64 Responses to “Photo of Russian Bigfoot?”

1. Savage30L responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:09 am

   Blobsquatchski.

   If this is a biped, and not a stump or optical illusion, it is oddly proportioned. The “head” is so large in comparison to the rest of it, that it appears to be a hydrocephalic chimpanzee walking upright.

   The head does have an Australopicthicene profile.

2. Raptorial responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:17 am

   It looks to have a more monkey-like or possibly Australopithicene (as savage stated) head. That or it’s a guy with a brimmed hat.

3. kamoeba responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:37 am

   Looks photo-manipulated to me.

4. Buzzardeater responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:42 am

   The Russians still haven’t explained Valuev!

5. bipto responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am

   I agree with Savage. The head looks enormous. It’s hard to put any scale around the figure, but it also looks very large - larger even than North American bigfoot.

   Also, my personal rule is if you didn’t see the bigfoot in the photo until after you developed it, then the bigfoot wasn’t there. Usually, we’re looking at shadowy blobsquatches but in this case there’s a ‘clear’ profile of a figure that is apparently walking across the field of view, yet the photographer (a hunter) didn’t see it moving at the time.

   It’s a stump.

6. skeptik responds: February 19th, 2007 at 8:11 am

   It’s a rather cool tree stump.

7. UKCryptid responds: February 19th, 2007 at 8:38 am

   Looks more like a chimp super-imposed onto the background and blown up slightly to me.

8. mantis responds: February 19th, 2007 at 8:39 am

   I’ll have to agree with ‘bipto’. The question of a stump could be solved by returning to the site. If there’s no evidence of a stump, then it’s very possible that we are looking at a biological.

9. kittenz responds: February 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am

   Looks like a tree trunk to me.

10. fredfacker responds: February 19th, 2007 at 9:21 am

    I think it’s part of the tree.

11. mystery_man responds: February 19th, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Well it could be something. It could also be a tree stump with some photoshopping thrown in. It looks inconclusive to me. Anybody know anything about what kind of trees these are for size comparison? I’ll be honest, I don’t think this is definitive at all. I tend to feel that we’ll know a really good photo when we see it. None of this squinting at it wondering if it is a tree stump or not.

12. DWA responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am

    Here’s why I harp so much on sighting reports.

    Is there one connected with this photo? Saying who when what where etc?

    if not - FAKE.

13. Morgoth responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am

    This is not a tree or a guy in a hat, you can make out the upper arm muscles, the buttocks, the shoulder blades, and the fingers. The arm is way out of human proportion. You can see the left arm, and left leg extending behind the little hill.

    The image does not appear to have been photoshopped. There are normal distorions from JPEG compression, but no image stamper artifacts or smudging visible. The lighting in the scene and the figure are very consistent, and so is the shadow.

    In my view the only way to fake this is to build a model on site and photograph it from a distance. If I were going to do that I sure wouldn’t have chosen a shot across a river.

14. chrisandclauida2 responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am

    well its our first ruskysquatch. I have to say that while it is hard to separate it from the background cause the shadows and distance that when enlarged 200% i could make out details that really got my attention.

    1. It seems to walk with both knees bent i.e not locking then.

    2. The arms seem to be the right proportion. the elbows are at the waist line with the hand at or just above the knee.

    3. The head seem the right shape but the view is limited because of the light reflection. this could be because the face isn’t covered with hair. the light reflection may make the head look big but remember people that little thing about assumptions. we shouldn’t assume that the head would be in human pro[portions but it is possible it could be larger because of possible relation to other large ape like creatures it shares characteristics with.

    4. The light reflecting off the face of the creature is consistent with all the shadows of the trees being thrown to the left of the photo as you would have with the sun lower in the sky and to the right of the subject. This also bodes well for not being a photo shop job as this is one of the things they screw up when hoaxing as most don’t think about this.

    5. I don’t see any obvious photoshopping, that is I don’t see any obvious difference in pixelation difference with the creature and the background as you zoom in or out. There are also no weird dark lines light lines or obvious overlapping as you get with photoshop-hoax.

    All this said I do not in any way claim to have the ability or equipment to in depth analysis of the pic. To me, this is one of the more interesting photos but it is still nothing to hang your hat on and call the mystery solved,

    But it could just as well be a former member of the east German gymnastics team on their land enjoying retirement and not needing to hide the results of all those years of performance enhancing male hormones and drugs.

15. chrisandclauida2 responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am

    I agree with some things morgoth says also. While I won’t assume anything cause you all know how I hate assumptions as they destroy your ability to be impartial there seems to me some shadowing of lower body musculature. most noticeably in the hips and legs.

    Again this could be shadows and we first need to know the camera type and distance before even serious considering this to be so.

    Remember assumption. This isn’t a Bigfoot cause the head is to big. This isn’t a bigfoot cause it looks too monkey like or not enough monkey like. We can’t make those comparisons until we get a body.

    I urge you all to look into the work done by PETE TRAVERS. His bigfoot sketches, done just like police sketches with input from eye witnesses, shows the amazing differences in the individual creatures. Not any two witnesses have seen the same animal. They see all kinds of different animals and the differences are breathtaking and blow away preconceptions about the fact they are all patty like. No sir, each one is different and no two are the same.

16. Tengu responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    I can’t see nothing at all.

17. Ceroill responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am

    Hmm. Interesting. Not blurry, but still too far away to say much for certain. Here’s a speculation as to why the guy with the camera didn’t notice it moving: It could be a sculpture.

18. Doug Higley responds: February 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Hadrosauridae

19. rayrich responds: February 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    It’s definitely not a tree stump and who knows the proportions of an Almas’ head to it’s body without any real photos or skeletal remains. I worked with a couple of young Russian immigrants on a construction crew and one of them brought up the Almas after a few of us were discussing Bigfoot and he described his Uncle’s encounter with one. He went on to explain how big the head was compared to the rest of its body. So who knows?

20. Ole Bub responds: February 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Good morning Cryptos….

    Looks like a treesquatcharuski or timberfootski to my beady eyes…JMHO

    live and let live….

    ole bub and the dawgs

21. ShefZ28 responds: February 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am

    I used to dabble in photoshop and took a few classes in high school for it. I took a photo of the skyline of Seattle and made it look like two huge gorillas were attacking the city. It didn’t look real…but had the same “feeling” to the rest of the original image, much like that one has.

    Also,lets look at the evidence:

    1) It just happens to be walking at a 90 degree angle to the photographer.

    2) He just happened to take a picture while the “creature” was not behind anything..much much easier to photoshop instead of having him behind a tree. I mean for me that is the kicker. Out of all of those trees on that ridge, the creature just happens to be walking on the edge of them and isn’t behind ANY of those trees.

    Going with my gut instinct, it doesn’t look “right”.

    Fake.

22. fredfacker responds: February 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    In Soviet Russia, sasquatch photos you!

23. bill green responds: February 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    it looks like a very interesting photo of possible russia sasquatch. but more research & study needs to be done to the this photo. if this photo is real the creature looks like it has white hair all over its body & it looks gorilla like. also it looks like a very old creature in my opinion, the forests area in the photo does look like great habitat for sasquatch creatures or any wildlife. are sightings or footprints still happening in this russia forest area?l

24. skeptik responds: February 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Exif info (from the feat. picture)
    Photo; aiieiiea-russia
    Date and Time; 05.09.2006 09:34:35
    Exp. Time; 1/320
    F/Stop; 4.0
    Exp. Program; -
    Exp. Bias; 0
    Metering Mode; Pattern
    Light Source; -
    Flash; Not fired, auto mode
    Focal Length; 8.0
    Focal Length (35 mm); 38.8
    ISO Speed;-
    Orientation; Normal

25. sschaper responds: February 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    It “feels” wrong to me somehow, as if the critter were -drawn- in.

    That isn’t a scientific response.

    The bend of the legs, proportion of legs to torso and arms makes this look very much like a bonobo, not an australopithicine, let alone H. erectus.

26. pitch black moon responds: February 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Here is why I find this photo suspicious:

    1 - The figure is perfectly exposed. No trees, bushes, or branches to obscure the “creature”. In my opinion, that smells fishy.

    2 - When you scan the full panoramic, that big light colored head sticks out like a sore thumb. This leads me to believe that someone wanted our eyes to be drawn to that spot.

    3 - Why are these animals always so far away in photos? How come no one is ever able to covertly photograph them clearly? Why didn’t they add a Loch Ness head into the river for good measure?

    With those points made, I have to say this is excellent work if it was PhotoShopped. It has had me scratching my head and examining it very closely for an hour, so it was entertaining too. Hmmm.

27. IBRO responds: February 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    If this is a biped, and not a stump or optical illusion, it is oddly proportioned. The “head” is so large in comparison to the rest of it, that it appears to be a hydrocephalic chimpanzee walking upright.

    I agree with savage. The head is really large giving it almost a gorilla look. Its probably a fake from what I can make out.

28. things-in-the-woods responds: February 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    Not so worried about the fact that the photographer apparently didn’t notice it because in the context of the original whole photo it is very small, and rather well camouflaged, and there is no reason to suggest it was moving rather than still.

    However, it just looks like a very tall chimp to me. Don’t know how this is hoaxed (photoshop, model, etc), but I’ve not heard any reports of Russian crypto-hominids that are chimplike at all (thus, chrisandclaudia2, it isn’t really an assumption- more like an expectation based on the assumption that previous reports were not all wrong- and the fact that no two reports seems to describe the same kind of animal is not good reason to accept all sightings and photos, rather it just goes to make the point that Ben Radford- among others of us- has been banging on about recently: claimed eyewitness reports are extremely unreliable). And we’d need good reason to expect a hominid that was native to this area to have evolved to look like a chimp.

    I suppose it could be a real chimp that escaped from somewhere, but that is somewhat unlikely in the northen urals. And, although it is hard to get a sense of scale, it does look very very tall (one gets the impression we are talking ten foot or something).

29. Kelly responds: February 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Nyet…simply simulacra. Looks like a big Russian Chimpski but is made of bark. A hunter would have seen it moving especially since this one “appears” to be moving. Actually, it looks like something off of the Darwin’s evolution chart I have seen over the years in poster form. I do have one question; do these creatures ever walk to the left? Every film or photo I have seen have them moving to the right of the camera…

30. Nachzehrer responds: February 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Beautiful forest, neat picture, useless as evidence. Next!

31. captiannemo responds: February 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    And this was how far from Chyernobyl?

32. calash responds: February 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Very interesting. Blowing up with windows and fax viewer shows all the component there. Walking on two legs, Arms down to knees. Stooped over slightly. Too many coincidences to be a stump. Chimp? Don’t think that they prefer an upright walk. Although there are cases where circus chimps have been trained to walk upright. Head does appear too large but this is a cold area. Facial hair could grow longer for protection from the elements. Face may be turned slightly to look at photographer. My small Kodak takes a few seconds to process an image. If the subject was in the process of looking over at the photographer as he was turning away and taking off that could explain why there are no more images. Could it be requested that who ever took this give some background Info?

    It is interesting that a student of a teacher interested in Bigfoot happened to get this. A cynic could speculate that this could effect the students grade in a positive way. (Motive for a staged event?)

    Best Regards

33. joppa responds: February 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    My first reaction is neat trick of light and shadow on a tree stump. I do not have the computer skills to do a better analysis, so I am left with my Sasstump.

34. jayman responds: February 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    If I were to give this thing the benefit of the doubt, I’d say the enormous “head” is not the real head at all, but some light-colored background feature. The actual head is below it and about half the size.

