Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

The Oldest Bigfoot Photo.

96 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
On 11/22/2018 at 3:01 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Forestry-Hudsonbay Co.

@Kenemet  Like this obviously wrong terminology? :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Kenemet   "So photography was reasonably good and clear - the "authentic photo" looks like a badly photomanipulated setup.  And whoever said that the writing and language on the back appeared to be wrong is correct... the writing (with parenthetical comments) is 20th/21st century English. "

"Photomanipulated". Can you clear this up? Are you suggesting that modern day people used CGI to alter the original or are you saying that the photo was altered "back in the day"?

The only problem I have the actual photo is that there is no "man" in the photo that the writer refers to. So, maybe the photo has been altered?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
10 hours ago, Kenemet said:

And they're not as bad as this one.  Here's what real photography of the era looked like:

thomson-ashcroft-1890s.jpg?w=640&quality

3-0439.jpg

3-0439.jpg

And this one of the Kwakiutal tribe in the 1890's

471afe7521c1322206fb0ca85114de96--dance-parties-first-nations.jpg

So photography was reasonably good and clear - the "authentic photo" looks like a badly photomanipulated setup.  And whoever said that the writing and language on the back appeared to be wrong is correct... the writing (with parenthetical comments) is 20th/21st century English.

What you’re not taking into consideration is that the subject photo is taken in the snow. All that bright white snow will tend to wash out a picture especially if it was done with the exposure time similar to what would be used in the beautiful photographs you posted as examples.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
33 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What you’re not taking into consideration is that the subject photo is taken in the snow. All that bright white snow will tend to wash out a picture especially if it was done with the exposure time similar to what would be used in the beautiful photographs you posted as examples.

These plates would have been taken by a professional (cameras were too expensive to put in the hands of amateurs, and photographers had to develop their own plates (not easily done... you had to basically carry a photography lab around with you.)  The photographer would know how to compensate in the darkroom.

...which brings up another question... the darkrooms were so bulky that traveling photographers used special wagons.  Who takes a wagon like that on a fur trapping expedition?  And who does the plates when the conditions would freeze the solution solid?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Kenemet   "So photography was reasonably good and clear - the "authentic photo" looks like a badly photomanipulated setup.  And whoever said that the writing and language on the back appeared to be wrong is correct... the writing (with parenthetical comments) is 20th/21st century English. "

"Photomanipulated". Can you clear this up? Are you suggesting that modern day people used CGI to alter the original or are you saying that the photo was altered "back in the day"?

The only problem I have the actual photo is that there is no "man" in the photo that the writer refers to. So, maybe the photo has been altered?!?

I'm saying that the photo might even be one that's taken within the past 20 years and adjusted in Photoshop.  Like this valuable old photo of bigfoot on a stroll through the snow that I created 5 minutes ago using a grabbed photo of snow and a costume from Amazon.com

yeti.jpg.10751a56a8c2435ca61f4f9af8837296.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
4 hours ago, Piney said:

@Kenemet  Like this obviously wrong terminology? :lol:

That, too.  And "BC" as a name.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
20 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

These plates would have been taken by a professional (cameras were too expensive to put in the hands of amateurs, and photographers had to develop their own plates (not easily done... you had to basically carry a photography lab around with you.)  The photographer would know how to compensate in the darkroom.

...which brings up another question... the darkrooms were so bulky that traveling photographers used special wagons.  Who takes a wagon like that on a fur trapping expedition?  And who does the plates when the conditions would freeze the solution solid?

As discussed earlier at that time of year the most likely person to have a camera out there would be a company surveyor who at that time of year would have been making ends meet as a trapper and living in a cabin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Quote

the writing (with parenthetical comments) is 20th/21st century English. "

Have you ever read Last of the Mohicans?  Unlike most novels of the era (early 19th century), Cooper wrote that novel the way average people spoke which was in pretty much plain English like we speak today.  Also I don't know that there is enough language on that photo to make the determination that someone made with the above comment.

Please understand that I'm not trying to say that there is an actual dead Sasquatch in the photo in question, but a lot of the arguments against are as easily dismissed as the arguments for in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Have you ever read Last of the Mohicans?  Unlike most novels of the era (early 19th century), Cooper wrote that novel the way average people spoke which was in pretty much plain English like we speak today.  Also I don't know that there is enough language on that photo to make the determination that someone made with the above comment.

Please understand that I'm not trying to say that there is an actual dead Sasquatch in the photo in question, but a lot of the arguments against are as easily dismissed as the arguments for in my opinion.

Yes, I have read Last of the Mohicans and a number of other novels of the time, as well as documents from my ancestors written at roughly the same time.   You may not be able to detect the language changes, but they're there.   I realize that individual quirks mean that not everyone writes or speaks the same, but there are some cultural preferences... and interestingly enough, there's some writing style differences depending on level of education.

The fact that the letters are printed and rather crudely rather than written in cursive (the standard way of writing) strongly suggests it's modern. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov
45 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

These plates would have been taken by a professional (cameras were too expensive to put in the hands of amateurs, and photographers had to develop their own plates (not easily done... you had to basically carry a photography lab around with you.)  The photographer would know how to compensate in the darkroom.

...which brings up another question... the darkrooms were so bulky that traveling photographers used special wagons.  Who takes a wagon like that on a fur trapping expedition?  And who does the plates when the conditions would freeze the solution solid?

Apparently after reading a bit on the development process there is a dry method involving increased exposure time. I suppose that could account for some of the poor quality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodion_process

 

As to a photographer being out there it would not be the first time some bean counter screwed up someone's day (winter) by sending them out to the field. Just sayin.

I still think its an old photo that was repurposed. The caption has a lot of ambiguity and a large amount of text that basically tells us very little. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

I'm saying that the photo might even be one that's taken within the past 20 years and adjusted in Photoshop.  Like this valuable old photo of bigfoot on a stroll through the snow that I created 5 minutes ago using a grabbed photo of snow and a costume from Amazon.com

yeti.jpg.10751a56a8c2435ca61f4f9af8837296.jpg

Ok, thanks. Now I see where you come from. And I do agree with your general thrust in another post about the difficulties of photography at that time.

Which all means, the only way we can be sure the photo is real is to hold it in hand. And that's not about to happen in here or the internet in general.

If that photo is fake, all I can say is, you did a better job of showing something that resembled a bigfoot than what the faker did LOL

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

Try going at this from another angle. What's the provenance of the OP's photo? From what I can tell, it was allegedly sent from Lyle Billett of Victoria Canada to Tom Biscardi, but we don't know when that happened. Childress says it appears in the updated (2005) version of the Bord's 1982 book Bigfoot Casebook http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/PDFs/HatcherArticle.pdf.

Sources suggest Biscardi had it before the 2005 edition of the book, which was before Cryptomundo posted it (2006, according to the above link).

Billett seems to have died, so no one can ask him directly, and I can't find anything about him that suggests any involvement other than what has been posted online (of which most sites seem to borrow from one another). For instance, how did Billett come to have it? It's doubtful Billett took the photo (if it's actually from 1894), so who gave it to him? What's the chain of possession?

Finally, we know Biscardi has defrauded people about Bigfoot in the past, so that subtracts from its credibility as an authentic photo.

The bottom line is we know the photo existed in 2005; probably earlier, but without more information, we can't tell how authentic it is, much less what the "creature" in the photo is.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
5 hours ago, Leo Krupe said:

Try going at this from another angle. What's the provenance of the OP's photo? From what I can tell, it was allegedly sent from Lyle Billett of Victoria Canada to Tom Biscardi, but we don't know when that happened. Childress says it appears in the updated (2005) version of the Bord's 1982 book Bigfoot Casebook http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/PDFs/HatcherArticle.pdf.

Sources suggest Biscardi had it before the 2005 edition of the book, which was before Cryptomundo posted it (2006, according to the above link).

Billett seems to have died, so no one can ask him directly, and I can't find anything about him that suggests any involvement other than what has been posted online (of which most sites seem to borrow from one another). For instance, how did Billett come to have it? It's doubtful Billett took the photo (if it's actually from 1894), so who gave it to him? What's the chain of possession?

Finally, we know Biscardi has defrauded people about Bigfoot in the past, so that subtracts from its credibility as an authentic photo.

The bottom line is we know the photo existed in 2005; probably earlier, but without more information, we can't tell how authentic it is, much less what the "creature" in the photo is.

