It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Bigfoot Photos ( Taken By Hiker 11-17-05 )

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:51 AM
Hi Harry,

Keep up the good work! Every time I see a new post from you I get excited.

But I gotta say on this's a blob-squatch. Better yet, it's a squatch-rock. That's a rock. rock rock rock

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:53 AM
Only two photos?

The website notes that it can't be a person in hiking gear...yes it could. Someone's going to have to go to the location and get some size and distance estimates and do a search of some sort. Intruiging photos, no doubt about that, but could just be another person.

Another hiker afriad to confront the beast.

The thing is very far away on another peak alltogether. The hiker could'nt've chased after it.

Where it says focal length 24mm is that referring to the amount of zoom he had on?

Its the focal length of the lens. He probably has a zoom function on his digital camera. Around 50mm is a normal view for a 35mm film camera, but normal is different for a digital camera.

Digital compact cameras are fitted with lenses with short focal lengths to create 35mm equivalent field of views on their small sensor surfaces. Typically the sensor diagonal is 4 times smaller than the diameter of 35mm film. A 7mm lens fitted on such a camera will have the same field of view of a 7mm x 4 or 28mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

So, assuming a compact digital camera, (ie not an SLR one) he's around an equivalent of having a regular old film camera with something like a 100mm lens, which is zoomed in, but not much. Its probably as much as his camera permits tho. He reports is as having visible fur on it, which isn't showing up in the photo, but could've been captured, however, it'd've been difficult, and he probably just had his camera in automatic mode, hence the forground showing up nicely but the figure being a silhoutte, especially considering that its a snow capped mountain (lots of light reflecting off the snow) and the bright sky is the background.

This is probably his camera, from the exif information and the note that its a 3.2 megapixel camera

Looks like the optical zoom goes to 18mm, that means that he was using the digital zoom. They're also noting that the 18mm is equivalent to 117mm in 35mm film, so 24mm must be a bit more than that. So its pretty zoomed in.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:45 AM
Being that I dont believe in Bigfoot for reasons already mentioned, IE no legitimate proof, I would bust out in an all out sprint toward the so-called "Beast" and in the process of running it down, I would be able to determine if it was a human or a beast. If I threatened to kill it with a large object and it turned and started yelling,. please no, im just a punk, then ok, hoax, but if i got close and it was obvious it was a gorilla looking beast, roaring and drooling, then I might turn away if i had no weapon. Otherwise, why is this the same story for the past 20 years, Nobody gets close, nobody knows how to focus, zoom. Nobody has a rifle, and with all the hunters in the world hunting this time of year, you figure someone would bag a bigfoot.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:08 AM
I wouldn't try to "corner it" that would be daft, but just about all the evidence suggests these are not agressive creatures, and if I walked towards it, it would walk away, fair enough I could then photo the prints. But I'd also like to think that if I was able to pursue, I would, until I was able to get close enogh to communicate with it. I would try to show it I meant no harm possibly by sitting down.

btw I'm not afraid of death so if this led to my death so be it, but I would consider it worth the risk.

Nygdan said "it's far away on another peak" It looks to me like it's a short walk away along the same ridgeline.

Also the snow over there doesnot look deep and there are foot prints in the snow.

This could easily be another human with a hood up as mentioned. On the basis of what we have so far, I think it could be a hoax.

If the bigfoot invesigators are going to hike up there, it will be good to get some more pics of the location.

[edit on 28/11/2005 by Wig]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:04 PM
BFRO seems to be a little paranoid about long guns.

Granted, BFRO - and myself - do not wish to see a Sasquatch killed, but there are legitimate hunting seasons where a long gun would be carried into a forest.
It strikes me as well that carrying a gun would be a personal choice safety issue.

And being armed could be an aid toward getting close to a potentially dangerous animal.

Choices and trade-offs to be made for sure, but I note that people - at least the smart ones - who study Grizzlies and the like are usually armed.
Those that aren't sometimes pay the ultimate penalty.

As a small fwiw, there are pistols out there that are big enough to kill anything that walks the earth as well as others that can be quite deadly at long ranges so worrying about long guns in particular is not going to solve the problem.

Aside from that, interesting photos and I hope someone will be able to duplicate the photo's with subject and photographer in the same locations as the original photographer and subject were.
It will be interesting to see what turns out there.

One thing about many digital camera's with built-in zoom, it's not the lense that does the zooming.
It's an in-camera electronic cropping deal that makes the picture look like it was taken with a telephoto, but it was not.

I believe the more advanced - and costly - digi-cams, the ones that look like a typical 35mm camera with swappable lenses etc. do have a lense swapping system.
These should offer up a photo of excellent quality for researchers.

Even so, the little digi-cams take some remarkably clear photo's within their limitations.

One really nice thing about digi-cams is, even when the photo looks completely dark or black, the information is there.
All you have to do to bring it out is brighten the photo in a photo-processing program, the digital information comes forth and you end up with a fairly good quality photo.

Sorry if I got a little off track here, but I thought it was important to point out what could and does happen with digi-cams as well as wonder out loud why BFRO is worried about long guns.

Good post and an interesting one.
I hope we learn more about this particular sighting in the near future.

I gave it a thumbs up.

(Edited cuz I didn't post the right thumbs up.)

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Desert Dawg]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:45 PM
I will have to say that in the short statement made by the hiker it seems real after viewing all the evidence. Read his following quote.

Right after I took the first shot it moved or stood up so I took another picture. It then moved towards the south, away from me. I then had to reajust because the wind was so strong. It was difficult to move because the snow was waist deep.

Its been determined 17 seconds between shots and just enough time to make the adjustment for the wind to take the second photo and the rock shows up in that photo he used to feel secure.
The other point I would like to make is the time of day. ( around 2:30 ) I do not know how long the walk would be to get down the mountain but this info would help if known.
This month has been a very interesting one to say the least with this and the other hiker video presented. We each can only make our assumptions real or not on the evidence available. I will wait till I hear more but hope something comes from the researchers going to that area to check this out.

Speaking of the GP (March 2005) recording, I noticed the BFRO took it down in their "Sound Recordings" section.

If you remember, the GP recording was from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Interesting that the BFRO took it down and now they have photos that were (supposedly) taken near there.

Where is photo #1 ? Read the following quote by the hiker.

"He got out his camera (a Sony 3.2 mega pixel) and took a photo. As he was doing this the figure suddenly stood up and started moving."
"The witness ("RC") felt that he wasn’t in the best position for additional photos so he moved along the trail as far as he could move. He was in waist-deep snow. He noticed that it was much more difficult for him to move than the figure. The figure seem to step around easily in the snow.
He was able to shoot two additional photos before it disappeared out of sight over the top of the hill."

Are these two photos the ones we see?

Here is a different picture of the summit that the creature was on for comparison.

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:02 AM

Haha... just kidding of course. All in good fun.

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:18 AM
I like the posts about people running after it and getting close to it.

I bet the first person to ever see a gorilla probably tried the same thing and that's why today we know that gorillas could kick Mike Tysons ass without busting a sweat.

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link uh.... ready to subdue him now?? **snicker**
Thats just the funniest thing to me right now ROFL! ^_^
**watches as a 5'7" man wrestles with 800 pounds of savageness**



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:29 AM
When is someone going to go up there again to do some more investigating?

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:16 AM
Sorry I didn't see if this has been discussed.

But did anyone examine the footprints it left?


posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:58 PM
he didn't go over there cos he said the snow was too deep.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:57 PM
One thing i keep thinking is why would the creature be on this summit. Is bigfoot interested in mountaineering? Does he have summit fever. Animals do not waste energy on things that do not sustain their existence. Doesn't look like there is alot to eat up there, get my point?

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by zoso28
One thing i keep thinking is why would the creature be on this summit. Is bigfoot interested in mountaineering? Does he have summit fever. Animals do not waste energy on things that do not sustain their existence. Doesn't look like there is alot to eat up there, get my point?

There are clearly trees on the other side.... I would hardy call that location a "summit" in the sense you mention. In other words, the location is still very much beneath the tree line.

No comment on the authenticity of the creature itself, though.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by loam]

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:21 PM
Well just trying to keep you updated on the latest. Some more good comments I found for thought on this matter.

The photos are interesting. I see the first photo and it looks like a guy in a hooded coat. I too noticed what looks like tracks in the snow leading up to that crest, but the second photo has got me curious. I've done about six different adjustments to the light/contrast. I even tried enhanceing the object using Kodak EasyShare software. I find this particular photo interesting in that when the picture is enhanced and the contrast turned up you can see what looks like breast, an abdomn and a beard on the "animal". It was neat to see what looks like to me.... detail come out as I adjust the contrast and lighting in the picture. Is it a guy in a coat? I don't know. Is a Sasquatch? I don't know. Hell since Christmas is coming and this guy was on a mountain in the snow maybe it's the ........BUMBLE........come to get Rudolph!!! Comment by Scoobie Do.

Has anyone here noticed this?
Check out what he done to the photo.

Here is a topo map provided by V-Hunter that helps.

I'm attaching a topo map here showing the summit. If this figure is a skier or snowboarder heading in a south / south west direction there are roads below. I agree the road to the summit is closer to the photographer. Just thought I'd point out this possibility.
Also, using the TOPO map program the distance between the two summits is approx 180 yards and the south summit is about 40' lower in elevation.

You can read the rest of the post here at BFF Forum
I would like to say the camera details provided earlier here have been a great help in studying this sighting. Come on you detective ATSers take this info and lets try to proof this fact or not. Thanks for all the help.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:09 PM
What did you do to that picture? Is that in "negative-mode"?

I can use my arcsoft to draw out small contours, ima work on it for a minute...
IT appears to HAVE fur and actual hairlines.... further justifying that this is an animal, not another hiker or a rock. Look closely at harry55's last pic. Given it was edited with a photoeditor, stuff MAY have been changed but I doubt it.

Tell me how you got the pic like that harry and ima do a little investigating of my own with contours and crayon it up, see what type of "textures" i can get to apprear if you get what im saying.

GJ Harry55... ima bust out my photo editor now and start checkin this pic out! Holla bak at me plz! Peace!

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM
Hey thanks for the help. Please give it a try if you can. I do not have any more info about the pic above than what I posted but I do think your right it is in negative. I am not the one that made the change . Someone else did. I will try to find out more.

dbdonlon at BFF is an East Coast Bigfoot Researcher and is a personal friend of the investigater at BFRO and did see the third photo of the creature. He made an interesting statement about his opinion of the photos as follows:

I don't know why the third picture isn't being made public. I'm not in the loop on this one. In fact, being an East Coast investigator, I'm not in very many loops.. But the original investigator is a friend. You can bank on what he said, though if it's possible the pictures could be reloaded into the camera, then that has to be taken into account too. Taking all we just discussed in this thread into account, I think the pics are legit, but I also think that without something more they'll always be just really good blobsquatches. Maybe the best! And that's something. But it's not proof of our quarry..

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Harry55]


posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:33 PM
Errr, I'm not familiar with Canadian maps, but imo those aren't roads they are footpaths.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:11 PM
Someone just posted on another forum that they know the area real well and hike the area often. This is what they had to say about the sighting.

For what it's worth I'm from washougal wash. and have made many hikes to the same location as the picture was taken. From where the picture was taken to that ridge is about 100 to 130 yrds, maybe a little further. the distance between the two points is close enough todetermineif a person is male female clothing type and color what they are doing and things like that, like a lot of pictures unless your close or have a good camera things can be vauge. one thing however is in person standing there it is close enough to tell hair color or length. I acn't tell from the picture what it is but it's interesting. Another thing if the picture was taken on the 17th that was a thursdayand foot traffic up on those trails is for the most part nil.

I have asked this poster to answer some of the question we have here and will post when I find out more.

P.S. Wig I agree looks like trails to me also.
I asked how far the walk would be from the peak to the car.
Also asked what the weather would have been like that day.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:06 PM
Here is the posters answers to my questions. I do want to say that this does in fact make the photos more creidable in my mind anyway. I thanked him for his help. He also has photos he will give me of him and his friends up there on the peak this summer and fall to verify he knows the area well.

Harry It takes me during the summer about 3 and a half to 4 hours to hike from the parking area to the top where the picture was taken. It can take longer during winter months due to slow down from snow shoes. It is a very steep up hill climb for the first 1.5 miles then mild climb for about the same distance, then fairly steep again for the final amount not sure on exact distance around 4to 4.5 miles one way. The weather that day not sure in my memory but will try to find out. That hilltop can have tremendous east winds and bad weather. That picture is taken looking south, if the camera was a little more to the photographers right Mt. hood would be in the background. Ican tell you today above 1500 ft. we got about 8+ inches of snow.

I also asked him about what he thought about the direction the creature went after being photographed and had he ever seen anything unusual in that area or run into anyone who had.

Just keeping you up to date.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in