Comments on: Dead Bigfoot Photo?

By: Lost_Thought

Lost_Thought — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:09:00 +0000

I did some minor level adjustments in Photoshop, and determined quickly that it is a poor forgery.

Here is a quick and dirty rundown of the most obvious signs of fakery in this image.

//late to the party.

By: john5

john5 — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:38:14 +0000

Thanks for the comment RPJ. Hopefully there are some quality photography equipment being used in an attempt to photograph Sasquatch. Even an old super8 movie camera would produce better quality footage than many of the new gizzmos out there.

Thanks for not considering this new twitter thing too Loren. Don’t no what it is and really don’t care right now. I tried the facebook thing and it is far to involved for my liking. If people do not have anything better to do in their life it is probably marvelous.

Hopefully more people will help financially with all of your efforts Loren! I have no credit card but would like to donate if I could use my Canadian bankcard over the internet somehow. I can pay bills over the internet up here but do not know how I can donate to you with it across the border.

By: Steleheart

Steleheart — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:36:03 +0000

I realize I’m new here and no disrespect meant those with more experience in such things but y’all seem quick to jump on the ‘fake’ bandwagon. For one thing in the early days of photography, the whole process was a big deal – no point and shoot cameras and no pix-texting to friends and media. Even up to the 50’s many professionals were still using glass plate negatives. One did not take many multiples. On another note many native Americans believed in Sasquatch as fact, but more importantly, in remote areas poor people had no access to media and if something like this did happen it would be unlikely folks would be able to afford to ‘take it on the road’ so to speak. Eventually the event would become a little known ‘legend’.

It’s easy to see that a small photo eventually scanned and enlarged would lose much of its original integrity and become blurred and pixilated. True enough the creature is in the foreground and the hunter is behind. This is a problem with focus because early equipment had very limited ability to adjust for “depth of field” and consequently only the hunter is in focus.

As far as details at least the lighting angles are consistent – the light falls on the hunter’s right arm and on the corresponding side of the creature which, it seems, is hung at a slightly different angle and so is more shadowed.

With that in mind I played with the light just a bit and lo-and-behold it seems more likely that the photo is in fact of the front of the ‘creature’! Using Picasa, I turned the photo upside down, added some fill light and more details became evident! The fingers are curled forward and there is even a discernible penis – pointing in the right direction I might add. (It is more easily seen upside down)

Unfortunately I don’t know how to add a picture here but try it!

By: DNS

DNS — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:55:58 +0000

Bear with bad haircut.

By: Roy3rd

Roy3rd — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:20:36 +0000

I’m with you, sausage1. The gorilla pictures make me feel very sad.

By: gr8shot

gr8shot — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:39:25 +0000

I can give you one piece of info that proves its a fake, and its so obvious I can’t believe no one has seen it. The man in the photo. If you look at his left hand, from the wrist to his elbow is missing! You see foliage where an arm should be. Definitely a photoshop.

By: theprof

theprof — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:00:19 +0000

That “Indian on horseback” is so obviously a fake. I mean its photoshop isn’t it? Everything else is genuine but that Indian…come on!:))

In case..I was kidding. I know the tree is the actual fake.

By: cor2879

cor2879 — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:32:41 +0000

I see a bear in that photo. A big animal for sure but doesn’t look otherwise remarkable or inexplicable.

By: kolobe

kolobe — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:24:22 +0000

I forgot to add that if it was hung and a pic taken as an after thought the animal being humaniod would only be skinned, and if skinning had started then you would be able to pick that up in the photo. If skinning had not been started then again all features would be photographed. It must be remembered that in those days few pics where taken of kills as hunting was considered part of life and a way to put meat on the table. So again if you going to take the trouble to photograph it, they would have gone the whole hog and shown it from the front on.

By: kolobe

kolobe — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:02:43 +0000

Talking as a hunter, most hunters would not hang the animal unless to gut it, it is too much trouble when out in the field and your thoughts are mainly of getting the meat home. Trophy pics would be taken where the animal falls, in a case like this as with the gorilla pics, it would either be placed in a sitting position or if hung it would be hung arms 1st, not by the hind legs, unless off course as said it is to gut the animal there where it was shot. A hunter off course particularly a trophy hunter would show of anything peculiar or anything odd about the animal that was shot, the picture must tell a story, trophy hunters like to brag so they would show off all the features and not show the back of the animal, no story in that.

The only other scenario would be an after thought of the hunters to photograph it after they had gutted it. This I doubt as if it was humanoid they would never consider eating it. Photos would have been taken from all angles, the story approach again, and the animal disposed of or left where it fell, in the days that this pic was supposedly taken the animal would have been left where it fell.

Just a hunters opinion.