• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Marley Woods Unknown Creature

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
There isn't enough information in those photographs for someone untrained in photographic analysis like myself to say anything other than what my impressions are. My impression is that it is a large cat of some sort. Where are the claims about the size and weight coming from?

I'm disappointed but not surprised. We just have another blurry "paranormal" picture that leaves much to the imagination.
 

Xylo

Paranormal Adept
Interesting photos and tracks.

My original thought about the animal was that it looked like a Mountain Goat that had been shorn and had no antlers/horns. A mountain goat would also explain the long white hairs. It wouldn't explain the tracks however. Do we know if the tracks are from that particular sighting and how soon afterwards the pictures of the tracks were taken?

After reading some of the replies though, the cougar hypothesis isn't a bad one. In fact it's probably the best non-paranormal hypothesis. Claw marks can be an indicator of a cat needing more traction, and in muddy soil that may or may not be the case.

With reference to the hairs on the fence: Would be interesting to know if any roots were present, DNA is fairly easy to collect from hair roots, or so I'm told.

Thank you Mr. Phillips and Ron for making these photos available.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
Ok, a couple of quick things.

1) I want to thank Ted Phillips for allowing us to post these images before creating the website and presenting them in that environment. I gave Ted the option of creating a site first or allowing these images to be shown on this forum. He enthusiastically chose to allow the images to be posted.

Also, I want to thank Chris O'Brien for the introduction to Ted. Without his efforts in this we would have had to wait. Thanks Chris!

2) Ted has been at the Marley Woods site since the interview on the Paracast. Just getting the images I will post below to us was difficult. This is not a place that has great connectivity(old computer with slow modem). Ted had to use a friends computer to do it. Honestly, he could have waited until he returned home but he wanted to make good on his promise as quickly as possible.

3) I have sent an email to Ted asking him if we can have the raw high resolution images upon his return home. I have every reason to suspect those will be forthcoming. I know the image quality is not fantastic, I will work to get a better copy and update this area ASAP.

4) Ted has eagerly accepted my offer to help him with a website and show him how to personally update it. This is going to take a bit of time but feel free to to ask me how it is coming. I will give an honest assessment of completion. Right now we are at 1% as Ted has given me some design direction and now the ball rests in my court.

5) Here is the big one. Please keep your comments confined to the images themselves. I have no problem with that. But, there have been a bunch of things posted lately that are clearly attacks on Ted personally. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Without further ado, I will start posting images.
A big thanks to Ron for posting the Ted Phillips photos. well done mate:). I appreciate your efforts and sure hope Mr Phillips does as well.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
The claims of size and weight came from Ted Phillips on the Paracast show. I listened again to be sure that I was being accurate.
===
Seriously guys! Where did enlargements 1 and 2 come from--am I just an idiot or do they seem to be from another photo?

Lance

It looks like the enlargements are from another photograph where the animal seems to be facing the other direction.

I really appreciate Ted releasing the photographs to this forum and I hate to sound so negative but for the life of me I don't see the significance of the photographs. The photo contains an indistinct image of something that looks like a large dog, mountain lion or other large cat at the edge of a forest and isn't that startling or remarkable. A shot with a 30.6 rather than a camera might have yielded more actionable information about the thing.
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
This is puzzling. Are there now 3 photos? It looks like Ron was working late last night on these. I am sure that he will be able to clear this up.

Lance
Looks all like the same pic to me but the one on the bottom is not zoomed in as much as the two in the middle. I think it's pretty clear that everyone is disappointed by it. The animal doesn't even look white (It could be but may not be. The image just doesn't make it clear) let alone like an abnormally large white dog. I can't even get any impression from the pic that the animal is any bigger than the average dog or cougar. I don't think anyone will be accusing him of outdoing the Patterson film in cryptozoological circles. The only abnormal thing about the pic to me is that the front legs look unusually thick. But that could just be a distortion from enlargement I suppose.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Looks all like the same pic to me but the one on the bottom is not zoomed in as much as the two in the middle. I think it's pretty clear that everyone is disappointed by it. The animal doesn't even look white (It could be but may not be. The image just doesn't make it clear) let alone like an abnormally large white dog. I can't even get any impression from the pic that the animal is any bigger than the average dog or cougar. I don't think anyone will be accusing him of outdoing the Patterson film in cryptozoological circles. The only abnormal thing about the pic to me is that the front legs look unusually thick. But that could just be a distortion from enlargement I suppose.

