What Is It? New Photo Mystery: Braxton Beast
Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 9th, 2005
What Is It? “Braxton Beast” Photo Mystery
A startling new camera trap photograph of what appears to be an unknown bipedal creature has been shared with Cryptomundo by a reader. Taken literally days ago, the West Virginia photograph of the “Braxton Beast” was “captured” in a county with a well-known history of bizarreness.
The Cryptomundo correspondent, a 27-year-old gentleman, Frederick B. Gerwig, sends along this information in his initial email to me earlier this week: “Here is a picture that my father’s wildlife camera (motion activated) took around 12/07/05. We are not sure what it is, but it doesn’t look human. It very well could be a hunter or something, however, my father’s property is posted and this is a wildlife feeding site approximately 400 yards from their Braxton County, WV home. The proportions seem very strange as compared to those of a human. It is possible that it is low light distortion, but it seems very curious. Sorry the picture is so small. The camera he uses is somewhat low tech to prevent theft as it stays stationed at this location all the time until he picks it up to download and review the pictures on his PC. Let me know what you think…we are baffled by this image.”
In a follow-up email, in answer to several questions I had, Mr. Gerwig writes: “I think I mentioned earlier that this camera is unmanned as to not disturb the animals that come in to feed. There are many rock overhangs and crevices in this area that this thing might be using for shelter. In fact, approximately 100 ft in the direction in which the entity is walking there is a large rock overhang we used to get under to get out of the rain when I played in these woods as a child. It looks straight over my parents house. Behind the entity is an incline to the ridge line of the mountain and a large rock wall with a drop of several hundred feet. P. S. – In case I failed to mention in the initial email, my father’s property is posted for no trespassing, very few individuals are permitted to be in those woods.”
Braxton County, West Virginia, is the site of the “Braxton County Monster” reports of September 12, 1952, otherwise known as the “Flatwoods Monster” or “Green Monster” encounter.
Less well-known is an encounter in this general area that took place in 1960. At 11:00 P.M., Friday, December 30, 1960, bakery deliveryman Charles Stover rounded a curve on a lonely, backwoods road near Hickory Flats, West Virginia – between Braxton and Webster Counties – and saw a “monster, standing erect, with hair all over its body.” Stover said that he almost hit the thing and stopped his bakery truck a short distance away to look back. The hairy, six-foot-tall, man-shaped figure stood beside the road watching him. He stepped on the gas and finally stopped at a restaurant-filling station where he told his story to a group of men. They immediately armed themselves and went to the spot. They found strange marks on the ground and a large rocks had been overturned by something. But the creature was never found.
What do you think is shown in this new photograph of what I am dubbing the “Braxton Beast”?
Shown is the original photograph and a closeup of the image of the “Braxton Beast” captured on film.
Copyright 2005 Frederick B. Gerwig. Permission to publish granted to Cryptomundo.com
Photo enhancements by W.M. Mott available on Cryptomundo here.
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.
Couldn’t this simply be a falling leaf that has been blurred due to its close proximity to the photographer…the color is similar to the leaves already on the ground. Thanks
Scott Maruna
Need to have someone stand in the same location and have the camera shoot them, to get a gauge of height. Also, how obvious is the location of the camera? If someone wanted to hoax you, would it be readily apparent where it is mounted, or is it mentioned among friends?
Thoughts.
Thanks for this very interesting photo!
As I point out in the book Caverns, Cauldrons, and Concealed Creatures, the areas of West Virginia were many sightings of anomalous creatures occur are densely cavernous areas.
I found this of interest:
“There are many rock overhangs and crevices in this area that this thing might be using for shelter. In fact, approximately 100 ft in the direction in which the entity is walking there is a large rock overhang we used to get under to get out of the rain when I played in these woods as a child.”
“Crevices” may very well lead to caves and deeper karst and cavern systems.
While bipedal, the creature does not look like a human being in a costume. The body proportions are wrong. Also, the stance or posture is very strange, with the arms stiffly at the sides (as if it is used to moving through tight spaces most of the time?).
One can almost see low-set ears or horns, as well, at about shoulder-level in the picture. The neck seems non-existent.
It would be good to know the approximate height of the creature. If Mr. Gerwig would go and take a photo of someone standing in the same spot as the anomalous “thing,” taken from approximately the same location as the auto camera, that would help a lot. Determining the size might rule out a hoax or a human being.
-W.M. Mott
I’m with scottmaruna on this one. It just looks like a falling leaf to me.
The leaf idea is a valid one, but for one thing–the object appears to be behind the edge of the nearest tree, therefore far too large to be a leaf.
-W.M. Mott
Is there any way to get a higher-resolution version of these images. The grainy pixels make it hard to distinguish the depth-perspective of this image.
Note the termination of the ‘arms’ at the sides.
They are exactly, perfectly even–perhaps TOO even and level.
This could not be a leaf–and it may be a hoax perpetrated on the owner of the camera.
-W.M. Mott
Blowing it up in Photoshop, there seems to be a definite motion blur, particularly on the foremost (left) leg.
There’s just not enough data overall.
-W.M. Mott
try magnifying the image…it becomes clear then that this is not a tree, but a tree stump and the stump actually terminates BELOW the orange image…it seems to me that (when magnified) the orange object (a leaf) just seems to happen to have a sharp edge (or so it would appear to in the low resolution pixilation) that aligns and corresponds (roughly) to the stump below it. Just above the stump — directly to the right of the orange leaf — you can see in magnification that it matches the wooded background rather than the stump below it. It just looks like it is behind a tree…it is an illusion.
Thanks
Scott Maruna
Yes, a stump–but it still looks like it is behind it to some slight degree, not an illusion in that regard.
I could be wrong, and it may be a leaf after all!
More data is needed. An additional photo, of someone standing in the “spot” where “it” seems to be standing, would help a lot.
The “arms” still bother me. They just look too contrived.
-W.M. Mott
If it were a leaf, shouldn’t the whole things show motion blur and not just parts of it?
I don’t know what it is, but I’m leaning _against_ leaf at the moment.
It’s a low quality, highly compressed picture of something that is the colour and shape of a leaf. It’s probably a hairy orange monster.
I would have to say this is a fake picture, the only thing that is really a blur is the so called creature in this picture.
It’s difficult to say exactly what this is.
I’d rule out the “falling leaf” theory because the “leaf” is blocked by the foreground tree (notice the edge of the tree creates a straight line edge).
The “leaf” would have to be enormous in that case.
Also, the “creature” is blurred. This, I believe is caused by the focal plane of the camera. Notice how sharp the foreground tree is, as compared to the background imagery.
All that said, digital compression artifacts could have made a leaf that was perfectly aligned to the edge of that tree appear to have the same edge.
This would (at least to our perception) place it behind the tree.
The odds against this are pretty high, considering:
The leaf would have had to align itself to the tree’s edge at the exact moment the camera’s shutter was activated.
Of course, I’m not sure how that stacks against the odds of a big orange bipedal creature tramping around in the woods.
Maybe it’s just some cold, bundled up deer hunter in orange ‘safety’ camo…
Looking at what appears to be a split wood pile to the left in the original image, and assuming that the logs were cut with even the largest of wood stoves in mind, each of those splits are probably 24″ in length. Your monster is short. Pa needs to upgrade his camera.
If Loren will post it, I’ve sent him a digital study of the ‘creature’ and the tree stump.
It is definitely behind the tree, but that does not tell us what it is. Not a leaf, though. There is no doubt about that, according to digital edge-detection.
-W.M. Mott
Here’s my argument for why this is most likely a leaf. If this is a motion activated camera, then surely there would have been images of when the ‘creature’ was just to the right of the tree?
This makes sense for it being a falling leaf as it would have only captured the image a second or two after it entered the frame (with it being a more ‘budget’ camera), which would place it a little under halfway into the frame.
Just my thoughts. Interesting image though…
If this is a clearing, with a single tree stump in it, then where is the leaf falling from? Also, given the low resolution of the camera, it’s hard to say whether the “leaf” is behind the stump or just extremely close or tangent to it.
Spitfirelance,
It does look “short,” maybe only a few feet tall.
That’s why we need another photo with a human being standing in the same location, for comparison.
-W.M. Mott
Actually, to me, it looks like the rear end of a deer that has just jumped into frame. The front part of the deer is hidden by the tree. Interesting photo though. At what intrival is this camera set to take photos after one has already been taken?
Surely if the “motion activated” camera is triggered by falling leaves then Pa Gerwig’s camera will be snapping thousands of similar images each day. It is, after all, in a forest.
Wouldn’t a quick examination of his photo album to ascertain whether 97% of his shots are of falling leaves be sufficient to confirm or refute this hypothesis?
The monster seems to have bright pink fur — Easter Bunny, case closed.
I am skeptical of this image, here are a few reasons why:
JPEG artifacts missing in the “beast”:
Look carefully throughout the image – particularly in the leaves and the tree surrounding the person. Notice the JPEG artifacts caused by the compression? There are no artifacts in the image – possibly because it was composited in. In areas where there is not a sharp color contrast, you wont expect to see as many artifacts – but in the areas such as the blur behind the “leg” you will notice that there are no artifacts there – where there should be.
The proportions are not right for it to be a capable bipedal animal. The legs are obviously jointed (based on the bend of the “knee”) but the entire length of the leg is smaller than the height of the torso. This proportion would make the animal very unstable in motion.
If you were to give me the full image – I could give you a much better analysis. Things I would look for: Overall histogram of the “guy” to examine random noise distribution. Then look at the overall histogram of another region and look at the noise distribution. I would then play around a lot with the curves – because usually when people stitch together composites they aren’t able to get the noise composited correctly – and if you tweak the curves you can really make that stand out.
Of course, if it did turn out to be true it would be hilarious. Just imagine: A stumpy red guy frolicking around in the wilderness.
Loren,
I HAVE IDENTIFIED YOUR CREATURE.
Instead of using the blown-up version provided, I took the “original” photo, which you will note has different color and intensity altogether.
After extrapolating it up in Photoshop, with NO FILTERING OF ANY KIND, certain artifacts showed clearly, along with the EXTREMELY BRIGHT ORANGE COLOR.
It is a FIRE PHOTOGRAPHED IN DAYLIGHT. Look below!
I HOPE YOU POST THE PHOTO!
-Mike
Interesting image. I’m struck by how stiff armed the figure appears. It reminds me of someone who is either chilled to the bone or dragging a load. I don’t know how prevalent blaze orange is among hunters in this locale, { I’m in northern Ontario}, but I suspect this is what we’re looking at.
Any other pictures of the object as it passed in front of the camera
Are there any pictures of falling leaves setting off the motion detector?
I think its a hunter carrying a dead deer
Check this out
BTW, it can NOT be the rear part of a deer.
The only species of deer east of the Mississippi is the White-Tailed variety–which would rule this out for certain.
It’s a fire, no doubt about it.
W.M. (Mike) Mott
It’s a blurry leaf.
For those who doubt it is a leaf look at the ground between the camera and the stump and you will see that there are leaves on the ground. I suspect that the camera is mounted on a tree, so the leaf could have fallen from almost directly above it.
Z.
Edge detection rules out a leaf.
The images should be posted soon.
You will clearly see the characteristics of a leaping flame.
-W.M. Mott
In fact, you will be able to see, very well, the “orangish glow” from the fire itself, in the background.
You can see this already to some extent in the smaller, original photo which has the original color, already on the page. The background region of ground has an “orange glow” from the fire.
The color in the larger zoomed image has been altered completely from that of the smaller original.
-W.M. Mott
Looks like a browsing cervine seen head on, maybe a seriously foreshortened whitetail. Carries its tail up, head down. The color is weird. Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not just a refugee from PhotoShop, maybe what you’re seeing is low-angle red light reflected from the animal’s pelt. There are lots of red tones in the deeper trees, indicating sunset or sunrise. What is the area in the right treeline?
It is rather interesting, I could see this being a leaf cought just at the right time falling from the trees, it is very “human” looking in form, but it shows the same coloration as the leafs on the ground…I dont think its a sasquatch, way to orange, could be simply a hunter wearing an orange hunter suit and hat. The quality of the picture is not very good, the colors look very oversaturated which could be why the “hunter” seems a bit more orange than he should be…no detail at all, cant see any face features. I dont see a gun or pack or anything…there is some shadows appearing were the chest and crotch would be, could very well be a hoax as well…or simply an Elmer Fudd looking dude packing the hindquarters of a deer out…Why are these things always blurry??
Can’t be a deer, because it does not have the white-tail characteristic it would have to have, being in West Virginia.
See the photos here.
When the tail is raised, even if seen from the side, the white tufts will always show.
Click on the photo of the bounding deer where it says “Behavior” for a larger photo.
The “flag” will always show. The raised area people are thinking is a “tail” has no white on it at all.
See the actual flame with true color from the original small photo, along with flame characteristics, here.
Thanks, Loren and Craig Woolheater!
-W.M. Mott
I think it’s a person wearing a vest (hence white sleeves/arms), with hands in pockets (hence termination of arms), and a bit of a beer belly.
I would guess the submitter blurred the image.
Your looking at the arse end of a deer guys.
Looks like a dog, maybe part Irish Setter.
wmmott,
I think the owner of the land/motion detector/camera would have known about a fire at that spot. Unless you think it was a sasquatch which spontaneously combusted I don’t believe your theory can explain much.
Loren –
Found your interesting blog while searching the internet for stories for a show we are producing for The Learning Channel. I was wondering if you could put me in contact with Frederick so that I might ask him some questions about his photos.
I think all the theories that everyone has been discussing are very interesting and I’m excited to see if the mystery is solved as more information surfaces.
Matt
[email protected]
“Arse end of a deer?” There are no deer native to the eastern USA that have a rear like that. Sorry, wrong. To say otherwise is…Well, you get the idea.
Only white-tails are indigenous to the region, and what you think is a tail is the top of a flame. See any large area of white fur? No? Then it’s not a deer.
Dog? No dog-like features, at all. Not one.
A person with hands in pockets? Maybe. Where’s the face? What’s with the top of the head? If you say that someone “blurred the image,” are you pointing out that it could be a hoax? I still lean toward it being a hoax regardless of what it is–and I’ve been camping enough to know what a fire looks like when its leaping about on a dim day. The edges of the flames also have the usual characteristics of a photographed fire.
Fire? How do we know that we have the whole story? We don’t. But it looks like a fire in the data from the original photo, from the color and motion, even down to the glow it projects.
“Spontaneously combusted bigfoot?” Makes about as much sense as any other guesses put forth so far.
The only way it could be a hunter would be if he is two or three feet in height.
In the original photo, you can see the woodpile already mentioned, over to the right–not large pieces of wood, and not tall at all. It is approximately the same height as the ‘creature’.
The size of the leaves on the ground give away the size of the woodpile (and the “creature”), in the full frame picture.
If its a fire, whats the fuel source?
That’s gotta be a canine, kids – it’s tough to tell the breed from all the pixellation and color saturation, but I can see either:
– a front view of a pooch with a German Shepherd/wolf-like muzzle, a lighter colored ear silhouette looking to the left (his right), a high-held tail, a lighter colored edge of fur on the right thorax (on the animal’s left) and what appears to be a front left leg crossing over it’s right one (no hind legs in sight)
or
– a rear-facing view of a collie, golden retriever, or setter type dog, again with a high-held tail and white fur on the side (this time on it’s right), with the right rear leg in motion and visible over the left (again, the other pair is obscured) – could be a wild cur of some kind, too…feral dogs on all continents tend to take on a generic light-brown, dingo-ish look after several generations of mixing.
Lastly, note the proportions of the creature to the sticks and leaves on the ground and the woodpile to the right – they simply are NOT in line with that of a humanoid-sized being, even though the closeup of the creature and it’s “fleshy” color tones would lead you to think otherwise.
I GIMPed this like crazy, and got results similar to the ones posted on the other page, but when pulling back and looking at the entire pic again, the “canine coming from/going to the woods” theory seems to make the most sense.
I would guess something along the lines of a golden retriever/irish setter mix, with long reddish gold fur.
I see the dog’s right leg trailing, and appearing to be crossing the left leg, due to the camera angle. At the top of the figure is a long bushy tail, which has just finished swinging to your left, and is beginning its wag to the right. When this happens, the tip of the tail leads, while the feathers of the middle fan out to the left as the tail sweeps to the right.
It’s the right color, size, scale (as measured against the woodpile to the right), and a plausible animal in a plausible scenario (nothing would attract a dog more than the various tracks and smells of a wildlife feeding station).
Dog butt. No question about it.
The color has to be off. If you look at the more orangeish leaves on the ground they look an off color orange as well.
In my opinion the dog and deer explanations aren’t plausible. The fire theory also seems unlikely, because things look dry enough that a significant portion of the woods would have went up too. Plus the camera’s owner should have seen and/or smelled a scorched area when picking up the camera.
I’m skeptical of the height guesses, I don’t know how anyone can credibly claim the 2-4′ range that’s been suggested.
As for bipedal cryptid that’s pretty sketchy, but there’s not many explanations left. There’s not much arm swing but the arms might be long enough. Could be someone in suit. On the other had there have been a lot of reports of very hippy and floppy breasted females.
The head seems oddly peaked and elongated. Maybe camera distortion or a hood.
If it is a fire (which I still believe, at this point), it seems to be situated behind a slight rise in the ground. When you blow up the entire pic you can see it pretty well.
As for fuel, wood would be the logical candidate, if it’s a campfire.
The bright orange color is the correct, original color. I don’t know why the provided, cropped enlargement would have a completely different color table/histogram (which it does), unless someone has intentionally tampered with. The brightness and contrast on that one have been altered, too–both of them lowered. This is not just something that happens when the picture is extrapolated up, but has to be done by attempts to adjust the picture.
So the larger provided pic was altered in both its color table and brightness and contrast. Why? In the enlargement, yellow was removed overall and blue was added (or left as a result), giving it a “pink” look. The other adjustments left it “washed out.”
This would have effectively removed many of the characteristics of flame.
The enlargement I created from the original was not altered in any way whatsoever, other than size. Therefore the color, intensity of color, brightness and contrast stayed accurate to the smaller original. It looks completely different than the “provided” enlargement.
Dim orange color of flames? Good examples of photos taken of fires in daylight (orange with low glow):
Fire 1
Fire 2
Fire 3
…and even at night:
Fire 4
Fire 5
Fire 6
Fire 7 (Great example)
Fire 8
Fire is very organic, and one can see “living things,” faces, etc. in them all the time as our internal “pattern recognition software” is activated.
Here’s a ‘little man’ with two legs, shoulders, head, hair, and an arm and fist cocked in defiance
Here’s a ‘horned devil’
Standing ‘creature,’ above ‘jack o’lantern face’
Devil Fire Sprite’
Fireplace things
‘Fire demon’
Fire spirit
Fire sprite
Entity
Fireplace Faces’
‘Diablo in the Flames’
Murderer’s Ghost’
‘Campfire Demons’ with axe
Nice fur, or hair-do
Crouching with long hair blowing back
Another ‘walker’, hair blowing, bending over and showing a saucy rear-end, later time of day so flame is brighter:
Not a flame, but a monstrous hand
Low-contrast, solid-looking flame things
Two figures, one with a “humanlike face”, arm and shoulder
‘Alien’ flame with head and neck
Woman with large posterior, hula dancing?
Pregnant and brooding?
The nag?
Waving, with hair sticking up
German shepherd? Coyote? Wolf? Panting? Nah, just fire
Goblin and horse?
Jackrabbit crouching?
Short guy in a hole, waving
Creature-like
The giant aardvark! Are those ears, or a rider, reading?
The vulture
Head of the baboon!
Symmetry? The devil with curving horns
again
The old man reads the paper
Tricorn hat and beard?
Swaying figure
Many of the “figures” in those pics are not at all dissimilar to the one in the picture in question.