Sasquatch’s Fingerprint?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 23rd, 2008

Is this the first clear evidence of an imprint from the index finger of a Sasquatch?

Click on the above image for a larger version of the photograph.

Here is the backstory that I am able to share about this alleged eastern Sasquatch fingerprint:

The source of the print is from a North Carolina human family of three, two adults who have one son. They own cats. One of their cats has appeared to have adopted a local Sasquatch family. When the cat insists upon getting out of the house, they know the Sasquatch, a family of four hairy hominids (e.g. Dad, Mom, one teenager, and a young child) are nearby.

The human residents set up a feeding location. It is a white lawn chair adjacent to the woods at the edge of the yard. The Sasquatch take the food. Sometimes, it is taken daily. Sometimes, it is not retrieved for a week. The food goes when the cat disappears, which is a good indication in this case.

Recently, in May 2008, one of the Sasquatch inspected the human father’s pickup truck, leaving fingerprints and nose prints on the passenger window. A local policeman was called. He collected the fingerprints and palm prints, a full set, but refused to date and sign the card because he “knew what we had” and would not allow his name to get involved with these events.

The humans have a video camera at the location. When it is working, the Sasquatch refuse to collect the food. When the camera quits, the Sasquatch resume their activity. Reportedly, the Sasquatch cannot affect the video or computer recording operations, but certainly they seem to know when the system works and when it quits.

There reportedly exists two fleeting videos of the Sasquatch and nothing more. One is the arm of the black Sasquatch father, and the other is the hand of the white teenager with pink skin.


Permission was granted to post this photograph, and the details given above in an attempt to gain a variety of broad-based expert opinions and forensic analyses of this fingerprint.

I have a 4 MB image of the fingerprint, which I will send via email to certified fingerprint and forensic experts. If anyone has access to a law enforcement database to see if it is a match for a known human, that would be helpful, as well. Please contact me at lcoleman[@] (remove the brackets).

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

72 Responses to “Sasquatch’s Fingerprint?”

  1. Wutwuzit responds:

    I live in a very Rural area of Virginia. In fact “Rural” is part of my town’s name. I too can hear/feel electronic devices. Its odd.

    Anyway, I have no experience with those cameras so I can’t vouch for much there, but others have said its silent, so I trust them.

    Could it be that the sasquatch may simply be smelling the humans instead of sensing the camera? Or that they notice when their has been unusual human activity around the feeder and avoid it?

    I know if my family had a camera and possibly unusual creatures around, my immediate family would all go out to help set the trap, put food in the feeder, check the trap. I’m assuming they are just avoiding the area when the interest picks up enough to bring humans close.

    btw: I also saw that show about the lady and the bigfoot asking for garlic. XD said it kept the bugs away.

  2. Wutwuzit responds:

    I forgot to mention the fingerprint looks apelike. I’m assuming its because of the shape. Humans tend to touch/press/grab with the tips of the fingers, Apes with the entire finger. The print in question has the print of not just the tip, but the actual lower part of the finger like and Ape should.

    Although it could easily be 2 different human prints smudged together. So who knows?

  3. DWA responds:

    cryptidsrus: I couldn’t ignore this.

    “Researchers like Nick Redfern have advanced the idea that these creatures are at least PARTIALLY supernatural—their ability to seemingly come out nowhere and their ability to seemingly know when people would be around would confirm that. We need to think outside the box, folks.”

    Well, no, let’s not.

    See, that’s what we’ve been doing for the past half-century: thinking outside the box. So far outside it that we’ve scared mainstream science out of wanting, ever, to have anything to do with hairy hominoids at all, other than dead fossilized ones.

    The reason we are all here huddled around this trying to figure out: IS IT REAL!?!??!?!?! rather than having about fifty ongoing studies of identified sasquatch family groups in various parts of the country, and debating whether the six recognized regional races of sasquatch are in fact one species, and oh by the way, is the yeti off the endangered species list yet?

    …is: too much thinking outside the box.

