Oklahoma Bigfoot Photos
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 26th, 2013
Photos being discussed on a YouTube channel by user Mark Anders.
Click on image for full-size version
Click on image for full-size version
Purported Sasquatch photos from Rogers County, Oklahoma.
One of the several new Oklahoma bigfoot photographs is analyzed.
First front view photo of the Oklahoma Sasquatch is examined.
Front view of bigfoot walking through the brush.
More from a series of still photos of sasquatch in Oklahoma.
Still shot analyzed of Oklahoma Bigfoot.
Clear front shot of Sasquatch in wilderness.
Stunning shots of the Oklahoma sasquatch crossing terrain.
Some of the clearest bigfoot images are coming out of Oklahoma.
Comparison of the stunning Georgia Bigfoot and new Oklahoma Bigfoot photo.
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.
pretty buff bigfoot
These pics were taken not far from where I live—I wish they were real,…but it looks like a good suit…someone did alot of work!
Hmmm I’m leaning towards hoax here.the fur looks a little to much like costume fur
Looks like a gorilla
Looks like a common or garden variety gorilla.
Notice that nothing in these images is in focus. The foreground, the middle ground, where the figure is and the background are all out of focus. For photography in 2013, you’d expect that some part of these images would be in focus. My cheap cell phone camera can get some part of any image in focus. I believe that these images have been blurred on purpose to hide details rather than sharpened to enhance them or they were taken at a distance and these are enlargements. Amateur video would be a different story and harder to keep in focus. Personally, the inane commentary – commenting on details that aren’t really there and such – and the drumming background audio, have me questioning these images. By the way, animals in the wild are not buff. Bodybuilding physiques require diet and training that wild animals don’t have access to or need for. Washboard abs are visible due to very low body fat percentages which runs contrary to the needs of wild animals who try to amass as much body fat as possible for reserves during drought or famine.
crazy looking photos.
a shame you cant see the face at all in any of them.
anyone know the dealio with these?
they look pretty crazy!
What , in Oklahoma ?
If its a suit, its a pretty good one (I won’t rule out entirely that it is legit, but Most likely its a suit). The guy who pulled this off ought to consider a career in movie special effects.
The “creature” is impressively muscular, more so than the creature in the Patty film, and very, very Gorilla like. The face is Gorilla like, there seems to be a saggital crest, and the hair does not upon first inspection look faked (though this is a blurry photo).
Still, it is a series of photographs, and as such, useless in proving the animal exists. Even for a photo, it is flawed i.e. blurry (almost, if not actually what is called a Blobsquatch). Photos come and photos go: body, major parts of one, a live specimen, or a fossil are concrete, absolute, final.
no esta muy nítida la foto, pero parece un gorila
Hey, I’m busy… they just reported a sighting here in WV the other day 🙂
Greetings,
Interesting pics I thought and I sent the link on to the small group I’ with. One really interesting response was from a gent who had an extreme close encounter under near full moonlight in this century. His response was:
“If it is a hoax, it was done by someone with great skills AND a bf witness themselves. I’d prefer a better look at the face, but the muscle form and size is perfect in its proportions. Whether this beast is 4 feet tall or 8 feet tall is also impossible to tell without something for scale. But proportion is definitely correct. Look at the size of the biceps. Remember me telling you they were the same size as my thighs?”
So if it is a hoax it’s a pretty decent one.
I’ve wondered about the camera focus in so many of these photos myself. Most phone cameras and inexpensive digital cameras have trouble getting focus or locking focus in low light levels and we know the species likes to hide behind anything available.
I’m guessing we may see better photos in the near future as cameras like the new Canon 70d which has a much better focusing system on it proliferate.
Sorry but the best bigfoot photos are NOT going to come from Oklahoma.
COME ON!
These are very interesting. In #8, and 9, I think these are are, if real, of a creature’s BACK, not front. What do you think? My impression strong favors the back, not the front.
cryptokellie: I agree the commentary is inane and irritating. But if the images are blow-ups from a larger image, it would completely explain the overall blurriness of the image; they are lost in the resolution capacity of the lens.
They’re in the top 1% of all supposed “Bigfoot” imagery, easily.
airforce47: Low light level does not appear to be involved in any way with these pictures. It they are not blown up from a small part of an image, I don’t know what to say.
Perhaps PhotoExpert has something relevant to say on this question.
How many captive gorillas in North America?
