Maine Tree Creature: First Blobsquatch of 2010?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 2nd, 2010
Was the race on to see who could post the first waste of three minutes of our lives on YouTube for 2010? On January 1st, it appears someone might have won the dubious prize.
Over on Coast to Coast AM’s “Photo of the Day,” they are showing an alleged “Maine Tree Creature.”
Here is what someone identified as “Rocky” has to say about it:
Some friends were walking through the woods in Maine and noticed something in a tree. Here is a pic of the creature they saw. You can watch video of the incident at YouTube. — Rocky
Over at YouTube, the poster there, “Webtech88,” on an entry entitled “What Is It? Sasquatch, Big Foot, monkey, ape!” writes “NOT A FAKE!!! REAL VIDEO!!! This is a video taken by some friends hiking through the woods in upstate Maine. What could it be? Sasquatch? Monkey?”
Well, yes, by definition, what has been posted on YouTube is a “real video.” But, of course, that only tells us that the video footage is real, as it is moving images.
But this is one image, in which the camera is shaken, moved around, and placed out of focus to give the sense that we are seeing someone take pictures of a creature in a tree. However, besides the animal in the picture never moving one bit, it appears that neither do any of the branches, pine needles, background, or anything in this photograph on video. No birds fly by in the sky or squirrels leap into the framing of the picture (which is changed from longer range to closeup, during the creating of this footage).
So what is it? A photoshopped image into a tree that then is made into a picture? A Sasquatch or monkey is doubtful. How about a porcupine? And in Maine? Or not? Perhaps there is an in-joke in this trickery? The year’s first blobsquatch?
BTW, if you look closely, all the previous “videos” posted by Webtech88 (which have been placed all over the web), are magic coin tricks and about Sheba (Zambora), the sideshow “gorilla” trick. This includes the famed James Bond 007’s Diamonds are Forever “Girl to Gorilla” scene. The gorilla suit used in that sideshow was typically made by Phillip Morris, the individual who claimed to sell his gorilla suit to the alleged hoaxers behind the 1967 Bigfoot footage at Bluff Creek.
The infamous Morris Costume Company’s suits just don’t match the Bluff Creek footage.
What is the full story behind the C2C-posted “Maine tree creature”?
Here is the video footage of the alleged Maine scene (yawn ~ if you have some paint that is drying, you may wish to watch that, instead):
Update: Images of porcupines in trees…
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.
Porcupine.
That sure is one porcupine that has had a little too much New year’s cheer.
I don’t know about the environment not moving that could be a mistaken and unneccessary view, as it could be a still day.
Even if its a hoax it is quite convincing and not as blurred or shakey as usual. In the second half after the camera changes i thought “it” was looking at them and if you look closely you can see a face and arms leaning on the branch; not ssying its real just an observation.
Also it is possible that we have heard people cry wolf too many times that when the real thing is presented we dismiss it too readily.
In comparsion to the tree and landscape that would be one big Porcupine.
Hi Loren.
I am the original poster of this video but I assure you I did not create this as a hoax. I simply added it to my youtube account after it was sent to me by the person who took the video. She sent it to me in hopes of trying to figure out what it was. It is a strange video but nothing in it has been modified in any way. I did send it in to the website Coasttocoastam.com but I really didn’t expect it to get posted.
To my surprise when I awoke this morning and checked my email I was bombarded with comments from my youtbe account. Although I do have some magic tricks and and illusion of a G2G, I never expected such a huge response. As far as the G2G illusion…it is an illusion I copied from an old sideshow attraction, which is used in a haunted house fundraiser, which I am a part of every October, where I donate my time and money for a great cause.
Do you have bears in Maine? Looks awfully close to the young bear my dad and I saw while hunting deer. It was just old enough to be kicked out by mom, but still young enough to run up trees when it felt threatened. I think it was about that size. Porcupine, yeah it could be possible. Do you have porcupines in Maine? The only other thing is that YouTube hates my computer (or is it visa-versa?). It wouldn’t play for me.
