Russian Bigfoot Photographed?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 1st, 2011

I just came across these photos on a Russian cryptozoology website (google translated) this morning. From there, I found what appears to be the original source of the photos on a Russians news website.

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

I do not know anything other than what accompanies them on the website as far as their validity or source.

I am asking Igor Burtsev for any assistance or information that he has regarding this.

В Шерегеше засняли снежного человека (9 фото)
1 Апрель 2011 / Все новости

просмотров: 46

Туристы в Шерегеше на вершине горы Зеленой случайно увидели йети. Существо, покрытое шерстью, пряталось среди деревьев.

Фотографии предоставлены Александром Чудановым, руководителем проекта «Предприниматель Кузбасса».

Google translated to:

In Sheregesh filmed Bigfoot (9 photos)
April 1, 2011

The tourists on the mountain top Sheregesh Green accidentally saw the Yeti. The creature, covered with hair, hid among the trees.

Photos courtesy of Alexander Chudanovym, the project manager “Entrepreneur of the Kuzbass”.

The photos below have been resized for optimum viewing here on Cryptomundo.

Click on the images to view them in their original size and resolution.

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

Sheregesh Russian Bigfoot Yeti

What do the Cryptomundians think of these extremely interesting photos?

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.

91 Responses to “Russian Bigfoot Photographed?”

  1. Reverend responds:


    That’s the best comment so far on these. If you look at the images and try to put them into some kinda order, it seems that the BF is walking around in a circle, whilst the photographer happily walks back and forth taking shots.

    Would also have to be a pretty good photographer to keep BF in focus with all the trees in front and behind – that would cause havoc with my DSLR’s autofocus. So we’d assume he’s on manual focus as well as walking through waist-deep snow whilst taking shots of an unknown and possible dangerous large beast with it’s label hanging out…

    Naaah. Not remotely convincing, to me. Sadly.

  2. mandors responds:

    Photo 6 from the top has some perspective problems with the shin and the rest of the body, as if the lower leg is in front of the trees while the body is behind.

    However, photo 3 looks pretty good. You can see shoulders and a neck, and the snow mist is a nice touch. If it’s photo shopping, it’s good work.

    Still, it’s strange you don’t get a straight transition of movement. The photos together look like the figure was rambling in the trees instead of going somewhere. Also, the background shows a coniferous forest, but the figure seems to be in mixed brush that to me does seem to have that “Sylvanic” look to it.

  3. DTK responds:

    Does anyone know if these pictures posted in the order in which they were taken? The bottom two pictures seem to belong with the first two IMO….

  4. Jocko Wainwright responds:

    I don’t even think it’s a guy in a suit. Looks totally digital to me. In the fifth photo from the top, the things legs are actually . . . transparent. Shoddy job.

  5. mandors responds:

    Changing my mind on these. The photos here are out of sync. Not saying they are real, but put in proper order they seem to show something. I think what that is, or is supposed to be, is a bigfoot that was sitting in the snow when someone stumbled on it.

    If that’s the case, I think pictures 1 and 2, and 8 and 9 are together in the time line. That’s when the photographer “approached” the figure sitting in the snow and trees. 3 and 5 are when the thing gets up. Notice the foreground diagonal trees. Then it’s 4– the thing goes into the trees, then 7, the guy circles to his left to get the stride picture, and then 6 (the real last photo in order) the thing disappears into the trees. Maybe as it goes, it’s doing the bigfoot walk and the back leg is closer to the camera than the rest of it. That’s why 6 looks so odd.

    Everyone says these things can really move. If that’s so, and this isn’t a hoax, the animal would have taken off real fast. Looked at it this way, I think the photos seem more plausible.

  6. formerbfrocurator responds:

    In the sixth photo (the one with the broken tree) it looks to me like the bridge of a caucasian human nose and eyes are showing through a slit similar to the slit in a ski mask. The “subject” seems to be looking at the camera with his head slightly turned to the left. Does anyone else see the same? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  7. semillama responds:

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned from relict hominid photography, it is that they all have trees growing out of their bodies.

  8. mandors responds:

    @ formerbfrocurator

    I think the ski mask effect is a leaf on a branch in front of whatever it is. Go to full screen mode, I see what looks to be a nose almost in full profile pointing left. Could be a mask. Also, did you/anyone notice trees in 1 and 2 are the same as 8 and 9.

