Bigfoot on cell phone camera?

After looking over a few Sasquatch/Bigfoot forums, I've found a general opinion that, while clarity of the pictures is an issue, it does appear as a better "blobsquatch" than others, and that the report is credible (especially to persons familiar with the area/persons involved). More than a couple posts mention the gorilla look to it, vs the usual more human like features.

Re the "gorilla" look and size, some debate goes on, again because of clarity, that the look and size may just be from different positions of the creature which are not clearly defined.

With the heavier use of cell phones by future BF sighters taking pictures, aficionados are awaiting for more credible reports like this one. But they still understand that, unless the pix are crystal clear, the debate continues.

Some seasoned posters on these sites do discuss the possibility of a stump or even a two-dimensional cardboard cut out, but come back to the above conclusions, nonetheless. So it makes for a highly interesting read and look.

reply to post by desert


I read the same forum, and it does appear that there's a near consensus that this is an image of a tree stump or a cardboard cut out.

One of the posters on that site mentioned that he interviewed the person who had his son take the photo and that they sounded genuine and straightforward and that he looked at the photos in the cell cam, ruling out the likelyhood of photoshopping.

However one poster also did an animation of the two relevant photos, claiming that this showed the shape did not move at all between the two photos.

I think there is a strong possibility that driving by they noticed a tree stump with a shape that looked like an ape and decided to take a picture or two. Then, later it wouldn't be that difficult to go knock down the stump causing it not to appear in the re-inactment.

If you look at the picture with the measuring staff, there is a dark mass to the holder's right. However, I'd be surprised if the BFRO investigator didn't mention a trace of a tree stump.

Here's the animation of the image suggesting the shape didn't move at all between the two photos:



The only difficulty beside the BFRO investigator noticing a knocked down tree stump is that it seems unlikely that a hoaxer would bother to report it and to take an investigator back to the area. Seems like a lot of trouble for a spur of the moment hoax.

Thanks for the heads up, great new sighting, it's about time we had another!

My first thought is that in the pictures with the 10 marker it seems to me R Ogg is standing too far forward of the leaning tree to his right (our left). In picture 5 bigfoot apears to be behind the leaning tree.

But it also appears that picture 4 is of the same leaning tree but taken from a slightly different view point, which brings the vertical tree from our right closer to the leaning tree (in the perspective IYSWIM) Now in the pic 4 the bigfoot is IMO much closer to where R ogg was standing with the marker, and I estimate the height of BF to be 7 feet.

BF appears taller in pic 5 because I suspect the land rises behind the leaning tree.

I haven't read the whole story yet, but I like this sighting so far.

reply to post by Badge01


Thanks for posting the overlay images and your comments.

I found the images interesting, but I think that they are what they are. That is, they probably are two different images but appear the same, especially photographing something large with not much clarity.

I'm inclined to believe that someone who is from that area and has hunted there would know a stump from a moving object. I remember driving in Alaska on vacation thinking I had spotted a moose; sure enough, there was that huge, black...trash bag on a fence! Another time after watching a bear wander through a High Sierra meadow about 60yds off the trail, I turned and just knew I saw another bear...a small, black stump in the shadows. One poster (on possibly the same forum) told of how he had driven next to a large, black, furry creature lying in a ditch by the side of the road, in a BF area, but it turned out to be a dead bear probably hit by a vehicle.

The fact that the name is on the copyright tells me that the witness either is a bold hoaxer, or really did see something. I guess I'm in the latter camp of believers.

Wig, you really examined those photos!
You know, like some posters on the BF forums, I had a hard time at first seeing the BF in #1 & 2.

Originally posted by desert
I'm inclined to believe that someone who is from that area and has hunted there would know a stump from a moving object.

I believe the reason for posting the overlay gif was not to suggest the object did not move but to show it does not change shape in any of the pictures, and I think there is evidence to suggest that is true. i.e. the question arises is it just a cardboard cutout moved and photographed in various different positions?

I am somewhat concerned that this appears to be a possibility, though, I'd like to think that the blurry nature of the photos account for some of the similarity between the photos.

I'm also disappointed that there is no "after" photo without the 10 foot marker pole, because the pole and Mr Ogg do obstruct the view of a lot of the important detail of the forest.

[edit on 27/2/2008 by Wig]

Originally posted by Wig

I believe the reason for posting the overlay gif was not to suggest the object did not move but to show it does not change shape in any of the pictures, and I think there is evidence to suggest that is true. i.e. the question arises is it just a cardboard cutout moved and photographed in various different positions?
[edit on 27/2/2008 by Wig]

Good point.

I agree that the overlay seems to show the shape remained the same which is unusual. This would be consistent with a cut-out or a tree stump being photographed from a slightly different location by the roadside. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the original photographer wouldn't get a couple more shots of that location after the blob-squatch moved away.

If you look at the photo with the 10-foot pole, you'll note that there's a dark shape to the right of the holder. Could this be the remains of a kicked over tree stump? I'm a bit surprised the BFRO investigator didn't take some more pictures, including some shots of the actual location - i.e. where the pole holder is standing - you know check for tracks, maybe. In fact we don't have any proof that the pole-holder isn't kneeling beside the tree - that's just sloppy documentation.

Heh, I think he needs to go back to 'investigator school' for some remedial classes.



[edit on 29-2-2008 by Badge01]

Badge, Wig, I think if I ever had to have an investigation because of a crime, you two would be the ones to conduct it.
Ok, now here is what I'm thinking about the stump theory; the "stumps" in that area that could be confused with/used as a hoax would be huge. There are huge stumps in that area, like from Sitka spruce and red cedar. These stumps could not be easily done away with.

Could you go back to the site and check out what looks like the overlays have been added? Ok, I'm the least reliable witness ever, but I don't remember seeing these overlayed images before on the online report. What do you think?

The Patterson film showed a Sasquatch walking upright for a distance, turning to look. These cell pix show a BF walking upright, then ducking down.

Also, the 10 foot marking pole was made by a BFRO investigator, but I don't see where any BFRO investigator went to the actual site. Their investigators do sometimes go to the site, but I can't find in the report where it says they were/weren't there.

I'm still of the opinion that this report, being accompanied by the cell phone pix, is one of the most credible and fun to look at reports in a while.