BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Clearest Photo Of Bigfoot Since Patterson-Gimlin Released By Melissa Hovey?

*Photo Updated With Higher Resolution
Click To Enlarge

[Update] Since this original posting, much has happened with this photo and with all the drama surrounding it. First came Phil Poling who made two videos about Hovey and pointing out his belief that her copyright on the photo was fraudulent since she admits not owning the photo. Then came Hovey’s filing of two DMCA takedown notices on those videos, followed by Poling’s counter filing contesting them. Poling succeeded and he videos remained on his channel. A year later, Hovey filed a Federal lawsuit against Poling for copyright infringement. Poling fought the suit and, after the Judge saw his evidence, the case against Mr. Poling was dismissed with prejudice. Hovey was then required by court agreement to remove her copyright on this photo. The exact source of the photo remains a mystery. The following is the original blog post from when Hovey first released the mysterious photo, a photo that remains to this day, a testament to the weird and ever changing world of Bigfootery. Melissa Hovey continues to run her blog ‘The Search For Bigfoot’ and Phil Poling operates the Youtube channel ‘ParaBreakdown’.

The Patterson-Gimlin footage is/was the most important piece of evidence of Bigfoot in history, until now. This latest trail cam photo of Bigfoot taken by a person who chose not to reveal himself was handed over to a blogger named Melissa Hovey. Melissa "struggled" with releasing the photo to the Bigfoot community as she made a promise to the person that he can trust her.

Is this photo real? You be the judge, because this photo will definitely be scrutinized and photo-enhanced six ways to Sunday.

Is this photo from Melissa Hovey the new Patterson-Gimlin?

It was at Bluff Creek, around 44 years ago --- on October 20, 1967 -- Yakima, Washington resident Roger Patterson, then 34, and his tracking assistant Bob Gimlin, then 36, emerged from the woods with a strip of colored 16mm film of what many have taken to be a female Bigfoot. Since then, the P/G film has been the Gold Standard in Bigfootery.

From Melissa:

In early 2008 I was contacted via email by a person claiming to have photographed a Bigfoot. The photo is posted above.

The American Bigfoot Society holds the copyright for this image for any and all purposes. As stated in the last article, if and when the true owner of this photo steps up, we will turn the copyright over to them, and they can cover this.

Permission granted to reproduce for educational use only. Commercial copying, hiring, lending is strictly prohibited.


This image and its use on the various websites, discussion forums blogs and any other form of social media, for purposes of discussion/evaluation/research by the general public, Bigfoot Researchers and/or the media, BE ON NOTICE: the copyright MUST be maintained and placed on any images taken from this photo for any purpose and/or distributed or displayed in any manner.

This will be strictly enforced. Any questions about the use of this image should be emailed to the American Bigfoot Society at:

americanbigfootsociety@gmail.com

All website, forum, blog or any other form of social media owners, Bigfoot Researchers/enthusiasts/media and the general public, PLEASE be mindful, of potential hoaxers by maintaining the copyright on the image above. The use of this photo for hoaxing is our primary concern.

The ABS is not releasing this photo to help any potential hoaxer.

I know that everyone will have questions about this situation, but please understand there are questions that will NOT be answered about this photo and/or its owner:

1. Name of witness: This information will not be disclosed,

2. Statistical information about the witness: Age, race, or employment/occupation or marital status will not be disclosed,

3. Location of the witness: City, State, County or Address. This information will not be disclosed,

4. Number of images in this series: This will not be disclosed OR what number this photo is in the series,

5. One other researcher was sent this photo (that I know about): I will not release the name of this researcher at this time,or;

6. Any question that may compromise the witness and/or the integrity of information that could identify the witness and/or make it difficult to properly identify the witness should he/she come forward.

The American Bigfoot Society takes no particular stance on whether this is a photo of a Bigfoot or not. In other words, we do not know if this is in fact a Bigfoot or a hoax. The American Bigfoot Society has contacted and has allowed various professionals, in a number of fields, to view the photo in order to assess any information that may be contained within this photograph. While the American Bigfoot Society has the responsibility to protect their witnesses and any information we may have about them, the American Bigfoot Society also has the responsibility of exposing any photo, or evidence, which may lead to hoaxing. The American Bigfoot Society has NO information that this is in fact a hoax. We feel this photo can be released, analyzed and discussed without disclosing any information about the witness, thereby keeping our promise of confidentiality of our witnesses.

Information about the photo:

This witness asked for my (Melissa Hovey) help in seeking protection for what he/she claimed was a Bigfoot that had been coming onto his/her property.

The witness broke contact after becoming concerned for his/her privacy and the safety of the animal. He/she was concerned people would discover who he/she is and that he/she would be called, “crazy”. The witness also expressed concern that if his/her identity were discovered the alleged animal would be in danger of being killed.

The witness expressed in multiple emails that his/her interest was in protection of the alleged animal and not financial gain.

The witness stated this is one game cam photo in a series of photos.

The witness denies any form of manipulation to this photo, other than cropping the image.

Any conversations had between Melissa Hovey and the witness will not be disclosed. Even though the ABS is releasing this photo we still feel it is our responsibility to protect any information that may harm the investigation or the witness.

The photo has been examined and the ABS is in possession of these written opinions. I will do my best to have these opinions released as soon as possible. As is usually the case with opinions, photos and other miscellaneous information is sent, and can create difficulties in their uploading to the internet. My blog is a very temperamental site.