  9. bobzilla responds:

    I’ve played with the levels in PS on these. They are simply underexposed, so you don’t have to do much to get the detail out.

    The hair looks a lot like a bear’s type of cost. Pretty uniform and thick. There seems to be something red in most of the shots possibly near the head region. Not sure what it is.

    In the 6th photo (“peaking”over the tree) IF that is indeed a head, it looks like it’s looking to its right. We might be seeing the head in profile. I can’t make out what that yellow/golden shine is.

    In the bottom of this pic you can also see a side view of a leg. The foot looks very long and completely covered in hair with no toes visible.

    Its face is inexplicably hidden in all the other shots (and perhaps in this one, too).

    Just some observations of the pics.

  10. red_pill_junkie responds:

    My initial reaction from these is frustration, in that they seemed to have been obtained with a fairly decent camera, yet we never have a clear view of neither the face OR the hands of the alleged creature.

    That red spot on what seems to be the back of the head also bothers me.

    And what about the camera guy? do we know the name? has he/she posted something describing the particulars of the sighting.

    Right now I’m leaning to these being fakes. But they are certainly a deviation from the classic ‘blurry’ Blobsquatch.

  11. sjreidhead responds:

    The first photo looks like, and I am loath to say it, Spaceballs! Then again, one expects Mel Brooks to rear his head into a bigfoot story. It’s a match made in Boggy Creek!

  12. sonofthedestroyer responds:

    The Russian yeti, the Almasti is supposed to have a different body structure to the stereotypical American Bigfoot.

    Its supposed to be more human like and less ape like than the American Bigfoot. There may even be different types in Russia.

    In America the Skunk ape is different to the Pacific Bigfoot.

    Even monks in Tibet/Nepal say there are different varieties of Yeti.

  13. krs9864 responds:

    @ Loren,

    Obviously faked! You can see the costume so easily! lol

  14. charlie23 responds:

    “Novosti” and “Pravda” are famous over here for their sensationalism, much like “Weekly World News” although a bit more subtle. They do have some serious news articles mixed in, but generally they make up something new every week. I wouldn’t consider them a reliable source.

  15. Opalman responds:

    From experience with Mr. B.R. Ursine I can tell you I don’t think I could have stood at such close proximity to said scary subject long enough to take nine unshaky pictures. Having said that the other problem I have is that the statistical odds of taking nine stills and having every one of them miss a decent facial pic is pretty high (minimum of one in eighty-one?) Bear like fur, not like any bear I’ve ever seen, its too wavy and long w/ no obvious undercoat. Obviously large? How can you tell there’s no scale reference…none, could be a closeup of part of my HO train layout.

  16. arewethereyeti responds:

    In Communist Russia, Bigfoot looks for you!

    Thank you, Yakov…

  17. Redrose999 responds:

    After adjusting the photos with photoshop, I’ve determined there is something bright red poking out from the neck. It looks like a redshirt or collar.

    Didn’t think bigfoot was into kink.

  18. Beachywoman responds:

    Fake! No leg definition at all. No definition in the back either. What’s the red material around the neck? Hmmmm. Nice warm costume though. LOL! Looks like someone hit it with a snowball in the back…

  19. kittalia responds:

    Here’s my problem with this, the Patterson film, and most other Bigfoot shots: They have a patch of light skin on their face. In my experience, apes with dark fur have dark faces.

  20. Ragnar responds:

    kitt, a quick google for chimps shows a lot of light skin on faces. How much experience with apes do you have?

  21. Fred123 responds:

    And still people wonder why most people don’t take cryptozoology very seriously. What’s next, teddy bears or inflatable sea serpents?

  22. Fred123 responds:

    Charlie 23, did you happen to notice the simularity between the Ria Novosti links and the ones that you find here?

  23. Opalman responds:

    I think all black pigmented skin, (as in the case of gorillas) definitely reflects light brightly depending on the angle etc.
    Dr. Meldrum discusses this at length in his authoritative, well researched and written book. (in the case of the Patterson film.) The fact that these highlights appear light should not be any cause for skepticism.

  24. PhotoExpert responds:

    Hmm, interesting. I chose to enhance a few select photos, to form a more objective opinion of what we all are looking at.

