New Mt. Hood Mystery Photo
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 11th, 2007
Click on image for full size version
As the code tells anyone, this photograph was taken on June 7, 2007, at 7:11 p.m. by the same people who have had some luck with pictures from this same location. What do you think this latest trailcam image shows?
I have some ideas, but I don’t want to bias anyone’s looking at this with an open mind.
Before this new photo, the one before showed a close encounter of the elk kind.
See these below to compare with the new one above, and the original “Bigfoot mystery” photo (at the bottom), 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 directly below.
Click image for full-size version
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.
wonder what BF dropped?
I agree with the earlier poster, TheGoodReverend, it looks like the smoke monster from Lost. 🙂
yes, using Photoshop to only analyze this, per my example:
http://wesmoore.com/stuff/screenshot001.jpg
The more I look at the more enhanced photos, the more they fairly scream “BLACK BEAR”.
Wouldn’t it be cool to stop this and look for a real unconfirmed animal? Just checking.
These are always fun. Looks like a bear to me! I’m sure there are other photos in the sequence? I’ll check back later……back to studying for now….
My first thought was its a black bear scratching, that would account for the strange position it is in. Similar to how my dogs get into strange positions when they are itchy.
I lightened the photo and what I see is a black bear “Facing” the camera. That arm that is sticking out on the left is actually a hind leg. On that same side, he is using his front paw to dig the ground in front of him and he has his nose down sniffing the spot he is scratching. That light colored semi circle on the right side of the pic (which other’s would take as the BF hip if the BF was facing away from the camera) is actually the bears ear and the bum crack is actually the bears forehead. Sorry, not a BF photo. 🙁
I uploaded the pic and outlined the Bear so you would better understand what I was explaining about it being a bear facing the camera.
Hope this worked…
Here is a link to a pic that is lightened and outlined to better understand what I explained in my previous post.
Lightened and Outlined
The simple solution to all of these “mystery” game cam photos is simply to invest the couple hundred bucks to make a ring of 3 cameras all facing in towards a central point, as equidistant as possible from the center. This area appears to be some sort of hot spot for interesting game photos, a couple more shots per incident from different angles would solve them all!
BlueRose3- Very nice. Does show it to be a bear, but I tend to think that what you outline as the muzzle may actually be a foreleg.
I agree with the multiple camera idea. This image is an example of why 3-D would be helpful.
It would also be nice if, instead of one frame, we got video.
Well, I could say one thing about all this discussion and that is this old skeptic chestnut- It seems that it is not always apparent to a witness whether an animal is a sasquatch or a bear. I think this is a bear but the fact that nobody can be certain tells me that indeed witnesses can be mistaken, especially if this was seen only fleetingly through the foliage. Of course, what I really think is that if this was really a good, useful pic of a Bigfoot, there would be no question about what it was.
I have figured it out! It is Bigfoot in a bear suit! How clever! (Giggle)
Speaking of bears, couldn’t mutilated bears (either due to hunters who couldn’t kill them or fights with other animals) or ones born with deformities (like those “human faced piglets” you occasionally hear about) account for some sightings? I’d imagine that people wouldn’t take such things into account (many seem to think that bears always look the same) and that a vaguely-human looking face on bears with those facial issues rearing up on its hind legs would be discounted as a bear due to the face. People in the wilderness don’t have the luxury of looking at pictures for a long time and looking at them in Photoshop like we can.
Zoologists who specialize in bears should definitely be asked how often this could occur (assuming that it’s even possible to begin with). It might even be possible to “piggy-back” off preexisting research on the matter and thus gain more credibility.
This, of course, would not explain sightings in areas without bears and where a hoax or other misidentification have been found to be extremely. Also, not all injuries would look alike.
Agreed on the black bear facing the camera. IMO, it is not good research to assume a highly ambiguous photo is a never before proven animal. When in doubt, assume previously known animal or hoax. As a believer in Sasquatch creatures, I’m sick of shoddy research and journalism on the subject. Case in point.
Of course if Napes don’t spend all of their time bipedal, this could demonstrate that they could be mistaken for black bears, and not noticed, many times.
mystery_man: interesting post.
You’re right that “that it is not always apparent to a witness whether an animal is a sasquatch or a bear” – in a fleeting sighting, lasting only a second or two, through dense vegetation or at extremely long range, where the numerous unique features of the sas aren’t visible.
This is one reason I think it possible that a lot of people in bear country may well have passed off a sasquatch seen under these circumstances as a bear. If skeptics don’t think it likely that this happens, then I have to say that logic dictates the reverse to be orders of magnitude more unlikely. Witnesses, in a sighting where positive ID is impossible, will go with an animal they know. Period. I’m sure that no one would reasonably hold that anyone would go to a sightings website and enter such a sighting as a sasquatch. You won’t do that unless you are sure, as the reports I’ve read show. You may not be certain what the (unclassified) animal you saw was – as many witnesses before Bigfoot entered the American lexicon attest. But knowing for sure it was no known animal counts. (As, of course, does the volume of sighting reports prior to BF going nationwide.)
Keep in mind also that this is a classic Blob(bear)squatch. It doesn’t move; it doesn’t change positions; no distinguishing features are visible. The latter situation would change in this case within an instant had an observer been present to see it. And note that the vast majority of us – even those who saw something apeish in the initial image – rectified that judgment quickly.
If you’d been where this bear was, you would have, too.
Definitely a bear, after highlighting and changing colors etc some things became apparent. The appendage to the left is the bear’s right rear leg. After highlighting I could also see the bear’s right front leg and a bend in the ‘elbow’ when highlighted you can also see 2 tufts of hair which are obviously his ears. So the bear is facing towards the camera. The lighting is bad so you can’t make out the details in the normal pic.