Porcupine. Let’s not try to read something exotic into a routine sighting of a known animal.
If it is a hoax, I have to give them a little praise. It’s one helluva tall tree to climb to stick a furry animal.
It never hurts to apply apply Occam’s razor.
If not a large porcupine then, perhaps, a small black bear?
In any case, nothing here that screams “Sasquatch, Big Foot, monkey, ape” to me.
Happy 2010 to all!
I have to restate what I consider to be some obvious things about this item:
1) There is no proof this photo (or “video”) was taken in Maine.
2) What animals exist or do not exist in Maine may be a distraction.
3) Porcupines and bears do live Maine, for the record.
4) This is only a video of a photograph; there is no movement in the image shown, as the only movement in the video is created by the shaking and blurring of the image, and the changes in closeup focus imaging of the photograph.
5) This image does not appear to be anything other than a known animal.
I guess I don’t understand the confusion , this is clearly a porcupine.You can want it to be something else all you want but it’s still just a porcupine.
Looks like a Porcupine, all right. Cute feller, too. 🙂
This is fun. Only one assumption: that this was indeed taken in Maine. So if I had to guess, the tree is probably some sort of conifer like an Atlantic White-cedar. The leaves are very small so this creature is small (like a porcupine). However, I think Loren is correct about this being a picture. The video never autofocuses when panning or moving side to side. The blurriness of the leaves never changes. The animal also never breathes. It’s likely a video of a picture.
As far as the animal goes, I vote for a photoshopped monkey with its face blurred out. Look at its feet, there is a blur that is suppose to be a shadow. It’s the only thing in the forest with a true shadow.
Many people are not very knowledgeable about animals in nature. I can see how someone could view a porcupine in a tree and find it mysterious.
As to Loren’s statement that the Morris ape suits don’t match Patterson’s subject: The side by side comparisons above sure have some areas of resemblance, especially in the crown area (even allowing for Patterson’s attachment of upturned “bangs” so his creature would look something like Ostman’s descriptions, a famous case no longer accepted as true, even by advocates).
My Theories:
1. Ape
2. Unknown Ape
3. Porcupine
3. unknown Porcupine
4. Unknown Giant Porcupine.
5. Known Giant Porcupine (if any).
6. Unknown Animal
7. Some other Known Animal
Looking at the full screen youtube picture I see what looks like a quite large ape or chimpanzee like face and figure in some respects similar to Pattie. What it actually is I cannot say. Nor I doubt can anyone else except the photographer (or perpetrator? ).
I am not sure the film is just a manipulated photograph as there are at least two different views of the subject and it does seem to move. ie something in its middle and the feet or hands on the branch. Would any movement in the trees be seen at the distance the film was taken, on a still day? Little movement from the animal may not be surprising as IMO opinion they use the freeze technique to avoid being seen.
Somewhere, someone must have some film of a Sasquatch and probably one of these films is buried on youtube. Is this tantalizingly one of them?
I found a link to a larger version of the image through a different site, perhaps it will help?
It is a porcupine or we call them Hedge Hogs. It’s sitting in a Hemlock tree the bark is one of its favorite foods. In the 50s and 60s there was a bounty on them.I killed hundreds of them .
I don’t think it is a phtoshopped still turned into a video. The perspective movement of the 3 main trees (1 left and 2 in front either side of the of the creature tree) from the zoom out is very obvious.
The definition in the close-up would only be achievable with a massive amount of mega pixels in a still camera but again the perspective of trees changing position as the camera zooms out and pans down cannot be done on a still image. It’s just a still day and a very still creature.
Whatever it is knows it’s best defense is to try go unnoticed. Breathing would probably be obvious if the camera did not shake around so much.
Could be a stuffed animal put up the tree but it’s unlikely anyone would bother hoaxing a non moving animal with such realistic looking fur. It’s too inconclusive to call it a BF but it does look a little monkey like from what is seen.
