87 Responses to “New Mt. Hood Mystery Photo”

1. bill green responds: June 11th, 2007 at 12:48 am

   very interesting possible new mt.hood sasquatch photo more research etc study needs to be done to it. thanks bill green

2. thatericn responds: June 11th, 2007 at 1:17 am

   Interesting.

   Although it looks somewhat chimpanzee-like, logic and a mental pinch of salt says black bear - really black bear.

3. sschaper responds: June 11th, 2007 at 2:39 am

   I’m having trouble seeing how a black bear could stand in the configuration shown. It certainly looks primate to me, possibly human, but not necessarily.

4. mrdark responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:13 am

   Bear, walking away, weird angle.

5. BadState responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:21 am

   After blowing up the image and messing with the brightness and contrast, I’m pretty sure it’s a bear. He’s facing the camera, and he’s in a weird position, but I can make out the outline of his head.

6. elsanto responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:24 am

   Most browsers allow you to zoom. Doing that was enough to make it clear that it’s a black bear.

   Just my two cents.

7. Richard888 responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:07 am

   It looks like a black bear in every way except for the angle. I tried ‘black bear’ in Google Images but didn’t find a photo of one from the rear for comparison.

8. WIDOW responds: June 11th, 2007 at 5:47 am

   I put this photo into Microsoft Picture viewer and blew it up at 400%. Then I adjusted the brightness and contrast. While doing so I concentrated on the right side of the animal in question. At first I thought this might be a bear but the artifact towards to lower right sticking out looked odd. This may be a trick of the lighting but there looks like a face similar to the Patterson footage. You can make out what looks like eyes reflecting, a nose, and a mouth. The creature almost looks like it is at a stance of a lowland gorilla. The hand almost looks like it is folded under in the stance. Of course this could be all a trick of lighting or our minds trying to come up with an image. I can show you how to come up with the same results if you want the settings let me know. Again I am not saying it is an unknown creature but it is an odd photo. I also have included a link to my photo here:
   http://s211.photobucket.com/albums/bb176/widowsphotos/?action=view&current=Crypto2.jpg

9. alandp responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:48 am

   My first thought was: “black bear.”

10. things-in-the-woods responds: June 11th, 2007 at 7:34 am

    Immediate thoughts-

    1) Posture reminiscent of a chimp knuckle-walking (but I’m happy to accept that people who have more knowledge of bears than me see that its a bear).

    2) Could be just about anything.

    3) It sure isn’t the same thing as in the original photo.

    4) Doesn’t look very bigfoot-y to me.

    5) The trailcam approach has potential (is this a motion-activated set up? Shame it doesn’t seem able to reel off a few more shots- are there more of this new blobsquatch?)

11. TheGoodReverend responds: June 11th, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Smoke monster from Lost?

12. kittenz responds: June 11th, 2007 at 8:20 am

    Looks like a bear to me.

13. Who Me responds: June 11th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    It appears to be a black bear walking away from the camera position and turning back toward the right as it does.

14. Richard888 responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am

    Bloating the picture by 200% or more will reveal what to me looks like an Ursus Americanus face at the upper right of the “mystery animal”. Why the strange angle? Likely the animal was running a curve towards the front-left of the camera. But the shutter speed is very high thus capturing stills and not blurs when an object is in motion.

15. tomdee27 responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:22 am

    I agree with the bear assessment

16. DWA responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Bear. Facing away from the camera; the limb you’re seeing is the left front leg.

    Next!

17. DWA responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am

    And now for an admission.

    My first thought: chimp. Note: not sasquatch. Chimp.

    But then reason took over.

    As I believe it does for most people seeing bigfoot. Problem is, reason didn’t prepare them for this.

18. ShefZ28 responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:11 am

    My monitor here is really dark, so I only see a black blob, but the bottom left corner of the blob looks like a bear leg.

19. chabuhi responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Bear on the first photo, but what the heck is that in the last photo? Dude in a ghillie(sp?) suit??

    Weird.

20. raisinsofwrath responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Looks like a black bear to me. I was trying to imagine something else but if it were a BF it would have to be squatting with knees to chest and face down to the ground. However, it just looks too bearish to conclude anything else.

