Comments on: Idaho Bigfoot Photo?

By: canuck

canuck — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:08:05 +0000

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?

By: coolbug

coolbug — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:20:49 +0000

I’m not dissergring or any thing but it kinda look like a silverback gorilla

By: shadowparks

shadowparks — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:06:56 +0000

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.

By: MagnusApollo

MagnusApollo — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:54:54 +0000

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.

By: ejsaunders

ejsaunders — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:49:24 +0000

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’.

By: ejsaunders

ejsaunders — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:43:34 +0000

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.

By: longrifle48

longrifle48 — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:31:12 +0000

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

By: iftheshoefits

iftheshoefits — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:20:14 +0000

It’s just another appearance of the conjecture specter.

By: goerman

goerman — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:07:13 +0000

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.

By: hiram

hiram — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:59:55 +0000

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.