90 Responses to “New 2008 Bigfoot Photo?”

1. scabbydogmess responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:45 am

   I see what I’ve seen in most Bigfoot pictures sadly…someone in a suit. But this is a fun photo.

2. elsanto responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:54 am

   This is definitely not a blobsquatch… blobsquatches take forever to find — and what one usually finds is… well… a blob. Not so, here. In this case, the subject is easily discernable, and simple zooming in turns up quite a lot of details readily. A saggital crest and brow ridge can be seen… as can most of the back, though buttocks and legs are obscured. Further zooming reveals a nose as well as an eye/eyelid… not to mention what could be fingers on the left hand.

   The barrel shape of the subject is something I find interesting… as is the lack of a neck. This is in line with no small number of accounts. The coloration of the fur is also interesting. On these bases, we can dismiss the classifcation of this subject as a blobsquatch… leaving us with: what is it?

   The point that gives me pause on this photo is the arms. The left one could be a foreshortened arm of appropriate sasquatch length (as typified by the Patterson-Gimlin subject), or it could be a human arm of average length in a suit. The right arm, obscured as it is, leaves us little to work with, as far as I can tell. That is unfortunate, because this is one of the best shots that I’ve seen in quite some time. I accept that a photo of a moving subject in such territory is going to have natural objects obscuring the subject; fine. What is suspicious is that the parts that are obscured are the very ones that could enable us to have a more conclusive determination of the the subject that has been captured in this shot.

   Just my two cents.

3. captainadam_21 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:07 am

   Very interested. At first I really didn’t seem much but after you zoom in after you click on the picture. It does appear to be something standing their with an arm clearly in view. I think that ‘nose’ might be a shadow and ‘it’ has its back to the camera.
   On another interesting note. If you directly to the left of the Bigfoot you can clearly see an image that looks kinda like man’s face with long hair… like Jesus.

4. ocakyoshimma responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:22 am

   Thats funny, I called my wife over and said “this is a new bigfoot picture” and didnt say anything else so she wouldnt get any preconceived ideas and the first thing she saw was the “bearded male face” to the left of the figure, I on the other hand had read the description so easily found the figure and missed the face.

5. Lyndon responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am

   “”If you directly to the left of the Bigfoot you can clearly see an image that looks kinda like man’s face with long hair… like Jesus.”"

   Looks more like Joseph Stalin to me hehe.

6. Ceroill responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am

   Hmm. All I can say for certain is I see shadows. I can’t see any of the supposed details mentioned, such as brow ridge.

   As to the ‘face’, I suspect it may be ‘Ziggy’, the mascot/logo from the rolling papers packet.

7. NHbigfoot responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:42 am

   If you zoom in directly behind the big mess of broken logs you can clearly see something very interesting

8. mrdark responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:52 am

   This is actually compelling. Doesn’t look like a Photoshop, and NOT a blobsquatch. Took me all of 3 seconds to spot what they’re talking about. Size looks good, pointed head looks good. They need to go back and take more pictures from the same vantage point to see if it isn’t a very convincing ‘matrixing’ of leaves/trees/etc.

9. President06 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:28 am

   Zoom in to the area just to the right of the tree on the far left. That interests me more than what may behind the mess of logs, because it shows what looks to me like a tall, furry apelike animal. I hope I’m not the only one who’s seeing that.

10. Christoph responds: July 10th, 2008 at 5:42 am

    sorry, I can’t see it…

11. MountDesertIslander responds: July 10th, 2008 at 7:18 am

    The fact that the image is perfectly centered in the pic screams fake to me. It’s too much of a suspension of belief that one could frame that picture from a moving car by accident.

12. MattBille responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:34 am

    It could be a black bear standing up, which would account for “short arms.” Could also be a person in a simple rental ape suit, which could also account for short arms. (at least shorter then you expect on a sasquatch), although a lot has to do with how the arm is bent at the moment the photo was taken. With just a single still image, it could even be a dark stump + shadows. I can’t get excited about this one.

13. mystery_man responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:40 am

    I lack the capabilities for in depth picture analysis on my computer, but I must say that I see very few of the details that some here are claiming. I am looking at this pic with an open mind, but let’s also be objective here. In my own honest opinion, for what it’s worth, what we see here could just as easily be a lot of things other than a Bigfoot. I see no compelling reason at this point to jump to the explanation of what we see here as even a living creature, let alone a sasquatch. That is not to rule it out, but we might as well have the discussion over whether this is an anomalous looking piece of tree trunk or patch of shadows. Occam’s Razor can be of service here. Why start at Bigfoot, looking for reasons it could be that and then work backwards from there? Of course I could be wrong, new details may show that, but as it stands I don’t see anything here to rule out more mundane possibilities.

14. Richard888 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:46 am

    This is the kind of article that turns ordinary folk into Cryptomundo addicts without hope for recovery
    If this was a trailcam photo I’d be very excited because the implication would be that it was the object that triggered the camera. This could be confirmed by going to the site to see whether the object is there (trunk) or not there (moving).

    But instead we are told “I wanted to see what I could capture that was moving into the woods that couldn’t be seen.” What does that mean? To me it sounds like random pictures were being taken from the car. So the object might very welll be a trunk or some other non-moving feature of the landscape unless someone goes back and disproves that.

    PS. Maybe the picture can gain more popularity as a miracle picture…

15. Christoph responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am

    There are a dozen Bigfoots in the picture if you want to see them…

16. jayman responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am

    The best of these find-the-BF pics we’ve seen in a while IMHO. I spotted the subject almost immediately, without downloading the bigger image. Having done so, it seems clear this is an actual object, not a “trick of light and shadow”. “It” clearly has its back to the camera. But what is it? It does generally fit most BF descriptions… bulky, neckless, crested head.

17. DWA responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am

    Nothing in the picture.

    But a whole lot of imaginative people looking at it, for sure.

18. Buzzard responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    I honestly can’t see anything but an old tree on the ground in the middle. If someone can see a nose, eyes and eyelids, then they have quite the imagination.

19. eireman responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    I am among the minority here; I, too, cannot see a thing. I see what some are refering to, just above and off center to the cluster of dead branches, and I see how one could perceive arms and a “crest”, but to be honest, I don’t think that’s anything more than shadow. I would say it is a case of pareidolia.

20. CryptoGoji responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:19 am

    The object that I am assuming is a BF in the center of the photo looks to be nothing more that an extension of the mass of downed trees that happens to be under the shade of another ceder. I can’t really see any of the detail that others on this board have said they see, but I agree with Christoph, there are dozens of “Bigfoot” in the picture if that is what your looking for. I see trees and underbrush, not even the hint of anything, not even a “Blobsquatch”.

21. ETxArtist responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    I can’t see anything except maybe a tree trunk.

22. Artist responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    It’s a Beckardi Creature, no doubt about it - in fact, SEVERAL of them!

    Just to the left of the slanted trunk in the foreground, behind the - no, IN FRONT of the grey log - well, the trunk itself forms a big X with the black trunk behind it, so - but there, on the extreme right of the - or is it the extreme left - BOTH sides of the photo - I see hairy arms in a royal wave postu- wait, no, that’s the Ameslan sign for turkey on the left, and - but wait, there’s also a big, hairy - can’t you see it?

23. planettom responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am

    I’m not too excited about this one. Whatever it is looks more like a stump to me. I WANT to see something, I just don’t.

    Also, I think it looks too small in relation to the brush/trees.

    Next.

24. Sergio responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am

    (In my best Chicago Irish cop accent)

    Nothin’ to see here people.

    Move on.

    Move on.

    ‘Twas nothin’ but a wee bit of wishful thinkin’.

25. Patrick Bede responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Good Gawd!

    When will this madness end?!

    It’s a picture of trees and grass and sunlight and shadows!

    How is it that so many can make something out of nothing when it comes to photos like these??

    Maybe it’s a massacre? And this is the aftermath?

26. jrenn responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Its a tree! But the Jesus face is super cool!!

27. shumway10973 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Well, I’m glad to see there are others having problems seeing the “easily discernable” (as elsanto put it). I’m sorry to everyone who thinks this is the pic for big foot. I have clicked on the pic, zoomed in and even downloaded it. The two things that could very well be big foot could also be stumps behind the conifer branches. I do not see the crest, the arm (let alone the fingers) or anything else that says big foot. Besides, this is an awfully beautiful shot taken out a moving vehicle.

28. Hollyhcks3 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I have to agree with Shumway 10973…I see three things that could be mistaken for Bigfoot, but they all look like stumps and shadows and inanimate objects to me. On the other hand, I can’t see Jesus OR Stalin- maybe I need new glasses. I sure hate to miss seeing Jesus!

29. MultiSlacking responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Whatever it is, it is definitely not a shadow. The “arm” clearly has sunlit branches in front and behind it. Shadows have a hard time existing in direct sunlight…it’s just sort of the way the shadows work. Sun hits them and they disappear.

30. mystery_man responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Patrick Bede- Normally I’d agree with you, but thankfully almost everybody agrees that this particular photo probably shows nothing. It doesn’t seem to me that a whole lot of people here are making something out of nothing.

    Which leads me to commend the people taking this one critically and I’m also happy that my eyes apparently aren’t deceiving me when they tell me there is no easily discernible detail to be had in that shadowed area.

    I’ll come out and say it; this is a blobsquatch.

31. DavidFullam responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am

    I can see something that sort of looks like a Bigfoot walking away. Only problem is it’s face appears to be on the back of it’s head!

32. kentuckycowboy2 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    When enlarging it by 200 & 300% you can see the mans face to be a tree stump but still the creature appears to be real holding the tree limb in a odd manner that would be real cumbersome to a human but still not impossible, but not a bush , leaves or tree to me so maybe we’ll have to wait till the experts go over the pic.

33. PDNate responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    I see two things in this picture (besides the Jesus face). The one seems to be walking away from the camera along the fallen log, the other is behind the two trees to the left of the walking away object. The two trees are closer to the camera and right next to each other. It appears that something very big is looking right into the camera. All you can see is the left half of the face. I can see the eye and the brow ridge, it is very obvious but you have to zoom in. Both objects have light on them so I would not say they are shadows, but if they are a Bigfoot or not……Ah well…I’ll just leave it at that. Interesting picture, but I dont believe that this will prove anything to anyone. To many “what if’s”. Keep taking pictures though!

34. davidk responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Definitely a tree stump - with mange…

35. Reece responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    President, I see the other thing you’re seeing too.

36. edgar responds: July 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    A few comments, in general and specific to this picture:

    1. Any photo that requires the viewer to play “Where’s Waldo” to see the cryptid is poor evidence at best. I do realize that real cryptids don’t stop and pose.

    2. Any photo that was supposedly taken at random from a moving vehicle that just happens to catch a cryptid pretty much exactly in the center of the frame should raise red flags.

    3. Either “Bigfoot” is much smaller than we’ve always been told, is much further away than the trees in the foreground, or those trees are very large. It’s been a while since I’ve been in the Mt Hood area, but I do recall some big trees close to the road.

    4. It wouldn’t be hard to find that rather distinctive dead log in the foreground along the same route, and take a followup photo for comparison.

37. NWesterner responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    I can’t see anything. There are lots of illusions the mind can make when viewing trees and shadows and logs.

    If this is a bigfoot photo, it is a pathetic one. Honestly, I haven’t seen a good bigfoot pic yet and I have books on it. The best is the video from Patterson and really the only one that looks legit to me. I believe the creature exists.

38. DARHOP responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    For those of you that see nothing. Are you able to blow up the photo? I saw nothing until I blew up the photo. And after I did that, I could see 3 possible somethings. Once you click the photo to enlarge it, click it again and it zooms in. See if that helps you see anything.

39. Regan Lee responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    I could see it right away; the crest on the head, etc. But, while it looked “Bigfoot like’ it also screamed fake at me. Something about the overall stiffness of the thing and the position of the body, with the trees in front of it (or more accurately, in front of the viewer.)

    Just enough to get us interested, not enough to say “Ah! At last!!”

40. comncents responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    In the middle foreground of the picture I plainly see a Forest Nessie. It has obviously just been shot and is falling down with its short arms spread wide, its head pointed toward the sky and its mouth open in agony. The numerous bullet holes are visible in the long torso. It must have been visiting a mass grave of other forest nessies buried in the lower front portion of the picture. Based on the height of the vegetation, this massacre occurred between 180 and 183 days prior to the picture. The main suspect is the bearded man on the grassy knoll and the large hairy person or persons fleeing from the scene are wanted for questioning. A letter has been sent to the district attorney.

41. red_pill_junkie responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    I could be wrong, but I honestly see nothing but shadows, the “sagital crest” is produced by the trees’ foliage. I’ve zoomed the image to 200%, and at first it was compelling, but that’s because I was looking for a Sasquatch-like object; I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted to find in the image.

    PS: And that’s not Jesus, that’s Bob Ross, finally living among the happy little trees

42. Ann Unknown responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Diagonally, to the upper left of the center of the photo, behind a tree, there does appears to be a very dark, shadowy “being”.

    Could this be the long fabled “Manin Agor Illas Uit”, my Native American camp councilor once told us of!? She said that, “It often appears as an ‘omen’, in times when the hunting is bad - or - if there is an economic downturn and tribal revenues are approaching ‘the land of eternal red ink’.” Memories of her stories of this menacing spirit-beast, conveyed in her low, esoteric voice, by a dying campfire’s last, struggling embers, frightens me to this very day!

43. smk17 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    DEBUNKED: I’m pretty sure I see what people are referring to. I downloaded the image and saturated it in Photoshop. You can clearly see how different this looks with the colors saturated. No Bigfoot here. Just a play on light and shadows and lack of depth awareness.

44. steele79 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    could it just be as simple as wood i mean it is near a large tree downed with alot of wood around it is it just as simple a s that just wood with the right amount of shade on it?

45. sschaper responds: July 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Maybe I’m not getting the full resolution image, but I played with the curve in the GIMP, and, in addition to the image being very noisy and full of compression artifacts, I think we are looking at a broken branch on that downed tree. The “legs” are on the wrong side of the trunk, and if you increase the lighting, the head looks a lot more like the broken end of a branch, than of any animal.

46. DWA responds: July 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    To all who have said you don’t see a durn thing in this photo (I don’t even see a blobsquatch!), do the other responses worry you:

    1) not at all;
    2) a little;
    3) a lot; or
    4) way too much, in fact, to worry about?

    Just checking.

    This is very clearly a shot of living and dead foliage. I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel there is an animal as big as a mouse, anywhere in it.

    But I would bet a whole lot on what mainstream scientists reading this blog might be thinking.

47. maslo63 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    At first, like so many others I saw nothing. But upon zooming in I did spot the alleged sas behind the mass of sticks and stumps. I can make out a crest, brow and a light patch where the face would be. Honestly it appears to me to be a gorilla but I don’t believe that its any kind of primate except for a human. I find the Jesus face more compelling .

48. Sunny responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    DWA, I’m with you — I really want this to be a photo of a real creature, but I just see some interesting play of light and shadow over some downed trees.

    It bothers me only in that, in the breathless rush to discover a photo of a real cryptid, otherwise very rational people become quite irrational — and in turn could conceivably cause more than one non-believer to raise an eyebrow and think we’re all bananas.

    There are plenty of things in this world of ours that hasn’t been documented yet — but this isn’t it.

49. Endroren responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    First, that must be a nice camera. I’ve taken pictures from a moving car and they NEVER turn out so clear. Doesn’t prove or disprove anything I guess but it sure makes the story hard to believe.

    And the story? Randomly taking pictures of a forest? To find unseen things?

    As for seeing it - I see a blob of shadow that could be anything that I think is what other folks are calling a bigfoot, but it’s so indistinct that I can’t even be sure we’re looking a the same spot in the photo.

50. NightFlight responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Quote: “I wanted to see what I could capture that was moving into the woods that couldn’t be seen.” Obviously some sort of set up here as opposed to in the woods or out of the woods or parallel to the road or hanging from the trees. Didn’t read anything about ESP or precognition involved. I enlarged it as much as I could and sadly its a blobsquatch. Nice try, though.

51. WingsofCrystal responds: July 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    When I blew up the picture I saw the pointy headed guy walking away from the camera. But I knew what I was looking for and probably did the old “what do you see in the blob” thing. Fun.

52. jdl82 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Sorry guys, but this is just a blobsquatch. You’re going to have to do better.

53. NightFlight responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    I’m surprised that no one has picked up on the Geico gecko standing on the log straight down from blobsquatches left arm. The face is Teddy Roosevelt an early conservationist.

54. any mouse responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I’ve spent plenty of time in the deep woods alone, and I have no problem believing we have Bigfoot. But there has been much more convincing physical evidence than this. I can’t tell you how many times I could have sworn I saw a bear or cat or whatever, only to find out it was just a lucky combination of forest debris, shadows and angles. I think that’s what we’ve got here.

55. Ceroill responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    DWA- I’m not especially worried, only slightly surprised, but not really shocked.

56. jayman responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    The comments lead me to believe many are looking at things other than the “subject”. A good way to orient is to look at the broken snag in partial shadow angling out toward the camera, about a third of the way up from the bottom of the pic and just left of center. The “subject” is just above that.

57. Hodown humphy responds: July 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Sorry but I’ve looked and I’ve looked and I cant see anything but sticks and trees.

58. CamperGuy responds: July 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    What a wonderul game of “Where’s Waldo?”

    I found : a Grey Gorilla
    Black Sasquatch
    Teddy Roosevelt face (spooky)
    Jesus face
    “E.T.” face above Teddy face (still spooky)
    Beer can
    Lizzard
    lupines
    cannon ball
    Martian hand ala “War of the Worlds”

    Foreground:
    face with upper right torso
    and a Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log

    Cool game, thanks!

59. cryptidsrus responds: July 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Unlike most people here I’m not going to hazard a guess here…
    If I were to, I’d say trick of light and shadows. Could be something else. I remain agnostic on this one.
    Just enjoying the amount of reponses here. More folks should come out for more “normal” postings. Don’t see the bearded guy.

60. helgarde responds: July 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    It looks like a hunk of the downed tree in shadow to me. It looks to be extended back from the tree bits in the center ground, and in deep shadow cast by the canopy above.

    I once took a photograph of my husband playing Native American flute out in our snowy woods.

    I was looking at it as I was cropping and adjusting the exposure, and notice what appeared to be a bigfoot striding across the snow-covered field behind the woods.

    Closer inspection (which took only one second) showed that my “bigfoot” was a crumpled leaf hanging from a very slender tree branch near my husband’s shoulder. The depth of field rendered the leaf and branch slightly fuzzy, and the shape was just reminiscent enough of “Patty’s” famous stride that it is what came up in my mind.

    For all of about a second.

    Just like this picture. For a second, it looks like a neckless, hairy, saggital-crest bearing critter, but upon closer examination, it is just a cool-looking bit of wood.

61. cryptidsrus responds: July 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Camper Guy:

    Where’s the “cannon ball?”

    And the “Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log?”

62. Richard Storey responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    I saw nothing but trees and dead trees. Full magnification, examined inch by inch, across the entire photo. There’s not biped of any sort visible.

63. Fishing J responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    There needs to be another photograph taken of this place to see if anything has changed in the layout.

64. sausage1 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    Yep! I can see the cannonball. Ditto Jaws. I can also see my mate’s mum in a log. I don’t want to be ungallant but boy is she ugly!

    Just like that log.

    What I can’t see is the big fella, although I zoomed in two or three things I thought were sas before hitting on the blob in the woods. If it’s a guy in a monkey suit, get your cash back!

65. KarmakazeNZ responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    You have got to be kidding me….

    First of all, get a new digital camera - or stop running your images through a noise filter…

    Secondly, unless the supposed bigfoot is the size of a small child, I don’t see anything even remotely bigfoot like.

    Third unless the bigfoot has fur made of micro black holes, the supposed bigfoot is nothing but a shadow or blur (or intentional edit). The supposed bigfoot is standing among a bunch of fallen branches that are so brightly lit they are blooming, yet the supposed bigfoot is nothing but a black blob.

    I seriously can’t believe anyone would say anything about an arm, let alone a brow ridge. Seriously? Amazing imaginations around here…

    In fact it is pretty damn clear to me (and any other sane person) that the blob is not even an actual object, but is in fact a gap in the foliage luckily (or carefully) framed by the brightly lit branches in the middle distance. So the “Bigfoot” is not only not a “bigfoot”, its not anything! Its not even a shadow. but the dark background framed by the light foreground in a vaguely humanoid shape.

    Oh yeah this proves it!

66. folcrom responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    The photo was taken from the road (a forest road?) as they drove their car, snapping photos as they went? The Squatch was only found upon analysing the photos?

    Think about it logically.

    If this was a man in a monkey suit, then if would be highly coincidental, unless the photographers were in on it.

    If we are to believe the photoographers and take them at face value, then it would be a huge coincidence for a man in a monkey suit to be in the area at the same time.

    So, assuming the photographers are to be believed, then the Squatch is not a man in a monkey suit. And it’s capture on the photo, pure luck.

    So the question is, Do we believe the photographers?

    If we do, then this is probably a Squatch.
    It does appear to be barrel chested.
    It does seem to have a ridge/crest on its head.
    Unfortunately, still to far from the camera to get much detail, but not a blob.
    Interesting.

67. maslo63 responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Karma; You think perhaps it’s not our imaginations and rather your eyes that are the problem here? Admittedly I looked at the picture hard and while I do see what could be a brow ridge I don’t see any arms on the thing. If its anything at all its a man in a suit. I don’t buy that these people were driving by, snapping photos and caught a sas staring at them directly in the middle of the shot. However while I do believe something is there I will concede that there may be nothing there at all. Anyone remember the sasquatch on Mars?

