Mexican President Posts Photo of a Mayan Elf

[Z.W. Wolf]

The more I think about it the more I'm leaning toward this being a hoax perpetrated on the website rather than by the website.

In this case there are some basic scenarios:

-One of the 3 witnesses really did take these photos as described in their story, but when the three looked at them... it was just a gibbon. Some or all of them decided to punch them up in Photoshop and submit them as a prank.

-Or they really did think it was something mysterious, but the photos were disappointing and didn't clearly show show what they think they saw. So they decided to improve them to support their story.

-It was an outright hoax from the start and the story is made up. In that case the photos may have been preexisting. However I don't think these are camera trap photos because the animal is seen in two different parts of the tree. Maybe someone took photos of a gibbon, knowing what it was, then later used them for hoax photoshops. It seems Pocong pranks are a thing. Maybe this was just one more.

Any of these would explain why these 'shops are so primitive.

 

[JMartJr]

...Well, it's not a monkey or (non-human) ape, unless the eye-shine has been 'shopped.
And if one part has been 'shopped, that calls into question everything else...

Aparently you can indeed get eye-shine (in flash pics, anyway) with primates, even without the tapetum that cats and such have. I guess the common red-eye effect in flash pics of humans would even count. Though the only examples I can find that even approach the "Bruja" image are from "night vision" trail cams, such as the background gorillas above.

While typing, got curious and looked one more time for human eye shine. Found this purported test of an night vision "police camera." Cued up on the video to the relevant bit, with human eye shine:

Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/Gbd4gql026c?t=31


For what it is worth, I'm coming around to believing that the original images are pareidolia (the hood suspiciously resembles the tree trunk and some of the arm leg bits seem to be related to the leaf masses to the right of the figure) which at some point was augmented by a little photo editing around the head to reinforce the illusion. But the position that primates can't have reflective eyes in a flash shot seems to be incorrect.

 

[deirdre]

i see the other leg/kneecap as here

I do wonder if the photo is a negative, with a hint of green added to the vegetation afterward.

a gimp conversion shows a negative looks like this

some trees [on the road named in article] do have these dead [fronds ? ] hanging from branches, a bit hard to see but this one forms the basic shape. and in the pic, the "hoodie" is the same basic color as the tree:

granted a monkey positioned just right under one ...one thing my brain can't do 'spatially' is compare the two pics to see if the "hood" is stationary or moved a bit, as the camera angle moves down the street.

 

[NorCal Dave]

"Aluxes" are the mischievous little people of Mayan mythology, like elves. The photo is not very clear. Any ideas what it is?

Well sir, I would think that in answer to your original question is it's in the LIZ and hard to say for sure, but the 2 most likely plausible explanations at this point are:

1. Some sort of hoax with some Photoshoped elements added to an existing picture.
2. Some sort of critter in the tree with glowing eyes and a whole lot of pareidolia filling in the rest.

In either case, the "mysteries photo" is than used as evidence in various tales and sightings from Borneo to Manchester UK. It seems that Borneo is the most likely origin of photo, where it gets mixed with local pocong legends. The Manchester story is possibly derived from a Spanish language version where it's associated with a Bruja or witch.

What it's not is a Aluxes as the photo almost certainly was not taken in Mexico. Why the President of Mexico felt compelled to share it as such is something to ask him.

 

[John J.]

Aparently you can indeed get eye-shine (in flash pics, anyway) with primates, even without the tapetum that cats and such have. I guess the common red-eye effect in flash pics of humans would even count. Though the only examples I can find that even approach the "Bruja" image are from "night vision" trail cams, such as the background gorillas above.

While typing, got curious and looked one more time for human eye shine. Found this purported test of an night vision "police camera."

Good points (and examples).
Bang goes my theory -er, actually diedre's rather smart observation

Got my Bio-Arch daughter-in-law involved. She pointed out that very few monkeys, especially New World ones, have the "tapetum lucidum" that makes the glowing eyes.

that we could rule out animals (monkeys, apes) based on the presence of eye-shine (and therefore a tapetum lucidum).

 

[John J.]

a gimp conversion shows a negative looks like this

I think deirdre might be on to something here. I've played around a bit more with deirdre's image, only using basic contrast/ brightness etc. editing tools. Definitely a 'family resemblance' between the two pics, I feel.

