Michigan UP Sasquatch Photo?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 31st, 2016


From Mitchell: “My sister shared this photo with me taking somewhere in the U.P. Michigan”. Wow! Very interesting!

Submitted to Bigfoot Evidence.

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.

13 Responses to “Michigan UP Sasquatch Photo?”

  1. airforce47 responds:

    This photo as it is looks like it might be legit. Notice the angle of the left leg which is something we would expect from the structure of the species. This photo is a good one for MK Davis to look at and do some filtering for detail.

    We can expect more of these as digital devices continue to proliferate and come down in cost. Too bad this one isn’t in high resolution as really fine detail from the backside could reveal alot. My best

  2. PhotoExpert responds:

    Hmmm, could be anything from a bear to a person in a suit to an alleged Bigfoot. Interesting photo!

    One must use logic when trying to analyze these types of photos. I always start with the given. Since we do not see the head of this creature, it either has no head or is obscured due to the angle of the photo. Common sense tells me the head is obscured in the photo and what I am viewing is the back end of the creature.

    Assuming the photo is not digitally enhanced and taking in account it is legitimate, we can deduct some things from looking at the photo. What we do know is that there is a 55 gallon metal barrel in the photo laying on it’s side. The diameter of a 55 gallon drum is 22.5 inches and 33.5 inches long. Fortunately, we also see that what appears to be the left hind leg of the subject is parallel to the barrel and bent at a 45 degree angle. It is approximately half the width of the diameter of the barrel or 11.25 inches in length. Taking into account the angle, that would give a measurement from the bottom of the creature’s foot to the knee bend, of approximately 19″ to 20″, allowing for deviance.

    With that being said, the measurement from the bottom of my foot to my knee bend is 20 inches. I am not 7 feet tall or greater. In fact here is a chance for a participatory exercize. Take off your shoes and with a yardstick, measure the distance from the bottom of your foot to the bend in your knee. What measurement do you get?

    Also, the subject in this photo does not seem to be much longer than the height of a metal drum which is roughly 33 inches high. I estimate the length of the subject at about 4′ without the head. Add in another 1′ foot the head measurement and this subject is estimated at 5′ or less in length.

    My guess given the limited data is that it is not a person in a suit, nor would I guess it is a new unknown headless creature. All reports I hear of on Bigfoot are that it is a bipedal creature and this creature appears to get around on 4 legs. We only see three visible legs in the photo but common sense rules the day and tells me there must be a fourth leg to the subject in the photo, even though it is not visible due to the angle of this photo. Since all reports I have read on Bigfoot is that the creature ranges from 6.5′ tall to normally in the 7′ to 9′ range, with some being reported as tall as 12′, I would expect the measurement from the knee bend to the foot, to be well over 20 inches. Yet we do not get that measurement here. Some may argue it is a juvenile Bigfoot.

    I would argue, given the facts and data, this is a photo of a bear! That is my opinion. This is an interesting photo of a bear!

  3. KnuckleHead responds:

    It’s a bear plain and simple. Take off the Bigfoot goggles on this I want the real deal as much as the next guy, but this is not it.

  4. RandyS responds:

    Bear. If you enlarge the photo, it’s pretty clear that the creature sports a short tail. Another argument against it being a bigfoot are the apparently narrow shoulders. One of the constant features mentioned in eyewitness accounts (and seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film) is that sasquatch have wide shoulders.

  5. cryptokellie responds:

    Assuming that this image is not a hoax – this is a bear. Save and enlarge the image. It has a tail.

  6. BronzeSteel responds:

    98% sure it’s a bear, that 2 % of other options is interesting.

    Legit picture.

  7. Goodfoot responds:

    It seems anatomically incongruent with bear, Bigfoot AND human-in-a-suit, but I’m pretty sure it’s one of the three. DUH!

    No matter which it is, there’s trouble – someone or something has uncovered the hidden Applejack stash!

  8. Goodfoot responds:

    PhotoExpert: for the record, I do not believe reports of 12′ Bigfoots. Caloric requirements aside, something that tall is in for a rough go running through dense pine and hardwood forests.

  9. dconstrukt responds:

    LOL… its a bear

    you can tell in seconds. if you think its otherwise, man… then we really know you’re drinking the kool aid… 🙂

    you can tell because the back on a bear is naturally hunched over (cuz it walks on 4 legs)…. and you can see it in this photo… head is down, left front paw is up and it’s turned slightly left.

    nothing to see people…

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–I have even heard reports of 14 footers. So 12 foot seems within the range.

    There are so many reports of alleged Bigfoots. And although some of the those reports could be hoaxers, misidentifications, delusional witnesses, etc–I find it difficult to believe all reports of them fall in these categories. I think there is something to it.

    The most compelling proof of existence of BF is the PG footage. Amazing video that always leaves me mesmerized. And of course there are people who I wholeheartedly believe their accounts such as you and Craig Woolheater. I find you both extremely credible! I take you both at your word and believe you experienced what you experience. No doubt in my mind.

    The lack of photographic evidence does not bother me in the least. In fact, I wrote a post here explaining why photographic and video evidence has been scant. As a professional, I understand why it would almost be impossible to get a clear shot or photo. I would not expect it. When I hear the voices from the skeptics’ camp asking why there is no photographic evidence, I always want to laugh at them for being so smug and foolish. That is when I decided to do that post here. I believe eyewitness testimony counts for something. Skeptics always try to discount this and ask the question, “Why are there never any clear photographs.” Idiots! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those with greater knowledge know why there are no clear photographs.

  11. Goodfoot responds:

    PhotoExpert: But they ARE clear photos! The problem is that Bigfoots are blurry!

  12. KnuckleHead responds:

    Showed it to my wife and she said why are you showing me a picture of a bear butt

  13. Cherry Garcia responds:

    Sadly I too think it is a bear. It was a fun few seconds of pure hope for me. ?

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.