I don't think that anyone should accuse Ted of anything. He's being as honest as possible. Unfortunately, someone else may be dishonest here though.
I'm starting to think that the farmer that gave Ted the picture is taking him for a ride, especially since the more interesting picture (that was apparently taken at the same time) where the animal is standing was withheld by the photographer.
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
I don't think that anyone should accuse Ted of anything. He's being as honest as possible. Unfortunately, someone else may be dishonest here though.
I'm starting to think that the farmer that gave Ted the picture is taking him for a ride, especially since the more interesting picture (that was apparently taken at the same time) where the animal is standing was withheld by the photographer.

Could be. But I just don't understand why he'd bother mentioning a picture like this on a radio program. Doesn't even look worth a few words over dinner to me. Maybe he was impressed by the story and the accompanying footprints and hairs but the photograph itself is far from impressive. Hopefully we'll get to see the other one and it is better.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
Hi Guys, just a couple of quick answers.

1 -- It is my understanding that the creature image, the tracks, and the white hair samples are from different events. I will ask and see what additional information we can get.

2 -- It may take some time to get more stuff. As I said, getting this much was a real effort. We need to give him a chance to get home and get things in order. Rest assured, I will update this as quickly as I can.

3 -- Lance, I honestly dont know. I think it is the same photo but it does look slightly different. I will try to get some answers as quickly as possible. However, he is still at the site and I am not sure when he is leaving to come home.
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
When I enlarge the full photo, I achieve results very similar to enlargement 3. I don't know how enlargements 1 & 2 could have been achieved--the "head" of the 30 pixels that make up the whole of the "creature" seems to switch to the other side. It is the same location, for sure but puzzling.

Regardless, discussion of muscle structure, etc is perhaps amusingly premature!

Lance

So long as I have the gift of sight (25/30. Far from perfect but it gets the job done) I can discuss anything I like if I'm seeing it. The blurriest thing in the photo is the head. I can't make out anything from it other than to say it doesn't appear to have a long snout. If you can't see that the legs look thickly muscled (Plain as day) than I suggest you consider visiting an optometrist. But I'll be the first to admit that the thickness of the front legs could be a distortion.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
I don't think that anyone should accuse Ted of anything. He's being as honest as possible. Unfortunately, someone else may be dishonest here though.
I'm starting to think that the farmer that gave Ted the picture is taking him for a ride, especially since the more interesting picture (that was apparently taken at the same time) where the animal is standing was withheld by the photographer.

I will wait until I have more information to make a judgement but this is not a great image. The quality is low and the reported distance is staggering. But, I even have some reservations on that estimate. I need to ask Ted about the location and how he came up with that number. Perhaps if we can get the raw version we can make a better determination of what is in the image.

I think that the hair samples are interesting though. I would like to send the images of the tracks to someone who can identify them. I was thinking of game trackers or perhaps a wild life agency/reserve someplace? Any suggestions?

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

If all the enlargements are from the same photo then your analysis makes no sense. If the enlargements are from different photos, then Ted's story is considerably damaged.

Ron, are we saying that Ted did all these enlargements? And sent all 3 of them RATHER than the original full rez photo?

Lance

I dont know. My understanding is that this is all he had available to him at the site. These photos were taken many months ago and he may have access only to the images he sent to people around that location. So we may be getting smaller images because he was sending it to people who have very limited internet access.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Looking at the picture, I'm starting to wonder about the size of the trees. If the animal is as large as is estimated, aren't those trees amazingly tall?
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Ok, yes. I have now looked carefully at the enlargements and compared and overlaid them all using Photoshop.

