Case Solved: Show Me State Sasquatch Photos
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 14th, 2013
Cryptomundian PhotoExpert solves the case!
People, people, I have a definitive answer for you. So DWA, time to wake up! I have solved this mystery and I will disclose the answer later in my post.
No, it is not a Sasquatch, so if you guessed Sasquatch, you would be wrong!
Those of you that guessed bear, would also be wrong.
For those of you who were noncommital and could not make up your mind and stated human or BF–way off the mark. We do not need any human to stand there as a point of reference. Why go through all that trouble when I can merely enhanced the photos to give more detail? I’ll admit, the crappy webpage style resolution was not very workable but I still was able to come to a conclusion on what it is.
Those of you that guessed human, would be correct. However, you might be wrong if you stated human in a ghillie suit or human in a costume.
Click on image for full-size version
cryptokellie was on the right path in his/her critical thinking, so a thumbs up goes out to cryptokellie.
The person who came closest to having it almost spot on was chadgatlin!!! Two thumbs up for an unbelievable answer.
Click on image for full-size version
Only two of the photos were usable for photo analysis. What I found out through photo analysis of two of these photos was indeed, chadgatlin’s theory about the rain jacket does have legs.
Click on image for full-size version
What I found was a male human in a camouflage style matching rain jacket and pants. And get this, the human in this photo also has a pretty flat back and is wearing one of those floppy style fishing hats. In addition, the subject in this photo is wearing calf high rubber wadding boots. He is also carrying something, although there is not enough detail there to know exactly what, I presume it to be a tackle box or a small case of some kind.
Click on image for full-size version
I do not know how the person taking this photograph would see anything but a human through a first hand eyewitness account! We are looking at low resolution photos, so it would be easy for us as viewers to maybe think it was a Bigfoot. However, after seeing the detail after photo analysis, it would be damn near impossible for the photographer who was there to draw the conclusion that this might be a BF. It is clearly human! Secondly, it is beyond me how the person submitting these photographs on behalf of the photographer could not identify it as a human. I imagine the resolution of the photos they had, were much more detailed than these webpage photos that were supplied.
The photographer was not hoaxed by someone in a suit or pretending to be a Bigfoot. Either the photographer and/or the person who submitted these photos are trying to hoax us.
So check back to see the results and you will know what I already know and what chadgatlin guessed correctly.
It is a fisherman!!!
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.
Kudos to PhotoExpert…While I was sure that these images were not of a Bigfoot, one question still remains. After watching the figure long enough to take this series of images, the photographer would certainly have become aware that this was a fisherman strolling along the water’s edge. Why are we then presented with the “Is this a Bigfoot” scenario? Even if the images shown are frame enlargements, I seem to think that anyone who was actually watching this figure would understand that it was a person going to or from a fishing site. I hope that the “Cry Wolf” syndrome – no matter how amusing – will not hinder or impede any real encounter or evidential material that might come along.
BTW: I am a He…Kellie was my beloved golden retriever and constant companion.
Well done, sir.
Low resolution pics allow any story to be spun, good work using what evidence was provided to discredit what was “implied”.
I would guess that the original posting of these pics were just a quick grab for “click counts” and nothing more. I doubt they really put enough thought into it to consider it a hoax. “Hoax”
implies some work went into it.
This is just digital lint. It will accumulate with other inane internet dross to form electronic dust bunnies, eventually.
cryptokellie–OK, now I know it is a he. I wasn’t sure before because kellie could have been a girl. I did not want to incorrectly assume you were a girl, so I left the option open with he/she! Now I know. I am an animal lover too, so very appropriate and honoring screen name for you. I had to give you a shout out because I do follow your postings here and they are very accurate. You also voice the same opinion almost all of the time. But I definitely liked your critical thinking on this! Kudos!
chadgatlin–See, you were on the right track all along. Now you have proof of your correctness! And you called it out while others were still deciding it was a Bigfoot. You called the scammers out without even having to see the end results and proof I supplied. You did that with deductive reasoning and logic. So kudos to you too!
hoodoorocket–Thank you! By the way, where have you been? Long 4th of July vacation, no? LOL Anyway, hoodoorocket, good to see you back and posting! Yes, I think they could have done this for quick click counts too. But I still have some doubt that they were not going for an all out hoax. They made up the back story that they were submitting the photos for a friend. They added to that story saying other people reported seeing the alleged Bigfoot that day. And then they were deceitful in even offering this up as a potential Bigfoot when they know it was not from witnessing it first hand. Like cryptokellie stated, and I feel the same way, there was no doubt if they were there in person that this subject was a fisherman. Therefore hoodoorocket, I must conclude on this one, that this was definitely an intentional hoax. I will explain below a little more on the reasons why it was perpetrated as a hoax and why it was intentional.
If you were there in person and because of the side view shot, the subject would have walked right by the photographer at a recognizable difference. In the very least, they would know this subject was not covered in fur. They also changed the pixel count to just the right level to try and further their hoax. They also tried to hide the fact by not letting photography slueths, see their work. The perpetrators willfully limited their pixel count to give a decent webpage image but a very poor image for any type of photo analysis. Their hopes were, no one would have enough expertise to bring out the real image. Afterall, they were in the field taking photos which makes them a photographer on some level.
They tried to blatantly hide the pixel count. The images they gave for viewing were ~ 400 x 600 pixels average. They could have used the image that came directly from the camera and uploaded full scale. They chose not to do that! Immediately, that makes me wonder why if they want the public to give a fair appraisal if it is a Bigfoot or not. Why not use the full image and pixel count? They chose to upload the small pixel count image. That small image is only about 32-37 kilobytes. When you enlarge the photo, you get big blocks, 30+ kilobytes of big blocks. Enlarging them just makes the blocks or pixels bigger. So most amateur photographers or even professionals do not own the software technology or programs to get anything out of it but bigger pixels from the raw data supplied. They had enough intelligence or professional abilities to know that! And amateurs would not know that and feed into the hoax. In fact, a couple amateur photographers stated that at least the photos are clear or they are at least not a blobsquatch. Some took that bait. It did not smell right to me because of that pixel count. And if you do not know the methodology to get around that barrier, there is no photoanalysis to be done. You just have to keep guessing. And that is of no help! But I have my ways! I also have the technology to escape that little barrier. I think they were content and counting on no one having that technology or lacked the methodology to use it correctly and uncover their intentional hoax. Or perhaps they were not as smart as they thought and did not know someone like me could uncover their deceitfullness. They did not count on a PhotoExpert to weed it out. So scammers beware! I will sniff you out. I will uncover what you try to hide. And when I do, I will call you out publicly. So fools beware! It is not Cryptomundians that look foolish. It is you!
In closing, hoaxers–Ha-ha!
Why did I picture a maniacal laugh and the swish of a cape silhouetted against a night sky on that last bit? You’re wearing tights right now, aren’t you?
@PhotoExpert: Great job and kudos for doing this analysis! I was partially correct that it was a human, but wrong in thinking it was a monkey suit worn by someone out on a July 4th holiday hoax.
Greetings,
I just took a quick a look at the original photos and thought blobsquatch and went on. Good analysis that appears correct. Did anybody notice the figure isn’t leaning forward while walking which is so typical of the species form of bipedalism? I just noticed it and it should have caught our immediate attention. My best,
@PhotoExpert Great analysis and a great follow up post detailing the “why”. I am glad that we have a PhotoExpert in our midst that can provide us with these insights, so keep on keepin’ on!
And thanks for the kudos, but I must give credit where credit is due as dconstrukt was the first to posit the jacket theory, and I simply joined in agreement.
With all due respect to Marvel’s, The Avengers:
“I have a Blobsquatch!” — “We have a PhotoExpert.”
hoodoorocket–Sounds like you know me, when you mentioned swish of the cape. However, with this heat wave happening on the East Coast, the tights are a no go! It’s back to the photocave for me, to wait for the signal in the sky or at least until stupid hoaxers rear their ugly heads. Either one will do!
airforce47–Thank you! And yes, on the profile photo, I noticed it was not leaning forward and one of the reasons I decided to invest the time into the photoanalysis. Good call!
chadgatlin–You are welcome! I did give dconstrukt kudos and a shout out in the previous thread related to this. I usually do that when people stand up or stand out. And I will keep on keepin’ on!
AreWeThereYeti–LOL That was funny and appropriate! Thank you!
Tell me you are wearing SOMETHING besides a cape?!!
The mental picture that came to mind made me understand for the first time what a comic strip “ACKK!!!” sounds like.
Anyway, be careful standing in front of a fan to make your cape flutter… (dead braincells, I can’t think what Peter Sellers movie had that gag in it).
hoodoorocket–Oh yes, definitely something besides a cape. I tend to go old school, so the cape fits in well. The tights, not so much. But there is something more than just a cape.
Ever watch those old black and white movies from the 40’s and 50’s? Well, I have a black fedora style hat that the photographers use to wear. And of course, matching pants go with that. And last but not least, I need something a bit upgraded to fit into the new age. Batman has his utility belt. I have my photo vest!
For my own safety, I can not tell you whether the photovest is kevlar or not, but I can tell you the various compartments hold exactly what I need to get the job done! Debunking kit? Check! Advanced computer software? Check! Hoax detector? Check! Red flags? Check!
I have the basics and other things. Most of the time the red flags get used the most.
And no standing in front of fans for me, unless it is standing up for the fans of Cryptomundo! Oh yes, pun intended!
Our very own Flash Casey…