Update: Photo of Dead Bigfoot?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 16th, 2006
Here is a scan of the entire, uncropped photo from the Bigfoot Casebook, authored by Janet and Colin Bord. My esteemed Cryptomundo colleague, Loren Coleman, wrote the foreward for this recently updated book.
Click on image for full size version. This is a scan from the book, so it suffers from the shortcomings of a scanned photo from books and newspapers.
You can order the updated version of the Bord’s Bigfoot Casebook from Amazon.com for the extremely reasonable price of $12.24. And if you order it along with Jeff Meldrum’s book for the low, low price of $30.69, you will qualify for no shipping charge.
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.
Now we know why they cropped it, unless those snow shoes are supposed to be 8-10 feet long.
Yeah, that really looks like a dog to me. The limbs *appear* to be a little long, but the overall impression I’m getting is “Irish Wolfhound” They are somewhat of a different build than most dogs people immediately think of, but there seems to be a similarity.
Snow Shoes a Dog and Snow. All it needs now is a sled Team with sled.
Oh wait, is that a internet poster I hear typing that they ain’t saying its not there, but they can’t see any snow?
Well, based on your typical Bigfoot description, the mass of this thing doesn’t come close to what you would expect for a Bigfoot, and with it being winter time, you would assume a Bigfoot would have eaten more and put on weight to help survive a harsh winter. Also, this thing has no shoulders.
Unless those are absolutely ginormous snowshoes, that’s not a bigfoot.
I agree with the dog conclusion – there seem to be bends in the forelimbs at a point which should correlate to our wrist, but (assuming a bigfoot arm somewhat resembles a human arm) the ratio of “hand” to “forearm” is too large then – in other words, they look like dog paws.
Could there possibly be a tail visible in front of the tree? Somewhat high up as if frozen in rigor mortis.
I don’t know anything of the background to this photo – who took it? Were any claims made about what the photo is supposed to show?
I wouldn’t find it surprising if someone wanted to take a photo of their dog – are is the photographer somehow supposed to have stumbled across this body lying on the ground?
Looking at this and the other photograph a few things come to mind.
It does look like a cat at first glance.
The twine looks as if it is tied to the two front “paws” and legs as if someone was trying to carry it out over the shoulder and then possible got tired and set it down and settled for a photograph. This might even explain the reddish patches on the hind legs – where the twine cut in. Would carrying the body with twine tied to the arms and legs leave the limbs extended by either rigor mortis or the cold, thus making them look unusually long?
The snowshoes should help date the picture…1960’s?
If this was in fact a bigfoot I would have thought the photographer would have found the face of special interest?
My guess is Lynx or Puma with either the picture doctored to make the animal appear darker or maybe even a genetic variant?
Hey…. mabe those are the Bigfoot’s snow shoes!
Definitely have to go with a Lynx or Bobcat here. The positioning and it being embedded in snow is what gives a humanoid impression, but that’s all it is.
I am still not sure what I see. I can say it is very well posed. Just where things that could clarify it could be there is something to block or give pause.
Not showing the feet is a good way to keep everyone guessing also.
Maybe they were bigfoot’s snow shoes.
Could be a wolverine.
Puma.
Several bundles of cleverly placed furs.
The slender body does not indicate any sort of human or ape-like creature.
assumptions are the most irresponsible ignorant and reckless thing any investigator can do/make. they destroy your credibility.
opinions like i think its a dog it looks like a bear are not assumptions
assumptions are; any bipedal would be proportion better, it would be fattened up for the winter, the body size shape doesn’t look like…,etc
to allow assumptions to drive your conclusion makes your conclusion flawed.
come on people, none of us have any idea what the creature looks like at different times in the life cycle or during the year in different locations. to openly or privately allow such unprovable ideas drive your theory is inexcusable. it just doesn’t allow any investigator to be unbiased in their opinions or findings. it also degrades your findings.
never start with a bigfoot looks like this or they should be this fat, this old, this stereotypical. it is an easy mistake but you have to fight your self and not do this.
i have said it a thousand times that these creatures have as many different body types and looks as humans do. this is proven by the sketches by pete travers and descriptions by eye witness testimony. they are not all patty or harry and the henderson’s types.
the pic looks indiscernible to me. i want it to be proof like all of you but you have to be unbiased in your examination. dont allow assumptions based on unknowns destroy your work.
no one here knows what a 15 year old squatch on his own in the winter looks like. or what a 50 year old near death with some genetic traits that favor a smaller body type looks like. how about a 10 year old? not all squatches are 8 feet tall over 500 lbs and walk like patty.
don’t assume anything. only use provable and repeatable facts to drive your findings.
