Rich Jones 1932 Batlow Yowie image explained at last?

[paulmcleod67]

I've posted this on my main topic page but I feel its extremely important to the subject and needs as much input as possible...

Are there any image experts in the house? My skills are limited to pretty basic stuff and I had an epiphany concerning the infamous Batlow box brownie yowie image taken by Rich Jones in 1932. The image below is a first draught rough outline that might finally provide some insight not only on whats actually going on inthe picture but also provide some insight on their behavioral instincts.

I've been spouting my theory of human child abductions by female yowies that have have had a still birthed or had an infant mortality
and abducted human kids because of hormonal imbalance acting out their maternal instincts. I strongly feel this was the case and cause of poor little William Tyrell's vanishing. Yowie Hunters has a video interview with a young blond lad from the region who openly discusses regular close proximity to him of a yowie he assumes was a male (I'm not so sure). Then there is the plethora of reports dangerously close to the house he was taken from and also supported by Google Street view images of a large yowie on the property in the exact spot that William was last heard to be. If I'm correct about the Batlow image it would provide great insight on the subject.

What I need is a much higher quality source image or someone far more skilled than I to bring out the detail. Heck Ill even pay for the work if need be.

[paulmcleod67]

Here are a couple of attempts at the image...

[paulmcleod67]

If you haven't seen the incriminating Kenall images or any of the s#@t load of supporting evidence for my claim William was abducted by a female yowie...have a look and a read of this stuff...

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=3966&hilit=william ... =60#p40183

Eye opening

Thanks yall.

[Wolf]

I studied that image very closely.
IMO it is a great example of paredolia in play.

[Searcher]

I studied that image very closely.
IMO it is a great example of paredolia in play.

It’s a fascinating image, no doubt. Tend to agree with you, Wolf. Could be the best ever example of Yowie pareidolia. The head does look to me like part of a tree branch. The only other explanation is it’s a Yowie spirit. There is no way a real animal would not have been spotted when the photo was taken.

I don’t believe there’s much doubt that ghosts (of people and animals) on rare occasions have been captured in photos. If you accept that, then it’s not a huge leap of faith to accept this possibility.

If only the original negative could be studied, it would surely give a much clearer idea of the answer. What we are looking at is probably a multi generation copy. Same with the Patterson Gimlin 16 mm film. The Kodachrome original has disappeared and the duplicate is all there is to judge it with. Kodachrome is a high contrast stock designed for projection only, so any dupe will have even more contast, grain and overall lower quality. And that’s what we see there.

By the way, isn’t the cameraman’s name Reg Jones, not Rich Jones? The video story of this can be viewed here in the AYR Videos section. It’s 3rd on the top row.

[Shazzoir]

This photo has never made sense to me.

Is it part of a larger photo?

If not, why did the photographer not have the people sitting on the log in the centre of the photo??? If the photographer didn't see the hulking figure at the time of taking it... why did they pan the camera left to include it????

I can't help think it's a fake, set up with space on the left hand side of the photo of the people, for either manipulating the image to include the hulking figure later on, or because they SAW the hulking figure there, yet were not terrified. It makes no sense that the people didn't see it either as they don't look the tiniest bit apprehensive.

Always the possibility it was a sculpture of sorts, and the photo was taken specifically to show it with the people in the photograph.

Shazz

[thehairyone]

I have had the same thoughts Shaz , the photographer was either a crappy one or to me the guys were placed purposely
on the right for a reason, mmmmm , and im sorry Paul I cannot see an infant being held to the " chest"

Cheers Greg

[Rastus]

Hi all, I dont post on here much , but still continue to check the forums out every few weeks, but I thought I had to make comment on this post. This may very well be a original non hoax photo in regards to the fact it was probably not tampered with intentionally. However, I would say it is of either 1 or 2 things or a combination thereof.

1: Pareidolia, and
2: Double exposure of the film.

The fact that the human subjects are sitting in similar positions as the apparently unseen Yowie leads me to believe that the photographer has been capturing images of the men working and resting around the campsite and the yowie image is nothing more than another similar exposure that has been layered with another exposure (double exposure). It was more than likely unintentional but double exposures on film cameras were a common occurence on cameras of that vintage.

Im almost certain that the double exposure plus a case of paridolia (paredolia in the case that we see a giant man shaped being sitting on a log) leads us to see something that isnt quite correct.

Im fairly well vested financially and timewise into wildlife photography and spend many many hours in the field but I am so glad we have digital as I can shoot a couple of thousand pics a day at times but one thing I dont have to worry about anymore is double exposure on film. I still manage to fluff a lot of shots for other reasons though .

i dont think we will ever know the truth of the photo though and there really is no way to be 100% sure so technically it is possible there was something there that day in 1932, who knows.

[MW83]

If only the original negative could be studied, it would surely give a much clearer idea of the answer. What we are looking at is probably a multi generation copy. Same with the Patterson Gimlin 16 mm film. The Kodachrome original has disappeared and the duplicate is all there is to judge it with. Kodachrome is a high contrast stock designed for projection only, so any dupe will have even more contast, grain and overall lower quality. And that’s what we see there.

If you follow MK Davis' channel on youtube or follow him on facebook, he had and probably still has access to the original Patterson footage. The kodachrome original has not disappeared. All his analysis on youtube/FB have such a high resolution and provide such detail because of the fact that he was/is able to work from a very close reproduction of the original.

[Searcher]

If only the original negative could be studied, it would surely give a much clearer idea of the answer. What we are looking at is probably a multi generation copy. Same with the Patterson Gimlin 16 mm film. The Kodachrome original has disappeared and the duplicate is all there is to judge it with. Kodachrome is a high contrast stock designed for projection only, so any dupe will have even more contast, grain and overall lower quality. And that’s what we see there.

If you follow MK Davis' channel on youtube or follow him on facebook, he had and probably still has access to the original Patterson footage. The kodachrome original has not disappeared. All his analysis on youtube/FB have such a high resolution and provide such detail because of the fact that he was/is able to work from a very close reproduction of the original.

Sorry MW83, I clearly remember reading that the PG original Kodachrome film can no longer be found. I'd love to be proven wrong on that one!

Working from a close reproduction (16mm dupe) is not the same as working from the original. There is a big difference for the reasons given above. I have a lot of experience with film stock and it's variations as I ran my own film production company for many years.

[Searcher]

G'day again MW83. Here's what I was referring to... see screen grab below.

The full article can be seen at: https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi ... _final.pdf

It may be a bit technical, but nevertheless an absorbing read.

As said a number of times before on this forum, I have in my possession a K-100 16mm movie camera, the very same one that was used to shoot the the PG footage. So I know the capabilities of these cameras first hand.

Lost PG film.png

[ChrisV]

I'm going to go against the general opinion and say that I believe there is something going on here that requires further consideration.

The camera : Being a box brownie circa 1930's, this camera has no zoom abilities. The pics made by these type of cameras are essentially a general overview type photo with a point of focus. Chances are the original pic was not cropped or zoomed in like this sample pic shows. One would assume ( using that word loosely ) that this image is part of a larger photo. This opens up the possibility that the pic may have been taken further back from the men and the cropped section suggests they were closer?

The Extraordinary : this tv show first aired this story back in the late 80's - maybe early 90's. there is no record of it being aired earlier . This show hosted the original photographer and interviewed him on his recollections of that day. After watching this one would deem him a fairly reliable witness even if he did not actually see the subject but his camera did. After watching it a few times and his approach he certainly came across shocked by the subject in the pic. This gentleman was older and now possibly deceased so one would have to wonder what his motives were at hoaxing something so late in life?

Double Exposure : Does a double exposure effect just one portion of the photo? Is'nt it normally the entire negative that is affected?

The actual creature in the image : This is the part that really makes you wonder. If you recall all the encounters of Yowies by eye witnesses over the years there are some common factors that apply to nearly every sighting. No neck, massive arms, barrel chest, small head in proportion, hair covered . incredibly tall etc
This figure displays all these characteristics. If it was just one or two I would dismiss it but this is not the case. Paredolia plays a trick on the eyes to make something out of nothing but I think its safe to say that if you glance at this image quickly you can surely see a figure with all these features.

To be fair - I have tried to 'unsee' this image. I've tried to look at it like its a trick of the light, foilage etc but I just can not get past the fact that its an enormous creature sitting right in front of the camera...almost mockingly! The muscle tone is there, the shoulders, legs, the head plonked on the shoulders....arms resting on the legs etc...

The question is ; If its real, why did'nt the photographer see it? Well there seems to be many reports of Yowies almost disappearing into their surroundings. Although the picture captured the subject, could it be the men did not see it? Black and white vs colour could be difference. The creature is in shadow - were the trees behind a similar colour or in shadow?

I'm not suggesting these are the answers and I am 100% correct but I think there is more to the pic than just dismissing it as paredolia.

[ChrisV]

Here is a basic look at the image - just highlighted the creature in a tan brown colour for some definition.

[Austral]

ChrisV, you just wrote everything i was thinking. I also saw the original tv show that featured the old bloke who shot the image and there 's no way he was making a hoax.
Saying that, im not really on the yowie cloaking boat so buggered if i know whats going on.

[Wolf]

1, Double exposure can affect only part of the film.

2, Nobody said the photographer was hoaxing anything.

3, You can see the leaves on the background shrubbery THROUGH the 'Yowie'.

4, The 'head' does not work (part of the image not creating an 'entire' image is common in paredolia),

... Conclusion: Very high probability of Paredolia.

[Searcher]

Austral wrote:
"...so buggered if i know whats going on."
Just like all of us, mate!

Chris V, good summation, yet still virtually impossible to form conclusions. You ask "If its real, why didn't the photographer see it?"
Perhaps a ghost can be 'real'. Apart from pareidolia, it's the only alternative I can come up with as the image appears transparent. No way was it actually sitting there in real life when old Reg took the photo. They surely would have seen something of that gigantic size! And I'd be guessing the image we are looking at has been heavily cropped to completely change the framing of the picture.

Wolf wrote: "Nobody said the photographer was hoaxing anything" Shaz said she "can't help but think it's a fake." Same thing.

At this point I'm stuck 60-40 in favour of pareidolia over the supernatural.

[Austral]

1, Double exposure can affect only part of the film.

2, Nobody said the photographer was hoaxing anything.

3. You can see the leaves on the background shrubbery THROUGH the 'Yowie'.

4, The 'head' does not work (part of the image not creating an 'entire' image is common in paredolia),

... Conclusion: Very high probability of Paredolia.

I said there's no way he was hoaxing because , thats what i think !

[Shazzoir]

The creature is in shadow - were the trees behind a similar colour or in shadow?

I'm not so sure the gigure is in shadow, Chris - look at the light reflecting off the upper parts of the mystery figure, and the people sitting, so I'm going to suggest this photo was taken close to midday, as the sunlight is seemingly coming from straight above.... something that couldn't happen if the figure was in the shade/shadow...

Shazz

[Yowie bait]

Much like Chris, i cant " unsee" the figure either.

[ChrisV]

All opinions being equal, I'm standing by my points as I think there is enough there to dismiss a trick of the the light or double exposure.

Remember :

The proportions of the alleged Yowie is NOT that of a standard human. If it was a double exposure the dimensions of the arms, torso and head would be much more human like and not so exaggerated . In saying that, the proportions of this creature fit EXACTLY the proportions of many documented reports over a 200 year period. Huge chest, no neck, small head, big/long arms etc.

The ' see thru' aspect is also a point of conflict. Yes the creature 'seems' see thru but is it? The leaf pattern on the chest does resemble the background but it could quite possible be matted hair also? There is no definitive conclusion saying that the pattern on the chest and arms is the same as the leaf foilage in the background. Just think for a moment " Could that be hair? " I think it could be.

[MW83]

Sorry MW83, I clearly remember reading that the PG original Kodachrome film can no longer be found. I'd love to be proven wrong on that one!

Hi Searcher, I can't remember where I read it or perhaps MK davis mentioned it on a podcast (thus harder to track down where he said it) but here's a clip of Bill Munns (costume expert guy) with the original Kodachrome film:

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs[/media]

[Searcher]

Thanks MW83. Interesting... as the article I quoted from is written by Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum! So there's quite a contradiction there.

I have just seen your interesting post in the " Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?" thread and I think that's where we should be with this.

Don't wan't to stray too far off-topic from the discussion about old Reg and his controversial 1932 Kodak Box Brownie photo.

[Rusty2]

It's a double exposure or something similar .
From what I can tell , when cameras became available to the general public it was fun to double expose film and see what you could come up with .
I was looking through my fathers photographs he took when he was a young man and there were ghosts in some of his shots .
The ghosts were double exposures on a tripod . One shot with a person under a bed sheet and one shot of the scene without anyone .

In the photo above , the guy on the right has half his head missing and the shadow of his head on his body looks like it's midday .
The guy towards the centre has a shadow right down the side of his body indicating it was taken at a different time .

The photograph has been tampered with which for me says your wasting your time debating a doctored image .

[Yowie bait]

Well the double exposure makes more sense than it being paeredoilia. That could mean that the other older examples of paeredoilia posted on this forum could be double exposures as well and probably are.

By the way, havent we been over this photo AND patty enough?

To stay on topic i will add that - no Paul I dont see a baby in its arms...

[Simon M]

My bet would be that this is a result of double-exposure, possibly by accident/mistake.

[inthedark]

My bet would be that this is a result of double-exposure, possibly by accident/mistake.

Agree. Photography was never an exact science, even less so in the 1930's with a Box Brownie. Developing was also somewhat hit and miss!

[inthedark]

It's a double exposure or something similar .
From what I can tell , when cameras became available to the general public it was fun to double expose film and see what you could come up with .
I was looking through my fathers photographs he took when he was a young man and there were ghosts in some of his shots .
The ghosts were double exposures on a tripod . One shot with a person under a bed sheet and one shot of the scene without anyone .

In the photo above , the guy on the right has half his head missing and the shadow of his head on his body looks like it's midday .
The guy towards the centre has a shadow right down the side of his body indicating it was taken at a different time .

The photograph has been tampered with which for me says your wasting your time debating a doctored image .

Good points. We used to dick around with film photos often. You could produce all manner of effects.

[Doorway]

It's a double exposure or something similar .
From what I can tell , when cameras became available to the general public it was fun to double expose film and see what you could come up with .
I was looking through my fathers photographs he took when he was a young man and there were ghosts in some of his shots .
The ghosts were double exposures on a tripod . One shot with a person under a bed sheet and one shot of the scene without anyone .

In the photo above , the guy on the right has half his head missing and the shadow of his head on his body looks like it's midday .
The guy towards the centre has a shadow right down the side of his body indicating it was taken at a different time .

The photograph has been tampered with which for me says your wasting your time debating a doctored image .

100% correct ...the shadows on the 2 mens necks do not match as they should .

[Austral]

O.K. Double exposure of what ???

[paulmcleod67]

Here is another sighting image from the Batlow area compared to the above image. There is quite a bit of physical similarity between the two. Same massive build, the same hair tuft, the same head shape (to my mind resembling a pigs).