68. CamperGuy responds: July 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    cryptidsrus responds:

    Where’s the “cannon ball?”

    And the “Great White Shark which MIGHT be a log?”
    _______________________________________________________
    the Great white is the “log” lying horizontaly on the right side of the picture. The eye is clearly visible as well as the grey upper and white lower portions. The mouth may be partialy open.
    This may in fact be the fabled cryptid landshark once reported on a late night tv program…..

    The “cannon ball” is to the far right where the tail fin of the Great White Shark would be. Ok the cannon ball might be a round rock …..but the Great White Shark swimming about the woods wil be harder to disprove!

    For the record tongue is planted firmly in cheek.

69. alandp responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    All I see are leaves and shadows. And the face of the Zig-Zag guy.

70. jayman responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Karma, with all due respect, many “sane persons” do see an actual object, even if it is most likely a stump. Also I don’t see where anybody here said this “proves” anything.

71. ksr responds: July 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    I see three, two towards the middle. And then the third at the far right behind a tree. And appears to be looking towards the camera. Bigfoot, who knows. Maybe!!!!

72. Carlfoot responds: July 11th, 2008 at 12:35 am

    Blobsquatch

73. PhotoExpert responds: July 11th, 2008 at 1:09 am

    I see what the two people are referring to in this photograph. Fortunately, it is better than some blobsquatch photos we have encountered. But Unfortunately, there is enough detail to say that it is probably not a BigFoot.

    Yes, I do admit that if I was looking through several photos and playing find the BF, I could find what appears to be the shape of a BF in this photo. But photographic analysis is one thing. Eyewitness testimony is another.

    I agree with so many other readers here in that it is pure coincidence of light and shadow, on existing flora in the picture, that do give it the appearance of a BF walking into the woods with it’s head slightly tilted to the left. I do see what other readers describe as the crest and face. I do see pine needles grouped together that give the appearance and texture of fur. I even see what could be the separations of individual fingers of the left hand. But then again, I can see the shapes of bunnies in clouds if I look hard enough.

    The problem with this photograph is just as one viewer posted. These are two people just shooting into the woods from a moving car. OK, you are going to capture some digital images. Some of them because of light and shadow will resemble certain known things and creatures and even some unknown or yet undiscovered creatures. So there is a high probability of seeing something when looking at these types of photos. In this case, we have people hoping to see BF. So their minds tune in to shapes resembling what they are looking for. That is the first problem with this account.

    The second problem with this account is that they did not see anything moving when the photo was taken. Given the left arm swing of the shadow and light creature, any observer would have seen movement. They did not describe seeing any movement in their eyewitness account.

    Thirdly, if it were a BF. It is certainly not the 7-8 foot tall kind. Perhaps a juvenile, but certainly not the large types that we have heard about in so many eyewitness descriptions. If you look at the foliage in front of the shadow and light creature, from the camera’s point of view, it will give you a gage on the height of the thing in front of it, namely the shadow and light creature. If you look at the foliage behind the shadow and light creature, from the camera’s point of view, you will also get a better perspective. At most, this creature is 5 feet in height. So if it were a BF, it would probably be a juvenile.

    Lastly, if you look at the neck area, just where the shoulders meet in the center, you will notice what looks like a stick or light greyish to sandy scratch across the shoulder and neck area, which is interupted around the neck. You have to magnify the image to see this. But what you will suddenly notice is that the “scratch” or stick is the same color as the background. And you will further see that the fur between those two scratches is a pine needle grouping. So it is fir but not fur! LOL

    I have to admit. It was pretty cool because the figure does resemble a juvenile BF. But upon further and more intense inspection, it is a play of shadow and light off the foliage. A huge and cool coincidence!

    I guess they were shocked when they saw that photo. At first glance, it is shocking. But upon further analysis, it is just an uncanny play of shadow and light.

    This was a fun one though! I enjoyed looking at it and initially thinking, could it be? But naw, it is not.

    Thanks for posting it though. And to the two guys taking the photos, keep up the good work and search. At least your photo was clear and at least you were out there looking and trying some new techniques to capture a BF on film. I give you credit there! But as far as a BF photo, no dice this time. But who knows? Take enough images and your technique may prove successful. Try dawn and dusk the next time you go out for a drive with your camera.

74. elsanto responds: July 11th, 2008 at 5:11 am

    I figured most people would have seen what I was referring to. (Feel a little vindicated that Photo Expert could see it.) I have to admit that I couldn’t discern at all the figure on the left that several posters made reference to… what I could see there resembled the play of light on bark. As I looked again at the subject, the question about its size (which Photo Expert explained quite nicely) also came to my mind… which left me leaning toward “kid in a suit.”

    Then I read through all these posts. Wow.

    Admittedly, the software I’m using to view my downloaded copy of the photo is pretty crude, so I was simply commenting on what I could see. Someone also pointed out that there was something suspicious about having the subject right in the centre when saying that you’ve taken a shot from a moving vehicle, which was something I also had been chewing on (it’s always possible that witnesses/hoaxters have been considerate enough to crop their submissions accordingly).

    Even so, it’s been refreshing to have been caught in a torrent of disagreement.

75. jayman responds: July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am

    One thing I discovered is how much of a difference monitor resolution makes. I was viewing this pic at work yesterday, both small and large versions, on a large, hi-res monitor I use in my work. Then I went home and looked on my home computer, which has a smaller monitor which I thought still had pretty good resolution. What a difference, especially on the large version, with much loss of detail and introduction of a great deal of ramdom pixel noise. It helps make sense of the discrepency in what people see here.

76. CamperGuy responds: July 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Rereading, I realized my first post might be construed as inflammatory by the picture submitter. Not my intention.
    I was trying in an obscure way to point out we associate what we see to what we know. It is how our minds and memory work. An “unorganized” display of light and shadow will be “organized” by the minds eye without consideration to logic which is where the Great White Shark (which MIGHT be a log) can happen.
    I feel as several here do that it is a play of light and shadow. I do not think it is an attempted hoax. If I had taken the picture I would have sent it in as well. It is another case of it is simply what it is….sincere,fun,interesting but unfortunately not a Squatch.
    I sincerely apologize to the submitter if I offended.

77. Artist responds: July 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am

    WHAT FUN! Loren sure knows how to wake us up on a relatively slow after-the-Holiday week, eh?

    >>But this is a fun photo…

    >>The coloration of the fur is also interesting… what is it?

    >>You can clearly see an image that looks kinda like a man’s face with long hair… like Jesus…

    >>Looks more like Joseph Stalin to me…

    >>I suspect it may be ‘Ziggy’, the mascot/logo from the rolling papers packet…

    >>It could be a black bear standing up…

    >>Its face appears to be on the back of its head!

    >>Definitely a tree stump - with mange…

    >>I plainly see a Forest Nessie…

    >>Could this be the long-fabled “Manin Agor Illas Uit” (Man in a Gorilla Suit”)?

    >>This is very clearly a shot of living and dead foliage.

    >>No one has picked up on the Geico gecko…

    >>The face is Teddy Roosevelt, an early conservationist…

    >>Grey Gorilla - Black Sasquatch - “E.T.” face - Beer can -
    Lizzard - cannon ball - Martian hand…

    >>Great White Shark (This may be the fabled cryptid landshark once reported on a late night tv program)…

    >>Twas nothin’ but a wee bit of wishful thinkin’…

    75 Responses, so far; nowhere near the record, but FUN!

    Thanks, Loren - we needed that!

    WEEKEND COMIN’ - let’s get out there, and don’t forget plenty of water, camo suit and hat, waterproof boots, extra sox, trail mix, flashlight(s), camera, camcorder, night- and thermo-vision gear, voice recorder, walkie-talkies, extra batteries, binoculars, casting material, tape measure, plastic bags, vinyl gloves, tweezers, toilet paper, sleeping bag & roll, whistle, sheath knife, bear spray, sidearm…

    Not so easy, is it?

78. jerrywayne responds: July 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    For once, I agree with DWA. [smile]

79. sschaper responds: July 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    If it was shot while driving, and that had the ISO turned way up, that would explain the noise. They could have done what they said, and with imaginations desiring to find something, believed that this broken branch on that downed tree was a bigfoot. But when you adjust the light curve (I didn’t use other techniques, such as sharpening, because that adds artifacts that the imagination can work with), you can see that it is just a broken branch, in shadow.

    Some of you have very suggestible imaginations - I thought I did, but I, as a Christian, did NOT see this “Jesus face” or any of the other things you see. I could believe that there are deer and squirrels in the image, camouflaged, but not those things.

    Photoexpert,
    “Dawn and dusk” is a good point. Why, on the cryptid TV shows, do they always look at midnight, instead of dawn and dusk, when most critters are active? (And why do they call blast, scaring everything for a mile, and definitely sounded fake, hence of Man??)

80. cryptidsrus responds: July 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Thanks for the heads-up, CamperGuy!!!

81. peter Pan responds: July 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    What I just see is a whimsical old log…with sort of a quizzical look. If I make the effort to consider “ He ”  being a Sasquatch… then he looks at the camera through round spectacles, and his head wears an ornament or may be is “ horned “ with some sort of antenna, intended to phone Mars… or what ?
    As suggested some one, should be wishful to return and see what the place really looks like ! .. no ?
    Beside I’m dubious about that snapshot being fired from a moving car !

82. DWA responds: July 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Well, since this is a Bigfoot post with no bigfoot in it, let’s do Bigfoot Q and A.

    sschaper says:

    Q: Why, on the cryptid TV shows, do they always look at midnight, instead of dawn and dusk, when most critters are active?

    A: Television is, as has been frequently said, a vast wasteland. Given their view of the sasquatch as a woo-woo scream opp, much better for ratings if they are out in the deeps of woo-woo. People don’t generally admit a fear of the dusk or the dawn, do they? But midnight? Stephen King time. TV is not about finding cryptids. Because field biology is only romantic and thrilling up to a point. Just ask any field biologist. (Next: Putting Alleged Bigfoot Dung In Vials!)

    ———————-

    Q: And why do they call blast, scaring everything for a mile, and definitely sounded fake, hence of Man?

    A: Well, I’m not defending the dumb ones, who really think the sasquatch is buying it. But I’d like to put in a word for the smart ones.

    The sasquatch is, from all that’s available to us, a primate. Primates are smart; they’re also curious; and they seem to have at least a rudimentary sense of humor. Why do you think chimps like to toss their [poopies] at unsuspecting zoo visitors? Heck, I remember a monkey doing it once. Yuk! Yuk!

    Um, anyway. Blasters don’t just use alleged sas vocalizations; they use those of known primates like howler monkeys and gibbons. They are, more than anything else, just trying to get a rise out of any local sas, maybe open a communication window. They’re hoping curiosity will get the better of the critter. They know (I hope) that the sasquatch knows this isn’t Cousin Patty. Or actually, they don’t care what the sasquatch thinks, as long as they get a response. They want to see if loud primate noise gets any kind of fraternal reaction from an animal that, otherwise, can’t be counted on to just walk up and shake hands. And sometimes, it seems to. (Not necessarily call blasting, but reports have what appear to be sasquatch imitating noises humans have made.)

    We can’t say for sure that it works, but heck, we aren’t even sure what the sasquatch, exactly, is, yet. All we do know - and I use that word loosely - is that they make very loud vocalizations, that carry a long way, and that maybe if they hear something that sounds like another primate doing something similar, they might respond to, well, break up the monotony a little.

    Gotta try things and see what works.

83. Amdusias responds: July 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    I am looking at the size of weed leaves to the fore of the downed tree, and the lichen on the tree, to judge size of the figure. While in no way accurate, I am guessing about three feet tall. That wouldn’t invalidate that it is a picture of a cryptid or even a young bigfoot, but I am seeing a tiny homonid myself.

84. bccryptid responds: July 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Hmmm, I see a sasquatch, a draconian lizard man in mid-dimension shift, and the ghost of Alexander the Great.

    And oh yes, the shadow of wishful thinking.

    Why do people even bother posting these things? I guess if he did see something, he would want to share the experience, even though his evidence is useless…

85. sschaper responds: July 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    The thing about call blasting, is that even I can hear that it sounds artificial - and loud. If it is going to be tried, it should not be distorted by the equipment, and it needn’t be loud at first, they probably have decent ears.

86. Greatwolf responds: July 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Personally, I think it is a bear, wolf, or coyote.

87. HOOSIERHUNTER responds: July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    It’s just part of the trees that look strange because of the shadows–nothing there at all

88. Braindead responds: July 12th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    The creature in the background, which is walking away (seems like it’s looking left), looks real to me.

    Of course, the tree stump in the front is looking like Bob Ross and co, but it isn’t the object we should looking for.

    Interesting photo.

89. Markoswan responds: July 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    I’m afraid I just don’t see this one… I saved it and zoomed way in, but I still didn’t see anything anywhere that looked like a Bigfoot.

90. MikeWms responds: July 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    I see possibly three creatures. One big guy is to the upper left. I can see his head and right arm and ear, with a very conicle looking head. The big guy is looking down at the middle creature behind the tree to his right. Those two look like they are waiting for the more obvious creature behind the fallen tree walking towards them. Maybe a family of Bigfoot. You must zoom in to catch all these details.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|