    So. How do we prove this paranormal stuff? The same way we always have. Which is NOT. Says here: if science doesn’t engage in this question, we will all go to our graves not knowing, and the next however-many generations after us. Barring, of course, the many, many people who have seen them, and the others who have at least (raises hand) seen tracks. That didn’t look paranormal to me.

    Science – and only science – can resolve this question, barring events that no one on, or off, this board can foresee. And I have read nothing, ever, in any sasquatch report – and I will bet none here have read more – that indicates anything other than: this is a primate, probably an ape, and being seen at least as often as a number of species we know about.

    Let’s stick to science. “Outside the box” is where your brains fall when your mind is too open.

    Just sayin’. Where has paranormal speculation gotten us? Any scientist can tell you, with a snicker, where it’s gotten us.

    Look for an ape. We found the gorilla, we will find this too, and all the other hairy hominoids as well, if they’re out there and we look the way we did for the gorilla.

    That simple.

    Over and out.

  4. EastTexan responds:

    Very interesting post.
    I, too, am aware of a very high-pitched sound from some electronic equipment (i.e. TVs) so I can relate to the possibility of Sasquatch hearing something from the camera. However, we don’t know how close the camera is to the feeding location, just that there is a camera “at the location.” Distance could be a factor as to whether the BF “heard” something or not. Also, the wording about the camera “working” or “when it quits” instead of “on” or “off” is interesting to me. Does the camera work only sporadically? And where is the story and information from? Newspaper, personal interview, an email to Loren?

  5. mystery_man responds:

    I’m not sure I understand some of the assumptions made here that the finger print is huge. How could one come to that conclusion based on this photo alone? There is nothing to really give any size comparison. I can’t see how anyone could get even an intuitive sense that what we are looking at is an enormous print without more to go on. It looks like it could just as easily be within human size range. I want more hard information showing the size or how this is not a human print rather than subjective opinions on the size of it.

  6. mystery_man responds:

    I suppose we could ask the officer who took the prints off the car window how big they were. Oh no, that’s right, he refused to sign off on them because he “knew what he had”. That whole part of the story seems fishy to me. I find it odd that we have this photo, yet no measurements at all, no size reference, no information really except the witnesses assurance that a sasquatch made it. That is extremely shaky evidence for which to judge any real potential merit of these fingerprints.

    The print still looks like it could be human to me. If it is not, I’d like someone to prove that, show that it is not human. I would love to have my impressions be proved wrong. If I seem skeptical, it is just because I just am not in the habit of seeing a fingerprint like this and needing to entertain the thought that it COULD be that of a sasquatch based on so little or because this eyewitness said so. I need something more concrete than that if I am going to make that jump here.

    This print was reported on the passenger window, with no frame of reference for size, and to my eye nothing to clearly distinguish it from a human print. I am not saying that if sasquatch exists it does not leave prints, or that there are none out there. I’m just saying that considering what we know, I am skeptical that this is what we are looking at in this case.

    Until anything else comes up, I am leaning heavily towards this being nothing other than a smudged human print.

  7. DWA responds:

    “I’m not sure I understand some of the assumptions made here that the finger print is huge. How could one come to that conclusion based on this photo alone?”

    Has anyone made such an assertion? I think that all I’ve seen is people wondering why this information is absent from the account.

    I hope no one takes what I thought was a very obvious joke on my part for an assertion.
    If that happened, whoops, sorry about that!

  8. corrick responds:

    Amen. Your post on science vs. the paranormal/supernatural is one of the best I’ve ever read on this site.

  9. DWA responds:

    corrick: thanks. Much appreciated.

    To those who think I am pooh-poohing the supernatural or the paranormal: I’m not. Reason? Well, unfortunately, it’s the same reason so many scientists do; I don’t have the evidence to say it’s all a crock. I can’t, in fact, address it at all. There’s no mechanism for testing, no way to come to an explanation.

    The point I am making is simply this: The evidence for the sasquatch seems to uniformly point to a phenomenon explainable by science. Let’s work that angle. So far, we have not – mainly because the paranormal angle scares people qualified to work the scientific angle away from the topic.

