Here is the Bigfoot picture from Melissa Hovey. Study it to your heart's content. Permission granted to reproduce for educational use only. Commercial copying, hiring, lending is strictly prohibited.
Here is the Bigfoot picture from Melissa Hovey. Study it to your heart’s content. Permission granted to reproduce for educational use only. Commercial copying, hiring, lending is strictly prohibited.
This is said by some to be the best Bigfoot photo since the Patterson-Gimlin film, but others are not so sure. It comes from scumbag lowlife Melissa Hovey, who I do not like one bit. But at least it appears that she is not a hoaxer.
A man contacted her in 2008 saying that he was having problems with Bigfoots on his property and he didn’t know what to do about them. He also said that he had taken photos of some of them with his trailcams. He sent her a photo of one of a series of photos he had taken with his trailcam. He was very paranoid about going public with it because he thought people would think he was crazy. He also thought people would come to his property and try to kill the Bigfoots, and he wanted to protect them.
Bottom line is Hovey has been holding on to the photo since 2008. She was getting tired of holding onto it and finally released it today, February 22, 2012. She is putting her copyright on it unless and until he decides to copyright it himself. She won’t give any information about the identity of the photographer, where the photo was taken or precisely when (other than late 2007-early 2008), or any other details about the photo.
There is already huge debate about this picture. Personally, I think it’s good, especially as Facebook/Find Bigfoot gave it the thumbs up seal of approval. That thing is ripped to the gills. Look at the size of those trapezius muscles. Note the slope to the back. This isn’t a ghillie suit, and the Bigfoot costumes I have seen don’t look like this.
The hair is very interesting. People are saying it looks exactly like Patty’s hair when you blow up her movie. The hair also looks very similar to the hair on the creature in the Hoffman movie. There is also a similarity to the long, flowing hair in the Olympic Project trailcam shot.
People are also bringing up a lot of problems with the photo. For one, they say it is too clear to be a trailcam shot. Also, they ask why there is foliage right in front of the camera. Other issues have been brought up.
But at the end of the day, I think this is probably genuine.
Melissa Hovey could have at least released a larger image file with more resolution, unless she has something to hide, I smell hoax.
there’s not enough space in this town for the both of us lol
otherwise known as ‘this town aint big enough for the both of us’ duuh
to clarify, the last two responses and this one are all the same Steve lol.
Only Robert can tell who is who.
Melissa Hovey is a scummy, worthless piece of shit whore. Just a dirty, nasty, filthy person. In other words, a typical Bigfooter.
It sure will be nice when we can get some recognition of this species so we can eliminate all of these dirty people in this Bigfootery business. These Bigfooters are by far the worst group of human beings I’ve run across since I’ve been on the Net. And a lot of them are pretty much dangerous on one level or another.
Woah! Tell us what you really think!
So she’s from L.A. ? fits the demographic here.
Love to read about bigfoot from yur column Robert, but I will confess to amusement from the drama and characters involved. This is like a soap opera. ” As the hominid turns…”
The pic? No way to tell until we get Bobo to recreate . That is the proper method in a situation like this , no ?
No, a redneck from Texas. Much worse than LA chicks.
Melissa Hovey is a scummy, worthless piece of shit whore. Just a dirty, nasty, filthy person.
really…? and you are..what? delusional? suffer from microscopic penis syndrome? if you want to be taken seriously as a researcher then you need to cut the name calling/misogynistic attitude and stick to the research. Project much?
She has it coming, sorry.
Yo check it.
the white hairs look painted on, lol, well done but not real hair imho
No, looks authentic to me in that it reiterates and renforces key physical features seen in Patty. If its fake, they planted lots of individual hairs into a costume. My hat would be off to a faker of this magnitude.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XclQAEuo0JM/T0bBVCs34LI/AAAAAAAADjk/-ooeNdMiduU/s1600/American-bigfoot-society%27s-bigfoot-sasquatch-picture.png a higher resolution version of the photo. I can’t get over the head, especially that ear on the right side. It looks to me like that is the creatures true skin color and the white we see beneath the salt and pepper matting are under hairs (exactly like the observers of the Sierra kills steak reported). Also get your story straight skeptics, either the picture is poor resolution with a low pixel count or it is too clear and high definition for a trailcam, I keep hearing both arguments and this seems contradictory.
Tertius
It’s a photoshopped deal, not a costume; the hairs have been painted on probably the back of a gorilla or similar like CGI and I beg to differ with you; the blown up images of patty don’t look anything like this; she had very short hairs, not this long flowing hair. imho
I think you have a little too much respect for computer graphics.
This is NOT CGI. Anyone with any knowledge in it, can see it´s not that.
The biggste problem with the photo is the lack of a witness! Absolutely non-evidentiary without a witness to come forward. Could it be the real deal, it doesn’t maater much. It provides no information we don’t already freely share. Without the witness and that story and the remaining evidence it is just fun to consider it is or isn’t. I normally don’t comment on these, but this has so mch hype….we need more BFers!
we need more evidence, not Bfers…geez!
Have to disagree ananymoose. There are hairs of varying length on Patty but I was mainly talking about head shape and musculature. It doesnt reek of photoshop to me. Just sayin’.
I agree with you, Robert — this photo is consistent with innumerable eyewitness reports: slightly hunched over, long matted hair, and absolutely massive trapezius muscles which give the appearance of having little or no neck. If this is a fake, it’s on par with the Yeti de Bourganeuf.