 

[deirdre]

Definitely a 'family resemblance' between the two pics, I feel.

disclosure: i smudged her face a bit and obviously added the eyes

 

[Mauro]

Could it be a hoax, someone perked on a tree wearing light goggles?

https://www.glowuniverse.com/index.php?route=product/search&search=glasses

I remember having seen those kind of gadgets since the early 70s (they had incandescent lamps at the time of course)

 

[deirdre]

and i saved this pic because of the gnarly branch a top but just noticed, this is on wiki as a monkey pic...do we think those are his eyes shining? or are we looking at his butt (which i assumed) and thats just..a street lamp behind him? that's his face right? (can blow up pic at my link)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perodicticus_potto_ssp._potto.jpg

 

[John J.]

...do we think those are his eyes shining? or are we looking at his butt

Our primate cousins continue to surprise researchers with examples of tool use and complex behaviours once thought to be the sole preserve of man.

Now, how do I clear my search history?

 

[deirdre]

Now, how do I clear my search history?

ew. i was just going to share a cute pic of a kid but i cant after THAT! [mad face ]

 

[John J.]

this is on wiki as a monkey pic...do we think those are his eyes shining?

He or she is a West African potto- I wouldn't have known, but the name's in your link dierdre!
A strepsirrhine primate- the type that have tapetum lucidums, hence good eye-shine, but not a monkey.

I wasn't initially sure about his / her orientation either, then I thought there were 3 or 4 areas of shine-
-until I realised the distal light areas are his / her ears.

Here's a clearer pic of a potto, don't know what species- there are 3, but that was only found out in 2015, so I guess they're pretty similar.
All live in west / central Africa.

Quite a cute little fellow. Up to 39cm (just under 15-and-a-half inches) with a short tail.

Unlikely to scare the Mexican President or live in Manchester, UK.

Must admit, I still think our 'Mayan elf' is a picture of a lanky (long-limbed) person up a tree- perhaps manipulated on a PC.
Starting to wonder if Mick West's cryptoid

Possible older. Dated 5 Feb, 2021, Borneo, Indonesia.

...is a real (non-human) primate, and maybe the resemblance to the 'Mexican elf' is just an extraordinary coincidence, or perhaps the Mexican elf picture was inspired by publicity for the earlier "spooky" Borneo photo.
If anyone's still keen on looking for matching trees or checking the environment, there are several possible routes Lili could have taken
"Jalan Ayani to Jalan Firdaus, via Jalan dr Soetomo".
I couldn't find a Jalan Ayani, but there is a Jalan Ahmad Yani (A. Yani) running parallel to Jalan Doktor Sutomo, AKA Jalan dr Soetomo, about 300 metres away. (Not too much doubt about Jalan Doktor Sutomo = Jalan dr Soetomo, remembering the English spellings of Indonesian leaders Soekarno/Sukarno and Suharto/Soeharto).

Roads Lili mentioned, Singkawang City, Indonesian Borneo:

Z.W. Wolf raised the possibility of gibbons but didn't think their heads had high enough crowns.
Singkawang City is a built-up area, but it is near the edge of the Borneo orangutan's westernmost range.

As well as the possibility of a chance incursion by a wild animal, we know these noble creatures are illegally captured- maybe Lili and co. saw an escapee? Male Bornean orangs have extensive cheek flanges which might account for the strange head/ face shape in Lili's photo. I'm not at all sure it explains the bright area around the 'face'- perhaps the flange inner edges are oilier, more reflective?

 

[deirdre]

Starting to wonder if Mick West's cryptoid
...is a real (non-human) primate, and maybe the resemblance to the 'Mexican elf' is just an extraordinary coincidence, or perhaps the Mexican elf picture was inspired by publicity for the earlier "spooky" Borneo photo.

the two pics are the exact same tree, you can line up the branches. they just moved a bit down the road between pics, that's why i said if someone could analyze the head angles we would at least know if there is movement to the head vs say it just being a paradolia of a frond or tree branch. there are no kneecaps in one photo so if a person, then the person was moving and the "hair"/head should reflect this.

Must admit, I still think our 'Mayan elf' is a picture of a lanky (long-limbed) person up a tree- perhaps manipulated on a PC

me too.

 

[Ann K]

He or she is a West African potto- I wouldn't have known, but the name's in your link dierdre!
A strepsirrhine primate- the type that have tapetum lucidums, hence good eye-shine, but not a monkey.