My first thought, when I saw the first photo, was “dead puma”. Now that I have seen the uncropped photo I am convinced that is what I am looking at. A dead puma.
Well said Chris and Claudia! You make some very good points that I think we should all keep in mind. A picture needs to be judged on the picture and the facts presented. All the hoopla surrounding the picture needs to be ignored. I believe we all need to keep an open mind, and not judge a picture by what ends up surrounding it.
Compare this photograph with that of an “onza”, which was shot in western Mexico in 1986.
The angle from which the photo was shot is different, but the “onza” (which DNA analysis identified as a puma) is very similar to the animal in the picture posted here. This one is furrier because of its thick winter coat, but you can even see the typical puma facial markings (although the cat itself appears underexposed in the photo, probably due to having been photographed against the white snow.
Not saying it’s real, just offering a theory.
Maybe its fingers are curled, and therefore give the appearance of paws.
Also, its right side is stuck in the snow as if dragged there for a photo and dropped.
We also don’t know if bigfoot develops a “winter coat” to explain the puffiness or shagginess of its coat.
As for it not being bulky, it may have been sick or unable to find food enough to maintain bulk. It was winter, after all.
History has shown us that entire settlements of “civilized” people, farmers and hunters included, have perished in winter for lack of food. As I said, just a theory, so don’t tear apart my posting.
Did anyone ever consider the idea that it may not be that big because it’s a juvenile BF?
Although I’m still going with a guess of dog, there are other questions raised here that make you think.
Could it just a raised patch of ground in the snow creating an optional dilusion? Or a pile of something? Why is the right side of the subject completely dark?
Chrisandclaudia, assumptions are an irresponsible habit to get into by any investigator, that is very true. But logical guesses based on what we know about other species are not necessarily an ignorant or irresponsible way of looking at things. Sure, we do not know what Bigfoot looks like at different times of year, etc. But we can look at other large primates and from that make reasonable guesses as to how this primate may function or from the mechanics of a bipedal organism look at these photos and ascertain whether it fits into a feasible mold for bipedalism. All humans of all shapes and sizes have the same general parameters needed for bipedalism. I think taking what we know about other organisms on this earth, especially ones that live in the same ecological niche as our big friend, is not an overly irresponsible or inexcusable thing to do. You will see that organisms all over the world, in different ecosystems have developed similar ways to survive, similar physical forms as well. Nature has a way of sticking with what works and I feel we can apply what we know about other animals to unknown animals as well to some extent. With only a photo at our disposal, with no way to get those repeatable facts, about the only thing we can do is relate it to what we know of creatures that do exist and if Bigfoot is not some sort of freak of nature, it is going to fit into the confines of physical reality. That being said, I believe this resembles a feline of some sort.
Damn- that looked kind of interesting in the cropped photo. Just shows what a little apparently innocent bit of tweaking can do. I too was thinking the ‘paws’ could be the result of curled fingers, but well, that is a feline (or perhaps canine) face (I reckon Kittenz photo of the ‘onza’ has pretty much sorted this out). While i accept that we don’t know what changes bigfoot might go through during development, it would be a pretty wierd beast if it started off with the head of a st bernard and grew up to have the head of a gorilla. This isn’t an anthropoid of any kind.
Yup, like I said before: dead lynx/cat.
After playing with contrast and enhancing this photo, I’m still not sure what I am looking at. The head does look somewhat like a dog/cat. But the upper body seems too heavy for a dog or puma. Also the legs look too long. Plus I almost see bent fingers under the fur?
The front arms/legs seem too far back for a cat or dog. They look more like arms to me with a shoulder. I also see a waist and hip? The back legs seem longer than the front.
I still do not know what this creature is? I simply can not ID it for sure and my impression is that this thing walked upright?
This thing has some sort of snare on it. So I do not think it is a dog. Since this is a trapper photo, a cat would make more sense. But the body just does not seem right for a feline. Plus why would it be photographed unless it was something odd? Somewhat of an effort back then, in the cold, snow and ice. I would think there would have been better things to do than photograph a puma?
We need more information.
People photograph pumas they have killed for the same reasons they photograph any other hunted animal: for a trophy, and to prove they killed it (or at least to prove that it was killed).
Remember, it IS odd to even see a puma, much less kill one, and it must have been even more odd to see them in the late 19th century, before telephoto lenses were available. Probably only hunters ever saw them for the most part. And back then hunting wasn’t just a simple matter of hopping into the old jeep and heading off for a few hours. Hunting in remote areas was much more difficult then than it is now.
This puma looks like it has already been gutted. You can plainly see the white muzzle and black muzzle markings of a puma, and the huge puma paws, in this photo. You can even see the big soft cat-toes with their claw sheaths. The legs look like they are stretched from the puma having been carried suspended by its lashed-together paws. Pumas have a long, slender body, and they have very long back legs. The front legs look so long because they were stretched out from the weight of the suspended body.
I don’t see a mystery here. I see a dead puma in the snow.
In my opinion, after analyzing this photo, the legs are of a different texture which do not have the furry type edges, appears to be a hat on the head, kind of like a hard hat with a lip coming of the back of the hat, and a round ear muff on the left ear. Amazing how different people can see so many things in a photo, especially when trying to prove something it isn’t.
Help me figure this out. It looks as though the hindquarters (right side of photo) are obscured by shadows yet the snowshoes and other objects in the foreground do not appear to be casting shadows, while object in the background are casting numerous shadows.
Are we sure this is actually from the 1800’s? Or has it been retouched in anyway?
I did a little bit of research and although I can’t say for certain, the snowshoes above are probably three feet or less in length. That would make this animal relatively small.
The puma that I saw near Cave Run Lake in northeastern Kentucky a few years ago couldn’t have been much more than about 6 feet long, including the tail. It may have a shade longer but not much. It was a grown puma; at least, it did not have any spots on it like a puma kitten has. Maybe it was a rising yearling and not yet a year old. But it was not a great big animal. I saw it from fairly close; it was running beside the highway and I was able to come up alongside of it before it leaped away into the brush, and I saw it very clearly, so I know that I was not mistaken about the size.
You take a picture of a supposed dead bigfoot, you don’t centre the picture?
You cut off the feet? You have snowshoes in the picture? And the big one,—- was it the last pic on your roll of film so you couldn’t take any more pics? Any one want to pull my finger?
I’m thinking puma, but I wish I knew for certain how long those snowshoes are. That’s the part that bothers me most about this picture. I’m sure it was a useful size comparison back in 1800s (if that is indeed when this was taken), but I’m stumped. If they are really around three feet long, as Bonehead said, then perhaps this is a juvenile puma? To me the configuration of this animal most resembles a feline, most probably a puma, but those snowshoes just look so big compared to it. Anyone know for certain how big those things are?
This animal is an obvious cougar.You can see the white nose and chin. The front left foot is swollen because it was trapped in a wire snare.
Reminds me of the Russian Almas photo. Awhile ago I came across a photo of Russian Border Guards carrying what, at first glance, appeared to be an Almas. Turned out to just be a doctored photo of them carrying a dead wildcat.
According to the original printing of this book that I have (1984), the caption says:
“Section of a photograph of an unidentified creature lying dead in the snow. It was shot by trappers at Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada, early in the 20th century.
Amendment. Just seen that this has been already mentioned in a previous thread. Nevermind.
Could very well be a juvenile or sub-adult puma. They can have their kittens at any time of the year, and the kittens have a fluffier coat than the adults until they are about 10 months old. They usually lose most of their spots by about 6 months of age but they retain the wooly coat for a few months longer.
Also, adult pumas are not always great big animals; in fact many adult females weigh quite a bit less than 100 pounds.
I see where the Puma theory’s coming from, but if that’s the case, it’s the furriest/shaggiest puma I’ve ever seen.
Thank you Chris & Claudia! It is assumptions like- “If these things were out there, we’d have bones, dead bodies, & examples from the fossil record by now.”, which keep such an unfortunately large number of willfully ignorant people from acknowledging what objective(as objective as humans can ever be, at least) logic & science both dictate when applied in any number of ways(such as acknowledgement of the 20 aspects of the film & surrounding circumstances that make it an impossibility that the Patterson Footage is fake, & etc., etc… you all already know so many reasons it’s silly not to acknowledge these creatures) to be true of the relic hominid issue. There are Very good reasons why those assumptions are simply patently false, including the facts that- 1. jungle/forest animals of any kind almost never make any fossils, & 2. humans are unbelievably inept in these types of environments, & 3. there are very powerful interests, & lesser interests too, who ALL have great reason & motivation to cover up any physical evidence that comes to light, & 4., 5., 6., 7., etc., etc.. I stress all this, because in fact, ALL the skeptics have to defend their position on the matter, are Exactly the types of faulty, untrustworthy assumptions you’ve so eloquently warned against.
Oh, & since I got ahead of myself, what are the truths of this matter that logic & science both dictate?- It’s that these creatures are indeed very much a reality, they exist on every continent except Antarctica, & they are one of the most unusual, amazing parts of nature that we have the ability to know at this time, if only we would give them the attention, study, & protection they deserve. And who knows, w/luck, they may even lead us to some very profound, very contrary to past belief revelations about ourselves, & our own origins as a species.