Interesting in some of the details, but sadly underwhelming overall. If it showed half or more of the body it would be that much more convincing. If it showed the face we’d probably know instantly whether it was faked or real. It just figures it was turned away from the cam, doesn’t it? It’s always something with these pics that keep them from being truly compelling evidence.
This could be a real sasquatch but it could just as easily be some kind of makeup artist’s pet hoax project/bigfoot bust. Especially since no details of the person submitting it have been revealed. Ultimately just one more “maybe” for the photo pile…
Robert, thank you for posting this photo.
Grammy, you’re welcome!
that’s one powerful motherfucker.
Unfortunately have to disagree with you on this one Robert, the whole thing just screams fake to me… But thanks for posting the photo an hosting the discussion.
There are simply too many red flags:
- trail cams are not dslr’s and the high-res photo is taken from just that
- all of the exit data is conveniently scraped
- even the foliage looks hyper-realistic
- no context as apehuman already mentioned
- etc. etc.
Not to mention the most obvious: it’s a shot of 1/4 of a body, and from the back.
I’m a believer, despite never having an experience myself. But, this photo just doesn’t cut it.
I don’t know if its real but I like it. the hair on the head and the head look a bit humanistic. and the hair on the body just looks kind of real, with skin below. if its a hoax, i like the direction they’ve gone with it. its not obvious and it looks realistic. the body is strong and vaguely human too.
why so bright and so close?
Let’s focus on the foliage. What kind of tree or bush is in the background and what time of year is it. What part of the country is this foliage found. The leaves look like an Elm (Decidious) type tree. Maybe it’s inthe spring. Come on we must have a botanist on this string.
Supposedly shot in late 2007-early 2008.
I say rhododendron shrubs,Coastal Oregon.Could be wrong,get some pros on this and that’s an order. I first pulled this photo up and was overwhelmed by 54 years of seeing wild animals,and this appears to be one. I can’t get past the feeling of looking at the back of my grandfather’s head circa 1963? I was truly frightened….Call in some Dermatologists too, they may see things we don’t…..Chop chop Ji’ vishnu boy! Hindu land awaits your prognosis!
I actually think it is California buckeye, or California Horse-Chestnut (Aesculus californica). Native to Northern California and parts of Oregon (including Cascade range). Typically these shrubs grow foliage in winter/spring and actually may lose their foliage in summer due to California’s mediterranean climate- dry summer/wet winter. Not 100% sure because of the resolution but I did live in norcal and work in a plant nursery for 5 years. So, the plant is one that would grow naturally in parts of sasquatch’s purported native range.
Fake. Reminds me of one of those professional reconstructions though of ancient hominids that have been worked on. I don’t sense an animated object here. It’s just not compelling enough to be beyond interpretation, for a number of reasons.
Robert, I have to disagree with you on this one. I can’t imagine why someone would aim their cam into a bush/tree. And the image doesn’t resemble any trailcam I’ve ever seen, and it has been altered, if only by cropping. All in all, when you add in all the other stuff, it suggests to me that your assessment of the image is wrong, but your assessment of the poster is correct.
Interesting that I have used my game cam to capture fruit thieves in my orange groves.They never seem to be looking at the camera? But they always give off an immediate sense of live biological animals. Not ground breaking, but this photo did just the same to me without hardly looking at it? Could I be sensing real vs. fake photos? There is something very candid and real about this photo. If I found this photo in my cam bank it would freak the fuck out of me like, piss myself and start stuttering and whining, again!
Whether genuine or not, it’s evidence of little. A hairy back and no neck does not equal sasquatch. There’s no corroborating evidence (eye witness testimony, footprints, etc.) and due to the close-up cropped nature of the picture, we can get zero information about size. I do agree generally with your comments about Hovey, who, in my experience, appears less than smart and incredibly uninformed about the subject. As you said, typical of bigfootery. Where’s that DNA report??
The tree in the background looks like a loquat beginning to flower (Eriobotrya japonica) – which is a cultivated fruit tree or possibly a wild madrone tree which are common in the mountains in CA and Oregon. It looks more like a loquat tree to me. Google images to compare if you like. Why would this big creature be basically walking right into a tree? Why was the photo cropped? I would also think there would be some kind of leaf litter or something stuck in such scraggly hair as seen in this picture. Especially if the animal is wandering through bushes, trees and underbrush in the dark. It’s just too perfect. It looks like something you would see in a wax museum. Fake IMHO.
Yeah I agree now upon looking at the glossy leaves- Loquat.
I think you’ll are right! Loquat!
Former Floridian here, adding vote #4 for loquat.
Who has said this is the “best Bigfoot photo since the Patterson-Gimlin film.”?
I should also correct myself, or at least admit my error. I left a comment dismissing the photo before I saw it. I had incorrectly assumed it was another recent game cam photo, with the same description (Bigfoot with back to camera), that is circulating the community. My apologies.
If its a fake, a model or photoshopped, it was certainly done by someone in the ‘homo’ camp because it looks very atavistic human
It could be aq Morlock! Just saying……We’ll see if anybody catches that reference.
H.G. Wells ‘The Time Machine’ LOL ya it does kind of look like a morlock..
I downloaded the larger version on my ps3 so I could view it on my tv enlarged without missing anything it the photo. I am not a expert, but I see a building and possibly a porch/yard area. It apears the subject was possibly peeking through these bushes into a yard, which would provide a line of reasoning as to why the camera was placed in its particular location thus providing the photo it did. It also would explain why the photo was croped (I wouldn’t want my house in a photo like this) and why the photographer wishes to remain anonymous.
Look at the top of the photo, right side. Bit on left but I see man made structure(s).
Peace, Monkey.