But, rest assured I have no desire to “string this out” any longer than I must – and that is only to make sure the information and the opinions given are published properly.

[Update] Here's Melissa Hovey talking about the photo on the Conundrums radio show:

455 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. If this sort of photo is released without an independent professional forensic opinion then it does not help anyone. This has turned out to be little more than a titivation exercise and a poor reflection on your organisation. I was really expecting more professionalism from BFS and Melissa with what is purported to be high quality evidence. You can gauge even from the better comments below that nearly all are disappointed as a result of your handling of this. This is like a scientific paper with no research details provided to support it. Frankly, that is just dumb.

      Delete
    2. You demand too much from amateur researchers. When the big science turns its face to such a research, then you can demand of them the deep investigation and "professional forensic" approach.
      But now say Grand Mercy to such a researcher as Melissa and the author of the pic...
      Igor Burtsev, Russian hominologist

      Delete
  2. Hmm... could be real, but without seeing a front view, it's pretty hard for any layman to say "hoax" or "holy shit".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. How? I'm not saying that it can't be fake but if it is, the best in Hollywood created it.

      Delete
    2. If you're not going to elaborate, then don't bother posting inane comments like that. Any imbecile can type "Not real. So fake. Sorry".
      In fact, why am i even rising to you, troll?

      Delete
  4. Looks clearer than I imagined. Not a ghillie suit in my opinion. Ahh fuck it, who knows. Another picture of god knows what

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree w/you, interesting, one of those things that make you go "hmm'

      Delete
  5. Looks like coyote hair. Where have I heard that before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. coyote hair????????? Do you really think thats coyote hair? If it is than it is from the biggest dang coyote i ever heard of, i'm a talkin cow sized!!!!

      Delete
  6. I'm not convinced until I see a larger version. It's too small to see detail.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It does sort of look like someone skinned a coyote...

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is like sex with no climax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, total blue balls over here. Not cool, cot cool. John

      Delete
  9. People should start setting up 2 trail cams at a time, facing one another

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. great idea - how about saturating an area, along those lines, with literally hundreds of the trail cams, e.g thousands of feet along a river bank or animal trail

      Delete
    2. This is being done in the South Eastern Olympic Mountains

      Delete
    3. Check out the susanfarns videos on utube He places one game camera facing the other also.

      Delete
  10. It's not a ghillie suit, it's the costume I commented about the other day. The front view is much more realistic looking.

    Whoever took the shot shouldn't have combed the hair like that. It looks too silky.

    I knew they'd pull a trick like this.

    Frontal photos to come I'm sure, we put a tremendous amount of detail in the face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which costume? Who's "we", please?

      Delete
    2. I got fired from a job making the very suit seen in that picture. It's not 4 years old, it's only weeks old. It looks terrible too.

      We put a ton of work into making it look like Patty and its been completely mishandled.

      I guarantee a follow up photo showing the face is on the way. And it will look very real, much more realistic than this obviously combed out costume; combover as someone commented, ha ha!

      Delete
    3. Very interested in seeing. Either way one of those things that you go, I knew it all along, lol.

      Delete
  11. Looks similar to the Bigfoot I saw in colour. When the sun shone on it, it was reflecting/glinting in parts. But, the hair looks longer, and not as thick.. In all honesty, I'm thinking it's the real deal.

    Shaun, UK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it would be interesting to hear other opinion from witnesses.

      Delete
  12. Its always a front blurry picture or the back of something...why cant i see just one picture that can clearly be identified

    ReplyDelete
  13. is there a higher resolution of it?
    I kind of think it's real. You can see the skin under the fur. The shoulder and neck muscles are HUGE! and it has the matted hair often described.

    I supposed it could have been faked, but that doesn't mean it was. If the owner of the trail cam shot was afraid to have it released then to me that lends support to the idea it's a real BF. If they released it right away instead of holding on to it then that would lean more to fake.

    Most people tend to lean toward fake for any picture good or bad. I tend to lead towards more of the photos and videos Shawn posts are real BFs

    Chad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some good points Chad, just so little info to go on. Wish the owner would come forward with the details, good golly it's been 4 years and this beast is long gone and no danger. Does this only happen in Bigfootery?

      Chuck

      Delete
  14. Wow! It backed right up to the camera. Or maybe it was doing the electric slide?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, you have absolutely no idea how a trail cam works. I have thousands of pics from trail cams where the animal is walking away. Silly comment.

      Delete
  15. How convenient, a picture of a back. All hype and no glory.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also... if this was a game cam photo, why is it so still and in focus? It's like the bigfoot is modeling. I don't get it... Not even a single hair is in motion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what has me confused. Other game camera pics are not that clear, especially the reported sasquatch ones. And broad daylight, was it rabid?

      Delete
    2. Flash duration is very short and will freeze most subjects. That's why blurry game cam photos are suspicious to me, especially when others in the series show distinct frozen wildlife, e.g. the Erickson sequence.

      --A Photo Guy

      Delete
    3. Not a single hair in motion is a good point. Hair looks like my uncle's comb over.

      Delete
    4. Trail cams have very high resolution with flashes that light up out to 60ft. in the darkness. This quality is not at all unusual.

