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:
Blimey.
ReplyDeleteShaun, UK
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.
DeleteYou 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.
DeleteBut now say Grand Mercy to such a researcher as Melissa and the author of the pic...
Igor Burtsev, Russian hominologist
Hmm... could be real, but without seeing a front view, it's pretty hard for any layman to say "hoax" or "holy shit".
ReplyDeleteNot real. So fake. Sorry
ReplyDeleteHow? I'm not saying that it can't be fake but if it is, the best in Hollywood created it.
DeleteIf you're not going to elaborate, then don't bother posting inane comments like that. Any imbecile can type "Not real. So fake. Sorry".
DeleteIn fact, why am i even rising to you, troll?
Looks clearer than I imagined. Not a ghillie suit in my opinion. Ahh fuck it, who knows. Another picture of god knows what
ReplyDeleteI agree w/you, interesting, one of those things that make you go "hmm'
DeleteLooks like coyote hair. Where have I heard that before?
ReplyDeletecoyote 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!!!!
DeleteReally?
ReplyDeleteWow,very cool!
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced until I see a larger version. It's too small to see detail.
ReplyDeleteIt does sort of look like someone skinned a coyote...
ReplyDeleteReally!!! WTF
ReplyDeleteThis is like sex with no climax.
ReplyDeleteYes, total blue balls over here. Not cool, cot cool. John
DeletePeople should start setting up 2 trail cams at a time, facing one another
ReplyDeleteI agree!
Deletegreat 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
DeleteThis is being done in the South Eastern Olympic Mountains
DeleteCheck out the susanfarns videos on utube He places one game camera facing the other also.
DeleteIt's not a ghillie suit, it's the costume I commented about the other day. The front view is much more realistic looking.
ReplyDeleteWhoever 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.
Which costume? Who's "we", please?
DeleteCheck your facebook Dan.
DeleteI 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.
DeleteWe 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!
Very interested in seeing. Either way one of those things that you go, I knew it all along, lol.
DeleteIs this the only pic?
ReplyDeleteLooks 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.
ReplyDeleteShaun, UK
I think it would be interesting to hear other opinion from witnesses.
DeleteIts always a front blurry picture or the back of something...why cant i see just one picture that can clearly be identified
ReplyDeleteis there a higher resolution of it?
ReplyDeleteI 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
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?
DeleteChuck
Wow! It backed right up to the camera. Or maybe it was doing the electric slide?
ReplyDeleteObviously, 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.
DeleteHow convenient, a picture of a back. All hype and no glory.
ReplyDeleteAlso... 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.
ReplyDeleteThat's what has me confused. Other game camera pics are not that clear, especially the reported sasquatch ones. And broad daylight, was it rabid?
DeleteFlash 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.
Delete--A Photo Guy
Not a single hair in motion is a good point. Hair looks like my uncle's comb over.
DeleteTrail cams have very high resolution with flashes that light up out to 60ft. in the darkness. This quality is not at all unusual.
DeleteGEEZY WHEEZY BACK VIEW , COME ON THIS ISN'T ANYTHING
ReplyDeleteMy 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?
ReplyDeleteSay what chum?
DeleteShaun, UK
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
Deleteif you read the blog you will know why it has the copyright on it
DeleteWhat is nice with this photo , is that i have waited only 5 minutes thanks , won't think anything so easy to fake this one ...
ReplyDeleteThis Melissa Hovey is a nut job. Or a complete idiot. Probably just a liar. Hold on to this obivious fake for four years?
ReplyDeleteWhat a dolt.
Why do you think it's an obvious fake?
DeleteYou people are a bunch of dopes, you know that?
DeleteI whole heartedly agree, good doctor!
DeleteDo you know Melissa? You shouldn't post about someone that you know nothing about.
DeleteIt's nice to see that George "The Animal" Steele is still around.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced it's a photo. It looks more like a drawing.
ReplyDeleteSURE THIS PIC COULD BE THE REAL DEAL BUT A FACE IS NEEDED FOR ABSOULTE PROOF !
ReplyDeleteThat kind of hair could not keep it warm in the winter could it?
ReplyDeletebigfoot with mange? :P
DeleteWell 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.
ReplyDeleteIt probably did not exist years ago. The whole story behind it reaks of shit.
Deleteo0
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 !
ReplyDeleteOh, it's the creature's back. I never would have guessed. What a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteSeems 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!!
ReplyDeleteYou say this photo was one of a series? So lets see the series, otherwise in conclusive IMO. ptangier
ReplyDeleteIt's David Coverdale from the 80's band Whitesnake!
