Vermont Trail Cam Captures Photo of Bigfoot?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 18th, 2011
Last night on his blogtalkradio show, Steve Kulls publicly unveiled the following photo.
If it is indeed a Bigfoot, is it carrying an infant?
You can read the details behind his investigation of the photo, along with Dr. Bruce MacCabee’s analysis of the photo at the SquatchDetective website.
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.
Well, you know what I say.
If you’re gonna shoot a blobsquatch, make it a cool blobsquatch.
What’s he doing, rolling in S’mores?
This photo looks like a person in a ghilly suit bent over. Maybe the person is trying to pick something up off the ground.
Either that is Bigfoot with the mange or a really old costume.
I think it may be two bears caught at just the right moment to make it look as though it is something else. I think it is blurry because the bears are either fighting or playing around with one another. I am not sure about the light spots though. I assume they are heat signatures and not actual spots. It is a pretty cool photo though. I just think it is a cool photo of some black bears. I think one day soon a trail cam will get a good photo of a Bigfoot but this one isn’t it.
At first glance the first photo looks like someone bent over, like in a bad, used gorilla costume. On looking further, it also looks like it could be a four legged animal. It also looks like it could be Snuffle-upagus from Sesame Street…
The second photo…well it looks like…anything you want it to.
Too vague all the way around.
I think the “baby hand” is actually the creature’s/person’s knee.
ok, maybe not….
There are too many could bes in the photo. The second one adds nothing and actually confuses the issue. Nice that an animal was captured on film, and nice that they investigated independently later, but it’s a nice try as far as I can see.
If you look at the other picture with the man in the same position, it dwarfs the person in the picture.
I doubt it could be a person, the “maybe bigfoot” is much bigger than the man.
It does seem to have similar features of eyewitness accounts such as the broad shoulders, massive arms, legs, long hair, huge head and size comparison to the person, I would have to be a least 7 feet tall.
That’s obviously an owl, fairly close to the camera, with its back to the camera.
Nothing strange here.
The “bigfoot” head, is the left wing.
Squatch detective, not much of a detective imho, it took me all of 5 seconds to see this.
And to add to my comment, it’s in the air, not on the ground.
It’s all about your perspective.
Squatch detective investigates sasquatch, so he wants to see a bent over sasquatch, instead of an owl close to the camera in flight with its back to the camera.
Come on folks, this is obviously an owl getting his supper. Stop trying to read into things that which is not there.
Greg102, if you read the report from Dr. MacCabee, he shows that it is not an owl.
The shadow would of been on the ground below it.
So what ever it is, is on the ground not in the air close to the camera.
hi everyone!! I was trying to find some shape to the creature shown in the foto (this situation reminds me the mangy bear of jacobs footage!!). I sincerely could not find some shape similar to a humanoid in this foto. I suspect it is a camera mistake. I’m not an expert but I personally think:
It seems the camera took 2 pics of some wandering creature (dog, wolf, bear) which superimposed themselves. In the first foto, the animal was walking parallel to the camera, and in the second foto, it was traveling toward the camera, so the animal position form some kind of cross like this “+”. What do you think?
Greetings.
Wouldn’t a shadow from a camera flash be on the other side of the object, relative to the camera, and therefore not picked up by the camera, regardless of distance?
Here’s your boy; The Northern Hawk owl. Look it up, it’s got white on its back which would explain the patches in the photo.
The back, the wings, the tail and the head of a owl diving on a prey are clearly visibile in the picture.
Blobsquatch inna Ghilli Suit.
It looks really like a ghilli suit. You can even see the net from the suit and the white shirt the guy wearing is shining through this net.
Whatever “posed” for the image in question was located in front of the camera for a minimum of one-sixth of a second, the reported shutter speed of the camera. That shutter speed is guaranteed to create a significant blur in an image of something that is even relatively still. A trait of the lens, reported to be a maximum aperture of 3.7, makes it a not very fast lens…and figuring out the depth of field it produces at aperture variations up to that maximum aperture would be useful in interpreting the near and far boundaries of sharpness/near sharpness.
It would be helpful to see enlargements of the other photos that camera took the same day before and night….especially the crow photos.
Also, it is stated that the comparison photos were taken by a different camera located in a slightly different location that the camera that took the questioned photograph. The original camera located in exactly the original position needs to be used in order to obtain data before anyone should attempt to place weight on a hypothesis.
The subject of the image is curious and can’t be immediately and definitively identified. There are lots of photo that share those traits, and they make things interesting. In this case it seems there are avenues of investigation that either have not yet been done or have not yet been reported…so while the jury is out I hope it is energetic, well-fed, and eternally curious.
Owl. Next, please…
Zigo: So Dr. MacCabee is the end all be all and can’t be wrong? He is way over analyzing a photo that is so obviously an owl in flight close to the camera. By MacCabee’s own “investigation” he says the blur is from motion up and down, umm well that’s an owl probably took off from a limb above the camera and is swooping down, hence the blur. Why isn’t there any other photos? If it was a land animal there would probably be more than one photo. A fast flying bird can be in one frame and gone. I’m not going to try to debate anyone on this photo because it’s a waste of time, we know what it is. Believe what you want, but there are better pics to spend time on.
OK, folks? This is not ‘obviously’ anything, other than obviously NOT an owl, and before you ask, I know my owls way better than you.
One thing I am rooting for to disappear from cryptozoology, the sooner the better, is all the patently loony ‘obvious’ mundane assertions.
This is much – MUCH – more likely a bigfoot – or a bear, horse or three-toed sloth, or your aunt – than an owl. Just trust me there.
Why do trail cams only snap crystal clear photos of known animals and indistinct blobs and shadows of Bigfoot?
This picture changes every time I look at it. Looks like it could be an owl in flight. Then when you look at the pics from the website listed, looks like something large bent over on the ground. Possibly carrying something underneath it, because of an apparent appendage on the left side. Even kinda looks like maybe two bears. One laying across the other, possibly playing? If it is on the ground and it is a single figure, compared to the person used in the side by side picture, it still looks pretty big. Seems inconclusive in my opinion though. But it’s just my opinion.
goerman: “Why do trail cams only snap crystal clear photos of known animals and indistinct blobs and shadows of Bigfoot?”
Actually, good question. My quick version of the answer: people that set up game cams know something about the animals they’re setting them up for – where they go; what they eat; what they do. We don’t even know what the sasquatch is yet.
Proponents have long claimed that sasquatch know to avoid game cameras. I thought that was kinda silly…until evidence started coming up that known animals – coyotes for one – seem to do the same. And yes, we have lots of coyote photos. But many individuals seem to avoid cameras.
Low population densities – which the sasquatch seems to have – would mean that you won’t get many opportunities. And these things haven’t been on the market that long.
And remember: we only see the good shots of the known animals. Unless we’re working our own cams.
I guess my bottom line is: I would have expected better than this by now. But I don’t consider it convincing evidence-against that we don’t have a clear game cam photo yet. And I do think, sooner or later, that we’re gonna get one. If it’s real, that is. Because the evidence makes it sound not too much different from critters we know about. Different, yeah. But not that much.
I have looked at this for too long, and I just don’t see anything bird like, I see fur not feathers. I see no bird wing anatomy. I would think it’s a rough looking mammal of some kind.
This is only sasquatch or any other “animal” if said animal is transparent. Drop this photo into your photo editor of choice and play with the settings. You will see a clear diagonal line “behind” or actually moving through the frame. My guess…insect very close to camera, body, wings moving giving view of what is “behind” it due to shutter lag…or whatever the technical camera term is.
A good argument for owl, bottom left looks like a bird leg.
From what I am seeing, and based upon 16 years of having worked with great apes, that is a primate, and not someone wearing a suit.
I have seen chimps in that sort of position as they were foraging in their enclosures and they had a baby with them.
I find it amusing that some smart alecs are saying it’s “obviously” this or “obviously” that.
Whatever it is, or isn’t, there is certainly nothing “obvious” about it.
Greg102 –
The doctors experience speaks for itself. If it were a court court case his testimony would be taken as an expert opinion and would be accepted as fact.
He gave an in depth explanation of why it’s not an owl.
All you gave was it’s an owl, no pictures, no explanation, no technical data.
And what experience/expert analysis do you back up your opinion with?
And that’s the biggest problem with skeptics, they make a quick assessment with no research or experience in the subject’s they’re debating and stated as though it’s fact.
zigoapex:
“And that’s the biggest problem with skeptics, they make a quick assessment with no research or experience in the subject’s they’re debating and stated as though it’s fact.”
That’s the biggest problem with what is generally labeled in crypto as “skepticism.” It isn’t. It’s more like ignorance.
*I’m* a skeptic. Which means: I question and analyze every proposition. If yours comes unequipped with evidence, you strike me as credulous, naive, or ignorant, and frequently all three. (On crypto topics, many credentialed scientists strike me very strongly as all three.)
This photo lacks any owl – or bird – markers. Ergo, not a bird. Beyond that, we can’t go.