    There are some very interesting things to note. In one of the photographs, there seems to be eyes, a nose and a mouth. This could be a case of paradeilia–the mind creates the facial features. However, the same things seem to appear in another photograph that I selected. And although a face of some sort can be seen in at least two of the photographs, there is something odd about the face. It almost resembles a mask or nonlifeform.

    There are also some things that look suspicious in two of the photographs. In one photo, it looks as if the would be head of the subject is completely flat. Perhaps that does occur in nature but it almost looks digitally manipulated. I looked at that area of the photograph very closely. And although there were one or two pixel anomalies, it would be premature to call it Photoshopped. There are instances when photographic lens aberration will create the same effect. There are instances where the hair or fur of the subject in question, looks just like you would see with mammals in their natural environment. And there is one photograph where the supposed legs are almost completely linear or straight. I presume if the photographer had just the right angle, this effect could occur but it is not a high probability or that scenario transpiring.

    One of the most unusual things I saw, which I have not come to a conclusion about, is that in one photograph it looks as if part of the foot of the subject has some transparency. That is not to say that the image was digitally manipulated. In fact, there have been other photographs I have studied where water and snow can can actually blend objects in a background with the subject, making part of the subject look transparent or missing a part. In other words, a natural photograph will look as if it has been digitally manipulated when it has not. This occurred again on part of the subject’s back. It actually looks like the viewer can see through the subject. However, it could be snow adhering to the back of the subject, blending coloration to such a point that it matches the background exactly. There is not enough pixelation to determine a definitive answer.

    One Cryptomundo poster stated that you could actually see through a leg. If that poster was talking about the heel of the subject, he may be correct. But the explanation above could also be the correct answer and it only appears as if the heel were missing because snow has blended with the supposed fur or hair around the subject’s leg. If the poster was talking about the green fir around the ankle and calf of the subject as being transparent, it is not. Actually, that greenery is in the foreground of the photograph but at a quick glance, looks as if the calf of the subject is transparent. So rushing to judgement and saying that is looks digitally manipulated, based on the greenery around the calf is incorrect.

    Also, I would assume a Bigfoot casts a big shadow. I can’t put my finger on it but something seems amiss with the shadow and lighting of one photograph. If the photo was taken at just a little wider angle, I could ascertain what trees are casting what shadows. However, in one of the photos, it looks as if the subject’s leg is casting a shadow up to the thigh and the shadow of the body is not there in the snow. Granted, if the trees were taller than the subject and diffusing the sunlight to various extents, the shadow cast by the body may be too faint to pick up since the photograph was underexposed to begin with. But my spidey senses just tingle when I look at the lighting in a few of those photographs. Something just does not sit right. I wish there was more to the photograph to the left and right of the subject, and I could give a definitive answer.

    With that being said, taking into account the background of these photographs, such as where they were taken and their timing and date in being distributed, I am leaning more towards a hoaxed event than an actual event. Common sense dictates this for me.

    I am going to send Loren some of the photographs that I enhanced. Perhaps he will post them here for more scrutiny in the way of objective opinions from Cryptomundo readers.

    Given the pros and cons from analyzing this series of photographs, the results are inconclusive. However, with more points of analysis indicating digital manipulation of some sort, I am leaning more towards fakery than authentic photographs of a supposed Bigfoot. Just my two cents!

  25. sausage1 responds:


  26. DTK responds:

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I for one would like to see PhotoExpert’s enhanced images. I would also like to know what program (or programs) were used to enhance these images and what credentials or specific experience PhotoExpert possesses.

  27. bobzilla responds:

    I’m not PhotoExpert, but what I did was, Using Photoshop, just use the levels command. Take the mid range slider and move it towards the shadow end (to the left) until the image starts to look better.

    The hair comes in very well after doing this.

  28. DQuinn responds:

    Watch it stand up and take a step! – display images 8,9,1,2 in that order (like a flipbook). I thought the images by themselves were meh, but this is VERY interesting imho. It’s definitely someone or something sitting in the snow that stands up and walks off- a HUGE someone or something from the apparent scale of things.

    What I did was I download the original images 8,9,1,2, put them into a folder by themselves then open one in Irfanview (awesome free,lightweight image viewer/editor-, view it at fullscreen, then use the arrow keys to cycle through the images like a flipbook. There’s a hundred ways to do this, use whatever works for you.

