New Georgia Bigfoot Photo?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 19th, 2013

Does Georgia Bigfoot look Gigantopithic?

What do the Cryptomundians think?

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

40 Responses to “New Georgia Bigfoot Photo?”

  1. Redrose999 responds:

    It reminds me of the pictures of the gorillas walking on two legs. If she didn’t take it at a zoo, I’d be like floored. It is a real animal, the muscle and the anatomy as well as the lighting look legit to me.

    Honestly, its what I saw when I first saw the Patty film. The body matches for the most part. I’m interested, it’s the most interesting blob squatch I’ve seen yet.

  2. Eric Selbee via Facebook responds:

    ? get real..

  3. Cryptoraptor responds:

    One of the clearer images as far as bigfoot images go.

  4. Dave Cornwell via Facebook responds:

    It looks like a real creature. However, it does not look like it is a natural biped. It looks like the photo was taken when this thing stood up for a brief moment.

  5. mandors responds:

    Don’t know if it’s real, but one of the best things in it is the the leg kick. The back leg is bent at angle more than normal human walking. The duck-like, bowleggedness of the gait is odd, but one big thing: THAT IS NOT A GORILLA’S FOOT.

  6. Enigmania responds:

    In my opinion it’s Gluteus maximus looks too small, we are pretty sure that as a biped ‘Bigfoot’ has a large muscles in that area (look at Patty) – would be interested in the limb proportions as compared to a Gorilla, that is what I think it is – a Gorilla in a zoo.

  7. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting…. the photo has no context… also where’s all the hair?

    I see this and to me, this photo COULD *easily* be hoaxed.

    I see a person’s physique… someone who works out … look @ the quads… and calfs… vs an animal in this one… look @ the proportions of the legs…

  8. oldphilosopher responds:

    Don’t the two parallel bands around the waist look “belt-like”? Also, the boundaries of the light coloration across the buttocks suggests “panty lines”. The angle of the left leg ‘kick’ seems too high; and the arm length and dimensions seem more ‘human’ in proportions. I don’t find this to be anywhere near as persuasive as the P-G film.

  9. edsbigfoot responds:

    Very cool:) My only questions are, and I am asking, please tell me, ‘cuz I don’t know, I haven’t seen gorillas run from behind….but at 1:19 thru 1:30 when they lighten up the photo….uh…trying to be tactful here:)…there doesn’t seem to be any “separation” in the tushy cheeks LOL!..wouldn’t they come apart some with that kind of run?:) It looks like it “could” be fabric stretching…but that just may be the way this creature is put together naturally. The feet also look a little “molded” to me, especially where the heel meets the back of the ankle. But, its a very cool pic and maybe we’ll hear and see more from this….

  10. William responds:

    I think the feet rule out a gorilla at a zoo shot. I think this could be a still from a yet unreleased movie with bigfoot in it. (There are several in the works) as it looks like a Grade A -Bill Munns type of costume worn by a human body builder type. Very authentic looking and impressive but a fake none-the-less. Good job though.

  11. TheBeardedMan responds:

    Could be a gorilla with the legs photoshoped to look more human-like.

  12. drjon responds:

    Has anyone seen the picture uploaded as an image anywhere?

  13. chewbaccalacca responds:

    The Patterson-Gimlin film…. “is a terrible film” ?? Um, okay…

  14. blazmeister responds:

    It looks to be a clear hoax. Why? No long hair, no toes visible, shaped foot from a boot, no scrotum, 2 inch wide overlap of material at butt crack goes too far up, appears to have tight fitting belt band around it’s waist and it looks to be sporting a football type layering of the shoulder pads that have way to much definition on the back, the heel of the foot is way too narrow and actually appears to be exactly the same width as a man’s heel. Hoax!

  15. dconstrukt responds:

    the more i look at this photo… the one on the right… the more it looks like a dude in a suit.

    #1. you can see the suit in 2 halves by the butt all the way up the back…

    #2. then you can see a vest/jacket like thing over the undergarment… clearly stopping you from seeing ANY back muscles.