The back shots look pretty cool….the six pack belly killed it! ;p
There is something hokey about these photos but I can’t put my finger on it. For one, most all sightings of bigfoot that I have read about (never actually seen one myself) don’t indicate so much hair on the face. This thing appears to have so much hair over its face it would be difficult to see. Also, the trees etc would seem to likely have been bent down somewhat by this huge beast, yet there is no evidence of anything like that. In fact it almost looks like the bigfoot was photoshopped into a section of woods. Perhaps one from a movie?
As I mentioned, enlarged images are a possible explanation for the overall blurriness but the aforementioned bodybuilder’s defined physique doesn’t occur in wild animals. The extreme low fat percentages required to obtain attributes such as six-pack abs and other torso muscular extremes will not happen in wild animals who purposely build up fat reserves for times of survival.
Mammals spend most of their time gathering or hunting food and storing fat reserves. No wild mammal anywhere has well defined six-pack abs. They are not necessary nor is the fat loss percentage needed to obtain them. In fact it would be detrimental and such a look for a mammal in the wild would imply severe dietary loss or illness of some sort. This aspect of the figure leads me to believe that this is a costume albeit a skillfully executed one that is further helped by the overall blurriness of the images. The figure resembles the suit used in the 1976 remake of King Kong.
Finally someone came up with a great costume!
cryptokellie:
The extreme muscularity of sasquatch is a field mark, mentioned in hundreds of encounters. “Bodybuilder” is a frequent comparison.
Let’s not make conclusions about something unconfirmed.
@cryptokellie
I don’t really see a six-pack on the subject of the photographs. What I see looks more like fat-rolls. Only the drawn outlines imply visible abdominal muscles.
@fellows…
I don’t see the abs either, I was referring to the inane, pseudo-informed audio babble that’s being provided as commentary to these images, not really the figure image itself which is impressive looking. But the dis to Meldrum might say more about who is doing this. Besides an abdominal six-pack would not show up very well on a densely furred creature such as this seems to be and I thought that muscular physique aside, Bigfoot are almost always reported as being heavily furred. Certainly the P/G figure Patty isn’t showing a lot of skin…if you know what I mean. The figure does resemble the 1976 King Kong suit though, take a look at that suit in the long, full body suit shots – especially the head/shoulders area and quite pointed head crest.
Yep. The six-pack abs might be a stretch to say they’re there.
Anyway, Bigfoot has a TWELVE-PACK! 😉
Yeah. Good point. I think it must be a fake. But it’s a GOOD fake, so props for that. We need to be able to keep pace with improved fakery.
cryptokellie: Congratulations. This is an improvement on your usual level of self-imposed doubting. But we don’t have data on Bigfoots in the wild, do we? Also, have you ever been close to an Elk or a Big-Horned Sheep, for instance, in the wild? They don’t put on a lot of fat in winter months. What you say applies for mammals that hibernate, like bears, but much less so for ones that stay active in winter.
Yeah, I don’t see them, either. I’m looking at the pics on their own terms, not the ones imposed by whoever took them. If they even took them. If they’re fakes, and they may be, some effort was taken to make them believable.
It occurred to me as well. Mountain gorilla? Can’t see the vegetation well enough to see if it fits. And I wouldn’t have the knowledge, anyway.
You or someone you know has gorillas in their garden? The garden doesn’t stand a chance.
C’mon, you can’t assume this is taken in Oklahoma, just because someone says so.
Captive gorillas. So you take “Oklahoma” at face value?
I would have to say hoax. The arms are never hanging straight down at the subjects side as in the P.G. film or the Georgia Bigfoot photo which impresses me more. This really looks like a massive steroid freak in a spandex costume and thats why you get the muscular definition in this photo. Being an ex gym rat I witnessed and knew a lot of steroid abusers and this things stance and gate match them almost to a tee. Of course these are just my observations. Anyone else wanna chime in on this.
Yeah, I can see that, cryptokellie. It doesn’t prove a thing, but we’re here to talk over such things. I hope nobody thinks we’re going to prove anything much here…
This is not a Gorilla: the legs are too long, the arms too short, the gut is not round and protruding but seems to be either well defined muscular wise or, as one person said on here, displaying rolls of fat (I incline very much towards the former), either way not something that is seen on Gorillas.
