91 Responses to “What Is It? New Photo Mystery: Braxton Beast”

1. scottmaruna responds: December 9th, 2005 at 10:37 am

   Couldn’t this simply be a falling leaf that has been blurred due to its close proximity to the photographer…the color is similar to the leaves already on the ground. Thanks
   Scott Maruna

2. godzilladude responds: December 9th, 2005 at 10:47 am

   Need to have someone stand in the same location and have the camera shoot them, to get a gauge of height. Also, how obvious is the location of the camera? If someone wanted to hoax you, would it be readily apparent where it is mounted, or is it mentioned among friends?
   Thoughts.

3. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 10:56 am

   Thanks for this very interesting photo!

   As I point out in the book Caverns, Cauldrons, and Concealed Creatures, the areas of West Virginia were many sightings of anomalous creatures occur are densely cavernous areas.

   I found this of interest:

   “There are many rock overhangs and crevices in this area that this thing might be using for shelter. In fact, approximately 100 ft in the direction in which the entity is walking there is a large rock overhang we used to get under to get out of the rain when I played in these woods as a child.”

   “Crevices” may very well lead to caves and deeper karst and cavern systems.

   While bipedal, the creature does not look like a human being in a costume. The body proportions are wrong. Also, the stance or posture is very strange, with the arms stiffly at the sides (as if it is used to moving through tight spaces most of the time?).

   One can almost see low-set ears or horns, as well, at about shoulder-level in the picture. The neck seems non-existent.

   It would be good to know the approximate height of the creature. If Mr. Gerwig would go and take a photo of someone standing in the same spot as the anomalous “thing,” taken from approximately the same location as the auto camera, that would help a lot. Determining the size might rule out a hoax or a human being.

   -W.M. Mott

4. jjames1 responds: December 9th, 2005 at 11:20 am

   I’m with scottmaruna on this one. It just looks like a falling leaf to me.

5. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 11:40 am

   The leaf idea is a valid one, but for one thing–the object appears to be behind the edge of the nearest tree, therefore far too large to be a leaf.

   -W.M. Mott

6. Scarfe responds: December 9th, 2005 at 11:46 am

   Is there any way to get a higher-resolution version of these images. The grainy pixels make it hard to distinguish the depth-perspective of this image.

7. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 11:52 am

   Note the termination of the ‘arms’ at the sides.

   They are exactly, perfectly even–perhaps TOO even and level.

   This could not be a leaf–and it may be a hoax perpetrated on the owner of the camera.

   -W.M. Mott

8. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 11:56 am

   Blowing it up in Photoshop, there seems to be a definite motion blur, particularly on the foremost (left) leg.

   There’s just not enough data overall.

   -W.M. Mott

9. scottmaruna responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:03 pm

   try magnifying the image…it becomes clear then that this is not a tree, but a tree stump and the stump actually terminates BELOW the orange image…it seems to me that (when magnified) the orange object (a leaf) just seems to happen to have a sharp edge (or so it would appear to in the low resolution pixilation) that aligns and corresponds (roughly) to the stump below it. Just above the stump — directly to the right of the orange leaf — you can see in magnification that it matches the wooded background rather than the stump below it. It just looks like it is behind a tree…it is an illusion.
   Thanks
   Scott Maruna

10. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    Yes, a stump–but it still looks like it is behind it to some slight degree, not an illusion in that regard.

    I could be wrong, and it may be a leaf after all!

    More data is needed. An additional photo, of someone standing in the “spot” where “it” seems to be standing, would help a lot.

    The “arms” still bother me. They just look too contrived.

    -W.M. Mott

11. deepsquatch responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:12 pm

    If it were a leaf, shouldn’t the whole things show motion blur and not just parts of it?

    I don’t know what it is, but I’m leaning _against_ leaf at the moment.

12. Luc Van den Borre responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    It’s a low quality, highly compressed picture of something that is the colour and shape of a leaf. It’s probably a hairy orange monster.

13. pghreaper responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    I would have to say this is a fake picture, the only thing that is really a blur is the so called creature in this picture.

14. devilboy responds: December 9th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    It’s difficult to say exactly what this is.

    I’d rule out the “falling leaf” theory because the “leaf” is blocked by the foreground tree (notice the edge of the tree creates a straight line edge).

    The “leaf” would have to be enormous in that case.

    Also, the “creature” is blurred. This, I believe is caused by the focal plane of the camera. Notice how sharp the foreground tree is, as compared to the background imagery.

    All that said, digital compression artifacts could have made a leaf that was perfectly aligned to the edge of that tree appear to have the same edge.

    This would (at least to our perception) place it behind the tree.

    The odds against this are pretty high, considering:
    The leaf would have had to align itself to the tree’s edge at the exact moment the camera’s shutter was activated.