35. lastensugle responds: February 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    If real, which I do not think it is, this looks to chimp-ish to be an Almasty (whom I still think are Neanderthal). Regarding the size of the head, again IF this was a real creature, this could be explained by it having a beard. I don`t think this is real for many of the same reasons as stated in the above posts, but in my opinion, Russia is the best place to find evidence of any sasquatch-type creature.

36. Matt K. responds: February 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    Obvious photo manipulation.

37. Mnynames responds: February 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Wow, where’s Waldo?

    I think this falls into the “too far away to determine anything” file. Stump? Chimp? Squatch? Photographic artifact? Computer manipulation? E.T. out for a stroll? The answer to all is a definitive, “Could be”, which effectively leaves us with nothing. Next!

    On a complete sidenote, I’m always wary of discounting anything on the assumption that if it is real, it must be suffering from some deformity or genetic condition. These things do occur in nature, meaning that every once in a while they should be encountered, possibly even filmed. I was recently struck with the gut-wrenching possibility that that gad-awful, pug-ugly BF of Biscardi’s could be one whose genes had been whacked too many times with the ugly stick- perhaps the Elephant Sasquatch? I can see it now, “I am not a human being in a suit, I am an animal!” Somebody tell me it ain’t so…

38. bigfoot11 responds: February 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    It looks like a chimp.

39. Mnynames responds: February 19th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Wow, Jayman, if you disregard the light-coloured head, the percieved being does appear much more proportional.

    I guess my problem is that if that isn’t part of the animal, what the heck is it? Nothing else in the larger pic has any similar features to suggest that it might simply be a background feature, and the rest of the percieved animal is no clearer than the lighter blob above it. This to me means that the feature (Or creature, if you prefer) as a whole is open for interpretation.

40. bukko responds: February 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    If you ignore the white splotch at the top… it kinda looks like it could be something. What that something might be is beyond me. It’s probably fake…but ya never know.

41. larrykat responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    If I look at it and think “Bigfoot”, I see a Bigfoot. If I look at it and think “tree” it looks like a broken off old tree stump. Due to the old “extraordinary claims” cliche, I would say this is wood.

42. 12inchPianist responds: February 19th, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    My first thought would be tree stump.

    Assuming it was alive, I see two possibilities. One, that yes, it is a hominid with a head either too large or two small (big white patch or small darker patch underneath). This is not very probable, given that Bigfoot are said to be highly intelligent. One surely would have been aware of the hunter and not have been in the picture.

    Two, that it is a bear. I feel it is entirely possible to see a mid-sized average bear with a lighter colored coat standing still for a moment to look at something on the ground or to stage left.

    The hunter who took the picture was not looking for animals, but taking a landscape photo. He could easily have missed a bear at that distance. I can tell you how easy it is to get real close to large animals without seeing them (deer, elk, even black bear) when they blend in so easily.

    I took the picture into photoshop and toyed around with it for a while. As far as I can tell, though I am no expert, is that the object in question is no different than the majority of like colored background. In other words, it’s a funny shaped tree or tree stump, probably two or three that have blended together in the photo.

43. Uglybob responds: February 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    One easy way to solve it, let’s all go to Russia and check the scene. Tree trunks would still be there.

44. calash responds: February 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    I have starred at this until my eyes are blurry. All trees appear uniform and slender. To be a stump the tree would have had to be larger then others, be of an odd shape and cut or broken several feet higher then would be expected.
    I can see all kinds of body features. Elbows ,knees , curved back, bulging buttocks, rounded head, sloped face with a protruding chin. From the knees up it looks right. The right leg looks flexed back but if you follow the line of the lower leg it seems to end wrong.
    This could be distortion from brush in the foreground.
    The torso seems supported over the legs which appear bending as if walking.
    Arm visible looks like it goes to the knees. Appears flexed where you would expect an elbow. Looks like shoulders. I just can’t get this to look like a bear in my mind
    First impression is a chimp. Russia was big on Circuses. Are there any facilities there for retired circus chimps?
    A fascinating picture!
    Best Regards

45. Rillo777 responds: February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    I’ve been a photographer for a lot of years and I’ve won a lot of awards. If I were giving a professional opinion I would say this is an optical illusion created by the trees. I once got a picture that looked very much like the ghost of an Indian–no kidding. When I went back to the place the next day, and at the same time of day, I saw the same figure once I was actively looking for it. It was merely an illusion created by brush and shadows.

46. elsanto responds: February 20th, 2007 at 1:10 am

    Playing advocate to the infernal for a moment, let’s give this critter the benefit of the doubt… now, using lo-tech tools to have a peek at it, use Explorer to magnify the image 400%. Note the angle of the light… the “creature” is facing the sunlight which accounts for the white on its limbs. The larger white “blob” is not the head, because one can easily speculate that a face and an ear can be made out.

    The figure is emerging from behind a tree… coincidience? I think not, but let’s indulge the fantasy a little.

    Look at the tree directly in front of the beast. The light is also reflecting off of it powerfully… perhaps the white blob is in fact a similar reflection from the tree directly behind it.

    Even giving this photo the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is real, it hardly constitutes decent evidence. The NY Baby Footage is far more compelling.

    Just my two cents.

47. sasquatch responds: February 20th, 2007 at 2:07 am

    I see a large apelike creature. It’s face is probably a little lighter in color and may have a white crop of chin hair like many chimps and the sunlight is reflecting off of the these causing slight distortion-I>E. making the head look bigger, but if you look close you van see a crest of darker hair (?) toward the back of it as if it is looking partially back at the photographer. It may have frozen trying to blend in with the trees as has been a noted behavior in some accounts I’ve read. Since the darker portions of the subject are in shadow, they appear small compared to the head like portion. Now It COULD be a stump or combination of foliage but I’d be amazed if it was…I put this over into photoshop and redused the contrast a little and it sure has a lot of the ”Patty” feel to it….I also increased the size and traced the outline on a piece of paper, then drew in some features; without TOO much imagination It lends itself quite easily to an impressive specimen.

48. quasi-modo responds: February 20th, 2007 at 6:52 am

    Hello people.

    Here we have a pic of a “Thingeus Erectus” that, at least to me doesn’t even seem totally out of the ordinairy, and having seen and been up, close and personal with real wild mountain gorillas in R’Wanda and (then in 1985) Zaire, Now D.R of Congo, to me the “Thingeus Erectus” looks like a primate, included the big head. Just look at a gorilla’s head. If Bigfoot, or BigFootsky excists and is a primate, then why shouldn’t it look like one?

    I’d go for large primate on this one

49. mystery_man responds: February 20th, 2007 at 10:18 am

    I don’t know, my feeling is some people are reading way too much into an inconclusive photo. People should not have to be told how the muscles atand out or how much it looks like a bipedal creature. They should be able to see that clearly is this is to be considered solid photographic evidence, I feel. I approach this subject as I do zoology, and really not much can be told from this picture. Most of what people “think” they can see does not make this a credible photo of any sort of creature. If this was a photo of a known creature, it still would not be very useful. Especially not when people are saying it COULD be a stump or it COULD be a chimp or whatever. Maybe this is the real deal, but not from what anyone can tell. If I need people to convince me of what I see in a picture and tell me how the light plays this way and that way, then it is quite frankly a substandard photo. This shouldn’t be a subject for discerning what is in a photo, or staring at it like one of those pixelated pictures in the mall where something will suddenly pop out at you. This is a search for undiscovered creatures and this photo does not conclusively show one as far as I’m concerned.

50. Ceroill responds: February 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am

    Mystery Man, I agree completely.

51. DWA responds: February 20th, 2007 at 11:49 am

    I know it helps relieve slow news days at Cryptomundo. But there are other ways too (and few days seem slow)!