Exactly. Even if this was a photo of a known species, or anything at all, it'd be almost useless for these reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

pssst...  Kenemet did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

pssst...  Kenemet did it!

Hey!  I saw that!!!!

 

 

(grin)

In any case, I think that what's shown is a bear skin.  If you look at the paws and legs (which are flattened oddly), those are definitely part of a bear but a bear's joint aren't placed where the "bends" in the fur are.  They may have put a mask on the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Kenemet  of course, that's if the photo is real. but it supports that they called the company photographer into the mix, and that sounds a little dubious. they could get in big trouble for the hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
17 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Kenemet  of course, that's if the photo is real. but it supports that they called the company photographer into the mix, and that sounds a little dubious. they could get in big trouble for the hoax.

The idea of a skin seems plausible to me. I was trying to make sense of the shape of the thing--the arms end before the hips--if it were a hominid, the arms would reach below the pelvis, almost to the knees. If it's a skin, it could be stretched and shaped to a different shape. Although I don't understand why they'd put a mask on the thing.

Earl.Of.Trumps: Why would they get in big trouble for a hoax? Who would punish them? Why is it dubious about the photographer?

As for other posts concerning the camera, there were Kodak cameras available in the 1890s. The only thing we have to go on is the writing on the back saying it was made by glass plate. But we don't know who wrote that, or when. In the absence of complete information, why believe it? (Of course, there's no reason to disbelieve it, it's just wise to suspend judgement until we have more info--f'rinstance, the story is "some trappers"--we don't know who was involved.)

It's an interesting story, and speculation and discussion are fun, but we can't get carried away. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
19 minutes ago, Leo Krupe said:

 

Earl.Of.Trumps: Why would they get in big trouble for a hoax? Who would punish them? Why is it dubious about the photographer?

 

Leo, we have to stop meeting like this :D But I digress.

Follow the thread and you'll see how difficult it is just to take the picture, let alone develop it. One poster claims that the camera and chemicals must be taken to the scene of the photo shoot and those chemicals might freeze, or, the photographer (surely professional) takes measures to prevent that. Also, I believe that the pro photographer worked for the company because this and other photos were in possession of HudsonBay co., and because there were no such photography hobbyists in those days.

Putting it together, I see these alleged hoaxers as calling in the company photographer from who knows how far away, in what clearly is an arduous effort for the photographer, when said company photographer could out them to the company. Very risky business.

In the end, I'm not sure I can buy a professional photographer wasting the photo shoot on a hoax. Maybe... but I doubt it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
49 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Leo, we have to stop meeting like this :D But I digress.

Follow the thread and you'll see how difficult it is just to take the picture, let alone develop it. One poster claims that the camera and chemicals must be taken to the scene of the photo shoot and those chemicals might freeze, or, the photographer (surely professional) takes measures to prevent that. Also, I believe that the pro photographer worked for the company because this and other photos were in possession of HudsonBay co., and because there were no such photography hobbyists in those days.

Putting it together, I see these alleged hoaxers as calling in the company photographer from who knows how far away, in what clearly is an arduous effort for the photographer, when said company photographer could out them to the company. Very risky business.

In the end, I'm not sure I can buy a professional photographer wasting the photo shoot on a hoax. Maybe... but I doubt it.

This is where I think you're getting in trouble: IF the camera used was, say, a medium format camera that used a glass plate, then, yes, it would involve lugging the chemicals to the location in order to develop the image. However, I'm saying that we don't even know for certain when the photo was taken, nor do we know what type of camera was used. It's possible it was shot in 1894 using a much smaller camera. Look at these ads: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/photography-ads-1890s.

Now, I'm not saying the photo was shot with a Kodak, but it's possible, because portable photography existed in the 1890s. Just because someone wrote on the back of the image doesn't mean that the writing is accurate.

Plus, the photo was allegedly given to Tom Biscardi. That alone makes the whole thing suspicious in my mind. Of course, I'm willing to change my view depending on new information. I'm just not convinced based on the information we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Leo Krupe    Well, Leo, the fact that we don't feel we can depend on the date or anything written says a lot. And BTW, the writer emphasized "glass plate photography".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov

It looks like the fake was made with an old photocopier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.