  16. Redrose999 responds:

    TheBeardedMan, I was thinking exactly that. One of the reasons I feel a part of the image is a real animal is the way the light falls on it. You don’t have that same effect on the legs.

    William, it doesn’t look like a CGI effect to me, but that is another possibility. Blurring is an effect they use to make something look like it is moving. But I am not an expert.

    I really don’t see a suit here. The upper back of the image looks closer to this chap:

  17. Redrose999 responds:

    This is a better video of it.

    Lots of close up back shots.

  18. squatchman responds:

    I think this is the evidence we were looking for for a long time. The sasquatch looks a little odd, but you can see the buttock and its muscles. It’s very clear, and it looks really big. I think there is a big chance that this is a sasquatch!

  19. chadgatlin responds:

    Could this just be a mud-covered person? Or could it be one of those indigenous peoples of somewhere like the Amazon with body paint on? I am reminded of a picture of an “uncontacted” tribe in the Amazon.

    Just a thought.

  20. phjggyb responds:

    its fake because there is no scrotum??? is it possible it could be a female?

  21. eyeofstrm responds:

    I studied as many clips of a gorilla walking upright as I could find. This is what I concluded. This is no gorilla.

    1) The legs are way to long for a gorilla.
    2) Those are not gorilla feet.
    3) Gorilla’s do not have glutes (butt muscles) like these. 3) When a gorilla walks upright it extends it’s leg’s completely.
    4) When a gorilla walks upright both feet are in constant contact with the ground like a human.

    As for a possible bigfoot this is what I notice as compared to the P.G. film which I feel is the only legitimate film out there. For those of you who have seen the American Paranormal high-def stabilized version of it you will probably agree.

    1) The gait is very similar to Paddy, bow legged.
    2) Right leg touching the ground is not fully extended as in P.G film.
    3) Left foot completely leaves the ground as in P.G. film. (the only time a humans foot completely leaves the ground is when running, jogging or when walking through deep snow, tall grass or over obstacles, etc.)
    4) Muscles are very prevalent in throughout the subject.
    5) The thumbs are pointed inward and you can see the palms of the subjects hands as in P.G. film. (when humans walk there thumbs point forward, you cannot see the palms of our hands because they face inward.)

    If this is a hoax, great job. This person should be working in Hollywood because they put a lot of time and effort into detail. If this is makeup the subject used was enormous and spent hundreds of hours having individual hairs glued onto his body and his neck removed. The trap. muscles appear to connect directly to it’s skull. Thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours were spent by American Paranormal, and the BBC trying to come up with something even remotely similar using professional make-up artists and animatronics and have failed miserably.

  22. sasquatch responds:

    Looks like a real animal…the head , and back and shoulders are very gorilla-like-like Patty. The feet more human…one great thing about this photo-how slender the ankles are…usually they are fat when it’s a costume….
    One of the best photos ever…now, it could be a gorilla that was digitally manipulated….but a great job if that’s the case.

  23. PhotoExpert responds:

    This is not my professional opinion as a photographer but my opinion as a long time Cryptomundo reader–too many red flags to be considered an authentic photo.

    I’m not going to get into every detail as to why. But even for beginners out there, when the commentator states that this was submitted anonymously by a woman in Georgia, that would be your first red flag! There were many more to follow. I’ll point them out in the future when we have at least some kind of legitimate photograph.

  24. Johnzo responds:

    Pretty good fake. They must have gotten impatient toward the end though, because they forgot the shadow on the ground. You can only see this briefly, when they pan out and show the full image, but the thing looks like it’s just floating on the background. The way the light is hitting it, there should be a shadow cast on the grass/foliage underneath it and towards the foreground.

  25. Chupacabra Millie responds:

    It’s iffy. A clear photo, but the identity of what it’s showing is unclear. The fact that it was submitted anonymously makes me wonder. I agree with what Johnzo said about the shadowing thing, and Eyeofstrm covered a lot of points and all of those made sense, but my red flag was again like many others said the fact that it seemed too smooth. And I do agree with deconstrukt that it seemed like the only line was one straight up the back like stitch marks. A very convincing hoax if it is one, or a very strange real photo. Nothing is for certain… and it may even be a very good publicity stunt for an upcoming movie. I’m tied in the middle here.

  26. sasquatch responds:

    Photo expert and the next two after; very weak reasoning all 3 of you. Bring better stuff up in here!

    First of all, many people want to stay anonymous for many different reasons.
    Also, the fact that the figure seems to be moving quickly and /or the camera operator was as well to an extent, makes for some image blur…thus; butt crack etc. are less discernible.

    Now, I am in agreement with others and my previous post that it could be a picture of a gorilla that someone has skillfully manipulated-elongated the legs etc. But the shadow argument
    doesn’t explain all that-in fact it sort of fights against it-I mean, why would you go to all the trouble to manipulate a photo to an expert anatomist level then leave out a shadow? I guess it’s possible, but…nah. Sun angles and other conditions are tricky.

    The pelt looks very convincing to me-just go look at those gorilla videos. Now that’s what I’d expect an American ape creature to look similar to…and this picture does in droves!

    All the gorilla costume Bigfoot fakers just got busted by this picture…Real animals fur/ pelts reflect light in a way that I’ve never seen costumes do..Not even expensive ones like Harry and the Hendersons by Rick Baker…the best guy in Hollywood.

  27. eyeofstrm responds:

    Redrose999 thanks for the video, much clearer than the ones I found. If this is a photo shopped picture the hands were photo shopped also. In the video Redrose999 posted the gorilla’s thumbs point forward just like a humans when it stands or walks upright. I agree the person who submitted this photo anonymously makes this suspect but doesn’t change the fact that this looks like a real animal. For the claims of seeing seams in this, I don’t see them myself and if this is a hoax I highly doubt the person who created this would have let something like that in the picture after going through all this hard work. Most hoax’s scream hoax almost instantly, this screamed gorilla to me instantly until I started research. As for lack of shadows, view the video gorilla walks like a man. These video’s are shot in daylight and the gorilla’s cast no real discernable shadows either because of possible overcast skies which seems to be the case of the photo in question. As a matter of fact there is a slightly discernable shadow being cast by the right leg in the photo in question while I really can’t make out any cast by live subjects. This may be the real deal.

  28. darkhb responds:

    Can we have some background to this? When did this picture surface? Who are the two guys talking in the video? They say at the beginning that she “scanned it from a photograph”. Who took that? What is the annoying flashing background around the edges? Who the Hell is Max Outt??

    Other than that, it is an interesting photo. But we have no context; so its just that, an interesting photo.

  29. PhotoExpert responds:

    sasquatch–I hear what you are saying and your comment about weak reasoning. I have strong reasoning as a photographic expert and that requires a higher level of accountability. But as I declared in my opening statement, I was commenting on the photograph as a “Cryptomundo reader”, which requires a lesser standard of accountability. I can base my comment on opinion rather than facts and data.

    The question is, why did I do that. As you know, when I post photographic analysis of photos I deem worthy of a second look, the posts are almost novel like. I get into optical physics and a bunch of photo terms that most people do not recognize or understand. You saw none of that in this previous post.

    The question should be “Why or why not”. Well, after so many successes in analyzing photographs here at Cryptomundo, many times I weed them out as fakes. Other times I show that the animal in question is another animal. There are too many times to count where I solved a mystery here through photographic analysis. I let my track record and it’s successes speak for my analysis.

    This is not to say I disagree with you. In fact, I might even agree with you. You know sasquatch, lately there have been a lot of fake to simple misidentificationa of subjects in the photographs presented here. I am simply tired and worn out. So I decided to post not as a photographic expert but as a simple reader. I am sure my fellow Cryptomundians are getting worn out by less than interesting photos. I put this one in the same category. I just wasn’t going to waste my time analyzing it.

    This photo is just the straw the broke the camel’s back for me. So I rested on this one. There are many red flags here. Yes, you are correct sasquatch–not all photos submitted by anonymous photographers are fakes. But most faked photographs come from anonymous photographers. After that point was established, there were many additional red flags. I am too worn out to list them but they are the usual suspects in terms of red flags.

