Best Ever Bigfoot Trailcam Photo?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 27th, 2012

Melissa Hovey was sent the following photo in 2008.

She details the events of the receipt of the photo on her blog.

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.

47 Responses to “Best Ever Bigfoot Trailcam Photo?”

  1. Loren Coleman responds:

    R. W. Ridley has already put this one to rest. He says it is “an actor in a costume in the movie Clawed directed and produced by Karl Kozak.”

    We talked about Clawed here in 2006.

    Ridley goes on to say that Karl Kozak, in an email to Ridley, “identified the photo sent to Melissa Hovey as the creature from his movie. In other words, it is not Bigfoot. It is an actor in a costume.”

  2. scottyboy10 responds:

    bout time you put this pic on it’s been circulating on other sites since friday!!

  3. scottyboy10 responds:

    It’s looking like it is the costume from the movie called clawed,the suit was auctioned off on ebay in 2006 according to the film maker!! Sorry to burst your bubble guys but it’s looking that way and apparently the lady that owns the photo (owned for 4 years) was actually an extra on the film!! I wish it was true and there may be a fraction of a chance that it is, but in all honesty it is looking like a fake!! Good costume though!!

  4. chadgatlin responds:

    Seems really good quality to be from a trailcam. Nicely done if it’s a hoax. I think it’s likely a hoax due to the apparent lack of additional photo evidence in series with this. A LOT of information seems to be withheld which leads me to believe there isn’t any real corroborating evidence for this to be real.

  5. chadgatlin responds:

    Disregard my last comment. I just saw Loren’s explanation.

  6. mandors responds:

    That “fur” seems pretty sparse to be from a creature in the wild. You can see “skin” sticking out between the strands. Don’t think that would do an animal much good for temperatures under 65 degrees. It also has the look of the glue on hair you can buy at any costume shop, albeit a lot of it.

  7. DWA responds:

    Wow. Just wow.

    One thing is correct: that is the most clearly faked fake I have seen.

    No need to get disappointed, folks. Focus on the evidence. It’s a lot more fun, and doesn’t get one in these silly OM[SIGH][weep] cycles.

  8. Jason P. responds:

    Obvious costume and, as Loren notes, this one has already been thoroughly debunked. Craig, when you post stories and videos like this (especially when others have already discussed it and dismissed it), you’re only hurting your own credibility.

  9. Craig Woolheater responds:


    So glad you are worried about my credibility. I was out of town over the weekend and received several emails asking why we hadn’t posted the photo at Cryptomundo yet. So I obliged the Cryptomundians who had requested it.


  10. Hapa responds:

    When I first saw this pic, it made me think of the Werewolf in the movie “Bad Moon”. Although I give the hucksters who made this photo credit (it’s clear, not a blobsquatch or blurrsquatch), but yes, as Loren Coleman stated, this is most likely a fake.

    No matter how good the photo, film or tracks, a body trumps them all.

  11. SherlockHolmes responds:

    Not only do I think this is fake I’m almost sure I know who started this all. Check this old published link from cryptomundo about the suit used in the movie Clawed up for sale here.

    Then check out this rather fishy comment from this fellow “arbigfoothunter” responds: October 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    Well, it is a great costume and I would bet my bottom dollar that we will be seeing this costume again, but not in another motion picture! Let’s just try and remember all of the details of this fine crafted suit.arbigfoothunter

    Next time u need a puzzle solved just call for me.

  12. SherlockHolmes responds:

    Damn I’m good!

  13. Hapa responds:

    BTW, here are pics of that werewolf from bad moon. Notice the similarities to the above photo (Hope I got this right)

    Although I doubt that this FX monster is what is depicted in the supposed Bigfoot trail cam, It’s interesting how similar the texture of the two are, almost as if the same techniques and materials were used to create them both. Likewise the Bigfoot from the “Clawed” Movie is similar in design (and the strongest Hoax candidate for the trailcam video).

  14. paul_r responds:

    This isn’t the greatest hoax ever but it is remarkable that so many people on other sites have gone berserk about the things they see in it or seem to see.

    Truly a credit to the FX artist that created it?

  15. tampasteve responds:

    The thing that stood out the most obviously to me was how CLEAN that thing is. Sure the hair looks sparse, but it is really clean on the “skin” and “hair”. Not a spec of dirt or leaves to be seen.

  16. bigfoots responds:

    seems pretty apparent that She thinks its legit..
    I’m also not sure what there is to discuss or figure out?
    there is no supreme court of photographs or there will never be any “verdict”
    my advice would be to move on…

  17. TheForthcoming responds:

    Sherlock good work. Er Colombo?