The Musculature is impressive, but not something that couldn’t be mimic using modern special effects. Back in I think 1979 or 1980 a movie called “legend” came out (I think Tom Cruise’s first feature film). In that movie, Tim Curry, who played Dr Frankenfurter on Rocky Horror Picture show, Wadsworth in Clue, and many other roles, played Darkness, a giant muscular Minotaur. If you had never seen Tim Curry in other movies, you would think that he was a bodybuilder, but the musculature was part of his suit and outfit, not real muscles. And that was over thirty years ago: Imagine what could be done today.
I doubt that something like that could live in Oklahoma, though there are some parts that are heavily forested and mountainous (close to Arkansas), and it borders the stomping grounds of the supposed Southern Bigfoot.
Doubts can go away if bodies, live specimens, major pieces of bodies, or fossils are provided….
Interesting opinion, but I don’t see how you can see enough of the legs to say, one way or the other.
Goodfoot–You called? LOL
There are many things that can be the cause of blurred images. The following is a list of causes:
Incorrect focusing of the camera lens, a fogged lens, vaseline or other oily substance on the lens, a slow shutter speed vs the correct exposure, a low megapixel count camera, zooming in and cropping for effect of a higher megapixel count image, moving the camera as the shutter is depressed in lowlight conditions, …and on and on and on.
But I think you get the point. There are many reasons for blurry photos including a cheap plastic lens as opposed to a high quality glass lens.
Now, with that being said, I have seen worse photos supplied here for debate or analysis. These are not great but they certainly do not sway my opinion to the realm of believing the subject of these photos is a Bigfoot. It could be a Bigfoot, solely based on the photos, but they are not definitive enough to be conclusive of anything. I will say they are interesting.
If I take into account the other so called facts, I am swayed to the side of the doubters. Are there Bigfoot in Oklahoma? Who knows? And since Bigfoots have not been proven to exist, I would say this is probably not a Bigfoot in Oklahoma. Statistics are on my side with this conclusion.
The shape of the subject is pretty good for what has been described by witnesses who report sighting Bigfoots. That is the upside, but the downside is that there is nothing to reference the size of the subject to scale. So that is a draw for me.
The fur or hair supposedly covering the subject just seems so monotone to me, that I am convinced it is not natural but manmade. In nature, fur or hair normally has a sheen or discoloration in areas due to exposure from the UV rays from the sun. One could argue that since Bigfoots are supposedly more nocturnal, then they would have little exposure to the sun. True enough but age, exposure to the elements, some limited reflected UV exposure, dirt, etc., would prohibit the fur from being completely monotone. Therefore, I am swayed to this being manmade and therefore a costume of some sorts.
And there is something that really gets my spider senses tingling when I look at the first photo at the top of this thread. Under the arm, on the left side of the photo, this is a very distinct triangular projection that is profiled. It clearly has sharp edges and is triangular in shape. What could that be? It certainly is a dark spot as part of the background. It is clearly part of the subject, an exact color match! Fur and skin will not go linear like that, fold to make a perfect triangle with straight sides. However, fabric does do this and has these attributes. For me, and any reasonable person, that would be unnatural. That is the elephant in the room that no other poster has addressed yet. But it stands out like a sore thumb to me. And therefore, I must address the elephant in the room!
But the nail in the coffin for me is the commentary from the those doing their analysis of what they are seeing. And from the evidence presented, they are just making things up to convince viewers the subject is a Bigfoot or this is simply a hoax.
Considering all of the above, I am persuaded by the evidence at hand to call these photos and commentary, a HOAX!
Goodfoot@
Actually, being a professional sculptor of 35 + years and working for museums and other concerns, I have seen in person and sculpted most of the major animals in North America and the rest of the world for that matter. You visited my websites and should know this.
Here is a fact; all wild animals are trying to build fat reserves…it occurs naturally. Elk and Bighorn Sheep store fat in in the shoulders and rump.
My doubts are not self-imposed…they are fueled by doubtful evidence and presentations.
Bigfoot sightings are quite common in Oklahoma. BFRO lists 87 sightings; that’s considerably above the national average. SE Oklahoma seems to be the most active area. The western part the Ozarks extends into there, and up into southeastern Kansas.
It may be completely irrelevant, but at the start of several of the videos a made-made structure (railing of a bridge/steps/walkway?) appears in the top right-hand corner.
Since such structures exist in very deserted and uninhabited areas, it may well be irrelevant. I didn’t see it.
But there IS a light trail visible to the left-hand side on some. What I’ve come to call a “wino trail” in some area. I’ve learned over the years to spot “wino jungles” wherever I’ve lived, and even examined some. Sometimes temporarily occupied by real, live winos.