I can say now, that it looks to me that Ted's account as told above cannot be accurate. I am hoping that someone else might likewise take a careful look at what we have so far, someone with the skills to do so.

Remember, Ted's claim is that he has one (and only one) image.

Thanks,

Lance

I am back! Thank you to Gene and the current Mods for reinstating me.

The image looks to me like a dog, possibly a sheepdog type. I have shrunk a sheepdog image down in size and placed it next to the image in the photo and it looks very similar. The fact that there appears to be no snout could be that the dog is looking towards the camera.
 

Attachments

  • UNKNOWNANIMAL1ENLARGEDwithdog.jpg
    UNKNOWNANIMAL1ENLARGEDwithdog.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 10

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
Ok, yes. I have now looked carefully at the enlargements and compared and overlaid them all using Photoshop.

I can say now, that it looks to me that Ted's account as told above cannot be accurate. I am hoping that someone else might likewise take a careful look at what we have so far, someone with the skills to do so.

Remember, Ted's claim is that he has one (and only one) image.

Thanks,

Lance

Conspiracy!!!!!
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I am back! Thank you to Gene and the current Mods for reinstating me.

The image looks to me like a dog, possibly a sheepdog type. I have shrunk a sheepdog image down in size and placed it next to the image in the photo and it looks very similar. The fact that there appears to be no snout could be that the dog is looking towards the camera.

Holy crap, I'm agreeing with pixelsmith. That is pretty amazing, both that I agree with him :) and how well the sheepdog works for this image. As silly as this sounds, maybe there's a pack of wild sheepdogs running around there - I'm saying that seriously. Couldn't there have been a sheepdog breeder in the area that may have lost a few?
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
I am back! Thank you to Gene and the current Mods for reinstating me.

The image looks to me like a dog, possibly a sheepdog type. I have shrunk a sheepdog image down in size and placed it next to the image in the photo and it looks very similar. The fact that there appears to be no snout could be that the dog is looking towards the camera.

Hard to tell. The more I look at the picture the more I'm thinking it might be a goat. It's just impossible to tell what it is. I was thinking that whatever it was it seemed to have short hair but who knows. Kinda' seems like a Rorschach test. You can see anything you want to.

@Angel: We have wild dogs around here. I think you could probably find a few wild dogs in any stretch of woods.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
It does not have to be a pack of them. In the country it is normal to let your dog run loose. It looks to be the size of a medium to large size canine of some sort.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
I am back! Thank you to Gene and the current Mods for reinstating me.

The image looks to me like a dog, possibly a sheepdog type. I have shrunk a sheepdog image down in size and placed it next to the image in the photo and it looks very similar. The fact that there appears to be no snout could be that the dog is looking towards the camera.

Thats actually very good work Pixel, when you overlay the picture of the dog on there it does look very similar
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
Thats actually very good work Pixel, when you overlay the picture of the dog on there it does look very similar

Should it be shocking that it looks similar? I think that anything with 4 legs that you put next to it is going to look similar so long as you adjust the size appropriately. And after all, a dog with long white hair is what Ted said the picture was of anyway. But it doesn't look 400-500 pounds to me. But without any frame of reference size is difficult to nail down as well.
 

Kandinsky

Curious Cat
Should it be shocking that it looks similar? I think that anything with 4 legs that you put next to it is going to look similar so long as you adjust the size appropriately. And after all, a dog with long white hair is what Ted said the picture was of anyway. But it doesn't look 400-500 pounds to me. But without any frame of reference size is difficult to nail down as well.

Whatever that white hair is from should surely be the focus of analysis. Similar samples were on Ted's old Trace Evidence site some years ago. I don't understand why they haven't had them DNA tested?!

Blurred photographs and footage of lights can only go so far...
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
Whatever that white hair is from should surely be the focus of analysis. Similar samples were on Ted's old Trace Evidence site some years ago. I don't understand why they haven't had them DNA tested?!

Blurred photographs and footage of lights can only go so far...
Well, I'm guessing that DNA testing isn't cheap. Most UFO researchers aren't rolling in dough. But it would be nice if someone would finance testing on it for him.
 

Top