67 Responses to “New Bigfoot Photos and Videos From Ohio?”

1. shumway10973 responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:27 am

   first thing, if this is a big foot, then it would have to be a juvenile. It’s a little too short for the reported 8-10 foot creature of legend. Second, for something that is always said to absolutely stink, this one looks awfully clean. Third, I have never heard of big foot peering from around a tree. They have always either been just standing there and then walks off, or if curious at all may follow at a distance. Fourth, if that is a mask, I want to know where they got it. It looks great for a primate’s face. There’s no change in color inside the nostrils, where some masks you can see the person’s skin, and it is difficult to tell if we are simply seeing the whites of the eyes or a person’s face. nice red eye, though.

2. Lorenzo Rossi responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:30 am

   I think that this is a loss of time.

3. David V responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 am

   Holy crap, the link is to a really irritating website. Make sure you have your volume turned waaaay down unless you want to treat those around you to recordings of bigfoot screams. It always seems to me that the earmark of a amateur website is the unwarranted midi music, or a pre-recorded sound that hits you without warning as soon as you go to it. They could stand to learn a thing or two from other well designed websites, like this one for example!

4. kidkarysma responds: July 20th, 2006 at 2:42 am

   It looks like a dude in a gorilla suit. It’s mostly hidden and just screams hoax.

5. badkitty responds: July 20th, 2006 at 3:12 am

   Does anyone else think this looks like a gorilla?

6. P.S.Anderson responds: July 20th, 2006 at 4:53 am

   As a buckeye, I was excited. Atwood Lake is a beautiful natural environment. Also, a corridor between OH,PA,WV. The stuff on that website is is a bunch of b.s. and really clear video of 1970. These people should be making an effort to publish some of their fiction, instead of bastardizing Salt Fork Park with the Tennesee Big Foot stories. Im really upset right now.

7. P.S.Anderson responds: July 20th, 2006 at 4:57 am

   Send those folks up to Cleveland and they’ll see what liars get.

8. swnoel responds: July 20th, 2006 at 6:11 am

   Anyone seeing this would say it was a gorilla…

   It looks like a classic gorilla suit you’d see in the movies…

   another hoax???

9. JRC responds: July 20th, 2006 at 7:34 am

   The video that is supposedly from 1970 is obviously shot with a modern video camera either set to shoot in b&w or desaturated in post. In 1970, his father’s options would have been either straight 8mm, Super8, or 16mm film. This footage wasn’t shot with any of those. The picture is far too clean to be a 36 year old consumer grade stock. The color is more grey than what a b&w reversal or certainly a negative film stock would give. Also the frame rate is too smooth to have been a film source. It just looks like it was shot at 29.97fps natively rather than at a slower frame rate and then telecined to video for web posting. Finally, the camera seems to do a remarkable job maintaining focus and exposure while panning fast and then zooming. If you look at the last few frames, it is obvious that he didn’t think to turn off the auto focus (which wasn’t an option in 1970).

10. Mnynames responds: July 20th, 2006 at 8:12 am

    Is it just me, or does all of the film/video look like it was shot in the same place and time as the photos? In the first film (The crisp and clear 1970 one), it even looks like he’s moving away from the same tree! Highly suspect.

11. Sharm responds: July 20th, 2006 at 8:26 am

    I agree. Looks like a gorilla. Very clear picture? Hmmm…

12. Ken Gerhard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 8:29 am

    It looks like these guys got a lot of use out of their gorilla suit rental. Lewis DePlatt’s photo seems like a hoax also. Unless, he really does think that he looks cool.

13. greywolf responds: July 20th, 2006 at 8:36 am

    Well that looks like an African Gorilla. And the young ones will peer around trees at people..Now if this is not a animal enclosure (ie) zoo. Then what is this animal doing in an ohio woods? but real or not the photos are clear…..OMG….

14. stonelk responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:03 am

    I have never seen Bigfoot but I have been able to call many wild animals from hiding just like calling a puppy. Looks like this one called up Oriental Trading Company and bought a cheap gorilla suit. Any one watching the special features of one of these new movies with fantastic creatures will know to put on black makeup before donning the mask. This will hide the human fleshtones.

15. DWA responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:23 am

    As soon as I saw the closest-up pic I thought “gorilla.”

    Which you don’t exactly get from, say, the Patterson film.

    Better than most hoaxes. Heck, can’t even tell you if that’s a real gorilla! But even though you can put virtually nothing past a higher primate, hiding behind a tree says to me: let’s not show the body, because that will blow this out of the water.

    Bottom line: not so bad as to laugh at. (Just to wonder at the lengths to which our species will go for the sake of being noticed.) But the Big Guy continues to elude us, says here.

16. cutrer responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:23 am

    Somebody check this guys closet for a gorilla suit!!

    The glowing eyes were a nice touch though…

17. MrInspector responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:26 am

    I am confident that the second video is of a guy in a suit. I am almost as confident that the first video is the same guy and suit, however there isn’t enough information in the clip. The pictures posted here also appear to be the same guy/suit as well. The time of year and lighting conditions are the same. I would have to say that these were most likely done at the same time.
    Please take note all of you. This might help you in the next go round. I don’t know if anyone here has ever developed their own prosthetic applications but we used to do so for halloween every year. Watch closely the clearest shot of the “creature” as it looks down at it’s feet, this particular head bob, is that of a guy looking over the bottom of the eye holes in a mask/facial applique.
    Also, I have to agree with JRC, this was certainly not shot on commercial or consumer film stock of the 1970’s, and it doesn’t appear to have the tell-tale characteristics 16/8/S8 mm cameras. I wont come out and declare hoax, but it does have all of the ear marks.

18. DWA responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:45 am

    Oh. And I have one other question.

    The critter was standing there, hiding hehind a tree.

    And he got ONLY ONE PHOTO?

    Fuhgeddaboudit! Not even a real gorilla!

19. JRC responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:11 am

    He would have been better off with this photo if he had not used that extreme close up. Look at the “fur” around the face especially around the edges of the head. That is obviously fake fur. Look at how it bunches together in little spikes and has a general fuzzy appearance. At no place does it lay down or drape over the contours of the body. This just isn’t natural hair.

20. KenMD responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:28 am

    Yea only one photo…and they were charged.

    If I ever get charged then you can bet that next to my dead body you will see a camera and multiple shots of my severe beating.

    I can see it now,

    1) BF peering out behind the tree, looking scared

    2) BF stepping out from tree with arms in air and showing teeth.

    3) The charge begins, BF slighlty off center as camera tilts

    4) blurry shot of black creature and brush

    5) good shot of giant bigfoot hand holding stick as it swings for my head

    6) pic of inside of BF mouth showing tongue, teeth, and uvula

    7) shot of ground
    shot of myself on ground, blood coming from neck, stool to my side.

    At least you all will know its for real now, huh?

21. KenMD responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:38 am

    Just saw the videos.

    What a tool. I agree those are from a new camera with the B/W feature on.

    Also if they are spending time with BF and it has gained trust with them, then why such crappy videos/photos?

    I also love all the advertisements, especially at the end of the video.

    Very altruistic. I guess his dad told him to add those in the dream as well.

22. dbard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:39 am

    I say it’s a cheap Gorilla Suit.
    I also think that all of the videos were shot with the same camera, in the same location.

    Yet another person looking for $$ or their 15 minutes.

    Or possibly to have fun at our expense.

    Either way, yet another waste of time.

    DB

23. One Eyed Cat responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:41 am

    As I am having trouble seeing the videos on the site I’ll keep my comments to the photos posted here.

    I don’t know either way, but there is something about the eye highlights in the last closeup that bothers me

24. smylex responds: July 20th, 2006 at 10:50 am

    sounds pretty sick to me.

25. gridbug responds: July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 am

    Sorry, I ain’t byin’ what they’re sellin’.

    Monkey suit is go.

26. Miseryoak responds: July 20th, 2006 at 11:45 am

    Well,
    At least it drove all of us to look at their website and their many paid for sponsors and weblinks .

    Having worked in broadcast television for 20 years, I am very suspect of anything claiming to have been shot on “Video” in the early 70’s. Video tape technology of any quality wasn’t available to the general public until Beta and VHS hit the scene in the late 70’s. Cameras with seperate decks and especially camcorders arrived much later than that.

    It is also very convenient to have footage lying around that was photographed by someone who is dead.

27. aaha responds: July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    Elaborate hoax website. Very well done. This is probably sponsored by a Hollywood production company. There is absolutely no truth to any of these claims or videos.

28. aaha responds: July 20th, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    On the bottom of the page read “Copyright 2006 Angels & Ghosts, LLC”. Cha-ching. well, now, there you have it………….

29. kaboobi responds: July 20th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    -the rare Ohio Mountain Gorilla! what a find!!!

30. DWA responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Thread comments:

    1. # 20: My personal candidate for funniest post I’ve seen on the site so far.

    2. #19: What he said. After a few more looks, the appearance of that hair was REALLY bugging me.

31. Illuvatar responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    Comments number nine and twenty-six have good points. They obviously lied about the B&W videos being from the 70’s and also in the fourth video the heading says he shot it however when you read the account below the video it says his father shot it. Too many contradictions.

    As aaha mentioned a connection to Angels & Ghosts certainly doesn’t strengthen their case. I say hoax.

32. dbard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    I’ve had no luck searching for an Ohio company under the name “Angels & Ghosts” fyi.

33. dbard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Spoke too soon.

    http://www.angelsghosts.com

34. dbard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Also owned by “Angels & Ghosts, LLC.”

35. Jeremy_Wells responds: July 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    the “message from beyond” telling him to release the images is a nice touch…

    A movie about a spectral BF hunter would be a nice b-movie double feature with the toxic breathed celluloid scale dragon.

36. Mnynames responds: July 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    This may be tangential, but it may speak to the integrity of the BF site…

    Anybody check out that angels & ghosts website? I’ve seen a few interesting photos purporting to be ghosts in my time, but the ones on this site are total rubbish. Clear evidence that most people have no clue what “camera artifact” might mean, or any notion of the fact that the mind will find patterns where none really exist. A blobsquatch would amount to clear and indisputable evidence for these guys, and they’d find 5 other faces in the photo to boot.

37. Ken Gerhard responds: July 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Still, based on his personal photo, I feel that we absolutely MUST take Bigfoot investigator Lewis DuPlatt seriously!

38. Ceroill responds: July 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    I went to the site, and when I clicked on the short video link (I think it was about the 3rd or 4th one down), and my firewall blocked an intrusion.

39. bigsassy responds: July 20th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    Too much ink has been wasted on this already so i’ll just say STOP GOING TO THIS OURBIGFOOT SITE. It is clearly aimed to garner as many “click thru’s” as possible so that they can charge the advertisers. On to the next hoax please.

40. Va-Bigfoot responds: July 20th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    Time for a little science. The first photo in the column shows a “thing” looking out from behind a tree. You can also notice a black “something” in the lower center of the picture on the forest floor. I did some color sampling of the “thing” behind the tree and the “something” using Photoshop software. I used both Pantone and Trumatch Processes to sample the color of both items. Sample colors taken from the “thing” behind the tree and the “something” on the forest floor match perfectly and I mean perfectly, an exact match. This means that the “thing” and the “something” on the forest floor came from the same suit or body. Therefore, what we have here is a Bigfoot that lost his hand or a man in a suit that dropped his glove. I vote for the man in a suit!

41. Jos Gagné responds: July 20th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Being a photoshopper and photographer myself, I would like to bring everybody’s attention to the last pic; look at the leaves and look at the face- the depth is nonpresent. Either the face would be clear with fuzzy foreground leaves, or vice-versa. And might I add that the edge of that trunk is way to clean cut. Just little things you learn to pick out when you do your own photoshopping. Check out some of my own stuff at (Click on ‘Mon art’). I’m especially proud of my Corriveau pic in the 2006 collection. Not showing off, rather, proving my point that this really looks photoshopped on a guy in a gorilla suit (the fur looks like it was actually there, and the face added later on).
    -Jos

42. Jos Gagné responds: July 20th, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    PS I got a cooler hat than that guy.

43. Scarfe responds: July 20th, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Man in suit. What gives it away is the brow. A real ape’s brow would not be so hairless and perfectly separated from the rest of the body. Also the blackness of the body in this image along with the way the hair seems to stand on the body would suggest a fake fur suit and nothing at all close to authentic animal hair.

    The videos on the site, which I would not recommend anyone watch for they are a waste of time and probably generate revenue for the website, are obviously a hoax given the modern condition and capabilities of the videos shot in the 1970s.

    Man in suit.

44. Robsquatch responds: July 20th, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    Nice gorilla suit with shiny plastic face. I can tell you one thing FOR SURE is that the nose is definitely not a Bigfoot nose. I know, because I’ve seen a REAL Sasquatch up close in the daylight. I guarantee you Bigfoot’s nose does not look like a gorilla nose. Bigfoot (unlike apes) have a very clear nose bridge like a man does. It also has high cheekbones like a man (again unlike apes). Its also is very muscular, and does not have loose baggy skin characteristic of your classic gorilla suit.

45. twblack responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:25 pm

    Nice Try! But maybe next time. A Hoax

46. H_Wrabbit responds: July 20th, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    The one thing that was convincing was the very short clip that gave the appearance that the filmer didn’t have enough time to turn it on and get the shot before the target got away, but was still excited enough about the shot to upload it anyway. Not sure if that was purposefully thought-out or what. Nice try though with everything else.

47. kalszang responds: July 21st, 2006 at 1:05 am

    Gorilla. Nice nuchal crest. Nice eye reflections. Maybe a hoax, but it’s a damn good one.

48. c2cgurl responds: July 21st, 2006 at 1:58 am

    It looks odd. I think it may be a hoax beacause it looks like a more like a gorilla.

49. Amber LaStrega responds: July 21st, 2006 at 2:37 am

    One word: Bunk.

50. skunkape_hunter responds: July 21st, 2006 at 3:27 am

    What an insult !

51. Fisheslayer_84 responds: July 21st, 2006 at 8:04 am

    Is this guy for real? now I have to worry about gorillas running around in the woods behind my house. Gimme a break. Definately fake.

    WARNING!!: running around in a gorilla suit in the backwoods of ohio is apt to cause lead poisoning.

52. randy f responds: July 21st, 2006 at 9:39 am

    This is the first time commenting, but I’ve been reading and following this for a long time. About this “Our Bigfoot” site, is this guy trying to make money? It don’t seem that way to me. And how did he fake the eyeshine? I’d like to know. And many people have reported bigfoot’s hair as being messy and unkept. I think some of you guys are too quick too yell hoax.

53. Scarfe responds: July 21st, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    I was thinking about what that is over the subject’s mouth. Looks like a hand /glove to me. Could this be because the gorilla suit has a sculpted mouth that is either open or in a position that would give away the fact that this is a person in a suit? Perhaps that is why the subject is covering her/his mouth?

54. skunkape_hunter responds: July 21st, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    Randy, Just in case you are not aware of the fact that humans eyes also shine in a camera flash, that is what red eye remover is for. Also you can clearly see that is a human eye. The whites are visible. I too am a first time poster. My first time was above yours one post.

55. randy f responds: July 21st, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    skunkape_hunter, yes, I am aware that human eyes also shine, and I am also aware of what red-eye remover is for, I also agree that you can see the whites of the eye, although the whites are not showing much. However eyeshine is only visible through the pupil of the eye, and more so when the iris is fully dilated, the dilation of that creatures eyes is far too large for a human eye, and by what I can see, if I am seeing correctly, they could dilate further yet. This is exactly what you would expect from a nocturnal creature. If you look at a gorilla’s eyes you see the same thing, very large irises, very little eye white showing, great capacity for pupil dilation for superb night vision. In my opinion, and I might be wrong, those eyes are not human.

    If this is a hoax though, I sure would like to know how it was done, ’cause those eyes are a nice touch.

56. Fisheslayer_84 responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 am

    Even if this creature was real, the resemblance to a gorilla is so striking and as far as I’m aware there are no african gorillas in ohio, other than the ones in the cleveland zoo. as for the eyeshine that’s an easy one, photoshop. I’ve believed in bigfoot since I was a little dude and I’m very hopeful that one day science will tell that he/she is real. The worst part is that every time someone takes bogus pics or fakes a video all there doing is making it harder to prove BF’s existence. Pictures like the one above make people laugh rather than think that maybe there is something living in the woods. Writing this has got me fired up for the day.

57. randy f responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 10:15 am

    Hmmmmm….Photoshop…I honestly never thought of that. Now I feel silly. Thanks a lot.

    So, really, because of modern technology, we can never trust a photograph again?

58. DWA responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 am

    Well, Randy, it’s not that.

    What it is, is, it’s getting harder and harder to trust JUST a photograph, when it’s not backed by observations to which science responds: Well, there it is, we have a new species here.

    I have to say though: it can be really funny reading all the pseudosophisticated tech debunking that goes on. “Oh man, that’s easy. You just get somebody to step into a ten-foot-high ape costume….then you go to Photoshop…” I’ve heard “debunkings” of the Patterson film that are absolutely delusional.

    In my opinion, it is still VERY hard to do a Photoshop — or Anythingshop — job that can’t be debunked. Even in a photograph, there’s still something about a real animal.

    But before you go filling in a blank branch on the family tree, you better get more than that.

59. randy f responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    DWA, thanks for your comment.I probably still have a lot to learn about these things.

    I have been a wildlife artist by profession all of my life, and I am nearing 60 years old, that’s a lot of observation time, and a lot of experience. This whole thing may well be a hoax, but those eyes haunt me.

