Bigfoot creature photographed in Sierra National Forest

Article, comments and my photo analysis are below:

Bigfoot creature photographed in Sierra National Forest

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.


Prior to this article being published on the Examiner website, I received a mass email from a mufonjeff (Jeffrey Gonzalez?) regarding this photograph. The subject line was “BIGFOOT CONFIRMED REAL!!!!”

I wasn’t immediately impressed with the photograph, nor with the sensationalism of the subject line. I mean, I can understand being excited about possibly capturing an image of Sasquatch on your game cam, but to publicize it as “confirmed!!!!” before the photograph has been independently analyzed by those proficient in photographic analysis (or even your peers, for that matter) is a bit irresponsible and doesn’t do a whole lot for the credibility of our field of research… which many feel has little inherent credibility to begin with. *grin*

The original photograph, as published at looks like this:


Here’s the outlined enlargement from the website.


That’s an awful lot of detail to glean from one very, very blurry photo. Notice how the bottom edge of that rear “hand” just happens to be delineated by a leaf in the foreground. In my mind, it’s too much interpreration, too convenient.

Here are the enlargement and comparison photo:


At first glance, you might think, “WOW! That thing’s HUGE!” But let’s take a moment to compose ourselves and look at the diameter of the tree in pic #1 as compared to pic #2. There is a discrepancy in size in these two photographs… they’re not the same SCALE.

So let’s fix that… and, while we’re at it, let’s line up the HORIZON in the shot. The fact that the comparison photo with the man in it is slightly lower here gives the illusion of height.


Now, in the above photograph, I’ve lined up the two as best I can, using the knot on the tree (in the red circle) as a comparison point.

“Bigfoot” still looks pretty tall, huh?

However, the fact that the person who photographed the comparison shot didn’t stand in the same SPOT that the game cam was mounted in doesn’t help much, either. This is evidenced by the fact that, no matter how hard I try, I can’t get the trees and vegetation to line up just right. Nor does it help that the photograph was obviously taken at a complete different time of day. (Note to those taking comparison shots… SCALE AND LIGHTING ARE IMPERATIVE for lining up comparison photographs with the originals! Be sure you’re standing in the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same time of day, or your comparisons will be fairly useless!)

What we see, then, is that the photographer appears to have been standing FAR TO THE LEFT of where the original photograph was taken, as is evidenced by this piece of foliage that is marked in the following photo. In the photo with the man in it, the piece of foliage in question is either the one sticking up to the left or right of him. I suspect it’s the one on the right, and I’ll tell you why in a minute. Regardless, it puts the photographer on a much different spot on the AXIS than where the game camera was.


So, with all of that in mind, knowing that the photographer was standing in a different spot: put yourself there on the hillside with the camera in your hand. Now, as you’re getting ready to take the comparison shot, say, “Hold on just a minute… I need to move to my RIGHT about 30 yards in order to line up that piece of vegetation there properly.” As you move to your right, the perspective changes, and that plant MOVES over to the left of the tree, just like it is in the game camera.

Now, assuming you’ve done this… what happens, then to this dark area behind the man? Remember, the leaves and small tree branches will move slightly to the left, and the large tree to his right will block out some of that stuff in the background… Note the color of the dark area…


Bingo? I think bingo.

I wonder if he realized “Bigfoot” was standing that close behind him when that photo was snapped? *grin*

Most blobsquatch photos are just that. Blobs of shadow and light in the forest. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t Bigfoot creatures in that area. It doesn’t even mean that there wasn’t a Bigfoot SOMEWHERE in the trees – hiding and hiding well – at that particular moment in time. It just isn’t THERE in the photograph where the overly-eager assume it is based upon the shapes of the light and shadow.

The fact that these guys are out in the field doing research is terrific. The fact that it’s being sensationalized without sound analysis? Not-so-terrific.  (I mean, c’mon…  I don’t want you to feel like I’m picking on you, but “BIGFOOT CONFIRMED REAL!!!!!” from one very distant game cam photo? That’s a bit much.)

My conclusion after analyzing the photo carefully? Not a game cam photograph of a Sasquatch at all. Just a conveniently-shaped shadow in a photograph.

Then again, what do I know?  Some sort of movement had to have tripped that game camera in the first place, right?


I would really like to see a retake of the comparison photo, taken from the exact location and during the exact time of day. I’d be happy to analyze it, and wouldn’t mind, at all, eating my words if that dark area on the tree doesn’t show up right there. :)

Your comments, as always, are welcome. Please keep them clean and respectful.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

23 replies on “Bigfoot creature photographed in Sierra National Forest”

  1. Linda Martin says:

    Good analysis. I also got the photo links in email but wasn’t impressed. There’s no way that an unclear photo of a dark spot in the woods can be evidence of Bigfoot. Even a close-up in a movie is bound to be questioned. I’ve received fairly good faked videos as I’m sure you have too.

  2. Ok, oops, I wasn’t standing in the exact same spot….But you are telling everyone that this is a SHADOW……………….People, listen to what this guy just said. A shadow…..I can see an arm, I can see a hand, I can see a head that doesn’t have a snout, dude, are you serious. I would love to take you up there if you want to come to Fresno. You are telling everyone who’s see’s what I see that they are hallucinating. WOW….good luck on future reporting.

  3. admin says:

    Hi Jeff,

    I see that you disagree with my analysis. I’m sorry if you’re offended by it.

    I understand that you “see” those things in the photograph. The trouble is, without a VALID comparison photo taken from the same spot in the same lighting, I cannot rule out that brown area behind the subject in the comparison photo, which – and I’ll make this point again – apppears that it be the same size, shape and color as the “bigfoot” were the photographer standing in the same location. You sent the photo link to me, and I did what I’ve been doing for over a decade now with similar photographs… I analyzed it.

    I’m sorry if it was not what you wanted to hear, but I’ve always been very honest in my photo analysis (as well as objective – I’d LOVE it if that were a photo of a bigfoot, but I just don’t think it is). Unfortunately, my analyses tend to irritate people who want to believe they’ve photographed something.

    I’ve learned that taking a more reserved stance on a piece of potential evidence until it has been thoroughly examined is a good idea. Failing to do so can be damaging to your credibility as a researcher, and if you choose to sensationally publicize something before it truly warrants it, it has a tendency to damage the credibility of our research field in general.

    Whether this ultimately IS a bigfoot or not, this photo is in no way compelling enough to EVER warrant an announcement of “BIGFOOT CONFIRMED REAL!!!”

    Even the Patterson film can’t be truly be considered “confirmation” of Bigfoot’s existence… though I still think it comes closer than just about anything else.

    (P.S. I am, not that it matters much, a woman… not a guy… not a “dude”. *grin*)

    Autumn Williams

  4. Titus says:

    …I don’t think you need to wish Autumn luck… She’ll do just fine..

  5. Shjon says:

    Good Analysis Autumn. If this is indeed a bigfoot, where is the set of pictures where he/she walk off or to that spot? I’ll gave you something better than a shadow, bear.

  6. Scott says:

    I’m a digital artist, proficient in Adobe Photo Shop (10+years) and other image editing and analyzing software. I’ve been looking at possible Sasquatch photos for years now. I don’t see anything in that photo but some dark shadows behind some leaves…

    It is a trick of the light, shadow and surrounding foliage that makes it vaguely resemble a “human” form. It’s certainly not “confirmed” proof of the existence of Sasquatch.

  7. KatG says:

    Thankfully someone has a clear head and is taking an objective approach. We appreciate you Autumn! It is difficult to even bring up the subject of Bigfoot without people smirking so we depend on researchers such as yourself to help bring credibility to this field. Keep up the great work girl! =)

  8. mark wood says:

    If you’ll look about five feet to the right of where you’re showing what looks to be a bigfoot.That looks like a bigfoot looking right at the camera.Face,eyes,nose,mouth,body.What do you think?

  9. Mike says:

    Looks like another blury blogsquatch photo, not convincing at all, won’t go far with the experts..

  10. Dan V. says:

    I totally agree with you Autumn, with one exception. I think I see the blessed mother in another part of the same photo. LOL

  11. D. Marro says:

    agree with Mike! Good work, Autumn.

  12. billy says:

    why does it look like the comparison picture is in a different spot ? the ” bigfoot ” pic there are no branches around it’s head, but in the one with the guy there is, and the trees look different too in the pic with the bigfoot it looks like there is just the redwood tree but the comparison on it looks like there are two different trees , it almost looks like they took the pic in back of where the BF pic was taken, because the tree to the right looks the same as the one to right of the guy . and in the pics with the guy posing there are three trees lined up to his right but not in the one with BF standing there . i don’t know maybe it is just me lol

  13. Laura S. W. says:


    The people who administer and use this website would be jumping for joy if this was really a bigfoot photo. They would be the last ones to be negative. However, the existence of this animal is so questionable to most scientists and members of the public, that we who do believe it exists have to be extremely careful with our claims. I am not a photo expert; I am an old, retired science teacher. As much as I would like to believe this is a bigfoot photo, even I can see it is a shadow, enhanced by foliage that, just by chance, contributes to the illusion. I once saw a “bigfoot photo” that I would have sworn couldn’t be anything else. When someone went back to the location and took a photo from a different angle, you could clearly see that the “bigfoot” was a dark tree stump. Keep trying! Your cameras may one day capture an photo of the real thing.

  14. Ok, Autumn, if you noticed where I am standing in the photo, You did say I was not standing in the exact spot, I will give you that. Look at the Bigfoot photo. Take a look to the left of that. Their is that tree that you are talking about with the dark color. Now, if the person who took the photo of me would have moved to the right, then you would see more of the dark color tree as you are moving to the right, the tree’s darker side becomes more apparent. But their is only one problem. Bigfoot or no Bigfoot the tree is still there and you can see it. So the tree is not causing the illusion. Come on, you can do better than that. I would have given you more credit if you would have said it was a bear, but a shadow…….I would love to go and see other photo’s that you have on your web site but you have to PAY to become a member. Oh, I get it now.

  15. stan fisher says:

    Wished this one didnt even get attention,but nice of Autumn to say her thoughts.

  16. admin says:

    OK… the gloves are still on, Jeffrey, for the moment. Please allow me to take a deep breath and continue to attempt to be polite, despite your belligerence.

    First of all, my analysis stands. Yes, there is the dark tree, or part of it, to the left. And just to the RIGHT of that, to the left of the man in the photo, is the shadow that appears to be your “bigfoot” – it’s simply shown at a different angle.

    As I said in my original post, I would be more than happy to reevaluate this IF AND WHEN I receive a COMPARABLE comparison photo. Until you’re standing in the same spot, at the same time of day, THE SHADOW BACK THERE CANNOT BE RULED OUT as the source of your “bigfoot”. Until then, this remains in the Blobsquatch bin. If you really want to PROVE something is standing there and it is not a shadow, do the work, go back out into the field, take the photo from the EXACT location, and send it in. A true “researcher” would do no less.

    As for my member’s section and your obvious dig regarding that: I am a single mother with a freelance web business and very little income. I cannot AFFORD, Jeffrey, to pay for the bandwidth consumed by the many thousands of visitors who would download the hundreds of huge media files I have available in there if they were posted on the public site. I had a choice… keep them in my files and don’t share them at all, or ask those who wish to see them to help absorb the cost of making them available. Most folks understand that.

    In the process of creating the members’ section, I inadvertently ended up creating one of the most pleasant and close-knit COMMUNITIES of bigfooters out there. The members are wonderful, our private members’ forum is enjoyable, and the membership helps keep it that way. People who choose to be belligerent and disrespectful have their memberships cancelled. By me. If I was doing this for the money, I’d take your $4.95 a month and allow my members’ forum to turn into a cesspool full of angry, rude people who do nothing but attack one another, like so many of the public forums out there.

    You can keep your $4.95, Jeffrey.

    I’ve spent 20 years in this field getting along just fine with the vast majority of my peers, mainly because I have kept a cool head, a sense of humor, and am careful not to jump to conclusions.

    For instance, you would never find me sending out an email to Art Bell, George Noory, and anyone else who will listen, claiming bigfoot has been “CONFIRMED REAL!!!” based upon one vague photo that hadn’t been analyzed by anyone qualified to do so.

    Credibility is a precious commodity in this field. Like it or not, how you conduct yourself reflects greatly on the “evidence” you bring forth. You would do well to remember that.

  17. Scott says:

    Jeffrey Gonazalez says: “You did say I was not standing in the exact spot, I will give you that.”

    The angle is different, the zoom factor was different, all of which gives viewers a noticeable misrepresentation of the first image.

    There is a shadow behind him in the comparison photo that if viewed from the original angle (further left) would be more pronounced. The foliage (that would be in front of it from that angle) is causing the silhouette of the “Bigfoot”.

    Even if this was a real Bigfoot… it’s too blurry and too subjective to interpretation to offer up as solid evidence, let alone proof of anything.

    You put this photo on the Internet for the world to see… did you think that everyone is just going to accept it as fact and not analyze it? If you can’t handle people offering up an opinion that doesn’t mimic your own then you shouldn’t post photos for people to analyze in the first place.

    Also, the fact that you can’t seem to handle a critique that differs from your own without resorting to snide remarks (twice now) obviously speaks to your lack of professionalism.

  18. Over the past 10 years, when a photo gets put on the internet claiming they have a photo of something paranormal, the paranormal field comes out and gives their 2 cents in and critique it. Which is fine. But if you make a comment or if you analyze the photo, you better have some great points to back up your story if you are planning to debunk the photo. I was there, I have seen the location, I have measured I have analyzed the evidence. I have shown the photo here in Fresno who are photo experts and they ALL have told me this is not a shadow or an illusion. The object is a solid object which they pointed out to me right off if you look at the head, you can see the sun refecting off of it. Again, they point to the hand and the fingers even the facial features. If you analyze be prepared to get an answer. That’s the problem. Over the years, no one has ever stood up to the paranormal field when they critique something. I know what we have. The only way you can prove your point is by going there yourself and I would be happy to take you there. If you were a detective to solve a crime, would you not go to the crime scene to investigate or would you give your opinion in the court room without going there. That’s what you did. As a Bigfoot researcher you did not investigate correctly so how can you state your opinion. Again, I was there!!!!!

  19. admin says:

    If you’re making claims that a photograph has “CONFIRMED” the existence of Bigfoot, it had better be a CLEAR photograph that it isn’t open to interpretation.

    In other words… you shouldn’t have to outline the “figure”.

    When you bring evidence forth, it is up to YOU, as the claimant, to provide supporting evidence and thorough research. Especially if you’re crowing from the rooftops. Your supposed “evidence” is a single photograph, and a poor resolution one at that, in which the subject in question comprises approximately .05% of the total pixel data available in the photograph. Supporting evidence, then, would be photographs taken within STRICTLY controlled circumstances, from the exact location during the exact type of lighting, to PROVE that the subject in question WAS, in fact, there and was not a simple trick of light and shadow.

    You have failed, thus far, to provide that evidence to support your claim. And if you expect everyone who questions your claims and lack of supporting evidence to stop what they’re doing, get on a plane and head to your neck of the woods in order to gather it themselves, based upon a brown blob WAAAY in the back of a photograph, I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a while.

    I’m sorry, but I really don’t feel that this photograph warrants any more of my time. Even if it were a Sasquatch standing there, the photograph is not detailed enough to constitute “proof” in any way, shape or form.

    Others may feel differently, and I wish you the best of luck in your future research.

  20. Syd Henley says:

    Autumn, you have provided an excellent analysis of the photograph.
    If only every photograph of anomalous phenomena, be it claimed sightings of Bigfoot, Ghosts, or UFO’s, etc., could receive similar good quality analysis, investigators of such strange events, would be taken much more seriously by the establishment.

  21. Manda says:

    Just wanted to pop in and say ‘good on ya’ Autumn. :) I agree.

    Remember my own blobsquatch photo? I love that pic, because ‘who knows’ what it is… but is it proof (or even ‘evidence’) of a sas? Heck no! I like to think it’s one of the big guys peekin’ out at us, but hey… I’m happy if no one else buys it. :) THAT’S the attitude that I think these guys should take. Jeffery, if you KNOW it’s a sas, then be happy with that, and continue your work in the area. If you need to have validation from someone else, well… I dunno what that says about you, but you’re in the wrong biz.


  22. rob says:

    I have a hard time believing its anything really. If he was so convinced it was the creature in the flesh then why not stand there for an hour and see if it moves or walks away. I would’ve stood there all day if I was positive it was anything worth researching. I say its a weak point to say this is the real thing with no other photos or anything else to go on. Blobsquatch maybe but I don’t see anything other than that.

    [Editor’s note: Rob, the photo was supposedly taken with a game camera which was left out in the field… not a handheld camera. Hope this clarifies. – Autumn]

  23. Duane says:

    Autumn, You are an astute, well and soft spoken individual who is/has done wonderful things for the field of bigfoot research. Knowing what we all know to be true, it will take a photo of a large hairy bi-pedal monkey to prove to the world that the large one exists. Nothing less than that photo will suffice and it will still be scrutinized. We all know and love how well you put together your analysis of this well . . . thing in the photograph Jeffrey sent in to Sanger. Not that you need to hear this because I do not believe anyone would want to back you or any other creature such as a well . . . badger into a corner with nastiness about your personal life but will tell you nonetheless, nice work, nicely reported, nicely investigated and overall, objectively stated (Wheew take a breath).
    Jeffrey, go an please continue your research, it sounds like you are doing the work but it will take alot more than your rantings and an at best out of focus and out of range Blobsquatch to convince me and 99.7 or so other curious George types, MUCH LESS Autumn and other professional researchers that you have captured the elusive beast in a photo. NIce work but this is not the winner of the Million Dollar Prize (wink)

Comments are closed.