Source with the picture.

Looks like a brunette dangling her beautiful locks over the camera.

Looks like a leg or a big hairy creature...

[i]I was thinking the same thing... that it just looks like a girl standing in front of the camera... the hair is too long.. I mean this would make bigfoot looking like cousin it from the adams family... it just looks like someone's hair to me...

i dunno... i'm with everyone else... looks like someones hair...

besides, although it's blurry the hair looks clean, and combed...

... and i highly doubt sasquatches spend too much time fixing up their hair...

Well it ain't very big...look at the twig blurred the same as that is.

Hrrmmzzzz..... The return of Blobsquatch

Bah, another crappy pic, if one was to go to all the trouble of setting up a camera to heat sensors - why not 3 cameras 4? a video even? Analogue and digital. 6 Angles. Nah, half an effort for another fuzzy pic, the before and after shots caught Deer clear as day, but BF manages to elude the lens again . Funny that. If the pic held any credibility, we would have the approximate location of BF, or at least a trail. A pack of hounds should be able to track him. Should have been interviewed on a late night talk show by now.

ancondatm I agree. The hair is to perfect. More like human - perhaps a horses tail.

Bah humbug.

classic...


If it is something wild...probably bear.

Okay I know this might sound crazy but, maybe it's the leg of a bear ? The logical thing to do, would be to research MT. Hood and see what kind of wild life resides there.

Yeah I was thinking of the bear leg too...but with me until it's proven what it is, don't assume anything. For assumption is the mother of all f*** ups.

Hah, I reckon the logical thing to do is throw it in the bin and go round and kick the guy trying to pass this off as BF in the butt.

I know nothing of Bears, but the camera is only 3 foot from the ground, and once again, that appears to be nicely groomed hair. Also, bears are pretty burly, wouldn't this leg be somewhat slight for such an impressive animal? Like I say, I have seen bears only on telly and at Taronga Zoo. My experience is more than light on.

Got it. BF on his way to the Bear Hair Salon.

Your hilarious, and I do agree with you. The fur or whatever it is, looks too perfect to be any kind of animal. But then again, you never know. I was just throwing out the obvious. And it is funny, how all bigfoot footage manages to either be a hoax or big splotches. I guess I'll believe it when I see HIM. (OR HER)

Thanks

I was more after confirmation on the bears. As I said, my bear experience is very limited, we don't have them here in Oz.
I know, how frustrating that every pic ever produced can easily be challenged. Just one irrefutable piece of evidence would be nice. Not hard to be skeptical is it, 40 years since Patty alone and still not one piece of solid proof. He and She should have been on Letterman by now (we do get that here ).

I'm agreeing with the others, the hair just looks too perfect to be a wild animal.

Well, anything blurred like that is going to resemble groomed hair. But I must ask you, when was the last time you saw a poorly groomed lion in the wild? Or a poorly groomed deer? Even animals in the wild keep their fur/hair well kept, it helps keep them warm and provides protection from the rain. Ever watch an otter groom themselves? Or a beaver? Clean, groomed fur to them is vital to their survival.

That said, I have no idea what this is. It would be nice if the camera had been put up high enough so that only a six foot or taller creature would set it off. Oh well. Next time, I guess!

Blurred, yes, out of focus. Still can see that the lines are straight.
How long is the hair on a Lion, Deer or Otter?
This hair is considerably longer. Check out the rear end of a Sheep. See how long an English Sheep Dog looks all pretty without a daily brushing, or a Persian cat. In this case it should be more like dreads. This type of animal covering falls out naturally and is constantly replaced, and previous BF reports I have read have found clumps of hair, supposedly dropped in just this fashion.

Doubt a clearer picture will ever surface. Heck, it's been 40 years...........

I'm not suggesting that it's a lion, deer, or otter. I'm just saying that wild animals groom themselves. And since NOTHING is know about Bigfoot, it's stupid to assume that it can't groom itself. I'm not saying that it goes to a beauty parlor, or anything, or conversely that it doesn't give a d*** about what it looks like, just that one shouldn't assume anything about a creature that, IF it exists, we know NOTHING about.

And objects in motion often leave a trail of lines similar to what is seen in the photo. If the object has hair, it can look longer than it really is.

Yes, I'm not stupid, I can see you were not suggesting it could be any of those animals.

You made a comparison to animals with short hair, which is always nicely groomed. I tried to point out that animals with long hair do get matted hair, and it is not nicely groomed. As we know nothing, the most sensible thing to do is compare it to known species that appears to have the same traits. If we do not assume, where do we start? To make many wild theories is far less efficient than working with a likely know trait in other terrestrial species.

Objects in motion do blur, however the outline is not all that blurred, this to me either suggests a hoax, or the creature is not moving all that quickly. That particular model camera is supposed to have fast shutter speeds. The picturer should be clear and presice. It is very easy to make out the straight lines. It is still of such poor quality that it could even be piece of bark.

Chuck it in the bin. Bah humbug.

Personally I'm very suspicous of why only one camera was setup it just seems to me that if your trying get a picture bigfoot probably wouldn't try with one camera.

Psyche101 did some quick research for you grizzly aren't found in Oregon but the Brown color morph of the black bear is.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/

I think it's hair is to neat and clean to be a creature that lives in the woods. It looks like it has been brushed

looks like a horse backing up toward the camera

Kind of looks like a hand..but yet again, no clear evidence.

I totally agree with you as to why they would only set up one camera...
On top of that, why would they place it so low to the ground when trying to capture an image of a 7-8' tall animal?

I can't remember the original thread, but was there any mention anywhere that they had gone out specifically to capture an image of bigfoot?

The hieght of the camera might make sense since we don't what kind length the heat or motion sensor. They don't say in thread whether or not they were looking bigfoot but it doesn't really matter whether wolves, bears, deer or bigfoot whatever large animal your trying to take picture of anyone with common sense knows you very well can end up with an identifable blur if you have only one angle.

Yeah! If they know Bigfoot is like 8 feet tall, why wouldn't they put the camera's higher? Unless they meant to catch only small animals, but even then, bears and deers are taller than that!!

Very good observation crouton!!

Thank you

I do not think it would be a bear after reading that. The hair seems to long for the pics of the Brown color morph of the black bear, and as I suspected, the rear legs look quite sturdy and robust. The leg in the picture seems to me to be too slight for a bear.

My guess = deliberate hoax.

Even cheap passive infra red dectectors have a range of up to 15 meters.

The deer in the before/after pics came out clear as day

Shenanigans!!!!!!!!

Malfeas and I are off to get some broomsticks.

Fake

Thats one clean and well keep BF...I just don't think it's real,.and if you get that close why not a face picture.....

^ Exactly Just too many if's, and once again blobsquatch makes an appearance.
Meh.

Shenanigans!! Got those bromsticks yet Malfeas Frogfish is going to need one too.

Yes way to many if....The hair looks so clean and well keep.....Too bad really this is one animal i love for them to truly find....

Yeah, doesn't quite look "sapian". Also, I live in Oregon, Mt. Hood is way north, and most bigfoot sightings occur in Northern California. I don't know why a bigfoot would be way up there.

whoa Mt.Hood is like really close to me, now i am scared because i think the bigfoot is gonna come after me!! LOL!!

I've read all the different reasons why this isn't bigfoot, and that's cool and all (although i must say that some wild animals do keep their hair fairly well groomed, and the blur would make it look even more well groomed), but since everyone seems unanimous that this isn't bigfoot, then what the heck is it? i don't think some random brunette girl out in the woods would decide to do a "shampoo commercial head-shake" in front of one of the scouting cameras. also, i was wondering if there were any other cameras around the one that caught this image, and if any of them picked up anything?

Looks to me like the rear end of a horse. I've been around horses quite a bit during my life, and that sure looks like a horse butt to me.

I agree. A face shot would have been nice. nd not even a leaf or tiny twig in all that hair??


I agree with the other posters who took issue with the camera being placed so low. Didn't that site say the camera was set 3 feet from the ground? How the hell can you get evidence of a creature who is anywhere from 6 to 8 feet tall when the camera is that low? You wont even get a good pic of it's knee caps at that height. Geez, this does scream fake.

I agree, because at first i thought it was a head with hair

Could it be Cousin It from the Addams Family?

Short haired wild animals have neat hair. Long haired wild animals do not.

I would have gone with horse, but why not a brunette pony tail?? Doesn't have to have been on purpose to begin with, could have been setting up the camera, oops, acidently went of, check this, we'll call it bigfoot and get some more funding.

If there had been more cameras around, better pics proving just what this one is of would have been captured. It is the very poor set up (hoping to capture a bigfoot, and you set up one camera ???...yeah right) and the before and after shots that scream HOAX.

If it is a bigfoot, this picture couldn't be matched back to it if it was standing next to it. No, releasing this piece of rubbish was only to create controversy, that in itself shadows it's authenticity. Nothing can ever come of it.

Shenanigans.

More likely than Bigfoot

doesn't anyone remember Harry and the Hendersons? His hair was nice!

That was Tv dude..he had to look good...This picture is of something thats for sure..But i beat that something is not a Big Foot....

I have watched them set up many camera's to try and get a picture of BF..now this poster said three feet from the ground.But if you watch the BF hunter's they hang them high in the tree's, not low to the ground....