International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

New Mt. Hood Bigfoot Photograph?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 3rd, 2006

There’s a new “possible” Bigfoot photograph that has been submitted to Cryptomundo. We are making no claims about it, but thought our readers might be interested in looking at this one. And pondering what it might be.

It was taken by a scouting camera on April 30, 2006, in the Mt. Hood National Forest, near The Dalles, Oregon. The camera is a Cuddeback digital scouting camera, which was attached to a tree about three feet off the ground. It has a motion/heat detector.

Could it be someone going by in a poncho? I asked the people who placed the camera, Klindt Kendall and Dianna Martin, what they thought. As far as they can tell, this is “not someone in raingear,” they told me. Photograph is used with their permission here and copyrighted by them.

Oregon Game Camera Photo

Click image for full-size version

This photograph could be a Bigfoot or could not. And if it is, what kind of Sasquatch would it be?

What do you think?


To see the photographs taken immediately before and after the above photo, please see the images here, at “More From Mt. Hood”.

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.

77 Responses to “New Mt. Hood Bigfoot Photograph?”

  1. Craig Woolheater responds:

    The Cuddeback cameras are what the TBRC uses in the field. They have the fastest shutter trigger of any game cameras that we have found.

    We have the same cameras mounted in locations of interest in the Quachita Mountains and Southeast Texas.

  2. planettom responds:

    Very intriguing photograph. Hmm. It looks very skinny. If you look in the upper left of the photograph, I see what appears to be another tree in the background. Maybe this could be a leg since it is only 3ft off the ground?

  3. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    i would like to see the next couple images after this one. cuddyback are the best as they do have the fastest shutter speed after activation of any of the type. this said i am unsure what the re-arm time is as i am sure they set it to what they want. i bet they wish that it was set to take 2 or 3 images then stop for a minute or two.

    an interesting blobsquatch that has some of the more frequently reported characteristics of a sas such as medium length reddish brown hair. because it does have many of the more often reported descriptive points we should be careful to ensure we aren’t being played. like the bfro by fat man and little boy aka penn and teller.

    i have to let my excitement get to me here for a minute. i feel we are close to getting a good picture from a device like this. i think we are close enough that it could be any day or next year. hell it may already be out there in someones possession. the good thing about the technology we have is that hoaxes are readily identifiable. pictures like a recent man in monkey outfit carrying a limb to block his face are easily debunked. others like the man in the ghillie suite take a bit longer. the point is that with the awesome technology comes the ability to try to hoax but also the ability to debunk easily.

    it will be a device like this or a road side collision that brings in the Sasquatch. this said there will be those who can be slathered in a Sasquatch blood and still say it is just cant please some people.

    back to the pic it is exciting and we will,im sure, have it picked to pieces soon enough.

    here’s to hoping that they have a good area that will produce more and better pictures. if they are hoaxers i hope karma is swift in its kick to the ars

  4. hockomock responds:

    It looks very much like a bear to me.

  5. Jeremy_Wells responds:

    if you look at it as a leg, it definitely looks like you can see the curve of the leg in front of a slightly protrubing “belly”, but then where the knee bend appears to be, there is this huge black area that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around.
    What else is blocking the camera there?
    If we assume that is a shoulder and arm, then this isn’t a very tall Bigfoot.
    It’s just too blurry and indistinct for any conclusive statements to be made.
    It is obviously a three dimensional object, you can see the depth. But I can’t say for certain “what” it is that has depth. It could be a hunter in a gilly suit, what looks like long hair could be motion blur…
    It’s just too indistinct to say.

  6. Jeremy_Wells responds:

    looking at it again, much closer, the extremely dark “cut off” areas are bordered by a slight brown/red fuzz.
    My guess now is that a squirell or pine marten scurrying up or down the tree where the camera was posted tripped it as it scurried over it.

  7. Kathy Strain responds:

    Was the camera placed in the woods in an attempt to capture a photo of a bigfoot?

  8. Freelancer responds:

    It looks like something with “hair” longer than that of a bear. But I wouldn’t rule out synthetic fibers of a costume based on this one image. But then again, I don’t know anything about this particular brand/type of camera.

  9. Greg(Not that Greg) responds:

    Does this camera just take one picture and stop ?

  10. One Eyed Cat responds:

    Well I agree we need to see pictures taken just before and after this one. There are too many ifs.

    I might point out that by the background seen in the picture, the ‘object’ is in shadow. So dark areas are not unexpected.



  12. MrDanger responds:

    A Horse ? mind you a short one but …
    Maybe , maybe not ?

  13. pandafarmer responds:

    yeah it could be a dog’s ear or a horse tail. without knowing the height of the camera, it’s hard to say. if we knew it was 5 ft off the ground, it’s more of an interest than say 2 ft.

  14. paperdragon responds:

    Try this. Its a horse. What we see is the tail and the bulge of its ribs on the right and at the top a piece of the shoulder. Its almost like it backed up to the camera.

  15. mrdark responds:

    I’m agreeing with horse. The long strands that fill most of the picture would be a tail, and you can just see the rounded, very short haired rump on both sides.

    If it absolutely can be confirmed that it isn’t a horse (no prints, etc) then yeah, I’d say this one is intriguing.

  16. Craig Woolheater responds:

    The post by Loren above states that the camera was 3 feet off the ground.

  17. TemplarKnight21c responds:

    The hair is too long to be a bear’s. Their hair is relatively short, considering their environments. I’ve always wondered about these cameras; don’t they make noise when the shutter goes like other ones? In my experience, any abnormal sound in the woods, like a twig snapping, or a camera clicking, startles most animals into freezing or bolting. And if this were indeed a sasquatch, it would be a primate, and would probably be rather curious of this little piece of machinery. Ever seen chimps with electronics?

  18. bill green responds:

    hi everyone this is a very interesting photo of a possible sasquatch taken in mt.hood forests. more research needs to be done to the photo and the location. the creature in the photo does look gorilla like in nature. maybe its a young sasquatch. the eyewittness needs to be interviewed again about this new photo that very well could be authentic. please keep me definetly informed ok good afternoon bill green :)

  19. stormwalkernz responds:

    If this is mounted 3 feet off the ground Im afraid I would have to go with the rear end of a horse.


  20. MattBille responds:

    The vertical striations on the object make no sense as part of a sasquatch-type animal. The horse suggestion could be possible. My first thoguht was that it looked like a human in a coat or raincoat, with no hair, just a fuzzy effect from the object not being in focus.

  21. Felinda responds:

    Minute I saw it I thought “horse.” I have 7 horses so it’s not just a wild guess. Did anyone think to look for prints around the area?

  22. iftheshoefits responds:

    Only a mildly interesting picture worth 4 or 5 minutes of study then into the round file it goes. I feel these game cameras do hold the greatest hope for eventually getting good photographic evidence though.

  23. drshoop responds:

    It does appear remarkably like the back side of a horse with the tail closest to the lens. I find it interesting that the ‘before’ photo indicates a fair amount of time passed before the photo in question and the ‘after’ photo were snapped, based on the light quality and level. I’d like to know how the camera was setup regarding time intervals etc. If a Bigfoot were stalking deer, they sure wouldn’t hang around long. As a photographer I will say that the quality – color, clarity etc. is impressive. set up a few hundred more and we may have something.

  24. kk responds:

    It looks like a horse to me, too

  25. gridbug responds:

    First impression: Wookie.

    Second impression: Horsey.

    Third impression: Hoaxie.

    Nevertheless, I really and truly WANT to believe and will be keeping a careful eye on these proceedings.

    Thanx for the post! 😀

  26. cor2879 responds:

    Could be bigfoot… could be a horse… could be something else altogether

    The fact is that this photo, like so many others, is just inconclusive.

  27. Ole Bub responds:

    Good evening Bloggers…

    Just finished “The Locals”…and “Dark Woods” enjoyed DW and learned a lot from the Locals…highly recommend it…

    Nice to see you here Kathy…I enjoyed your interview on X-zone radio, nicely done.

    Regarding the Mt. Hood photo…why would you set a sasquatch cam at 3 foot….could be one of those “mountain mamas” ole bub knew …way back when….JMHO

    seeing is believing…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  28. acrawford responds:

    It looks like the back of a young lady’s head for mine.


  29. DL42 responds:

    It looks to me like a piece of bark that is falling down close to the lens, the motion causing a blur effect in the image. Anyway, that’s just a first guess.

  30. shovethenos responds:

    Could be the rear view of a horse, but the striated texture seem to be all over the object, including the rump which should be of a different texture than the tail. Of course the infamous wookie suit has hair all over it as well.

  31. wylekat responds:

    I took the pic into photoshop Elements, and tweaked brightness, contrast, and sharpened it.

    I dont think it’s a hoax. It looks an awful lot like an orangutan- the shape and amount of hair’s all wrong- but the color, and length of it is correct. It’s definately an ape of some sort. I was about to say it could be a suit…but I see an animal in the midground- Why would a small animal be around someone pulling off a prank? a) a human b) in a suit, which c) has a tendency to scare animals- wild ones especially. And if this camera’s 3 ft off the ground, this ape/human/wookie was crawling, or crouching, and has jumped up for whatever reason. The camera caught it on the up motion. I believe what we’re seeing is an arm/ shoulder and maybe a little bit of the head. And if it’s got arms and shoulders like that, let someone else capture it. I am going to keep fiddling with this pic, and see what might come up.

  32. Kainan responds:

    Intersting photo, and I hate to be a sceptic, but given that only five minutes passes between the exposure of the image in question and the next photo of the little black tails, forces me to think that it is actually a close up of one of the deer. The color of the deer and the object are very similar, and I think it is likely that motion-blur has created the effect of long fur on the object. i think it actually shows part of a deer’s upper leg, either facing toward or away from the camera. I would think that if it were a bigfoot, horse, bear, or whatever, that the deer in the following photo would be long gone.

    I don’t think they got one this time folks, but it’ll happen…. it’ll happen.;)

  33. TransistorsGoneWild responds:

    This looks suspiciously like CG superimposed on a photo background. Or even an Eyecandy filter in Photoshop covered with a motion blur.

  34. nsnichols responds:

    This is totally the back of someone’s head. I wear my hair in this style and that’s what it looks like from the back. This is NOT bigfoot; probably someone who saw the camera and sat in front of it to see what it was aimed at for photos. Upper right you can see where the bangs are…think of Dorothy Hammel. Also, compare the size of the fir needles just in front of the hair. This is a close up of the back of someone’s head!

  35. ash24 responds:

    If you look at the top left-hand corner of the target photo, you can see what looks to be the brow-band of a horse’s bridle. The slight bump on the right hand side looks like an eye socket .. indeed you can almost see the eye itself.
    For me … no Bigfoot … !

  36. cradossk responds:

    My first impression of the photo (without reading the comments or information :P) was that of the back of a womans head, and the impression i had was the “bigfoot” was out in the top right in the scrub. When i realised this blob was “bigfoot”, i must say that it isnt 😛

    Horse sounds good

  37. youcantryreachingme responds:

    See the next thread where I finally decide I favour deer over horse…

  38. RocketSeason responds:

    I’ll throw my two cents in.

    I know nothing about the camera, but it looks like motion blur and not long stringy hair.

    Probably some sort of small mammal or possibly a deer.

  39. MicheleLee responds:

    I’ve looked at the image that was posted on Coast 2 Coast. I believe its a womans head. The haircut looks to be a layered cut that has long layers down the side of the face. Also, look at the size of the leaves in front of this unknown item. The leaves fit more naturally to a persons head, rather then something large like a “big foot” and if this was a Big Foot, it would mean it was very small if you use the size of the items around the unknown object. So, I believe it is a womans head, and their hair color looks to actually be dirty blonde.

  40. shovethenos responds:

    Highly skeptical of the “deer” explanation – if you look at the hindquarters of the other deer pictured they are multicolored – gray and beige and brown. The figure is more a uniform color.

    And that striation still seems to me to be too clear to be from motion. I’m still in the “wookie suit or possibly the real thing” camp. There have been a lot of sightings that describe very longhaired sasquatch.

  41. zogarma responds:

    Looks like a bears head to me, nose at the bottom eye and ear on the right plus motion blur

  42. drphilxr responds:

    you see a hand at 3 feet, entity facing the the right. Curiously clean hair though.

  43. tschai responds:


  44. Limbit responds:

    Looks like a domestic canine (judging by the color and wonderfully flowing and groomed coat). The part in the back that dominates the picture and appears to be in motion could be its bushy tail. If you look just off center and right at the top of the picture you can see the back of its head and right ear. I mean, Mt. Hood is a great place to go for a hike with your dog.

  45. lejune64 responds:

    to me it looks as if the camera is about 5 or 6 ft from the ground and someone with brown hair (which is combed) walked by very close. Maybe a hiker that didn’t know the camera was there.

  46. davidshrn responds:

    You know after looking at picture for awhile the object looks like left side of an upright something’s buttock and upper leg. If you look at upper right corner of object you will also see what appears to be the small of the back. I know others have said it appears to be a horse but length of fur is to long and coarse looking for horse coat. and if you follow shape into shadow area and follow down you will see what can only be the abdomen and front of legs. Personally I hope it is an unkown primate captured on film. I agree with others camera should have had a faster recycle time between pictures.

  47. DirtMonkey responds:

    I’ve studied this photo for some time using Mozilla’s Firefox browser which allows you to click on the photo and keep enlarging it in your browser until it gets very large (which you will need to do to understand my final point).

    First off what I believe it is NOT.

    A deer, bear, woman (I don’t even want to know what a woman’s head was doing at 3ft off the ground) a dog.

    What it COULD be.

    A horses butt/tail (very likely and the best explanation I’ve read yet although 3 ft seems quite low for a horses butt), a hoax, Bigfoot (although a small one or one that was low to the ground for whatever reason). I don’t think the deer being present 5 minutes later is much of an issue since if Bigfoot exists I’m sure deer are aware of it and may not consider it a threat. Bigfoot could easily be a vegetarian. Also if it was a bear, dog or a human I don’t see the deer hanging out 5 minutes later.

    Now, either using the Firefox browser or a program such as Photoshop, enlarge the picture and pay attention to the top left of the photo. The only thing that really confuses me is the tree in the upper left corner. When you zoom in it appears that where the right side of that tree ends and the “hair/body” begins is a fine line. Looking at the photo you would assume that the “body” would cover the outline of the right side of that tree. However it’s almost like the tree was placed over the object and cuts into the body (which should be in front of the tree and far closer to the camera). It reminds me of the moon landing hoax photos where the cross hairs on the camera lens end up behind the subjects in the photo. This is almost impossible to see unless you blow the photo up 2-3x.

    I’d be very interested in others looking into this and posting their thoughts.

    – Kurt in Portland

  48. captain kirk responds:

    It’s the head of one of the deer. Look, there’s deer in the photo before and the photo after. They are the same color. As you go down the right side of the blur, you have the curve of the skull, then the black of the eye, and then the muzzle. We’re looking right at the forehead of a very close deer.

  49. DirtMonkey responds:

    Nope. Enlarge the picture. That dark spot on the right middle of the photo is hair in shadow, not an eye. Also that last photo was taken many hours later.

  50. DirtMonkey responds:

    I’m sorry, the 6PM deer photo was taken the previous evening and the colors of the deer are not even close to the apparent solid reddish brown of the object in the main photo. The deer are much lighter and have multiple colors/shades to them. This is not a deer. That doesn’t mean it’s Bigfoot but it’s not a deer and if it’s a horse it’s a mini-me horse.

  51. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Thank you captain kirk (48). Spot on.

    Loren – it’s a shame you can’t put up a poll: “What do you think it is?” a) bigfoot, b) deer, c) horse or pony, d) bear, e) dog, f) something else… (or can you? 😉 )

    DirtMonkey (49) – the last photo was only 5 minutes after the cryptid photo; not “many hours”. Those two were taken the morning after the first photo (which was an evening shot as you note).

    Perhaps the camera should take more photos – as long as you’ve got the film/storage capacity for them.

    Loren – do you think you can source the original photo from the camera (which hasn’t been renamed on a PC)? That would at least validate that the cryptid photo was taken between the other two, and that it also had a 1 second exposure. I know we have no reason to doubt, but presenting it puts it beyond argument.

    I would hazard a guess that those who think the cryptid has long hair, don’t often take photographs themselves (exept perhaps happy snaps); but those who argue for the deer are actually familiar with thinking about the process of taking photos. No offense intended if that generalises someone into a camp they’re not in, but I suspect that would explain the different opinions somewhat.

    Likewise for all the different “shades of colour” discussions.


  52. DirtMonkey responds:

    [DirtMonkey (49) – the last photo was only 5 minutes after the cryptid photo; not “many hours”.]

    I know, I corrected myself in the next post because I didn’t notice the date on the first picture. Regardless all 3 photos show the same view and my comments regarding the tree in the top left have still been unanswered by anyone. Blow up all 3 photos using Firefox or Photoshop and explain to me how the tree in all three photos slopes from right to left (on the right edge of the tree) and the “Bigfoot” is obviously behind the leaves at the bottom left of the picture but in front of that tree. Why does the fur or mass of the creature disappear when it reaches the right edge of that tree so that you can see the right edge of said tree? It’s a pretty simple question and I would love someone to explain it to me so I can understand.

    p.s. I am a semi-professional photographer with my own darkroom so that’s not an issue. I understand how photography and all that it includes works. What I don’t understand is how a real photograph taken from an automated camera can have this issue without a proper explanation. Maybe I’m explaining the discrepancy in a way people don’t understand but it’s a difficult thing to do with text.

  53. Felinda responds:

    Someone mentioned the length of horse hair being too long, but it looks like the bulk of it is tail…that is exactly the way horse tails look….especially a bay. As for length of horse hair, they are shedding out now, but some lengths would surprise you. A horse or pony with Cushings can potentially have very long hair – I have a Welsh cross that who is extremely shaggy from her winter coat yet.

  54. DirtMonkey responds:

    [that is exactly the way horse tails look]

    Not at 3 ft off the ground, unless it’s a shetland, and even then it’s questionable. You all have to drop the horse theory based on camera height alone. A horses butt simply wouldn’t show at a camera 3ft off the ground.

  55. youcantryreachingme responds:

    DirtMonkey (52) – I answer the tree question in the other thread.

    The other thing to remember is that exposure time is 1 second (taken from the EXIF information attached to the “before” and “after” photos.

  56. shovethenos responds:

    Re: long hair

    Just a couple observations:

    – I’m not saying the image definitely is of an actual cryptid – some of the wookie suits, etc. have long, groomed hair.

    – Wild orangutans have long hair that is often very straight.

    – Primate socialization often involves grooming, so it isn’t out of the realm of possibility to have individual cryptids with very long, groomed coats, especially if they are members of a family group. There have been sightings of long-haired cryptids with very matted, messy, overgrown coats as well. This is all speculation, but possibly these are solitary juvenile males or other isolated individuals.

  57. sigil_paranormal responds:

    I made a comparison of grazing deer to this photo and found the culprit.

  58. Craig Woolheater responds:

    youcantryreachingme, re: comment #51. I resized the original photos. The original photo file is CDY_0007. I resized them from their original resolution of 2048 X 1536 as they were 1 MB in size. So the photos are all consecutive. I renamed the first photo when I resized it, but left the file names as they were for the one prior and the one following.

  59. Loren Coleman responds:

    All the photos are in sequence, from one source, set off by motion and heat, thus they are not “snapshots” as if they were taken during a Hollywood photo op. :-)

    I am in direct and open communication with the camera folks.

    Craig does my uploads at Cryptomundo due to my older software on my computer. Nothing sinister to that. So the photos are passed along, and you can read above Craig’s comments about the downsizing and relabeling that sometimes occurs.

    Needless to say, I have all the forwarded originals and there appears to have been absolutely no manipulation.

    BTW, the people who sent these to me were purely and innocently asking the question “What do you think this is?” They made no claims, they made no wild statements like “this is Bigfoot, look at my pictures.”

    I asked their permission to share it here to have the community mind work on solving the mystery.

  60. Melissa responds:

    Well my personal opinion is, it looks like the tail of a horse, walking away.. :)

    JMO :)

  61. shovethenos responds:


    Interesting analysis, but the color still seems off. Maybe a horse’s face grazing, with the striations coming from the horse’s bangs.

    It seems odd though that a horse would be grazing in a wooded area right at the base of a tree. And why can you still see the tree trunk in the background in the top left corner? I guess the horse could be dead on facing the camera, but you usually would expect it to be blocked on that side by the animal’s body. And one would expect to see a foreleg on the right side of the frame.

    Interesting theory, but I’m not entirely convinced. I guess now I’m in the “wookie-suit – horse’s face – possibly a cryptid” camp.

  62. lenny responds:

    Something is not right about that photo.

    1. it is blurred when it should be in focus. should this camera have the ability to focus on all objects in its field.

    2. You will notice the leaves that are on the left field of camera view are blurred as is the object. also in the pic of the deer standing around, the branch and leaves are clear.

    3. why is the time stamp chopped off and out of focus. the other photos don’t have this defect.

    4. without other images of measured distance to compare a similar depth view I would say this is totaly bogus.

  63. lenny responds:

    I enhanced the image and found artifacts around the time stamp?.

    The original smaller photo gives the illusion of a horse head covered with horse hair over a left eye swinging its head up from its right sided position in front of the left view of the camera. that is just an interpretation produced in the mind of the image.

    The image was brightened and increased in size with photoshop7 giving the following new interpretation.

    There appears to be a reddish brown hair covered left arm. looks like upper arm muscle on the upper left protruding from under the long hair as if something is reaching down in front of the camera with the left arm.

    I would really like to know the distance of the brush on the left to the camera lense to come to a more revised interpretation of the image.

  64. KRB responds:

    After looking at all 3 pictures, and comparing them, I came up with the following…
    1. In the 2 pictures the deer have moved about the same distance (away from/to) from the camera, before the picture was taken. Keeping the same thought in mind, that means the creature (bigfoot) has moved towards the camera from another area of the picture. It may have been attracted to the camera itself. Anyone else see this idea?

  65. harrybiped responds:

    Reminds me of Penn and Teller video… and is in keeping with their show. It’s the rear end of a horse… aka a horse’s ass.

  66. youcantryreachingme responds:

    sigil_paranormal (57) – thanks for doing some comparison images; they’re fantastic.

    Loren / Craig – thanks for the info. I
    had no doubt about the authenticity of
    the photos; thanks for checking though!

    To the people who asked you “What do you think this is?” – you can certainly give them a range of answers now! :)

    Lenny (62) – it’s probably blurred because the exposure was 1 second.

  67. youcantryreachingme responds:

    shovethenos (61) – about the colour being off; remember sigil_paranormal’s comparison used enlargements of deer grazing in full sun. Our cryptid is (well, I think it is) a deer right up against the lens; that would give it much less light. Also, in the “after” photo five minutes later you can see that the deer in the background are lit, but the foreground is darker, as if still in early morning shade.

    And lenny – the timestamp may appear to have artefacts because Craig resized the image. Jpegs generally lose information each time they’re saved.

  68. Mnynames responds:

    My first thought was a squirrel close to the camera, but after reading the comments, the back end of a horse argument seems pretty persuasive. I have to ask though, are we really just looking at clouds here, and telling each other what we think we see?

  69. ejsaunders responds:

    AFAICT copying the picture out to something like Irfranview (free image editor) and upping the contrast, brightness and saturation it comes out as a seemingly very fake orange colour – as one of the others said, it also looks combed. From the angle, it could be someone’s head (with red hair colorant), it could be a ‘wookie/yeti suit’ from a costume shop. It seems too ‘in focus’ compared to the bush to be a bigfoot if you take the furthest right point in the image to be where his right arm would probably be (I can’t see what else, bodily wise it could be).

    Fake? Probably going by this photo at least.

  70. DWA responds:

    Well, ejsaunders, gotta watch what yer doin’ when you “[copy] the picture out to something like Irfranview (free image editor) and [up] the contrast, brightness and saturation…”

    A fake-looking color is just one thing you should expect. Let’s look at the color the camera records…which has been reported in numerous sas sightings: a very prosaic reddish-brown.

    Bottom line: these things will be confirmed in the field, not behind our computers. In the age of digital film-photo manipulation, don’t look for an image on the Internet to do it.

    What is this? Can’t tell. Was thinking horse. No more. It would have to be a totally head-on or tail-on shot. Given the position of the tree in the photos — long story short, a sudden appearance from the left, up close, by a big quadruped should obscure that tree — a horse couldn’t register an image like this. Unless of course the camera shot at predetermined intervals and not when something ‘broke the beam’.

    But something hairy and upright, i.e., bipedal, suddenly passing right in front of the camera — or, say, a woman (obviously crouching, if not obviously a dwarf) trying to see what the camera’s aiming at…that might happen.

    Bottom line # 2: I’d want to know more based on this. Especially what other types of evidence could be gleaned from the site. (That’s the camera site, not the website. 😉 )

  71. DWA responds:

    Oh, one more thing.

    As to the apparent debunking comments that the hair “looks combed”: if it’s a sasquatch, oh, it’s combed all right.

    All primates — I can’t think of an exception — are social groomers. They’re going through each other’s hair — to say nothing of their own — all the time. A logical conclusion after watching this activity is that it IS social — it has as much to do with bonding and making each other feel good as it does with the prosaic explanation of parasite removal. Can’t see how unkempt hair would feel better on Bigfoot than it would on you or me. They don’t just pick through each other’s hair. They smooth it out, arrange it, COMB it. (I actually rarely use a comb; my fingers are generally adequate. And though there’s a small helipad up there, I am far from bald.)

    Come to think of it: I’ve never seen a photo of a primate — even an orangutan — with “unkempt hair.”

    Unless you count, well, us.

    In fact, if the hair looked unkempt, that would have me thinking “ape suit.” You don’t think those get combed….do you….?

  72. ecronin77 responds:

    in my opinion, this is the head of a bear. you can see the placement of where the ears would be and what looks like it’s nose @ the bottom of the picture??…..

  73. DWA responds:

    Nope, no bear.

    There is one bear species, the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), that has hair this long. Unfortunately, it’s confined to India and Sri Lanka. And not even that bear has this much hair on its head.

    There seems a lot of opinion that this is an animal whose image has been altered by motion blurring. In my opinion, motion blurring almost always leaves a “father image” of the item creating the blur, somewhere along the blur track — that usually permits a pretty close ID. There may be exceptions. But this isn’t one of them.

    I think what we have here is a critter that simply didn’t put enough of itself in the frame. And I’d be more than intrigued enough to put another camera or two out here, based on that shot.

  74. bccryptid responds:

    I agree with gridbug, definitely Wookie.

    Completely inconclusive. The fact that the next image shows deer, which do not look panicked, even though we have ample evidence that the sasquatch is a primary predator of deer, leaves me to conclude that this is some part of a deer, that feel over the camera as it walked past.

  75. blahhfoot responds:

    Was there any bigfoot footprints nearby? Could it be a bear climbing the tree? Looking at the photo 5 minutes later is that a footprint on the ground near those logs/sticks?

  76. blahhfoot responds:


    ITS A DEER. Its the neckline hair while the deer turning down /side licking itself. Which happens to be right up to the camera since these creatures can listen to things that humans can’t. Probably heard some kind of whirring or a timing noise due to the equipment which was gearing itself to take a picture.

    Also enlarge all three pictures and set a slide show on your computer to do the frame by frame starting with the picture that started a day ago, the 8:31am, and the 8:36am.

    If you still think it could be a “sasquatch” then maybe he is leading the herd as a sheepherder!

    Anyways it probably is a deer. A deer grooming or licking itself. Ears were a dead giveaway.

  77. DARHOP responds:

    It’s a Horse. In no way do I see anything but a Horse.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|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.