    Of course, I’m not sure how that stacks against the odds of a big orange bipedal creature tramping around in the woods.

    Maybe it’s just some cold, bundled up deer hunter in orange ’safety’ camo…

15. spitfirelance responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pm

    Looking at what appears to be a split wood pile to the left in the original image, and assuming that the logs were cut with even the largest of wood stoves in mind, each of those splits are probably 24″ in length. Your monster is short. Pa needs to upgrade his camera.

16. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    If Loren will post it, I’ve sent him a digital study of the ‘creature’ and the tree stump.

    It is definitely behind the tree, but that does not tell us what it is. Not a leaf, though. There is no doubt about that, according to digital edge-detection.

    -W.M. Mott

17. Calico182 responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:15 pm

    Here’s my argument for why this is most likely a leaf. If this is a motion activated camera, then surely there would have been images of when the ‘creature’ was just to the right of the tree?

    This makes sense for it being a falling leaf as it would have only captured the image a second or two after it entered the frame (with it being a more ‘budget’ camera), which would place it a little under halfway into the frame.

    Just my thoughts. Interesting image though…

18. Roger Eberhart responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:20 pm

    If this is a clearing, with a single tree stump in it, then where is the leaf falling from? Also, given the low resolution of the camera, it’s hard to say whether the “leaf” is behind the stump or just extremely close or tangent to it.

19. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Spitfirelance,

    It does look “short,” maybe only a few feet tall.

    That’s why we need another photo with a human being standing in the same location, for comparison.

    -W.M. Mott

20. kymudder responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:31 pm

    Actually, to me, it looks like the rear end of a deer that has just jumped into frame. The front part of the deer is hidden by the tree. Interesting photo though. At what intrival is this camera set to take photos after one has already been taken?

21. mitch responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    Surely if the “motion activated” camera is triggered by falling leaves then Pa Gerwig’s camera will be snapping thousands of similar images each day. It is, after all, in a forest.

    Wouldn’t a quick examination of his photo album to ascertain whether 97% of his shots are of falling leaves be sufficient to confirm or refute this hypothesis?

22. sos responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    The monster seems to have bright pink fur — Easter Bunny, case closed.

23. ryebrye responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:39 pm

    I am skeptical of this image, here are a few reasons why:

    JPEG artifacts missing in the “beast”:
    Look carefully throughout the image - particularly in the leaves and the tree surrounding the person. Notice the JPEG artifacts caused by the compression? There are no artifacts in the image - possibly because it was composited in. In areas where there is not a sharp color contrast, you wont expect to see as many artifacts - but in the areas such as the blur behind the “leg” you will notice that there are no artifacts there - where there should be.

    The proportions are not right for it to be a capable bipedal animal. The legs are obviously jointed (based on the bend of the “knee”) but the entire length of the leg is smaller than the height of the torso. This proportion would make the animal very unstable in motion.

    If you were to give me the full image - I could give you a much better analysis. Things I would look for: Overall histogram of the “guy” to examine random noise distribution. Then look at the overall histogram of another region and look at the noise distribution. I would then play around a lot with the curves - because usually when people stitch together composites they aren’t able to get the noise composited correctly - and if you tweak the curves you can really make that stand out.

    Of course, if it did turn out to be true it would be hilarious. Just imagine: A stumpy red guy frolicking around in the wilderness.

24. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    Loren,

    I HAVE IDENTIFIED YOUR CREATURE.

    Instead of using the blown-up version provided, I took the “original” photo, which you will note has different color and intensity altogether.

    After extrapolating it up in Photoshop, with NO FILTERING OF ANY KIND, certain artifacts showed clearly, along with the EXTREMELY BRIGHT ORANGE COLOR.

    It is a FIRE PHOTOGRAPHED IN DAYLIGHT. Look below!

    I HOPE YOU POST THE PHOTO!

    -Mike

25. screech responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Interesting image. I’m struck by how stiff armed the figure appears. It reminds me of someone who is either chilled to the bone or dragging a load. I don’t know how prevalent blaze orange is among hunters in this locale, { I’m in northern Ontario}, but I suspect this is what we’re looking at.

26. Darrent responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    Any other pictures of the object as it passed in front of the camera

    Are there any pictures of falling leaves setting off the motion detector?

27. MadM2000 responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm

    I think its a hunter carrying a dead deer
    Check this out

28. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    BTW, it can NOT be the rear part of a deer.

    The only species of deer east of the Mississippi is the White-Tailed variety–which would rule this out for certain.

    It’s a fire, no doubt about it.

    W.M. (Mike) Mott

29. caubeck responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    It’s a blurry leaf.

30. Zwack responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    For those who doubt it is a leaf look at the ground between the camera and the stump and you will see that there are leaves on the ground. I suspect that the camera is mounted on a tree, so the leaf could have fallen from almost directly above it.

    Z.

31. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    Edge detection rules out a leaf.

    The images should be posted soon.

    You will clearly see the characteristics of a leaping flame.

    -W.M. Mott

32. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    In fact, you will be able to see, very well, the “orangish glow” from the fire itself, in the background.

    You can see this already to some extent in the smaller, original photo which has the original color, already on the page. The background region of ground has an “orange glow” from the fire.

    The color in the larger zoomed image has been altered completely from that of the smaller original.

    -W.M. Mott

33. Grikdog responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    Looks like a browsing cervine seen head on, maybe a seriously foreshortened whitetail. Carries its tail up, head down. The color is weird. Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not just a refugee from PhotoShop, maybe what you’re seeing is low-angle red light reflected from the animal’s pelt. There are lots of red tones in the deeper trees, indicating sunset or sunrise. What is the area in the right treeline?

34. RobRoy responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm

    It is rather interesting, I could see this being a leaf cought just at the right time falling from the trees, it is very “human” looking in form, but it shows the same coloration as the leafs on the ground…I dont think its a sasquatch, way to orange, could be simply a hunter wearing an orange hunter suit and hat. The quality of the picture is not very good, the colors look very oversaturated which could be why the “hunter” seems a bit more orange than he should be…no detail at all, cant see any face features. I dont see a gun or pack or anything…there is some shadows appearing were the chest and crotch would be, could very well be a hoax as well…or simply an Elmer Fudd looking dude packing the hindquarters of a deer out…Why are these things always blurry??

35. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    Can’t be a deer, because it does not have the white-tail characteristic it would have to have, being in West Virginia.

    See the photos here.

    When the tail is raised, even if seen from the side, the white tufts will always show.

36. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:36 pm

    Click on the photo of the bounding deer where it says “Behavior” for a larger photo.

    The “flag” will always show. The raised area people are thinking is a “tail” has no white on it at all.

37. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    See the actual flame with true color from the original small photo, along with flame characteristics, here.

    Thanks, Loren and Craig Woolheater!

    -W.M. Mott

38. freddytoliver responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:50 pm

    I think it’s a person wearing a vest (hence white sleeves/arms), with hands in pockets (hence termination of arms), and a bit of a beer belly.

    I would guess the submitter blurred the image.

39. cryptocat responds: December 9th, 2005 at 2:57 pm

    Your looking at the arse end of a deer guys.

40. Henry Chinaski responds: December 9th, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    Looks like a dog, maybe part Irish Setter.

41. caubeck responds: December 9th, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    wmmott,

    I think the owner of the land/motion detector/camera would have known about a fire at that spot. Unless you think it was a sasquatch which spontaneously combusted I don’t believe your theory can explain much.

42. MikeMathisProds responds: December 9th, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    Loren -

    Found your interesting blog while searching the internet for stories for a show we are producing for The Learning Channel. I was wondering if you could put me in contact with Frederick so that I might ask him some questions about his photos.

    I think all the theories that everyone has been discussing are very interesting and I’m excited to see if the mystery is solved as more information surfaces.

    Matt
    mattyq@hotmail.com

43. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 6:23 pm

    “Arse end of a deer?” There are no deer native to the eastern USA that have a rear like that. Sorry, wrong. To say otherwise is…Well, you get the idea.

    Only white-tails are indigenous to the region, and what you think is a tail is the top of a flame. See any large area of white fur? No? Then it’s not a deer.

    Dog? No dog-like features, at all. Not one.

    A person with hands in pockets? Maybe. Where’s the face? What’s with the top of the head? If you say that someone “blurred the image,” are you pointing out that it could be a hoax? I still lean toward it being a hoax regardless of what it is–and I’ve been camping enough to know what a fire looks like when its leaping about on a dim day. The edges of the flames also have the usual characteristics of a photographed fire.

    Fire? How do we know that we have the whole story? We don’t. But it looks like a fire in the data from the original photo, from the color and motion, even down to the glow it projects.

    “Spontaneously combusted bigfoot?” Makes about as much sense as any other guesses put forth so far.

44. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 7:39 pm

    The only way it could be a hunter would be if he is two or three feet in height.

    In the original photo, you can see the woodpile already mentioned, over to the right–not large pieces of wood, and not tall at all. It is approximately the same height as the ‘creature’.

45. wmmott responds: December 9th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

    The size of the leaves on the ground give away the size of the woodpile (and the “creature”), in the full frame picture.

46. screech responds: December 10th, 2005 at 12:26 am

    If its a fire, whats the fuel source?

47. Scott G In NYC responds: December 10th, 2005 at 2:04 am

    That’s gotta be a canine, kids - it’s tough to tell the breed from all the pixellation and color saturation, but I can see either:

    - a front view of a pooch with a German Shepherd/wolf-like muzzle, a lighter colored ear silhouette looking to the left (his right), a high-held tail, a lighter colored edge of fur on the right thorax (on the animal’s left) and what appears to be a front left leg crossing over it’s right one (no hind legs in sight)

    or

    - a rear-facing view of a collie, golden retriever, or setter type dog, again with a high-held tail and white fur on the side (this time on it’s right), with the right rear leg in motion and visible over the left (again, the other pair is obscured) - could be a wild cur of some kind, too…feral dogs on all continents tend to take on a generic light-brown, dingo-ish look after several generations of mixing.

    Lastly, note the proportions of the creature to the sticks and leaves on the ground and the woodpile to the right - they simply are NOT in line with that of a humanoid-sized being, even though the closeup of the creature and it’s “fleshy” color tones would lead you to think otherwise.

    I GIMPed this like crazy, and got results similar to the ones posted on the other page, but when pulling back and looking at the entire pic again, the “canine coming from/going to the woods” theory seems to make the most sense.

48. mechagrue responds: December 10th, 2005 at 5:16 am

    I would guess something along the lines of a golden retriever/irish setter mix, with long reddish gold fur.

    I see the dog’s right leg trailing, and appearing to be crossing the left leg, due to the camera angle. At the top of the figure is a long bushy tail, which has just finished swinging to your left, and is beginning its wag to the right. When this happens, the tip of the tail leads, while the feathers of the middle fan out to the left as the tail sweeps to the right.

    It’s the right color, size, scale (as measured against the woodpile to the right), and a plausible animal in a plausible scenario (nothing would attract a dog more than the various tracks and smells of a wildlife feeding station).

    Dog butt. No question about it.

49. shovethenos responds: December 10th, 2005 at 5:52 am

    The color has to be off. If you look at the more orangeish leaves on the ground they look an off color orange as well.

    In my opinion the dog and deer explanations aren’t plausible. The fire theory also seems unlikely, because things look dry enough that a significant portion of the woods would have went up too. Plus the camera’s owner should have seen and/or smelled a scorched area when picking up the camera.

    I’m skeptical of the height guesses, I don’t know how anyone can credibly claim the 2-4′ range that’s been suggested.

    As for bipedal cryptid that’s pretty sketchy, but there’s not many explanations left. There’s not much arm swing but the arms might be long enough. Could be someone in suit. On the other had there have been a lot of reports of very hippy and floppy breasted females.

    The head seems oddly peaked and elongated. Maybe camera distortion or a hood.

50. wmmott responds: December 10th, 2005 at 10:39 am

    If it is a fire (which I still believe, at this point), it seems to be situated behind a slight rise in the ground. When you blow up the entire pic you can see it pretty well.

    As for fuel, wood would be the logical candidate, if it’s a campfire.

    The bright orange color is the correct, original color. I don’t know why the provided, cropped enlargement would have a completely different color table/histogram (which it does), unless someone has intentionally tampered with. The brightness and contrast on that one have been altered, too–both of them lowered. This is not just something that happens when the picture is extrapolated up, but has to be done by attempts to adjust the picture.

    So the larger provided pic was altered in both its color table and brightness and contrast. Why? In the enlargement, yellow was removed overall and blue was added (or left as a result), giving it a “pink” look. The other adjustments left it “washed out.”

    This would have effectively removed many of the characteristics of flame.

    The enlargement I created from the original was not altered in any way whatsoever, other than size. Therefore the color, intensity of color, brightness and contrast stayed accurate to the smaller original. It looks completely different than the “provided” enlargement.

    Dim orange color of flames? Good examples of photos taken of fires in daylight (orange with low glow):
    Fire 1
    Fire 2
    Fire 3

    …and even at night:
    Fire 4
    Fire 5
    Fire 6
    Fire 7 (Great example)
    Fire 8

    Fire is very organic, and one can see “living things,” faces, etc. in them all the time as our internal “pattern recognition software” is activated.

    Here’s a ‘little man’ with two legs, shoulders, head, hair, and an arm and fist cocked in defiance

    Here’s a ‘horned devil’

    Standing ‘creature,’ above ‘jack o’lantern face’

    Devil Fire Sprite’

    Fireplace things

    ‘Fire demon’

    Fire spirit

    Fire sprite

    Entity

    Fireplace Faces’

    ‘Diablo in the Flames’

    Murderer’s Ghost’

    ‘Campfire Demons’ with axe

    Nice fur, or hair-do

    Crouching with long hair blowing back

    Another ‘walker’, hair blowing, bending over and showing a saucy rear-end, later time of day so flame is brighter:

    Not a flame, but a monstrous hand

    Low-contrast, solid-looking flame things

    Two figures, one with a “humanlike face”, arm and shoulder

    ‘Alien’ flame with head and neck

    Woman with large posterior, hula dancing?

