63 Responses to “Another Dead Bigfoot Photo?”

1. bill green responds: November 21st, 2006 at 12:14 am

   hey craig interesting photo of a possible dead sasquatch. bill

2. Tobar responds: November 21st, 2006 at 12:15 am

   That’s a new one on me. I can’t say anything definitive but it does look like it was touched up.

3. Tobar responds: November 21st, 2006 at 12:32 am

   After examining it further I’m seeing what looks to be evidence of heavy use of the cloning tool in photoshop. That and areas like the right side of his head and on the outside of the left arm below the elbow where the area is completely straight lead me to label this a forgery.

4. mrdark responds: November 21st, 2006 at 12:35 am

   That thing should be the object lesson in a ‘here’s how your Photoshopped image should NOT look’ class.

5. elsanto responds: November 21st, 2006 at 12:42 am

   How about the most obvious question… why would a hunter posing for a photo highlight the backside of such a trophy?

   “It looked too human?” Bollocks! Were that the case, he wouldn’t be strutting in front of a camera at all.

   Just my two cents.

6. joppa responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:02 am

   Let’s see, cut and paste, and get that marker thingy to make the fuzzy look. Wow what a bad fake. I wonder what was really hanging from the tree. Looks like a bear was cropped out and Mr. Deadfoot was pasted in.

7. Cryptonut responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:15 am

   Photoshopped Blobsquatch!

8. AxisboldAslove74 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:29 am

   Completely Photoshopped. Always interesting news though hearing about dead Sasquatch photographs!

9. CamperGuy responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:38 am

   I’d be surprised if it were not fake.
   Not a photo or computer type but to me the lighting is from at least two angles and knowing what a 500 pound side of beef is like to hang I have serious doubts about 800-900 pound bigfoot being hung like that.

10. Raptorial responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:58 am

    It looks to me like someone attacked a mountain gorilla with Photoshop.

11. shovethenos responds: November 21st, 2006 at 2:29 am

    I have a problem with the feet - the soles of ape feet are hairless. And from the footprint casts it is alleged that Bigfoot feet are hairless too. At least part of the soles should be visible in the photo, and they should be hairless.

    Most likely a photoshop hoax, in my opinion.

12. Dolouren responds: November 21st, 2006 at 4:37 am

    It’s interesting, but is it real or is it maybe just a good hoax?

    My tip is that this is just a hoax, because the hand and the feet of BFs are commonly hairless as shovethenos has also mentioned.

13. kittenz responds: November 21st, 2006 at 6:39 am

    I have to say it looks fake. And not even a real good fake.

14. BigfootBeliever71 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 6:59 am

    I agree with everyone, this is a fake. One of my colleagues is a computer teacher, and he was able to point out the most blatant areas of “bad” photoshopping.

15. I_M_NOT_A_Yarwen responds: November 21st, 2006 at 7:06 am

    I could change a fuzzy picture of a bear into a bigfoot using photoshop in 5 minutes and do a better job than this.

16. Riptor responds: November 21st, 2006 at 8:31 am

    I’m afraid it looks fake to me. Taking a point made by a previous comment, I have to say that it would be very unusual to take a picture of the backside of such a creature after hunting it.

    However, the size of the creature seems about right. The proportions seem accurate enough.

    It’s puzzling, but my honest opinion is that it has about 40% chance of being real.

17. thegoblinking responds: November 21st, 2006 at 8:36 am

    its is a forgery, photo shop or some other program

18. dialthree responds: November 21st, 2006 at 8:54 am

    Fake

19. fredfacker responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:15 am

    It looks like he just bagged a giant Muppet!

20. Sardokar responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:46 am

    And I don’t know if I’m hallucinating but you can almost see pointy ears on each side of the head.

21. Rustaveli responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:49 am

    This (bad) photoshop was made over the pic of a dead lion. The left paw is clearly the paw of a lion, IMHO.

22. mystery_man responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am

    Ah man, I hate to give the cliche answer here, but it really does look photoshopped. Any details on this photo whatsoever? There is absolutely no info on this photo other than who sent it in. What gives? All I can say is that at this point is that it does not look like a real animal to me.

23. kittenz responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:51 am

    Maybe it’s a dead McCoy and a live Hatfield. Or vice versa.

24. flame821 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:54 am

    Looks like a scan from an old book that was then photoshopped.

    Although playing devil’s advocate, I could see the excuse being made that the photo was taken of the backside as to not offend victorian sensibilities if the genitalia was ‘human’ looking.

25. longrifle48 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Hmm, the hunter’s dress looks circa early 1900’s. Maybe the sasquatch old Fred Beck claims to have shot and fallen over a ledge at Mt. St. Helens? How can the crypto-faithful say that this is a fake? Forget Photoshop, sounds more like jealousy it isn’t one of you in the pic.

    Have a good Thanksgiving

26. Sardokar responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:03 am

    And I must add, this one is clearly a fake but since nobody knows what a real dead bigfoot looks like, I don’t know if I’m gonna be able to tell, for sure, the difference between a “good” one versus a fake one.

27. dbard responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:07 am

    I agree with Rustaveli…looks like a big cat to me. Photoshopped for certain. Interesting to see anyway..

    Thanks Craig

28. Bonehead_AZ responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:18 am

    You know what I always think when I see these types of pics?

    That the individual who submitted it is trying to learn what people look for to determine if an image is fake, so that in the future, they can avoid detection.

    The problem with my theory is that no one seems to learn from their mistakes or anyone else’s.

    Don’t they realize the first thing that is going to happen is that someone will save it to disk and open it in a photo editing software package and look at the pixels?

    Check out the tree on the left. You can see clear areas surrounded by blurry cloning. This one is so bad, you don’t even need to look at it enlarged.

    Whomever is attempting to pass this off as a legitimate photo needs to resubmit it after they put forth a minimum of effort to hide the editing.

    I’d give this a D-.

29. mememe responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Well I can’t help thinking King Kong or mighty Joe Young (just needs a screaming woman in its left hand).

    As someone said above this is a weighty creature hanging by thin threads.

    Anyone notice how it is very fuzzy around the trees it hangs from, except the little bit of a branch on the right of the right Leg.

    As for the Hunter well I’m not saying he ain’t there but I’ve looked and I can’t see one.

30. Labyrinth_13 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:43 am

    I’ll add my vote for this being a very badly photoshopped image.

    Wow, computers are the best and worst friends of the cryptozoology world, aren’t they?

    Still fun to look at and ponder, though!

31. mystery_man responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:49 am

    Bonehead_AZ brings up quite a disturbing possibility. I find it highly plausible that a would be hoaxer might send out photos like this and prod for ways to make these illusions more believable. I think it will not work so much with the photoshop fakes, but with the man- in- suit fakes, absolutely.

32. kokodhem responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Being a Photoshop artist myself, I can agree that this has been heavily shopped. As others have said, lots of use of the clone tool and blur tool to try and cover it up.

    My guess is they started with a shot of a black bear hanging from the hind legs, then thinned and stretched it out to make it look more hominid. That’s what I’d do if I were making a fake, at least.

33. greywolf responds: November 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Well I don’t know what to think. BUT where did this photo come from? Really where did it creep on to your computer hard drives from? Some one had to put it there, or was it a real picture that someone found. I don’t know what it started out to show yet but I doubt the hunter in the photo faked it.

34. jjames1 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    I’m leaning toward an altered images of a mountain lion, as well.

    For those of you who are so quick to say how ‘easy’ this sort of image is to fake in PhotoShop, why don’t some of you show us what you can do?

35. AxisboldAslove74 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    I agree with BoneHeadAz’s hoax theory. This would be a creative method of figuring out the flaws people notice in this hoaxed image so that next time around they can be corrected. It definitely has some feline features that have been poorly edited and manipulated. I also agree with Raptorial. “It looks to me like someone attacked a mountain gorilla with Photoshop”.

36. pup responds: November 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    Well, I know more about turn-of-the-century photography than photoshop, but what’s funny is that there are features of photography from that era, except they’re in the wrong places: flare and distortion/blurriness due to a wide-open lens. Which makes me think it was created by a person who said, “hm, that indistinctness in old photos would come in handy if I photoshop it in here to hide that edge.” But it just looks silly there, because that’s not how it would happen in a real photograph.

37. BradC responds: November 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    I agree: Total BS. Look at the area where the arm of the “Bigfoot” overlaps with the hunter’s arm: It doesn’t look right at all.

38. youcantryreachingme responds: November 21st, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Gee I don’t know. I’m not so quick to agree with the digital imaging enthusiasts. What sort of qualification do you have to make the claims this is obviously digitally enhanced?

    Personally (and at a glance) the image looks fairly consistent to me.

    The pixelation can easily be explained in other ways - the source photo must be a print or negative, so you had to have scanned or photographed the source.

    JPEG files are a “lossy” format - meaning with each repeated save, information (and resolution) is lost.

    Personally I feel the tonality, pixelation and lighting are consistent across the photo. If this were fake, then I would say it’s a real photo of a staged scene.

    Can anyone say “johor”? What about the possibility this is a frame from a really old film? If it were, I’m sure someone would have commented by now.

    Perhaps the best question to ask at this point is for the backstory - even if Captain Nemo can only explain where s/he obtained the image.

    The other thing is that if you do a search for genuine attempts at digital images of unlikely creatures, you can get some awfully photorealistic results.

    If all the fraudsters are out there watching the discussion, they’ll have learned by now that you’re actually better off submitting a vague picture. Let the eyes and mind play the tricks and convince you about what you’re seeing.

    This image warrants further investigation in my opinion.

39. greywolf responds: November 21st, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    Well guys I guess a good many of you have not seen many Old pictures or glass plates..Photography back then was not a quick process in the camera it took a long time and all kinds of things could cause a flair or blur or god only knows what..I want to see the full original and an explanation were it came from..this could be it who knows.

40. youcantryreachingme responds: November 21st, 2006 at 9:16 pm

    I still think the overwhelming response has been too harsh.

    To my mind the image looks consistent in lighting, pixelation, tonality and composition.

41. shadowparks responds: November 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pm

    If you look at the arms, they are realitivly short. Most of the Sasquatch reports are described as the big guy having long arms. This is definitley a hoax.

42. shadowparks responds: November 21st, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Maybe a bear

43. youcantryreachingme responds: November 21st, 2006 at 9:55 pm

    shadowparks - just because the arms don’t match sasquatch descriptions doesn’t mean this isn’t a genuine photo of some cryptid.

44. Bonehead_AZ responds: November 21st, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    It doesn’t matter the age of the image, the plane of focus is wrong.

    If you look at the hunter, he’s in focus. The plants behind him are also in focus.

    Therefore, everything on those two planes should be in focus, as well.

    This is Photography 101.

    It doesn’t make sense that the plants which appear to be several feet behind the hunter are in focus, but the animal immediately in front of him is not.

    The first clue is the tree to the left. You’ll see that the greenery behind it is in focus — except immediately surrounding the tree. That says the tree was added. You’ll notice the same blurring on the animal as well. It appears that someone took at least two images and combined them.

    The greenery behind the hunter goes from sharply focused to extremely blurry behind the animal, then in focus again.

    If the foreground was blurry because it was not in focus, then the ground in front of the animal would graduate from blurry to sharply focused as it approached the plane of the hunter.

    It does not. If you look at that area enlarged, you can clearly see a repeating pattern which screams cloning tool.

    The head has been obviously edited. The edges are sharp and distinct but the arms (on the same plane of focus) are blurry.

    If you don’t think it is (at least) two different images, look at how the light falls on the hunter. The light is coming from his extreme right side, his left side is almost obscured by the shadows. Now, compare that to the animal. Look at how the light hits the legs. It isn’t as extreme — or as bright, but appears to be shining more directly at the animal.

45. Rillo777 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:19 pm

    Another backside of an alleged Sasquatch? I’m getting tired of being mooned by these critters. Let’s see some facial features up close and personal for once. Unless of course the “photographer”’s photoshop skills simply weren’t up to it?

46. vet72 responds: November 21st, 2006 at 11:40 pm

    Hey Bungalow Bill,
    What did you kill?
    Bungalow Bill.

47. springheeledjack responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 am

    As heavy as a real bigfoot might be standing at eight feet tall or better, chances of someone hoisting it upside down is a lot more work than turning it around and shoving it against a tree to get a decent picture of it.

48. springheeledjack responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 am

    One more thought, this is the kind of stuff that is making sifting through photos and pictures so hard for the crypto—having to wade through so much garbage…and with the enhancements of computer applications, it is only going to get easier and easier to manipulate and doctor photos so as to make any photo, genuine or not, hard to count on as solid evidence.

    Back in the early days all we had to worry about was Weatheralls making fake footprints with hippo umbrella stands (I know I should have used a BF reference, but can’t remember the names of the dudes who run around making fake tracks). Now it is getting easier and easier for the hoaxer to waste our time with proverbial wild Sasquatch chases.

49. scotto responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 am

    Well, the feet are out of focus, but so is everything else on the top of the pic. The way the light is shining on the leg on the right seems about right, but not the other leg.
    It just seems off, like layered on top of the older pic.

50. SJC1264 responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 7:06 am

    I hope the day comes when a legit photo shows up. I’ve grown tired of seeing images and then the whole lot just rip everything apart. I guess the only way to satisfy the masses is to find one alive and ship it carnival like across the country.

51. YourPTR! responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 am

    Cute but quite obvious fake I feel.

