I grew up in rural NWPA, surrounded in forest. I took an early interest in cryprozoology and sharks and have read many books on various crypto subjects such as Bigfoot and Megalodon over the years. I am not a professional writer or a journalist, but I do the best I can. I have a quirky, obscurely dry and sometimes sarcastic sense of humor than can get me in trouble. Some love me and some hate me, but I am who I am.

Many of you may remember a couple weeks back when I turned the latest and greatest Bigfoot photo into a deer and demonstrated the desperate measures many will go to in order to prove the existence of said beast.

Since doing that I thought, wouldn’t it be interesting if I could find another alleged Sasquatch photo and prove a similar theory? Well, the truth is I didn’t do that at all…at least until I happened upon the now famous Vermont Trail Cam photo, again….today. It was then that the previous article popped into my head.

As I pondered the possibilities, my eyes affixed on the subject and bam, there it was! I immediately froze the video and to my amazement, I won the Powerball! Well, not the actual Powerball. I mean, come on! If I had won the Powerball, I wouldn’t be here trying to entertain the likes of you lose….Uhh, wonderful readers!

Getting back on track, Yes, you guessed right, I did see what appeared to be a different animal entirely. As I began to look for parts that made it all come together, they seemed to fall into place like so many dominos. Of course, we are rarely going to get enough visibility to see every aspect of these pictures, but there was enough to clearly prove the photo was and is not that of the elusive Bigfoot.

First, we’ll take a look at one of the videos done on this story, then I’ll get to work making my case.

Many of you may know, the untrained eye is going to follow along with what it recognizes and that can be different from person to person. However, enough people were in favor of it being Sasquatch, that the picture soon went viralicity.

As I said, people see what the want to see, but I try to reconstruct these photos from body part to body part. This picture was no exception and it was actually quite easy to break it down.

Below we see two photos. In the first, we take a look at the original trail cam picture as it has been appearing over the past couple months.

Now, lets put our thinking caps on and begin to break the photo down into sections. As you can see, I’ve labeled each part of the animal, so as not to mistake what I’m trying to convey.

What do I think it is? That’s hard to say, but I do know it’s not a Bigfoot. This is clearly a smaller animal than the giant many are making it out to be. Just imagine your dog facing you. Maybe it has a bone on the ground in front of it and as it rolls the bone toward itself, it goes back on it’s haunches. You’ve seen your dog do this, where his rear legs fan out and you can see the inside of them. This guy has it’s head down with rear right paw pointed SW. How do I explain the white spots? I’m almost positive it’s mange, which means this could be any of a number of different animals, from a bear on down. However, I am leaning more toward the “on down”.

My quest in this exercise was to prove that this is not Bigfoot and I think I’ve done that in spades.

What do you the reader think? Am I right or just grasping at straws?

Thanks to Youtubes UfoScandinavia for providing the video and Hubbardton, VTs own Frank Siecienski for the original photo.

Associated Content:

GT: Is This A Sasquatch?
GT: Marble Mountain Bigfoot Footage
GT: Southern Georgia Skunk Ape Sightings

  • Todd Sikkema

    Hmmm…I see an owl.

  • harlem_rocker

    The scale- the ‘before’ image or pic shows that this thing- whatever it is- is huge, as big as, or larger than, most bears.

  • Looks like a squirrel to me.

  • It appears from all the other published photos from that trailcam setup, including the reenactment pics done by Steve Krulls, that the camera was fairly high off the ground, though I do not know this as an absolute fact. However, if I am correct, it is unlikely that the subject is a dog, bear, etc. due to the size it would have to be in order to appear that large on the camera and still be on the ground. The camera is not pointed toward the ground, after all, but is facing the street. That is why I lean toward an owl or something similar, because such an animal can fly, being near and in front of the camera in flight, and thus appearing much larger than it actually is. Have you seen the side-by-side comparison of the VT pic with a mounted (taxidermy) owl in a similar position? The resemblance is astounding. Winona Alexis did the research with another person, and has it displayed in her pictures on her Facebook page. You should check it out.

  • CoreyFong

    I’m not sure what it is. And as much I would love it to be a Sasquatch, there’s no way it can be, just based on the fact of the motion blur being uniform going in one direction over the entire subject in the photo. The Sasquatch would’ve had to be jumping up and down hunched over at the exact moment the picture was snapped, which is highly unlikely IMO. On finding bigfoot they showed other pics the same camera took of coyotes and there were no motion blue on those coyotes. I’d have to go with Surveyor and say an owl most likely flying by close to the lens which would explain the motion blur.

  • Blackmyst

    Surveyor, could you please post the link for Winona Alexis’s comparisions? I found (I think) her FB page, but nothing there, so am thinking it’s her more personal one and there is another one somewhere. Thanks!

  • I can see why you are calling that a leg, but am having trouble with most of the rest, and so the leg becomes a problem then as well. I really wonder about those white spots.

    Making an assumption about the evergreen branch behind the subject whatever this is looks very big, but that is based on an assumption.

  • Ralph Hunter

    refusng to discuss something when asked your opinion as an ‘expert” isnt skepticism, it’s repression. to paraphrase john keel, “a skeptic is only someone who hasnt seen it yet.”

  • Refusing to express an opinion as an “expert” is simply responsible when there is a lack of verifiable information. Too many people will mistake and opinion fro an analysis and take it for fact. Just as John Keel’s opinion about what a skeptic may or may not be. A skeptic is someone who requires hard facts, not uniformed opinions or emotional reactions.

  • Scott_McMan

    Surveyor, my opinion was that only that it was smaller than a bear. To draw size comparisons based on what a guy who wants to be famous for a Bigfoot picture tells us, is unreliable IMO.

    Furthermore, everything is relative after the fact. Calculations are speculative at best.

  • Scott_McMan

    I believe there’s a good chance that you are right. However, many are convinced that this is something very large. Therein lies a problem as I tend to have issues with size calculations, especially when someone is looking for their 15 minutes. Mr. Siecienski has not been shy about the incident and while I would never label him or question his veracity, people tend to stretch things in favor of their objective. Many times they don’t even realize they are doing it in their excitement.

  • Scott_McMan

    “The scale”? I have a problem with after the fact calculations harlem, especially in situations like this. Furthermore, as I said, I don’t believe this animal is as large as is being purported.

  • heather

    it looks like someoe bent over wereing something over them, looks like he or she is wearing white t shirt and jeans, head is where “right leg is” left leg is “top of head” come on people and the “right hand/paw” is the right hands.

  • Kelly

    Y!ou. have less proof for your theories than the man who owns the picture, yet, you expect to be believed. Interesting

  • NJ bigfoot

    I agree with coreyfong and surveyor. It’s an owl. The motion blur gives it away. If it’s a BF, why didn’t the cam go off the instant the BG broke the target zone? Did the camera wait for the BF to crouch down?? No