Tossing something like this off as obvious – and failing to provide Scrap One to back up your toss – shows on its face that you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is something “skeptics” – they’re NOT – do way too often: throw smelly, wet crap at the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately, too much of the public is just like them when it comes to stuff like this. So too much of the crap sticks.
It does nothing for crypto – for anything, for that matter – to go with a two line “this is obviously that.” Evidence is ALWAYS required. That’s another thing “skeptics” – THEY’RE NOT – don’t seem to get. It is not up to the proponents to prove anything. It is only up to them to provide the evidence for scrutiny by science. That evidence either leads to proof, or is debunked by evidence that shows that it’s not that, but this instead.
It’s science, folks, or not worth bothering with.
Was this near Perfection Valley by any chance? That first one looks a lot like a Shrieker! Or maybe an owl, if you want to be that unimaginative…
To all those who wonder why bigfoot would not be photographed with a trail cam, the answer is easy to guess.
Trail cams use flash technology involving capacitor discharge. This means any animal with a hearing range slightly higher than the average human would hear a piercing whine a very long distance from the camera.
Animals that do not care, or are not intelligent enough, to worry about the whine are photographed.
Animals such as coyotes are wary or smart enough to avoid such a scenario.
An animal with the intelligence of of a human and the senses of an animal would “see” a world of loudly whining TV’s, clicking automatic supermarket doors, screaming ATMs, buzzing power line transformers, chirping mobile phones, etc. that would be completely silent to our ears.
This animal would hear these things from a very far ways off. If they associated them with human society, and they wanted to avoid human society, they would adjust their travels very easily to avoid human noise pollution without ever coming close.
This would include trail cams that silently scream their capacitor whines as long as the batteries hold out.
I believe the owl description (closer to camera, flying away from us) is quite likely.
Yes, Macabee’s endorsement of Ed Walter’s fraudulent photos should have considerably lowered his reputation. But because of the general low standards in the paranormal field, he is still held up as some kind of authority.
Macabee makes much of the shadow just to the left of the object, suggesting that the size of the shadow indicates that the object was closer to the ground (rather than an owl closer to the camera).
The light source is just above the lens and thus the potential owl would be to the right of the light (Macabee unwisely ignores this). Thus any shadows would NECESSARILY be thrown to the right. I think the smaller shadow we see is because the owl is hiding much of the resulting shadow.
Indeed the test photos (on a man on the ground) DO NOT show the shadow that Macabee theory would have required which sort of ruins his theory.
If the folks investigating had tested an object closer to cam, they could have confirmed or unconfirmed what I am saying. Maccabee’s theory is wrong just from the evidence we have in front of us.
lancemoody, the photo of the man on the ground does show the shadow, it’s not as intense. There is a shadow in front of his face and below his right arm. That doesn’t make the blob a sasquatch, having said that I don’t even see one primary or secondary feather on the “owl wing” (not even a blurry one.)
The fact that the shadow is not as intense (actually MUCH less intense) should should certainly show you that Macabee’s theory is full of hot air. But since this tends to discredit the photo as Bigfoot, of course, common sense doesn’t apply.
“I don’t even see one primary or secondary feather on the “owl wing” (not even a blurry one.)”
Such a strange statement. When things are blurry, their detail is lost–the more blurry, the more is lost. I can take a photo of a bald eagle and blur it so much that you won’t be able to discern any feathers either. Does that mean it’s not still a picture of a bald eagle?
It’s like saying, in a completely dark room, “I don’t see anyone, monster or man.” It is a meaningless statement.
Of course monster buffs, unlike regular mortals, DO see monsters in blurry photos They claim all sorts of silly detail. One “much respected” Bigfoot researcher saw (in the Patterson film) all sorts of implications in the artifacts caused by JPEG compression(!), calling them muscle contractions and other nonsense.
So I definitely know where you are coming from.
I am a complete skeptic, and am not promoting any notion that this is BF, but skepticism runs both ways. If all owls were extinct this photo would not be good enough to prove they existed. As for the blur, the movement of this object covers only inches at best, you could easily discern feather structure if it was there.
What I see is an owl swooping in front of the camera lens. I see the rounded head toward the top, and the wings on either side, with the torso narrowing to the tail at the fore of the picture. The object is in the air, not on the ground, and close to the lens, which explains why it looks big. When you can accept that the object is a bird in the air close to the camera lens, you can dismiss the much less logical explanation that it must be a seven foot tall creature on the ground. I can also see feathers.
The explanation for why the critter cam caught only one photo and not multiple photos is because critter cams are good at taking multiple photos of creatures that mostly stay put in a 30 second time frame. But in this case, the owl passed too quickly out of the camera event field to be photographed a second time.