52. CRH responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Working as I do in the creative end of advertising and publishing, all I can say is ‘SHOPPED!

    Any hunter in that situation would have taken the body to the nearest newspaper/circus/museum of curiosities and retired handsomely on the proceeds.

    While the photo could have languished in someone’s dusty old shoebox until now, stories of such import would be difficult to keep quiet.

53. longrifle48 responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 10:59 am

    All these internet armchair experts, passing judgment on a pic..of something most in here have never seen, for real!

    Tragic, this is spectacular evidence that there is (or was) something out there!

54. Riptor responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Longrifle48, I suppose you have already seen one for real?

    Nobody in here is saying that there isn’t something out there, or we wouldn’t be posting on a Cryptozoology site.
    Everybody’s opinion should be heard and that’s exactly what these forums are for, whether they know what they’re talking about or not.

    Sure some pictures are obviously shopped or fake, others are inconclusive and other still look pretty real. We are here exactly to debate on those issues.

    So please, try and respect everybody’s opinion. Unless you have conclusive proof that everybody is wrong, try not to call them ignorant indirectly.

    No disrespect intended.

55. NCRYPTID responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    I have real issues with the focus aspects as well, if someone could give a plausible explanation why there is so much discrepancy on the same planes and only around certain objects I’d be more open to changing my opinion (for what little it’s worth) that this is indeed the work of Monsieur Magasin dePhoto

56. mememe responds: November 22nd, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    There seem to be a lot of Arm Chair experts desperate to accept anything as proof something maybe out there.

    Fuzzy blobs, Doctored pics, wooden feet.

    They call the real search into question with their blinkered view.

57. captiannemo responds: November 23rd, 2006 at 7:11 am

    I am sorry for the poor quality of this photo after a few years the quality has degraded.

    It has been stored on the hardrives of my wifes computers and transfered to my laptop. This picture was found on the internet a few years back and when I first downloaded it, the picture was much clearer. I had no idea this picture was not seen before. After several computer hard drive issues on my wife’s old computers, I thought this old picture was worth saving. I thought it would be a good idea to send it to Cryptomundo and share it before my wife’s old PC crashed for good. Thanks to all who posted their comments. I hope someone who has the original will post it again so we all can get a better look at it.

58. longrifle48 responds: November 23rd, 2006 at 8:05 am

    I was just joking about an obviously tampered with photo though at no time, did I call anyone ignorant. And yeppers, you betcha, I, along with 2 other military police, did see a critter at Ft. Lewis, WA in 1984. Immediately deemed classified (at the time).

    Hehehe, enjoy turkey day

59. Ian Sallis responds: November 23rd, 2006 at 8:18 am

    It is a fake I think. Why would a large unknown ape have paws?

60. Riptor responds: November 23rd, 2006 at 9:33 am

    longrifle48, that explains it.

    Didn’t mean to offend you in any way, just probably misunderstood what you wrote. Thought you were calling people ignorant by using the expression “armchair experts”.

    Hope to see something some day that will be deemed “classified” as well.

    Enjoy Thanksgiving.

61. mystery_man responds: November 23rd, 2006 at 10:26 am

    I don’t know much about photoshop, but it seems that a lot of qualified people here, in photoshop, old fashioned photography, etc, are saying that in their educated opinion, it is indeed a fake. I’m weighing that against any evidence that it might be real and I’m really leaning towards fake on this one. It would be really cool if it were real, no doubt, but I just feel that we shouldn’t let our hope cloud our judgment here.

62. JacinB responds: November 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    captainnemo wrote:
    “I am sorry for the poor quality of this photo after a few years the quality has degraded.

    “It has been stored on the hardrives of my wifes computers and transfered to my laptop. This picture was found on the internet a few years back and when I first downloaded it, the picture was much clearer.”

    Alright, this is where I call BS on the whole thing.

    I’ve worked with computers for more than 15 years now. I’ve done a lot of graphics work. I’ve had a lot of work that had to be saved from one machine to another.

    At no point during the process does a picture ‘degrade’ simply because it was transferred from one disk to another. Take any picture, transfer it to a floppy disc, then back to your harddrive, then back to the floppy ad infinitum and it’ll remain the same quality that it was when you first transferred it.

    It was a try (albeit not enough to qualify as a ‘nice’ one), but you’ve just cemented that you’ve attempted a poor hoax with an impossibly implausible ‘excuse’ for the quality of your photo, cap’n.

63. little fierce responds: December 7th, 2006 at 8:06 am

    It has definitely been touched up on photoshop.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|