Jump to content
SWWASAS

The picture in a box hypothesis

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

My family found this picture in an old box of pictures.    On the back was written May 1936.     It is obvously a bear.      We do not know where it was taken, who the people in the picture are, or what the deal was with the bear.   Suspect it is taken in someplace like Yosemite where bears are pretty tame.        Point of this is that just like this picture,   I would bet that there is some picture of a bigfoot someone has taken and stashed away in a box, forgotten in time because they did not want to be ridiculed at the time, or the did show someone who did not realize the importance of such a photo.     Matter of fact the picture is very small.   Likely a contact print from a box camera.    When I first looked at the picture I did not even see the bear.    Only when I took the picture up to a light and looked at it with a magnifying glass did I even notice the bear.   

BEAR 1936.jpg

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

While you might be right, I don't think people took wildlife photos back in those days unless, like this one, it showed some sort of interaction with the people.  It just wasn't the sort of thing the average household did because of the rarity of families owning a camera to begin with and the expense of getting film developed.  The camera was brought out when visitors came or you were on vacation.  That's also why people are posed for pictures from 'the olden days'. 

 

I don't think Americans approached photography anything like what we see today until the mid-1950s.  And in that case, there would likely be living relatives that would know about the sighting.  That's why I get my skepticals on when anyone claims 'found footage/photo'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, JustCurious said:

........The camera was brought out when visitors came or you were on vacation...........

 

Or, sometimes, after shooting a monster.

ADB2ED3E-D531-43F0-AF2C-AC326F9F75D0.jpeg

7A02D83C-77C1-4065-B7B1-485E27394812.jpeg

B7305B24-8FA4-403E-97A7-009DF1C1A3EF.jpeg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
12 hours ago, JustCurious said:

While you might be right, I don't think people took wildlife photos back in those days unless, like this one, it showed some sort of interaction with the people.  It just wasn't the sort of thing the average household did because of the rarity of families owning a camera to begin with and the expense of getting film developed.  The camera was brought out when visitors came or you were on vacation.  That's also why people are posed for pictures from 'the olden days'. 

 

I don't think Americans approached photography anything like what we see today until the mid-1950s.  And in that case, there would likely be living relatives that would know about the sighting.  That's why I get my skepticals on when anyone claims 'found footage/photo'.

In this case where living relatives do not know who the humans are in the photograph, who could possibly know the circumstances of the picture, without knowing them?        My father was the youngest child of his parents who had 14 kids that were born alive.   He lost three siblings in a few days during a typhoid epidemic in the early 1900s.      I had cousins older than my dad who I never knew because they were dead when I was born.    My father was in his 40s when I was born.    Families were very different then.  much different than today.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

Yeah, Huntster, I forgot about the requisite pictures of the hunts.  Strings of deer/fish etc. with the hunters posing with their spoils.  Even those aren't real common until later though.  In the scenario you show, I wonder if it wasn't the newspaper that took the picture.

 

SWWASAS, I'm guessing that the people in your picture are on vacation.  First is that they are dressed up and second that there are two vehicles shown.  I think you're right that it is at some park.  And like I said, people did take vacation pictures.  Of course individual circumstances are different, but I am speaking in generalities.  Most people would have heard the story about the crazy family member who thought they saw bigfoot especially if he/she took a picture if it happened since the mid-1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
On 4/1/2019 at 2:06 AM, JustCurious said:

Yeah, Huntster, I forgot about the requisite pictures of the hunts.  Strings of deer/fish etc. with the hunters posing with their spoils.  Even those aren't real common until later though.  In the scenario you show, I wonder if it wasn't the newspaper that took the picture.........

 

Those are all Alaskan bears in the field, 1952 or earlier, and most likely all Kodiak Island or the Alaska Peninsula. No newspaper within 500 miles or more. But on a dedicated (and expensive) hunt like that, it would not be unusual to bring a camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Those are all Alaskan bears in the field, 1952 or earlier, and most likely all Kodiak Island or the Alaska Peninsula. No newspaper within 500 miles or more. But on a dedicated (and expensive) hunt like that, it would not be unusual to bring a camera.

 

My dad's best friend from childhood moved to Alaska probably sometime in the late 50s/early 60s and became a hunting and fishing guide.  We have albums full of all the pictures he sent my dad, trying to get him to move up there and join him.  Almost worked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

The period between the end of WWII and the beginning if the pipeline construction were probably the best years Alaska ever saw. But it’s still a pretty great place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I would imagine that Alaskan guides would take wealthy hunters out pre-1950 on hunting expeditions.      Wealthy hunters would have cameras and have pictures taken even before that.             We even have photographs of Teddy Roosevelt on such expeditions around the turn of the century in 1900.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

^^^^ Yup. Pinnell & Talifson took kings, princes, etc on brown bear hunts on Kodiak even pre-WWII. After the war was when guided brown bear hunts really reached its zenith, though. Then and today such hunts are expensive. Today guided brown bear hunts start @ $20K in non-coastal, interior grizzly regions, and the Kodiak hunts probably go for @ $30K. Folks who can afford that, even in the old days, had the wealth to bring cameras. These days they're commonly recorded by friends who operate video cameras, and recordthe whole hunt.

 

Another common photography thing in old Alaska was for locals who shot pics near or at home, but home was the wilderness. I saw a pic (I'm going to try to get a copy!) of an old timer friend (now long gone) who shot an absolutely giant bear near his home near Talkeetna prior to or immediately after WWII. They hung it from the hay loft winch outside the barn, which was a good 18' high, and Andy stood next to it. It had to weigh a ton. Of course, being at home, a camera was handy, but it would never have been hauled around out in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

Hunster, your post, 3rd from top.  Last image is out of Cold bay on the Alaska Peninsula. Many people do not know that there are no trees on a large portion of the peninsula. No hiding places. A self guided  hunting trip is easy. Just go out away from Cold Bay and wait. They will find you. Brown Bears wander into King Cove but trophy hunters are not into shooting a bear in some ones back yard.

That 3rd image may show the hunter.  R C Reeves, aka Bob Reeves, pioneering Alaskan bush pilot, glacier pilot. He had brass nards. Bob Reeves was either the hunter or photographer.  I guess hunter because the hat may be his trademark rain hat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

.........That 3rd image may show the hunter.  R C Reeves, aka Bob Reeves, pioneering Alaskan bush pilot, glacier pilot. He had brass nards. Bob Reeves was either the hunter or photographer.  I guess hunter because the hat may be his trademark rain hat.

 

Brass 'nards........I guess. More than hunter or photographer, that guy was a flyer, and one blessed by God. He died with his feet on the ground, so to speak..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Awesome pictures. I am fascinated by the past and enjoy old photos . My grandmother had a newspaper that had the titanic sinking as the headlines. 

Never had any creature pictures ,but was adamant that her family saw one on their land in rural Florida .  It was before 1967 and her description was similar.

So,no doubt if the creature do exists then you could be on to something and old pictures could be in a box. Cool thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×