Here we have yet another series of photos that believers will defend, skeptics debunk, and open-minded people allow the possibility that they may be authentic. To me it’s all academic. There is not a single photo, or series of photos, or will there ever be, regardless of quantity or clarity, that will ever solve the mystery surrounding these creatures.

Since 1967 we have had not just some blurry black & white photo, but instead a 16mm color motion picture film lasting 10s of seconds of a female creature walking in the full illumination of daylight, yet these creatures remain unacknowledged to this day in the professional scientific community.

I cringe at the thought, but I believe the only way to bring these creatures out of folklore and into the bright spotlight of professional scientific investigation is to produce a creature, either live or dead. I suspect, due to logistics, a captured creature would most likely be a juvenile/infant. I would also surmise that an adult or adults would have to be killed in order to perpetrate the capture.

To be clear, I am not advocating a ‘Bigfoot hunt’, nor would I wish to participate in one; just stating what I believe to be the harsh reality of the issue.

Sam

Re Comment 6… Photo 3 is an enlargement of 1; photo 4 is an enlargement of 2. Overlaying the two photos and it becomes apparent that the photographer moved to the right to take the second photo – there is little vertical difference between the two shots. By how much to the right, I don’t know, 10-20 feet maybe? Evidently this move took the photographer behind an outcrop of rocks. I wouldn’t like to even make a wild guess at distance of the figure – even physically being there I’d be way out!

Re. Comment 7… The ‘halo’ is quite normal/expected – in fact if someone asked me to examine such an image this would be one of the first things that I’d look for in coming to a conclusion about whether it was genuine [I manipulate images in Photoshop for a living and specialise in natural history subjects]. The ‘halo’ is an artefact of digital images and you will often see it in hi-end scans of transparencies too. It occurs where there is delimiting high contrast. If you look at the edge of the hill to the right of the creature you will see the same ‘halo’ effect around the bushes where they are outlined against the sky. Unless you’ve got extensive experience of such image-manipulation this is not the sort of unexpected detail that you would realise was there. If you like try an experiment; remove the ‘halo’ – us an aligned cloning stamp set at say 80% to blend-in the ‘halo’ at high mag., then zoom out – it wont look ‘right’. The pix are actually 17 seconds apart looking at the EXIF data – one minute seemed suspiciously long for me. I wouldn’t read too much into the camera resolution that the pix were shot at – my ‘happy snappy digital’ is set to a ‘medium’ setting and if I was in such a situation I’d be more concerned about getting more pix rather than ‘wasting’ time changing the resolution to the highest and hoping that it would still be around to photograph.

My Comments… The only odd thing to me is that if you showed me the two photos I’d assume that they were shot in the reverse order – the topography beyond the ridge may well explain why this is so though. Apart from that, they look good to me. Once again though, there is too little detail – you CAN’T enhance it as the detail just isn’t there – some of the ‘enhancements’ of stills taken from the P-G footage are beyond a joke in terms of what is physically there in the emulsion. Beyond a certain point ‘enhancement’ is a pure ‘flight of fancy’ rather than what it actually is, which is [well-founded] guesswork anyway. Unfortunately we now live at a time when a ‘bloody good’ photo – pin-sharp, close range, clearly recognizable – is needed before it would be taken seriously. In the hands of a professional or skilled amateur, Photoshop plus some select photos can be turned into a far better and credible ‘photo’ than anything that has been seen to date.

Nick

Also, you can see that the photographer moved; in picture 2 you can see a group of rocks in the foreground or bottom edge of the picture that are not evident in any of the other pictures – as if he crouched down to take this picture. The peaks in the background have also changed position, as the photographer or the “creature” moved around.

My initial gut impression is that this does not look like a human figure. It does not appear to have any clothing – something that would obviously be necessary for this time of year, at that altitude in Winter conditions. Also, most climbing or hiking equipment and clothing is pretty colorful, something that would probably be evident if this was another climber.

Although it is hard to tell how far away the “creature” is, it looks from the pictures to be anywhere from 100-200 yds. away. It’s tough to really tell because there’s no real frame of reference in the photos, though there does appear to be a col, or saddle between the photgrapher and the “creature” that makes distance juding even more difficult in the photos.

All in all it will be interesting to read the photographer, RC’s report on the BFRO website. Hopefully, it will shed more light on the circumstances surrounding these photos.

But seriously it would be good if they could get a clearer image of the subject when it is blown up.

I still remain skeptical.