I've always thought this was an interesting topic, and a good way to judge a photo's (taken in darker conditions) authenticity. Such is true in the case of the Myakka Skunkape, and the Daryl Owen Bigfoot footage, for example. The Owen footage is very intriguing indeed. In relation to the footage, Scott Herriot, who was present when the video was recorded, had this to say on the matter:

"We'd been hiking for about two hours up this nasty 45-degree angle thistle-ridden hill. No trails. Creepy. All of a sudden I noticed, about 40 feet up the hill there was this dark patch of dense vegetation, part of which I could tell was a log that was on the ground. It was very dark and I peered into the darkness and noticed what appeared to be these two big brown eyes just staring out of this darkness, locked onto us. Daryl [the friend] saw it and we started videotaping. It was definitely an animal and the face appeared to be pretty big, but it was shadowed. All you could see was the reflection of the eyes. So we're videotaping this for about 10 minutes. At this point we're not freaked out. Maybe a little freaked, because Bigfoot is on our minds. But this thing was not acting like a bear. It never took its eyes off us, it just locked on. We decided, "Why don't we try to get this thing to move a little bit so we can see more of it and get it on video." So I take one, maybe two steps towards this thing, and God as my witness, the eyes of this animal gave off this reddish glow. You could see the eyes dilating. And when I say glow I mean like a bioluminescent shine. Not like you'd see at night with a deer or a dog or a cat. You know how red an exit sign is in a darkened movie theater? Imagine 2/3 of that brightness coming at you. It was like Christopher Lee's eyes in a Hammer film. It was like "Holy f*ck!" So that stopped us dead in our tracks."

(This excerpt is from this interview.

Interesting...because I'd heard a completely different story that supposedly surrounded the photograph (probably just different people trying to take credit for it).

I'd say this is a very good pic though, and one that lends alot to the arguement for bigfoot being a species of undiscovered ape living in North America (I'm not sold on the whole 'missing link' concept...as much as it would be an added bonus, I don't think sasquatch is likely to be bipedal).

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I have been telling people that the pic must be real, because a fake suit would not have eye glare

I don't believe in the idea of a missing link either. I'm pretty big on the Gigantopithecus theory myself.

Well, I assume your talking about the Myakka Skunkape, and yes, whatever it is, it is NOT a man in a suit. Not only is there eye glare (on both the print and negative) on both photos, but the eye glare in the second photo shows the pupils have decreased in size, due to the flash of the camera.

To the best of my knowledge, gigantopithecus WAS bipedal And, if bigfoot were to be it, or at the very least it's direct decendant, it would certainly be a living missing link.

it would if there was eyes in the costume.....person in it for example, i mean someone could of photoshopped the whole photo, then you could easily get eye glare...

it seems odd to think that a giant ape is in florida yet there is only this photo of it....

I have spoken to Loren Coleman, who has seen the actual prints of the photo, and the negatives, and he has told me both of which show eye glow. Plus, theres a good section in his book "Bigfoot! True Story of Apes in America" dedicated to the photos. So, needless to say, digital photo manipulation is out of the question.

Actually we're not sure if Gigantopithecus was bipedal or not because there have been no finds of post-cranial elements (only teeth and mandibles have been found). This is due to very unique taphonomic processes. There are similarities in the skull though that do hint at bipedalism. Interestingly Gigantopithecus and ourselves are also the only primates that lack the C1-P3 honing complex (canines are sharpened by the lower 3rd premolar) although it exists in every other species of monkeys and apes.

maybe this Loren Coleman faked them to get people to buy his book, its not unheard of you know....

True.

Well, actually, Mr. Coleman wasn't even the first to analyze the photo. He didn't for sometime after it became known. The photos were sent to a police station first. And, just in case you didn't know, Loren is one of the last true Cryptozoologists.

that maybe true, but everyone likes to make a bit of money....

i'm just saying, why isn't there more evidence if such a huge animal is living there....and the only photo to surface is a near perfect photo of an ape...

just seems a bit good to be true.....

but who knows...

The pic from Florida is very likely a fake. The photographer was anonymous who dropped of the photos at the police station, there is a second photo that is just taken from a lower angle, and the subject doesn't move at all between the two photos. You don't see the second photo as often because it shows that the foliage going in front of the subjects mouth is actually a leaf that somebody stuck onto the upper teeth. Everything about the two photos indicates it didn't move, same expression, stance, etc. It's a construct of some kind.

Scott Herriott isn't the only one to report eyeglow, many people have including contemporary researchers.

It was mentioned that all we have of Giganto remains are parts of a mandible and teeth, and that's true. While it may give clues to being bipedal we were never be certain until at least more is found, and many scientists believe it to be a quadruped due to it's estimated large size. Still, need more to go on before reaching any conclusions. However, in terms of missing link Giganto is not at all in the human lineage. And bipedalism doesn't make a missing link or human ancestor. Robustus, Boisseii, and Neanderthal were all bipedal and not considered human ancestors.

If you don't think sasquatch is bipedal then you're ignoring all the evidence. Sightings all say bipedal, footprints all say bipedal.

yes i did always notice that leaf that was stuck on the "creature", it just made the whole photo look very dubious....

I have created a comparison to show that, whether or not the photo is unauthentic, there is movement in the photo.

First off, I overlayed the second image on top of the first to show i have made them the same size. Here it is.

Now, the comparison is here.

I'm not saying this means the photo is genuine, just that there is movement, and that the photos were obviously taken at the same angle.

