Worst. Bigfoot. Ever.

A photo of a Bigfoot looking at a camera on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state. This is apparently the first photo of a DNA-proven Bigfoot ever released.

via Bigfoot Lunch Club:: Bigfoot DNA News Updates.

This is the supposed photo of a Bigfoot that licked the camera and left DNA.

Possibly, there is smoking involved. I’ll not say what kind.

It is supposed to be this.

Credit: Chris Gunter

But, HAHAHAHA. I can’t help it. It’s so absurd, even if genuine, what the hell are we supposed to think!?

For more on the current circus of DNA and clownery, see this post from Over the Line, Smokey.

Tip: Matt Crowley

UPDATE: Jeff Meldrum has responded to Robert Lindsay’s claim that he was at the Sierra Kills site. It’s a hoot. Just FYI. Do not trust RL as a source. Very unreliable. And, I’ll bet he shows up to yell at me again…

  16 comments for “Worst. Bigfoot. Ever.

  1. January 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM

    Hah! I think the Bigfoot Lunch Club probably munched on some psilocybin mushrooms (which grow abundantly on the Olympic Peninsula) beforehand.

    • idoubtit
      January 26, 2012 at 9:06 AM

      They are just reporting it. The belief that this is genuine comes from the Bigfoot community itself. It’s hard to comprehend, I know. But stuff like this? Wow, what do they expect the public to think about them? It’s ridiculous.

  2. January 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    That image is just as clear as any of the logic that supports the existence of Bigfoot.

  3. LREKing
    January 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    Where are the earlier frames showing BF noticing the camera, touching it, and smelling it before tasting it?

    And then maybe peeing on it before he wandered off?

    Just pitiful.

  4. Massachusetts
    January 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM

    I just don’t get it. Hypothetically speaking, If I saw a Sasquatch and believed what I saw was in fact a real unknown animal, and I got a photograph of this quality, I wouldn’t dare show it to anyone. Ok maybe one person, but more than one person rallying behind it? If that’s what’s happening it’s just nuts.

    • idoubtit
      January 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM

      I agree. That was my point. Why bother with this? It does more harm than any good.

      • Massachusetts
        January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

        I may be wrong but hasn’t the Olympic project insisted in the past that they had fantastic photographic evidence to support the existence of the Sasquatch? That seems to contradict this release, which even they admit isn’t definitive by any means, but which they now claim is the best they have. Maybe I’m confusing it with the other Bigfoot projects out there.

  5. Massachusetts
    January 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

    I’ve been quickly reading some of the stuff about this online. The reasoning seems to be based on the belief that the bigfoot speciman was “100% proven by DNA” so the picture is simply accepted as valid. After all, if it’s proven by DNA to be a Sasquatch, then it’s ok if the picture is blury, it can’t be anything else. Presumably the DNA came from saliva on the camera that was being licked?

    • idoubtit
      January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

      I’m not sure this is clear. It’s all sooper sekrit! It’s all hokey. I can’t buy into this at all.

  6. Massachusetts
    January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

    Yes it does seem to be pretty hokey. Sorry, though, if my post trying to explain the mindset of the people who do buy it wasn’t clear.

    There are more photos associated with this trail cam incident. Check them out here:

    http://www.olympicproject.com/id13.html

    If you look carefully, you may see what looks like the left flank and rear leg of a deer in the top photo (as though it’s head is down grazing.) I think people think this is a sasquatch? All the images seem pretty blobby and poor and that’s the best one, but I see a deer.

    Interesting, though, that I do see more of an image as I keep looking at the original blobby photo. It looks like a scruffy guy with his hand up to his face, and he has bangs. Seriously–it’s kind of like looking up at the clouds for a while and suddenly you see something you recognize. I think this is what people may be picking up on, saying “oh yeah, now I see it the more I look, and hey, there’s DNA too, so OK, now I believe.”

  7. idoubtit
    January 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    Oh, I’m glad you linked to that. I did go to that site and saw those pictures before I posted this story.

  8. Massachusetts
    January 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

    You’re welcome. But actually I just read the comments on that site more closely and the deer picture I pointed out is in fact described as a deer picture. Which is nuts because all the other pictures are completely blurry and such. So I don’t know what they are seeing when they see a Bigfoot, other than the aforementioned cloud effect. All we’ve heard about these various projects is how fantastic the photography is, but we keep getting these smudges and tufts of random, blurry fur.

  9. Massachusetts
    January 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM

    Hey, if I saw a 10 foot anthropoid one fine night I’d probably be a believer too, but not with these photos!

  10. Massachusetts
    January 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

    By the way, the artists conception is not what I see. I see a “hand” blocking the left eye, and hair coming down that’s probably just over the eyes anyway. The alleged nose is very high up and knobby, and the mouth small and perky. It really does remind me of an almost cartoonish hippyish character. I’m surprised they didn’t pick someone who could draw it more closely to what they are describing (no hand in his version.) It’s all very minimalist and smudgy / chiaroscuro–more like a drawing than a photograph (and I’m talking about the photograph, not the artist’s drawing.)

  11. RayG
    January 31, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    I took the original image, and after colorizing, stabilizing, generalizing, and deodorizing it, came up with this:

    http://www3.sympatico.ca/raygavel/jesusfacepalmclear.jpg

    Not being serious of course, but it seems the only time bigfoot has appeared in the last 40 years, is through liberal application of pareidolia.

    RayG

    • idoubtit
      January 31, 2012 at 9:50 AM

      That is VERY interesting. Thanks, Ray!

Comments are closed.