    Pregnant and brooding?

    The nag?

    Waving, with hair sticking up

    German shepherd? Coyote? Wolf? Panting? Nah, just fire

    Goblin and horse?

    Jackrabbit crouching?

    Short guy in a hole, waving

    Creature-like

    The giant aardvark! Are those ears, or a rider, reading?

    The vulture

    Head of the baboon!

    Symmetry? The devil with curving horns

    again

    The old man reads the paper

    Tricorn hat and beard?

    Swaying figure

    Many of the “figures” in those pics are not at all dissimilar to the one in the picture in question.

51. invisible1 responds: December 10th, 2005 at 2:26 pm

    Ummm…. it’s a LEAF. It’s the exact same color as a hundred other leaves in the picture, and the edge of it is in FRONT of the tree.

    But man, they really want to believe that’s a bigfoot, don’t they? LOL

52. shovethenos responds: December 10th, 2005 at 6:47 pm

    Skeptical of the fire. There’s no trench, moat, or rock/log barriers set up, so if it was a fire it would be spreading over a larger area, since it doesn’t appear that there is anything to stop it.

    In any case that’s an easy theory to prove, just have the reporting party go out to the scene again and look for scorch marks and/or a burning smell. With the landmarks in the photo the area shouldn’t be hard to identify, even if leaves have blown over it.

53. jonom responds: December 10th, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    I’m going with the falling leaf theory. I recently snapped a picture with a couple of falling leaves in it - links below.

    I looked at a bunch of the fire images posted by wmmott and it just doesn’t look anything like fire.

    The following links are my pics of falling leaves. The low res version is sampled down and jpegged fairly heavily, I’ve also included a link to the full res, saved at high quality. Feel free to play with them!

54. monsterhunter responds: December 11th, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    The pile of wood to the right suggest we are looking either at a fire or at the leftover remains of a tree stump, which is what I’m leaning toward. I think the larger issue here is that a still photo has the problem of not seeing a creature in motion. Which is why this could be a photo of any number on inanimate objects, or a mundane animate object caught at a moment that forces us to percieve it as a biped. Video, Video ,Video is the answer.

55. monsterhunter responds: December 11th, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    Okay now another look at it and it could easily be a leaf, the magic of still photography

56. spectreduck responds: December 12th, 2005 at 10:34 am

    There’s one argument I have against fire (and I registered specifically to ask this- If it is fire, where is the smoke? I would expect to see at least a little, no matter how “clean” the fire could be burning. I think it’s either a leaf or a misidentified dog, as others have suggested. If the person who sent this in sincerely thinks its a creature then he should spring for a better outdoor camera to try to capture it again. You can buy clear cases that can be secured to make theft more difficult (and who would be around to steal the camera if the land is posted against trespassers thus making it “impossible” that this is a hunter).

    I would also suggest the photos sender should go to the woods and just take regular pics from the same point of view, to give perspective.

57. JohnShirley responds: December 12th, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    Braxton Beast…I liked the comment that a “bipedal bright orange ape in the area probably would’ve been noticed” before now. Yes I think, when you consider the orange leaves on the ground in the photo, it’s likely a twisted leaf falling in front of the camera and no it’s not behind the tree really. But this determination–even if it’s confirmed it’s a leaf somehow, or confirmed someone got cute in the photolab–will not deter bigfoot believers from making it part of their canon, and saying “here’s photographic proof.” The photog could come forward and say “I faked it” (as was the case with some UFO photos from Brazil–a revelation which the UFO community completely ignored, they still cite the photos) and the bigfooters will pretend no such admission was made and show the photo as more “proof”. Presumably it will go alongside all those fossils we (don’t) have and all the DNA evidence we (don’t) have for bigfoot. Well. I am currently trying to believe in the Jersey Devil as I’m writing a movie about it with a producer friend. Anyone got anything new on the JD? JS (www.johnshirley.net)

58. mazarate responds: December 12th, 2005 at 4:59 pm

    Wow, ya’ll are overanalyzing this. Think about it, if this guy is a hunter, an has his camera set to the motion sensor, he’s gonna want both the sensor and the camera set pretty centered. In other words, once something steps in the path of the sensor, a picture will be taken. This would prevent something off to the side triggering the sensor and the camera snapping a photo of nothing. With this said, the object is in the center of the picture, and unless it is running pretty fast, it would have set the sensor off earlier and therefore would have ended up in the left or right of the picture. And since it looks like it’s walking(not running) to the left, we can assume it came from the right, and therefore would have been spotted a little earlier. I doubt it chose to sneak up behind the tree-or stump and pop out revealing itself. So I say it’s either one of two things, a leaf which most likely is the case, or someone stuck that image in there. And the whole it can’t be a leaf because it’s lined up perfectly with the tree is bogus. Things with worse odds than that happen all the time.

