New 2008 Bigfoot Photo?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 10th, 2008

The same two individuals who have contributed trailcam photographs from near Mt. Hood to Cryptomundo have forwarded a new image from the same area.

Here are the circumstances surrounding this photo:

This picture was taken while we were driving down the road with our camea from home. I wanted to see what I could capture that was moving into the woods that couldn’t be seen. I took this from the car as we drove the road. I was so excited when we put this on the computer and this figure of a Bigfoot was walking back into the woods. This is the area we’ve been working for two years now.
Dianna Martin

This was photographed on Friday, June 27, 2008, at 2:05 p.m. Pacific time. (The date/time stamp of 7-06-08 at 4:07 p.m. is imprinted on it due to the fact that was when it was uploaded to the zip folder to be sent to me.)

Please note, this is a large file, and may take some time to download when you click on it, if you are on dail-up.

New Bigfoot Photo?

Click on image to view larger sized original photo (1.26 MB download).

What do you see? Sasquatch among the trees? Shadows? Blobsquatch?

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.


90 Responses to “New 2008 Bigfoot Photo?”

  1. WingsofCrystal responds:

    When I blew up the picture I saw the pointy headed guy walking away from the camera. But I knew what I was looking for and probably did the old “what do you see in the blob” thing. Fun.

  2. jdl82 responds:

    Sorry guys, but this is just a blobsquatch. You’re going to have to do better.

  3. NightFlight responds:

    I’m surprised that no one has picked up on the Geico gecko standing on the log straight down from blobsquatches left arm. The face is Teddy Roosevelt an early conservationist.

  4. any mouse responds:

    I’ve spent plenty of time in the deep woods alone, and I have no problem believing we have Bigfoot. But there has been much more convincing physical evidence than this. I can’t tell you how many times I could have sworn I saw a bear or cat or whatever, only to find out it was just a lucky combination of forest debris, shadows and angles. I think that’s what we’ve got here.

  5. Ceroill responds:

    DWA- I’m not especially worried, only slightly surprised, but not really shocked.

  6. jayman responds:

    The comments lead me to believe many are looking at things other than the “subject”. A good way to orient is to look at the broken snag in partial shadow angling out toward the camera, about a third of the way up from the bottom of the pic and just left of center. The “subject” is just above that.

  7. Hodown humphy responds:

    Sorry but I’ve looked and I’ve looked and I cant see anything but sticks and trees.

  8. CamperGuy responds:

    What a wonderul game of “Where’s Waldo?”

    I found : a Grey Gorilla
    Black Sasquatch
    Teddy Roosevelt face (spooky)
    Jesus face
    “E.T.” face above Teddy face (still spooky)
    Beer can
    Lizzard
    lupines
    cannon ball
    Martian hand ala “War of the Worlds”

    Foreground:
    face with upper right torso
    and a Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log

    Cool game, thanks!

  9. cryptidsrus responds:

    Unlike most people here I’m not going to hazard a guess here…
    If I were to, I’d say trick of light and shadows. Could be something else. I remain agnostic on this one.
    Just enjoying the amount of reponses here. More folks should come out for more “normal” postings. Don’t see the bearded guy.

  10. helgarde responds:

    It looks like a hunk of the downed tree in shadow to me. It looks to be extended back from the tree bits in the center ground, and in deep shadow cast by the canopy above.

    I once took a photograph of my husband playing Native American flute out in our snowy woods.

    I was looking at it as I was cropping and adjusting the exposure, and notice what appeared to be a bigfoot striding across the snow-covered field behind the woods.

    Closer inspection (which took only one second) showed that my “bigfoot” was a crumpled leaf hanging from a very slender tree branch near my husband’s shoulder. The depth of field rendered the leaf and branch slightly fuzzy, and the shape was just reminiscent enough of “Patty’s” famous stride that it is what came up in my mind.

    For all of about a second.

    Just like this picture. For a second, it looks like a neckless, hairy, saggital-crest bearing critter, but upon closer examination, it is just a cool-looking bit of wood.

  11. cryptidsrus responds:

    Camper Guy:

    Where’s the “cannon ball?”