    Got my heart pumping for the first couple of seconds though!

21. calash responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    What the heck. it’s a warm summer day. Let the imagination run wild! Primate posteriors can be strangely shaped to human eyes. So what we have here is obviously a pregnant or very fat sasquatch turning away from the camera with monkey butt displayed on the right. Left hand is on the ground. He or she is contemplating their next move. “Hmmm nuts and berries or some yummy Elk liver.” Maybe eating for two you know.

    (Probably a bear, but that’s no fun!)

22. showme responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:10 am

    Looks like the rear view of a black bear, balancing itself on its left foreleg while it scratches itself with its right hindleg.

23. DWA responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am

    raisinsofwrath: my reaction, exactly.

    Yet more powerful evidence that people who are seeing the sasquatch are seeing an unconfirmed animal. Whatever their initial reaction, they quickly switch on their NO-WAY sensors, and run through everything they know first. And none of the stuff they know clicks.

    Just thought I’d toss that in.

24. McHaggis responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:35 am

    Just increase the brightness of the picture, and hey presto a picture of a bear moving away from the camera.

25. Bob Michaels responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am

    a Photo shop image of an Ape like creature super imposed on a Mt Hood Landscape.

26. Ceroill responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am

    I’m with DWA on this. Initial flash thought was chimp. After a moment of reflection, I thought bear. Then after enlarging the pic, definitely bear. Not sure which way it’s facing, but it looks to me like a bear balancing on three legs as it twists around to bite/lick itself, perhaps going after a parasite or an itch. I also echo DWA’s comment about those here not rushing to holler BIGFOOT.

27. silvereagle responds: June 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Black bear twisting around to the right to groom himself by licking his right flank, obviously for what he perceived as the perfect photo op. Unfortunately, the camera went off prematurely, and caught him in a Paris Hilton moment. If the time delay had been set short enough, the next picture would show him kicking himself real hard in the butt. Why? For missing that perfect photo op, so that he could get some serious face time on the internet.

28. WIDOW responds: June 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    I tweaked the photo last night just using Microsoft Photo viewer and even though this image looks like a bear, it was fun to find some odd artifacts in the photo. I only used the brightness, contrast, and blew up the photo 400%. The thing that I found was strange was the area off to the mid right. Oddly an image of a face can be seen similar to the Patterson footage. More than likely a trick of light but if you are curious here is the link to the adjusted image:
    http://s211.photobucket.com/albums/bb176/widowsphotos/?action=view&current=Crypto3.jpg

29. dbard responds: June 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    # Bob Michaels responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am

    a Photo shop image of an Ape like creature super imposed on a Mt Hood Landscape.

    Or is it an extant giant turtle..

    /rolls eyes

30. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    I did some computer-enhanced alterations. It’s seems to me to look like the hind-quarters of a bear, although the back legs seem really short but I’m pretty sure its the angle. Hope this helps.

31. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    the link to the image for your reference:

    Photo Enhancement

32. smmoulder responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    I also played around in Photoshop and while I couldn’t see a “face”, I could see what looked a rear view of a black bear. Sorry folks, nothing unusual here.

33. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    yes, here is the link to the work I did to enhance:

    Screenshot

34. mantis responds: June 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Bear.

    Perhaps this camera tactic could be better used if the cameras were set across from each other; like a trip line.

    That would give us two photos to argue over.

35. WIDOW responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    I did adjust the photo and the odd area is off to the lower right of the animal. When adjusting the brightness and contrast features like a face can be seen. This could be trick of the eye and lighting. Although very intresting. I have an example if you want to see it. The face looks like the Patterson image.

36. WIDOW responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Adjusted image:
    http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb176/widowsphotos/Crypto3.jpg

37. SEBigfoot2007 responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Certainly not a Bear. The Arm length and overall body structure, is not that of a Bear.

38. WIDOW responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    From the image I adjusted with simple brightness, contrast as well as enlargement the animal looks as if it is facing the camera. The front right arm has its hand curled under like a stance of a gorilla. If it were to be a Sasquatch (not saying it is) it looks as if it is getting up from being on the ground. The features that look like a face have eyes slightly glowing effect, large flattened nose and a large mouth. Then again this could all be a trick of lighting. I can email you my example if you are curious.

39. DWA responds: June 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    SEBigfoot2007 responds: “Certainly not a Bear. The Arm length and overall body structure, is not that of a Bear.”

    Well, anybody who’s not careful can wind up eating crow. So I won’t say: certainly a bear. (Hey: I’m not the only one who was thinking ape for a couple seconds.)

    But I have seen a LOT of bears. And I’d be willing to bet money that’s a bear.

    How much? That would relate to my limit on how expensive I want a meal of crow to be. (I’d love to be wrong; because if that isn’t a bear, science can’t tell us what it is.)

40. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    This is the image I mentioned that I altered for your reference:

    Enhanced Photo

41. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    I would love to be able to take pix like that if I lived in some area of activity. The fun of looking what you got every time…

    by the way here is the link to the enhanced photo I did:
    Enhanced Photo

42. Judy Green responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    I hate to be a cynic, however, I have been shown before how, with Photo Shop, pictures like this can be made. Because of this information, I find very little credence in any photos on the Internet anymore. Mores the pity!

43. Munnin responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    I’ve encountered black bears (of various shades of color, including black like this one) in the wild in various parts of California, and my immediate thought when viewing this pic was “black bear.” After examining the pic more closely several times, my initial feeling is as strong as ever.

44. CryptoGoji responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Black Bear, nothing more.

45. Loren Coleman responds: June 11th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Photoshopping? That’s missing the point and not very open-minded. Also, it is not at all aligned with the credibility of these people. All they have done is sent in a photo of an unidentified animal. Photoshopping had nothing to do with this, because no one has claimed it to be a Bigfoot or anything else.

    Are people not understanding that this can be viewed as an exercise in identifying bears in photos around Mt. Hood, or seeing how things can “seem” to look like chimps?

    No claims have been made by the photographers. Period.

46. harhey responds: June 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Did anyone notice directly infront of the animal , their is two small diameter trees in a X-formation?

47. smmoulder responds: June 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Loren,

    I’m assuming you are responding to the person who believed that Photoshop had been used to create the image. Most of us are using Photoshop to help analyze the image.

    And yes, I agree this is a great example of how the common black bear could be mistaken for a lot of things in certain postures. I think folks have always believed that upright, the black bear is easily distinguished. but once you have a large, dark, furry mass crouched near the ground, it is much harder to say definitively what that mass is. In absence of clear, compelling data to the contrary Occam’s Razor says…. black bear.

    Even with Photoshop, there is a limit to what can be derived here. Crank on the contrast/levels too much and random color noise (an artifact of digital imaging) dominates. At that point, anyone can see whatever they want - the noise overwhelms the data. Literally.

    As to whether PS was used to create this. I actually wondered about it myself (the black “blob” is in sharp relief to the background in a way that is a hallmark of this sort of manipulation). But looking closer, there is enough anti-aliasing and feathering that I can believe it’s genuine as is. And besides, why PS a blob? If you’re going to work at that level, you’d produce something more interesting than this.

    So again, a genuine photo of …. a genuine black bear. IMO!

48. fuzzy responds: June 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    Otter.

49. Savage30L responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Looks like the north end of a southbound bear to me.

50. PsychedelicShroom responds: June 11th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    After having adjusted the contrast on the creature…

    Many of you are going to be shocked at what I came up with…

    The butt end of a black bear.

    Once again, another case of wishful thinking attributed to bigfoot.

    I believe the animal exists, I saw one oin broad daylight, but what I cannot believe are the people who rush to judgment on a blobsquatch, declaring any picture with the slightest amount of fur in it to be a Genuine Bigfoot.

51. asrai responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    wonder what BF dropped?

52. LiberalDem responds: June 11th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    I agree with the earlier poster, TheGoodReverend, it looks like the smoke monster from Lost.

53. Late Night Visitor responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    yes, using Photoshop to only analyze this, per my example:

    http://wesmoore.com/stuff/screenshot001.jpg

54. DWA responds: June 11th, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    The more I look at the more enhanced photos, the more they fairly scream “BLACK BEAR”.

    Wouldn’t it be cool to stop this and look for a real unconfirmed animal? Just checking.

55. planettom responds: June 12th, 2007 at 12:28 am

    These are always fun. Looks like a bear to me! I’m sure there are other photos in the sequence? I’ll check back later……back to studying for now….

56. moontime responds: June 12th, 2007 at 7:18 am

    My first thought was its a black bear scratching, that would account for the strange position it is in. Similar to how my dogs get into strange positions when they are itchy.

57. BlueRose3 responds: June 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am

    I lightened the photo and what I see is a black bear “Facing” the camera. That arm that is sticking out on the left is actually a hind leg. On that same side, he is using his front paw to dig the ground in front of him and he has his nose down sniffing the spot he is scratching. That light colored semi circle on the right side of the pic (which other’s would take as the BF hip if the BF was facing away from the camera) is actually the bears ear and the bum crack is actually the bears forehead. Sorry, not a BF photo.

58. BlueRose3 responds: June 12th, 2007 at 9:18 am

    I uploaded the pic and outlined the Bear so you would better understand what I was explaining about it being a bear facing the camera.
    
    Hope this worked…

59. BlueRose3 responds: June 12th, 2007 at 9:28 am

    Here is a link to a pic that is lightened and outlined to better understand what I explained in my previous post.

    Lightened and Outlined

60. larrykat responds: June 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am

    The simple solution to all of these “mystery” game cam photos is simply to invest the couple hundred bucks to make a ring of 3 cameras all facing in towards a central point, as equidistant as possible from the center. This area appears to be some sort of hot spot for interesting game photos, a couple more shots per incident from different angles would solve them all!

61. Ceroill responds: June 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am

    BlueRose3- Very nice. Does show it to be a bear, but I tend to think that what you outline as the muzzle may actually be a foreleg.

62. sschaper responds: June 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am

    I agree with the multiple camera idea. This image is an example of why 3-D would be helpful.

    It would also be nice if, instead of one frame, we got video.

63. mystery_man responds: June 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Well, I could say one thing about all this discussion and that is this old skeptic chestnut- It seems that it is not always apparent to a witness whether an animal is a sasquatch or a bear. I think this is a bear but the fact that nobody can be certain tells me that indeed witnesses can be mistaken, especially if this was seen only fleetingly through the foliage. Of course, what I really think is that if this was really a good, useful pic of a Bigfoot, there would be no question about what it was.

64. WIDOW responds: June 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    I have figured it out! It is Bigfoot in a bear suit! How clever! (Giggle)

65. AtomicMrEMonster responds: June 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Speaking of bears, couldn’t mutilated bears (either due to hunters who couldn’t kill them or fights with other animals) or ones born with deformities (like those “human faced piglets” you occasionally hear about) account for some sightings? I’d imagine that people wouldn’t take such things into account (many seem to think that bears always look the same) and that a vaguely-human looking face on bears with those facial issues rearing up on its hind legs would be discounted as a bear due to the face. People in the wilderness don’t have the luxury of looking at pictures for a long time and looking at them in Photoshop like we can.

    Zoologists who specialize in bears should definitely be asked how often this could occur (assuming that it’s even possible to begin with). It might even be possible to “piggy-back” off preexisting research on the matter and thus gain more credibility.

    This, of course, would not explain sightings in areas without bears and where a hoax or other misidentification have been found to be extremely. Also, not all injuries would look alike.

66. RandyinCT responds: June 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Agreed on the black bear facing the camera. IMO, it is not good research to assume a highly ambiguous photo is a never before proven animal. When in doubt, assume previously known animal or hoax. As a believer in Sasquatch creatures, I’m sick of shoddy research and journalism on the subject. Case in point.

67. sschaper responds: June 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Of course if Napes don’t spend all of their time bipedal, this could demonstrate that they could be mistaken for black bears, and not noticed, many times.

68. DWA responds: June 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    mystery_man: interesting post.

    You’re right that “that it is not always apparent to a witness whether an animal is a sasquatch or a bear” - in a fleeting sighting, lasting only a second or two, through dense vegetation or at extremely long range, where the numerous unique features of the sas aren’t visible.

    This is one reason I think it possible that a lot of people in bear country may well have passed off a sasquatch seen under these circumstances as a bear. If skeptics don’t think it likely that this happens, then I have to say that logic dictates the reverse to be orders of magnitude more unlikely. Witnesses, in a sighting where positive ID is impossible, will go with an animal they know. Period. I’m sure that no one would reasonably hold that anyone would go to a sightings website and enter such a sighting as a sasquatch. You won’t do that unless you are sure, as the reports I’ve read show. You may not be certain what the (unclassified) animal you saw was - as many witnesses before Bigfoot entered the American lexicon attest. But knowing for sure it was no known animal counts. (As, of course, does the volume of sighting reports prior to BF going nationwide.)

    Keep in mind also that this is a classic Blob(bear)squatch. It doesn’t move; it doesn’t change positions; no distinguishing features are visible. The latter situation would change in this case within an instant had an observer been present to see it. And note that the vast majority of us - even those who saw something apeish in the initial image - rectified that judgment quickly.

    If you’d been where this bear was, you would have, too.

69. dbmers responds: June 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    Definitely a bear, after highlighting and changing colors etc some things became apparent. The appendage to the left is the bear’s right rear leg. After highlighting I could also see the bear’s right front leg and a bend in the ‘elbow’ when highlighted you can also see 2 tufts of hair which are obviously his ears. So the bear is facing towards the camera. The lighting is bad so you can’t make out the details in the normal pic.

70. Jos Gagné responds: June 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Black bear. When you’re from black bear capital of Canada, you recognize them anywere. Besides, you can clearly see the snout and eye.

71. WIDOW responds: June 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    It is definately a brown bear in a black bear suit. It is quite obvious.

72. loki_the_great responds: June 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    It does look like the creature on Lost, but I think it’s definitely a bear. There are a lot of bears around here, so I recognize one when I see it.

73. MultipleEncounters responds: June 12th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    OK, this morning I too went through the brighten/contrast exercise. Initially when only the small pic would load up, it too looked like a bear being viewed head on but with the bear kind of angled and his posture cockeyed.

    Then when the larger photo began working, I began to question the head on posture for three reasons.

    1) The apparent line running down the middle of the alleged head.

    2) The hair was not streaked. Instead it is ‘roughed’ as in, looking at the hair from behind. If you look at the hair from in-front, then the hairs would appear long. From behind, you lose that and get that ‘rough’ look.

    3) That single leg on the left shows an apparent bend (an elbow) on the inside towards the body, indicating the animal is facing away from us.

    So while I do think it is still a bear, I do feel the view is from behind.

    So today I coaxed a bear to lay down on a table with his head over the edge. OK, I’ll try again.

    Today I happened to drop in a taxidermist friend of mine where I have been spending a lot of time lately because I am selling some large mounts for him. Anybody want to buy a polar bear, python skin, or a mean looking African lion? Anyway, we took one of the 8 black bears there and situated it so the head was in the approximate position (from my memory) of the thread pic.

    See link: http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/20/671257/Bear.jpg

    This was a good sized bear of about 350 lbs with a real big head as compared to the others. Note how the ears do not seem to be positioned as high on the head as the thread subject plus they protrude much more. There is also no hair-line running down the middle of the forehead that looks like the crack in the main photo. There was no hairline on any of the bears there.

    Therefore, my guess goes with us looking at a bear from the rear not front. A bear I might ad, with nary a care. But he better watch out cause it’s bear season in Oregon.

74. mystery_man responds: June 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    DWA- Right, considering it is a static picture, we cannot be sure how this subject moves or how it behaved. I am sure if we could see even a fraction of footage of this subject, it would become more apparent if this was a bear or not. I just thought I’d throw that little devil’s advocate idea out there. Some skeptics may look at the way we are poring over a likely pic of a bear, deliberating whether it is a sasquatch or not and say that constitutes proof that bears can be mistaken for something else. Although I personally am pretty sure this can happen, it doesn’t take into account that this is a static pic of a probable bear in pose that makes it seem as if it is something else whereas if we could see a few more frames, the answer would be obvious.

    That being said, it would be an interesting experiment to post known pics of a bear that are not immediately clear as such and see what people make of them. I think with these pics, expectations can play a big role. There was no claim to this one, yet we are deliberating on whether it is a bear or not (although granted lots here think it is a bear). What if someone knowingly posted a pic of a bear, maybe from behind on its hind legs, and said it was a sasquatch? Would people think that maybe it was and go on and on about how it could be Bigfoot, while the photographer sat by and had a chuckle? I am sure that if someone really has a certain expectation and looks at a pic hard enough, they will see what they want to see. That is why I want clear, indisputable photos, or better yet, footage where we can see it MOVE.

75. RockerEm responds: June 13th, 2007 at 12:10 am

    its just a bear

76. WIDOW responds: June 13th, 2007 at 12:49 am

    It has to be a bear because it is not wearing any pants. It is quite obvious.

77. Bearhunter responds: June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 am

    First off; I’m amazed by the number of wild imaginations displayed by some of the viewers. It’s definitely a bear in an awkward posture as assessed by reader Ceroill. The 5th picture is none other then the south end of a north bound horse.

78. BofAwannabe responds: June 13th, 2007 at 2:42 am

    06/12/07

    This appears to be a ‘deformed’ or ‘physically challenged’ wood creature with no obvious means to known public healthcare. Reconstructive surgery may be possible unless major arteries and nerves are so fused that any attempt at surgery would be futile. In my current ramblings I found that in time the creature will die from many futile attempts to get food.

    Thank you

79. jodzilla responds: June 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Yep, that’s a bear’s behind! Black bears don’t have tails which means that the “face” some folks are seeing is most likely the bear’s (for lack of better word) butt. I’m sure the bear would be insulted by that. The way a bear walks when it is on all fours gives it a slumped appearance. They also rock or “swagger” a bit, which would account for the seemingly odd position. They’re pretty scared of people so I imagine it was running away from the photographer.

80. Alligator responds: June 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    A black bear, at an odd angle. Also the light appears to have been fading fast which didn’t help. Game trail cameras are not intended to pick up “details” like we would expect with a high res Canon or Pentax. The last picture is really interesting. Someone’s head with long hair? Other than that, very indistinct.

81. Tabbercat8 responds: June 14th, 2007 at 8:23 am

    My first thought was a black bear reaching around to scratch an itch. Loren, awesome site here, been visiting daily now for about two weeks and this is my first post. Can’t wait to see more pictures. Great work to all.

82. claireaudient responds: June 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    First impression was a bear, 2nd and 3rd look didn’t change my opinion….still think it’s a bear.

83. Indrid Cold responds: June 24th, 2007 at 5:18 am

    Black bear walking away with its head turned at a funny angle.

84. thylo responds: June 27th, 2007 at 5:53 am

    for a fleeting second as i first saw this picture i thoughth bear… black bear.

    but given a few seconds more contemplation i do not like the object at all…. it is too perfectly black, crisp and featureless.

    it looks to me like someone used a graphics program, loaded up the spraycan with black from the palette, sprayed it around in a chosen area until it was full of black, and then posited the question “what is this?”.

    i looked at what someone else had found by enhancing the image and it appears there might be actual detail after all.
    but without enhancing, it does not look real to me.

85. onetimer responds: June 30th, 2007 at 2:14 am

    I’m quite sure it’s a wolverine. Check out this photo of one.

86. onetimer responds: June 30th, 2007 at 2:18 am

    I believe this is a wolverine. If you doubt me, just Google “wolverine animal” and check out the pictures. Find a black one and you’ll see what I mean.

87. DavidRavenMoon responds: November 8th, 2007 at 12:53 am

    I happen to be a photoretoucher, and use this program every day, and have been using it for the past 13 or so years.

    You can’t create something like this in Photoshop.

    Also here is another enhancement done correctly:

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|