I would be sitting there with the video camera waiting for it to come down or put a bunch of trail cams around facing the tree to get moving proof rather than pass off this little effort as a Sasquatch or monkey. If I thought it was a little BF I could sit there for a week or more waiting for it to move!
Whatever it is might be asleep. The better definition still pic in the link shows some nice claws hanging onto the branch and side of the tree.
Interestingly inconclusive! Some climbing gear and the video camera up the nearest facing tree would provide a more conclusive video.
Maybe the people had other things to do and were just not that interested.
To WolfGirl, GREAT WORK!
The link nails it. The short quills on the neck and the various colors of the fur are now clearly visible. Just Google images of North American Porcupines to compare.
Also, although admittedly open to interpretation, in comparison to the nearby pine needles, bark, twigs and lichens, the animal in the photo certainly appears to fall within the upper size range (25-39″/9-40lbs.) of our native porky.
IMHO, Case CLOOOSED…! 🙂
I disagree with number four on your list that ‘there is no movement in the image shown’. There is clear movement of some of the objects in the foreground with respect to background foliage, particularly the large tree trunk to the left near the end of the video were I can see it eclipse branches in the background. Now the foreground objects could be an overlay, as the more distant objects seem relatively static, but I detect some 3 dimensional cues even there that indicate this is an actual prolonged temporal event recorded on video–not a static frame made to look like a video.
As to what the object is, well I don’t know what Bigfoot looks like as even the ‘benchmark’ Patterson film is questioned. It does not look like many common descriptions of Bigfoot–that is, big, man-like biped, and hairy. If the video depicts a real animal my guess is that it is one that is relatively comfortable in trees (that’s a stiff climb for something not equipped), and is either sleeping or trying to hide from something down below—that would explain the lack of movement. Oh, and that it looks like it is covered in coarse black hair tinged with brown, and has a bump near the top that looks vaguely like a head and shoulders. There are lots of animals that can be made to fit this description without putting Bigfoot up a tree…so to speak.
hmmm
this
looks familiar
Porcupines move very slowly they do not run the only predators that are a danger to them are man and fishers or fisher cats . The State of Maine placed a bounty on porcupines because they were destroying Hemlock Forests. Later the State of Maine imported Fisher Cats to deal with the porcupines and dropped the bounty.That kept the porcupines in check for a few years. Then a few years ago the State discovered the Fishers were dying ,the reason being Fishers needed some mineral only found in old growth forests.There is very little old growth forest left in Maine. Thus the porcupines are making a come back . The one pictured ,left undisturbed, can stay in that Hemlock tree for days or weeks. It will proceed to eat the bark around the tree girding the tree . Yes it is big,reason being it is an old porcupine. Left alone they can grow as big as medium sized dogs.
I agree with the porcupine theory. Once I saw the larger image, the claws convinced me that it probably wasn’t an ape or Bigfoot.
The enhanced picture from WolfGirl does show what looks more like the porcupine pictures. In particular it shows claws, which I presume are similar to those of a porcupine.
baca10 explains what the animal was doing in the tree and the bark on the branch on which it is sitting appears to have been gnawed though perhaps not recently.
Looks like a good case for the picture to be that of a porcupine.
This is quite clearly a picture of a porcupine, doing what porcupines do, in an area that is known to have porcupines. I really do not see the mystery here. Why muddy the waters by introducing far out unknown factors when there is no reason to do so? Almost anyone who knows something about wildlife and who is not biased towards seeing this as a sasquatch is going to call this one.
This case should be closed. Squinting at pictures of porcupines and forwarding speculation that it is a sasquatch is not helping the cause of cryptozoology being taken seriously. If seems as though most serious minded people here realize what this picture obviously shows. However those out there seeing this on YouTube with the dramatic labelling of this as a sasquatch and jumping to that conclusion just draw a little more unwanted ridicule for the more crtitical minded cryptozoologists among us, I’m afraid. Sigh.
This is like seeing faces in the clouds. Some people are going to look at this pic and see what they want to see, when they should be looking at it for what it clearly is. A porcupine.
Not even a particularly good image of a porcupine at that. Moving on.
