Show Me State Sasquatch Photos
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 12th, 2013
From Who Forted?:
The pictures were reportedly snapped on July 4th on Table Rock Lake near Kimberling City, Missouri, and appear to show an extremely large, fur-covered humanoid strolling along the water’s edge. The photos were posted online by Angelique Christensen, a member of the Paranormal Distraction investigation group, who said she was sharing the images for the gentleman who captured them, but declined to name the man.
“When I saw these pics I had to get permission to post them to have them analyzed,” she wrote on Facebook. “If it is a person and a hoax they must [have] been dropped off at shore, but according to the story the man was out fishing in the coves with his family/friends and this is what they saw… Several people had witnessed it.”
The images have only been online for a few hours, but that hasn’t stopped opinions from rolling in. Aside from the obvious declarations of cryptozoological evidence, there have been theories that the fisherman simply captured a hunter in a ghillie suit, while other commenters thought the figure could have been a bear standing on its hind legs, a rationalization that Christensen refutes.
“Def not a bear,” she wrote. “The black bear down there are small and in the other 2 pics you can clearly see it’s human like form.”
Resd the rest of the story and see the other photos here: Do These Striking Sasquatch Photos Snapped on July 4th Show a Lumbering Monster or Man in a Suit?
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.
As with all shots like this, my reaction is, get someone to stand in that exact same spot as a point of reference, for size comparison.
At first I thought “suit, it even looks like there is a waist band and maybe something over the shoulder”…but then I clicked on the story link to look at the rest of the photos, and there is a photo taken from the side that looks more like something covered in hair, but who knows….Interesting photos.
First glance; human proportions, possible zipper near neck. Crazy thing to do in the July 4th heat in Missouri.
And my purely subjective armchair analysis is….. That’s not a bear. I could easily see it being a human though.
I guess I’ll go first…the full figure images are very interesting. As with the P/G film, this is either a hoax or real Bigfoot. It Is when we get to the profile image that things start to fall apart. The wide, bulky full figure images are consistent with Bigfoot data. The profile image is very slim and flat – not showing the bulk suggested by the front/back images. It is apparent that the persons behind this event went a very long way to mimic the P/G film as close as possible. The overall impression is that of a creature very similar to the P/G. Similar bulk, similar looking gait and so forth. Only the profile image gives the hoax away as it is far too flat and slim when compared to other descriptions. The profile image also has the tell-tale “limp bag” look of a suit as well as a bottom hairline for the end of the front of the too tall, over-the-head mask. This might explain why there is only one profile image shown as it is the giveaway shot, while the others would have stood up very well…too well in fact. I don’t think that the ghillie suit explanation works as, if this were a true encounter, the person in the ghillie suit is within talking/yelling distance of the camera and could have been identified as such just by saying hello.
All in all a nice job but…should have stayed away from the profile image.
Now that is interesting. Unfortunately no shots showing the subject from the front, but the proportions are very intriguing and reminiscent of the P-G film subject. If it’s a hoax, it’s a good ‘un!
you’d need to have a person standing in the spot and another shooting from the same spot to recreate it.
i dont see anything but a solid mass…. NO FUR…. no muscles…. no variation of fur… so to me its a hoax.
remember PG… there’s muscle tone… there’s fur and variations of it all along the body….
this is just a solid shape.
i’m thinking a person with a jacket.
OK Cryptomundians, go to the original site via the link and view the other images especially the side view/profile. The side view/profile is what gives the hoax away for me but, if they had stuck with full figure images, this would be much more interesting. The back images look good, very P/G like but…the side image cries out suit with an over-the-head, too tall mask. Also, the figure doesn’t look especially tall walking by the low type, water’s edge shrubs, but that wouldn’t be a main concern. I get the feeling that as with the earlier ” Louisiana Panther” post, we are look at enlargements and the full frame images tell a somewhat different story.
Yeah, I think person in a rain jacket looks most likely too. However, it doesn’t look to me like the profile picture is of the same thing. There is a terrible lack of definition in the subject as compared to the rest of the frame if it were an animal, I think. I don’t know, maybe it’s the same subject in all the pictures, but if the pictures were taken at the same time how likely is it that you would get images of a sasquatch walking in two different directions? I don’t know, I defer to the rest of you, but the rain jacket theory has legs I think.
Wake me up when anything happens. If anything does.
Arms are too short. I do see some sort of “waistband” as edsbigfoot said. No musculature. Color of the fur is too uniform. Shoulders are not broad. Does not look “heavyset” of the bigfoot type. Too flat both front and back compared to Patty.
So no, it’s definitely a man in a suit.