    The paranormal angle seems to be based on some proponents’ presumption that this critter is simply not being seen, and there must be an explanation for that. The anecdotal evidence tells me it IS being seen, by LOTS of people. The entire range of encounters one might expect for a known animal are being reported for the sasquatch.

    What is not happening is formal followup, and confirmation, by science.

    Until somebody tells me something I haven’t heard yet: the paranormal/supernatural angle is untestable, and therefore untenable, in this discussion.

    Stick to science. I agree with all the skeptics who say that science should know by now. What we disagree on is whether science has looked.

    Science hasn’t, on anywhere near the scale it does for things it expects to find. And that’s why we don’t know. Except for those who have seen one.

  10. MindEcdysiast responds:

    Fingerprints! Did I read the post wrong or were there fingerprints and a nose smudge? If there were more than one where is the rest? If the BF approached the vehicle, where are the other fingerprints? As far as I can remember all hominids possess 5 digits per appendage.

    By the reaction of the police officer, apparently he has seen this before and in this place. He has probably answered more than one call about it too.

    I posted yesterday about the camera thing, but I am still curious. For those of you that keep bringing up the electronic noise, there are various frequencies that we hear at, some higher and some lower. The sound heard from TV sets as mentioned hear is about 60 Hertz tone produced by the amplifier. At times we are also able to hear the raster frequency of our TV, as a matter of fact that is also true of our beloved computers. People that can hear higher sounds are a dime a dozen, they are not unique. The difference being that they are more vocal about it. Notice what a difference it makes when we lose power and the lights go out?

    Animals differ from us in that they hear the higher frequencies. Some animals (like the elephants) do extremely well with lower frequencies. But we are not talking about an animal, this appears to be a Hominid of the class Homo. In other words, mans cousin. So we should presume it has the same hearing range that we have. Sharper because it does not live in an environment full of gadgets and noise. Sharper because it depends on its hearing to evade predators. And better because it doesn’t have an iPod or Zune blasting in its ear 24/7.

    BF in this case is coming into the open, putting itself in jeopardy, therefore his senses are sharper, just like deer, or even meerkats. I know I slept with one eye open (as we say) when I was in the military on patrol. You are aware of things that no one else notices or takes for granted.

    Loren, if I may, I think the best solution to capturing imaging of the BF, would be a good telephoto lens with a tripod in a blind, far away but with clearance to the spot where the feeding occurs. Making sure that no movement is seen into the blind and the sun does not reflect off the lens. Away from the BFs known path. I definitely know that film or images can be taken this way. I doubt that a digital cameras EMI/RFI can be heard over a good 60 or more feet away. Not unless the BF is carrying electronic surveilance equipment.

    Hasta luego, peace…

  11. cryptidsrus responds:

    DWA: Ok, I’ll bite. Btw, even I will admit that was a thought-provoking post you gave there. I always enjoy what you have say. You know me. I’ve been here for a while. I admit I’m more open to certain things than other folk here—fine. That’s what makes this site so satifying for me—a variety of thoughts and opinions and nobody freaks out—know what I mean????
    I WOULD like to clarify something:

    All I was reacting to was the the idea prevalent on this post that this must be a “hoax” because Sasquatch are not captured by the camera. The thinking is: “Sasquatch are never seen on camera, even though they’re ‘animas.’ Ergo, this must be fake, since animals are not smart enought to avoid being seen.” I’m not all posts are like that or that even you are saying that—I’m saying some of them are leaning like that.

    I’m sure it has occurred to folks here that Ole Hairy is intelligent-maybe as intelligent as us–so wouldn’t it make sense that as an intelligent being it would somehow intuitively know that it was being spied upon??? Even if that cannot be proven, we can at least “brainstorm,” right? By all means be scientific—just not engage in purely “deductive” methodology when there should be “inductive” methodology involved. Let’s look at ALL the available data and try to work out a reliable hypothesis/theory from that. Even include the dreaded “negative” results—which is what inductive methodology sometimes yields. I understand folks would disagree with that. I understand. As I’ve said before, I’m not a scientist. I’m just one of the “great unwashed” (i.e., working stiff) trying to make sense of the bizarre things that happen in the world around me. I am simply trying to see things from (and applying) Francis Bacon’s point of view—the guy who started basically the whole modern “scientific method,” ok? Science (and this is MY opinion, of course,) has veered away from those principles which he set down. Again, my opinion.

    Let’s forget the “supernatural” angle then. Let me put it this way—just because something does not fit somebody’s a priori conceptions of what that “something” should be or should not be like does not mean it is “unreal.” And yes, the fact that sometimes these “whatevers” do not act “scientifically,” (i.e., according to our current “conception”of how the universe operates) does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water and not incorporate certain “non-materialistic” stuff in this. At least, we should enterntain these ideas. Rupert Sheldrake does. Alfred Russell Wallace did. William James did. Isaac Newton (who was an accomlished alchemist as well as a scientist) did. Kepler did (he was an astrologer). Boyle did (another alchemist). I can already hear the snickers. Fine.

    Again, I’m a nobody and I know you are scientifically more knowledgeable than me, DWA. I also acknowledge that this diatribe may seem incoherent and not “structurally precise” to some here. Fine. Remember, I’m a believer, not an open-minded skeptic. Just wanted to answer your post. You’re right—we can’t be so open-minded that our brains fall out. I just think the current method of dealing with these things does not work. But you certainly made very good points, DWA. You’re one of the reasons I come here. The current scientific debate does not accept “negative results.” I do. The split between science and “spirit/religion” is entrenched in western society. I think the split never should have occurred. And many agree with me. And actually, there is no such thing as “supernatural,”—just natural phenomenon we have not explained yet. Hopefully we can respectfully disagree. If we cannot, that’s fine as well. I love you all here. Great discussion, as always.

  12. DWA responds:

    Cryptidsrus: No one’s a nobody here.

    I feel the need to point out – with emphasis – that I AM NOT A SCIENTIST.

    OK. That said.

    Something odd is going on here. The world’s largest primate seems to be living in one of the world’s most civilized and technologically-sophisticated countries without being proven to exist. (In this case: a FAMILY of them are allegedly HANGING OUT, and we don’t have anything to sink our teeth into but an alleged fingerprint.) I sure would want to know why that was. One of the reasons so many are flat incredulous at the proposition is that they can’t get their arms around how that could possibly be, when we’re finding the teeniest things in the most remote places.

    I’m simply saying that, having looked at this quite a bit, I have come to the conclusion that it could be happening, and there could be nothing particularly unusual behind it, other than the refusal of the folks with the technical chops and funding to go out there and figure out what it is people are seeing. I think that one reason it may be happening is that we’re jumping to the point of positing stuff that can’t be tested or proven by currently understood and accepted methods, and that scares scientists – and their inherent need to be taken seriously when they say things – away from the topic.

    Really, that’s all I’m saying. I don’t mean to devalue anyone’s comments, just to remind all that claims in such a discussion always require evidence.

    No offense meant. Big tent, OK? I’m open to being shown what I don’t know. I just have to be shown is all.

  13. DWA responds:


    I should also point out that medicine is only one field where we’ve found out that today’s aboriginal mumbo-jumbo could be tomorrow’s science. (And that yesterday’s mumbo-jumbo is today’s science.)

    But as we’ve seen with medicine, for us to do much of practical value with it, we have to wait for science to catch up.

  14. red_pill_junkie responds:

    And actually, there is no such thing as “supernatural,”—just natural phenomenon we have not explained yet.

    I couldn’t agree more with that statement. Remember folks: not so long ago, when the Big Bang concept was proposed—by a Catholic priest nonetheless!—mainstream scientists scoffed at the idea, saying it was unscientific because it was unprovable… until we learned about the deep space microwave radiation; and suddenly, we can measure the beginning of the Universe to an astonishing accuracy.

    Do I agree with cryptidsrus in that I think Bigfoot posesses traits and abilities that could be considered ‘supernatural’ by some people? Not necessarily. But to me, considering that possibility does not trump my entire house of cards that is my belief system regarding the natural world.

    That said, I still consider this —the fingerprint photo—to be inconsistent evidence—why didn’t they take pictures of the entire window? that would give us the scale reference many of us wish for— but I’m glad it has stemmed a very interesting discussion about the effectiveness of modern equipment to detect this elusive creature.

  15. gridbug responds:

    I think we need to ditch the conception that BF is simply some “big dumb animal” out roaming aimlessly in the wilderness. Consider some “primitive” cultures that have never seen modern technology and are so in tune with the environment that they can come and go unnoticed by “civilized” man. If BF is somewhat of a cross between what we once were and what we could have been, and taking into account that these creatures have existed outside of human society (for the most part, not counting random encounters) then we have to consider the possibility that they are in such complete harmony with their surroundings that they are able to discern outside elements that us sophisticated technophiles have assimilated as commonplace. If BF can see well enough in a pitch black forest to run full tilt through past and around any and all obstacles, then it’s not too far a stretch to assume that their eyesight may work on a more developed spectrum than ours. A woodland dwelling creature with heightened senses (far more than our own) would probably be able to hear a high pitched emission from an electronic device, not unlike a dog whistle type situation. Nothing paranormal or supernatural about that. 🙂

  16. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Oh ok, I see what you mean. That joke went completely over my head! I must have been tired when I responded. Whoops. It wasn’t until I went back and read it that I caught that. Sometimes this format makes it hard to catch the humor in statements. Re reading your post, then yeah that makes sense. Sorry! 🙂 Nobody has made the assumption, but it has been hinted at with talk of spatial relationships and what not. Anyway the main thing is that this print looks like it could be human to me.

    By the way, I also liked your post on science and the supernatural. Not really much I can add there.

    cryptidsrus- Your opinions are more than welcome here, don’t worry about that at all. You have a lot of good things to say. Anyway, that’s what this forum is for, to get our thoughts out and learn new things in a constructive, respectful way. And don’t worry about being “structurally precise”. Your posts are fine by me. 🙂

  17. Ceroill responds:

    cryptidsarus, DWA, MysteryMan, and others: This kind of discussion is what I like most about Cryptomundo. I want to thank you all for taking part in this delightful and insightful exchange.

  18. DWA responds:

    m_m: Thanks. I was really hoping for some word on the size of that print. I can’t really say what it is, although it’s almost certainly an incomplete print.

    Showing a wider angle shot of the whole configuration – including that nose print – could be useful. Hope they got such a shot and just haven’t shared it yet.

    cryptidsrus: I second m_m with regard to your posts. Like I said: Big tent. I have learned from folks here, and I hope to keep doing it. Case in point: “The split between science and “spirit/religion” is entrenched in western society. I think the split never should have occurred.” We’ve probably hurt science by keeping it divorced too much from wonder. You don’t want your brains to fall out. But you don’t want to squeeze them so tight that you miss what’s right there.

  19. tropicalwolf responds:

    Thank You DWA!!!

    My first impression when I here people saying BFis “supernatural” is….”Oh great, this is JUST what we need.”

    One does nothing to provide for the scientific support/proof of a creature’s existence by subscribing said creature paranormal powers and then using these powers to explain why it is so hard to find said creature. Before casting supernatural abilities on a creature, shouldn’t one have a better foundation for its scientifically accepted existence? The BF “supernatural/paranormal angle” is simple, BASIC, false logic. As scientists, shouldn’t we do and expect better?

  20. DWA responds:

    tropicalwolf: Not sure what else I can say, but thanks.

    OK, there’s something else I can say. (Other than: let’s find out what we can about that print. There does appear to be enough to at least assert whether it’s mundane or hmmmmmmm.)

    On another thread, I just saw a post asserting that the sasquatch is telepathic. You know, they could be. Hey, what do I know? But what is our evidence?

    I am constantly hammering on scoftics for the total absence of evidence for their claims. You see, they honestly don’t think they have to do a single thing but sling brickbats at proponents – even if it involves making totally preposterous claims. That wasn’t a sasquatch; it was a moose, forced by injuries to run bipedally, with really flexible antlers, whose snout had obviously been bitten off by a wolf…

    One wonders where scoftics get this ridiculous attitude, that they can say pretty much anything they want; not bother to educate themselves on the topic AT ALL, Ben Radford; and not have to substantiate, with a single lick of common sense, a single thing they say?