    I’ll try to make an animated gif in a little bit if someone hasn’t done that already.

    Again- not conclusive, not saying it’s a cryptid, just interesting to see.

  29. DQuinn responds:

    Here’s a little animated gif to show what I mean.. And lol he must use conditioner on that beard/moustache.

  30. DQuinn responds:

    Here’s the enhanced full size original frames for those interested. Only the levels have been adjusted in Photoshop to bring out more clarity in the underexposed originals.

  31. PhotoExpert responds:

    DTK–I could go on and on about my credentials and experience in photography and knowledge of optical physics. However, that would make for a very boring post!

    Suffice to say that Loren and others here know my contributions to the Cryptozoological community. If you have been here any length of time, dating back several years, you would be aware of my experience and credentials too. I just don’t brag about it every chance or every post I make. Let’s just say my analysis and findings have and are accepted across the country, in many courts of law. If my experience is good enough for the Federal Government and local governments, I hope that would be good enough for you. Judges accept my credentials and opinion as “expert” in the area of photography, digital manipulation and optical physics. I did not give myself the moniker “PhotoExpert”. Judges did that when I am called to testify in court as an expert witness. So enough said there!

    As far as what program, I use several different programs because there are positives and negatives for every program. I basically use several programs with different techniques for analysis. But seriously, any simple software will get the results you are seeking for this analysis. As bobzilla explained in his post, it does not take me or any other photo expert to perform the simple task of enhancing these photos. They are simply underexposed photographs. You could take any simple program that has the ability to “add flash” or play with the “lighting and contrast” buttons or just use the “levels command” as explained by a nonexpert in the field of photography, bobzilla. It is that easy and does not require my level of expertise.

    Hopefully, Loren or Craig will post those photographs for your perusal and you will have a better advantage to critiquing the photographs and not me or my credentials. LOL Anyway DTK, the enhanced photographs were sent to Loren and I believe they were forwared to Craig. So perhaps from your request, they will be posted in the very near future or on a follow up to this article.

    Bobzilla–You are absolutely correct! You don’t have to be me or a PhotoExpert to enhance these images. Using PhotoShop or any other software will get you the results and better definition of the photographs in question. You are absolutely correct, an idiot with simple software could do it!

  32. Reverend responds:

    Personally I think it highly unlikely that a photographer who can get shots like this (with the focus on the ‘creature’ despite the foreground and background elements that will confuse the camera’s autofocus, so I’m assuming this is manually focused in a very stressful situation – hence, you’d think, a good photographer), would underexpose so badly in what seems like good lighting.

    And, is it just me, or is the creature actually quite static? I mean, it’s UPPER body seems to remain in the exact same pose in every shot?

    My thoughts are very strongly that it’s a staged hoax.

  33. Reverend responds:

    …sorry about that terrible grammar… jumped back and forth a bit whilst composing that.

  34. bobzilla responds:

    Well, I’m not sure if that’s a compliment, or you’re calling me an idiot! lol

    I’m not a “photo” expert. per se, but I’ve spent my fair share of time in Photoshop over the past 20 years (remember Photoshop 2.5? I think that’s where I came in!). I was just pointing out that we don’t need a LOT of enhancement to get these particular photos “usable”. I know some folks go a little crazy in PS just because they can.

    But, I do defer to your expertise on the subject.

  35. mystery_man responds:

    One thing that sort of bothers me about these and no one really seems to be addressing is that we have pretty much no other information on these photos.

    Craig clearly states that we knows nothing about the circumstances surrounding these photos other than what is attached to them on some website. What we have is a Google translated (in my experience most likely poorly) little blurb about the photo and little else.

    This is a pretty glaring setback.

    In order to do any real investigation into these, we need to know more. Who were these people who took the photos? Where were they? When? What was the date and time? What happened before and after the photos were taken? Under what circumstances were the photos taken? These are things we need to know.

    Right now we have nothing. All we know is that we have photos with something on them. We have no sense of the veracity, conditions, or context for these photos at all.

    Seriously, the information we have, that more or less “tourists accidentally met a Yeti on a mountaintop” just does not cut it. I cannot think of how this information could be any more vague or useless for the purposes of investigation. How do we even know these were taken in Russia? These could be anything. They could be an ad for some Russian Bigfoot movie for all we know.

