Image recorded by trail camera in Sierra National Forest.
Related Articles
- Hinsdale House exorcism re-creation film rolls in August
- CUFOS special offer for UFO Examiner readers
- High strangeness case mixes UFOs, Bigfoot
- PA UFO-Bigfoot reports alarmingly high
The Bigfoot creature may have been captured on a remote trail camera placed in the Sierra National Forest, based on photography evidence released by Sanger Paranormal Society.
Investigator Jeffrey Gonzalez said Tuesday night that multiple cameras were put in place in this remote area on Memorial Day weekend, and retreived on June 7, 2009.
Gonzalez said they did not immediately see the evidence, but upon closer inspection, noticed what appears to be the Bigfoot creature.
Gonzalez said a group returned to the site to review the exact capture spot after many theories surfaced once the original image was released in early July.
The tree stump theory was ruled out, he said, because the "dark object" is not there. Gonzalez said the bear theory does not stand up either, because the image does not have a snout on the head.
"You can see features of a human face such as the nose, mouth and chin," Gonzalez reports.
Photo: Original image was reduced in size for this page.
"The arms on a bear, when standing, do not hang that far down. We also took measures on how high this thing was. According to the leaves and the branches that were covering the object's face, the tape measure said it was between 8 and 9 feet tall. The same camera that took the picture of the object also took pictures of other objects such as black bear and deer, which does not resemble the object in any way."
Gonzales said that Bigfoot investigator David Raygoza has been visiting this location for six years after an elderly Native American pointed it out to him.
Photo: Jeffrey Gonzalez standing in the same spot as the object in the image.
He told David that this spot in the forest was sacred Indian land and that weird things happen here. He said David has had many individual sightings and has collected footprints, but has never captured anything with a camera until now.
Returning to the exact spot where the image was captured, Gonzalez said that the angle of the hill is 45 degrees, which would make it difficult for a bear to stand upright. He also said the the object is clearly brown in color, ruling out the black bear.
Photo: Jeffrey Gonzalez.
The Bigfoot creature has been reported in many different parts of the country during the 20th century, including an "outbreak" during 1973 and 1974, primarily in southwestern, Pennsylvania, and investigated by Stan Gordon. During that period, hundreds of Bigfoot sightings were reported as well as hundreds of UFO reports. No photographic evidence exists from that time, although Gordon collected many foot prints in that region.
Aside from this single image, Gonzalez points out that there were three additional images taken several days earlier near midnight, where a bright light lit up the area.
His group cannot account for how this happened, except that they are ruling out a flashlight as the source of the light in the images.
The following three images are of the unknown light source at this same location captured just after midnight on May 22, 2009, in the same area.
Comments (57)
A blurry picture of a bear scratching his back on a tree and several photos of out of focus, overexposed bugs. Funny, there were other pictures in the set which included a bear hanging around. Maybe some people are so detached from the natural world they can't recognize it when they see pictures of it?
Look at Youtube link watch?v=DfqAW7HX-nc
If you crop the photo of Jeffrey Gonzalez just above his hat, you have the same visual field as the 'bigfoot' photo. But then you have to squash the image down a bit too. The figure is the hollow in the tree (the lower half of the hollow). It's clearly, from left to right: rock (or a rock-like form), tree, hollow in tree, other side of tree hollow.
Of course, the light is a ufo.
hey everyone good morning WOW.. very interesting new article about new sasquatch photo. but it needs more enhandments done to it thanks bill green connecticut sasquatch researcher please keep me posted ok bristol,ct :)
yeah, a bear doing what a bear does, scratching its back on the tree
not only are cryptozoologists the worst photographers in the world, they need to go to school and learn some science
there is no ape man or record of any apes other than humans in north america
we have captured, killed, eaten just about everything in these woods
get a life people
has anyone heared about the sun ?
the image would be 12 to 14 feet tall according to the photo of researcher in other photo, seems more like a light refraction at differint time of day
It isn't an natural " hollow in a tree"....because it moved away. Stumps and similar objects don't move. Black bear are usually 6-7 ft tall when standing. This object is way too tall to be a black bear, probably near 9 ft....and far too massive. Most people that are familiar with black bear know they simply aren't that big. I don't believe we have an Grizzlies in California anymore, so the explanations offered here in the comments don't hold water.
It has to be something else.
His photos comparison is off because the photo of the object was taken with the game camera and the photo of him in the same spot is not. Look at the difference in the position of the limbs and the ground cover in the two photos. Very unlikely also that a creature in that location would tirp the camera sensor.
I am the founder of the Sanger Paranormal society. We had 6 trail cameras up there and all of them were triggered by the wind where the wind would move the weeds and plants on the ground. I am not saying that the Bigfoot triggered the motion camera but when the camera took the picture, the object was in the top left hand corner. We had hundreds of pictures with nothing in them because again they were triggered by moving weeds and plants. Go to www.SangerParanormalSociety.com and look at the other photo's. Yes, when we took that pict of me, the person taking the picture was not at the same place as the trail camera and was also shooting upward. Again, go and see the other photo's. We do have other pictures of the trail camera where the object is no longer there.
fatrobot, you sound very close-minded. But Since you are so sure they do not exist, disprove it. Do it. Seems simple to you so do it.
Not so simple, right? Dozens of law enforcement officers, marines, and other personnel have witnessed this creature as well as thousands of civilian eyewitnesses ever somce the first colonists. But you call them liars. Hmmm.
AS for you writing that there is no record of of ape men or apes in North America? The Natives of the BC coast have carvings of ape-like creatures. Where did they get the idea from? TV? Or maybe a zoo. Yeah, zoos were very popular in the 1500's with lions and bears and monkeys ... lol. Where did you get your degree in Anthropology? And since you are so smart and confident you just neglected to acknowledge that fact, right? Yeesh, people like you are like the fox that can't reach the peach in the tree so it tells the other animals that it is sour.
I went to the Sanger Paranormal site and took a look at the other photo's. I was going to say it was a bear or a tree stump but after looking at the other photo's....I think I will keep my mouth shut!!!!!
I heard that this was David Raygoza photo. I have heard of him and is highly respected in the Bigfoot research field. I don't think he would screw up his reputation by hoaxing this event. I did also go and look at the other photo's and The Sanger Paranormal Society did a great job debunking this picture. I am not saying this is the real thing but if it's not a bear or a tree stump, then what is it?
You know, it would be nice before some of these clowns made a statement if they would do a little more research.....oh wait a minute...what's that they say..what is research..a ROCK like form...dude, where is the rock now Dumb ASS..
and a hollow in a tree, ok, can I have a little bit of what you are smoking, i would like to see if the rock form starts walking..
Soooooooooo many problems with this photo series, not the least of which is the extreme diff in picture clarity between this photo and the others in the series. That's how a pro hoaxes.
Ok ryan, of course the pictures are different in clarity. The clear pictures were taken when the Sanger Paranormal Society went back up 3 weeks after the fact to take photo's of the area to show people like you the area of then and now...DUH.....
Their you go ryan, I bet you feel stupid now.......
jeffrey, go to their website and note the diff between all other "remote camera" shots of deer and this one. Why can they get clear shots of deer with motion sensors, but not this one?
i've seen this pic once already, why do the mainstream news only pic stuff like this up after the cryptozoology sites have already decided it's bogus?
as a photo-manipulations specialist, here's my opinion:
There are two possibilities,
A) it's a shadow, a simulacre, not a real thing, just a trick of the light.
B) it's a guy in a suit, probably someone who thought they were doing the guy a favor; he's been putting his camera there to catch bigfoot and his mates probably felt sorry for him.
The bright light pics look to me like someone with a flashlight discovering the camera, which backs up theory B
i want to believe, but i'm convinced by this
It is possible they caught a Sas but unfortunately this may forever remain another blobsquatch. They did a poor job of recreating photos from the exact angle AND exact time of day. To hear this said "He also said the the object is clearly brown in color, ruling out the black bear." kinda confirms for me their limited wildlife knowledge. Black bears are NOT just black! hehe I think we have a few 'researchers' here who have limited wildlife knowledge. This makes 'trusting' the findings an ominous conclusion.
If they had any detailed photos, they need to share them on their website b4 its too late, because the existing ones are being written off as blobsquatches by those who know better. There are BF in the Sierras, I know, I've seen one. But even my encounter is just a story without evidence.
DR
ryan, did you take a look at the original photo. See how far the object is. The bigfoot is about 175 ft from the camera. When an object is that far and you try zooming in on it with your computer, it gets blurry. The bear and the dear are 10 feet to 20 feet in front of the camera. That's why they are clear!!!!!Try it some time. And no, its not someone in a suit. The spot where this photo was taken, is in a place where no one goes. No one else knew that these cameras were their. The odds of someone traveling 2 1/2 hours taking dirt roads to this location and finding the cameras and saying, hey, a camera, I think I will go and get my Bigfoot suit and stand 9ft tall and get in the upper left hand corner of the photograph not knowing where the cutoff point is on the camera. come on guys....and a shadow, really, you think so.I see arms, and a hand, a head that doesn't look like a bear and I see the sun reflecting off the head even. Boy, if that's a showdow it sure had me fooled.
Ok, my mistake on the black bear. I know their are brown ones to. But again, where the object was standing was between 2 tree's and at a 45 degree angle. It wasn't scratching it's ass on anything. I called Ringling Bros. and Circus Vargas to see if any of their bears escaped and they told me no. hmmm, I would love to get my hands on this bear, I could make a lot of money....
Ya jeffrey, get them. Its about time someone sticks up for themselves. I am tired of people coming on and saying crap about a photograph and the owner of the photo just sits and keeps quite.
If there's anything there at all, it's a bear. I even fancy I see the bear's left ear in the pic. He's leaning up against the tree scratching his back. Typical bear behavior. Yawn!
Fatrobot, I would like to thank you for being the one person to makes me Finally release the 6 minutes of footage I shot recently on the mogollon rim in az. stay tuned to the media. This will change your mind!!!
Back in the '70s, one episode of the bionic man series aka Steve Austin actually contained a reconstruction of the UFO and Sasquatch phenomenon. I only recall it vaguely, but it shows that there may be some reason for it. That was over 30 years ago.
Could it be that these creatures are 'permitted' to roam these remote forest areas for short periods at a time, then brought home, rather like taking a dog to the park?
I'm not a monster hunter,I hunt UFO's. I can tell you as a Section Director for MUFON, who spends alot of time doing photo analysis, I would never jepodize my group or my reputation with a photo unless I was pretty darn sure I had something. Before showing the photo to the world, I'm sure Jeff and his group did every photo analysis they could think of and then some to debunk their own work. I doubt some Yahoo surfing the web is going to come along look at the photo for 20 seconds and find something in a photo that this guy spent hours going over. Also, this is his equipment, camera and basically his own backyard. If he is any good at what he does, he would already have dozens or more photos of the same area to compare to. First thing he did would have been to rule out shadows and lighting issues. Having said all that, I just don't think this guy would make a stupid shadow mistake in his own backyard. Nice capture!
Jeff, did you consider the reason for the height is because the creature could be carrying a baby on its back or shoulders? That would account for the extra height.
Nope, that is not a bigfoot in my opinion. I'm not sure that it is anything.
This appears to be a Giant Sequoia with a large fire scar at the bowel of the tree. Many of the Giant Sequoias, which are fire resistant (there are a couple Sequoia groves on the Sierra National Forest), have these type of scars that create an opening at the base of the tree. So you are looking inside the tree, actually...not at some indistinct something leaning against the tree, or walking away from the tree...
Thank you srv!!!! As a Section State Director for Mufon, I would have never put up a photo unless I was 150% sure it was the real thing. This photo can be 5 things. 1-Tree stump, 2-Bear standing up, 3-shadow and 4-person in a suit then 5-Bigfoot...I have debunk the first 4..Its not a tree stump because its not their anymore. 2-Its not a bear..It does not have a snout, it has human features on the face..its arm hangs down to the knee's and you can clearly see the hand...it's around 8 to 9 ft tall. We do not have Grizzlies in Clifornia anymore...The path that this creature was walking is at a 45 degree angle and their is not a tree for the bear to be rubbing its behind on.4-Shadow...come on, you can see all these features and if you look on the head, you can see the sun light reflecting off of it. 5-costume..No one else new these cameras were up there and to have someone accidently find a camera and say, I will go and get my bigfoot suit, put it on and stand 8 to 9ft tall then.........
........get in the picture not knowing where the cutoff point of the camera angle is...also driving 2 1/2 hours up in the sierra's taking dirt raods in the middle of no-where....ya, right..then 5--Bigfoot As a investigator, it's my job to try to debunk a situation...oh, and I tried..The Bigfoot investigator that I was with has been going to this spot for 6 years. He has showed me hundreds of pict of footprints which I will not show because I was not there when those photo's were taken. This investigator has very high credibility because of what he does for a living. Hint--High Education..This is not a hoax, it's not a tree stump, it's not a bear and it's certainly not a shadow..oh, by the way, Autumn from Oregon Bigfoot just released a statement on her blog where she analized all the pictures and she has come to the conclusion that it was a tree in front the the Bigfoot that was creating the illusion and shadow of the Bigfoot. I caught her on her mistake..Let's see what she say's..
FAKE!!!! I can go into explaining but to anyone with half a brain can see its a shadow maybe even made to look like bigfoot with some simple softwear. Look I understand it costs money to look for evidance but please get a job to pay for it. All this crap just makes people think Big Foot is just makebelieve. I trully feel A BigFoot type of primates did exist, native Americans have there proof most of the time we prove them right in time. Bit I feel it may be gone for most of the land they needed is gone. They most likely died out in the 70's. Sad but true and truth is far stranger than fiction. Truth is we maybe the reason there gone and to be crazed to find them now is trully stranger than fiction.
If there is 1 or 2 left we will surly kill them to show they were real. It's what us stupid monkeys do kill destroy but NEVER let it be. Of even better choose to return to a life like the Bigfoot lives. If we did that there would be no reason to find proof we would be the bigfoot then right?
bigfoot isnt real entill i see him myself i wont belive it
well this is fail
Other photos in this area caught bears, according to reports from the group's website. This is a blurry picture, with no real detail, but the action of rubbing against a tree like this is common bear behavior. The TBRC has captured many images like this in their research, as Alton Higgins has pointed out.
THE ALIENS ARE HUNTING THE BIGFOOT TOO!
See, it's as much of a myth to Aliens as it is to humans!
What a buncha monkey f*k!! I always get suckered n2 looking at bigfoot pics that are all the f*kn same. Never can really tell as he's always caught up behind trees, leaves n bushes. 2 FACTS: If bigfoot is close to the camera, hes for sure gonna come out blurry with obstructions. If bigfoot is clear on a pic or video w/o obstructions.. U can rest assure he's too f*kn far from the camera to leave u with the same f*kn question? "Could that be bigfoot?" U can't rule out the possibility of photo manipulation by software as it looks odd. Also, "the nose and chin are formed by the leaves" which create the illusion of a head, which like all bigfoot photos, is very f*kn convenient how those leaves are there, and coincidentally, the tree blocks what would be the back side of this illusion. He also seams to be a stupid bigfoot, moving forward with both hands locked in front of his body, like a zombie on scooby f*kn doo! Advise you hunt 4 pooh c but ud probably hv 2 fake those pics too!
Its a bear. The first clue is the claws! He's scratching his back on the tree with his snout pointing up - duh!