I think this is the animal, head encircled with green, eyes with pink. You can even see a line that looks like the mouth below (to the left of) the eyes. That makes the bright light something behind it on the street.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Z.W. Wolf raised the possibility of gibbons but didn't think their heads had high enough crowns.

A bit frustrating because I specifically addressed that point. Please read again.

Start here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mexican-president-posts-photo-of-a-mayan-elf.12877/#post-288319

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

A gibbon sitting in the characteristic posture of a gibbon - bent over at the waist with slumped shoulders. It is sitting with its back toward the camera. Two thirds of its back is visible.

The Mystery Pocong Creature is sitting in the crotch where a branch comes off the trunk. It is sitting on the branch with both legs on the other side of the trunk. The animal's body is not twisted at the waist. It is simply sitting in the characteristic posture of a gibbon - bent over at the waist with slumped shoulders. It is sitting with its back toward the camera. Two thirds of its back is visible.

I think people are misperceiving where the left shoulder and arm of the Mystery Creature are. They are farther forward than you might think. Please look at the white gibbon as a reference.

You can clearly see the deltoid muscle and the bicep (under fluffy fur). The long, narrow left hand rests on the trunk. There's more space than you might think between the trunk and the animal's left shoulder, so its left arm is reaching out to the left with the elbow raised. The forearm is distorted by perspective to appear shorter than it is.

About halfway between these two views. But with the elbow raised.

The so called backpack is fur, just as seen on our friend the white gibbon. That flat down sloping section behind the head is actually the animal's neck sloping down to its right shoulder, just as we see on the white gibbon.

The head 'shopped onto the body of the gibbon in the tree is both hugely out of proportion and in an anatomically impossible position.

That's my point with this photoshop. Our mystery pocong is simply a crude photoshop with a mismatched head, at an impossible position, pasted onto the body of a primate.

View attachment 58152

The Mystery Creature is not a human with a sweatshirt.

Notice the position of the kid in tree. Sitting on the horizontal branch with his legs around the vertical branch. Left shoulder pointed at the camera. His head is at maximum rotation on a human neck. Now imagine that he was sitting on the horizontal branch with both legs on the other side of the vertical branch with his back turned to the camera.

No human could sit with two thirds of his back to the camera and swivel his head to look straight at the camera. Try it yourself.

The Mystery Creature's body and leg are clearly not human. The proportions are all wrong. The long, narrow left hand is particularly not human.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

For what it is worth, I'm coming around to believing that the original images are pareidolia (the hood suspiciously resembles the tree trunk and some of the arm leg bits seem to be related to the leaf masses to the right of the figure) which at some point was augmented by a little photo editing around the head to reinforce the illusion. But the position that primates can't have reflective eyes in a flash shot seems to be incorrect.

The same optical illusion in two separate photos with the animal in two different parts of the tree?

BTW another supporting bit of evidence for the 'shop idea...

The head in the second photo is much more out of proportion to the body than in the first one. It's much bigger in proportion to the body. And it looks like its growing out of the tree. It has no organic relationship to the body. C'mon.

 

[deirdre]

A bit frustrating because I specifically addressed that point. Please read again.

Start here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mexican-president-posts-photo-of-a-mayan-elf.12877/#post-288319

why dont you just quote it again since your post is so long.

 

[deirdre]

Left shoulder pointed at the camera. His head is at maximum rotation on a human neck.

you might need to work on some stretches if you think that is maximum rotation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

you might need to work on some stretches if you think that is maximum rotation.

Irrelevant. No human could sit with his back turned to the camera and also be looking straight into the camera.

 

[deirdre]

Irrelevant. No human could sit with his back turned to the camera and also be looking straight into the camera.

apparently no monkey either or you wouldnt have pasted neuman's head on it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

When I get time, I'll 'shop on the head of Jawa. Because that's what I think it is.

 

[JMartJr]

The same optical illusion in two separate photos with the animal in two different parts of the tree?

Sure, if the illusion really occurred once and the second image was messed-about-with until it looked mysterious, too -- maybe even adding the head entirely to one of them, since they are not the same shape. I assume there was some tweaking to create the "arm muscles" in the pic to the right below, but I'm not sure so let's leave that alone. All I did in these was erase the eyes. If you had shown me the pic on the right with no context, I'm not sure I'd have seen the pareidolia "creature" at all. I might not have seen the one on the right, though the arm kinda calls out, don't it?

