Bigfoot Photographed In Virginia?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 30th, 2014
Photographs of Bigfoot. Bigfoot captured on camera in Virginia off the shore of the Intercoastal Waterways. Finally, a photo that is not blurry nor hidden behind a tree. A clear photo of Bigfoot standing out in the wide open. You be the judge.
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.
Nope, not blurry, not behind a tree. Just impossible to figure out what the dang thing is.
The story is throw-on-the-pile. I don’t know what the photos are. People have been known to really want to get others to believe their stories. Which might prompt a tendency to see more in a photo than is really there. There are bears in that general vicinity. Might be a man or two in an ape suit, too. Might even be a bigfoot.
Can’t tell from those certainly non-blurry photos.
My problem is that they have to add music and “movie credit” styles to the story for effect. Why Youtube? Trying to get views? I don’t buy these sorts of things at all. It’s just people out trying to garner views.
Why is it that there are hundreds of reports with clear sightings that describe every detail of the face, from the nostrils to the shape of the teeth, but… the seemingly clearest photos always show a big black faceless blob where the head is? I’m still waiting to see ears, eyes, nose, lips, mouth, etc. When other reports describe the creature looking so human, “a face that was more human than ape”… I’m not sure this example is what they’re talking about. I’ll keep waiting. I guess it’s not blurry though.
Clear photographs? Not blurry? I went to the You Tube site and viewing this from there and took some Snipping Tool captures. The images are in fact quite blurred and in sharp focus at all. This may be a product of cell phone photography but the Bigfoot image is not clear at all. A frame blow-up shows that the actual image was taken at some distance and the resolution just isn’t there. As to the Bigfoot figure itself – there isn’t enough detail to make any fruitful determination one way or the other so we are left with either excepting the movie credits type story crawl or not. My only comments would be; the figure doesn’t seem to be very large or possess any great body mass. There is also something odd about the legs becoming rather spindly. But all in all, despite the accompanying narrative, not enough “clarity and detail” to make any real judgment.
Addendum to comment…blurred and not in sharp focus… I do believe that the lack of clarity is a product of cell phone photography. I will say that these images are of the all or nothing type with the image either being an unknown specie or a person in a suit and or misidentified.
It saddened me to read in the narrative that the father had urged his son to shoot whatever it was that the son thought was standing near the camp fire. “When in doubt – shoot.” Passing on the stupidity to the next generation.
They could easily have discharged a weapon into the air to scare or intimidate the creature. At no point in the narrative does the writer convey any immediate fear of being attacked. So I ask again – why shoot if you don’t know what it is that you are shooting at? I’m an Eagle Scout and would never do this. I’m sure a number of hunters if queried would not shoot into the darkness if they thought something was out there. Why shoot? Just to see what might happen? Stupid.
One final comment from the soap box I’m standing on. If you have a good video, we don’t need sound-track music. That does nothing for me and the added music takes the video into the “entertainment’ area and causes one to be wary of the intent of the original poster.
Peace.
To me this looks very broad shouldered, and the legs don’t look “spindly” because they are partly obscured by the log which it is directly behind. It looks like the right hand is swinging back towards the buttock. The shot is refreshingly non blobsquatchy. Could we use some telephoto lenses on cell phones? Yep.
etheral: There is a simple solution to your problem: TURN THE SOUND OFF. I’m tired of people whining about soundtracks. I don’t care for them either. And I do wonder why someone would take the trouble to add a soundtrack to a photo taken two days ago.
I do think the location looks authentic; it looks like a lot of low-wooded areas I’ve seen near the Virginia Atlantic coast. An area such as this would be rich in shellfish, some freshwater fish, and even deer.
cryptokellie: I have no facts, and the photo is indeed lousy – despite claims to the contrary – but is congruent with many eyewitness descriptions of juvenile Bigfoots. Like human mountain men, or even wrestlers, they’re not born muscular, large and heavy. They have to grow into it. Which means eating. And lots of it.
I went to the youtube version and the zoomed in shot makes me revise what I said above…What looked like a hand to me is not-it’s a branch or something. Whatever this is, it’s an interesting couple of shots.
“Something in the bush? Just shoot it in the face, son. Attaboy.”
Great parenting.
“Then just shoot where you think it is.”
Manslaughter charge, potentially coming right up. Some people seem to want to willfully perpetuate stereotypes through their own actions, eh?
Greetings,
The photo is interesting but does lack sufficient resolution to be useful. I read Scott Colborn comments and disagree. He needs to sit down and read Missing 411 by David Paulides. This species can be dangerous when it interprets our presence in its area as a threat which happens quite often.
We can only move to protect the species when we know for a fact it exists and is classified and that is a fact which can’t be ignored. Until then caution is the order of the day when researching or going into their areas. My best,
I agree 110% with Scott Colborn – this is a close corollary to a point I’ve been making here ever since I first join it: if you aren’t sure what it is, don’t shoot it, because you have no idea if this is an animal or a moron in a Chewbaca costume.
While I’d agree with the YouTube statement that the photo is not “blurry,” it is obviously taken from a distance with a fairly low resolution camera, so it is hardly sufficiently detailed to provide anything close to conclusive levels of details. The photo simply lacks resolution.
Airforce47, go read what Robert, the leading 1/5-star reviewer of your esteemed Mr. Paulides’ Missing 411 had to say in his extremely long and detailed review.
Paulides is a former police officer whose proclaimed credentials are exaggerated/fudged and the guy “retired” from law enforcement in lieu of being prosecuted for perpetrating a fraud. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Robert says and I don’t fully understand why he has such antipathy towards Paulides, but I find that he makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than what Paulides is supposedly saying and I wouldn’t waste my time or hard-earned cash on Missing 411.