Picture of a Bigfoot?

Originally posted by kolchak The Night Stalker
Well, in my un-expert opinion,(how can anyone be an expert in such topics?) I feel that if you look at the creature and imagine it's facing toward the camera, it looks like a bear. You can make out a snout shape and the ears.
If you look at it as though it walking up the hill, then it could indeed be a humanoid shaped creature. You can see the ass and the arms and the whole of the back.
Intriguing.

Whatever this is, it is definitely walking UP the hill. I see exactly what you mean where it could be a bear going downhill, I can clearly see the 'face' and 'ears' and what-not. But in all honesty that incline is so steep that it would literally be falling ass-over-teacups straight down, it's practically vertical. So whatever it is, it must be going uphill.

I can VERY CLEARLY see buttocks, shoulders, back, a hunched over head, and some other things that would point to it being bigfoot, but again, it could be a moose or bear I suppose. Btw, a bear isn't going to walk on 2-legs up a 60 degree incline...

Anyway, I wish the original poster would state the reason why he only took 1, unless I missed it? He already professed that he should have taken other pictures of the spot without the creature there, but still, please answer why only 1 was taken? Whatever the reason may be. I'm on your side, I think that very well could be a shot of what we're all looking for and hoping it is. Stay out there and try to get some more pics!!


Edit: Few more comments: he said it walked to the left and disappeared. The tree coverage gets heavier over there so it makes sense as to why he couldn't see it or follow it anymore. That is pretty rugged terrain too, can't exactly go running after it.

Also I'm trying to make out why I don't see "it's" legs, whatever "it" may happen to be?

Also to comment on the other post about a "normal reaction" would be to take an easier route of escape. Well, it's easier route of escape would be going downhill, but straight back toward the photographer, so actually it's best escape would in fact be going left and getting out of view in the tree cover, even if it still uphill or crosshill.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Ajax]

It's a moose... you can clearly see the antlers...

I've seen them in the wild, plenty of people get killed around here on the highway. It is without a doubt, a moose....IMO

It's a moose... you can clearly see the antlers...

I've seen them in the wild, plenty of people get killed around here by moose on the highway... and they sure as hell scare you when you're trekkinh down a river or stream going fishing. I know a moose when I see one.

It is without a doubt, a moose.... in my opinion.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by GioTheGreek]

sorry about that double post, I have no diea how that happened. My apologies. Was trying to edit and dont know what happened.

Originally posted by GioTheGreek
It's a bloody Moose, going up the hill..
It's obvious. I immediately recognized it...

100% Moose

100% moose? Hate to break this to ya, that ain't no moose. I've seen moose in plenty during my days in Alaska, sorry not a moose.

I know I said earlier I didn't know what it was, still don't. But 'hunter, my man, you may be onto something here.

OMG i cant believe how lame this shot is.

First off we have a picture of a possible bigfoot which the supposed bigfoot is totally out of focus, not centred in the picutre, there are no more pictures taken of this supposed bigfoot and it's posted by someone who poster nickname is "TheUtahBigFootHunter" who has a avatar picture of a cartoon bigfoot.

I'm sorry but if i was a bigfoot hunter, and i thought i saw a supposed bigfoot, i would DEFINATELY be taking more photo's, Have the bigfoot centred in the photo. A clear picture of the beast which clearly is in a very tall tree and is probably not rushing away any time soon so lining up a clear picture shouldn't have been a hassle. Did i mention more photo's a centering the bigfoot and having the bigfoot clearly photographed?

I'm all for calling HOAX on this one.


My thoughts, Black bear up tree maybe?


[edit on 14-1-2008 by DaRAGE]

Is there anyone who specializes in enlargements so we can get a better look?

After blowing it up fairly large it looks like it could be a bear climbing a tree. It's obvious that it's not on the ground at all but up high on a tree trunk.

Those look like antlers to me... if you look around the shot, I dont think you can spot another similar antler-like pattern anywhere else aside from where this figure is.

www.dalequedale.com...
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Alxandro]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Alxandro]

I was excited for a moment.......

But then.....

Its no moose like others have said.....

Its most defiantly a grizzly bear!

Its not standing on its hind legs its climbing the extremely steep slope.






In your picture, you can see the stubby tail and its distinguishable muscle hump where the shoulders come together.

I vote Bear

[edit on 15-1-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

ok i've figured it out.....it's some kind of ape......you can see it clearly climbing up the tree....no bear can climb a tree that thin.....or that high....

reply to post by andre18


There is nothing to do with climbing anything but a steep slope in the picture the OP presented. How would anything that large be able to climb a toothpick sized tree?

Also what kinda monkeys live in Utah?

On that note.......
I don't think that there are any grizzly bears left in Utah....

OP, you may have something besides a moose or a bear here!

Ok...

I did a little bit of "leg" work and came up with some interesting news.

Bigfoot in UTAH
Bigfoot sounds in the High Uintas
Bigfoot in Uinta's Mountains

And the list keeps going....

Seems like the same spot you were photographing is a "hotspot" of bigfoot activity!

Thoughts....

ok.....look at the trunk coming from underneath the ape.....it is clearly climbing a tree.....and my guess is there a probebly at least a few apes of some type living arounf there

Originally posted by andre18
ok.....look at the trunk coming from underneath the ape.....it is clearly climbing a tree.....and my guess is there a probebly at least a few apes of some type living arounf there

Im sorry I am not seeing what you are seeing...

For one.

Using logic you should come to the conclusion that anything this size wouldn't be able to climb a tree of this thickness.

For two.

It is rather silly to assume a random group of apes(which none are found in USA or Canada) are just roaming around the forest of Utah having a grand ole time. Besides apes are not this color. Orangutan's are reddish like a bigfoot but do not reside in the US. Typical apes are gray and black.





[edit on 15-1-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

ok..well im not sure what you're looking at but i don't see any redness in the creature....simply brown.....though i just looked on wiki for what type animals mainly live in Utah and all i can find that fits is a bear.....

So.....there is a problem then...

one....bears can't climb trees like the one in the pic...

the thing......what ever it is.....is sitting on the tree and bending it with its weight...you should be able to see the bending of the trunk as it sits on it...

what it is i'm still not sure....the bear i saw on wiki was too small compared to the op's pic...so i'm now stumped...

[edit on 15-1-2008 by andre18]

Ok!

Here we have a better view on what we are discussing.

I still dont see what you are referring to.

If you have some image editing software could you highlight the areas you believe are the artifacts you are talking about.

Here are the images I edited to enhance the area of concern.
Brightness + Contrast Tweek, Sharpness, and negative.

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN


Dude, blow it up!

Whatever it is, it is not climbing a slope and could very well be an ape of some sort. Maybe the pic was taken somewhere else although bigfoothunter is not likely to try and play games.

As far as your investigation into those other sites, they are no secret and many of us are well aware of them.

As I said before, I'm not going to even guess as to what it is.

Originally posted by DaRAGE

I'm sorry but if i was a bigfoot hunter, and i thought i saw a supposed bigfoot, i would DEFINATELY be taking more photo's, Have the bigfoot centred in the photo...

I'm all for calling HOAX on this one.

The OP seems like a reasonable poster, so there's no cause for labeling it a hoax. At most, it's a mis-identification.

However, in my opinion, to be a credible BF-hunter, one should be extremely cautious before declaring anything as evidence of a BF, especially one's own photographs. Otherwise they run the risk of being considered fantasy-prone, seeing BF everywhere.

Then none of their evidence will be worth anything.