Update: Mt. Hood Bigfoot?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 8th, 2006
This is the image of the unknown animate object, perhaps a Bigfoot (?), taken by a remote camera on April 30, 2006, near Mt. Hood, Oregon.
Click image for full-size version
The following is more information shared by the photographers, Klindt & Dianna:
The answer is yes we did set up the camera to capture a picture of Bigfoot. On the 29th [of April] the wind blew pine limbs that we had placed around the edge of the camera to mask our smell and hide the camera.
We went up on the 30th [of April] and brought back the picture card. We did not know what we had till that night. Then went back on the 2nd and looked for tracks only looked close to camera area say about 30 feet found nothing.
No tracks were found; ground is very springy.
To be honest with you we don’t know, [this] could it be a hairy young Bigfoot?
That’s when we set the camera to video. No other pictures close up of bear, deer, or people. Will let camera stay up for about a week.
The photograph was presented with no claims that it is or was a Bigfoot but merely as an open-ended question. And if it is, the type of Sasquatch is unclear.
The photos that were remotely set off and in sequence, before and after the above mystery photo, are these:
Click image for full-size version
Click image for full-size version
A week later and they have returned with a photograph that should interest those who wonder as to the appearance of the head of a deer taken by this remote camera.
Click image for full-size version
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.
Why is the EXIF data for the supposed bigfoot photo missing? The other photos have it why not the one that merits the most attention? WHY was the EXIF data removed? Something stinks about that information being gone. Another thing, according to the EXIF data on the other photos, the shutter speed on the other shots is fixed at 1 second. Now, to you and me, 1 second is a short amount of time. To a camera though, thats a really, really long exposure time. The blurriness of the critters in these shots is evidence of the slow shutter speeds. Also I would not be surprised if the supposed bigfoot is actually the head of a deer feeding at the base of the camera. The motion of its head blurred because of the slow shutter speed. Sorry guys, this ain’t a sasquatch. Its a blurry deer, or a man in a suit. Please find out why the EXIF data is missing. I’d like to see it as well.
Relax David – that was addressed by Craig in comment #58 of a previous post – he resized the image for presentation on Cryptomundo.
Craig wrote:
“I resized the original photos. The original photo file is CDY_0007. I resized them from their original resolution of 2048 X 1536 as they were 1 MB in size. So the photos are all consecutive. I renamed the first photo when I resized it, but left the file names as they were for the one prior and the one following.”
and Loren followed with:
“All the photos are in sequence, from one source, set off by motion and heat … I am in direct and open communication with the camera folks.
“Craig does my uploads at Cryptomundo due to my older software on my computer. Nothing sinister to that. So the photos are passed along, and you can read above Craig’s comments about the downsizing and relabeling that sometimes occurs.
“Needless to say, I have all the forwarded originals and there appears to have been absolutely no manipulation.”
For all the same reasons I agree with you on the deer conclusion, and there’s no reason to doubt Craig and Loren’s comments.
Chris.
I would like to hear more about what David V is discussing here.
But, I still think its a horse..
PS – I applaude you for presenting the new deer closeup. Good of you to make that public when it became available. It’s highly relevant to at least some of the speculation, and testimony again that you’re happy to present information, as presented to you, and without bias.
Chris.
I’m not sure but I think DV’s question was addressed partially the first time this was posted. As I have noted, due to old software on my computer, some items sent to me have to be passed on to Craig to be uploaded to Cryptomundo. I have all of the originals, unaltered, from the Mt. Hood photographers. Here’s Craig’s earlier comment:
Craig Woolheater Says:
May 5th, 2006 at 3:33 am
I resized the original photos. The original photo file is CDY_0007. I resized them from their original resolution of 2048 X 1536 as they were 1 MB in size. So the photos are all consecutive. I renamed the first photo when I resized it, but left the file names as they were for the one prior and the one following.
Yay, more non-proof. Looks like either a blurred deer head, as mentioned, or the hindquarters of a horse or deer. There’s no story here, just hype.
I am by no means an expert on digital photos and EXIF data. Here is a link to the original photo, un-resized (is that even a real word?). Is the EXIF data still there? Couldn’t tell you…
“unaltered”? (as an alternative)
Quite interestingly, the Exif info is missing. Even more interestingly, the image dimensions are 2048×1536 compared to 1024×768 for the other two.
The newest photo of the deer head, although renamed, still retains its Exif info. Its size also matches the other smaller photos.
Are you sure your latest link (Craig) is not to a photo that has been blown up x2?
Strange things afoot. Adeerhead.
If you have the windows operating system, just right-click the file and choose “Properties” from the context menu. Click on the “Summary” tab and make sure the “Advanced” button has been clicked.
On a very interesting note, a recent paper has been published claiming it is now possible to confirm the source camera for digital photographs.
Handy in the criminal forensics court as the article points out, but also for cryptozoologists and similar.
Chris.
Just a little more info on images in windows xp. If you use the Fax viewer to view the images, and you rotate them, the fax viewer kindly automatically saves the rotated image so that next time you don’t have to rotate it again.
The problem is that the jpeg file format loses information each time it’s saved.
This includes both image quality and in this case (but not all cases), the Exif information.
This article from the dpreview website (an excellent digital camera review website) explains more.
Note that even viewing properties – using the steps I explained in my last comment – can lose your Exif info!
Thus – as soon as you get an image onto your PC, COPY IT! and only work with copies, never the original file.
The photo is in its native resolution. I resized the other images so they could be hosted on Cryptomundo. I uploaded the original to Texas Bigfoot so it would be available in its original “untouched” state.
Not sure about the blobsquatch….but the last few are deer….
Perhaps we should offer sasquatch amnesty with accelerated assimilation in to the endangered species program….better yet recruit them for some forestry management positions…
seeing is believing…
ole bub and the dawgs
I guess that opens another kettle of fish. Intentionally or not, the cryptid image in question has lost its Exif info – and it’s the only one which has.
Critics may see this as detracting from the authenticity of the photo, although I’m not in the least concerned – this really is a common occurance (because people aren’t aware of windows resaving your images) and it’s not surprising that the one image which is most likely to be looked at over and over and zoomed in and whatever else – that that’s the photo to lose its info.
Sorry, I missed the previous post that had the comments regarding the EXIF. But I accept that the issue has been addressed. As an avid photographer and Photoshop user, I have noticed that EXIF data is often lost after doing heavy editing of a photo. Now, this doesn’t mean that there is some intentional deception at work here, it just means that this photo was post-processed and the EXIF data was lost. I can also see how this may be a Horse. The figure seems almost too slender to be a man, much less a potential bigfoot. So yeah, it could be a horse or a deer feeding at the base of the camera, (which would jibe with the mounting height being roughly 3 feet off of the ground). One more thing I would like to know, is there any data concerning the lens aperature? What is the focus point on this lens? I would imagine that given the extended exposure time, the aperature is fairly tight, probably about F16-F20. It would make sense to have a tight aperature as that would also increase the depth of field of captured images, thereby allowing a greater range of sharpness in the images, instead of relying on an animal to cross in front of the camera at just the right focusing distance. Fascinating equipment, but with just a little work, this type of camera could be made so much better, with an autofocusing lens, variable shutter speeds and F-stops as well as varying ISO speeds. I’m surprised the engineers of the camera system hadn’t thought of that yet. Perhaps in the future we will see this sort of equipment get better and cheaper. Until then, we are faced with more and more ‘blobsquatches’ I’m afraid!
If Penn & Teller, or a similar debunker, were looking for a way to laugh at Bigfooters, they’d see how many they could fool with a picture of a “horse’s ass.” Comment would almost be superfluous.
But they’d make it anyway–boy, would they make it.
i am new to the scene here, but have been a fan of Lorens for a long time. I will post a little later about my background. I am thinking that this is a close up of a deer. But one question i have seen asked, but not answered, and forgive me if i just missed it, but why isnt the camera tripped at the first movment in its range?
I think their is no intent here to con us by Craig. Only to show something that was photographed and they sent it in to get an opinion. Clearly it is one of four things. A Horse, Deer, Man in a suit or the real Thing. I believe it is a deer feeding at the base of the camera myself.
I don’t think there is any intentional deception by Mr. Woolheater either. But I experimented on the deer head pic with the “Blur” tool of the software that came with my Canon A95 digital camera & easily created the illusion of something with long hair.
oops! I meant I used the “smudge” tool of my software. I also tested Daviv V.’s theory with the “blur” tool since 1 second is a very long exposure. But the results of that test weren’t even close to the image in question.
OK, changed my mind again.
The “Bigfoot” could be a horse’s head, given that the camera apparently doesn’t snap at the first movement in its range (um, why not? I thought they were supposed to, and like traveler, I presume, I’d think that if you’re trying to catch an animal that’s sure what makes sense). Only problems I’d have with that ID: (1) I see the left ear. Where’s the right ear? and (2) those are really long mane bangs, I think, for most horse breeds.
Horse’s ass? I’d doubt, as it almost requires the animal to back into the tree.
I would love to see Freelancer’s play with the “Blur” tool. I still don’t think the “cryptid” is a deer, and I’m betting you can see through the long-hair illusion pretty easily to what the thing really is. That does NOT look like motion blur to me. It looks like long, reddish-brown hair, completely frozen by the camera — which I would presume has a very fast shutter speed so as to get the most accurate image — but a bit out of focus due to extremely close range.
Much ado about very little.
And whoops here too.
“Smudge”? OK, “smudge.” Still, we’re playing with software tools rather than looking at what the lens “saw.” No one was doing “smudge” there.
I’m also having a hard time with a one-second shutter speed. I can’t believe you would get these images with that slow a speed; the blurring (with allowance for the movement of the deer)is due to lack of focus, at least on the “cryptid” and the deer’s closeup.
and a little more ado:
That could be the right leg of a Bigfoot with the belly starting to protrude at the upper right; you’re looking at about where the leg joins the body.
With a camera height of three feet, that might start making sense — although they do get bigger. 😉
The mind of the viewer gives the impression the photo has an eye on the right with long bangs hanging down when viewed on the webpage.
But; when the photo is saved and imported to photoshop7, than selecting -image / adjustments / brightness contrast and image is brightened with contrast both set to 40% you will see the illusion of the left eye is false as well as the illusion of an ear.
Now the image looked like a hairy left arm reaching down in front of the camera. the blur now looks like the hairy arm is moving up as something was picked up.
The picture now shows dark skinned muscle bulge on the upper left and something is pushing the branch and leaves forward to the camera causing it to become blurred.
Somebody’s pullin’ me leg here…and I think his name is lenny…
Let’s not construct cryptids in Photoshop. Bad form, bad form!
Although I’m goin’ for sas if you are, no complaint there, no ‘deedy…
All right I’m up for a lesson WHAT would be a good shutter speed and time interval between Pictures? Let us have something constructive here for those who have an idea to honestly gather some information.
Oh and best height off the ground.
OK I havn’t seen this posted yet so here it goes.
Open the photo of big hairy and the following one showing the three deer moving away from the camera with windows picture/fax viewer. Now flip rapidly between picures like a flip book. At the bottom of the pictures, notice the areas where the ground is disturbed. I believe these are foot prints. Foot prints of what, I don’t know, but they don’t look like hoof prints. It appears to me that there are three distinct prints from the bottom left to the right as if whatever is in the first pic walked away from the camera and behind the tree on the right. That is unless there is a delay and the camera was tripped whe the subject came from behind the tree on the right, but did not snap the photo until the subject was right next to the camera.
hmmm not seeing the prints….I actually saw very little disturbance at all in the ground cover. I was looking for broken sticks or anything like that that might indicate passage, but was unable to identify any. Only thing I noticed was that there was dew on the ground in the first pic, and not in the others.
*side note* i am getting some lorens a-z book from the library. they had it in the childrens nonfiction area. Is it really considered a childs book? I guess its a good thing that at least its considered nonfiction
traveler,
There actually is a stick at the base of the tree at right which is not broken but in a different position. At first I thought that the pictures were out of order because in the first picture, the stick is sort of squashed down and in the second picture it is popped up again. Then I thought someone could have kicked it or stepped next to it and another stick popped it up. Anyway, if you get the pictures to overlay perfectly then flip back at forth I think you should at least see the stick.
Why is the first pic of bigfoot zoomed in? The other pics except for the deer face contain more background.
The deer are headed away from the camera, Which one may think they came in from the left of the pic. Possibly jumping in from the bushes, thus the vertical streaks.
They also show up calmly, and unalerted, even though five minutes earlier bigfoot was present, wouldn’t they have smelled something amiss and left the scene?
I believe it is the white tail of a deers butt as it leaps into the opening of the forest.
Also, the forest floor is very undisturbed. There are thin tall stems sprouting close to the camera which are undisturbed in all photos. Untrampled greenery.
Unless one where to see more photos, which there must be. The mystery so far looks like a deers hiney.
Also if you were bigfoot you know it’s a big taboo to be captured on film. Maybe he/she was trying to turn shut the camera off. Not only that, but look at the hight it is set at, the highth of a small fawn. Around 4′ 6′
If you want to find a giant, don’t you have to look a little higher. Why wasn’t the camera up in a tree on a fish lense scaning the whole area.
Strange how research is carried out.
Wow!!! That picture is a tricky one. Because At first I thought it was the hairy guy from the Adam’s family that never got his hair cut. If you say it’s a bigfoot, then why does it seems the hair is straight and look well comb??? I thought bigfoot most likely have messy hair. But if you want to know my real thought. This image or creature shows a little flab and it perhaps a lost Orang-utan. The color of the hair is well fit. I probably match a similar image to the women that reported a skunkape that was behind her yard a night that took very close up image that was very like orang-utan but it had more of a fang and it was more upright.
I would like to see this location or camera to be adjusted more, perhaps 15 feet on the tree and tilt town downward. This camera seems like it’s 3 or 4 feet above the ground level. There are hunting tool that is like a chair that you can climb tree with and to sit on this chair. Order it and sit there for a while and place 1 or 2 cam in different angle that would monitor the surface below.
hmmm..sorry but i am not seeing a moved stick. I am seeing a color difference in one of them that i think is due to shadow differences, but not really moved stick…..maybe if u could clarify what stick u are talking about other then on the right? maybe in relation to the logs?
Looking at this photo again…I have horses and I really think it looks like a close up of a horses face ‘nosing’ the camera. I think I see a portion of ear on the upper left side of the photo,(would be the horses right side) the horses nose, and the hair looks just like the forelock of a horse. I wondered about the little bump on the right side of the picture, but have decided that it might be a sticking- out piece of a bridle.If it’s a bigfoot, he uses a de-tangler…
oops…addendum…the ‘ear’is on the right side of the photo,and would be the left side of the horses face…
I’m not entirely certain, but I think some of you are looking a little too hard for a non-human explanation for the original photo.
When I look at it, I see the back of a woman’s head, as if she were looking down the game trail after re-positioning the camera.
She’s got shorter bangs in the front (which are visible near the top of what would be her head), and the hair is even curled under slighting (as if with a curling iron) all along its edges.
For all we know, it could be the wife of the gentleman who originally submitted the photos … any word on what her hair color is?
I am new here, but noticed something right away about the photo. This “hump” is a muscle of a forearm, and there appears to be a lot of hair. The upper part of this portion, is the elbow. How high up was this camera? I am assuming that if it was high enough for a deer to peek in on it, a slightly lower than eye level for the deer, then that might be about 4 feet? Maybe if this is so then whatever’s elbow and forearm muscle is showing is about halfway up so this “thing” might have been about 6 to 7.5 feet? Just a common sense observation, but I saw the picture and right away knew I was looking at a forearm.