A look at the surrounding branches during the angle change at 32 seconds, as well as the zoom and vertical pan at the end, shows that this is likely a video taken in the woods, not of a still photo. I concur, porcupine
In fact, a look at the larger photo, and the latter half of the video, make me think we are looking at the back end of the porcupine.
I must admit, it does look like a porcupine. But as always, there’s always room for another animal. I myself examined the picture. A few flaws in my own eyes. Anyways, I got the pic and I enhanced it to see the face better. I did 4 different versions. I must admit, it does look like a porcupine. It can be a unknown variety of Porcupine too. oh and the last pic i did in pic 4 in my eyes the face is more viewable. I think it is a Porcupine kind.
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
We have these in Indiucky. It’s a baboonupine.
M-M
The picture on which this matter was based was not ‘clearly’ a porcupine it was some kind of blob which could have been a porcupine but could have been something else and the enlarged picture on Utube was even less so, in fact without straining eyes too hard it looked more ape like. It was even possible the blob was something added to the photo.
Contributers here added information, including a further and improved enlargement along with constructive ideas which made it fairly certain the picture was of a real porcupine in a real tree.
It seems to me on a cryptozoological forum this was a good job well done. It is possible this may not please some critics but it will probably appeal to more, in numbers, of others. I do not think we should encourage these critics such as dear Ben Radford whose criticisms are quite predictable.
The link in the comments has a perfect enlarged picture of the animal. It is a porcupine without a doubt. I had one walking about in my yard for a day because he was sick. He latter died. I got close to it and was watching it to see if it was injured. I observed it for a long time. It would sit upright while eating some leaves and other things. It went over to a step put it’s front feet up on it kept his back feet on the ground and then sat down. He then put his head down on one arm on the step and put one paw on his belly. My point is their manurism is somewhat unusual if you never have noticed one before. I was a bit surprised to see him sit up and do all these things. So the porcupine in the picture is sitting upright with it’s feet on two sides of the tree which makes it look a little funny. It certainly dosn’t look like a monkey you can see it’s quills very well in the enlarged photo. They enhanced it so well you can clearly see the porcupine. Whoever thought it was photoshop or any other creature might need to take a step back and look again.
Adrienne
Its nice you have added more detail and imformation that produces such a positive result. Not that usual when these identification issues arise. The uncertainties mainly arose before the beautiful enlarged picture was provided by Wolfgirl, as the other enlargement on Utube only added to the mystery.
Norman-uk
Clearly this IS a porcupine, we practice a game in our family wherein each member of the family tries to spot and identify animals in our daily travels , we have been doing this for many years. My point is that after many years we can look at any given animal and based on things like relative size , posture ,location , color when possible and just how it looks overall we can very quickly identify animals correctly at a great distance accurately time after time , this photo is one that we would use those skills with and for us anyway it is CLEARLY a porcupine.
Adrienne wrote “So the porcupine in the picture is sitting upright with it’s feet on two sides of the tree which makes it look a little funny.”
Could their deep red eyeshine give them a role in some “mothman” sightings too?
I’m glad I could finally help identify an unknown creature on this site. 🙂
I recently uploaded the video after removing it because of so much interest worldwide. Here is the new link…
[The “video” on this posting has been updated to reflect this change. ~ Cryptomundo Administration.]
Scrolling down from the top, before seeing anything else, as soon as the shot hit my eyes: porcupine. Slam dunk.
Looks like the monkeys that they used to have a Jacks Pet shop in Greatfalls Montana.
I saw a VERY similar thing in the trees at the Aroostook State Park in 2014. This was not a porcupine, not a normal creature in the forest. It did not have a tail and I could not see its face. It did not move for 10 minutes. It had paws/feet with no claws, it was black and furry. I am Native American from the Quachita Mtns in Oklahoma and I grew up in the forest there. I never seen anything like this. The area was very calm, no sounds, birds, nor normal forest noise. Very strange, I went to my truck and came back, it was gone. I looked all over, did not see tracks..nothing.