    What we have are some admittedly intriguing photos that exist in a vacuum. Without any more information, or indeed any information whatsoever, it is hard to proceed on these. In this day and age of hoaxes and clever photo manipulation, when you know nothing at all of the circumstances surrounding a photo, or indeed even who took them, red flags should be going up.

    I admit these are interesting, and it is perhaps worth analyzing them to learn whatever we can, hoax or not. However, a proper conclusion simply cannot be reached without more surrounding information. I mean we know about the circumstances of the PG footage down to minor details, with corroborating evidence such as footprints to go with it and we are still discussing that one.

    No matter how interesting they are, these are at this point for all intents and purposes just anonymous photos from the net (that last bastion of truth *cough*) that we known nothing about and so should be approached with a good, healthy dose of skepticism. We can analyze them all we want, but this information is crucial if we are to tie that analysis to anything concrete.

    I do hope that we can get some more information. ANY information, in fact. I welcome anything that comes forward. Until then, I’m not really sure what to make of these.

    Any on another note, seriously, what is with that red spot on the back it’s head?

  36. DTK responds:

    Sorry PhotoExpert, I didn’t mean to belittle any creds that you may have. Unfortunately, I am unable to follow every thread posted here on Cryptomudo so I’m not familiar with your background. I was simply hoping that you’d be able to post your enhanced images along with a simple explanation of what programs you used and what experience you have. I wasn’t trying to grill you. My apologies if I made you feel that way. That is not at all what I was intending…

  37. PhotoExpert responds:

    bobzilla–It was definitely a complement!!!

    You pointed out very clearly that, all one needed to do was a simple enhancement. Nothing fancy was needed to get better photos from the originals. You even stated how to do it! And basically, I was pointing that fact out to DTK. I was using your post as an example, that even a layman or someone with limited photo experience could enhance these photos and a genius or photo expert was not needed. I was trying to convey to DTK, that instead of shooting the messenger, just read the darn message and then enhance the images yourself.

    DTK posted asking about my credentials, experience and what programs I used for the enhancement. All of that “shooting the messenger” verbage was unnecessary, if DTK just did what you did. But alas, there are different learning curves for different people. Fortunately for you bob, you are at the top of the learning curve! Unfortunately, some are not.

    mystery_man-Great points! I was also trying to point out in my first post here that it is not only the photographs that need to be scrutinized but the facts surrounding them. Those surrounding facts were in short supply.

    DQuinn–Great job on the pics!!!

  38. PhotoExpert responds:

    DTK–Apology accepted! Not a problem. Although when I first read your post, I was thinking, here we go again–I try to help and someone wants to kill the messenger. But after your explanation, I think I understand your original intentions. It’s just that your original post did not convey that. This follow-up post does convey your intentions.

    No problem DTK! I too hope that the images will be posted at some point in time. But there is a lot going on at Cryptomundo and I totally understand if Loren and Craig are not able to get them up.

    What I do like seeing is the ICM getting nonprofit status so quickly and Loren getting everything in place in the new space. I think that takes precedent over this Siberian Snowman thing. I support the museum and urge anyone who has either the money or the time to take my lead and support the ICM as well. It’s a good cause! Even if readers give a little, that means a lot. So have one less beer or chicken instead of steak once in a while and donate to the cause. I hear Loren is a very good educator and he takes the time, especially with the younger ones, and quenches that thirst for knowledge. Not worrying about an electric bill gives more time to Loren and company to share their experience and knowledge of the cryptid world with those seeking that knowledge at the ICM. I’m off the soapbox now, but sometimes hearing these things from a fellow supporter of the ICM goes much further than just hearing it from Loren or Craig.

    Give if you can to the ICM!

  39. Brothermidnight responds:

    well it seems very clear now from the enhanced pics that this is somebody in a costume. It looks to be somebody with long blond hair in a fuzzy suit in a stereotypical Russian fur hat playing in the snow.

  40. Igor Bourtsev responds:

    Our International Conference on Hominology was held partially just in Sheregesh – the location, where these photos been taken. But nobody there could explain where from these photos appeared. I think it was just a first-April joke. It’s popular in our country to catch people with deceiving them, to deceive friends and all others, even in mass media they publish many make-ups in that day of April 1. And this info was published just on April 1, 2011.

  41. DTK responds:

    April fools, huh? Now things are becoming clear… lol.

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.