New "bigfoot" photo Mount Hood

Yes, if you look closely you can tell it's not a man in a suit because no man can move like that.
 
So... these cameras are placed specifically to photograph game. But that's the best it could come up with?
 
Is the sasquatch supposed to be to the right of the back of the woman's had? I don't see it...
 
Whatever it is, it is transparent around the edges. You can see light coming through on the left, and some patches of green on the right. It would be nice to see the frames taken before and after this one. I would guess it was a hunter, but why would a hunter be in the same location as a game camera?
 
Plus it seems to be moving down faster than freefall proving there are expolsives involved.
 
The Cuddyback digital scouting camera is NOT autofocus?

The striations on the 'critter' are vertical, like it was moving downward at the time? Not forward? Ohh. I know! The critter was up in the tree when the camera was planted, and it took a pic as 'he' jumped down!

And, the supposed BF was active in the daytime? I thought they were 1500 times as active in the night as the day. Rare day time shot!
 
The Cuddeback user manual (here) says it has an "aperture equivalent to F3.2, focal length equivalent to 44mm". Any photography experts that can tell us how far away this thing is from the camera?

To me it looks like the back of someone's head.
 
In all seriousness, there is too much information missing. How high is the camera? Pictures before and after? What is the camera attached to? WHERE is this?

So, what do we know for sure? You can see both sides, like it was really skinny, like a leg or arm, but if the camera was, say, 5 feet off the ground, then I don't think it would be a leg. The blurry leaves in front of it look tiny, like evergreen leaves or some sort of grassy weed (compare to background flora) but if that's the case then the blurry brown cannot be very big at all. At least we know about how wide it is, six inches, maybe? It's very close to the camera and if the camera is strapped to a tree then it must have crossed in front of it. BUT, the slight motion blurring that I can make out would suggest an up/down motion. If I had to hazard a guess I would say that a small animal jumped over the camera on the way down from the tree but again, without knowing the answer's to the above questions it will be almost impossible to tell. Of course, it could always be a deliberate hoax.
 
A snippet of one of the comments posted about the photo:

because it does have many of the more often reported descriptive points we should be careful to ensure we aren’t being played. like the bfro by fat man and little boy aka penn and teller.
Click to expand...

I love the nickname they came up with! I wonder if P&T know about it. I also wonder if P&T are aware of the stir they've caused in the Bigfoot community.
 
Starthinker said:
In all seriousness, there is too much information missing. How high is the camera? Pictures before and after? What is the camera attached to? WHERE is this?
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, it helps to read the link.

It was taken by a scouting camera on April 30, 2006, in the Mt. Hood National Forest, near The Dalles, Oregon. The camera is a Cuddeback digital scouting camera, which was attached to a tree about three feet off the ground. It has a motion/heat detector.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tsg said:
The Cuddeback user manual (here) says it has an "aperture equivalent to F3.2, focal length equivalent to 44mm". Any photography experts that can tell us how far away this thing is from the camera?
Click to expand...

Also from the owner's manual:

Camera Delay
a) Camera Delay is the amount of time Cuddeback will wait after taking a photo before it will take another photo. The delay is
shown in minutes.
b) Press the (UP KEY) or (DOWN KEY) to change the setting.
c) The range is 1 minute to 60 minutes.
Click to expand...

So at most it can take 1 photo per minute. Whatever it is, it was probably long gone a minute later.



To me it looks like the back of someone's head.
Click to expand...

I vote horse's ass (both the critter and the guy who thinks it might be Bigfoot) most likely, back of someone's head second.
 
Well, five minutes later, the camera picked up deer: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/moremthd/

Perhaps a beaver standing up? I'm currently browsing the animals native to the Mt. Hood area. There appear to be numerous furry creatures in this area, including bears.

However, having blown up the photo, areas of the "fur" are strangely transparent.
 
Last edited:
Jess said:
Well, five minutes later, the camera picked up deer: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/moremthd/

Perhaps a beaver standing up? I'm currently browsing the animals native to the Mt. Hood area. There appear to be numerous furry creatures in this area, including bears.

However, having blown up the photo, areas of the "fur" are strangely transparent.
Click to expand...
Then it must be real, obviously the Bigfoot is stalking the deer. Next pic is going to be of the carnage that ensues when the hairy giant rips the hapless deer to shreds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom