Jump to content
Cotter

Monroe Monster

Recommended Posts

JiggyPotamus

Does the stick tepee look to be tied at the top to anyone else? I've never seen or heard of sasquatch doing anything like that. IF they make stick structures at all, they are just jammed somewhere to give them stability. It is just hard to tell in the photo. The next thing I noticed was the fact that if this is a sasquatch, it has to be in a tree, hanging off to one side. It is difficult to get the scale of the photo, or to know at what height the "head" would be, but you can see that if it had legs that reached to the ground then it would be a highly disproportionate animal...To say the least, lol.  And there is clearly not a hill or extremely elevated piece of terrain behind the tree, so the sasquatch, if that is what it is, would have to be in the tree.

 

If that is the case, it sure looks to have its feet firmly planted, in that its right arm is not helping to support its weight. So either it has its feet planted somewhere, or it is hanging by its left arm. The biggest thing that I notced is the fact that its head is way too small for its body. Let me explain. The leaves blocking the view of the arm can give the illusion that the arm is smaller than it is, but if you look more towards the elbow you can see how monstrous it is, and that the upper arm, the part obscured by the leaves, would have to be even larger. Now visualize that arm size and then look at the face/head. Does it not appear that the head is too small?

 

Not only that, but look at where the arm is positioned compared to the shoulders. Use Airdale's pics, as you can see a bit better. If you scrutinize the image you should be able to see the discrepancies in this area. There is a portion that appears disjointed, meaning it could not be an arm and shoulder. Focus on the neck area that can be seen through the branches, and then look at the arm and where the shoulder would be. Am I crazy or can anyone else see what I am referring to? If you also look closely you will see a very similar color behind and slightly above the shoulder area, which can only be background color.

 

If this is a sasquatch, it has a longer neck than a sasquatch should, and that is not ever considering the other problems that one sees when scrutinizing the proportions. Sasquatch have no real neck, and their shoulders and trap muscles are massive. Even the smaller ones, although a bit lankier, still do not have shoulders that look like what I'm seeing in the image. Just to be clear, we are talking about the thing that appears to be in the tree right? I don't know what it is exactly, but I do not think it is a sasquatch. Images like this, when there is not a whole lot to go on, need someone to have actually witnessed the animal moving, and therefore knows what that the picture was taken of a living animal, and not something like a stump that could appear to be a living animal. Was this person a witness to the supposed bigfoot? Did he not notice the "bigfoot" until after he left the scene? I have numerous questions, but that still does not change what I'm seeing in the image. And what I'm seeing suggests that either the person knew it wasn't a sasquatch, or they only looked at the image later and thought that it was unusual, and therefore did no investigation at the scene. The one way to settle this is to go back to the location. Surely the photographer knows the location, and as long as the sasquatch was not an illusion of the sun shining through the trees or something variable like that, we could probably get a good idea as to what is going on here. But maybe I'm wrong. It would be the first time ever though. Totally kidding, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hello Jiggy Potamus -  Such a long debriefing ... To my knowledge the stick structure was not tied in any fashion without any I noticed. The photo was taken with a cheap 7 pixel Cannon.

 

The photo you see above really doesn't do it a whole of justice but you can see, in my opinion, a clearer version close up by following the link provided by Cotter.  

 

Follow the steps below and check it out, and see if you can see anything interesting. Remember that was not a new high quality camera but there is one snapshot of that thing enhanced as much as allowed with standard software. The close-up to me, looks like a pink faced half human - planet of the apes looking face. I was listening to Will Jvening (Sasquatch Chronicles Blog-Talk Radio episode 57) who was just describing type 4 Sasquatch as he understands it, and it sure fits the bill.

 

If you should make an effort to go to that site and see for yourself, a second something of the same color was mentioned in the leaves of a tree directly to the right of the tree hugger. As you look at the photo follow a straight from its head to right of the perpendicular tree and that is where it was mentioned. An old 16 or 17 inch single print was also located a short distance away from where the photo was snapped.   

 

Monroe Talks.com

 

Monroe History

 

Monroe Monster (Is Bigfoot Still Lurking) p.21

Edited by Gumshoeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I guess that happens with cheap cameras

 

Huh? Even a cheap camera will work to take comparative photos. All it takes is going back to the same spot and pushing the shutter button.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

It's stump squatch.  Unless there are several light-red haired, odd shaped BF's just standing there in different areas (like higher up in the same tree).  Comparative pics would really be a good thing here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Gumshoeye,

The photos that I posted above were enlargements from the photo that Cotter linked to in the original thread. As I stated in my post, they were processed using PhotoZoom Classic 5, software that is designed solely for producing decent enlargements from portions of larger photos using proprietary algorithms. I then applied an unsharp mask (the counter-intuitive name used in photo editing software for the tool used to sharpen digital images) using Serif PhotoPlus X7, the latest version of my favorite photo editing program. The photo on the left below is an enlarged detail of the original photo with no enhancements. The photo on the right is the same detail from the enhanced enlargement of the original photo used in my earlier post.

 

Despite the attempt at humor in my first post, this is a subject I take very seriously as I have had my own encounter. That said, I simply do not see a cryptid of any stripe in that image. I could charitably describe the subject of interest as a human based on body proportions and what might pass for styled hair,  but I wouldn’t put money on it. IMNTBHO, the detail evident even with enhancements is insufficient to make a reasonable supposition regarding the image.

 

post-22377-0-91213300-1414301882_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hello Airdale - No problem at all, you still get an A for effort. To be quite honest, I don't know what it is either but it doesn't look right. It looks neither human or ape such as the type 1 similar to the Patterson film. I am familiar with William Jevning and others who speak quite often of the possibility of there being at least four distinct types. The last being vastly different from the heavy primate appearance often depicted in the Patterson film. Taking what is about the four types, the last group type they describe as very human like in appearance. One example I recall him offering was the type 4 creature will have less hair on the face making the facial appearance and obvious feature more visible.

 

I have read lots and lots of reports from across the country well before this photo paying particular attention to physical descriptions such as the number of toes, hair colors, eye colors, heights and then the reporting persons personal descriptions. Interesting enough though, not all parties reporting their encounters apparently see or describe the same thing.  I've read daytime sightings of people black, brown, red, yellow and blue and green eyes as well. Some of those reporting daylight encounters report black hairy faces while others see hairless faces and so on.

 

What really puzzles me are those reports of fair skinned, blue eyed or green eyed very Caucasian-like features and human-like qualities people are reporting ... How can that possibly be I wonder to myself.

 

I remember the paper I read of the Janice Carter Coy story of habituation down in Tennessee and something that stayed with me ever since. She suggested a sexual attack occurred sometime years previous to her writings that occurred down there. The victim was apparently a young teenaged female, and while I don't want to get into all the sordid details, suffice it to say there was allegedly a pregnancy resulting of that incident. The girl never recovered from her emotional trauma and was again, allegedly sent away and never heard of again. Whether it did or didn't I cannot say, I wasn't there. But further reading this time in D. Paulides books I thought I seen one case in particular where it implied "allegedly" a female found deceased had died surrounding very suspicious and that were indicators of possible sexual attack .... Again I want to be careful and not read something into that wasn't there.

 

Anyways I am going far afield from where I intended in saying this, if that is possible and that sort of things has occurred, does occur is that not a plausible explanation for these type 4 beings if they do in fact exist? We know that many, many people have gone missing and have been before, the majority seem to be children although a fair share of them are female. How else does one consider reports of fair skinned hairless face human-like beings?  Just wondering ...

 

As far as the Serif Photo Plus software goes, what platform are you using? Are the cost reasonable?        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

In the photo in post 1, I see a bear, probably a yearling or 2 year old, clinging to the far side of the tree. The reddish brown object to the left of the tree is the right rear leg, and the head with left ear visible is peering around the right side of the tree, slightly above the object on the left side. If there is another "Chewbacca" figure lurking in the foliage (I don't see it), that would be the mother bear, keeping an eye on junior. I've seen this scenario a half dozen times, in 50 years of woods prowling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hello BC Witness - Yeah okay .... thanks for the input. The photo posted here doesn't do it much, you really need to see from the original source at MONROE TALKS.COM .

 

From Monroe Talks.com go to Monroe History then look for Monroe Monster Bigfoot Lurking page 21

 

Anyways there are no brown bears in Michigan, and may be a scant report here and there of black bears in upper lower Michigan but nothing like that in the lower counties. Certainly not browns bears anyways. So I take you have brown bears in your neck of the woods? I read somewhere that brown bears don't take kindly to black bears and destroy them where they can is that true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Gumshoeye, my focus in this thread is only on the photo and what might be extracted from it. The photo linked from the original post that I've been working with is the photo from the Monroe Talks website. It is 1024 x 768 pixels resolution with a total file size of 1.73 MB. I'm the volunteer photo/media archivist and graphics specialist at the Montana Military Museum located at Fort Harrison, Montana, just west of Helena. Most of my work for the museum is actually done in my home office, and I use a Dell XPS 7800 with an Intel i7 processor, 12 GB ram and a 2 TB hard drive with Seagate 3 TB backup running 64 bit Windows 7. I use Serif PhotoPlus because I've used Serif PagePlus DTP software for about 25 years, as well as their MoviePlus, DrawPlus and WebPlus programs as they share a similar interface making for a shorter learning curve. Serif has free basic versions of their software available on their website, Serif.com, which is a good way to try them out. From a price perspective it is hard to beat GIMP which I also use, a free open source image program with a wide range of powerful features.

 

I'm interested in most all aspects of the subject and have both of Will Jevenning's books and follow Bigfoot Hotspot Radio where he is one of the hosts. He is working on a new book which hopefully will explore the four types in more detail. Black Bear is simply the common name for Ursus americanus and is not necessarily representative of the color of individuals of the species. There are a number of sub-species described in more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear.

 

BC Witness, can you copy the photo and highlight the areas referenced in your description? Not sure I'm following which parts are where.

Edited by Airdale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

@ Gumshoeye

 

I wasn't impying that I saw a Brown (Grizzly) bear, only a Cinnamon or red colour phase "black" bear, they're very common here, I shot one just 3 weeks ago. I did look at the referenced website; the picture there is no sharper on my screen than the one in post #1.

 

 

@ Airdale

 

I don't have your expertize with manipulating photos, so I have no idea how to do what you've asked. I'll try to be more precise in describing what I see in this picture:

 

Looking at the leftmost of the large trees, in the upper left corner of the frame, there is an object protruding to the left of the trunk, blond/reddish in colour. To the right of that same trunk, a few feet higher up, there is an object protruding to the right of the trunk, in shadow, so it appears very dark brown or black in colour.

 

I see those objects as the right hind leg of a climbing bear on the left of the trunk, and the head, with the tip of the rounded ear visible at the rightmost upper edge, and part of the neck and left front shoulder forming the object to the right of the trunk. The bulk of the bear's body is hidden behind the tree trunk. The area that someone above described as a face, I see as the skin of the inner thigh of the bear's right leg. That area is nearly hairless on a bear's hide, and on cinamomn coloured bears, a light tan in colour, which matches this picture perfectly.

post-23759-0-40235800-1414370423_thumb.j

post-23759-0-39603200-1414371595_thumb.j

Edited by BC witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BC Witness - Hello again and thanks for your reply.... No I think there were some misunderstanding somewhere, it happens when we communicate through computer from time to time. I am in lower Michigan, and I have never had the opportunity to see a brown colored black bear. It doesn't mean they don't exist in these parts, I do not recall the last a bear was sighted this far south in the state and quite frankly, never heard anyone speak of a light brown in these parts either. Those are very good photos, are they recent?  


Hello Airdale - By the sounds of it, you and I are using very similar platforms. I have a 1TB Seagate external backup drive, and I was considering a larger one for this computer but I'm in no rush. Right now that is sufficient. I could see a larger external drive for avid photo use and saving large files like that.

 

I am familiar with Urus Americanus but as I mentioned previously with BC Witness, I have never seen a black bear this far south in the state and have never heard of any recent sightings. Large cats yes, wolves yes but never a black bear or brown bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

 Those are very good photos, are they recent?  

 

Yes, those were taken on a hunting trip with an old buddy 3 weeks ago, on a pine forested plateau about 2 hours drive NE of me. The area has Mule deer, Whitetail deer, moose, bear (obviously), and wild horses. The trout fishing is very good in the areas many lakes, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

BC Witness, I see what you're referring to now. I think the shadowed area on the right is a continuation of the shadowed area behind the subject and may be part of a another tree behind the tree we're looking at, but I could be totally off base. The coloration of the subject is certainly a good match for a cinnamon black bear. I've never been to Michigan and am not familiar with the local fauna. Nice shots from your hunting trip.

 

Gumshoeye, I think we're on the same page now with bear species vs. coloration. I currently have over 20,000 personal photos on my computer, mostly made over the last eleven years since I made the switch to digital but some scanned from slides, prints and negatives dating back to the mid sixties when I first became seriously interested in photography. I'm working on digitizing the museum collection and will be for many years to come as we have photos dating back to the mid 1880s. A lot of my time for the museum is spent cleaning up scanned images for display, as many of the photos have not had the best care over the years. Keeps me out of trouble! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...