    At least from the photographer’s point of view, the more I see these the more I think one thing:

    Keeping a shot for personal consumption and shock and awe is fine.

    But if it doesn’t clearly show what you say it does, DON’T PUBLICIZE IT.

    Of course folks will continue to anyway.

    I can’t help but notice how almost none of these (remember Seal Creature of the Mangroves from not far back?) ever show up again.

    (if you don’t remember Seal Creature….see what I mean…?)

52. GLS responds: February 20th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    FWIW…

    Since this photo was taken by a ‘hunter’ obviously during a ‘hunting season’, my guesstimate is that the supposed Bigfoot is another ‘hunter’ garbed in a Ghillie suit to mimic the local landscape and thusly hide the hunter from his prey. At that distance another hunter garbed as such would look almost exactly like what we see in the enlarged image, for proof, go to most any Sporting Goods store and have the boss put on a Ghillie suit and stand 100 yards away amidst some trees and you have the same image, m/l.

    Of course we might be missing the obvious here, it is not a Bigfoot we are looking at but a Russian Nessie -type lake monster that has just gone under! Take a close look at the wave pattern in the lower left foreground and it will undoubtedly give you the image you seek.

    Best regards and have fun with this one.

53. mccinny responds: February 20th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Any photo that you have to strain your eyes to make anything remotely relative is worthless. The person that sent this photo obviously wants to draw something to our attention here. If it isn’t obvious, then it’s irrelevant. I’ve seen many photos in the past like this. One that comes to mind was a bigfoot researcher that claimed their photo showed at least 15 bigfoot/feet in the photo. After straining my eyes for 10 minutes I think I made out Elvis, Ghandi, and the Stay-Puft Marshmellow man as well!

54. Gord responds: February 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    What’s supposed to be an arm looks to me like a long twisted tree branch that extends to the ground.

55. things-in-the-woods responds: February 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    The more i look at this, the more dodgy it seems- i’m quite happy to be convinced that this is a manipulated photo. From the about the mid-thigh down the legs just don’t work for me.

    Chimp photoshopped in at the wrong scale and badly messed up where its legs meet the foreground.

56. jchip responds: February 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    It looks like a stump to me, especially since it looks like there might be a log laying on the ground directly in front of it.

57. springheeledjack responds: February 20th, 2007 at 11:18 pm

    The biggest problem I have, in addition to what everyone else is homing in on, is that there is only one photo. At that range, it would have been in view for quite a while, and the photodog should have been able to fire off a half dozen or a whole roll of film and get it moving if indeed it was a real critter.

58. mystery_man responds: February 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am

    Springheeledjack, I think the problem is that this was apparently someone just doing landscape photos. The photographer didn’t realize what was on film until he had the photos developed. That could explain why more photos were not taken.

59. DWA responds: February 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am

    mystery_man: I’ve had that landscape-photo thing happen.

    I’d just shot my last frames of film in the Wind River Range, a few scenics. I’d put the camera away; didn’t want it clanking uselessly against my shoulder on the remaining five miles out. Then I saw a movement. It turned out to be a big bull moose, splashing his way right up the creek across the broad meadow from me. I watched him for some time, wishing I’d had the telephoto and a few more shots.

    Wasn’t until I projected the slides that I saw him, down in the lower left corner of my last couple of shots.

    But noticed how I have at least a bit of a story? How come there isn’t such a one here?

60. mystery_man responds: February 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Well, DWA, that is a curious omission, I’ll give you that. You’d think he might have seen some kind of movement or something.

61. calash responds: March 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am

    Anything new on the photo?
    Regards

62. Bob Michaels responds: April 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Could be a Relic communist Cryptid.

63. cryptohunter responds: July 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am

    Looks almost like a gray alien to me with the size of the head and arm length.

64. emerson responds: May 30th, 2008 at 7:56 am

    Yep, it looks like a chimp walking upright.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|