Mt. Hood Photos: New Ones
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 24th, 2006
Some new photographs have come in from the Mt. Hood, Oregon game-cam team of Kendall and Martin. The camera has been moved up to a height of 42 inches, even though the manual recommends 36 inches, due, in large part to comments here.
First, however, an on-site regular photo of a newly discovered deposit of fecal matter found near the camera is displayed directly below. It was a large pile of scat found about 300 yards from the camera; also deer bones were discovered 25 yards from the scat.
Please click on image for full-size version
Recently, an elk was photographed, but we can’t upload the videoclip because of size configurations. It came right up to the game-cam and apparently decided to have some direct investigative interactions with the lense. The following is the one specific close up of that incident. It is followed immediately by the cam photos of the elk coming towards the camera and then away from it, the before and after of the close-lense event.
There was definitely a close encounter of the elk kind.
These are useful to compare with the original "Bigfoot mystery" photo, which, of course, shows a furry blob and no one knows what was captured in that now well-known image.
Please click on image for full-size version
Please click on image for full-size version
Please click on image for full-size version
The original unknown object photograph, the mystery one first discussed here, is below.
Click image for full-size version
So, you’ve seen them both, side by side? Any new ideas on what the mystery photograph might be?
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.
Yes, its hard to tell what exactly is in the last pic. Hopefully, more images will be forthcoming from the new height that they have placed the cam. Did they obtain a sample of the scat? If so, are they going to have it analyzed?
I know we debated the last picture a bunch but to look at it again just no clear evid. of what it is. Deer, Bear, Horse, Hoax, Bf I just do not see anything that says it is 100% this or that. It is a photo that makes you go HMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!! I am glad to hear they raised the camera up a little bit though. Would have been great had that been done for the mystery photo. But hey you just never know!! At least they are out their trying! Maybe they will get the big guy one day!
The scat is very interesting if I’m seeing what I think I am. It appears to have hair & bits of leaves in it. Which, of course, indicates an omnivore. I assume bear scat have been ruled out? There are bears in my area, but I’ve never actually found any bear scat in the woods.
The original photo sure looks like the hind end of a horse. Looks like a tail in the foreground and the horses belly further into the shot.
Two thoughts:
First, the locations seem different. even with the height difference.
Second thought is a bit of humor really. WHAT is it with the animals opinions on cameras and such lately? First the adorable Mouse lemur and now an elk. Oh well it could have been worse. The elk did refrain from depositing a pile on camera! LOL
This might be the deer’s neck close to the camera during motion.The neck is propably up or down. Though it is more dark brown definately…
it looks like the deers nose sniffing the camera to me
I don’t know why these investigators never seem to setup so that they get proper proof. The answer is to pair the cameras so that one views the other and trigger them both at the same time. Unless a creature could split in half, one of the cameras would have to have a proper image. 10 camers in 5 places with a guaranteed image is better then 10 spread around and unidentifiable junk collected. Or is it that the whole thing is a bunch of foolishness and they know it, and just want to carry on for reasons of their own. The bigfoot may be the real thing but I’m beginning to believe these experts may not be.
oldbutnotstupid says: “I don’t know why these investigators never seem to setup so that they get proper proof. The answer is to pair the cameras so that one views the other and trigger them both at the same time. Unless a creature could split in half, one of the cameras would have to have a proper image. 10 camers in 5 places with a guaranteed image is better then 10 spread around and unidentifiable junk collected. Or is it that the whole thing is a bunch of foolishness and they know it, and just want to carry on for reasons of their own. The bigfoot may be the real thing but I’m beginning to believe these experts may not be”
I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for now & just say it does appear that they lack expertise in setting up their cameras.
I just had my brother, who has been hunting for about 40 years & has also worked outdoors alot, look at the pic & he says it is definitely scat from a cat.
Notice how (relatively) clear the photo of the elk is. Poor lighting and digital format to be sure, but, all in all, not a total loss. Photographs, like documents, contain information. Photo information can be degraded by choice of format, poor exposure, blur caused by subject or camera movement, poor focus, etc.
Evidence comes in (basically) three forms: testimonial (anecdotal)… documentary (digital or film-based photographs, tape recordings, films and videos)… and physical (an object intended to prove a fact based on its demonstrable physical characteristics).
Can we not get cases where all three forms of evidence exist and corroborate one another? Supported by multiple witnesses?
Show me a photo of bigfoot as clear as this elk shot and then you will finally have some raw data worth evaluating.
clearly a Jabberwocky
cameras are great,huh?! but like those above have commented, if the photo is of too poor quality to prove anything it really isn’t worth looking at. hope for better luck in the future.
still to me the last shot looks as if the elk is close, at the left edge of camera, with it’s neck is extended up (sniffing) and the dark hair is from the underside of the neck.
if you look hard enough, it looks like there is a “blobsquatch” in the 4th picture down, to the right of the animal, in between the two trees. Just goes to show you if you look long enough you are bound to see something.
I’d second the vote on cat droppings, but then again, I’ve never seen bear droppings, so who knows? Could be Pope droppings.
my thoughts are cat scat… but it’s too hard to tell from photo and I honestly don’t have a lot of experience with big cats. Definitely some type of creature with carnivorous habits, from all that hair.
I’ve found similar “poo” before, but much smaller, that we had attributed to foxes. Also reminds me a lot of owl pellets, but if that were the case these would be all hair, bone and insect bits when cut open. How close did they examine this scat?
bf_looker (13) wrote “if the photo is of too poor quality to prove anything it really isn’t worth looking at”
I disagree.
Firstly, important information can get overlooked, and only identified at a later date by re-evaluating the image.
Secondly, the significance of specific information may not be realised until an image is re-evaluated after having accumulated other (new) knowledge in the interim.
Thirdly, by continually critiquing a variety of images, your analysis skills are honed.
Fourthly, you wouldn’t know if an image was of “too poor” quality – unless you’d looked at it. In other words, at some point you are in fact making a judgement on the image based on your inspection.
OK. The elk’s “snout” (?) seems to have a near enough colouration (given this is a different day, time and location!).
I update my earlier assessment to say it’s likely either a deer or an elk.
(Ah, the joy of making critical analyses of animal photos when you don’t know the fauna, geography or habitat in a location on a continent you’ve never even visited!)
it is very clear to me that picture “x” is that of the elk getting right up to the camera and nodding up and down rapidly as the camera took the shot. I can clearly make out his left eye about the half way point as well as the beginnings of either his ear or antlers on the same side. I do agree with comment #5, the whole shot has changed with moving the camera.
Never seen an Elk (wrong country) but it looks like a horses head to me. Mane over the forehead with the base of the ear at top right.