    Well, I have an idea where they get it.

    Not a way to go, I don’t think, to get into the habit of speculating things that can’t be proven.

    OK, fine. Yet.

  21. MindEcdysiast responds:

    What do we know so far about this BF family?

    A-From North Carolina.
    B-A cat has appeared to have adopted a local Sasquatch family.
    C-BF family of four: a Dad, Mom, one teenager, and a young child.
    D-The human residents set up a feeding location.
    E-The BFs take the food. Sometimes, daily. Sometimes, not for a week.
    F-The food goes when the cat disappears.
    G-In May 2008, the BF inspected the human’s pickup truck, leaving fingerprints and nose prints on the passenger window.
    H-A local policeman collected fingerprints and palm prints, a full set, but refused to date and sign the card.
    I-The humans have a video camera at the location. When it is working, the Sasquatch refuse to collect the food. When the camera quits, the Sasquatch resume their activity.
    J-Reportedly, the Sasquatch cannot affect the recording operations, but seem to know when the system is operating and when it stops.
    K-Two fleeting videos of the BF. One is the arm of the black BF father, and the other is the hand of the white teenager with pink skin.

    We have eleven bits of information, some extremely important, and some not.
    Location? Not as important except where the feeding occurs.
    Pets? It takes enormous will for a pet to accept outsiders, specially from the forest, since the smell alone conveys danger.
    Feeding? Interesting and important, as this would tell if in reality the BFs are vegetarians or allegedly carnivores as has been implied in other sites. This would also explain why other BFs are seen around camping grounds, cabins, or homes. Unless the food is being eaten by the cat (the food goes when the cat dissapears).
    The Vehicle incident? Most likely curiosity because of some smell emanating from it or BF seeing itself against the glass, and trying to see if there was another BF inside.
    Camera activity? Important, since many people have been trying to capture images of BF and have been unsuccessful. The thing to remember is that the Paterson film was taken with an old winding camera (no EMI/RFI) that was noisy when running. You had to push the trigger to unwind the coil, it may have had a DC motor assist depending on the model, but no EMI/RFI from that. If BF is actually sensitive to EMI/RFI, then they would stay away from power lines or anything with high voltage. If it was the frequency then they would stay away from anything that emanates within their sensitivity range.
    Skin color? Of interest to a certain degree since this indicates that there is variety. Someone also pointed out that it is a bad thing specially for the Pink guy. True, since it cannot camouflage itself. It also means that this particular BF is not ostracized by the others. Since it would give away their whereabouts. Denoting emotions or feelings from the group.

    On the Paranormal (Fringe) side of thinking, much has been alluded to the BF being a telepath. If this were true then the BF should be able to communicate in various languages. Why? Because due to our way of education, we are taught to think in words not in pictures. Only the people with a higher degree of intelligence think in pictures. The majority of us must say the words in our concious mind in order to communicate, once again because that is how we have been taught. It would be dificult for BF to communicate when we answer but not when it talks. Judging by the fact that they are eating, tells us that these are physical beings, it left fingerprints. And no one seems to have observed UFO activity when the BFs are near.

    The questions then arise, do we really need to harrass this group by hunting, chasing them down for pictures/film? Why are they so eager to make contact with the NC family? How often do they visit? When during the day do they visit? Have they ever noticed the humans in the house? Do they care? Has anyone tried to make further contact? If the BFs can be seen from inside the house, then why not test with the camera and turn it on and off at intervals while they feed just to see how they react? I know they are not lab rats, but the more observations the better we can understand. What this family has in their backyard is the Holy Grail of BF research, yet no one is taking advantage of it.


  22. RiverRun responds:

    The obvious may be to check the families fingerprints for a match. If the officer that retrieved the print doesnt want his name associated, that alone speaks volumes. My guess? Complete hoax.

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.