Dead Bigfoot Photo?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 16th, 2009
Since there has been some renewed interest in the Bigfoot community in the following photograph, I thought I should post it again.
What is shown in this image? Where was it taken? By whom? When? Of what?
After all, there are so many more eyes here than there was when this first appeared, perhaps someone can source this one.
Craig Woolheater first posted this on Cryptomundo on November 21, 2006:
===
Cryptomundo reader captiannemo sent in this photo.
Anyone know anything about this one?
===
Leave your guesses and any known information in comments below.
For editorial comparison purposes, I have added examples of archival photos of dead gorillas.
It is noteworthy to see that traditional trophy photographs would show the front of the animal taken.
%%%%%
Please remember to…
Thank You.
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.
Remarkable!
I’ve never seen this photo. My first impression was that the creature in the shot looks almost like a drawing, but it’s probably just due to the age and quality of the photo. The creature also could have been added after using a computer.
And why take a photo of it’s back? Sure it creates a great mystery, but the thing we are most curious about is the face and eyes of a Bigfoot.
If you’ll look at the head of the creature you’ll notice that there is a kind of straight edge to the right. This suggests that it could have been “shaven” by an eraser on a computer program. It’s a suspicious contour.
These are my first observations with the little detail this photo has. Still it’s more exciting than a blob in the woods.
– T
A lot of pretty obvious digital manipulation in that photo. Really nothing to talk about imo.
The legs look too long to be a gorilla. It seems like the creature is slightly out of focus compared to the man on the left which may mean a forced perspective by mounting the subject closer to the camera and creating the illusion of size. It might be more convincing if the face was shown so I’m not entirely convinced.
I believe this is a photo-shopped bear photo. The edges are blurry, as if the picture of the animal was added later, the above mentioned angle issue, and the hand/paw area looks edited. Another hoax, I believe.
I agree, bear. In addition to the head trimming, the area between the butt and the knees has a different texture than the rest, as if something was photoshopped in to lengthen the legs. If you enlarge this area, you can see identical features on both sides. Most noticeably, there is a circular mark where the legs join the body.
Physiologically there are some oddities. Yes, hunters invariable ALWAYS show the head of the kill for some strange anthropological reason. Basically “Look at this – I killed it.” So that is very, very suspicious. What strikes me is that the limbs all seem to be of different thicknesses and there are no noticable buttock muscles.
I would not even say a bear based on this.
I do note that the very old trick of fore object closer to camera and poser further back is used. It makes the “object” look big in comparison to the poser who SHOULD be standing nearer to it. Stepping back gives that false perspective.
The fellow with the gun looks very familiar – from an old Indian Wars campaign photo? It’d take me days to go through my books to check but maybe someone out there knows?
Odd to look at.
Almost as though scanned, enlarged and then reduced but not very well [intentionally?].
Unless they had digital camera technology back in the early 1900s(when it appears this moment is supposed to have taken place), I’d suggest,like several others, that it’s a very amateurish Photo Shop-type fraud. You don’t see many photos of that era that are digitized and pixelated. Kinda odd how everything around the hunter is blurry and bleary, like it was manipulated in, and a shot of the face is conveniently absent. Very lame attempt at a hoax.
Greetings, Loren and all,
I would imagine the reason for a photo of the back of this creature is because the shot (s) that killed it made for an unpleasant photograph from the front.
If I had to guess, I would say it could be a modified image of a gorilla, given the fact it looks more like hands in this pic than bear feet. We may never know, thanks to such amazing Photo Shop artists out there.
The peak of the head looks photoshopped. As in someone gave this animal a crest. If you look closely at the top of its head, one side is “blurred” and the other is perfectly smooth. As for the blurriness of the picture, that can also be done in photoshop. This could be a new picture that has been played with. Just like the second photo is a new picture in black and white.
Why did Ray LaMontaigne have to shoot that digital bear?!!
If this was genuine, there obviously would be more photos. There would be closeups, multiple angles, pics of face, etc… Think for a second you just shot the legendary bigfoot an animal that supposedly doesn’t exist. Why would you take one photo from the back and create more mystery than just showing the world the real conclusive proof. If it’s the real deal you have nothing to hide. My opinion this is a forgery. I’m not a photoshop expert but i’m sure there are some out there that can view this photo and look for obvious photoshop edits.
Manipulated bear thru Photoshop.
Too litle lack of detail in the area between the legs, suggesting the legs were elongated.
Plus, the arms are too short. Even for a human-proportioned body.
Most definitely a hoax for the reasons mentioned by SamSquanch.
If you look close at the head of the “Bigfoot” you can see the face of a bear, ears and all.
fakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefakefake.
For the most obvious reason of all, one that anyone with a serious interest in this topic needs to get:
If that were a bigfoot, we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
We’d have known, within a short period after that shot was taken.
No need to talk Photoshop here. who cares? fake.
(As if hanging it facing away from the camera – the only big-game kill shot I have EVER seen that was that way – wasn’t enough, right there.)
Here is how it will happen:
1. A scientific team will be assembled after a compelling piece of evidence pushes the issue past critical mass.
2. The team will go into the field, equipped to document.
3. The team will either come back with proof, or with evidence compelling enough that the search continues until the documentation is there.
Period.
Science works in no other way. And until there is serious scientific interest, there will be no confirmation.
And we can keep coming here! 😀
Do I see a zipper?
It certainly does appear to have bear paws, in the front and the back.
The composition of the shot is definitely sketchy. It’s like, why the animal the only blurry part of the picture?
An interesting but disturbing photo. I am in no way convinced whatever it is was a bear. No species of bear have hind legs as long as these and bears do not usually have torsos that taper from the lats to the waist to this extent.
The photo appears to be a digitized copy and might explain some of the odd lines, such as the line on the head. If it is a sasquatch the picture could be of the back to hide genetalia that would heve been considered obscene in this time period, and maybe today too!
Keeping in mind the countless reports of the lack of a visible neck with sasquatch, and how the head always appears to be attached to the shoulders, I would have to say this image fits the bill.
Given the lighting coming in from the left, I think it would have been quite an effort to photoshop the picture with all the lighting detail. Nevertheless it is unfortunate the face is not shown.
How could a bear in this photo be stretched out and have the integrity and lighting detail maintained to this extent if it really is of a bear?
I tried to find both modern and historic pictures of trophy bears hanging from trees as a comparison (a terrible task to say the least!) and strangely all of the pictures I found had the bears hanging from their heads, not their hind legs.
Here are a couple of pictures for at least some comparison.
I would label this one an example of Photoshop. Note the highlighted outline around the carcasse?
The gorilla pictures are repulsive – anyone still want to shoot a sas on sight?
Three very, very obvious words….Bear….Photoshop….Fake.
I would really like to know the story behind this one!!!
The more I scrutinize this photo the more impressed I become.
And to all the Photoshop*pers out there, show me. Let me see you pull this off. Most of you guys just don’t realize that it would be more simple to fake the photograph than to Photoshop* it.
My question is this, where did Captain Nemo get it? Is it from a book?, a post card? Grandpa’s old foot locker?
*Photoshop is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
For the record, GIMP is free and much easier to use than Photoshop* in my opinion.
I believe MrInspector just threw down the gauntlet and challenged us “Photoshop*pers” to make a better fake than the fake photo above…the hanging “Bigfoot” is way too obvious…
So in the last 30 min I searched for some photos and put together a little piece of fakery on my own…ATTENTION: THIS IS NOT A REAL PHOTO – PAINTSHOP PRO — USED TO ENHANCE.
I don’t want any confusion…not that is looks incredibly real…but I’d say better than the hack job posted in the story. I give you…the Indian on horseback…
FAKE ALERT
[Click here for larger version.]
What do you think? Worthy of a postcard?
The first thing that I noticed besides photo quality, is the size of the creature relative to the hunter and the fact that it is suspended from the tree. How did this guy, or even 3 or 4 guys his size, manage to hoist such a large and heavy creature? I understand pulley systems very well, but when you throw a rope over a tree limb and pull, it doesn’t really work as an effective pulley system. You are effectively pulling the weight of the animal PLUS you have additional friction forces from the rope over the tree limb. So the idea of hoisting an animal this size with ropes thrown over a tree limb is ridiculous. Look closely at the gorilla photos, all of those are taken with the gorilla on the gound. One depicts the gorilla’s arms tied to a limb to hold him upright, but his bottom is firmly on the earth. So, again, this photo of a 600 lb plus creature hanging from a tree branch is absurd. Why would they even hang it up like that to begin with? Most hunter would hang an animal like this to field dress (gut) the animal, they wouldn’t go through all that trouble for a photo opportunity. So I say fake photo, because for me even the ideas behind the photo and pose are ridiculous.
If I were Photoshopping it I would have added at least one finger hanging down.
That says what it says…
Anyone else notice the PTERANODON that bamsbocce put in his fake Indian photo? Nice job, by the way!
Not that I can say this picture is conclusively real but I am still not convinced it is a fake either. As far as hoisting the figure into the trees the hunters were likely on horseback and used a horse or two to hoist it up. The hunter would have hoisted it to display the height of the ‘trophy’ in comparison to himself, especially given the oddity of the quarry. Given the slanted tree to the left of the figures I assume the body has been hoisted over a tree trunk and not a branch.
For those that say photoshopped bear please show how this could be done. How can the hind legs of a bear be stretched by 3 or 4 times the length while maintaining the lighting on the hair for example?
I agree the gorilla pictures are a terrible sight as well! But notice how the fingers of the gorillas are curled into the palm as with the hanging figure. An interesting similarity perhaps.
Sad to think this but maybe the face was not shown due to injury of being shot. Also sad to think but it is likely explorers, hunters, trappers and gold diggers throughout the early west of North America would not have had much mercy on any Sasquatch they would have met on their journeys. Especially if they displayed any territorial behaviour towards the invading or destructive human beings. Hopefully present day Sasquatch are only shot with cameras and video equipment by well-meaning people!
Nice job on the photoshopped horse and rider by the way. But it is an obvious fake. The lighting of the figures does not fit in at all with the surroundings (it appears pasted into the picture) and there is no shadow on the ground around the horse. The Pteradon is much more difficult to tell it is faked but impossible to tell it is that it is real too. A true ‘blobadon’.
I’m no Photoshop expert, john5 —And I apologize for using the term, but in the graphics business Photoshop IS the standard software, I don’t even want to think what would happen if I used the term Corel Draw! instead ;-)— but I use it very often to retouch my Architectural renderings done with 3Ds MAX (controlling the color levels, erasing mistakes, adjusting the brightness/contrasts, adding a few human figures to an interior design scene, etc).
With that being said, I think that using simple tools like the ‘Free Transform’ Edit tool, and the’ Clone Stamp’ tool, you could accomplish the task of taking the figure of a bear, and manipulate it to make it resemble like a Bigfoot. Obviously, you would need to clone the bear in a second layer prior to do the manipulation.
It would take several hours depending on your skill. But believe me: it’s doable.
Take a look at what THIS Master is capable of. Things like these is what convinces me that any photographic evidence of Sasquatch is trivial by now.
Thanks for the comments on my photo. A shadow near the horse would have been a nice touch. I didn’t think of it at the time.
I guess now I need to find a hanging bear photo and transform it to a hanging bigfoot.
Thanks for the feedback RPJ and bamsbocce. I still have to say that until I can see an attempt by anyone to stretch and manipulate a bear picture and maintain the above integrity of lighting and hair, the jury is still out for me on this picture.
I would also have to ask the question now: If someone is so capable of maniputlating photos then why would they choose only one photo from a century ago to expose their skill? Just to fool people as there is no way of using this photo as any kind of evidence to prove the reality of sasquatch?!
