Cryptomundo » Washington State Bigfoot Photos?

Washington State Bigfoot Photos?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 27th, 2005

The BFRO has posted a couple of photos of what a witness claims to be a figure that was covered with dark hair. The photos were taken on November 17, 2005 on Silver Star Mountain in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest was also where the Skookum cast was made by fellow Cryptomundo blogger Rick Noll.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 27th, 2005 at 12:42 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Bigfoot Report, Breaking News, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Forensic Science, Sasquatch. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

11 Responses to “Washington State Bigfoot Photos?”

Doug responds: November 27th, 2005 at 1:19 am
Very interesting pics. At first I thought it was just another guy way off in the distance wearing a parka, but I can almost see a body form there. I cannot imagine myself climbing in that weather and altitude by myself. Wonder if a witness was with him.
bill green responds: November 27th, 2005 at 2:46 am
hi everyone these new photos of a washington state sasquatch looks very interesting could be authentic im not saying hoax but more research needs to be done to these photos. also the area in the photos does look like wonderful habitat for sasquatch creatures. i would say in my honest opinion the creature in this photo looks like its about 6ft tall black hair all over its body, a pointed head, its appearance looks gorilla like. i hope wa sasquatch researchers go to location where the photo was taken to look for more sasquatch evidence. please keep me posted ok. thanks bill
Joe Biello responds: November 28th, 2005 at 9:35 am
These are some of the better photos to come out in years. They point more to legit than not. Witness report from the site with the pics for backup. The blow up of the one pic with creature looking towards him is a great shot! More analyzing needs to be done of course.
shatner_rules responds: November 28th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Maybe he was up there looking for his two-four of Kokanee?
But seriously it would be good if they could get a clearer image of the subject when it is blown up.

I still remain skeptical.
Searcher responds: November 28th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Interesting photos, but without the full context they aren’t worth much evidentially. More vaguely man-like, dark blobs of undetermined size and distance. My guess is it’s not faked, but I have to wonder if there are any follow-up photos? If the anonymous photographer (RED FLAG!) managed to get these photos, why not go over to where the “Bigfoot” was and take some photos of the tracks it must have left? That would go a long way to establishing credibility. If the “creature” (if that’s what it is) left boot tracks, then the case evaporates. If it left footprints, that’s a different story. But I’m betting there will be some excuse for why there are no matching track photos. I suspect this will be like rest—-enough to tantalize, not enough to conclude anything. But I hope to be proved wrong.
BMorrison responds: November 28th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Those four photos are very intriguing. In photos 1&3, the “creature” seems to be oriented in the same direction. In photos 2&4, again the “creature” seems to be oriented in the same direction. Indeed, it looks like photo 3 is a close-up of photo 1, and photo 4 is a close-up of photo 2.

Also, you can see that the photographer moved; in picture 2 you can see a group of rocks in the foreground or bottom edge of the picture that are not evident in any of the other pictures - as if he crouched down to take this picture. The peaks in the background have also changed position, as the photographer or the “creature” moved around.

My initial gut impression is that this does not look like a human figure. It does not appear to have any clothing - something that would obviously be necessary for this time of year, at that altitude in Winter conditions. Also, most climbing or hiking equipment and clothing is pretty colorful, something that would probably be evident if this was another climber.

Although it is hard to tell how far away the “creature” is, it looks from the pictures to be anywhere from 100-200 yds. away. It’s tough to really tell because there’s no real frame of reference in the photos, though there does appear to be a col, or saddle between the photgrapher and the “creature” that makes distance juding even more difficult in the photos.

All in all it will be interesting to read the photographer, RC’s report on the BFRO website. Hopefully, it will shed more light on the circumstances surrounding these photos.
David V responds: November 29th, 2005 at 4:02 am
Hi everybody. Well I hate to be a party pooper, but I think this image may be a cut and paste job that was done on a computer and then reloaded into the camera. The reason I mention this is because if you enlarge image #30 (the second image), to about 600%, you will discern a noticable ‘halo’ effect around the subject in question. This halo effect isn’t seen around any other items in the photograph, i.e. rocks and trees. In fact, if you leave the image enlarged and view it in the red channel, the ‘halo’ becomes really noticable. In fact it almost looks like a cut and paste job was done whereas the outline of the subject all the way around it seems to have this halo effect and the outline of it wasn’t quite blended in correctly to the existing background. I really hate to come down on this image but I think its highly likely this is a faked image. FYI, I examined the EXIF data for the files and the image is the same for both of them, the only difference being that the timestamps are one minute apart. I also managed to find that the camera is very most likely a Sony Cybershot DSC-S30 camera and it was set to its ‘medium’ resolution setting. One would think that a photographer would use his or her highest resolution setting to take this once in a lifetime shot, although it would be completely understandable if somebody forgot to do that if they were caught in the excitement of capturing on film what they thought to be an actual bigfoot. If you want to view the EXIF data for yourself, simply download the images and look at the advanced properties of each image.
The Real Nick responds: November 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Hi, New to this arena and a Brit. too, so please excuse the language barrier!

Re Comment 6… Photo 3 is an enlargement of 1; photo 4 is an enlargement of 2. Overlaying the two photos and it becomes apparent that the photographer moved to the right to take the second photo – there is little vertical difference between the two shots. By how much to the right, I don’t know, 10-20 feet maybe? Evidently this move took the photographer behind an outcrop of rocks. I wouldn’t like to even make a wild guess at distance of the figure – even physically being there I’d be way out!

Re. Comment 7… The ‘halo’ is quite normal/expected – in fact if someone asked me to examine such an image this would be one of the first things that I’d look for in coming to a conclusion about whether it was genuine [I manipulate images in Photoshop for a living and specialise in natural history subjects]. The ‘halo’ is an artefact of digital images and you will often see it in hi-end scans of transparencies too. It occurs where there is delimiting high contrast. If you look at the edge of the hill to the right of the creature you will see the same ‘halo’ effect around the bushes where they are outlined against the sky. Unless you’ve got extensive experience of such image-manipulation this is not the sort of unexpected detail that you would realise was there. If you like try an experiment; remove the ‘halo’ – us an aligned cloning stamp set at say 80% to blend-in the ‘halo’ at high mag., then zoom out – it wont look ‘right’. The pix are actually 17 seconds apart looking at the EXIF data – one minute seemed suspiciously long for me. I wouldn’t read too much into the camera resolution that the pix were shot at – my ‘happy snappy digital’ is set to a ‘medium’ setting and if I was in such a situation I’d be more concerned about getting more pix rather than ‘wasting’ time changing the resolution to the highest and hoping that it would still be around to photograph.

My Comments… The only odd thing to me is that if you showed me the two photos I’d assume that they were shot in the reverse order – the topography beyond the ridge may well explain why this is so though. Apart from that, they look good to me. Once again though, there is too little detail – you CAN’T enhance it as the detail just isn’t there – some of the ‘enhancements’ of stills taken from the P-G footage are beyond a joke in terms of what is physically there in the emulsion. Beyond a certain point ‘enhancement’ is a pure ‘flight of fancy’ rather than what it actually is, which is [well-founded] guesswork anyway. Unfortunately we now live at a time when a ‘bloody good’ photo – pin-sharp, close range, clearly recognizable – is needed before it would be taken seriously. In the hands of a professional or skilled amateur, Photoshop plus some select photos can be turned into a far better and credible ‘photo’ than anything that has been seen to date.

Nick
Sam Farris responds: November 30th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
This may not be the correct time/place for this, so I’ll try and keep it short, but here it is.

Here we have yet another series of photos that believers will defend, skeptics debunk, and open-minded people allow the possibility that they may be authentic. To me it’s all academic. There is not a single photo, or series of photos, or will there ever be, regardless of quantity or clarity, that will ever solve the mystery surrounding these creatures.

Since 1967 we have had not just some blurry black & white photo, but instead a 16mm color motion picture film lasting 10s of seconds of a female creature walking in the full illumination of daylight, yet these creatures remain unacknowledged to this day in the professional scientific community.

I cringe at the thought, but I believe the only way to bring these creatures out of folklore and into the bright spotlight of professional scientific investigation is to produce a creature, either live or dead. I suspect, due to logistics, a captured creature would most likely be a juvenile/infant. I would also surmise that an adult or adults would have to be killed in order to perpetrate the capture.

To be clear, I am not advocating a ‘Bigfoot hunt’, nor would I wish to participate in one; just stating what I believe to be the harsh reality of the issue.

Sam
skeeter klp ;-) responds: January 14th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Hi guys/gals,
Whether or not the photos are real, I will not debate. What I will tell you is that I have been researching this area for the last year and have found much in the way of what I believe to be evidence that the squatches do indeed live in the area. Within five miles of the spot and even closer, I have seen tracks, three separate incidences of fresh tree twists, and heard vocalizations. Within four miles of this spot, I had my camper-van forcefully shaken at 4:40 in the morning followed be wood knocking. So I don’t doubt that the area where the pictures were taken is a very active area. Knowing this, I would have to lean on the side of these pictures being legit.
thanks,
Kelly
silvereagle responds: July 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
This has been debunked by Larry Lund. Another bigfooter apparently borrowed digital copies of some of his photographs that he had taken of a cardboard silouette. That other bigfooter then superimposed them on his backgrounds. End of story.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Washington State Bigfoot Photos?

Spread the Word!

11 Responses to “Washington State Bigfoot Photos?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra