Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Another alleged 'Bigfoot' captured on trail camera in Washington state


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

In the past i wanted to believe in these, but now just defaulting to this being yet another hoax.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Could be real, could be hoax. How could we tell?

At this point, starting out with the knowledge that Bigfoot existing is pretty much a non-starter is likely the safest and most logical bet. 

That being said, I do genuinely appreciate it when someone goes for something a little bit different when they attempt to pull off a hoax, and this trail cam snapshot at least gives us that. 

Looks like they're wearing some sort of stretch fabric base layer with paint or some thin material covering with either their hair unkept or a wig.

Either way, it's something a little different for a change. I feel most people don't really try hard enough these days. Say what you will about Patterson, but he had a go. 

Edited by Gilbert Syndrome
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need more evidence like this to come forward. Now we need to actually capture one. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and very realistic hair texture but I feel this is just a great costume.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks very human. I've seen people almost that hairy before. So, could just be a hairy hiker.

Wish the critter dropped some hair and it could be checked.

Could just be a hair covered sweater too, IMHO. Can't see the hands, the neck, chest, or face. The areas a suit would necessarily be weakest in appearance.

image.png.d530f3a112b333cb34f8aa1e1f1f3bdd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's Bigfoot it's still a young kid is my observation.

Papameter Reading

Cryptid  65%   Hoax 25%   Natural Creature  10%

 

Factor: Washington State is prime territory

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, flying squid said:

What this mean?

Chimpanzee or orangutang at a zoo or something??????

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Chimpanzee or orangutang at a zoo or something??????

Bigfoot is Natural Creature too. Of course, if it's real and exists.

 

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Chimpanzee or orangutang at a zoo or something??????

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought was that there’s not much muscle definition. Most reports of sightings include the world ‘muscular’. This alleged creature looks too slender to be considered muscular, IMO.

If I were interviewing the people who sent the photo, I’d ask them about the height of the grass to use as a comparison to the height of the creature. The prairie grass here in Iowa tops out at about 5-feet in height. It’s impossible to determine from the blurry photo if the grass is 5-inches tall or 5-feet tall.

And, I’d ask them why the camera lens is pointed almost directly downward, which severely restricts the area of the view, instead of being pointed horizontally, to capture a much greater area. 

Edited by simplybill
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange out of focus picture, maybe to close ? Young black squirrel hanging down ? We see the tail top and two streched legs gripping something ?



 

_49372506_corncob224flickr.jpg

Edited by Jon the frog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too clear to be a real Bigfoot. :yes:

 

Please see my range of reasonably priced Trail Cameras with integrated AutoBlur®

for  Maximum Fuzz Without The Fuss™

https//saw_you_coming.com/shop/cameras/

 

Edited by acute
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flying squid said:

Bigfoot is Natural Creature too. Of course, if it's real and exists.

 

 

I should have said ‘Known Creature’ not ‘Natural Creature’.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pierce County Washington includes a lot of forestland around Mt Rainer, which has seen a lot of BF reports.

I know that my trail cam has multiple settings. And single shot is one of them. I usually put mine on dual shot, because sometimes the first shot just shows part of the animal. But putting it on single shot would be good if you planned on leaving it out there was a good while, so the batteries don't wear out too fast.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

My first thought was that there’s not much muscle definition. Most reports of sightings include the world ‘muscular’. This alleged creature looks too slender to be considered muscular, IMO.

If I were interviewing the people who sent the photo, I’d ask them about the height of the grass to use as a comparison to the height of the creature. The prairie grass here in Iowa tops out at about 5-feet in height. It’s impossible to determine from the blurry photo if the grass is 5-inches tall or 5-feet tall.

And, I’d ask them why the camera lens is pointed almost directly downward, which severely restricts the area of the view, instead of being pointed horizontally, to capture a much greater area. 

To me, the thing looks pretty human sized, not a 7 or 8 foot behemoth. Maybe 5 to 6 feet tall.

I know some people do place the camera higher up in a tree, and then aim it down. Because of bears. The bears will bat the camera around and try to bite it off the tree. I assume they can smell them, and go and check what it is. Putting it like 8 or 9 feet up would limit the bear interactions.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think trail cams really work that way...they are usually set off by motion...consequently, I would think the picture taken would be much more distant. Because the trail cam would have taken the picture before whatever is in the picture was right on top of it.

That looks more like a picture someone cropped.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Looks very human. I've seen people almost that hairy before. So, could just be a hairy hiker.

Wish the critter dropped some hair and it could be checked.

Could just be a hair covered sweater too, IMHO. Can't see the hands, the neck, chest, or face. The areas a suit would necessarily be weakest in appearance.

image.png.d530f3a112b333cb34f8aa1e1f1f3bdd.png

The figure is too small relative to the grass, and the hair is not filthy and matted enough to be a BF.  It is hard to determine the seam required to positively identify this as a suit.  Could this be a photo of a chimp or other primate in a zoo somewhere?

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.