Undoubtedly if they were that good at photo manilulation they would be able to use any photograph, old and new, to manipulate and if they could do it in a few hours then they would likely to be able to produce albums of material to ‘fool’ people with. Thankfully this has not happened as it would become very tiresome sifting thru their ‘bad jokes’ for photographic evidence. I hope people continue pursuing to acquire photographic evidence for sasquatch but it is a shame that so many now have digital photography equipment due to its inability to zoom in for fine detail!
John5, those are valid questions. Maybe the reason someone prefers to use an old photo is because it gives a subliminal element of plausibility? Also, having to deal with just grades of the same tone (sepia) would definitely be easier than dealing with a full color picture. You would be able to airbrush your mistakes and all that. I admit this is speculation on my part.
Digital photography has definitely brought several disadvantages along with their ubiquitousness. The quality of the images are far from perfect and can create many misidentifications—e.g. the infamous ‘rods’ and ‘orbs’.
But, we are heading to a world were virtually every human being will be carrying an image recording device that can instantaneously share pics and video with the entire world. I believe a field like Cryptozoology can find a huge advantage in that; NOT as a way to gather irrefutable evidence, but as a means to focus investigation efforts to ‘hot’ zones much more efficiently.
Imagine if Cryptomundo had a Twitter system of recent sightings! 🙂
A lot of “cloning” below the head area; you can see obviously repeated patterns.
Red_pill:
“Imagine if Cryptomundo had a Twitter system of recent sightings! :-)”
No.
Imagine if people actually seeing a cryptid actually took advantage of one.
That’s the rub. It’s the reason that no one understands how in heck an eight-foot bipedal ape isn’t confirmed yet. It’s simple: almost no one who sees one wants to tell anyone about it (very few even attempt to do so even with the option of anonymously posting to a website).
I’d venture that you’d get hundreds of fakers a day on that Twitter. Not sure it’s such a good idea.
red_pill:
“Take a look at what THIS Master is capable of. Things like these is what convinces me that any photographic evidence of Sasquatch is trivial by now.”
Now Homer’s an obvious fake. 😀
What will keep photographic evidence of Sasquatch relevant – although, OK, we may not be able to say “proof” – is what I call search image. A picture that is in fact of something real will LOOK real enough that a substantial number of people will go: whoo. That could be the real thing.
The rub will be the stated source of the photo. If it’s not from a mainstream scientific expedition you might have a lot of people discounting it on that alone. And remember: P/G is still laughed at by many – even though no one has ever come up with a shred of evidence that it’s a fake.
Thanks again RPJ. Although I have no idea of what this ‘twitter’ thing is I’ve been hearing about lately I have to agree that with the photo technology now available to many, many people that there is far more opportunity for people to capture pictures of cryptids now than ever. I guess that is the trade-off for the likelihood of there being more poor quality pictures due to the digital effect.
I too had thought that having few colour tones would be a reason for trying to manipulate the older pictures but I still would like to see haw anyone could stretch the legs of a bear into what appears in this picture. I would like to think anyone with such photographic talent would not be wasting it trying to fool others.
What would the P/G footage have looked like if it had been taken with a camera phone? 🙂
This is certainly interesting. Probably genuine too.
@ DWA:
>>“I’d venture that you’d get hundreds of fakers a day on that Twitter. Not sure it’s such a good idea.”
That would definitely be a trade-off. That’s why I thought of a Twitter system handled by Loren and the intelligent people of Cryptomundo. I think that folks who visit this site are very capable of knowing the difference between an obvious fake and a report that deserves further study.
What I meant about a Twitter system would be something about reports being made by people out in the field looking for cryptids, as well as reports taken from the media by Cryptomundians who would deemed them worthy enough to be mentioned.
>>“What will keep photographic evidence of Sasquatch relevant – although, OK, we may not be able to say “proof” – is what I call search image. A picture that is in fact of something real will LOOK real enough that a substantial number of people will go: whoo. That could be the real thing.
The rub will be the stated source of the photo. If it’s not from a mainstream scientific expedition you might have a lot of people discounting it on that alone. And remember: P/G is still laughed at by many – even though no one has ever come up with a shred of evidence that it’s a fake.”
I don’t know. If people find a convincing enough picture that ends up being disputed, that turns into an even bigger blow to the credibility of Cryptozoology.
Agreed on your assertion about the P/G film. But that’s kind of also my point: IMO a new video of Sasquatch that’s even more convincing and detailed than P/G is not going to be believed by many people. CG technology is moving so fast that it enables amateurs to make convincing hoaxes of UFO videos; so I predict that in less than 5 years we are going to see a very convincing Sasquatch video that is entirely CG—no guy in a gorilla suit, but a virtual character rendered in a real environment or even an artificial one. Think about the cool effects of Peter Jackson’s King Kong: that technology will be available to common folks in no time.
But a video that is accompanied by tracks, hair samples, stools and maybe the capture of a live specimen? Now that’s something else! 🙂
@john5:
>>“I too had thought that having few colour tones would be a reason for trying to manipulate the older pictures but I still would like to see haw anyone could stretch the legs of a bear into what appears in this picture. I would like to think anyone with such photographic talent would not be wasting it trying to fool others.”
But that’s my point john: it really doesn’t take that much talent nowadays with the technology available. And new software and more powerful computers makes it even easier as years go by. 15 years ago very few people had computers fast enough to manipulate pictures with software like Photoshop. When Spielberg released Jurassic Park, Silicon Graphics—the company that made the computers used to render all those cool dinosaurs—was one of the most profitable computer businesses in the world. Today they are broke, because now you can go to Home Depot and with US$500 you can buy a computer than can do that.
The ‘Clone Stamp’ tool in Photoshop is incredibly powerful. It allows you to use the pixels of one part of the picture and apply them with a brush to another area. So that enables you to do things like extend the length of a building, shorten the size of a lake, and yes—even increase the length of a bear’s legs.
>>“What would the P/G footage have looked like if it had been taken with a camera phone? :)”
Excellent question. The answer is: it would probably look no better than all the Blobsquatch videos you see posted on Youtube. And that’s a sad thing indeed. Maybe someone who’s really passionate about Bigfoot would make the effort to buy a professional-level HD camera to go search for the big fellow—after all, Patterson had borrowed (I think) that movie camera he used with the clear intention to make a documentary about his search of Sasquatch. People have different interests, some are willing to sacrifice some luxuries for their hobbies so who knows 🙂
Red_pill:
Well, lemme look at that Twitter again.
Scientists suss. It’s part of the game; you decide whether this looks like a lead or not, and sometimes that means going with your gut. (I can chew trees when I see skeptics saying we have to consider every single report because, well, you just never know, the sasquatch could be three-foot tall and polka dot, or fifty feet tall, three-toed and green.)
No, you can’t tell whether someone’s lying by reading their story. But boy, the obvious jokers have a thread running through them, and so do the for-serious ones. Me, I would not mind – one bit – getting a bag of ‘em to sift through. Because, you know, you can do it. All you’re looking for is a place to start. And there is a profile to match against. I know, ‘cause that’s what I do with every one I read.
There’s a limited number of folks doing this. As in, not enough. Maybe adding Cryptomundo to that wouldn’t hurt.
Talking about going off-topic. I have to watch these comments like a hawk. Okay, you asked for this…lol.
Twitter talk. You have got to be out of your minds. Do you realize there is hardly any financial rewards from writing this blog (hey, only $67.43 in donations through the ICM button in the last week doesn’t pay the mortgage). I am up to my ears in work with the emails, replies, comments, research, interviews, and writing that goes into Cryptomundo. I don’t have time for jumping into the morass of Facebook and MySpace, let alone IM or podcasting or doing internet radio interviews anymore, because time is at a premium. And you folks are pushing for Twitter, which says nothing and pushes English language closer to the abyss. No thank you!
im not convinced at all. everything about this says its a fake.
In my head, I have this worked out. I just can’t find the image to illustrate it. Picture the 1933 King Kong, toward the end of the movie, in chains, on the Broadway stage. Flip the image upside down, clone out the chains on his ankles and wrists, clone out his face. There you have it. The fact that the animal in the bogus image seems to be wearing socks (note the very distinct line where the fur changes color) made me think of King Kong in chains.
yeh no twitter!
this may have been adressed before in those sea of comments.
the weight of that BF might be 600 lbs+ i’m not sure what a gorrila weighs but they have to be in the 450lbs area. that one seems to be hanging from a tree?
also that pic looks like when i take a pic of a fish i caught trying to make it look bigger by holding it out closer to the camera.
No Twitter, Loren? Srsly?? LOL
People reading this might think I’m a big fan of Twitter. Point of fact is I’m not. Surfing the web and blogging consumes so much of my time already that I feel that if I surrender to the Twitter fad, I might as well stick a computer screen to my forehead with Krazy glue and forget all about the real world 😛
So I was half-serious when I suggested a Crypto-Twitter.
But think about it you guys: If the guys who just went to the Congo basin in search of Mokele Mbembe—or the guys in the expedition looking for the Yeti— were able to post Tweets of their progress and findings… are you honestly telling me you wouldn’t be interested in following those Tweets?
That’s what I meant. Also, if there were to be some official Cryptomundo Twitter, I’m not suggesting that Loren would have to be responsible for THAT as well—God knows he’s got his hands full as it is, and God also knows we all appreciate his valiant efforts.
Maybe some folks would be able to lend a hand, just as some members are contributing to the site with some damn fine articles—yes mystery_man, I’m talking about you 😉
But hey, it was just a suggestion, really… (sheeesh)
PS: Only $67.43 in donations?? I honestly think we could do better than that :-/
Looks awfully suspicious when you blow up the image.
Focus on that strangely blocked-out head area for the clearest clues.
Horizontal lines across the head and “arms” show where some of the editing took place.
Looks like a bear to me.
Greetings All!
One reason for using an old photo to commit fakery would be that there might be no one around anymore to say “Hey! That’s Uncle Vic!” and spoil the fun.
An example of what I see as great photo manipulation is here on YouTube. Talk about your cryptids!!
The arms are short for a ‘bigfoot’.
Why is the creature in the photo facing away from the camera? When people pose with lions, or cape buffalo, or Russian boars, they usually make sure that you can see the face. Neither do any of the gorilla photos show the dorsal side of the gorilla. Why would the hunter in the photograph choose to do so?
Also, It looks like the photo of the rifleman is the original, with the depiction of the ‘bigfoot’ placed on top.
Talking as a hunter, most hunters would not hang the animal unless to gut it, it is too much trouble when out in the field and your thoughts are mainly of getting the meat home. Trophy pics would be taken where the animal falls, in a case like this as with the gorilla pics, it would either be placed in a sitting position or if hung it would be hung arms 1st, not by the hind legs, unless off course as said it is to gut the animal there where it was shot. A hunter off course particularly a trophy hunter would show of anything peculiar or anything odd about the animal that was shot, the picture must tell a story, trophy hunters like to brag so they would show off all the features and not show the back of the animal, no story in that.
The only other scenario would be an after thought of the hunters to photograph it after they had gutted it. This I doubt as if it was humanoid they would never consider eating it. Photos would have been taken from all angles, the story approach again, and the animal disposed of or left where it fell, in the days that this pic was supposedly taken the animal would have been left where it fell.
Just a hunters opinion.
I forgot to add that if it was hung and a pic taken as an after thought the animal being humaniod would only be skinned, and if skinning had started then you would be able to pick that up in the photo. If skinning had not been started then again all features would be photographed. It must be remembered that in those days few pics where taken of kills as hunting was considered part of life and a way to put meat on the table. So again if you going to take the trouble to photograph it, they would have gone the whole hog and shown it from the front on.
I see a bear in that photo. A big animal for sure but doesn’t look otherwise remarkable or inexplicable.
That “Indian on horseback” is so obviously a fake. I mean its photoshop isn’t it? Everything else is genuine but that Indian…come on!:))
In case..I was kidding. I know the tree is the actual fake.