Myakka, Masks, and Apemania
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 16th, 2008
It all began with a December 22, 2000, letter signed “God Bless. I prefer to remain anonymous,” mailed to the Sarasota (Florida) Sheriff’s Department. Two photographs were enclosed.
Did you ever think you would hear that the motion picture Planet of the Apes (the 1968 version) would be used by skeptics of the photos to explain them? Well, stay tuned.
I’ve written about these Myakka photos extensively, including in Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (NY: Simon and Schuster, 2003). You may consult the quick details by merely clicking here.
In recent years, new discussions, a new moving gif (up top, above) and a new debate took place about whether or not these photos were of an unknown hominoid, hoaxes, too good to be hoaxes, a masked man, or an escaped known ape. The debate originally occurred at the Bigfoot Forums, but has died off; besides, here are all the photos borrowed from there, with the permission of Bill Appleton, in one place, for your perusal.
Cryptomundo was recently contacted in June 2008 to inform us that all the photos of the masks and makeup that were used first apparently at Bigfoot Forums and then borrowed by us, unfortunately, did not have tied to them their ultimate proper origin credits from Apemania.com, a division of Make-up & Monsters Studios in Chatsworth, California. At the time, Morgoth (Bill Appleton) gave us permission to reproduce here what he had posted, and wrote, on March 21, 2006:
“I relinquish any rights I might have to these pictures, and/or my email, to the public domain. Some of the other attached pictures were gathered from costume companies on the Internet under fair use for research.”
We were unaware that Apemania photos were in the mix. Coincidentially, the John Chambers’ obituary photograph was properly obtained and credited when originally published in 2001, on my personal website to Apemania.com. But the transfer of that credit was also left off, in error, when the image was added to this original older Cryptomundo blog. We apologize for these oversights.
Therefore, this updated posting is being brought forward in time to acknowledge and thank Apemania.com for these images, which they have now granted us full permission to use here.
Back to whatever is shown within the Myakka images: Critiques about there being no movement in the piece of vegetation on the mouth, the creature itself not moving, the mouth not closing, the body being too static and/or more have all fallen by the wayside.
But several questions seem to remain. Why the eyeshine? Is this a noctural creature? If a hoax, how was it pulled off? Are there Apemania.com masks that match? Was John Chambers involved? What? Wait a minute. Let’s get back to that last one later. John Chambers?
Logically, of course, the elderly woman taking the photo with an old-style instamatic was able to get a quick flash and scared this cryptid or whatever. If not, why the movement, the obvious fright expressions? Why is she hiding her identity? Why not? Would you come forward? The letter and photos were sent without fanfare to the sheriff’s department. Only by chance did they come to my attention. If a hoax, it was not handled very well to get immediate media attention.
Click on image, immediately above, for full size version.
Getting back to John Chambers, isn’t that just one side trip?
Some critics have said that the object photographed in Florida was really a reddish Bigfoot Ripley’s Believe It or Not model in Wisconsin. But we now know that photo was flipped to “look” like the Myakka photo by the skeptics and in color, surrounding, and appearance, the Ripley’s object is not like the Myakka cryptid. It is hairy and bent over, but then lots of hirsute, sloping “Bigfoot” photos exist. I would say the “classic” posture for any Bigfoot-like statue created (such as the one in Wisconsin) is going to poorly imitate the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Besides, several items between the two don’t match, but here it is for your examination:
Others have said the Myakka thing is a person in a dark straight-legged costume from an Oriental source, but here too, definite reference points don’t align. Show me the suit? Overall appearance do not mean they definitely match.
Now, as noted by Bill Appleton, there is a new round of analyses being made to “match” the Myakka face to masks allegedly created by John Chambers. Yes, John Chambers. Remember him? Bobbie Short did a great job demonstrating Chambers was merely a red herring in attempts to overthrow the P-G footage. The masks, of course, were made for the Planet of the Apes film. You can look yourself. But in mild rebuttal, aren’t we just seeing that Chambers was modeling the masks’ faces on the contours and structure of orang and chimp faces, which naturally match the seemingly “ape-like” (mostly orangutan-like) face here in these Myakka photos?
Mask image from the fan-based ScreamTeam.
I am not saying the Myakka photos show a Skunk Ape, a hoax, homemade mask, a Chambers creation, an Apemania.com mask, or anything known. All I am saying is that it is an unknown, a hominoid cryptid, and I have not seen anything skeptically presented to undermine the “unidentifed” nature that is shown in these photos with anything known that definitely mirror all that is seen here.
Mask image courtesy of Apemania.com.
Mask image courtesy of Apemania.com
Mask image courtesy of Apemania.com.
Mask image courtesy of Apemania.com.
John Chambers signs an autograph for a costumed Planet of the Apes character. Courtesy of Apemania.com.
Academy Awarding winning make-up artist John Chambers died of diabetes at the age of 78, on August 25, 2001, at the Motion Picture and Television Fund retirement home in Woodland Hills, California. But his work on the movie Planet of the Apes remarkably lives on in the debunking attempts to explain everything from the Patterson-Gimlin footage to the Myakka photographs.
All photographs of masks above and of John Chambers copyrighted by Apemania.com.
All photographic enhancements of the Myakka Photographs on this page are © David Barkasy and Loren Coleman 2001.
Thanks to Bill Appleton for stimulating more discussions on these photos.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
This is my first post, but i’ve been avidly reading the debate surrounding these images and whilst I agree with most of the debate concerning the source of the eyeshine seen in the images, and the possibility that an unknown or divergent species of primate has evolved a tapetum lucidum layer within it’s eyes, i;m struggling to accept some of the speculation this possibility has given rise to.
There has been an increasing number of comments referring to this unknown (or unidentified) animal (for I DO doubt that this is hoaxed) being “nocturnal”. The only “evidence” for this seems to be that it has been pictured at night.
Whilst the eyeshine points toward nocturnal living, it is also present in Homo sapiens, and whilst I am something of a “creature of the night” myself, as a species we are largely diurnal (and I’d say adapted as such). A photo taken of an unknown human taken at night and showing signs of “red eye” from a flash would not so quickly be heralded as proof that humanity is nocturnal.
Perhaps the animal was disturbed at night, perhaps it had yet to “bed-down” for the night (in which case, and here i’m taking my speculation a little far, could the frond not have been the basis for a “bed”? Orangs, Chimps and Bonobos all exhibit “nest-making” behaviour.)
I don’t want to hypothesise too wildly about what I think it MIGHT be, but i think it’s a bit too early to be discussing it as primarily “nocturnal” without more evidence.
Aphyllos
Aphyllos- Right. I would direct you to my post on the red eye effect in humans above. It is caused by a completely different set of mechanics than eye shine, but the end result is the same. Shiny red eyes. I have mentioned it, it has been said. No one has actively challenged that, so I don’t see what you find unappealing about our speculation.
I don’t think people are insisting that it is a nocturnal ape. The possibility is being considered because eye shine is associated with nocturnal animals. So since eye shine is present in nocturnal animals and this photo was taken at night, is it so unreasonable to speculate along those lines? You said it yourself that you agree to the possibility. What sort of unfounded speculation is being “given rise to”? What more evidence is there that it is the red eye effect we are seeing? Keeping all options open is important isn’t it? Unless you have some insider evidence that points to more knowledge than we have on the photos.
Regardless, as I have said, red eye in people can be pronounced, so it is something to be considered as well. I have made this clear, no one has been disagreeing with that. It seems that no one has flat out said what this must or must not be. This photo is an unknown. Your input is very welcome, but I don’t think you can say that a “nocturnal ape” theory is some sort of unfounded assumption. We are looking at options, digging for the truth.
Really, what is important in the end is not whether we are seeing red eye or eye shine or spirit orb power, or whatever. It is whether this photo represents a new species at all.
I was merely voicing my opinion, apologies if it came across as overly critical, that wasn’t my intention at all. I couldn’t claim to be an expert on such phenomenon, I was considering the options as openly as possible, and it seemed (in my opinion at least) that perhaps there was too much emphasis being placed on the “eye-shine” as strongly suggestive of nocturnal habits. Surely that is just as reductive in the field of possibility?
Aphyllos- Thanks for clearing that up. Well, I definitely agree that it is not a sure hoax, although it might be. I don’t think it can be said for sure just what it is that we are seeing in the photos, so one opinion is as good as another. All we can really do is speculate. We already have a few explanations for the “glowing eyes” being present; eye shine, red eye, or some hoax effect. I don’t think the red eyes present discount some large ape or necessarily point to a hoax, and neither do you it seems, so its a bit of a start. It’s good that you are looking at all angles, and of course your opinion is very welcome. Always nice to have a new poster here putting out their ideas.