Comments on: Photo of Dead Bigfoot?

By: Pete.Wilson

Pete.Wilson — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:56:45 +0000

Hey All

I don’t think we know enough about the photo’s background, much less be able to draw any real conclusions based on what’s on the photo, other than to say Sasquatch Skeptical.

By: CRH

CRH — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:06:22 +0000

The Hudson’s Bay Company is the world’s oldest continuous corporation, founded even before other more famous names such as the East India Company. HBCs archives are extensive with trading post records that have been used for weather studies over time, trends in species diversity etc. Anyone dug into the archives for cryptozoological references? Their archives branch is in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but any search would be a very considerable undertaking.

By: pup

pup — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:16:46 +0000

“For these reasons it would be extremely rare to use this technique outside of a studio. Plus by 1894 the technology would have been old hat and far less common.”

You’re thinking of the old wet plate process from the mid-19th century. By the 1890s, glass negatives would have been dry plates, similar to modern roll film, that could be stored and developed later. Both glass plates and flexible film were in use in the same era for a while. Google for “dry plate” and “glass negative.” Film speed was fast enough that a tripod wouldn’t be necessary, and there were cameras that took glass plates, that were designed to be hand held with a viewfinder that you could look down on from above, like this.

The 1890s was the dawn of the cheap camera era, and it’s possible that a combination of an extremely cropped photo and cheap lens could produce a photo with this poor quality.

However, that doesn’t do anything to indicate if the subject is a bigfoot. In fact, the easier practicality of photography argues against it if anything, since someone might go to extraordinary effort to get a photograph of a bigfoot they killed, but easier-to-use cameras might be brought out even for more common subjects.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:38:15 +0000

The fur does look an awful lot like what you might find on a fur coat. Interesting idea.

By: joppa

joppa — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 06:10:33 +0000

These are bundles of rolled up furs, four to six of them, placed so as to give an impression of some kind of animal. The cords are visible at the ends of the “arms” which bind up the ends of the rolls of two furs. I don’t think it is a single animal of any kind.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:29:45 +0000

Ah ogree, markm. ah see u kud spel ur name too. prolly hepz you git lotz o gurlz cuz dey is stoopid enywa.

Tanks markm fer putn dis massage on udder treds tu. speekin o not gettin no gurlz or havn a lyfe. AND beein stoopid.

By: vet72

vet72 — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:58:43 +0000

I distinctly remember the hoaxed photo of an alleged dead “pterodactyl” with posing Civil War soldiers on the defunct FreakyLinks site. Difficult to make a sound perspective on the authenticity of this photo though, hoaxed or not. As far as the identity of the creature goes it’s anyone’s guess. Too much ambiguity.

By: MalcP

MalcP — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:00:11 +0000

From the photographic perspective, there is no reason why this couldn’t be an original print from a glass-plate negative taken in 1894. That said, it could equally have been taken on a digital camera last week. The fact is that its nearly impossible to determine anything with any degree of certainty from a copy of a photograph. I think we can say its likely to be a dead animal on snow, but I think the only person who’d even know that much for sure is the photographer.

By: cabochris

cabochris — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:55:12 +0000

As a former photo lab owner, I would have to say this photo looks real. It is not a color photo. There could be chemical stains/fading and light leaks/flares, that some see as color? Photo/image quality is within or worse than late 1800s technology. There does not seem to be any sort of digital enhancement either.

As is often the case, this photo lacks detail. But when I glance at this photo, I see some sort of ape-like creature. Look at how slender the waist is. This thing has hips! The arms are long and the shoulders are broad! I see a face with eyes, teeth, ears and off-color chin hair. Look how muscular the thighs are! This does not look like a dog or large cat to me. The fur looks right too. It is rough, sort of like a chimp or gorilla- yet still in place like an elk. I do not believe that Bigfoot would have fur/hair that looks like he/she stuck his/her finger in the electric socket, but more like that in the Patterson film.

So to me this creature looks like it walked upright. Yet despite a muscular type build, it still looks smallish? So perhaps it is a young Bigfoot? Perhaps it got caught in a trappers snare, then was shot.

I find this photo very interesting.

By: raisinsofwrath

raisinsofwrath — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:49:30 +0000

When I mentioned the front leg I was referring to the one sticking out on the underside.