Cryptomundo » Idaho Bigfoot Photo?

Idaho Bigfoot Photo?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 16th, 2006

Is this a photo of an actual Bigfoot?

Click image for full photo

This image was shared by Daniel Perez of the Bigfoot Times.

A reporter shot this image of what may well be Bigfoot. This picture was taken in the woods near New Meadows, Idaho in 1972. New Meadows is roughly 60 miles north of Boise, Idaho.

I have no further information for this photo, nor does Daniel. Maybe someone out there in Cryptmundo-land knows something about this photo? If so, please share it with us here.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 16th, 2006 at 8:16 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Bigfoot Report, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Public Forum, Sasquatch. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

29 Responses to “Idaho Bigfoot Photo?”

Chymo responds: June 16th, 2006 at 8:36 am
I’ve spent 20 years collecting info on Bigfoot & I’ve never seen this clipping before.

Interesting. Arms look rather short.

Very indistinct. Would be good to get hold of the original.
fredfacker responds: June 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Is he using a handrail? That photo’s so bad it could be Nixon walking through a garden and up to a podium to make his re-election speech, and he wouldn’t be recognizable.
stonelk responds: June 16th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I think it is better than the other photos that were posted here in the last week.The arms are short but I have seen humans with short arms. Could be a birth defect.
CryptOH responds: June 16th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Would like to know more of how it came to his attention. If a fake, I would think it would have been shown off immediately, or retaken for a better effect. It does look a bit odd. But how can we be so positive of what it should look like? The shorter arm on the right side seems to be the result of the creature hunching it up and leaning a bit, perhaps the result of uneven ground. At least it is more debateable than some of the more recent obvious fakes that have surfaced.
Cutch responds: June 16th, 2006 at 10:09 am
This could be ANYTHING.
Illuvatar responds: June 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Looks a bit strange, I can almost see a shirt. It doesn’t look like it’s covered with hair which is pretty much a given with most sightings. But you can pretty much see anything with this bad qaulity. Talking about 70’s sightings anyone ever heard of a certain Dr. Baddour and his zoobies. I live near the alleged sighting and I was going to look into it. Anyone know anything not in the BFRO report that would help?
Jeremy_Wells responds: June 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
The monochromatic palette makes it really hard to tell, for instance, where the “head” ends and the underbrush of the background begins.

Was this reporter shooting black and white? I know there was color film in the 70s (I’ve got all these childhood phtos that have gone largely “red” over time, but you can still tell they were originally “color”), but many of the archive photos I’ve found in newspapers I worked for were taken in black and white, especially before instant process “photo flow” machines were common and news photographers actually spent time developing photos in the darkroom.
I’d love to see the original, but if it is a black and white, it may not be any more crisp than this one.
Dudlow responds: June 16th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Blobsquatch! The only person who would know anything about this photo or the subject in this photo is the person who took the photo - without the first hand account of the photographer we have no provenance and therefore no credibility.
Dudlow
twblack responds: June 16th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I agree with #8 nothing here but a blobsquatch. The only thing that would help here is the orig. negative and the reporter who snapped the pic. W/o that not anything here that is concrete Evid. of real or hoax.
Beansly responds: June 16th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Neat looking, but that could be anything from a drawing to a watermark of Mary on a wall, considering the quality of the picture. Too bad.
chrisandclauida2 responds: June 16th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
your all missing a very importiant find. this is the only know photo of a shapshifting bigfoot just starting to shape shift. dont believe me. just ask beckjord. after all he is a legend in his own mind. the size of the mind or legend are up for discussion as the actual working brain cells are limited.
Anadae responds: June 17th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Sorry, peops, but this godawful photo, and I’ll ditto that sneering Nixon retort, too, is, despite its godawfulness (poor resolution, graininess, out-of-focusness), a backwoods camper, scampering through the underbrush in his altogether.

No, repeat, no alleged witnesses to our primate cousin are described with shoulder-length, ringletted, wavy tresses, as this bipedal figure possesses.
insane visions responds: June 17th, 2006 at 8:59 am
i say its a fake
and i am the gulliable type!!
cause its arms are to short and it looks pretty darn small….
Zerath responds: June 17th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Most likely a fake.
RavenMadd responds: June 17th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
wow to wait so many years later to this?
I’ve seen better pics…. its better than the last few shots put out there
hiram responds: June 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
The photo is vintage, and the subject area was obviously cropped and enlarged. The original negative would show that the photographer was quite a distance from the subject. There are sufficient details in the enlargement to conclude:
1) The right arm is slightly elevated, causing it to look shorter than it actually is;
2) The right hand is clearly shown to be just that, a primate hand;
3) The position of the arms, legs and torso are reflect a large primate in hurried bipedal travel,
3) The overall shape of the body is that of a large primate; and,
3) There is nothing in the photo that indicates the figure is one type of primate disguised as another.

Is the photo clear evidence of the sasquatch? No. Is it a blobsquatch? Certainly not!
footmonkey responds: June 18th, 2006 at 1:56 am
I’ve seen this photo before as a kid in my dads old National geographic magazines it is of a native mud mask dance.
hiram responds: June 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Can you remember about what year that was? Just approximately?
Walter responds: June 18th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Footmonkey’s right. I’ve seen a similar photo in NG. About 72 or 73. I remember the natives where wearing huge masks made of mud. Probably a cropped picture from the magazine.
hiram responds: June 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
While photographs of the “Mud Men” from the area of Chimbu, Papua New Guinea have always been interesting to look at, I believe the unrelated photo that Craig posted shows a creature which is more intriguing and more enigmatic.
goerman responds: June 18th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I see we have another CryptoTattler
exclusive! Our online cryptozoology tabloid does it again. No waiting in checkout lines here.

First came “New Mt. Hood Bigfoot Photograph?” and then “Amazing Nebraska Cryptid Photo.” Now we have “Idaho Bigfoot Photo?”

I don’t know which is worse… the quality of these “remarkable” photographic images or the endless “conjecture” that follows.

I continue to ask:

Does this feeble documentary “evidence” have even the slightest value in any serious investigation and research?

This is no more scientific than searching for animals in fleeting clouds passing overhead. Or faces in the geological features of Mars.

Is this cryptozoology?

Or wishful thinking.

“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” (David Hume)

Enough is enough.

Yours in research,
Robert A. Goerman

________________________________________

For Loren’s commentary regarding this and other comments from Robert A. Goerman regarding Cryptomundo, see Crypto-Tattler here on Cryptomundo.
iftheshoefits responds: June 18th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
It’s just another appearance of the conjecture specter.
longrifle48 responds: June 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
oh danny boy..years ago perez would have discarded that pic at first sight…as usual out of focus quartering away.poor quality pic..ray wallace took better fake pics than that
ejsaunders responds: June 19th, 2006 at 11:43 am
If you run the photo through an image package and resize it down to about 25% it looks like a statue in a garden, possibly a Satyr? I don’t think the pic is a bigfoot, maybe a bigmess or a bighoax, but if that’s the case, why has this only surfaced now?

I’d say that someone was sorting out old photos, found a blurry photo of a ’something’ and decided given the propensity for the weird these days, decided it was a bigfoot. As I say, I’m hedging my bets its a garden statue, in a ‘Greek Thinker’ pose, hence the arms, but I do agree the arms are the same length they are just badly contrasted and can’t easily be made out.
ejsaunders responds: June 19th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Sorry, computer went weird - maybe looking at it in a higher res (i.e. resized pic down) it might be an aborigine (sp?)? It has that ‘bushman’ sort of face and hair - perhaps he was hunting and knelt down. Its probably the most plausable theory if this is ‘humanoid/hominid’.
MagnusApollo responds: June 19th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Kind of a weird image if you ask me. If you turn it upside down it sort of resembles a fallen tree with the branches which normally face up, now facing down creating the arm. Which could also explain the broken branches all over the foreground. Another concern of mine is that the “head” is actually a shape created by the outline of the tree on the right of the picture. to illustrate my opinion I went and colored it quickly to see if I could test the theory. But… like I said.. only a theory. A link to the picture I made can be found here.
shadowparks responds: June 20th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Good theory MagnusApollo. I can see what you are talking about. The blobsquatch is too blurry to make out. Who knows, it could be genuine.
coolbug responds: June 24th, 2006 at 7:20 am
I’m not dissergring or any thing but it kinda look like a silverback gorilla
canuck responds: October 8th, 2007 at 1:08 am
The left hand is good (finger size, thumb position). The face profile is very good…(eyebrow ridge, protruding mouth & lips) The buttocks size/shape are a good match for Patty.

Does anyone not see a close resemblance to Cliff Crook’s photo, or Paul Freeman’s film? Or is it because I shoot b&w and print my own for 20 years?

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Idaho Bigfoot Photo?

Spread the Word!

29 Responses to “Idaho Bigfoot Photo?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra