Cryptomundo » Mt. Hood Photos: New Ones

Mt. Hood Photos: New Ones

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 24th, 2006

Some new photographs have come in from the Mt. Hood, Oregon game-cam team of Kendall and Martin. The camera has been moved up to a height of 42 inches, even though the manual recommends 36 inches, due, in large part to comments here.

First, however, an on-site regular photo of a newly discovered deposit of fecal matter found near the camera is displayed directly below. It was a large pile of scat found about 300 yards from the camera; also deer bones were discovered 25 yards from the scat.

Please click on image for full-size version

Recently, an elk was photographed, but we can’t upload the videoclip because of size configurations. It came right up to the game-cam and apparently decided to have some direct investigative interactions with the lense. The following is the one specific close up of that incident. It is followed immediately by the cam photos of the elk coming towards the camera and then away from it, the before and after of the close-lense event.

There was definitely a close encounter of the elk kind.

These are useful to compare with the original "Bigfoot mystery" photo, which, of course, shows a furry blob and no one knows what was captured in that now well-known image.

Please click on image for full-size version

The original unknown object photograph, the mystery one first discussed here, is below.

Click image for full-size version

So, you’ve seen them both, side by side? Any new ideas on what the mystery photograph might be?

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 24th, 2006 at 8:15 am and is filed under Artifacts, Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoology, 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:

19 Responses to “Mt. Hood Photos: New Ones”

voodoochild responds: June 24th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Yes, its hard to tell what exactly is in the last pic. Hopefully, more images will be forthcoming from the new height that they have placed the cam. Did they obtain a sample of the scat? If so, are they going to have it analyzed?
twblack responds: June 24th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I know we debated the last picture a bunch but to look at it again just no clear evid. of what it is. Deer, Bear, Horse, Hoax, Bf I just do not see anything that says it is 100% this or that. It is a photo that makes you go HMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!! I am glad to hear they raised the camera up a little bit though. Would have been great had that been done for the mystery photo. But hey you just never know!! At least they are out their trying! Maybe they will get the big guy one day!
Freelancer responds: June 24th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
The scat is very interesting if I’m seeing what I think I am. It appears to have hair & bits of leaves in it. Which, of course, indicates an omnivore. I assume bear scat have been ruled out? There are bears in my area, but I’ve never actually found any bear scat in the woods.
ctyrd109 responds: June 24th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
The original photo sure looks like the hind end of a horse. Looks like a tail in the foreground and the horses belly further into the shot.
One Eyed Cat responds: June 24th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Two thoughts:
First, the locations seem different. even with the height difference.

Second thought is a bit of humor really. WHAT is it with the animals opinions on cameras and such lately? First the adorable Mouse lemur and now an elk. Oh well it could have been worse. The elk did refrain from depositing a pile on camera! LOL
jim_brikiatis responds: June 24th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
This might be the deer’s neck close to the camera during motion.The neck is propably up or down. Though it is more dark brown definately…
garyblack responds: June 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
it looks like the deers nose sniffing the camera to me
oldbutnotstupid responds: June 25th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I don’t know why these investigators never seem to setup so that they get proper proof. The answer is to pair the cameras so that one views the other and trigger them both at the same time. Unless a creature could split in half, one of the cameras would have to have a proper image. 10 camers in 5 places with a guaranteed image is better then 10 spread around and unidentifiable junk collected. Or is it that the whole thing is a bunch of foolishness and they know it, and just want to carry on for reasons of their own. The bigfoot may be the real thing but I’m beginning to believe these experts may not be.
Freelancer responds: June 25th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
oldbutnotstupid says: “I don’t know why these investigators never seem to setup so that they get proper proof. The answer is to pair the cameras so that one views the other and trigger them both at the same time. Unless a creature could split in half, one of the cameras would have to have a proper image. 10 camers in 5 places with a guaranteed image is better then 10 spread around and unidentifiable junk collected. Or is it that the whole thing is a bunch of foolishness and they know it, and just want to carry on for reasons of their own. The bigfoot may be the real thing but I’m beginning to believe these experts may not be”

I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for now & just say it does appear that they lack expertise in setting up their cameras.
Freelancer responds: June 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I just had my brother, who has been hunting for about 40 years & has also worked outdoors alot, look at the pic & he says it is definitely scat from a cat.
goerman responds: June 25th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Notice how (relatively) clear the photo of the elk is. Poor lighting and digital format to be sure, but, all in all, not a total loss. Photographs, like documents, contain information. Photo information can be degraded by choice of format, poor exposure, blur caused by subject or camera movement, poor focus, etc.

Evidence comes in (basically) three forms: testimonial (anecdotal)… documentary (digital or film-based photographs, tape recordings, films and videos)… and physical (an object intended to prove a fact based on its demonstrable physical characteristics).

Can we not get cases where all three forms of evidence exist and corroborate one another? Supported by multiple witnesses?

Show me a photo of bigfoot as clear as this elk shot and then you will finally have some raw data worth evaluating.
stompy responds: June 25th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
clearly a Jabberwocky
bf looker responds: June 25th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
cameras are great,huh?! but like those above have commented, if the photo is of too poor quality to prove anything it really isn’t worth looking at. hope for better luck in the future.

still to me the last shot looks as if the elk is close, at the left edge of camera, with it’s neck is extended up (sniffing) and the dark hair is from the underside of the neck.
shadowparks responds: June 26th, 2006 at 2:11 am
if you look hard enough, it looks like there is a “blobsquatch” in the 4th picture down, to the right of the animal, in between the two trees. Just goes to show you if you look long enough you are bound to see something.
fredfacker responds: June 26th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I’d second the vote on cat droppings, but then again, I’ve never seen bear droppings, so who knows? Could be Pope droppings.
Jeremy_Wells responds: June 26th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
my thoughts are cat scat… but it’s too hard to tell from photo and I honestly don’t have a lot of experience with big cats. Definitely some type of creature with carnivorous habits, from all that hair.
I’ve found similar “poo” before, but much smaller, that we had attributed to foxes. Also reminds me a lot of owl pellets, but if that were the case these would be all hair, bone and insect bits when cut open. How close did they examine this scat?
youcantryreachingme responds: June 27th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
bf_looker (13) wrote “if the photo is of too poor quality to prove anything it really isn’t worth looking at”

I disagree.

Firstly, important information can get overlooked, and only identified at a later date by re-evaluating the image.

Secondly, the significance of specific information may not be realised until an image is re-evaluated after having accumulated other (new) knowledge in the interim.

Thirdly, by continually critiquing a variety of images, your analysis skills are honed.

Fourthly, you wouldn’t know if an image was of “too poor” quality - unless you’d looked at it. In other words, at some point you are in fact making a judgement on the image based on your inspection.

OK. The elk’s “snout” (?) seems to have a near enough colouration (given this is a different day, time and location!).

I update my earlier assessment to say it’s likely either a deer or an elk.

(Ah, the joy of making critical analyses of animal photos when you don’t know the fauna, geography or habitat in a location on a continent you’ve never even visited!)
shumway10973 responds: June 28th, 2006 at 1:19 am
it is very clear to me that picture “x” is that of the elk getting right up to the camera and nodding up and down rapidly as the camera took the shot. I can clearly make out his left eye about the half way point as well as the beginnings of either his ear or antlers on the same side. I do agree with comment #5, the whole shot has changed with moving the camera.
MBFH responds: June 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Never seen an Elk (wrong country) but it looks like a horses head to me. Mane over the forehead with the base of the ear at top right.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

19 Responses to “Mt. Hood Photos: New Ones”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training