      Delete
  17. GEEZY WHEEZY BACK VIEW , COME ON THIS ISN'T ANYTHING

    ReplyDelete
  18. My questin is why those it have the Stamp of the American Bigfoot Society, has anyone notice this, hello??? if she had the exclhis why would it have the Societires Stamp?Hmmmmmm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry typing on my cell phone, If this is her secret exclusive why does it have the Bigfoot Societies stamp on the picture, is anyone else seein this, seems strange

      Delete
    2. if you read the blog you will know why it has the copyright on it

      Delete
  19. What is nice with this photo , is that i have waited only 5 minutes thanks , won't think anything so easy to fake this one ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. This Melissa Hovey is a nut job. Or a complete idiot. Probably just a liar. Hold on to this obivious fake for four years?
    What a dolt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you think it's an obvious fake?

      Delete
    2. You people are a bunch of dopes, you know that?

      Delete
    3. I whole heartedly agree, good doctor!

      Delete
    4. Do you know Melissa? You shouldn't post about someone that you know nothing about.

      Delete
  21. It's nice to see that George "The Animal" Steele is still around.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not convinced it's a photo. It looks more like a drawing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. SURE THIS PIC COULD BE THE REAL DEAL BUT A FACE IS NEEDED FOR ABSOULTE PROOF !

    ReplyDelete
  24. That kind of hair could not keep it warm in the winter could it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well she did have the cajones to release the photograph so I have to offer up some accolades. On the downside this is another who the hell knows what. I really see no reason why this could not have been released years earlier. Also, where is the other trail-cam photographs you are undoubtably sitting on? Surely, there had to have been a large sequence of photographs. At best, inconclusive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It probably did not exist years ago. The whole story behind it reaks of shit.

      o0

      Delete
  26. If your going to release an image why not release at least hi-rez so we can see skin detail. Your copywrite it well protected ..please release a larger file !

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh, it's the creature's back. I never would have guessed. What a coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Seems authentic to me. Definately not a ghillie suit with the skin showing underneath. Too long to be coyote hair... If anything id say it looks more like bear hair spray painted silver, but even then it seems too long. If this was hoaxed id have to say its the best costume made yet! Face shot please!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. You say this photo was one of a series? So lets see the series, otherwise in conclusive IMO. ptangier

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's David Coverdale from the 80's band Whitesnake!

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is nothing here.

    It's a picture of the back of something with a lot of hair on it. There is no indication of movement, of scale, of anything at all. Without facial features to identify, it's actually less convincing than Todd Standing's head puppets.

    On the bright side, it IS bright and in focus. Kudos for that change of pace...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Let down again! No frontal just the back! Really! This was not worth the hype at all.
    Bigfoots Broski

    ReplyDelete
  33. We now have conclusive evidence that the back of Bigfoot is 100% real.

    ReplyDelete
  34. On first glance I will say this is way better than expected, check out the head area around the ear's. That's either a wood booger or some damn good FX (maybe from those Jack Link's commercials?). The biggest sell for me is the patching of the Fur looks EXACTLY like the enhanced version of the P/G film, something I've never seen before in any other video or photo. call me a sucker but that's one damn real looking Bigfoot! living or latex is yet to be seen though, what an interesting turn of events!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do I hear Bobo's voice when I read your post?

      Delete
  35. No trail cam photos are this clear. Especially not 4 years ago. Man I hate to do this but. . . BULLSHIT!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I highly doubt trail cam photograph.

      Delete
    2. Agree. SD cards and cameras have come along way in 4 years

      Delete
  36. Neat photo. I look forward to analysis, but as it is just a back shot, I don't know how you could ever say its not just a model or good sculpture.

    ReplyDelete
  37. That's my uncle earl. Recognize tgat hairy back anywhere

    ReplyDelete
  38. We are all to quick to say its a hoax, not many people have seen a live one up this close from the back.
    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You like to hit it from the back.

      Delete
    2. No, any real animal will not let yo approach from the rear like that, try that on a deer, and see if it will let you get close, without turning around.

      Delete
    3. It's a trailcam pic tard, no one approached it.

      Delete
  39. I am ashamed of myself for looking forward to this ridiculous photo. I mean I actually feel dirty with self loathing.

    What an absolute joke!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Looks alot like Steve Kulls pic from NY

    ReplyDelete
  41. Shaun and Chad, I agree with you guys. It looks close to the real thing to me too.

    If someone was going to fake it,why wouldn't they cover all the skin and give it more hair.

    Remember the photo of the Bigfoot picking apples that everyone said was an owl? It's back looked a lot like this except for the little hand that was clinging to one arm that a lot of people chose to ignore.

    FYI regarding the Coyote comment, this photo was taken in 2008. Wasn't 2008 before the alledged kill of the adult and juvenile bigfoot? Wasn't that the event that triggered the coyote statements?

    I personally am glad to see it. It was mentioned before it was released that it was a back view.

    Its more believable to me than many others.

    No one can call this a blobsquatch.

    After reading the witnesses concerns, I don't blame them one bit after reading some of the comments here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you Blondie and Chad. This creature seems to be sporting some serious trapezius muscles also.

      Chuck

      Delete
    2. Ok Blondie I was the one who created the whole owl theory and I took a beating on it.
      Second I really don't see how this looks real at all. First those patches of skin look very very pale no bites on them no blotches or anything. Maybe he uses Maybeline. The thing that gives it away is when was the last time you let your dog run around in the woods and it had zero leaves or grass or dirt or whatever on it.

      If you have ever been close to a bear they always have some kind of stick, leaf, foilage, anything on it. The hair on this animal is also combed perfect with the shape of the body. It just looks fake.