Hhhhmmmm... I've talked to some researchers in that area who personally investigated it, they are absolutely convinced it is a hoax.

Lined them up and animated them, either they are at a different angle or there's some stretching going on, could be an accidental artifact from tampering in Photoshop. Also lightened the one where it appears to be standing straighter to see the contours of the body more, if it is moving it's the back, but I think more that if it's a construct they just moved it back further from the camera. The stretching may also contribute to the appearance of movement, only way to know for sure would be to scale the stretched picture back into alignment. Could also be a suit but either way it just doesn't look natural, and that's because nothing in the face moves, it keeps that open mouthed expression, with the leaf still stuck to the top of the mouth. Even orangutans would either spit out the leaf or wrap their lips around it and pull it into their mouth, among the other vivid expressions they would use.

The anonymous photographer is also suspicious. So is the fact of only two pictures, if they had enough time to take two while it stood up in surprise why not more of it turning or running away or any other postion besides these two.

Good work!

Here I scaled the 2nd frame down to match the other as close as I could, not exactly perfect but there it is.

This is a very heated discussion about a very controversial topic.
I personally am un-decided with these photo's. I wish there were more evidence on the skunkape. Although I'm still very skeptical of the skunkape, it is very fun to think about.

great job with the photos wolftrax

its good to see the odd stuck on leaf stays stuck to the same part of the face on both photos

Thanks, Mr. Halo, but I just used the photos Ripped FX provided.

Stil, I do think that the red eye glow is a real phenomenon. I have no ideo how to explain it or what scientific basis there is for it but I know some people who have seen it, and on a several recent expeditions it was reported by severa researchers and witnesses, all very reliable and credible.

But wouldn't the glare come from the flash off the camera like most cameras do...I'm missing something - someone fill me in?

No, the red eye glow was reported to be without ANY light whatsoever. They didn't take pictures, or have a flashlight, or any lights, it was completely dark and there would be these red glowing eyes standing there watching them kind of moving side to side.

I dont really know much about bigfoot and other ape beasts but the Gigantopithecus theory is the most believeable to me.

Then that seems pretty scary, maybe its a reflection from the sun or an optical illusion...

I like the skunk ape its my favorit big foot, mostly because i live in florida so its the nearest one to me. ive the photos for a couple of weeks and dident notice the leaf, the annomys letter makes me think that their fake but iam a big time belever, and i dont think that its a guy in a bodysuit because those plants get to be like 9 feet off the ground and that plant looks to be a older plant easly being 7 to 7 and a half feet tall.

In regards to these myakka photos. Everytime I've read in threads that they are a fake the source that is discrediting them ends up being in error. It is a pity.

The eye glow is very interesting in these photos. If it were a man in a suit then such an eye glow would be humanly impossible. If it were a model or statue then there would be no physical eye to create such a shine. The fact that the pupil is seen to dialate in the second photo in exactly the manner in which scientists have said would be expected of an eye reacting to the flash of a camera (30%) is also interesting.

I've read and heard that one of the first actions in a mountain gorillas charge display is for it is rip foliage from its mouth before charging and swinging that foliage. So the fact that there is a piece of leaf stuck in the animals mouth also adds to its credibility.

The photo has been traced to the photo lab where it was processed and has been studied by experts. By all accounts it is an untouched, un-enhanced image.

I have also read that someone faked these photos for profit, yet to date (five years later) no one has come forward to profited from them. It should be noted that at no time did the original writer of the letter which accompanied the pictures attribute them to bigfoot, a skunk ape or any other such creature. If it had not been by chance that a third party who was aware of the long history of unknown primate reports in florida had heard of the photos existance they would had been thrown out as trash.

In fact, the only way that it is credible for these photos to be fake is if one wishes to believe that the local police department faked them. If that is so then someone in the police department would have to have colaberated with the local photo processing lab, a special effects artist, an animal behaviorist and a person with a scentific knowledge of optics and eye reaction time.

I'm not saying that this conspiracy of police and others isn't possible, but just that it is unlikely. This is especially true if you look at what has taken place around these photos and the police department since they first were disclosed. In short, they have been surpressed. Even though the fact is that these photos are public domain, if asked the police department will flatly tell you that the pictures are not allowed to be licensed or used commercially. The originals are no longer allowed to be viewed or released for study.

Lets sit and think about this logically. If the police have been able to track the photos to the lab that developed them than it is more than likely true that any developer working such a machine would remember photos of a huge hairy creature being processed and who they belonged to. Even if this were not true than we can at least assume that the police used the serial number that all photo labs print on the back of photos now-a-days to trace the prints to the lab and date where they were developed. It wouldn't be too hard to go through the customer stubs that reflect the orders processed that day to track down the photographer. If they know who took these photos (which logic tells us they should), the police have not released the name of that person or the location of the sighting for further investigation. It appears that the police in this resort area of Florida just really want this whole thing to go away.

An elaborate conspiracy to create photos, only then to turn around and surpress such a profitable commodity, seems unlikely. It is far more likely that an escaped animal is loose, or that an unidentified animal lives in the woodlands of Florida.

I'm skeptical about Bigfoot, but the Skunk Ape photos were very intriguing. I never saw any abnormalities that would suggest tampering.

it was in a cave? you tried to video it in the depths of a cave? you said you could only see its eyes? well then you must have used the light on the camcorder and that light would have been reflected from the rear of the animal's eyes and shown as red. In photography its called 'red-eye'

nice one...