When we go out jeep'n and rally'n in the woods here in Florida we always look for the skunk apes. Sand man for the win! There is something like 200 accounts of skunk ape in Tallahassee. I swear they are real. I hope they like Subaru's haha
Image is blurry and the 'bigfoot' is probably just a merger of some shadows. So is the light bigfoot's saucer? Of the two images the light seems more interesting since its source is undertermined.
i don't think its anything i think that it is the tree. the small tree to the left just happens to make a face and if you look where the man is standing to show where the photo was taken you will notice that he just happens to be standing where the creatures arm should be why would he do that? it is the tree, shadows and the sun and not to mention yeah it does cost him money so a little bit of photo shop to make a big a** monkey hand and wallah you got a big foot! i don't believe in UFO's i don't believe in big foots and i sure as hell don't believe in water monsters!! NOT A ONE OF YOU PROFESSIONALS CAN SHOW ANYONE A BIT OF REAL PROOF!! they have been seen so many times but no one can provide a real picture of these THINGS! some one would have had real proof by now of all of these THINGS if they existed!! everyone's pictures are blurry and shadowy get real proof and stop making lairs out of your selves!!!!!!!!!!!
There real.. Not saying that that's what this photo is showing.. But Squatches are alive and breathing.. And what does one consider "RealProof" anyway..? A body..? Well if that is what it takes then I hope they are never proven real.. Unless it's a body that is found somewhere.. I still hope they aren't proven to exist.. When that day happens, all hell will break loose.. And it will be the beginning of the end most likely.. It sure won't be a good thing for the Biguns.. You will have every tom dick and tiffany in the woods trying to get a glimps or a photo introaching on there habitat.. You will even have those idots that will be out there looking to for a trophy.. Scientist from all over the world will be in the area in a matter of hours after the location of the find is revealed.. And it won't matter if they get protection or not.. All kinds of animals are protected.. But they die by the hundres every year by poachers.. Look at what is happening to the Mountian Gorilla..
As far as the lights go, it almost appears as headlights of a car as it's rounding a corner. I'm not sure if there are any highways or roads near the area, but I could see it being a car as it drives by the camera at night. Especially if the camera was downhill from a road, the light from the car's headlights would almost certainly cascade over the roadside like that.
photoshopped
The lights are from a night-hiker's headlamp - 1) looking directly at the trail cam, 2) inspecting the area nearby, and 3) walking away.
Hiking at night is a very enjoyable experience, is great exercise and, in my experience, much safer than walking the streets after dark.
Ok guys,this is Jeffrey from Sanger Paranormal. This photo is not photoshoped. I don't know how else to prove this picture is the real. I am getting tired of sticking up for our photo. Why don't you take the photo to a photo expert and have that person analize it. Why would I ruin my reputation as a State Section director for MUFON and the lights, this is 2 1/2 hours in the middle of nowhere taking dirt roads where no one else goes. This is not a flashlight.
It is naive to think you are the only person to get out in the forest at night. If there are dirt roads then people will go there for a variety of reasons. Why do you think it is not a torch when it clearly resembles a headlamp? Surely, it is a simple matter to get a similar-looking headlamp and do a re-creation in order to clarify or rule-out a likely mundane explanation.
Because nobody removed the locks on the road gates, and none of the cameras show people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Night Walker says:
It is naive to think you are the only person to get out in the forest at night. If there are dirt roads then people will go there for a variety of reasons. Why do you think it is not a torch when it clearly resembles a headlamp? Surely, it is a simple matter to get a similar-looking headlamp and do a re-creation in order to clarify or rule-out a likely mundane explanation.
Gates can be unlocked and relocked and hikers don't need to do either. If you guys got there it is a good bet that others do so as well. It is still a simple matter to get a twin LED headlamp (which is what the lights look like) and conduct a recreation to clarify or rule out a likely mundane explanation. Sure, the night pictures don't show people but they don't show any forest either.
Pages
What do you think?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!