    And the “Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log?”

  12. Richard Storey responds:

    I saw nothing but trees and dead trees. Full magnification, examined inch by inch, across the entire photo. There’s not biped of any sort visible.

  13. Fishing J responds:

    There needs to be another photograph taken of this place to see if anything has changed in the layout.

  14. sausage1 responds:

    Yep! I can see the cannonball. Ditto Jaws. I can also see my mate’s mum in a log. I don’t want to be ungallant but boy is she ugly!

    Just like that log.

    What I can’t see is the big fella, although I zoomed in two or three things I thought were sas before hitting on the blob in the woods. If it’s a guy in a monkey suit, get your cash back!

  15. KarmakazeNZ responds:

    You have got to be kidding me….

    First of all, get a new digital camera – or stop running your images through a noise filter…

    Secondly, unless the supposed bigfoot is the size of a small child, I don’t see anything even remotely bigfoot like.

    Third unless the bigfoot has fur made of micro black holes, the supposed bigfoot is nothing but a shadow or blur (or intentional edit). The supposed bigfoot is standing among a bunch of fallen branches that are so brightly lit they are blooming, yet the supposed bigfoot is nothing but a black blob.

    I seriously can’t believe anyone would say anything about an arm, let alone a brow ridge. Seriously? Amazing imaginations around here…

    In fact it is pretty damn clear to me (and any other sane person) that the blob is not even an actual object, but is in fact a gap in the foliage luckily (or carefully) framed by the brightly lit branches in the middle distance. So the “Bigfoot” is not only not a “bigfoot”, its not anything! Its not even a shadow. but the dark background framed by the light foreground in a vaguely humanoid shape.

    Oh yeah this proves it!

  16. folcrom responds:

    The photo was taken from the road (a forest road?) as they drove their car, snapping photos as they went? The Squatch was only found upon analysing the photos?

    Think about it logically.

    If this was a man in a monkey suit, then if would be highly coincidental, unless the photographers were in on it.

    If we are to believe the photoographers and take them at face value, then it would be a huge coincidence for a man in a monkey suit to be in the area at the same time.

    So, assuming the photographers are to be believed, then the Squatch is not a man in a monkey suit. And it’s capture on the photo, pure luck.

    So the question is, Do we believe the photographers?

    If we do, then this is probably a Squatch.
    It does appear to be barrel chested.
    It does seem to have a ridge/crest on its head.
    Unfortunately, still to far from the camera to get much detail, but not a blob.
    Interesting.

  17. maslo63 responds:

    Karma; You think perhaps it’s not our imaginations and rather your eyes that are the problem here? Admittedly I looked at the picture hard and while I do see what could be a brow ridge I don’t see any arms on the thing. If its anything at all its a man in a suit. I don’t buy that these people were driving by, snapping photos and caught a sas staring at them directly in the middle of the shot. However while I do believe something is there I will concede that there may be nothing there at all. Anyone remember the sasquatch on Mars?

  18. CamperGuy responds:

    cryptidsrus responds:

    Where’s the “cannon ball?”

    And the “Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log?”
    _______________________________________________________
    the Great white is the “log” lying horizontaly on the right side of the picture. The eye is clearly visible as well as the grey upper and white lower portions. The mouth may be partialy open.
    This may in fact be the fabled cryptid landshark once reported on a late night tv program…..

    The “cannon ball” is to the far right where the tail fin of the Great White Shark would be. Ok the cannon ball might be a round rock …..but the Great White Shark swimming about the woods wil be harder to disprove!

    For the record tongue is planted firmly in cheek. 🙂

  19. alandp responds:

    All I see are leaves and shadows. And the face of the Zig-Zag guy.

  20. jayman responds:

    Karma, with all due respect, many “sane persons” do see an actual object, even if it is most likely a stump. Also I don’t see where anybody here said this “proves” anything.

  21. ksr responds:

    I see three, two towards the middle. And then the third at the far right behind a tree. And appears to be looking towards the camera. Bigfoot, who knows. Maybe!!!!

  22. Carlfoot responds:

    Blobsquatch

  23. PhotoExpert responds:

    I see what the two people are referring to in this photograph. Fortunately, it is better than some blobsquatch photos we have encountered. But Unfortunately, there is enough detail to say that it is probably not a BigFoot.

    Yes, I do admit that if I was looking through several photos and playing find the BF, I could find what appears to be the shape of a BF in this photo. But photographic analysis is one thing. Eyewitness testimony is another.

    I agree with so many other readers here in that it is pure coincidence of light and shadow, on existing flora in the picture, that do give it the appearance of a BF walking into the woods with it’s head slightly tilted to the left. I do see what other readers describe as the crest and face. I do see pine needles grouped together that give the appearance and texture of fur. I even see what could be the separations of individual fingers of the left hand. But then again, I can see the shapes of bunnies in clouds if I look hard enough.

    The problem with this photograph is just as one viewer posted. These are two people just shooting into the woods from a moving car. OK, you are going to capture some digital images. Some of them because of light and shadow will resemble certain known things and creatures and even some unknown or yet undiscovered creatures. So there is a high probability of seeing something when looking at these types of photos. In this case, we have people hoping to see BF. So their minds tune in to shapes resembling what they are looking for. That is the first problem with this account.

    The second problem with this account is that they did not see anything moving when the photo was taken. Given the left arm swing of the shadow and light creature, any observer would have seen movement. They did not describe seeing any movement in their eyewitness account.

    Thirdly, if it were a BF. It is certainly not the 7-8 foot tall kind. Perhaps a juvenile, but certainly not the large types that we have heard about in so many eyewitness descriptions. If you look at the foliage in front of the shadow and light creature, from the camera’s point of view, it will give you a gage on the height of the thing in front of it, namely the shadow and light creature. If you look at the foliage behind the shadow and light creature, from the camera’s point of view, you will also get a better perspective. At most, this creature is 5 feet in height. So if it were a BF, it would probably be a juvenile.

    Lastly, if you look at the neck area, just where the shoulders meet in the center, you will notice what looks like a stick or light greyish to sandy scratch across the shoulder and neck area, which is interupted around the neck. You have to magnify the image to see this. But what you will suddenly notice is that the “scratch” or stick is the same color as the background. And you will further see that the fur between those two scratches is a pine needle grouping. So it is fir but not fur! LOL

    I have to admit. It was pretty cool because the figure does resemble a juvenile BF. But upon further and more intense inspection, it is a play of shadow and light off the foliage. A huge and cool coincidence!

    I guess they were shocked when they saw that photo. At first glance, it is shocking. But upon further analysis, it is just an uncanny play of shadow and light.

    This was a fun one though! I enjoyed looking at it and initially thinking, could it be? But naw, it is not.

    Thanks for posting it though. And to the two guys taking the photos, keep up the good work and search. At least your photo was clear and at least you were out there looking and trying some new techniques to capture a BF on film. I give you credit there! But as far as a BF photo, no dice this time. But who knows? Take enough images and your technique may prove successful. Try dawn and dusk the next time you go out for a drive with your camera.

  24. elsanto responds:

    I figured most people would have seen what I was referring to. (Feel a little vindicated that Photo Expert could see it.) I have to admit that I couldn’t discern at all the figure on the left that several posters made reference to… what I could see there resembled the play of light on bark. As I looked again at the subject, the question about its size (which Photo Expert explained quite nicely) also came to my mind… which left me leaning toward “kid in a suit.”

    Then I read through all these posts. Wow.

    Admittedly, the software I’m using to view my downloaded copy of the photo is pretty crude, so I was simply commenting on what I could see. Someone also pointed out that there was something suspicious about having the subject right in the centre when saying that you’ve taken a shot from a moving vehicle, which was something I also had been chewing on (it’s always possible that witnesses/hoaxters have been considerate enough to crop their submissions accordingly).

    Even so, it’s been refreshing to have been caught in a torrent of disagreement.

  25. jayman responds:

    One thing I discovered is how much of a difference monitor resolution makes. I was viewing this pic at work yesterday, both small and large versions, on a large, hi-res monitor I use in my work. Then I went home and looked on my home computer, which has a smaller monitor which I thought still had pretty good resolution. What a difference, especially on the large version, with much loss of detail and introduction of a great deal of ramdom pixel noise. It helps make sense of the discrepency in what people see here.

  26. CamperGuy responds:

    Rereading, I realized my first post might be construed as inflammatory by the picture submitter. Not my intention.
    I was trying in an obscure way to point out we associate what we see to what we know. It is how our minds and memory work. An “unorganized” display of light and shadow will be “organized” by the minds eye without consideration to logic which is where the Great White Shark (which MIGHT be a log) can happen.
    I feel as several here do that it is a play of light and shadow. I do not think it is an attempted hoax. If I had taken the picture I would have sent it in as well. It is another case of it is simply what it is….sincere,fun,interesting but unfortunately not a Squatch.
    I sincerely apologize to the submitter if I offended.

  27. Artist responds:

    WHAT FUN! Loren sure knows how to wake us up on a relatively slow after-the-Holiday week, eh?

    >>But this is a fun photo…

    >>The coloration of the fur is also interesting… what is it?

    >>You can clearly see an image that looks kinda like a man’s face with long hair… like Jesus…

    >>Looks more like Joseph Stalin to me…

    >>I suspect it may be ‘Ziggy’, the mascot/logo from the rolling papers packet…

    >>It could be a black bear standing up…

    >>Its face appears to be on the back of its head!

    >>Definitely a tree stump – with mange…

    >>I plainly see a Forest Nessie…

    >>Could this be the long-fabled “Manin Agor Illas Uit” (Man in a Gorilla Suit”)?

    >>This is very clearly a shot of living and dead foliage.

    >>No one has picked up on the Geico gecko…

    >>The face is Teddy Roosevelt, an early conservationist…

    >>Grey Gorilla – Black Sasquatch – “E.T.” face – Beer can –
    Lizzard – cannon ball – Martian hand…

    >>Great White Shark (This may be the fabled cryptid landshark once reported on a late night tv program)…

    >>Twas nothin’ but a wee bit of wishful thinkin’…

    75 Responses, so far; nowhere near the record, but FUN!

    Thanks, Loren – we needed that!

    WEEKEND COMIN’ – let’s get out there, and don’t forget plenty of water, camo suit and hat, waterproof boots, extra sox, trail mix, flashlight(s), camera, camcorder, night- and thermo-vision gear, voice recorder, walkie-talkies, extra batteries, binoculars, casting material, tape measure, plastic bags, vinyl gloves, tweezers, toilet paper, sleeping bag & roll, whistle, sheath knife, bear spray, sidearm…

    Not so easy, is it?

  28. jerrywayne responds:

    For once, I agree with DWA. [smile]

  29. sschaper responds:

    If it was shot while driving, and that had the ISO turned way up, that would explain the noise. They could have done what they said, and with imaginations desiring to find something, believed that this broken branch on that downed tree was a bigfoot. But when you adjust the light curve (I didn’t use other techniques, such as sharpening, because that adds artifacts that the imagination can work with), you can see that it is just a broken branch, in shadow.

    Some of you have very suggestible imaginations – I thought I did, but I, as a Christian, did NOT see this “Jesus face” or any of the other things you see. I could believe that there are deer and squirrels in the image, camouflaged, but not those things.

    Photoexpert,
    “Dawn and dusk” is a good point. Why, on the cryptid TV shows, do they always look at midnight, instead of dawn and dusk, when most critters are active? (And why do they call blast, scaring everything for a mile, and definitely sounded fake, hence of Man??)

  30. cryptidsrus responds:

    Thanks for the heads-up, CamperGuy!!!

  31. peter Pan responds:

    What I just see is a whimsical old log…with sort of a quizzical look. If I make the effort to consider ” He ”  being a Sasquatch… then he looks at the camera through round spectacles, and his head wears an ornament or may be is ” horned ” with some sort of antenna, intended to phone Mars… or what ?
    As suggested some one, should be wishful to return and see what the place really looks like ! .. no ?
    Beside I’m dubious about that snapshot being fired from a moving car !