Black bear. When you’re from black bear capital of Canada, you recognize them anywere. Besides, you can clearly see the snout and eye.
It is definately a brown bear in a black bear suit. It is quite obvious.
It does look like the creature on Lost, but I think it’s definitely a bear. There are a lot of bears around here, so I recognize one when I see it.
OK, this morning I too went through the brighten/contrast exercise. Initially when only the small pic would load up, it too looked like a bear being viewed head on but with the bear kind of angled and his posture cockeyed.
Then when the larger photo began working, I began to question the head on posture for three reasons.
1) The apparent line running down the middle of the alleged head.
2) The hair was not streaked. Instead it is ‘roughed’ as in, looking at the hair from behind. If you look at the hair from in-front, then the hairs would appear long. From behind, you lose that and get that ‘rough’ look.
3) That single leg on the left shows an apparent bend (an elbow) on the inside towards the body, indicating the animal is facing away from us.
So while I do think it is still a bear, I do feel the view is from behind.
So today I coaxed a bear to lay down on a table with his head over the edge. OK, I’ll try again.
Today I happened to drop in a taxidermist friend of mine where I have been spending a lot of time lately because I am selling some large mounts for him. Anybody want to buy a polar bear, python skin, or a mean looking African lion? 🙂 Anyway, we took one of the 8 black bears there and situated it so the head was in the approximate position (from my memory) of the thread pic.
See link: http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/20/671257/Bear.jpg
This was a good sized bear of about 350 lbs with a real big head as compared to the others. Note how the ears do not seem to be positioned as high on the head as the thread subject plus they protrude much more. There is also no hair-line running down the middle of the forehead that looks like the crack in the main photo. There was no hairline on any of the bears there.
Therefore, my guess goes with us looking at a bear from the rear not front. A bear I might ad, with nary a care. But he better watch out cause it’s bear season in Oregon.
DWA- Right, considering it is a static picture, we cannot be sure how this subject moves or how it behaved. I am sure if we could see even a fraction of footage of this subject, it would become more apparent if this was a bear or not. I just thought I’d throw that little devil’s advocate idea out there. Some skeptics may look at the way we are poring over a likely pic of a bear, deliberating whether it is a sasquatch or not and say that constitutes proof that bears can be mistaken for something else. Although I personally am pretty sure this can happen, it doesn’t take into account that this is a static pic of a probable bear in pose that makes it seem as if it is something else whereas if we could see a few more frames, the answer would be obvious.
That being said, it would be an interesting experiment to post known pics of a bear that are not immediately clear as such and see what people make of them. I think with these pics, expectations can play a big role. There was no claim to this one, yet we are deliberating on whether it is a bear or not (although granted lots here think it is a bear). What if someone knowingly posted a pic of a bear, maybe from behind on its hind legs, and said it was a sasquatch? Would people think that maybe it was and go on and on about how it could be Bigfoot, while the photographer sat by and had a chuckle? I am sure that if someone really has a certain expectation and looks at a pic hard enough, they will see what they want to see. That is why I want clear, indisputable photos, or better yet, footage where we can see it MOVE.
its just a bear
It has to be a bear because it is not wearing any pants. It is quite obvious.
First off; I’m amazed by the number of wild imaginations displayed by some of the viewers. It’s definitely a bear in an awkward posture as assessed by reader Ceroill. The 5th picture is none other then the south end of a north bound horse.
06/12/07
This appears to be a ‘deformed’ or ‘physically challenged’ wood creature with no obvious means to known public healthcare. Reconstructive surgery may be possible unless major arteries and nerves are so fused that any attempt at surgery would be futile. In my current ramblings I found that in time the creature will die from many futile attempts to get food.
Thank you
Yep, that’s a bear’s behind! Black bears don’t have tails which means that the “face” some folks are seeing is most likely the bear’s (for lack of better word) butt. I’m sure the bear would be insulted by that. The way a bear walks when it is on all fours gives it a slumped appearance. They also rock or “swagger” a bit, which would account for the seemingly odd position. They’re pretty scared of people so I imagine it was running away from the photographer.
A black bear, at an odd angle. Also the light appears to have been fading fast which didn’t help. Game trail cameras are not intended to pick up “details” like we would expect with a high res Canon or Pentax. The last picture is really interesting. Someone’s head with long hair? Other than that, very indistinct.
My first thought was a black bear reaching around to scratch an itch. Loren, awesome site here, been visiting daily now for about two weeks and this is my first post. Can’t wait to see more pictures. Great work to all.
First impression was a bear, 2nd and 3rd look didn’t change my opinion….still think it’s a bear.
Black bear walking away with its head turned at a funny angle.
for a fleeting second as i first saw this picture i thoughth bear… black bear.
but given a few seconds more contemplation i do not like the object at all…. it is too perfectly black, crisp and featureless.
it looks to me like someone used a graphics program, loaded up the spraycan with black from the palette, sprayed it around in a chosen area until it was full of black, and then posited the question “what is this?”.
i looked at what someone else had found by enhancing the image and it appears there might be actual detail after all.
but without enhancing, it does not look real to me.
I’m quite sure it’s a wolverine. Check out this photo of one.
I believe this is a wolverine. If you doubt me, just Google “wolverine animal” and check out the pictures. Find a black one and you’ll see what I mean.
I happen to be a photoretoucher, and use this program every day, and have been using it for the past 13 or so years.
You can’t create something like this in Photoshop.
Also here is another enhancement done correctly: