Comments on: Update: Photo of Dead Bigfoot?

By: NCRYPTID

NCRYPTID — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:18:38 +0000

I see where the Puma theory’s coming from, but if that’s the case, it’s the furriest/shaggiest puma I’ve ever seen.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:51:42 +0000

Could very well be a juvenile or sub-adult puma. They can have their kittens at any time of the year, and the kittens have a fluffier coat than the adults until they are about 10 months old. They usually lose most of their spots by about 6 months of age but they retain the wooly coat for a few months longer.

Also, adult pumas are not always great big animals; in fact many adult females weigh quite a bit less than 100 pounds.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:04:31 +0000

Amendment. Just seen that this has been already mentioned in a previous thread. Nevermind.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:58:47 +0000

According to the original printing of this book that I have (1984), the caption says:

“Section of a photograph of an unidentified creature lying dead in the snow. It was shot by trappers at Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada, early in the 20th century.

By: morbo

morbo — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:11:01 +0000

Reminds me of the Russian Almas photo. Awhile ago I came across a photo of Russian Border Guards carrying what, at first glance, appeared to be an Almas. Turned out to just be a doctored photo of them carrying a dead wildcat.

By: Smokin_Guns

Smokin_Guns — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:26:40 +0000

This animal is an obvious cougar.You can see the white nose and chin. The front left foot is swollen because it was trapped in a wire snare.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:32:59 +0000

I’m thinking puma, but I wish I knew for certain how long those snowshoes are. That’s the part that bothers me most about this picture. I’m sure it was a useful size comparison back in 1800s (if that is indeed when this was taken), but I’m stumped. If they are really around three feet long, as Bonehead said, then perhaps this is a juvenile puma? To me the configuration of this animal most resembles a feline, most probably a puma, but those snowshoes just look so big compared to it. Anyone know for certain how big those things are?

By: superd

superd — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 06:26:16 +0000

You take a picture of a supposed dead bigfoot, you don’t centre the picture?
You cut off the feet? You have snowshoes in the picture? And the big one,—- was it the last pic on your roll of film so you couldn’t take any more pics? Any one want to pull my finger?

By: kittenz

kittenz — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:32:58 +0000

The puma that I saw near Cave Run Lake in northeastern Kentucky a few years ago couldn’t have been much more than about 6 feet long, including the tail. It may have a shade longer but not much. It was a grown puma; at least, it did not have any spots on it like a puma kitten has. Maybe it was a rising yearling and not yet a year old. But it was not a great big animal. I saw it from fairly close; it was running beside the highway and I was able to come up alongside of it before it leaped away into the brush, and I saw it very clearly, so I know that I was not mistaken about the size.

By: Bonehead_AZ

Bonehead_AZ — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:06:58 +0000

I did a little bit of research and although I can’t say for certain, the snowshoes above are probably three feet or less in length. That would make this animal relatively small.