Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Apeman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ducktoes
    replied
    Originally posted by BlacksmithSEAL View Post
    Here is a photo analysis of the picture with the creature standing beside the tree. Using Corel PhotoPaint 8, I selected FIND EDGES and this is what I got. The contour of the creature is clearly evident, which shows that it's not just a trick of light and shadow, or combination of leaves and sticks. Surprisingly it also found the outline of the "ear" though it was hard to see with the eyes. The software uses an algorithm which I have no control over - what you see is what it found.

    Like I said, I'm not selling anything... you believe or not as you wish. It's all the same to me. If I get a clear shot, I plan on bagging the thing you don't believe in. I'm not looking for fame or notariety... just don't like it snooping around behind my house.
    The FIND EDGES tool as I understand it creates lines in areas where there is direct contrast in lightness. It doesn't really prove anything because you'll get the effect with anything that has two things light contrasting that are adjacent to one another. In other words, it can still very well be "just a trick of light and shadow, or combination of leaves and sticks".

    I find this quite interesting actually. I don't agree with your conclusions as to the nature of the thing in the picture at this point, as the photographic evidence and your description of the situation are still too vague to suggest anything conclusive other than there was something there that wasn't there before.

    I didn't get an answer before, so may I ask again if you have had an expert listen to the howling audio you've collected? If not, do so. And when I mean an expert, I mean someone who isn't a sasquatcholist, demonologist, or medicine man.

    Keep pursuing this!

    Leave a comment:


  • BlacksmithSEAL
    replied
    Your choice... to accept or not as offered. I'm not selling anything, just posing questions. You can speculate all you want about bushes and shadows and leaves, but until you actually walk the ground and see what's available to make such images, it's all just speculation from a long distance on your part.

    The camera has a passive IR sensor, detecting changes in ambient background temperatures. It can be set for ONE, TWO, or THREE pictures per each "trigger" or "event"... and then it goes to "sleep" for one minute before waking up to look for more. At the time the photos were taken I had it set for ONE picture per event because I was unfamiliar with the camera.

    When we discovered that we'd captured the image while reviewing pictures in April, we reset the camera to take TWO pictures per trigger event. We do, indeed, have many photographs of rabbits, squirrels, and birds.

    As to what triggered the original two pictures ??? I cannot say for certain about the first one. I suspect the animal approached from directly behind the tree and may have "flashed" an elbow or something to trigger the change in ambient temperature. It managed to NOT capture anything but the movement of the sapling behind the big tree... but it's a damned stiff sapling and I have trouble moving myself by hand (and I weigh 230lbs). The creature was interacting with the sapling... as shown by the difference between the two pics. The second picture was triggered by the creature stepping into view to look at the camera. My home is "back over the right shoulder of the camera". The creature is not looking at my house... it's looking directly at the camera.

    You believe or don't believe as you see fit.

    Here is a photo analysis of the picture with the creature standing beside the tree. Using Corel PhotoPaint 8, I selected FIND EDGES and this is what I got. The contour of the creature is clearly evident, which shows that it's not just a trick of light and shadow, or combination of leaves and sticks. Surprisingly it also found the outline of the "ear" though it was hard to see with the eyes. The software uses an algorithm which I have no control over - what you see is what it found.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Stabilized Picture EDGE ENHANCED BW.JPG
Size:	101.5 KB
ID:	4325143

    Once again, this is blurry because it is an enlargement of a shot taken at 72dpi resolution. Look back at the original pictures (which are focused fairly well for a wide camera field shot) and see the whole shot. The creature isn't where I expected something to show. I thought an animal might come through the opening in the middle... that's why the coffee tub is there. I learned a long time ago to put something into the picture area which has known dimensions... so you can figure out how large other items are at a later time.

    Like I said, I'm not selling anything... you believe or not as you wish. It's all the same to me. If I get a clear shot, I plan on bagging the thing you don't believe in. I'm not looking for fame or notariety... just don't like it snooping around behind my house.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coach Josh
    replied
    Sorry Blacksmith but if you look at your GIF you can see substantial movement of the trees behind the "creature". Actually to me if you look at the first pic you can see what appears to be a smaller black head with orange eyes. Which is just the bush but it does have that shape.

    Plus notice the black aura around the "head" defiantly shadow from movement of the bush. Plus what caused the camera to shoot the pic 6 min before? Did the "creature" know the camera was there and darted from out of frame to get behind the tree then peeked out to look at the camera? Hardly the actions of an animal and as you said it would be a weird behave for a mountain lion let alone a primate unless you was standing behind the camera.

    Every photo trap picture will have a series of deer or squirrels in plain sight but a "creature" is always fuzzy and just off camera or some other weird excuse. I recall the tube or rod creature thing people would get in their pictures. They had all kinds of speculation and even went out and got pictures of them. It turned out to be bugs that where moving across the shot and due to the rate of speed and exposure rate left a trail on film.

    Sorry I am not going to buy that brand of kool aid.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlacksmithSEAL
    replied
    Originally posted by Gorgo View Post
    Do you have mountain lions near you?

    That thing is creepy.
    Sorry for the delay in responding... I missed your original post until today when reviewing the last two pages.

    There are extremely rare "mountain lions" in SW Missouri, although getting the State Game and Fish folks to admit it was like pulling teeth. They finally admitted that there were some here when a TV station ran a home video of a mountain lion eating a deer in their back yard... in DOWNTOWN SPRINGFIELD MISSOURI!

    There is a history of "panthers" being in the area, and I've seen one myself (1999 ... shot it in the ass with a pellet gun 'cause it looked like a large black dog rooting in our compost pit). While I think the photograph bears some resemblance to a mountain lion face, you need to keep in mind that about 30 inches of "creature" is hidden by the dirt pile. What that means is that roughly half of the critter is out of site. If it's a mountain lion with its front paws on the ground, then it's the tallest mountain lion in existence at 4ft 6 inches (top of head). If it's a mountain lion somehow standing upright, with one paw holding onto the tree, leaning around to peek at the camera, then it's behavior that has not been seen before, including standing erect, using a paw/leg like a hand, and leaning sideways.

    We've run the idea of "panther" or "mountain lion" past the Animal Control folks and they've all said "NO!" based upon evaluation of height and apparent behavior. I'm not the expert... they are... so I'm going with what they said at this point until I have better information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Miracleman
    replied
    YouTube- The Kinks - Apeman promo film - full length

    Leave a comment:


  • BlacksmithSEAL
    replied
    It was a legitimate question, and one that needed to be addressed. Thanks for asking.

    Leave a comment:


  • thorthe power
    replied
    Got it...I knew there was most likely a difference in cameras used and pixels/enlarging issues. Believe me seeing your military specialty I do not doubt your intelligence gathering ability.


    Leave a comment:


  • BlacksmithSEAL
    replied
    The original photograph was made by a digital game camera (Moultrie) at a resolution of 72dpi. Look back a page to see that picture... and you'll find the photograph relatively clear and distinct. However... the camera focal area takes in an chunk of territory which is roughly 40-50 feet wide, and which has a documented maximum depth of field of 45 ft (farthest range at which the passive IR will detect movement and trigger a 'camera event').

    The blur problem arises when you try to enlarge that detailed tiddly bit in the lower left corner so that you can see more of what was lurking around the tree.

    If you take ANY photograph made at 72dpi and then enlarge it several times, you'll get similar fuzzy blurring. If the creature had made an appointment and then been standing quietly while I used my regular digital camera, focused directly on his/her face, and then snapped off two or three shots, I think I'd have some really nicely detailed pictures to show you. But the critter didn't make any such appointment, and my cheezy cheapo $99 Moultrie-bought-at-Wal-Mart game camera was working with a huge area and a general focus setting on the whole field of vision.

    Like I said... go back and look at the original picture on the previous page. The creature is as nicely detailed as the tree it's holding onto. Then look at the enlargement and you'll see that both are blurred. Does the blurring mean that the tree isn't real? Not at all. It means that this is an enlargement, and the resampling/resizing process cannot add photo detail information where there wasn't enough to begin with.

    Many pictures of "bigfoot" or other unknown creatures aren't planned, and are often discovered off-center in the corner of a photo that was originally meant for some other subject matter. Game cameras working under low light conditions, with generic field-of-view and focal settings cannot help but make for blurring and fuzziness.

    Wish it were different, but that's the problem as I see it. Meanwhile I cannot make my camera focus on a specific, particular spot, and then convince that varmint to come back, wander into the specific spot, turn, and smile for my camera. I'm trying... and will keep trying... but no luck so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • thorthe power
    replied



    I only ask/state one observation. With all the technology we now posses, why can we never get a clear picture of Bigfoot, Lochness Monster or any other mythical creature?

    If a clear picture can be made of the above known animal on the right, why are Bigfoot pictures (above left) always so fuzzy and indistinguishable?

    This is actually an honest question...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ducktoes
    replied
    Originally posted by BlacksmithSEAL View Post
    Take a look at these two side-by-side comparison of my game camera picture and baboon faces. Note the similar structure of the raised nose tip, the long snout, the low forehead, the deep close-set eyes, and the small shoulder break (i.e. not much in the way of a “shelf” on the shoulder). On the double picture the ears on the baboon do sit low and are laid back.

    [ATTACH]11037[/ATTACH]

    On the triple picture, the middle photo is a baby – different species of baboon than the other photo – and the ears are larger and wider. I think the one in the middle is an OLIVE baboon and the one on the right is a CHACMA baboon.

    [ATTACH]11038[/ATTACH]

    Note also that all three images display a distinctive “V” shaped color “notch” on the sides of the face… wider at the eyes and mouth, and narrower in the area between.

    African baboons are omnivores – eating meat as well as fruits/veg – and they hunt in packs in a cooperative manner. I’d have to say that if we don’t have a hunting troop of escaped baboons here, then there seems to be a case for saying that the picture is a baboon-LIKE primate. The multiple howls and the movement of the calling animals which we have experienced suggests cooperative hunting and possibly a pack of “drivers” or “beaters” working to run prey animals toward an ambush site or choke point where other animals are waiting silently.

    There are plenty of examples of baboons and other apes living in colder climates, and the many limestone caves in SW Missouri would seem to offer ample shelter from really bad weather. I’ve watched captive baboons, and I’ve watched ‘safari film’ of wild baboons, and there’s plenty of evidence that they don’t really fear man, and that they can present a significant danger to man.

    I cannot believe that an entire troop of captive baboons escaped from a zoo or "circus", but I have no evidence or proof that the animal I photographed is a "native".
    You also can't be sure that the features you are seeing are what you think they are, particularly due to the quality of the photo. Though I get the "face" you see, the arm doesn't look physically possible. For all you know, you could be looking at the ass end of something. There are pictures of rocks on Mars that look like faces but in different light look just like any rock.

    What you've got is pretty interesting, but I wouldn't assume that it's a new species of monkey. To early to say.

    I can't comment on the noises, I don't know anything about it. Have you given it to an expert to listen to?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ducktoes
    replied
    Originally posted by AMF View Post
    The reason why is b/c Native Americans have had stories of the ‘giant hairy man’ for decades and decades. Those stories are as varied in location as they are in time-frame, are we to truly believe this has been a hoax for hundreds of years?
    So? People have believed in ghosts and vampires in various cultures for thousands of years as well as mega birds and dragons.

    Originally posted by AMF View Post
    Is it any big leap to make the logical connection of where they could possibly live?
    No, but there is no proof, not to mention someone else already talked about the unlikelihood of an ape species living in the pacific northwest.

    Originally posted by AMF View Post
    And being sentient would they not also have the wherewithal to take any remains and either bury them, hide them in caves or even if not that, then the scavengers would deal with/scatter the remains in short order making anything remotely unidentifiable after several weeks and months.
    Well, that's just altering the creature(s) to the circumstances. I could say that a little boy who lives in my mouth tells me things, but you can't see him in there because he hides in my stomach. And if you try to get into my stomach to find him he snaps his fingers and turns invisible. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but ultimately it doesn't prove anything either way unless your biased to believe me, which is the case here with sasquatch.

    Anyway, much of the legit science I have read regarding these creatures makes it extremely difficult for them to exist and not be conclusively detected.

    Originally posted by AMF View Post
    To say the possibility doesn’t even exist is the height of arrogance.
    Nobody said it's impossible. Rather, it's highly unlikely.

    Originally posted by AMF View Post
    I mean look at the two specimens of prehistoric fish they found down in South America that was ‘extinct for millions of years’, yet fishermen caught two of them. So much for that ‘theory’ huh?
    An aquatic ecosystem in South America is completely and utterly different. Discovering a new fish species is not in the same league as a sentient ape man.

    Leave a comment:


  • AMF
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Evil Solvalou
    replied
    You would say that being the Pope and all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Da Pope
    replied
    Looks like Jesus to me!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gorgo
    replied
    Do you have mountain lions near you?

    That thing is creepy.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X