    So sasquatch, I partly agree with you on your comment about my post and the others that followed me. But it was not for lack of evidence that I did not post analysis, it was for lack of energy. Rest assured sasquatch, when a noteworthy or interesting photograph is posted here, whether it be from an anonymous photographer or not, I will analyze it. Then you can read and discuss my analysis and strong arguments. But on this one, I am just going to take a rest!

  30. dconstrukt responds:

    dont worry dude.. i broke it down for everyone why its a dude in a suit without getting too “tech” on them. 🙂

  31. sasquatch responds:

    O.K. Photo-expert- Take a rest…

    DKonstruct- where’s all the hair? well I see it mostly on the arms and thighs because it’s darker. but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a completely hirsute individual;

    I’d like you take a look at the second Gorilla video that was posted above. It is very interesting when you see the silverbacks from a distance- especially in the back area- you don’t see gray, you see only what looks like muscles & skin folds….but when there are close up shots (zoomed in) you see that the entire back is covered in tight gray haired hide . So this is very easy to explain.

    Also; I agree that the individual looks athletic, but many reports make that claim. “like a body builder”, “very fast”, “muscular huge thighs” etc…So I’d expect nothing else from an animal that reportedly can chase down deer and wrestle elk to the ground.

    The days of the lumbering ball of hair should be put to rest.

    For a critter to be as elusive as the Sasquatch has proved to be, it MUST be a quick, powerful creature.

    Now take note, I still think this COULD be a gorilla picture that’s been altered, BUT I’m not a photo expert with equipment to micro analyze…just logic, observation, and deductive skills that anyone can employ…IF they have the energy, time, and interest.

    THIS is one of the most interesting photos I’ve ever seen in this vein, so I’m pretty puzzled by it being so casually dismissed by some posters here.

  32. PhotoExpert responds:

    dconstrukt–THANK YOU! You picked up where I left off and I got to take a rest. Your sentiments are my sentiments, exactly! Oh, and I love the way you post. I actually got a little laughter with my rest. Much obliged!

    sasquatch–Thanks for understanding! And honestly, you validate my point. Sometimes one does not need to go all technical with analysis. Sometimes, as you stated, “…just logic, observation, and deductive skills that anyone can employ…IF they have the energy, time, and interest.”

    Many mysteries have been solved by those methods of logic, simple observation and deductive reasoning. Actually, I use those same methods BEFORE any equipment or high tech software is implemented. Many times, that is all one needs! So keep using those skills.

    And another good point you made sasquatch is, do not always throw out the baby with the bathwater. A couple if days ago a photo was submitted. Then the photographer updated with three more photos. I did analysis on that even though the image quality was not useable for enlargement analysis. Common sense told me that I could see if the object was animate by determining movement of the subject. Mere observation would prove if it were a living thing or not. I could then determine using common sense, how much ground was covered. And I could use reasoning and deduction to come up with a definitive answer that the distance of ground covered in the time period to take the successive photos was within normal human limits–therefore not a Bigfoot.

    So sasquatch, you bring up some very good points and some skill sets to use. My point is, you do not have to be a photo expert to analyze photos. Sometimes all it takes is some common sense. Evern as a photo expert, one must still use those skills together with their abilities to analyze photos. Many do not! Some are subjective too. So I applaud your points. If any expert out there throws out common sense or logic or reason, they are arrogant or not being objective. Sasquatch, I appreciate your reasoning and intelligence. It brings validity to your point and argument.

    Dconstrukt and sasquatch, thanks for giving me a much needed rest. And I say this with all sincerity, I truly look forward to seeing you both around Cryptomundo for your future posts. Back to resting!

  33. sasquatch responds:

    Like-wise, enjoy!

  34. Dr Kaco responds:

    With the digital age, who knows?? We’ll have to wait and see.

    I can say it’s not a Wookie suit! ;p

  35. eyeofstrm responds:

    Sorry folks if this were a costume it would have to be made out of a fabric that hugs every inch of the body. As for straight lines and seams? Come on! This is at least a third generation copy of the photo in question. These pictures are all pixilated ( which could cause false straight lines and blurring, again if you have seen the American Paranormal Hi-Def copy of the Patterson Gimlin film shot directly from the original you would understand, people don’t realize that only one copy was made from the original up until the point when Roger Patterson’s widow allowed an expert to clean it up and shoot it with a H-Def camera and before that we always saw 2nd, 3rd, 4th…… generations of the copy and you wouldn’t believe the detail that is actually there.) due to the digital age and all of you photo experts out there know this. Straight lines do not occur in nature and when they do our eye’s naturally gravitate towards them and are noticed almost immediately and I just don’t see any. If someone were going to go through such great lengths to fabricate such a detailed suit I think they would have made sure you didn’t see any seems. Again, I repeat, many people have spent thousands of dollars to try and duplicate Patty (including hollywood specialist) and failed miserably. The suit would have to be made out of spandex or something similar and the hair on this thing is real not fake, fake hair does not reflect light the way this does. You also have to ask yourself, why would someone spend all this time and money on a hoax that would return nothing of value in return? Certainly not the amount of money needed to make such a suit. If this is a hoax I would have to say photo shopped picture of a gorilla with a hell of a lot of research and thought put into it. From it’s apparent gate to it’s palms facing backwards, the individual would have really done his homework like I have.

  36. dconstrukt responds:

    simple. ask the steak dudes… the georgia bigfoot body dudes… and the other 9 hundred other fake videos and photos out there.

    people do stupid things.

    seriously. that is a dude in some type of suit… I broke it down IN DETAIL in my earlier posts…. and I am able to enhance this and any photo in photoshop and analyze the hell out of it.

    the fact more of you guys don’t see it is absolutely mindboggling.

    the legs dont match size wise… the muscles aren’t correct…. the back muscles don’t look right… the hair isn’t right either… i dont need more than 1 min to debunk it.

  37. eyeofstrm responds:

    dconstrukt, the legs don’t match size wise…the muscles aren’t correct…the back muscles don’t look right…the hair isn’t right either… I just wonder what you are comparing this photo to? I use my video’s of actual gorilla’s walking upright and the Patterson Gimlin film. Could you please give us your references. The way you dubunk this is very vague and really holds no water. I see a huge muscular creature with enormous Lats. and Traps. that go right up into the head and no neck. Where’s the neck? If this were a suit the head would sit much higher on the body. Also you have to remember this is a picture of a picture of a picture… lots of pixilation going on causing false straight lines that aren’t in the original (which I just don’t see). Unlike old time photography in which pictures were made up from a series of round dot’s not tiny squares like today. Believe me when I say I am the biggest skeptic you are going to find when it come to Cryptozoology and the Paranormal, but I just can’t write off this photo so easily. Mind if I ask you your opinion of the Patterson Gimlin film? If you find it lagitamate do some comparing. If you feel it’s a hoax and in 1967 a broke Cowboy was able to create something on film that no person or organization, using todays technology and a boat load of money, has been able to even come close to replicating or duplicating, again research the the photo’s and videos that have been made since then, you will see complete failures.

  38. eyeofstrm responds:

    deconstrukt might I just ask you to deconstruct my analysis of the photo. The gate of the subject in question. (right leg does not fully extend while left foot is a good distance from the ground) The thumbs pointing inward causing the palms to face backwards. (again humans walk with their thumbs pointing forward.) The distance between the top of the shoulders to the top of the head, this subject appears to have almost no cervical spine. I would find it easier to debunk this photo if it was supposed to be a human in a suit than to debunk it by calling it a human in a suit.

  39. eyeofstrm responds:

    I forgot to mention that humans walk with their feet pointing forwards, this subjects feet point outwards at an angle as do Patty’s in the

  40. eyeofstrm responds:

    Just one more thing decostrukt, you wrote ( THIS PHOTO COULD BE EASILY HAOXED ) your exact words. So let me give you an easy challenge, reproduce this easily hoaxed photo and submit it to Cryptomundo, prove it can be easily hoaxed. I would love to see what you come up with.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.