60. crypto_randz responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    I agree with bad kitty It looks like a person in gorilla suit by the way that web site is very annoying with the big foot screams. I really dont anymore with all these different photographs and videos we all say hoax what happens they some how turn out to be real?

61. Tamarack responds: July 22nd, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Just a few observations.

    Several comments have been made about the eyes. It doesn’t take an expert to know that eye relflections occur when there is a bright light source that is in a nearly direct line of sight of the observer or the camera. This is easily seen at night with car headlights, a spot light, a photo flash, or even a bright flashlight.

    These photos are obvioulsy not taken at night, and while it is common to use a photo flash strobe for a “fill” light even in daylight, I would rule this out as the leaves between the camera and the subject would be much brighter, or more commonly known as “washed out” by the flash.

    I wonder why they are called enlargements when they are obviously completely different photos? Photo #4 may possibly be an enlargement of #2, but without looking at the actual photos it is not easy to say for sure.

    A very predominate feature of Sasquatch that is reported by eye witnesses are broad shoulders. The subject in these pictures has almost no shoulder even though the body is at a 90 degree angle to the camera.

    Also, the common feature of having no neck so that the head appears to sit abnormally low (compared to a human) between the shoulders is not the case in these photos.

    Things just don’t add up correctly to my way of thinking.

    A bigfoot being frightened and annoyed? I don’t recall any other sighting reports that describe a bigfoot in such a way, surprised maybe but not frightened.

    A female protecting her young (in any animal) is going to appear as angry and aggressive as possible at the first sign of intruders, no? if the observers had already been charged at and had rocks thrown at them why would she then be playing peek-a-boo from behind a tree?

    Were the observers following the subject before she turned and started charging them and throwing rocks at them? Even Biscardi says that there is no way to keep up with them, as well as many other reports.

    I was not able to view the motion clips, I also hesitate to call them videos since I agree, as has been mentioned, there was no portable video equipment available in the 1970’s.

    I did use a video recorder back then to tape our High School basketball games but it was far from portable and required 110 volts for each separate piece of equipment and the camera, recorder, and monitor were 3 separate pieces of equipment and the tape was reel to reel.

    I’ll keep trying to view the “movies” but if I don’t see the usual spots, flecks and hairs in them it will only cast more doubt in my mind.

62. crypto_randz responds: July 23rd, 2006 at 9:25 am

    Nice observation Tamarack, I notice the eyes on this creature they seem to shine or have shining glare to them. I really don’t know about this peek a boo motion other than maybe it became aware of who was there.

63. Tim Cullen responds: July 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 pm

    Nice gorilla suit.

64. skunkape_hunter responds: July 24th, 2006 at 9:16 am

    I would suggest that anyone that is not sure about the eyes take a look at Lorens page on the Mayaka Skunk Ape. There is no question that this is an animal of some sort. In my opinion anyway.

    Probably some left over animal from the old Tarzan movies made in Silver Spring that has bastardized from inbreeding. Either way, the close ups show much different eyes, along with teeth ! LOL

    I have some first hand experience with the Skunk Ape, which was documented at BFRO. Mostly because they were the only folks around online 7 or 8 years ago.

    I live pretty far out in the Green Swamp, the closest 7-11 is 10 miles away. Makes it rough when ya want a pizza, as the closest pizza shop is 16 miles away ! LOL Anyway I can assure you that there are very large animals out there. During the hurricanes of 04 they were driven out of the swamp and closer to humans.

    We also have smaller monkeys scattered around the state. Some from movie sets, others from folks letting their ‘pets ‘ loose. It is a known fact the the St. Johns river basin is primed with Resus monkeys. Anyway I have run on long enough.

65. handofgod responds: July 25th, 2006 at 4:22 am

    That is so fake, really bad…

66. hagz responds: November 27th, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    I think it’s real, the black face matches other sightings.

67. samara responds: March 12th, 2007 at 3:18 am

    I lived in the Northwest most of my childhood and teenager years and my mother actually saw a sasquatch once. I have had many events happen to me living in the cascade mts. that has convinced me that something is out there and it is real. And let me just say, this is NOT BIGFOOT! Even my three old daughter said, “Look mommy, a gorilla”. Bigfoot is so human looking it’s scary. I wish idiots like this would stop creating bs evidence, because when poor suckers really get authentic evidence nobody believes them. Mainly because these yawhoo’s are making a circus out of the research. If we really took this serious we all might find something for a change…..instead of being bombarded by obvious hoaxes.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|