Mt. Hood Bigfoot Reference Photos
Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 13th, 2008
In a previous posting, here, the possibility of a new Bigfoot photo for 2008 was noted. This is an update.
The photograph was taken on Friday, June 27, 2008, at 2:05 p.m. Pacific time. It was shared openly by Dianna Martin for the critical assessment of Cryptomundo readers. I am glad to say that over 80 of you had your say.
Here it is again:
Click on image to view larger sized original photo (1.26 MB download).
The request was made to go back and take some reference photos to establish if anything different could be seen compared to the above photograph. That was done, to the best of Martin’s ability to capture the same framing, and then the best of dozens of photos were sent to me. Those three are published below.
Have a look, and leave your comments below.
Click on image to view larger sized original photo (1.3 MB download).
Click on image to view larger sized original photo (1.3 MB download).
Click on image to view larger sized original photo (1.3 MB download).
Dianna Martin’s comment: “Went up and took about 70 pictures of the same place. 7729 [the first of the new three shared above] shows almost the same thing; it looks to be part of the log.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nearly 140 different people have contributed, and the donation drive got off to a great start. Even two benefactors, at $1000 each pitched in, but donations have dropped to nearly zero since July 3rd.
Please don’t forget the museum, and remember you may directly send a check, money order, or, if outside the USA, an international postal money order made out to
International Cryptozoology Museum
c/o Loren Coleman
PO Box 360
Portland, ME 04112
Please “Save The Museum”! Easy-to-use donation buttons are now available here or merely by clicking the blank button below that takes you effortless to use PayPal, even if you don’t have an account. Thank you, everyone!
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.
Well unless the “Bigfoot” was sitting around there until the subsequent pics were made (you can see the same basic object in the second photo easily), it looks like this case is pretty much closed. This is just about what I expected. Nothing about the original made it above and beyond what many posters here suspected; a log, a play of light, a tree stump, and nothing took this photo out of the realm of being able to consider those mundane options.
I commend the original poster of this photo for going up to take more photos and being able to come to this conclusion on her own. It just goes to show that not every photo like this is an intentional hoax or bid to deceive the cryptozoological community. I am very pleased to see that Dianna Martin took this move and went out of her way to go and find out the truth.
MM… I agree that’s certainly refreshing!
I agree folks. The photographer, obviously here has foresight enough to try to solve the mystery of her pics herself! As well as being well grounded enough to get over the initial excitement of perhaps having something in a photo.
It looks like it turned out to be a stump and some shadow, but definitely adds to the credibility of the photographer in taking it a step further for some reference pics.
Great job!!!
I do not see this alleged “strange object” in the second photo. Or the first photo. Or the third photo. I only see it on the one that claims to be of the sasquatch.
Lemme edit that: in the photo referred to at the top (the second out of all photos) I see a strange stump. But it is in a completely different spot and shape. The only resemblance is in the very top of the head. Perhaps the folks moved it after taking the original picture? Only explanation I can think of.
Let me join in offering my thanks and praise to Dianna Martin for following up on her original photo.
If only more folks in the cryptozoology community were willing to do this sort of basic confirmation, and were as forthcoming in announcing results that disagreed with their original thoughts.
Well done and bravo Dianna Martin!
I join in the chorus of above posters.
Great follow up.
am i blind guys? i really don’t see anything in the original? where am i supposed to look?
I was hopeful for that one, but it does appear almost entirely identical in that first new image. Looks like the top of a small tree gave the pointed head it’s appearance, and the body and arm are part of a log.
Big kudos to the initial reporter for doing things properly rather than milking it for publicity when there’s nothing to report.
Now THIS is what we need in this field! A followup to a questionable picture! Obviously that is not always going to be this easy and it may not even be possible in some cases, but this is way better and much more informative than for people to run around saying “LOOK a Bigfoot!” and thinking they see one in every picture they take.
We need more debunkers like her–that way we can at least weed out the innocent mistakes.
Well, that sure beats “no, there really is one, and to find it send us money for a t-shirt, DVD and privately guided expedition.”
Mistakes happen. Krantz made them, Chilcutt made them, Sanderson made them, everyone makes them. It’s understanding and correcting them that separates out the honest folks.
Although I’d rather we not spend too much time combing photos for possible sas.
The much praised followup should have been done BEFORE the original image was released, but at least it was done. I would have liked to have seen a photo with a person standing next to the stump/root/whatever to get an idea of its size. I saw several guesses on forums regarding the possible height of the object.
Good show, Ms. Martin!!!
I can see what appears to be the same object in the first and third pictures, and that’s without enlarging them. Case closed I guess, unless sasquatch just like to hang out in that spot and watch passing traffic. Personally if I were the picture taker I would walk into the woods to see what I were really looking at.
I’m agreeing with Alton here. You verify these things before sending it off to the Mighty Interweb.
But yeah, kudos for checking eventually, I guess.
By doing this follow-up these researchers have shown the kind of integrity that should be expected of any self-respected cryptozoologist. Bravo! 🙂
Agree with friends above, well done Dianna.
Yes, good to see someone make an intelligent move these days. Intelligence sure seems to be in small supply when it comes to the “researchers” in the news these days. Kudos to Diana.
Now I’m wondering exactly what Tatzelwurm was seeing in the first pic, since we all pretty unanimously see the same exact shape again in these that we all took for a sasquatl in the original photo…
Kudos to the photog doing the footwork to clear this all up.
I think both of these articles have been a psychological survey on you – the viewer – to determine how many people see “something” in a picture full of “nothing”. Both of these articles never mention where in the photo the “evidence” is. Can someone please circle it for me? If this is a secret survey, I’d love to see the results in a later posting.