      Bigfoots Broski

      Delete
    3. Broski increase the resolution of the clear picture above. There is debris in the hair. There is also something that looks like a scab on one side and on the right lower shoulder there are skin bumps.

      As far as the hair, when I wake up in the morning that's the way my hair looks. It really looks like it's been laying down. I don't think anyone combed it because there are tangles and mats close to the skin and throughout the hair.

      My dog doesn't get grass or dirt on it, maybe because it's a short hair type(Doberman)

      Either way I respect your opinion but mine is different.

      By the way,I heard the owl theory before I began reading this blog.

      Delete
  42. "I'm not saying that it was a Bigfoot, but it was a Bigfoot" - Matt M.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I could care less about a photo of Bigfoot/evidence that they exist or don't. I am more bothered by the story behind this photograph.

    The witness wants to allegedly protect this 'Bigfoot,' and struggles internally about posting a photograph of him. If you wanted to protect something that badly, there'd be no internal struggle about letting a photograph out. You wouldn't do it. From that point of view, there is nothing to gain from doing this, particularly from the claimed concern of the animal. The story is what makes me believe that this is not real.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The more I look at this the more I think it's fake. White skin? Not on what I saw. I'm open to variants in hair colour, but not skin. No Caucasian features on Bigfoot.

    Shaun, UK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is not skin, it is light guard hairs.

      Delete
  45. Crystal clear trailcam photo of a shirtless Robin Williams!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Perfectly centered with its back straight at the camera? No.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I keep staring at this and I think it's weird that there is no undercoat. It's fur looks like my horse's in the winter, but horse's also have fine hair. In the case of rain, this doesn't look like it would protect the animal's back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Primates don't have undercoats. That is the principle reason why they are 'hairy' and not 'furry.' You are right about too little hair, though

      Delete
  48. I too would like to see a larger res version of this photo. The blog says that this photo was not edited other than cropped, I'd like to see the original version right out of the camera because I am a wildlife photographer and this looks like there has been more edits to it than just that. The original photo will also show date and time stamp.

    I want to see the proof so bad, but I do have a few questions about this one.

    1. Where are the other photos? They say this is one in a series, let's see them. Something that big should've triggerd numerous shots from a trailcam.

    2. Why is it facing and so close to the bush/leaves behind it?

    3. Is this really a trailcam photo? I don't believe it is. I think the quality of the photo is too good to be trailcam, and I believe that the flash can tell you a lot as well. If this photo was cropped in the way that they intend for us to believe then the flash would not be spotted right in the middle of the back like that. You can tell that it is because look at how the light falls of so quickly around the sides, INCLUDING the bottom. A trailcam flash would illuminate the entire area and the only way it would do this is to have the camera very close to the subject. With the leaves behind the object, why would someone put up a trailcam with only 5 feet of clearance, most people have a wide field of view to catch as much as possible. This looks like someone is standing a few feet away from this subject taking the photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're thinking is much like mine. I'm another photographer with a lot of experience evaluating photographs. I posted way back up early on this.

      Most sinificant about this is the heavy cropping. I see the hottest part of the flash hitting in the lower right quadrant of the photo. Normally, that hot area would be where the center of the lens was looking, so it looks like a great deal was cropped off of the image, particularly from the right side and bottom but also from the top and left. I'm guessing the photo was cropped down by roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the original area. Why would someone do that? What does someone not want the picture to show? It was suggested it was because the area might be recognized which would jeopardize the bigfoot. So, what might that recognizable element be? (How about a "Stay Off The Exhibits" sign?) And why would anyone point a trail cam at a bunch of plants just a few feet away? I don't think that's the way it's done. Lastly, I still think there's a second higher light source in addition to the flash at the camera, maybe a ceiling light or even a high window.

      This thing is going to cause a great deal of debate.

      Delete
    2. Yep, I,m right there with you. Photographically it just doesn't make sense.

      Delete
  49. Is that a person in the bottom left corner?? Looks like something from Universal Studio's if you ask me,too clear and crisp for a game camera.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Would really want it to be authentic but, if someone showed me this photo without me knowing what it was I would have said going by the hair and muscular body it was an elderly male chimpanzee.

    ReplyDelete
  51. as someone who generally accepts the premise of bigfoot, I am dismayed that bigfoot hunters always seem to have crappy cameras and video that gets blurry at just the wrong time; and the fact that the movement, generally, isn't better coordinated and more sophisticated (no one's fault, i know). I find it painfully ridiculous (sorry) that the hunters featured on Finding Bigfoot think that walking into the woods and screaming at the top of their lungs is anything but the stupidest thing they could possibly do. These animals are fast and smart, but even a dumb animal can avoid you at that point. A single hunter will NOT, IMO, ever be able to get evidence with a direct forward facing search. We need to be smarter. Whale hunting is the best analogy, and that is a very sophisticated operation with a lot of training a patience needed. We need to elevate and standardize best practices and coordinate massive numbers of volunteers in search events, and raise money to hire professionals. Massive tech saturating an area (ie focus on the small aerial drones now available and saturating certain locations (rivers, lures/traps, etc) with trailcam type tech). Crowd sourcing/tracking a target area, literally with thousands of amateurs, over one or two days might lead to something. Hire a group of military trained trackers (5 or more, and I'm talking about the guys trained to hide in a blind/tree and not move for 10 days at a time and enough of them to push and track an animal for a period of many days), give them all the tech you can afford, (aerial search capability is CRITICAL - entire family units can probably cover 30-40 miles a day) including aerial drones and guns that can tag an animal with an RFI transmitter, and let them do what they do. they choose the place/topography, but they spend at least 60 days (not 5, not 10) in there or they don't get paid and they all get paid triple if it leads to irrefutable evidence (tagged, trackable animal or non-lethal capture of an individual - frankly, if they came out with a body, i can't think of a law that might create any liability for anyone).

    ReplyDelete
  52. As of 2 pm Cryptomundo has not mentioned this at all .. which is why I LOVE this site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe because they know it's a fake!! And why bother

      Delete
  53. From a hunter with a lot of experience with trail cams, here are my problems.

    1. First off the grain of the picture is wrong. To clear and distinct (even for high end Reconyx cams).

    2. Lighting is weird...especially on the leaves, makes me think a doctored photo or a setup.

    3. Not releasing the series. Seems odd that a BF walked right passed the cam then side stepped to get a perfect picture in the cam (cause it is in the center of a picture..this is especially true since it is said that the photo is "cropped" but doesn't say why or how). There should be some sort of a series, so if they are looking to "prove" something, why not release all evidence?

    4. The height of the picture. If this camera was set up just for deer/other game species, why is it getting just the upper back and head of a BF that is suggested to be 7-10ft tall? I mean MM says that BFs have gray hair in their old age so that would rule out the possibility of a young (at least to any of you people that think he has a clue about anything....I am not one of them but just put that in there for the sake of argument)

    5. Why does it seem that there is something right in front of the suggested BF in the picture? Most trail cams are set at openings or over a food source. Instead it seems like this picture was made to seem as it was in the woods (aka put "BF" between camera and a tree so it has can be said to be a trail cam pic).

    6. No matting of any of the hair, all of it seems to have been straigtened or combed recently. No dirt, debris, or leaves on the back (wouldn't it sleep on the ground?) It almost looks like it has had a bath and conditioner (I'm gonna claim that BF make basic combs and use natural oils to brush and condition their hair...MM you can feel free to take that "scientific" discovery as well). Also, remember how all of people "know" that this animal has a horrible, pugent smell...does this look like an animal that would fit that category?...No

    7. The owner said he photographed the figure in early 2008 (maybe late 2007). Why then am I seeing green and brown mixed leaves? I still think they look fake but you aren't seeing green leaves from winter-late spring. Could be a non-valid point but still just an observation that doesn't sit well with me.

    I see no way that this isn't a hoax. If people are wanting to "prove" BF exists, show a series of photos. Also, I wouldn't doubt if this "limited" release of picture and info isn't a way for the "original" owner to look at criticisms and start making counter arguments for when they decide to step forward just to try and get more recognition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basically the exact same points I made above. Completely agree.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I actually didn't even see your post until just a second ago. I saw the picture and immediately started posting. I'm glad I'm not the only one with specific problems with the picture

      Delete
    3. On the smell, I heard that some great apes can release smell when startled or angry. Not necessarily means dirty coat, but still...

      Delete
    4. Some primates have been noted to produce a
      "fear/anger odor" through a gland in the armpit. However, this is often accompanied by sort of diarrhea...which would lead to more ablity to gather evidence.

      Delete
  54. Whom ever speculated that this was a Ghillie suit was WAY off !
    It's obviously either the Big Boy or a very well done model. A model is not out of the question as the hairs would have to be individually applied. Excellent anatomically ! Looks a little to good for a trail cam picture. We all know that the many question regarding this will have a huge bearing on its potential authenticity. The fact that this stand alone really red flags this. No worries DNA on its way so this will be old hat.

    ReplyDelete
  55. this is why bigfooting is a joke to real scientists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And to most everyone else as well. For shame.

      Delete
  56. Looks like could even be indoors, at a museum or something to me.

    o0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have over 40 people looking over the internet for this picture ^_^ don't worry if we find it and I guarantee we will this picture will have been taken in a museum after hours with the statue turned around. This will be found.

      Delete
    2. The leaves definitely make me think something like that. Even the dark areas at the left of the photo almost even look to be altered to be blacked out.

      Delete
    3. if you look closely the bush/tree/ whatever infront of the "animal" jettisons up right in front of the "animal" what animal goes up to a tree and stares at it look closely and you can see the animal has no way to walk through the tree as if it were an overhang from a tree off to the right of the picture but it appears to have its trunk set right infront of the animal,. now take this into consideration if you with your mind turn the object in the picture around to face you does the tree behind it not appear to be an accent or scenery piece in a museum ?

      Delete
    4. It does sort of look like one of those statue things of early humans. It's too small to know for sure, but the leaves do look a bit fake.

      Delete
    5. http://www.myspace.com/maxshores/photos/1752762#%7B%22ImageId%22%3A1752762%7D

      That looks pretty impressive for a costume/statue. Not too far off on color either

      Delete
    6. 2nd picture here is also pretty close

      http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/phoenix-yeti/

      Delete
    7. That's what I was suggesting above, maybe a wax museum somewhere.

      Delete
  57. You, lady are certifiable. Loco! A sandwich short of a full picnic basket.1 excederin tablet short from a full medicine cabinet! You don't have both oars in the water!

    Hey everyone look at me, I will release this picture a 1 pm. Such grandstanding about nothing. I wonder what MK tidbit we will get this afternoon on her fb page. I am sure that she will respond some how about how this pictures resembles or doesn't resemble her gift giving friends. Then Sally will make a comment about how they can't answer specifically how they know for sure due to press embargo/nda. Then 2 mins later MK will chime again about something then again Sally will pop up 2 mins later to throw the kibosh on someone's interesting thoughtfull question. Anyone els getting dizzy with all of this? I swear everyone is in all together on the mother of all hoaxes. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Melissa -you just lost all credibility. Another one bites the dust!!

    ReplyDelete
  59. I just don't understand why people just drop shit like that on us and don't tell us anything about its origins. It just made more harm than good to the research. If it was legit--that info is critical. If it's not legit--they wasted our time. Keeping it cloaked and hidden as to its origins makes it utterly unusable as evidence. Even if this was the real deal, it means absolutely nothing without a verifiable source and they just screwed the pooch by exposing it without reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm disgusted by you and your cynicism about everything, Lady.

      Delete
    2. Without the sequence of pictures I am not sure anything can be said about this one.

      Delete
    3. Wow...Autumn you really are a shallow Idiot that doesnt think much beore talking do you? Good luck chasing invisible dead people

      Delete
    4. You're right, Autumn! And cynicism just might come from having to deal with such a deluge of hoaxes and general lunacy!

      Delete
  60. patterson, gimlin and hieronimous still kings of the hoaxers 40 years on, no-one else comes close to their level of hoaxing. try harder please.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This does not look like it was taken from a trail cam there is no time stamp that tells the date or time all trail cams have this so I don't know what to say about it

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dan.
    Nicole here again. I left you my email address in the other thread you commented on but have not heard from you. I'm very interested in hearing your story.

    Truksr4gals@yahoo.com

    PS. I noticed you said employed "recently" by the production company in burbank. did you read the article and understand Melissa has had this photo for 4 years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Dan is as much a hoax as anyone...

      Delete
    2. The wheels are coming off of this before it gets rolling. 85k down the drain

      Delete
  63. So this is possibly the sierra kills Bigfoot in this photo 2 years before that sob killed her? Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I just don't see how there is anything else that can be done with this. Doesn't seem like any more info is forthcoming, not THAT much analysis can be done, and there is just nothing there.

    If anything, it just makes me hope to all that is holy that the Ketchum Study doesn't approach this level of vagueness.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Negative, anon 11:06, it's why you (trolls) are. Why only release a cropped photo anyway, why not the whole picture. It's just gonna drive the nutty skeptics in, it being rear not front. Isn't it strange, everytime there's a game cam photo of a Bigfoot, and they're pretty rare as it is, there's never a face seen. That only fuels the skeptics' desire to ridicule, how Bigfoots can't be photographed, blahblah. My first reaction to this photo is; fake. It's too perfect, like some film guys' idea of Bigfoots, now they finally learned the lesson that Bigfoots look nothing like Harry from the Hendersons. It's probably a bust, an upper body model work where the hairs are placed individually, just like Janos Prohaskas taught them. And is that a pointed ear? Reminds me of the Hoffman video. Suggested yesterday it could be the work of industry people, why the guy never got back to Hovey. The hair looks too long and fakey or at least longer than they appear on Patty, and we all know her whole body's impossible to fake, but perhaps the males (if it's male) have the longer hairs of the species. Unless we see more details of this subject, I feel relatively secure in saying it's probably a fake. Too bad really, had hoped for something more like the whole body but DNA's still where it's at. Beating Patty this photo alone never will in a million years.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don't know where you people get your information. Does nobody know how to read? Read the entire blog attached to the picture. In it you will see that this is the ONLY picture Melissa received. The WITNESS stated that it was one of a series and the WITNESS cropped the trail cam info off of it. You will find out why it has a copyright on it. You will also see where it is stated "The American Bigfoot Society takes no particular stance on whether this is a photo of a Bigfoot or not. In other words, we do not know if this is in fact a Bigfoot or a hoax."

    If you are unable to read and comprehend what you have read you shouldn't post your comments.

    If somebody CAN find a display in a museum with a similar creature please send the info to the ABS. If anyone knows this is a hoax, please send them that information too.

    Melissa has stated (also in the blog) that she is willing to answer any questions she can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, some can read and some probably can not. But, all we illegitimate non-researcher souls so to speak have one thing in common. That is, we have all been through this before and we do not necessarily trust anybody associated with any bigfoot organization (so sorry). To us the appearance is they all distort the truth. The Finding Bigfoot show on the History Channel has also helped enforce negative stereotype in regards to the leaders not having a clue about these animals(not all but most it seems). So to answer your concerns may be you should cut us some slack and appeal to your leader that the rank and file is much smarter and wiser than originally thought. Just an idea.

      Delete
    2. It's transparently obvious that the claim to own copyright is a lie. The person who set up the trail cam owns the copyright (which is why, I assume, there's a disclaimer about recognising they own the copyright if they show up).

      Insisting on it at length when everyone knows it isn't true makes it seem like a scam. Why try to assert copyright except to try and profit off it, given you don't own the copyright?

      Delete
  67. What a complete joke!!!!!Yes, this should shake the world!!!! Why not just take a photo of some late night Wal-Mart shopper's hairy butt crack and try to pass it off as a Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I love hearing the self-indignant & ignorant idiots on here who comment on the photo before even bothering reading the information that accompanies it. If you've been following her blog all week,which you still can bother reading to catch up, you'd see that Ms.Hovey has been as forthcoming as possible with the limited information she's been given. All she did was make a tough decision to share this photo with all of you after holding it 4 yrs as a promise to the person sending it. She isn't responsible for what's in the photo, nor does she claim its a bigfoot. What was the right thing for her to do?...assume the photo was a blobsquatch and not release it ever because it's not worthy (LOL). give her a break for christ's sake.....also to the person claiming they know this is the hoax they were initially in you claimed "recently" in another blog comment before the photo was released...did you happen to miss the little part that this pic is from 4 yrs ago? I'm certainly not saying this couldnt be a fantastic hoax, but I think she'll be able to prove how long she's had the photo soon if that's a question in people's minds. BTW, its my understanding the pic is centered because the person sending it told her he cropped it upfront probably to take out anything identifiable in the suuroundings..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your an idiot for defending this pic.

      Delete
    2. You're an idiot for thinking I am. Was just putting it all into perspective for brainless idiots like you that ignore facts and just spout your mouth off. I think that happens because you lack a social outlet. thank god for computers ha? you'd have nothing.

      Delete
    3. Right it was cropped to take out the tre with a heart carved in it that says I love Bigfoot. I mean everyone knows where that tree is. C'mon man!!!!

      Cropped/shopped

      Delete
    4. I think you are true about Melissa. Although I can't see this as an amazing picture, I think if it is a hoax it was done by the owner.

      Delete
  69. Well, if this is a series of game cam photos are none from the front or side?

    All this photo shows is a Hair Squatch...or some guy at the YMCA.

    It remains just another indistinguishable photo. If there is more, show it.

    New Anony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't you read the story before posting either? This is a photo from a series of photos, or as the unidentified person that has the other photos said it is, Melissa only received just This "ONE" photo. And has no contact at this time with the owner of the photo's.

      Delete
  70. Dear fellow readers,

    Please repeat after me:

    Ba, Bah, Baaaaaaaaaa.

    Thank you. Please continue

    ReplyDelete
  71. THAT'S the photo? That's terrible, it's the back of a big hairy thing, it could be a freaking statue on a stand, there's no face, nothing, it's shoulders and the back of the head. Hell it could be the Harry and the Henderson's costume in some studio archive building lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weezy, HAVE YOU ever seen a bigfoot?????? If not, then you have no right to spout off as you are. Yes this could be a "freakin statue" but give Melissa a break, she stated this could be real or a hoax, as she has said in the article that goes with this photo. Read the article PEOPLE. geeesh.

      Delete
    2. I read the article, and Ms. Hovey didn't do her due diligence on this, IMHO!

      Delete
  72. You have to be kidding Melissa this is what you have been looking at for 4 years and you are still wondering if its a hoax .... i think you might want to change your field of " expertise ". All that hype about the clearest photo since the PG film, TSK TSK i say this is BS and Melessa is looking for some attention. If you want to do some good in the protection of this species you are going to have to do better that this P.O.S. How about a full frontal photo not just the ASS end.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Well its not coyote hair. The hair is to long, it kinda looks like the BF in my area. From that view walking away. I have a lot BF in my area, They are not shy to show them selfs to any one.

    ReplyDelete
  74. if this is one of a series of pics, why not show us all of the pics? and why 'crop' this one? is there a pair of jeans and tennis shoes below the 'cropped' pic?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yep, an elderly grey haired Squatch walking straight into a hedge..a solid bank of vegetation...poor guy must have vision problems.
    I still think it could be a shot from a YMCA dressing room.

    new anony

    ReplyDelete
  76. This is the Sanger Paranormal Society... Someone has come forward to me and has told me that Mellisa used to work at a Museum several years ago called the www.texancultures.com . They had a display there with a Sasquatch coming at you through some trees. My contact is saying this is the Sasquatch which was on display. Also, what is that box to the right if it's head... Just saying !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they did: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/bigfoot-texas_2.html

      from the article: Recently Woolheater helped organize "Bigfoot in Texas?"—a museum exhibition at the Institute of Texan Cultures at the University of Texas, San Antonio. The show opened April 7, and runs through July 30

      Delete
    2. Melissa just posted about this. She has never worked in a museum she went to San Antonio for the weekend once while she lived in Texas. I think whoever posted this is confusing Melissa with Kathy Strain

      Delete
    3. Not so breaking news!!! The leader of the sanger paranorm society is an idiot!

      Delete
  77. Have read some of the comments about the thickness of hair and leaf colors. If it were real could possibly be from the deep south. Tropical weather means thinner coat and leaves dont change. Just a thought

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thanks AnonymousFeb 23, 2012 01:50 PM....another hoaxer waste of time busted.

    new anony

    ReplyDelete
  79. Here's a link for a higher resolution version.


    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XclQAEuo0JM/T0bBVCs34LI/AAAAAAAADjk/-ooeNdMiduU/s1600/American-bigfoot-society's-bigfoot-sasquatch-picture.png

    ReplyDelete
  80. What is that skull shaped thing in the top corner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind, it is only a smudge on my screen.

      Delete
  81. I have looked at this image, very closely and have also enhanced certain sections of it. If you look at the area where it's left shoulder blade would be, you'll "lesions" or markings. In fact, I have counted no less than 8 identifiable areas, on the skin, that show imperfections.

    Naturally, this does not prove it to be real. However, it certainly makes it more plausible. I can't imagine that a hoaxer would be willing to create these imperfections for the sake of fooling a bunch of Bigfoot enthusiasts.

    Finally, I have been to the Institute of Texan Cultures, in San Antonio, and have seen the Sasquatch display. It looks nothing like this creature. Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  82. From Sanger Paranormal.... When did you see the Sasquatch display at the museum ???

    ReplyDelete
  83. It was in San Antonio about 3-4 years ago? I took my sons to see it. Not very exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If it's a blurry photo, people shout, "BLOBSQUATCH!" Now we have a clear photo and, sure enough, people are saying, "It looks TOO perfect!"
    Wow. Just ... wow.

    ReplyDelete
  85. It looks like there are sores on the back of the head.

    It looks like Rhododendron or Mtn. Laurel is the plant. They are Evergreens and bloom in the early spring where I live.

    They are found on the East and West Coast in Oregon and Washington too. That could be anywhere on either coast really.

    I'm not sure this was taken with a trail cam, might have been a flash from a camera. If so there's a lot of trust between the Bigfoot and the person taking the photo. I'm happy not knowing the person or location. If this is real then the old fellow will live longer.

    Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Blondie

    Trailcams do come with flashes. If you google "trailcams with flashes" and check the images, flasehed trailcams provide far better quality night time shots than IR. I have a couple trail cams set on my dads property, and the day time close ups I got of some deer are remarkable quality for a 5.0mp trailcam. My night time shots are in IR so I can't compare, but from I've seen on the net, flashed trailcams work good.

    ReplyDelete
  87. While I cant say if the photo is real or not? It truly does look like the ones I have seen up close. This ones hair is a little darker and looks grayer, but the muscle structure in the back is incredibly similar. That is what struck me about this photo. If I were to make a guess? I would say it is real. The skin and muscles under the hair are too similar for me to say its a fake. jmho

    ReplyDelete
  88. The TRBC had a display there in 2005 that she was involved with... A couple of years ago, they didn't have a sasquatch That's what my contact has told me... Sanger paranormal Society

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sanger Paranormal Society, did you bother to email Melissa and ask her? That would have taken all of 2 minutes. Melissa stated on her facebook page "I have never worked at a museum - ANYWHERE." Next time check your facts before you publish your stupid comments

      Delete
  89. Just wondering why the ear would be so much darker than the skin on the back.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I think the plants in the background may hold the answer. They really look like Eriobotrya japonica or Japanese loquat a common ornamental here in Southern California. Also in Texas and Florida. Bears an edible fruit as well. It would seem to be out of the typical Bigfoot haunts. it is not native but can naturalize on occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Of course, if it's NOT fake then it really IS the clearest known Bigphoto since Patty. But I doubt that's the case here. An why the rear. Bigfoots are notoriously shy of cameras in the first place, so why even show your back? Sorry, it's likely a fake but it gives us something new to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
  92. It's no wonder more people don't come forward with pics and stories. After reading these comments, I wouldn't tell anyone if i had a bigfoot sighting or one living near by. If you haven't ever seen one for your self, how can you be so cruel with the comments, Im all for commenting on the pic but you all don't have to make it seem as though Melissa is being deceitful and hiding something. I give her big thanks for even showing this pic, she didn't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Has FBFB confirmed this yet?

    ReplyDelete
  94. i agree at 11:46. i would not tell my story here either if i had one. should have been in a blog last sunday. when the man from san cruz tried to get info on his. thank goodness sue was in the blog he talked to her came back said he was sorry just a chimp. he saw a bigfoot he thinks burying a dead baby he thinks and got in his face on all fours clack with his mouth pounded ground. they treated him badly not all but most did they past up a change to learn more. as we all think the the clacking they make is from stones he said it came from his mouth. something i never knew they did. and burying dead like he was doing under a stump. know wonder we cant find a body hum. he made me think. he just clammed up after that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I want to believe,I want to believe,I want to believe.

    I am hoping that if I say it 3 times it will come true. Maybe someday, but not today. IMO A hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  96. What a waste of time... Any photo that the owner won't own up to is useless and more then likely a fake.

    There's no reason to crop it before you show it or not show the other photos in the sequence... Why even waste your time...

    Melisa is great, this photo is not!!!

    Thanks for sharing Melissa, but please...

    ReplyDelete
  97. LOL FB/FB is there no bigger plagiarizer out there?

    ReplyDelete
  98. As much as I want this to be real, I think there is something fishy about. Something living in the woods would be a helluva lot dirtier than this thing. My dog was stranded and lost for two days and when she was found, her hair was matted, twisted and dirty and she had leaves, bugs and other small wildlife in her hair. This was just TWO DAYS!

    ReplyDelete
  99. It looks very strong! I wonder if it could bench press the big woman in that all female group that went out singing to attract bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  100. okey dokey...
    the pic is a backshot of this costume from the film clawed 2005
    http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bf-movie-costume/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grey looks very close. Good call!

      Delete
  101. If you change the contrast it seems to show leaves at the bottom where the arms should be. The picture is possibly a bust. It's missing the arms! The bottom seems to be bowl shaped with the hair hanging down to cover most of it. Me thinks it's a nice pic of something, perhaps some model, not a squatch.

    1%

    ReplyDelete
  102. I will comment on something nobody has touched, I think. The hair we see would be the long and permanent hair we have read about in other sources. The skin we see is absent of the seasonal 'fur' type hair. If you notice, the background plant is in full bloom indicative of warm weather. Perhaps the BF has shed his 'fur' type hairs. Now, is the pic real? Who the hell knows? I just thought I would opine on the hair subject for feedback - Takers?

    ReplyDelete