Idaho Blobsquatch? No.
Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 7th, 2009
Does this look like an Idaho Blobsquatch photo? Maybe it looks that way, but actually, it is not. This is a known species.
The little spot on this snowfield high in the Pioneer Mountains in Idaho is a rare wolverine, an animal that can survive in the harshest of alpine environments. Photo by Craig Barry.
The rare sighting occurred last Sunday, August 2, 2009, in the upper end of Broad Canyon near an unnamed lake above Betty Lake, one of the highest alpine lakes in the state.
For more details, see here.
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.
A good example of what kind of pictures can be taken by someone who knows how to use their camera. Even though this isn’t a telephoto lens, the article says the animal was only about 30 yards away, the photo is good and sharp which enabled a positive identification to be made even though the object is quite small.
I can forgive, sort of, grab shots of BF with old manual focus cameras of getting out-of-focus pictures, though there are ways to set most manual focus cameras so even snap photos will be pretty sharp. I find it hard to believe people with modern auto-focus cameras, which all are, can’t get pictures at least sharp enough to let the viewer know if the object in the picture is just a stump, a bear, dog, whatever, or really is Sas or some other cryptobeast.
Huh. That’s cool. I didn’t know they could survive that environment.
Kind of makes me wonder what else could survive in equally harsh environments.
Doesn’t really look BFish anyway, but as archer said, some people are capable of taking good pics.
Which obviously begs the question, how come people can’t take a GOOD pic of BF or other sea cryptids, etc. PErsonally, I think it is because people get worked up that they are actually seeing something so far out of the norm that they get too squirrely to calmly take a picture.
If you see a wolverine, while not your normal critter to observe (and definitely one I wouldn’t want to be much closer than 30 yards too), it is cool, and you are able to snap a picture. However, running across a large hairy humanoid or a head and neck above the surface of the water, I am guessing that gets the adrenaline pumping harder and makes it much more difficult to keep your wits about you. I am sure that if I encountered such a critter, as well read and versed as I am, I would have a heck of a time keeping the camera steady.
That’s my theory anyway.
I agree with you, SpringHeeledJack.
Unfortunately, some folks don’t understand we are all humans beings here—so therefore, when one encounters something out of the the “ordinary”—one is not always going to have the presence of mind to focus the camera and make sure it is a steady shot. Because of that, some of us/them are labeled “idiots” or “incompetent in the use of video recorder/cameras.”
As if “they” knew exactly what and how they would act like and react like to a sighting of, let’s say, Nessie.
Again, I agree with you—unfortunately, some don’t see it that way, know what I mean?.
Not all of us, when getting out of the house, think we’re going to be witnessing something “extraordinary.” Therefore, many of us do not take our cameras with us. Or we just forget. Regrettable, but it does happen.
I wish folks would focus and do everything “right” when filming something “weird” but realistically that does not happen very often. And I do not rain curses on the people because of that.
Ultimately, one is either open-minded to this or they are not. Willing to “believe” or not.
For the key why we don’t get good sasquatch shots, read the backstory on this one.
That’s the best of several shots. And I for one will be honest here: I would have not the slightest idea in heck what that was if someone hadn’t told me. I know what a wolverine looks like. And it would not even be one of my guesses.
In fact, I know of at least two alleged sasquatch shots – and have heard of more – that kill this one for quality. And both are videos, not indistinct – and oh this is – photographs. (Blobverine is what this one is.)
Unless they are acclimated to humans: WILD ANIMALS VIRTUALLY CANNOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED except by careful planning and long waiting.
Like the kind that gave us the Patterson-Gimlin film. Which is one heck of a lot clearer, more definitive, and oh heck, just way flat better than this. 😉