Fascinating, but did anybody check for footprints? To me, the proportions are a red flag, but one must be objective.
I agree with the comments about it being a man in a suit. People apparently having too much time on their hands or bored and wanted to perpetrate a hoax on a major holiday.
I think it’s a fisherman in a black rain suit and black hat. I have a similar one that I keep in my boat.
Fellow Cryptomundians, Craig was able to get in touch with me. I emailed the enhanced photos to him. I am sure he will post them here when he finally get some free time. When he does, I will post an explanation for each one, if any one has any questions, I will answer those too!
I see human porportions in the length of arm.
I see a bodyshape that is obscured by foliage, and clothing. The shot on this post looks like it has thinner hips and legs than it actually has because of foliage.
I see a shiny hinder, waistband and possible shoulder straps indicating maybe a guy wearing waders. The wide distortion of the body in the side shot on the link jump page supports the idea of waders.
The head may be obscured by a black mosquito head net.
The position of the figure in each shot does not rule out that the figure is carrying rod and tackle.
My questions are; would a person wear long black sleeves in Missouri in July, and are black flies, mosquitoes, and chiggers bad enough to need a head net there (if so it would explain the long sleeves)? I’m guessing they don’t have too bad a tick problem there if you can wear black into the woods in summer.
I doubt this is Momo. I suspect it is not a hoax so much as a deliberate misrepresentation of pictures of a fisherman in unusual kit.
Finally some nice shots and not some out of focus blobsquatch! I can’t say if it’s Sasquatch or some guy on a gorilla suit, but I can say this is not a bear or any other animal. And thats something.
guys… forget the proportions, the FUR.
are you guys blind?
bigfoots have fur.
fur casts a sheen when light hits it.
use your brains a bit. please. 🙂
Side view screams of HOAX. Fur reflects no light, way to skinny, even the gate seems way off.
No definition of muscles, head looks like pull over mask. HOAX, HOAX, HOAX. Why do people waste their time with such poor attempts? One other thing, no cone shaped forehead.
Someone is dressed as a ninja walking along a Missourian Lake.
With that said, I would hate to unexpectedly walk upon this subject while fishing.
eyeofstrm – EXACTLY. thats what i’m talkin’ bout.
dconstrukt–Spot on! You tried to reign people in from their mental wonderings. One does not have to be a scientist or photo expert to figure these hoaxes out, all it requires is a little common sense and critical thinking.
Many posters were calling for a human to stand in for photo reconstruction to compare size. Others were proclaiming it was a Bigfoot or saying thank goodness for photos that are not blobsquatches. But you focused in on the obvious. You used deductive reasoning before going any further into analysis. What stood out for you was “lack of fur”. And you are correct. There is no need to go any further if the subject in the photo lacks fur!
Yes, dconstukt, where is sheen when the light hits it? I asked myself the same question. And that is why I went on to analyze these photos to prove they were a hoax and not a BF. But I used the same deductive reasoning you used dconstrukt. I used my brain and common sense. And this is what many people do not use. They want so badly to believe that they throw common sense out the window. Don’t get me wrong, I despise militant sceptics as much as I have a repugnance for believers. I tend to be objective that way. But ignoring common sense and continuing in your beliefs rather than the obvious, is where I draw the line.
Dconstrukt, I heard your emotions and outrage in your post when you told people to use their brains. I think it was called for and needed to be said. I felt the same emotion you did–like some posters needed a slap back into reality. I just went to photo analysis to give them a slap. But my friend, you stated what I was feeling and said what I wanted to say. Thank you!
By the way, through photoanalysis, I proved this to be a hoax. Craig received the photos and started a new thread. So thank you Craig for posting that proof! And thank you dconstrukt for saying what I was feeling!
People, it is a human being in full camo rain gear and waders, wearing a floppy hat, carrying a half empty backpack, and holding something in his hand, probably a tackle box although I can not say it is definitively a tackle box. I can say definitely this is a human and therefore an intentional hoax as I suspected and proved.
PhotoExpert – thanks. If you study how the brain works, how people form beliefs and what the brain does to justify beliefs you’ll understand how/why all these bigfooters assume everything is a bigfoot.
Now, I dont know jack about the science like some of you guys, but just so you know, i am an award winning designer… and photoshop user… i just don’t publicize it all over the place every time I post.
Aside from the fact the outer layer LOOKS LIKE A DUDE IN A JACKET, I saw no fur and didn’t need to waste any more time. Total time to debunk: 1 minute.
Didn’t need to waste anymore time with these jabroni photos.
When I see something that appears real, trust me, you guys will know 🙂