59. Craig Woolheater responds: December 12th, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    mazarate,
    Game cameras all have a shutter lag. We use game cameras in our Bigfoot research here in Texas. Several of them have lag times of anywhere from 2 to 5 seconds. That is considerable time for a quickly moving animal to even move OUT of the frame, much less to be centered. Something to consider.

60. handsomepete responds: December 12th, 2005 at 9:28 pm

    If it was fire, wouldn’t you see smoke? Leaf fires are pretty smokey.

    I agree with the leaf theory.

61. spacelunatic responds: December 13th, 2005 at 12:05 am

    Nekked guy tip-toeing thru the snow.

    Perhaps a hunter looking for a spot “to go” after having camped in the woods?

    Seems obvious to me. I thought you were all kidding at first..

62. leo thinks responds: December 13th, 2005 at 3:33 am

    I think that orange glow wich appears on the ground and trees as well is the setting sun.

    removing that i find it’s sort of a light colored biped with a sheen that would reflect the sun in a strange way…the setting sun is messing up a lot of detail, but i agree with those who mention that it walks toward the left and has arms, hope that steers you in the right direction.

63. brainvise responds: December 13th, 2005 at 5:38 am

    Everybody knows this is just swamp gas reflecting off of Venus! I mean really what else could it be?

64. wvteddybear responds: December 13th, 2005 at 6:19 am

    being a native of braxton county. it could be a fire a leaf or god knows what. i just know there have been stories over the years of people seeing things but some of that could be how much they drank when they left the bar too lol. but they hold a flatwoods monster day each year in september. maybe they will start a bigfoot day now lol

65. Batgirl responds: December 13th, 2005 at 9:17 am

    I can’t really say what it is but I have never heard of an ORANGE beast before. It just doesn’t fit…but then again, that doesn’t mean it’s entirely impossible. After all, I do know someone who got chased by a purple man.
    So…ya never know.

    BG

66. Godrock responds: December 13th, 2005 at 10:27 am

    OMG! It’s the dude from that animated Christmas film. He sings that song…

    “I’m Mr. Green Christmas; I’m Mr. Sun…I’m Mr. Heat blister…I’m Mr, hundred-and-one…

    Friends call me heat Miser….”

    lol

    I just saw that the other day. The figure in the photo bears a striking resemblence.

67. deerslookingatyou responds: December 13th, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    You’re looking a deer from behind. It’s facing away from the camera. It’s orange because everything in the picture has an orange tint as seen in the close up.

68. spambo responds: December 13th, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    It’s easy to prove that this is not a leaf. Unless I’m mistaken, motion sensors “see” and react to the difference between the temperature of whatever is moving and the surrounding or ambient temperature. The leaf would be the same temperature as the rest of the woods and so the sensor wouldn’t react and snap the pic. Also, someone thought that there should be a pic from before whatever it was went behind the tree and I think I know why there was none. If a hunter wearing blaze orange (which is my guess, if there is no photoshop fakery going on.} walked towards the camera at a sharp angle, the camera wouldn’t react until the hunter’s heat signature was strong enough. Before the hunter went behind the tree he or she wasn’t close enough for the sensor to see but once he or she emerged from behind the tree, being now 10 or 20 feet closer, achieved enough temperature difference for the sensor to notice and click the pic. Finally, in response to the person who thought it strange that the only thing blurred in the picture was the orange shape in question, a camera with the aperture set wide and/or the shutter speed set slow to make use of the low light of the woods would, obviously, blur anything moving.

69. JohnShirley responds: December 13th, 2005 at 4:06 pm

    A guy at the john shirley message board (www.johnshirley.net) says it looks to him like a hunter with an animal slung over his shoulder, a hoody on, blurrily done…

    I like the leaf theory.

    I find Nessie easier to believe in than sasquatchesque things…

70. spambo responds: December 13th, 2005 at 5:21 pm

    I just noticed the comment before my first comment and although I can see the tail end of the deer as they describe it I think that there is a flaw in that theory too. The deer is walking diagonally away from the camera, which means that it was closer to the camera as it entered the frame from the left side, it therefore should have set off the camera before half disappearing behind the tree. Although the sensor could have been focused narrowly enough to not react until an object was centered in the frame, I still think that a blaze orange deer is, at best, a distant second possibility.
    On the subject of no feet seen and/or shortened legs,I have two thoughts. The faster something moves the more blurred it becomes, to the point of invisability and the legs would be moving the fastest as someone walked.The lower legs and feet especially would be blurred the most, to the point of looking pointy or shortened. Plus, the person could be walking in a gully or low spot and part of their lower legs aren’t visable, it’s hard to tell with a low rez pic like this. Finally, a note to Zwack…don’t go joining any debate teams. Your proof, and I quote…”For those who doubt it is a leaf look at the ground between the camera and the stump and you will see that there are leaves on the ground.”… was hilarious, I,m guessing you’ve never been in the woods before, just so you know…when leaves fall from trees they generally hang out ON THE GROUND. You should have figured that out when you ended with…”I suspect that the camera is mounted on a tree, so the leaf could have fallen from almost directly above it.”…showing that you’re aware of the concept of gravity. Sorry if this sounds a bit mean of me but you did write what you did and I couldn’t resist the jab at your “logic”.

71. Michial responds: December 14th, 2005 at 12:08 am

    Is this an infra red photo? The colors appear to me as they have in other infra red photos I have seen. The arms appear “hotter” as if the subject is garbed in some manner and the arms are bare. I hope this doesn’t sound like a stupid question. I didn’t see much information about the equipment used.

72. Blade responds: December 14th, 2005 at 12:17 am

    My first impression of the picture was that it was a bird hanging on the way a woodpecker does-with its back to the camera. There is a bird native to that area called a “Brown Thrasher”. According to Readers Digest Book of North American Birds,…10 to 12 inches long. Slender and long tailed; rusty brown above with 2 white wing bars. Forages mainly on ground; Habitat: Brushy woodlands. The color in the books illustration looks about right. Just an idea…

73. wmmott responds: December 14th, 2005 at 2:55 pm

    Sorry for the late reply.

    No, there would not necessarily be much smoke at all, since for some reason you are ASSUMING it is a “leaf fire.”

    Most campfires are NOT “leaf fires,” which is the reason that there is a stack of what looks like DRIED FIREWOOD in the picture.

    Stickin’ with the fire story–WHY have an obvious “woodpile” on the scene AT ALL, if not for use in a campfire?

74. wmmott responds: December 14th, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    The fact that a stack of firewood is present, in such a supposedly remote spot, indicates that campfires are a consideration for someone with access to that spot.

    This in and of itself is meaningful.

    Fire….

75. dianaward responds: December 14th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

    If I had to choose, the deer rear would win my vote. Looks like a deer’s tail stickup up far more than it looks like a head, despite my preference for more mysterious sightings.

76. wmmott responds: December 15th, 2005 at 12:11 am

    It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be a deer’s rear end with tail showing.

    Not possible. Can’t happen. Might as well be a giant tree sloth or a siberian tiger, as a “deer” in the shot.

    This is the problem with armchair adventurers, and is why I’m having to repeat this, yet again.

    West Virginia is EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

    All deer east of the Mississippi River are WHITETAIL DEER. They ALL have an ENORMOUS, FUZZY, WHITE UNDERSIDE TO THEIR TALES, ALL THE TIME, YEAR ROUND. This is known to deer hunters and naturalists alike as a “FLAG.”

    If you’ve ever seen a deer in the wild (east of the Mississippi), been deer hunting, killed a deer, skinned a deer, gutted a deer, or seen these things done, you would know what I’m telling you is the factual state of affairs.

    Maybe this “unknown species of blurry deer” chopped the firewood and stacked in neatly nearby, too.

77. bwild responds: December 15th, 2005 at 1:48 am

    C’mon, people….isn’t it odd how there are no photos of any ‘creatures’, ‘montsters’, ever clear enough so you don’t have to sit there and second guess? I can take a picture with my cheap 100.00 digi cam of a jet 20,000 feetin the air, look at it on the puter and clearly see it is a jet…. The photo is either a hoax of the camera owner, or a misconceieved notion of something else. In either event it certainly isn’t a creature…..looks like the Human torch maybe from the Fantastic 4 though….just a thought.

78. wmmott responds: December 15th, 2005 at 9:16 am

    Again, on “the hunter” theory….

    Aside from the fact that, even if badly blurred, no distinguishing human characterisitics, skin, hair, physiology, etc. can be seen, there is a greater problem as pointed out earlier on this board.

    Given the size of the leaves on the ground, the height of the firewood pile in relation to those, and so on, “he” or more likely “it” is between 2 and 3 feet in height.

    This pretty much excludes any possibility of a “hunter” or human being of any type.

79. wmmott responds: December 15th, 2005 at 9:31 am

    For those who insist on this being a walking creature, there is only ONE entity that fits the general configuration:

    Alf

    Alf

80. tpeter responds: December 17th, 2005 at 12:55 am

    Dear Loren,

    Somehow, it did not look like a “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch” to me–except for the curiously very high tapering top of its head, which COULD be a gorilla- or “Bigfoot”-style sagittal crest.

    For the most part, I thought, it looked like a man wearing some kind of bright-red diving suit.

    It’s interesting that Braxton County has a history of mysterious creature encounters. I found it particularly interesting that Braxton County was the area of the 1952 Flatwoods Monster!

    It’s also interesting, as well, that the Braxton County photo was taken by an automatic camera just a few days after the unknown Borneo carnivore was photographed by an automatic camera. A synchronous Fortean-Jungian coincidence? Or a copycat hoax exploiting the publicity around a recent real automatic camera photograph of an unknown creature?

    Peace,
    T. Peter

81. publius responds: December 18th, 2005 at 6:15 pm

    I believe some others have suggested this, but the first thing I thought was “that’s the rear end of a deer.” I DO live east of the Miss. River, and I have seen plenty of whitetail deer (walking or running away from me as well!). The poor quality of the photo has given a reddish cast to the entire creature (and picture), so I wouldn’t expect a bright white tail — what I would expect is a relatively lighter patch, which I do see.

    What do you think?

82. doc007 responds: December 19th, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    Its clearly a woodpecker….it was behind the tree and when It moved into frame, the camera snapped it. The tree is not as large as it looks. You can clearly see the head and tail along with the wings down its sides.
    what else you need solved??

83. Blade responds: December 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pm

    I agree with doc007.

84. Nekultura responds: December 23rd, 2005 at 6:06 pm

    My uncle saw a large, very tall (> 8 ft) reddish furry creature in rural Illinois, just outside St. Louis, in the early 70s (ca. 1972?).

    It moved on four legs, with two swinging inward between the other two. It reminded him of a cross between a gorilla and a kangaroo. The spheroidal head seemed disproportionately small for the creature; and he thought it had two arms in addition to the legs.

    He was driving south near, I think, Redbud, Illinois. The car behind him stopped and turned around, apparently going after the creature. He himself, afraid for my aunt and cousin asleep in the car (and maybe for himself), kept on driving, thinking it would appear in the newspapers later. It never did.

    Has anyone else heard of such a creature?

85. cynicalist responds: January 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    If you care to take a look at this supposed “new creature”, you’ll see that even without the image being enhanced further, you can see that this is a fake image superimposed into the film still. You can see that the “legs” of the creature just sort of disappear above the line of leaf-litter on the forest floor. You can also see the cut-off line of this fake image of a blurred line where the ankles of the creature should be. Nice try whoever faked it, but not near good enough…..

86. momo responds: February 8th, 2006 at 10:25 am

    This is visible to the rabbit which has jumped toward the front.
    I think that it is not the photograph which caught just before hind legs came out ahead at the moment of skipping.

    It is not so good at English.
    I’m sorry when unclear.

87. Fred G responds: March 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    Okay…I decided to post here. Thanks Loren for the great coverage given to our mystery biped. For the doubters I will reassure you we do not know what is in this picture. It is just something odd we wanted others to look at. The camera used was a Wildview 2.0 Megapixel Digital Toggle-Switch Scouting Camera purchased from an sportsman’s catalog. There is no evidence at the site of a fire. It was taken at approximately daybreak and the entity is walking eastward. The camera used only snaps one photo every 5,10, or 20 minutes (it was set to 20 minutes). The image taken before this one was in darkness…this is why we assume it was taken at daybreak around 6 to 7 am. The woodpile did consist of logs approx 24″ in length, but the stack was about 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall. It was early December and as I recall it was less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit that morning. With it being a digital image…there will always be those who claim it was fudged. I can assure you it wasn’t. I supplied the image to Loren in its original condition. We plan to return there soon and take an image of a person standing at the same location to post here for review.

    Here is a link to an image of the camera used.

88. DARHOP responds: September 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    I don’t see any hands?

89. borninvincible responds: April 28th, 2007 at 1:52 am

    enhanced a bit.. interestingly shaped. it appears to be walking with weird looking straight arms by its side.

    http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7769/enhancedau4.png

90. ETxArtist responds: December 16th, 2007 at 2:05 am

    I admit I didn’t read all these posts. To me, it looks like a raptor perched on a tree branch. Could be a horned owl, they’re pretty common in twilight times, I’ve seen many of them without the aid of night vision. They are one of our largest birds of prey, and are known for perching low, especially after an unsuccessful hunt. Just an observation from a guy who’s id’ed over 300 species of bird in the wild. I may have bird flu!

91. blue1965 responds: March 30th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    That is no type of leaf that I’ve ever saw or raked. Could be a man in one of those orange hunting suits with his head down, but I don’t even feel that’s what it is. Whatever it is you can see both legs as it walks.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|