  32. DWA responds:

    Well, since this is a Bigfoot post with no bigfoot in it, let’s do Bigfoot Q and A.

    sschaper says:

    Q: Why, on the cryptid TV shows, do they always look at midnight, instead of dawn and dusk, when most critters are active?

    A: Television is, as has been frequently said, a vast wasteland. Given their view of the sasquatch as a woo-woo scream opp, much better for ratings if they are out in the deeps of woo-woo. People don’t generally admit a fear of the dusk or the dawn, do they? But midnight? Stephen King time. TV is not about finding cryptids. Because field biology is only romantic and thrilling up to a point. Just ask any field biologist. (Next: Putting Alleged Bigfoot Dung In Vials!)

    ———————-

    Q: And why do they call blast, scaring everything for a mile, and definitely sounded fake, hence of Man?

    A: Well, I’m not defending the dumb ones, who really think the sasquatch is buying it. But I’d like to put in a word for the smart ones.

    The sasquatch is, from all that’s available to us, a primate. Primates are smart; they’re also curious; and they seem to have at least a rudimentary sense of humor. Why do you think chimps like to toss their [poopies] at unsuspecting zoo visitors? Heck, I remember a monkey doing it once. Yuk! Yuk!

    Um, anyway. Blasters don’t just use alleged sas vocalizations; they use those of known primates like howler monkeys and gibbons. They are, more than anything else, just trying to get a rise out of any local sas, maybe open a communication window. They’re hoping curiosity will get the better of the critter. They know (I hope) that the sasquatch knows this isn’t Cousin Patty. Or actually, they don’t care what the sasquatch thinks, as long as they get a response. They want to see if loud primate noise gets any kind of fraternal reaction from an animal that, otherwise, can’t be counted on to just walk up and shake hands. And sometimes, it seems to. (Not necessarily call blasting, but reports have what appear to be sasquatch imitating noises humans have made.)

    We can’t say for sure that it works, but heck, we aren’t even sure what the sasquatch, exactly, is, yet. All we do know – and I use that word loosely – is that they make very loud vocalizations, that carry a long way, and that maybe if they hear something that sounds like another primate doing something similar, they might respond to, well, break up the monotony a little.

    Gotta try things and see what works.

  33. Amdusias responds:

    I am looking at the size of weed leaves to the fore of the downed tree, and the lichen on the tree, to judge size of the figure. While in no way accurate, I am guessing about three feet tall. That wouldn’t invalidate that it is a picture of a cryptid or even a young bigfoot, but I am seeing a tiny homonid myself.

  34. bccryptid responds:

    Hmmm, I see a sasquatch, a draconian lizard man in mid-dimension shift, and the ghost of Alexander the Great.

    And oh yes, the shadow of wishful thinking.

    Why do people even bother posting these things? I guess if he did see something, he would want to share the experience, even though his evidence is useless…

  35. sschaper responds:

    The thing about call blasting, is that even I can hear that it sounds artificial – and loud. If it is going to be tried, it should not be distorted by the equipment, and it needn’t be loud at first, they probably have decent ears.

  36. Greatwolf responds:

    Personally, I think it is a bear, wolf, or coyote.

  37. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    It’s just part of the trees that look strange because of the shadows–nothing there at all

  38. Braindead responds:

    The creature in the background, which is walking away (seems like it’s looking left), looks real to me.

    Of course, the tree stump in the front is looking like Bob Ross and co, but it isn’t the object we should looking for.

    Interesting photo.

  39. Markoswan responds:

    I’m afraid I just don’t see this one… I saved it and zoomed way in, but I still didn’t see anything anywhere that looked like a Bigfoot.

  40. MikeWms responds:

    I see possibly three creatures. One big guy is to the upper left. I can see his head and right arm and ear, with a very conicle looking head. The big guy is looking down at the middle creature behind the tree to his right. Those two look like they are waiting for the more obvious creature behind the fallen tree walking towards them. Maybe a family of Bigfoot. You must zoom in to catch all these details.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|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.