And of course if they more faked they are, the less remarkeble the similar appearance!

 

[John J.]

I think this is the animal, head encircled with green, eyes with pink.

I'm going off-piste a bit because this isn't one of the 'debated' pictures, but I can't agree with this
(until I'm shown to be obviously wrong, of course!)

The potto is an animal we would expect to show eye-shine if looking roughly in the direction of a visible-wavelength light source in an otherwise dark environment. And it has (proportionately) large, close-set eyes.

Bit of an appeal to Occam's razor here:
The two glowing circles, towards the end of a forward-facing primate body, are eyes. Light, roughly ovoid areas to the left and possibly right of the eyes are ears. Their positions are not (to me) in any way remarkable.
There is no need to posit any light source behind the creature.
The photograph was taken by night, the photographer probably used a visible-wavelength artificial light source.
The potto, like cats, dogs and many nocturnal animals, but unlike humans, monkeys has tapetum lucidum which can effectively and visibly reflect light shone towards them in an otherwise dark environment.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_African_Potto.jpg
(Yeah, it's a different species of potto to the West African potto in the 1st picture, but they were all thought to be the same species until 2015).

The so called backpack is fur, just as seen on our friend the white gibbon.

That's a good call, with a good example.
I'm less sure about that area of the picture being a backpack as a result.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've changed my mind. I think these heads are more likely taken from Halloween decorations.

A different head. Narrow set eyes, but what the heck...

Use the clone tool to take some textures off the tree trunk and put it on the hood so the tones match a bit better. Take the textures off the leaves and branches and put it on the face, so it's not so starkly black. Punch up the eyes a bit with the clone tool...

Not a perfect match, but I did it in just a few minutes...

 

[deirdre]

I think these heads are more likely taken from Halloween decorations.

that's a decent enough match, but still easier just to put a hood or cloth over my head and send me [ie your buddy] up the tree. then add a few photo filters

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Changed my mind again. Not a gibbon.


There was something that kept bothering me about this one.

I can't find a single photo of a gibbon hugging a tree like that. The body proportions aren't right either. But...

I think this is a Bornean sun bear.

Bornean sun bear climbs a tree.

I like this; with the paw angled down on the wrist, as seen in the Mystery Creature photo.

The tree even has the same kind of bark as the tree in the Mystery Pocong Creature photos. I think it's a fig tree.


But what about the long, bent-at-the knee gibbon leg seen here on the other side of the trunk?

It ain't a leg. It's two or more branches - or whatever - and an optical illusion.

The animal here is a sun bear. It's still sitting with its back mostly to the camera and that's still its left arm (foreleg). But it's a slumped over sun bear not a slumped over gibbon.

But what about the size? Isn't a bear too big?

It is the smallest bear, standing nearly 70 centimetres (28 inches) at the shoulder and weighing 25–65 kilograms (55–143 pounds).

And it doesn't have to be a full grown sun bear either.


I can't find a really good photo with a sun bear in the correct position...

Not slumped over.

Not the right camera angle.

Well, kind of.

Still a hoax photoshop with a spooky head pasted on.

 

[John J.]

I think this is a Bornean sun bear.

I think your example pictures of sun bears demonstrate it's a good contender to be the creature in the Borneo photo, especially where you've shown the left 'forearm' (paw) angled downwards.

Not so sure about the "Mexico" 'photo, I'm still seeing a grunge fan up a tree.
(Or maybe "Orthon! It's that Adamski bloke again! HIDE!")

the "2nd" pic does seem a tad more monkey like as the arm around tree looks monkey like, but the first one still looks just like a kid to me

-I'd probably still agree with this, maybe substituting "Borneo sun bear" for "monkey" after seeing Z.W. Wolf's examples.
Is there a consensus here, or evidence other than the similar heads, that these pictures (Mexico, Borneo) are from the same source? I'm still unsure about the tree being the same.


What cannot be doubted is the significance of the Sun Bear Landing Module photo, reproduced here with Soyuz for comparison.

Presumably a technology parallel with our own, but with superior bioengineering.
Is it too soon to say that this revelation might help explain other mysteries?

 

[deirdre]

 

[John J.]

View attachment 58391

Is that you? I thought you were the soul of the TARDIS.

 

[deirdre]

Is that you? I thought you were the soul of the TARDIS.

i am. that's from a future episode where i'll hugged a tree.