Malaysian Bigfoot Caught on Camera ?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 29th, 2005
Well, not yet. But the Johor Wildlife Department stated that they would install cameras in the jungle where the creatures have reported to have been seen after they had compiled the eyewitness accounts of or found any evidence of the creatures.
The advisor to the Malaysian Nature Society welcomed the news that state and federal governments were planning to investigate the rash of recent sightings in the jungles of Johor. He feels that it could bring ecotourists, such as cryptozoologists from the US and Australia to Johor.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Well I hope they get something other than a falling leaf or fire or something. However, I did have one major concern:
“He feels that it could bring ecotourists”
People will do a lot of things for money…
They just posted a couple “creature pictures” on the Coast to Coast AM website, haven’t seen anyone post or mention it here:
It’s a half-downed pine branch…sometimes pine trees will crack and die, but still be hung to the tree. I see this all the time. The green pine needle have since turned brown and appears to be a creature….its not.
Yes, its a branch for sure….after looking some more, you can see the sunlight hitting the top part and the bottom is in the shade….this caused what looks like to be the creatures head.
doc007-
If you’re referring to the bottom picture I disagree with the “pine branch” theory. There’s a lot of what looks like dark and multi-colored fur there. I’m of the opinion that the bottom picture is sort of too close and clear to be credible. The face being conveniently obscured doesn’t help credibility much either. But who knows, there’s a lot of reports of cryptid primates awkwardly jumping behind obviously incomplete cover in a sort of “now you can’t see me” manuever. Anything’s possible, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if this were a wookie or similar suit hoax.
As far as the top picture is concerned its pretty vague but it does have some points to recommend it. The way the light hits the head, back, and shoulder of the figure certainly looks very similar to how gorilla fur looks in the sunlight. That’s probably easily hoaxable, but it is something to consider.
The figure in the top picture does seem like it might have something in its arms. It looks like one of the forepaws and part of the head of a white-colored husky-type dog sticking out to the left of what looks like the shoulder and upper arm area of the figure. Possibly dead, but the head does seem upright rather than lolling lifelessly. The way the right shoulder and upper arm of the figure are positioned also might support the theory that the figure is carrying something. There have been reports of cryptid primates killing aggressive dogs. On the other hand some captive apes have been known to care for other animals. Pretty strange if that is the case, but it seems like a long shot.
It would be interesting to know if any dogs in the picture area went missing during the period when the picture was taken, and whether they were found or stayed missing. And the general condition they were in if found.
if you look a the creatures right fore arm, you can clearly see the structure of small tree limb with branches coming out from the top and bottom.
as for the top photo, those are just shadows that look like a face made from the tree leaves.
Bottom picture:
Its right or our right? I don’t see that. Anything clearly identifiable as a branch seems to be in the foreground. I’m not saying what you’re saying isn’t there, but what I see could just be very long hair hanging from the arm and side.
Top picture:
As far as the top picture is concerned, I’m not referring to their tracing of a dog’s face in what I’m looking at as the highlighting on its rump. In my opinion that’s improbable, to say the least. You can just see the profile of part of a foreleg and part of the possible dog’s head, sticking out to the left at the shoulder/upper arm level just above the “face” they traced.
In my perspective on the picture, you are looking at a hairy figure with its back to the camera traveling up the slope. Where they traced the “face” is just the highlight of the sun on its hindquarters. Above that and to the left you can see just the profile of a paw and part of the head of what might be a dog. The rear view of the figure’s head is just above and to the right of the profile of the dog’s head. I wish I could put pointers on the picture to illustrate what I’m saying.
On the bottom photo, the first thing I noticed is that the photo has been rotated to make it appear the subject is standing upright. Trees, shrubs, and vines in that type of a wooded area don’t grow at an angle. Once rotated so the trees are oriented in the proper vertical direction, the subject would be in the process of falling over or moving very fast. I think movement is unlikely because the focus on the creature is identical to the focus of the rest of the photo in that there is no motion blur. To me, that looks like a clump of the aforementioned fallen pine branches. Walk into any northwoods forest in the upper midwest and it’s possible to see the exact same scene.
On the top photo, I don’t really have an opinion on its authenticity but it’s an interesting photo, especially since they had the ability to revisit the site and shoot photos to document scale. It definately looks like an apelike creature carrying something.