More From Mt. Hood

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 3rd, 2006

Oregon Game Camera Photo

Click image for full-size version

Oregon Game Camera Photo

Click image for full-size version

The photograph with the potential Bigfoot in a camera image that was taken between the two above can be found by clicking at "New Mt. Hood Bigfoot Photograph?"

The photographs above were taken immediately before and after the possible Bigfoot camera image.

These remote camera captures clearly show that animals, in these two specific cases, deer, set off the camera’s function. And yes, to answer a question asked about why the camera was placed there…the individuals were attempting to capture photographically a Bigfoot .

Loren Coleman 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.

63 Responses to “More From Mt. Hood”

  1. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Now for the big question. Who’s going to pay for it? 🙂

    And if you’ve got some cash left over at the end, ship a few down to me so I can look for thylacines, mainland devils and mainland eastern quolls! 😀

  2. Nessie-Chaser responds:

    No deer in its right mind would go anywhere near an area that a human has been in five minutes earlier! So unless the timestamp was changed, it isn’t hoaxed.

    But, Bigfoot’s smell would still be there too!

  3. Jack D. responds:

    Not so. Blacktail deer frequent my yard every few days. They are often seen in town walking down the streets. While buck hunting in the Cascades near Waldo Lake, a doe walked up behind me a watched me from about 10’away before I turned and said “hello” and she ran off. Another time, again while buck hunting, another doe walked in front of me. We stared at each other for a few minutes before she went back to foraging and I went on hunting. Blacktail are not particularly afraid of humans as long as you don’t seem threatening to them. Buck are a little more cautious but I’ve had them bed down under a tree in my front yard.

  4. DWA responds:

    I sense a great tendency here to monkey with the photo in Photoshop to figure out what it is. Not sure that’s going to do it, folks. Hate to say it, but Photoshop and its ilk are one major reason no photo of a sasquatch, all by itself, will ever convince a critical mass of the public. “You can do that sort of stuff in Photoshop!” Whether you can or can’t won’t matter.

    What’s in the pic, as captured by the camera at the time?

    I see: reddish-brown hair. Long, reddish-brown hair. It’s an ever-so-slightly out-of-focus shot of long, reddish-brown hair.

    I’m a little concerned that one reason little progress gets made on figuring out whether yeti or sasquatch exist is that there’s a rush to rationalize that actually, well, takes leave of rationality. I mean, we say that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck, right? How about if it looks like a sasquatch? OK, how about if it just looks like long, reddish-brown hair?

    Whatever it looks like, it is NOT a deer. That’s not motion blurring, at least not until someone shows me a clear example of how, well, motion blurring would make a deer look like THAT. I’m no photographer. But my experience is that motion blurring shows extreme evidence of extreme motion.

    That’s a slightly out of focus picture — with little if any blurring from motion — of long, reddish-brown hair. Any other explanation, until someone shows me otherwise, is an overeager effort to put something there that just ain’t there. Just look at the picture, as is.

    Slightly out-of-focus, long, reddish-brown hair.

    Which narrows down the possible culprits. A LOT. Sasquatch. Horse. Julia Roberts in a crouch. Take your pic(k).

    OK, a little wishful thinking on the precise ID of the homo sapiens. She may or may not be a dear. But she’s no deer.

  5. youcantryreachingme responds:

    “my experience is that motion blurring shows extreme evidence of extreme motion” (54)

    You say you won’t believe a (motion-blurred) deer could look like that, but then you say your understanding of motion blurring is “extreme”.

    A quick search for “motion blur” nets a photo of a human showing distortion just as extreme as the cryptid in question.

    And a search for “slight motion blur” shows us that motion blur need not be “extreme”. In this photo of a rose, look at its right edge near the top part of the green background.

  6. DWA responds:

    Yes, youcantry, but here’s my point: the thing in the “cryptid” shot doesn’t look anything like a deer. I cannot get “deer” from that shot, no matter how I try.

    In both of the examples you include in your post, I’d be able to tell what the subject was, without your telling me.

    And the recently added photo of the deer with its nostril right up against the lens looks, well, like a deer.

    THAT’S my point. The “c” shot looks to me like a slightly out of focus shot of long, reddish-brown hair. Not at all like a deer in any kind of motion, extreme or other. If my use of the word “extreme” caused a problem, my bad. My point is simply that in one of those shots there is something that looks NOTHING like the deer in the other shots.

    But it sure looks like — ok, like part of something else.

    Hey, it’s Cryptomundo, not Deer-o-mundo! Let’s have some fun with this! I say adolescent sasquatch, grown fat on a winter of deer liver. Wot say ye?

  7. Annie responds:

    I’ve worked quite a bit with digital photos, enhancing and repairing them, and IMHO, this is not a case of motion blur…One obvious point being that there is no blur evident at the top right corner of the animal (the bulge).

    It also isn’t at all consistent with any part of a deer, or bear I can see. It could be a horse’s head, but something just doesn’t sit right with me. I have to agree with nightspy. I too have worked with horses for years, and although I can’t say it’s impossible, I have never seen this thick, long, or fine a forelock, or mane. It would also be a near miracle for it to remain this well groomed while on trail, or running wild in the bush. Not a hair seems out of place. I can only imagine this being possible with very fine hair, similar to a human’s.

    Also, look at the tree trunk in the top left corner. Note the sun shine reflecting off of it? This is behind the figure, not beside it (as has been already mentioned)…Where is the rest of the horse? One would have to assume that the horse is at an angle, being that you can’t see anything of it’s shoulder, chest or leg on the right side, not to mention a bridle, or reins. This being the case, would you not have to see at least something of it on the left? There isn’t even a bulge to match the one on the right of the head… It’s not symmetrical.

    For anyone not able to enhance the photo themselves, here it is with the contrast, and brightness increased. Enhanced Mounthood Photo

    Note the bottom left…In the other two pics, there is nothing there, and you can clearly see the background. It would appear that the hair continues there as well, and no this can’t be motion blur either, as none of the “hair” is consistant with any components in the background seen in the other two photos. What I am unsure about is the color difference…Could this be a thin layer of hanging hair, so that the light from behind shows through?

  8. youcantryreachingme responds:

    DWA – “I cannot get “deer” from that shot, no matter how I try.” (56) – but you have to accept a large number of people posting comments to these threads are concluding ‘deer’… so a good proportion of people can in fact see it that way.

    Had a laugh at your adolescent sasquatch line! 🙂

    Annie (57) – there are some interesting insights there.

    I still think it can be motion blur. The “bulge” may be the axis on which the deer’s head rotates. That is – if for a moment we run with the idea that the bulge is the base of the deer’s ear, then the deer has lifted it’s nose up whilst keeping its ear still. The nose would be just out of frame to the bottom.

    It’s a bit like watching a car tyre roll, from a forward angle. The tread of the tyre (which is nearest to you) seems to go through a large range of motion – from the bottom to the top; the full height of the wheel – but the centre of the hub-cap would not go through a large range of motion.

    As you note – the tree is behind the creature. That led me (earlier) to the conlusion that the left side of the creature (as we look at it) slopes at the same angle as the right side (notwithstanding the bulge) – and in my opinion these are symetrical sides to a deer’s forehead. The bulge, as I mentioned, I think is the base of an ear.

    And then there is the question of how can a deer’s head be framed like this. In earlier comments (perhaps on the other threads) I’ve linked to photos of close-up horses heads to show how the whole body can be obscured if the horse’s head is close enough to the lens.

    Recall too that the night before, and 5 minutes later, there are several deer in the area. The most likely animal to be captured on film is a deer, and the fourth photo posted (of the close-up deer) shows that the colours of our cryptid do in fact match a deer when it is close up to the camera (in the shade and blocking the light by being so close).

  9. Redoubt responds:

    I don’t think that this mystery will be solved by a show of hands. That is, regardless of how many people say ‘deer’ or how many say ‘horses ass’… it really doesn’t matter. Prior to 1492, the majority had ruled the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

    Oh well, so much for popular opinion, huh?

    The image of the unidentifiable hairy mass should be enough incentive for a true believer to expend some effort in the immediate area… and if someone actually does, maybe we’ll get a second chance to ogle whatever it was.

    Maybe not.

  10. DWA responds:

    Well yeah. That’s the thing with me.

    Let’s just say that deer is hard enough to get from that shot for all of us to be wondering, well, what the heck it is.

    I guess the only problem with sasquatch is that a lot of opinion seems to be that those guys are highly nomadic, such that it might not be likely for cameras put in that spot to ever catch another one.

    But then, where else would you put one? I’d at least try another camera from another angle, eh?

  11. Annie responds:

    youcantryreachingme, you’ve made some good arguments, but I still have to question the possibility of this being a deer.

    For the photo not to include the deer’s eyes, or any of it’s other markings, only a very small portion of it’s forehead could be photographed, and therefore, would have to be at extremely close range…within inches, I’d say.

    Look at the close up deer pic on the “Update: Mt. Hood Bigfoot” article. How much closer would the deer have to be, to photograph JUST a small area of it’s forehead?

    I noticed something else. The branches/leaves in the foreground would obviously have to be even closer to the camera lens than the deer, yet they don’t appear to be large enough in the photo to be at that close a range.

    Also, where these leaves are visible in 3 of the 4 photos, including the “sasquatch/deer/horse” photo, they are absent in the shot of the deer I linked to above. If they were that close in front of the camera, surely they would still be in this shot?

  12. Jack D. responds:

    “If they were that close in front of the camera, surely they would still be in this shot?”

    Not if she just ate them. I doubt he was there just to have her picture taken. That is what deer eat.

  13. Annie responds:

    LOL! Didn’t think of that. You’re probably right, Jack D!

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.