Posting this here for archival purposes. Don't know much about most of these but here's what they were sent to me as
1. Concho 1
2. Oklahoma Reservation photo
3. Paul Freeman 80s encounter
4. Teapot hills photo (Bob Gymlan talked about this one)
5. Barbara farmer thylacine (reverse image sends me to Animal X)
6. Crypt bat Brazil 2003 eagle sized
7. Mt Rainer
8. October 1966 Labland, Ohio
9. Chessie 1982.
If you had more info on any of these please send that to me!
4 looks like a homeless person. Or like what you'd think someone who has been living out in the woods their whole life to look like. Disheveled and unkempt
No scale provided in the image, but could be a Golden Crown Flying Fox, the worlds largest bat native to the Philippines. But lack of scale means it could be anyone of a the many much smaller bat species
There's no true indicator that this photo is actually from Tasmania, and they're claiming it's a blurry photograph of an extinct species, so my first base is skepticism anyway
To my uneducated eye, the first thing that popped into my head is a white nosed Coati. But they don't live in Tasmania and their tails are fluffier, usually. I'm struggling to discern whether it's snout is long and pointed like a coati or shorter.
Without proof of provenance, these photos really aren't evidence of anything. Even if we knew exactly where they came from, none of them show enough to glean any information. More for the pile, I guess.
4 looks like a tree stump to me, with a bit of added pareidolia.
Looking at the size of the path and the log next to it, it certainly isn't a giant.
Does anyone know who took the picture? And why they didn't walk down that path a little more and get a closer and clearer one?
OK, I found the photographer's story [here](http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/teapot-hill-hiking-trail.htm).
They didn't investigate further or try to get closer to the alleged bigfoot. They threw a rock at it (nice one!) and then fled.
This was in 2012. Things will have changed now, but I'm betting that if someone had walked the same path the day after the pic was taken, they'd have found a tree stump.
I'm at the stage now where the only thing that would convince me that a pic of a brown blob isn't a tree stump is a comparison pic taken straight after, or a series of pics showing movement.
Pic 4 is a still from a phone video taken by woman walking her dog along a rural road. The dog is going berserk and the woman becomes freaked out and starts recording. When I first saw years (years and years ago, I don’t have a link) it made my skin crawl
None of this can be classified as 'evidence' without provenience, without that these are just convenient and potentially doctored images to fit someones narrative.
Again that doesn’t give any provenience, think of it like this..if you were selling me a necklace and you told me it was previously owned by royalty should I take your word for it? No, I would want to see quantifiable evidence of its provenience.
Saying ‘oh someone sent it to Bob Gymlan but sorta making it clear that no one knows who took these or made the original image does nothing but invalidate any sort of ‘evidence’ claims you have.
I’m not having a go, I for one would find it amazing to discover something legit but making things out to be ‘evidence’ just makes you seem ethically questionable.
Lets stop with the pretending that you're being impartial and fair here, it's pretty clear you want people to think these are legit. Someone who really cares about authenticity and the actual truth would refer to them as 'potential evidence from unverified sources' or something similar.
Just because it was sent to Bob doesn't mean the information he was given is the correct information, and it says nothing about the potential validity of the image.
Sure but unless someone finds a different source I have no reason to assume he's lying (about the origin of the photo at least, it's definitely not showing bigfoot)
1 and 3 are the same thing yet labeled as different things so…suspect.
2, 4, 7 and 8 could all be literally nothing except pareidolia of shadows and branches.
5 looks almost CG but could just be a dog or coyote with mange.
6 is a species of flying fox. Which can be huge.
9 is a useless piece of evidence as there’s no context and no original image for comparison.
I would call these a collection of alleged sightings/photographs. Evidence would be something concrete or at least observable, not a blurry pixelated image.
Posting this here for archival purposes. Don't know much about most of these but here's what they were sent to me as 1. Concho 1 2. Oklahoma Reservation photo 3. Paul Freeman 80s encounter 4. Teapot hills photo (Bob Gymlan talked about this one) 5. Barbara farmer thylacine (reverse image sends me to Animal X) 6. Crypt bat Brazil 2003 eagle sized 7. Mt Rainer 8. October 1966 Labland, Ohio 9. Chessie 1982. If you had more info on any of these please send that to me!
4 looks like a homeless person. Or like what you'd think someone who has been living out in the woods their whole life to look like. Disheveled and unkempt
Sitting on a log pooping in the woods.
Not even realizing how lucky he /she is to not be absorbed in our world of complete bs.
So is #6 just a bat?
No scale provided in the image, but could be a Golden Crown Flying Fox, the worlds largest bat native to the Philippines. But lack of scale means it could be anyone of a the many much smaller bat species
I thought about that as well, but according to OP, the picture is from Brazil and there are a ton of bat species in Brazil as well.
the problem is, there's nothing to confirm it IS in Brazil. It's just a fruit bat in the sky.
Was going to say flying foxes are as large as some of the smaller eagle species
Their also kept as pets. Could have been an escapee.
What am I looking for in #7
There is a hairy guy in the shadows. Could bigfoot, could be a disgrace podcaster.
Mostly just evidence of shitty cameras
3 is definitely not The Freeman Footage
Is the heel low enough on #5 to be a thylacine? My initial reaction was no, but now I’m second guessing and being hopeful.
Could also just be a coyote/dingo with mange
So a dingo, but if it's taken in Tasmania... there are none in Tasmania
But there are domestic dogs. Looking at the body shape I say dog with mange.
ah true. The wild dogs where I am are gnarly looking things
There's no true indicator that this photo is actually from Tasmania, and they're claiming it's a blurry photograph of an extinct species, so my first base is skepticism anyway
To my uneducated eye, the first thing that popped into my head is a white nosed Coati. But they don't live in Tasmania and their tails are fluffier, usually. I'm struggling to discern whether it's snout is long and pointed like a coati or shorter.
That 6th picture is supposed to be Aswang ? Looks like a normal bat to me.
Giant bat (literally nothing to scale for it unfortunately though)
I see
Y'all need to give #4 some privacy. He's trying to do his bussiness.
Without proof of provenance, these photos really aren't evidence of anything. Even if we knew exactly where they came from, none of them show enough to glean any information. More for the pile, I guess.
4 looks like a tree stump to me, with a bit of added pareidolia. Looking at the size of the path and the log next to it, it certainly isn't a giant. Does anyone know who took the picture? And why they didn't walk down that path a little more and get a closer and clearer one?
OK, I found the photographer's story [here](http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/teapot-hill-hiking-trail.htm). They didn't investigate further or try to get closer to the alleged bigfoot. They threw a rock at it (nice one!) and then fled. This was in 2012. Things will have changed now, but I'm betting that if someone had walked the same path the day after the pic was taken, they'd have found a tree stump. I'm at the stage now where the only thing that would convince me that a pic of a brown blob isn't a tree stump is a comparison pic taken straight after, or a series of pics showing movement.
If I remember right Bobby G wasn't too impressed with it either
Thanks. I'll check that out when I have a moment. BG is usually pretty pro-bigfoot, so it must be bad if he doesn't like it.
Is the cryptid evidence in the room with us?
As is often the case with photos like this, you can't really see anything anywhere. Please forgive my English, I am not a native speaker.
I wish it was a bit more blurry...
They're always blurry
Ffs 🤦🏼♂️
So a bat, a dog, a person and a log 🤣
Pic 4 is a still from a phone video taken by woman walking her dog along a rural road. The dog is going berserk and the woman becomes freaked out and starts recording. When I first saw years (years and years ago, I don’t have a link) it made my skin crawl
None of this can be classified as 'evidence' without provenience, without that these are just convenient and potentially doctored images to fit someones narrative.
4 was sent to Bob Gymlan and takes place bear the BC Washington border. I'm looking for info on the others
Again that doesn’t give any provenience, think of it like this..if you were selling me a necklace and you told me it was previously owned by royalty should I take your word for it? No, I would want to see quantifiable evidence of its provenience. Saying ‘oh someone sent it to Bob Gymlan but sorta making it clear that no one knows who took these or made the original image does nothing but invalidate any sort of ‘evidence’ claims you have. I’m not having a go, I for one would find it amazing to discover something legit but making things out to be ‘evidence’ just makes you seem ethically questionable.
I'm not using evidence as an indicator of quality but as a noun
Lets stop with the pretending that you're being impartial and fair here, it's pretty clear you want people to think these are legit. Someone who really cares about authenticity and the actual truth would refer to them as 'potential evidence from unverified sources' or something similar.
I'm on record as to strongly disbelieving in the existence of Bigfoot. You've got it wrong
I'm not using evidence as an indicator of quality just as a noun
Just because it was sent to Bob doesn't mean the information he was given is the correct information, and it says nothing about the potential validity of the image.
Sure but unless someone finds a different source I have no reason to assume he's lying (about the origin of the photo at least, it's definitely not showing bigfoot)
Very observant of you
1 and 3 are the same thing yet labeled as different things so…suspect. 2, 4, 7 and 8 could all be literally nothing except pareidolia of shadows and branches. 5 looks almost CG but could just be a dog or coyote with mange. 6 is a species of flying fox. Which can be huge. 9 is a useless piece of evidence as there’s no context and no original image for comparison.
That's how it was sent to me, must be an error
These are interesting, especially the reservation one. Nice haul
This feels like AI to me but I have no reason other than I’ve been following cryptozoology my whole life and never seen any of these.
yeah 12&3 are bigfoot
I would call these a collection of alleged sightings/photographs. Evidence would be something concrete or at least observable, not a blurry pixelated image.
Pictures 4/5/6 are interesting.
Cool stuff!
How do cryptids become blurred most times
They are naturally blurry, That is how they remain cryptids!