Comments on: Mt. Hood Bigfoot Reference Photos

By: mantis

mantis — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:09:17 +0000

I think both of these articles have been a psychological survey on you – the viewer – to determine how many people see “something” in a picture full of “nothing”. Both of these articles never mention where in the photo the “evidence” is. Can someone please circle it for me? If this is a secret survey, I’d love to see the results in a later posting.

By: kokodhem

kokodhem — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:35:39 +0000

Now I’m wondering exactly what Tatzelwurm was seeing in the first pic, since we all pretty unanimously see the same exact shape again in these that we all took for a sasquatl in the original photo…

Kudos to the photog doing the footwork to clear this all up.

By: hudgeliberal

hudgeliberal — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:58:06 +0000

Yes, good to see someone make an intelligent move these days. Intelligence sure seems to be in small supply when it comes to the “researchers” in the news these days. Kudos to Diana.

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:16:50 +0000

Agree with friends above, well done Dianna.

By: red_pill_junkie

red_pill_junkie — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:31:48 +0000

By doing this follow-up these researchers have shown the kind of integrity that should be expected of any self-respected cryptozoologist. Bravo!

By: Ouroborus Jay

Ouroborus Jay — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:32:17 +0000

I’m agreeing with Alton here. You verify these things before sending it off to the Mighty Interweb.

But yeah, kudos for checking eventually, I guess.

By: maslo63

maslo63 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:22:11 +0000

I can see what appears to be the same object in the first and third pictures, and that’s without enlarging them. Case closed I guess, unless sasquatch just like to hang out in that spot and watch passing traffic. Personally if I were the picture taker I would walk into the woods to see what I were really looking at.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:15:55 +0000

Good show, Ms. Martin!!!

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:42:07 +0000

The much praised followup should have been done BEFORE the original image was released, but at least it was done. I would have liked to have seen a photo with a person standing next to the stump/root/whatever to get an idea of its size. I saw several guesses on forums regarding the possible height of the object.

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:35:47 +0000

Well, that sure beats “no, there really is one, and to find it send us money for a t-shirt, DVD and privately guided expedition.”

Mistakes happen. Krantz made them, Chilcutt made them, Sanderson made them, everyone makes them. It’s understanding and correcting them that separates out the honest folks.

Although I’d rather we not spend too much time combing photos for possible sas.