  18. allenfuchs responds:

    that one is as good as the skunk ape photo… anyone with time and talent can make something like this… not saying it’s not, but just saying, what’s the odds that this one BF is in front of the camera and turns its back for the pic?

  19. MelissaHovey responds:

    Hello everyone.

    First of all, the person responsible for the suit in the movie “Clawed” is being contacted. Once he responds that information will be available. Yes, the Director of the movie Clawed has said this is his costume, but has provided no still shots to prove his claims. Also it should be noted, he did not make the costume for this movie. I will be happy if this is solved either way.

    Also, while I appreciate all those who are commenting on my work history and where I live, I live in Ohio, not Texas. I moved to Ohio in 2008 (October) and many can verify this. Also, I have NEVER worked in a museum and I most certainly was not an extra in the movie “Clawed”. I was in the show “Bigfoot” on the series Monsterquest. But, that is my only dealing with Television or the movie industry. I have worked in the legal profession since 2002-2003.

    There are enough questions about the photo, let’s not make other things up that are invalid to the photo to create more confusion.

  20. viking0047 responds:

    Sorry Sherlock! Loren pointed this out in the first comment!

  21. Hank S responds:

    Even though it is a costume, it could pass for Dutch Mantel taking a walkabout in the forest.

  22. trapper9990 responds:

    Loren and the others who say this is from the movie Clawed.

    Being a sci fi fan and watching all the sci fi movies, cheezy or not, and yes Clawed was very cheezy, I can speak with some authority on that costume. Their is repeat NO CHANCE that the costume worn in Clawed is the same as the one in this pic. All of you who say this, please take the time and watch the movie. You will clearly see that they hair isn’t even close to being the right size and consistency. The hair on the head doesn’t even come close to resembling it. This may be a man in a suit, but as people in the make up special effect biz have already commented, that if this is a fake, it represented alot of skill and alot of money. And the creature in Clawed didn’t take much of either. Among sasquatch movies, it is far from the worst costume, but it doesn’t resemble this pic at all. And anyone who says it does simply hasn’t watched the movie or isn’t paying any attention. And this man who is claiming this is his costume is just another Patterson/gimlin hopeful. He’s trying to get himself in the news as the creator of the suit just like so many did with patterson. If it is found out he made it, then he’s gonna get alot of publicity one way or the other, so if the rumor came up that this was from his movie, of course he’s gonna go with it. This may be a fake, but if it is, I can assure you it’s never been in any movie that we’ve ever seen. Again, before you comment, watch the movies. If you then think that this costume bears any resemblance to any yeti costume or bigfoot costume used in any movie, including the new letters from the bigman movie, then you’ve got a few issues. If you were seeing this animal from the front its trapezius muscles would be so large that there would basically be a perfect triangle between its shoulders and its head. And there has never been a movie where this has been the case in the proportions shown in this creature. Why? It’s freakin uncomfortable to walk that way. Believe what you want but I don’t see how you can dismiss this so quick Loren? Some of your opinions just don’t make sense to me for someone who has studied the stories in this field as much as you have?

  23. peteyweestro responds:

    Well even though this is probably a fake at least trapper didn’t just come out slanging negative comments and putting others down, there may be hope yet, good analysis Trapper

  24. muircertach responds:

    looks like the rear end of a dog to me

  25. Susi Jefford via Facebook responds:

    If that is for real it is WOW !

  26. paul_r responds:


    You are in denial. The creator of the suit claimed his work get over it.Not for nothing other but other FX people have weighed in about it being a fake all over. I must admit their comments out weigh a “sci fi fans”I happen to be a body builder and doubt that isn’t a body builder in a suit based on the traps and delts because they are over developed.

    But beyond that why is a picture of the back of bigfoots head even considered as evidence by intelligent people?

  27. WickedBeard responds:

    +100 Internetz to Hank S for the “Dirty” Dutch Mantel reference!

  28. Hapa responds:


    Pics like this are considered evidence to a point, but are not evidence to the scientific community: that evidence would be a type specimen, a body or living creature or major part of a creature (Hands, bones, head, etc). Though pics like this are something to go on, they are not definitive proof.

    Until we make an effort to bag a specimen, we will still be a joke to the powers that be; we will be nothing…

  29. MelissaHovey responds:

    @Paul -r ~ You said:


    You are in denial. The creator of the suit claimed his work get over it.

    You are wrong.

    I am the person who released the photo and am working with a gentleman in the FX industry who is contacting the creator of the suit – you are speaking about the Director of the movie Clawed. This director is NOT a suit maker, he has also not released any requested photos of this costume from the back to further his opinion.

    Going to a director of a movie to identify a costume, would be like me asking the nurse at my doctors office to perform surgery. Two very different skills and expertise.

  30. flame821 responds:

    This is the pic for the Clawed creature and while it doesn’t show the back I don’t think it is the same suit.

    To be honest, the Clawed suit is just odd looking all the way around.

  31. Desertdweller responds:

    This reminds me of how Hulk Hogan was introduced on TV wrestling in the early 1980’s. For the first several weeks, he wasn’t shown wrestling, just the back of his head and upper back, exactly the same pose shown in the “Bigfoot” photo.

    It was just a teaser to work up the hype. Then, when he started doing matches, they always paired him against two other guys at once.

    Great showmanship. Poor science.

  32. texasbeliever responds:


    “The thing that stood out the most obviously to me was how CLEAN that thing is. Sure the hair looks sparse, but it is really clean on the “skin” and “hair”. Not a spec of dirt or leaves to be seen.”

    You’d be surprised at how clean a wild animal can be, even feral hogs here in Texas have sparse hair and the skin along the back is visible and relatively clean. So we shouldn’t let clean hair and skin in a picture led us straight to “it’s a fake.” Most healthy animals will have clean hair and skin, free of dirt or leaves.

    But as a hunter who sets up trail cameras, what gets me about this picture is two things. First, look how close it is to the camera? It appears to be directly in front of the lens? Was this the only picture captured? And second, look at the close proximity of the foliage to the camera.
    When we set these cameras up, we want to have them with an open field of view in front so that you can cover more of an area. What are the chances that someone would set up a camera in what appears to be a confined space, then have a bigfoot step directly in front of the camera, facing away from the lens? From that picture, it appears the foliage is only about 5 feet away from the lens? That’s a narrow gap for a trail camera. Most animals, with that setup, would be in and out of the cameras field of view before a picture would be taken.

    When set up correctly, the camera usually will capture several frames of the same animal, or in another words, you may find 5 or more pictures of the same animal as it repeatedly triggers the camera.

    And can anyone identify the foliage? It appears “tropical” in nature and not a plant of a northern hardwood forest? Identifying the plant could tell more of the location of the incident?

  33. peteyweestro responds:

    That suit from Clawed is soooooo not the same, anyone who thinks it is is in DENIAL!!!!!

  34. WIFortean responds:

    The plant looks similar-ish to sweet osmanthus (Osmanthus fragrans)….too pixelated to say for sure.

  35. d3w177 responds:

    Let me say I’m glad Ms. Hovey is able to weigh in on this. And let me add that I personally am sorry, Ms. Hovey, that you have to take such a beating over this.

    It is baffling how anyone with a shred of evidence, real or fake, is taken to task like this. But the second someone says they are responsible for the photo or video and that’s fake, no matter how unbelievable their story, we have to believe them. This is Phillip Morris all over again. Phillip says that he made hundreds, if not thousands of the suits he sold Patterson. Not one of the suits exists today, and no photograph or description exists. How? Now we’re supposed to believe that the geniuses at the Syfy Channel are cranking out believable stuff. That would be first indeed.

  36. WIFortean responds:

    There is one thing that strikes me as odd in the photo. Near the junction where the head and right shoulder meet, it almost appears as if the edge of a snout is visible.

    The “snout” doesn’t appear to match the texture, color, or light/shadow of the plants in the background, it seems to more closely match up with the appearance of the “animal/creature”, as opposed to part of the background.

    Admittedly, this is pure speculation; I honestly have no idea whether or not that’s part of the critter, the background, or if I’m just looking at it wrong and it’s ‘none of the above’.

    Based on the pixelation in the photo, it seems to me that the image was enlarged to some extent as well.

    It has also been stated openly that the photo has been cropped. I believe the story was that it was the witness (not Melissa) that cropped the photo to ‘remove aspects of the picture which could identify the location where the photo was taken’. It makes me wonder if the cropping was truly done to keep the location from being revealed; or if the cropping was done to remove something that would readily reveal the critter’s identity, such as a better idea of scale & scope of the photo, or some other readily identifiable feature.

    Anyways, hopefully I got the markup tags right to post a picture.

    Click on image for full-size version.

  37. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    It may or may not be a suit.

    Genuine or not, it hold one’s attention because it’s exceptionally naturalistic. Depicted in the image is possibly an older sasquatch with thinning grey hair, an overmantle of grey hair, but look beneath, closer to the skin; in certain areas and especially the arm areas you can see finer darker hair. Here we find the juxtaposition of several subtle elements that combine to make a convincing image that holds your attention.

    The Clawed film comparison is a spoiler; falls short, and is left wanting in my view (the head & shoulder outline is totally different) . Melissa Hovey’s submitted picture is either the work of a Master-Faker (I said master-faker), or Mother nature herself in my view.

    Its apparently one of a sequence of pictures so let’s hope that some earnest persuasion can take place to bring into the public domain more revealing and therefore conclusive pictures.

    Let’s keep an open mind. The case is not closed!

  38. bigfoots responds:

    for me there are just too many red flags..
    the biggest one is the cropping…i don’t believe it was cropped to keep from showing the location… to me it seems more likely that its cropped to prevent any sort of scale from being used..and i say that for several reasons. frankly I’m not even sure the pic is from a trail cam..
    and whats the point of even discussing it when all there is is a tightly cropped photo of what may or may not be a costume…there really is no way to scientifically prove one way or another…waste of time and energy…
    To me the best time and energy spent is by being in the field….
    not speculating about pictures from an office chair on a blog..

  39. DWA responds:

    d3w177: you’re right.

    Every single possible alternative to the Patterson-Gimlin film being the real deal – to name only one piece of evidence – not only lacks a shred of evidence; most of them are so absurd – to say nothing of conspiracy-theorist – that what is the problem with simply acknowledging the possibility of an animal of which we have numerous near lookalikes in the fossil record?

  40. peteyweestro responds:

    Sorry Bigfoots but we all can’t live in areas where these things may or may not roam, like me for instance…i am in a concrete jungle known as the city of angels Los Angeles so for me a desk chair and blog is the best i get on a regular basis so for that anyone in my situation should just stop commenting or anything ??

  41. bigfoots responds:

    @ peteyweestro

    No, I’m not saying don’t read and soak it all in but as far as this particular photo goes, I’m just saying whats the point?..without any more information or uncropped shots etc… it really is pointless..

    and btw.. just cause your in LA doesn’t mean you cant get out in the wilds..

    i don’t just walk out my door and i’m in bf territory… i have to drive an hour or more depending on where i go..

    I live in the mid-west and i can tell you 100% that you don’t need to be in the mountains or near mountains to find bf..

    good luck.

  42. paul_r responds:

    @ MelissaHovey

    “Going to a director of a movie to identify a costume, would be like me asking the nurse at my doctors office to perform surgery. Two very different skills and expertise.”

    Really? I respectfully say you are wrong on both counts. Nurses do much of the heavy lifting in the medical industry as I have experienced it.

    Movie directors tend to be intimate of all the details in their films and certainly would have looked at the suit as his main prop every day of shooting. I bet he could recognize the suit from his film. Just an opinion.

    Another opinion is that picture is less a bigfoot photo and more of an example of irony. Rumor only has it that there are more pics in the series including a profile shot. To me adding another would give this a less staged appearance. Just one opinion.

    Most of the FX people who have commented feel like this isn’t real but is high quality material. Many opinions on the web.

  43. aenea responds:

    Why not resize the photo instead of cropping it? If this is from a trail cam I want to see the date and time stamp. I’m no expert, but, I think this photo is too good to be a trail cam.

  44. bigfoots responds:

    @ aenea
    she has now after 4 years realized it wasnt a game cam… and in fact its a 35 mm with zoom lense..
    of course this makes it even less credible…
    if it was easy to use a zoom camera that was triggered via ir or whatever it would of been done by now… but it doesnt work that way…

    whats the old expression? keep an open mind but dont let your brains fall out…

  45. EnormousFoot responds:

    The picture is too clear so it must be fake.

  46. kayman responds:

    Nothing new! Most of the above comments reconfirm, that majority of peple will ridicule or dismiss any kind of evidence related to Sasquatch automatically, without taking any time to look at it with open mind.
    I look at it skeptically too, after all my profession trained me to do that. But, whatever it is, there are a few features that strike me as possible contradictions of a possibility of at least a primitive fake:
    1) The sparcity of the hair – a typical faker would go for a fur-like density, whereas in many Sasquatch encounter descriptions, skin shows through. Especially in a warmer climate, which the semi-tropical bush in the background may indicate, this might be a natural case.
    2) the hair on the body is of the same soft type as head hair, which is also frequently mentioned in visual encounters. Certainly, my sparse body hair of a humanoid is of the same kind.
    3) I agree with “dermal_ridges_are_proof” that the graying tinge of the hair might fit with an aging tired-of-hard-living individual – what faker would think of that in designing his suit? Look at the worn, yet very powerfull tricep and deltoid muscles.
    4) The skin seems to have living tone – nothing loose like a suit – look at the valley along the spine.
    5) look at the skin that shows above the left shoulder blade. There seems to be some reddish, if not bloody irritation as from a poke by some branch, or something. What faker would go that far to make his suit look genuine?

  47. bigfoots responds:

    @ kayman

    1st mistake people make is to under-estimate bigfoot
    2nd mistake is to under-estimate bigfoot hoaxers..

    I would feel much more confident wagering on it being a hoax than i would wager on it being real..

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|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.