Bigfoot or Something Else?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 12th, 2013

Don’t know anything about this photo other than the original source is this site.

Bigfoot or Something Else?

In preparation for hunting season, Larry Taylor’s friend David Gormley checked his game camera in a remote part of eastern Oklahoma. An image he found saved in the camera’s memory was stunning. The camera is designed to capture one image every few minutes. The photograph below was captured one evening. Is this the sighting of a “Bigfoot” or what Steve Quayle calls a Spectre Entity? We will never know, but it is very interesting that things exist out of normal understanding of reality and from time to time – they make themselves known.

About Craig Woolheater
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.

14 Responses to “Bigfoot or Something Else?”

  1. Jayross responds:

    Wasn’t this posted here some time ago? I’m pretty sure it was this site, though not 100%

    Seems like there were a few who quickly solved it.

  2. Insanity responds:

    This photo has been in circulation here before.

  3. slickato responds:

    It’s Karen Carpenter reincarnated as Bigfoot

  4. Piltdown responds:

    Not hairy enough for Karen Carpenter.

    …too soon?

    Does look like someone in a hoodie, though.

  5. PhotoExpert responds:

    Yep, I remember this photo being here because I did photo analysis of it. I sent the photos to Loren since he started that thread.

    If I remember correctly, I concluded from the photo analysis that it was a human being, definitely wearing pants and a hooded coat. If I recall correctly, it was a very tall and thin human being at that. At the time, some Cryptomundians were saying it was a falling leaf or a ghost. I proved those theories to be incorrect. Photo analysis clearly showed sets of footprints behind the subject in question. To my knowledge, leaves and ghosts do not leave footprints behind.

    So yes, I remember this one and it is nothing unworldly, just a human out on a walk.

    I’ll see if I still have the enhanced photo and send it to Craig. Maybe he will post it here so you all can get a better look.

  6. DWA responds:

    This is something else, that we’ve seen here before.

  7. Ragnar responds:

    Am I the only one here who thinks the overall maturity level of the site has gone down since Loren left? It seems like every other posting is an obvious hoax yet its still hyped up as if its the real thing.

    Case in point, this item. Was posted 6 months ago on this very site, and its a person walking by the camera at night. Not bigfoot, not a ghost, not anything of real interest except to the credulous.

  8. cryptokellie responds:

    We went through this item last year, I think.

  9. alan borky responds:

    In defense of Craig and Nick and others and indeed other sites recycling images videos stories etc there’s always newcomers to this sort o’ stuff who haven’t encountered this type of material before and there’s always the possibility old hands may notice something they hadn’t previously.

    Plus we’d all be bored titless during them long periods when there’s no new reports to gawk and squawk about.

  10. Goodfoot responds:

    Ragnar: Y’know, now that you’ve mentioned it, I do believe the general quality here has declined ever since you’ve been here. Food for thought.

    Yeah, this was posted here before. It’s obviously a zombie.

    Just kidding; it’s a HORSE walking towards the camera. Or possibly a cow, but the head isn’t wide enough to be a cow, IMO. Can anyone else see that? It very much looks like a horse to me.

  11. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ragnar–I hear what you are saying, but…

    I agree with alan borky in his post above. Ragnar, I think you are looking at the small picture instead of the bigger picture. And that bigger picture is that the cryptozoological community is growing in leaps and bounds. With the advent of new shows pertaining to cryptozoology, there is interest at all levels.

    If this site was solely devoted to anthropologists, PhDs, DNA analysis, etc., it would not last too long. Not many people are at a level to comprehend those things.

    If the site just catered to your average Joe that is interested in Cryptozoology, then it would simply be a repeat of what we see televised to the masses.

    If the site was similar to YouTube, then we would only see hoaxed videos and that is not the case here.

    Craig provides threads for all levels of interest from the beginner to the PhD. Cryptomundo is an “inclusive” site in that, it brings things of interest to people on all levels. I have seen advanced studies posted here. I have seen reviews of Finding Bigfoot and discussions about the show that appeal to the masses. And of course, one is going to see a hoaxed photo, video or story for the cryptobeginner. It is a learning process or should at least be a learning process.

    I might have thought just as you did. But if you allow yourself to open your mind a bit more, you will see the genius of having videos such as the one above. In fact, I analyzed the photo, not because I did not know it was a fake. But I analyzed it to teach beginners as to what to look for in a hoaxed or misrepresented photos. I contributed to the knowledge base of newbies and told them what to look for in photos like these. I am as my moniker implies, a photographic expert. Yet you find me here, helping, contributing, instead of complaining. I don’t find reposting this offensive, nor do I think the subject matter less mature since Loren left. And I am a big fan of Loren Coleman. He knows me and he would tell you that too.

    It is better to understand what Craig is trying to do and become a positive part of the process because it is important.

    Ragnar, I said this before in a previous post and I will say it again because some people who thought as you did, read it, and benefitted from my posting this:

    Craig and my fellow Cryptomundians–By the way, I am enjoying Cryptomundo quite a bit and although some may disagree with me, I like the way you are bringing current material to the site every day. I don’t care how bad the photos are or how crazy the subject matter is–like Rich Dyer or Justin Smeja, it always pertains to current happenings in Cryptozoology. And afterall, isn’t that the point of having a blog or a site for Crypto-enthusiasts? And you will notice, that even though a few individuals complain, guess what? They are still reading and responding to the same posts that they are complaining about. Ironic, isn’t it!

    Keep up the good work Craig!

    So Ragnar, breathe, and try looking at this from a new perspective. I do not think you were alone in your thinking, however, I think you would be in the minority now because even people who thought as you do now, realized this is a great inclusive cryptozoological site. They woke up as to what Craig was doing when he posted photos like this one. I just saw two or three more recent posts defending Craig’s position, not including mine. People are now getting it, understanding it, and embracing it instead of questioning it.

    Take care my friend and hopefully, you will consider my advice. Who knows how many newbies you will be able to help and bring up to your level of cryptozoological knowledge? Become a cryptoteacher instead of a cryptonegator! Hopefully, you will see the wisdom in my words and I will see you around Cryptomundo!

  12. skeptik responds:

    @PhotoExpert: Just curious, how can you rule out that it’s a ghost?

    I personally find your theory, it’s a person, convincing. But that doesn’t mean you can rule out a ghost, if you grant them any existence. (Just curious and poking fun at you:)

  13. Goodfoot responds:

    skeptik: I’m not into the “ghost” explanation here, although I’ve lived with a ghost in the house a couple of places. I still think this is a horse walking directly towards the game cam. It has a large white patch across its’ muzzle. It looks the way it does because the infrared flash (I’m presuming) lights up the closest parts to the camera, much as a regular flash will; there’s a pretty rapid dropoff of reflected light towards the rear of it. I think most of us have experienced that phenomenon.

  14. PhotoExpert responds:

    skeptic–LOL I hear what you are saying. I don’t mind being poked if it’s in good fun. So with that being said, in tongue in cheek fashion, I will attempt to give you an answer.

    My question to you would be, “Are ghosts capable of leaving heavy footprints in the ground?” If not, then it is a flesh and blood person because there are footprints in the ground, clearly visible after photographic enhancement. If ghosts are capable of leaving footprints, then it could be a ghost. After all the reading I have done about ghosts or people who believe in ghosts, one of the unique things attributed to ghosts is that they do not leave behind footprints because they are a spiritual manifestation as opposed to a physical manifestation. Hence, that is why I can declare the subject of this photo, not a ghost.

    How’s that skeptic? LOL

    Goodfoot–I know you are at a distinct disadvantage because you do not have the my photographic enhancement of this photo to analyze, but I can assure you, it is not a horse coming towards the infrared camera. Unless horses weigh about 150-170 pounds, are bipedal, and the width of the largest part of their body is just about 3 times the width of their head and is wearing hooded raingear. I have never seen a horse with those dimensions, even an emmaciated one. Even an starving horse’s hip width would be 4-5 times wider than the width of their head. It is most definitely not a horse.

    But I do like the way you think outside the box. That needs to be done quite frequently. I can think of two current examples where the subject in a photograph was claimed to be a Bigfoot. But once someone said it looks like a bird, it cleary was bird close to the camera but at an odd angle. So that thinking outside the box by that person, clearly helped demonstrate what was in the photograph and cleared up the confusion. Don’t ever stop thinking like that, outside the box, because on a rare occassion, you will be the only one who gets it right while everyone else was wrong. This is not that time.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.