...which is a lot more expensive...get a nice 35 mm and invest in telephoto lenses :thumbsup:Photo below take with 35mm Canon AE-1 program and 100-300 zoom!

-Janice

If you didn't see it when you took the pic........

I'm with sosha on the pic thing..
Also taken with Cannon AE-1 P, and 60-300 mm telephoto lense!

I assume you meant SLR, rather than SIR.. SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex, and basically means that when you look through the viewfinder, you're seeing the same thing that the film is going to see (you're looking through the actual lens). Cheaper point and shoot cameras use a separate viewfinder lens that tries to approximate what the actual lens is going to see, but never quite gets it right (problems with parallax etc).

35mm film is the standard type. Generally, there are APS, 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras. There used to also be some smaller format (16mm?) but these are all but extinct. APS is a new format that's a bit smaller than 35mm, and which is supposed to be more idiot-proof for loading than 35mm. 35mm, however, remains the standard for most serious photographers. Medium format and large format are extremely rare outside of professional studios.. they are very expensive for one thing, both in terms of film and equipment.

Auto focus is standard on newer SLR bodies, and is definitely good to have if you're looking for Bigfoot. The better the body, the faster it will focus. My friend has a Nikon F-100, which is a professional range camera (about $1,000 without a lens, i think), and it focuses in the blink of an eye. A cheaper SLR will focus more slowly. The zoom amount depends not on your camera body, but on the lens (assuming your SLR has a detachable lens, which most do).

Having lots of zoom is great, usually, but often the tradeoff is that the lens lets in less and less light the more you zoom. That means that the film can't be exposed as quickly, and there is a greater chance of a blurry shot (hello blobsquatch!). Also, camera shake becomes more of a problem. There are, of course, those huge zoom lenses that professional bird and sports photographers often use, which do let in a lot of light, and allow a fast shutter speed, but they weigh a ton and you basically need to have the thing set up on a tripod to take a photo. They also cost many thousands of dollars.

If you can tell us the make and model number of your camera, I or others could probably tell you a lot more. But having any kind of autofocus SLR is a good start. A lot better than what most people have.


-robo

Dang Nightwing...that is a huge buck...even from far away he looks massive!

I wanted to say something about hoaxes....with photoshop nowadays almost anyone can make a fake photo...

The thing of it is....why? What is the point? It is one thing to see something in a photo and think it is something...or to get some weird effect in a photo...but to consciously fake up something does what? Gives someone their jollies? Besides which you get ridiculed up the ying yang by you guys...lol....I would never ever post something up against you guys that was not 100 percent pristine and sharp as that pic of the deer I posted...anything less would just be an insult to all of your eyes....

I have to tell you now too....when I go back out into the wilds again..soon hopefully....I will be thinkin...if I came across a BF..."Would this picture please the denizens of the BFF??" heh ...cause I am just thinking...if it wouldnt pass the blobsquatch meter by a damn site....I would not be postin it..

BEAUTIFUL!!!

Someone gets it! That's the point Sosh, SOLID evidence, not
questionable crud. The reasonable man standard will be
applied here, it's been done before. You get it, now here's
hoping some others do as well

If it doesn't reasonably look like a squatch (ie not a SHADOW)
don't bother!

One poster at a time...

DDA I don't know what's up with your short term memory, but I gave you those images on Oct. 22nd when I was at your house and we were scanning the first of my images from the RSL site to send to Green, Meldrum and others, and planning the field work at RSLake. Also I need to get all of my images back from the SW desert site of the petrified tracks I found in the 1980's. Dr. Goodall has some Anthropologists that are itching to see the rest of them. You were just going to do a high-res scan and send them to Green and return them (remember?). She also asked me for some of the RSL hair samples so that she could have them examined and analized at the same E. Coast lab that's working on the African hybrid hairs collected last summer. So please give me a ring so that I can come over and pick them up this week. Plus I'd like to get the pics(SW desert) posted here on the BFF for the other members to see.
As for squatchworks, Wes Summerlin was a great but simple man, he never took pictures, he didn't own a camera and he didn't know how to use one. (We will be hearing from the Late, Great Wes Summerlin in one of my future posts!) Although Wes and Pee-Wee were the ones that originally told me of the picture, it was I who contacted the couple that took them and they sent me the negatives. I still have them in my files and they are available to anyone that wants to borrow them for further study! Furthermore, the Wenaha is a Wilderness Area, there are no roads there. These pictures were taken from the side of the road on the way to Tolgate by a couple shooting landscape pictures of the rapidly diminishing daylight on the cliffs and hillsides. Below are the original envelopes I received the negatives in, as well as the neg itself! and some of the other pics on the negative strip! I gave Wes the enlargement! Looks like he pulled one over on you! Just thought I'd set the record straight on this one... -OT

Part two:

OldTimer - there is nothing wrong with my memory. Those pictures have been posted on the Web for some time. I know that you loaned me the pictures to scan, which I did while you were at my place. But I have seen both sets several times before. Why didn't you take them then? You need to give me an address to send them to because I do not want you to drop by here. I also need to give you the pictures of the petroglyphic tracks as well.

John Green and Jeff Meldrum are not really interested in either of the picture sets.

As far as the hair, both samples have already been sent out and have been looked at within the BFRO. There is no hair here for you. As soon as I get a report from them I will post it for you though.

I am sensing animosity here...

I agree. Let's keep it clean boys.

nothing gets past you does it Robo ?



I agree - keep it clean boys - if you two need to argue about a couple of photos, then please do it privately.


ps - welcome back oldtimer - thought you had gone for good.