ReplyDelete"thats a squatch!"
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing here.
ReplyDeleteIt'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...
Wow! hairy bigfoot...
ReplyDeleteLet down again! No frontal just the back! Really! This was not worth the hype at all.
ReplyDeleteBigfoots Broski
We now have conclusive evidence that the back of Bigfoot is 100% real.
ReplyDeleteOn 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!
ReplyDeleteWhy do I hear Bobo's voice when I read your post?
DeleteNo trail cam photos are this clear. Especially not 4 years ago. Man I hate to do this but. . . BULLSHIT!!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree. I highly doubt trail cam photograph.
DeleteAgree. SD cards and cameras have come along way in 4 years
DeleteCool, it's BF taking a piss!
ReplyDeleteIdiots.
ReplyDeleteNeat 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.
ReplyDeleteThat's my uncle earl. Recognize tgat hairy back anywhere
ReplyDeleteWe are all to quick to say its a hoax, not many people have seen a live one up this close from the back.
ReplyDeleteMM
You like to hit it from the back.
DeleteNo, 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.
DeleteIt's a trailcam pic tard, no one approached it.
Deletewow what a good pic NOT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI am ashamed of myself for looking forward to this ridiculous photo. I mean I actually feel dirty with self loathing.
ReplyDeleteWhat an absolute joke!
Ditto. Its like watching Lady GaGa.
DeleteThe Dynel is nicely combed.
ReplyDeleteLooks alot like Steve Kulls pic from NY
ReplyDeleteShaun and Chad, I agree with you guys. It looks close to the real thing to me too.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
I'm with you Blondie and Chad. This creature seems to be sporting some serious trapezius muscles also.
DeleteChuck
Ok Blondie I was the one who created the whole owl theory and I took a beating on it.
DeleteSecond 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
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.
DeleteAs 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.
"I'm not saying that it was a Bigfoot, but it was a Bigfoot" - Matt M.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteShaun, UK
That is not skin, it is light guard hairs.
DeleteCrystal clear trailcam photo of a shirtless Robin Williams!
ReplyDeletePerfectly centered with its back straight at the camera? No.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeletePrimates don't have undercoats. That is the principle reason why they are 'hairy' and not 'furry.' You are right about too little hair, though
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Good points.
DeleteYou'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.
DeleteMost 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.
Yep, I,m right there with you. Photographically it just doesn't make sense.
DeleteIs 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.
ReplyDeleteWould 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.
ReplyDeleteas 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).
ReplyDeleteAs of 2 pm Cryptomundo has not mentioned this at all .. which is why I LOVE this site!
ReplyDeleteMaybe because they know it's a fake!! And why bother
DeleteFrom a hunter with a lot of experience with trail cams, here are my problems.
ReplyDelete1. 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.
Basically the exact same points I made above. Completely agree.
DeleteYeah 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
DeleteOn the smell, I heard that some great apes can release smell when startled or angry. Not necessarily means dirty coat, but still...
DeleteSome primates have been noted to produce a
Delete"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.
Whom ever speculated that this was a Ghillie suit was WAY off !
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
this is why bigfooting is a joke to real scientists.
ReplyDeleteAnd to most everyone else as well. For shame.
DeleteLooks like could even be indoors, at a museum or something to me.
ReplyDeleteo0
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.
DeleteThe 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.
Deleteif 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 ?
DeleteIt 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.
Deletehttp://www.myspace.com/maxshores/photos/1752762#%7B%22ImageId%22%3A1752762%7D
DeleteThat looks pretty impressive for a costume/statue. Not too far off on color either
2nd picture here is also pretty close
Deletehttp://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/phoenix-yeti/
That's what I was suggesting above, maybe a wax museum somewhere.
DeleteYou, 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!
ReplyDeleteHey 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.
Melissa -you just lost all credibility. Another one bites the dust!!
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI'm disgusted by you and your cynicism about everything, Lady.
DeleteWithout the sequence of pictures I am not sure anything can be said about this one.
DeleteWow...Autumn you really are a shallow Idiot that doesnt think much beore talking do you? Good luck chasing invisible dead people
DeleteYou're right, Autumn! And cynicism just might come from having to deal with such a deluge of hoaxes and general lunacy!
Deletepatterson, gimlin and hieronimous still kings of the hoaxers 40 years on, no-one else comes close to their level of hoaxing. try harder please.
ReplyDeleteThis 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
ReplyDeleteIt was supposedly cropped...
DeleteWell if that's the case they need to show the full photo
DeleteDan.
ReplyDeleteNicole 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?
I think Dan is as much a hoax as anyone...
DeleteThe wheels are coming off of this before it gets rolling. 85k down the drain
DeleteSo this is possibly the sierra kills Bigfoot in this photo 2 years before that sob killed her? Wow.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, it just makes me hope to all that is holy that the Ketchum Study doesn't approach this level of vagueness.
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.
ReplyDeleteWerewolf costume?
ReplyDeleteI 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."
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
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.
DeleteIt'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).
DeleteInsisting 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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..
ReplyDeleteYour an idiot for defending this pic.
DeleteYou'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.
DeleteRight 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!!!!
DeleteCropped/shopped
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.
DeleteWell, if this is a series of game cam photos are none from the front or side?
ReplyDeleteAll 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
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.
DeleteDear fellow readers,
ReplyDeletePlease repeat after me:
Ba, Bah, Baaaaaaaaaa.
Thank you. Please continue
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.
ReplyDeleteWeezy, 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.
DeleteI read the article, and Ms. Hovey didn't do her due diligence on this, IMHO!
DeleteYou 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.
ReplyDeleteWell 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.
ReplyDeleteif 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?
ReplyDeleteYep, an elderly grey haired Squatch walking straight into a hedge..a solid bank of vegetation...poor guy must have vision problems.
ReplyDeleteI still think it could be a shot from a YMCA dressing room.
new anony
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 !!!
ReplyDeletethey did: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/bigfoot-texas_2.html
Deletefrom 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
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
DeleteNot so breaking news!!! The leader of the sanger paranorm society is an idiot!
DeleteHave 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
ReplyDeleteThanks AnonymousFeb 23, 2012 01:50 PM....another hoaxer waste of time busted.
ReplyDeletenew anony
Here's a link for a higher resolution version.
ReplyDeletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XclQAEuo0JM/T0bBVCs34LI/AAAAAAAADjk/-ooeNdMiduU/s1600/American-bigfoot-society's-bigfoot-sasquatch-picture.png
What is that skull shaped thing in the top corner?
ReplyDeleteNever mind, it is only a smudge on my screen.
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, 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.
Yeah, I thought the same thing.
DeleteFrom Sanger Paranormal.... When did you see the Sasquatch display at the museum ???
ReplyDeleteIt was in San Antonio about 3-4 years ago? I took my sons to see it. Not very exciting.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a blurry photo, people shout, "BLOBSQUATCH!" Now we have a clear photo and, sure enough, people are saying, "It looks TOO perfect!"
ReplyDeleteWow. Just ... wow.
Amen so true.
DeleteIt looks like there are sores on the back of the head.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
@Blondie
ReplyDeleteTrailcams 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.
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
ReplyDeleteThe 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
ReplyDeleteSanger 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
DeleteJust wondering why the ear would be so much darker than the skin on the back.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteOf 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.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
ReplyDeleteHas FBFB confirmed this yet?
ReplyDeletei 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.
ReplyDeleteI want to believe,I want to believe,I want to believe.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping that if I say it 3 times it will come true. Maybe someday, but not today. IMO A hoax.
What a waste of time... Any photo that the owner won't own up to is useless and more then likely a fake.
ReplyDeleteThere'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...
LOL FB/FB is there no bigger plagiarizer out there?
ReplyDeleteAs 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!
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteokey dokey...
ReplyDeletethe pic is a backshot of this costume from the film clawed 2005
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bf-movie-costume/
Grey looks very close. Good call!
DeleteIf 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.
ReplyDelete1%
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?
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me, I say it looks like one of the costumes for the 2002 film THE TIME MACHINE, It seems to be just one of the many Morlock costumes. Find a back view they used for a lobby card and you'll see the same muscles and shoulders and thinny hair, they also don't show the lower part of it where the costume doesn't have any hair and they surely aren't gonna show the front which looks nothing like a Sasquatch.
ReplyDeleteQuestion; Why would a trail camera be posted so close to the background plants? I understand it's cropped, but why put up the camera with such limited visiablity with a view of plants 5-6 ft away? The subject matter is a Hollywood Cheesy B Movie costume. Picture taken inside a studio after hours with office houseplants as the background. I believe, but sorry, this is another set up.
ReplyDeleteYes and another thing, That looks like a Loquat tree, The kind you find in yards where it's warm, many out here in Ca., Not really out in the wild, Why is the camera facing the tree?
ReplyDelete