Silver Star Mountain Sasquatch

Status: Undetermined (but I'm pretty sure it's not a sasquatch)
image The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization has posted pictures of a weird figure recently spotted by a hiker on Silver Star Mountain in Washington state. To me the figure looks like another hiker. But the Bigfoot believers are convinced it's a sasquatch. As they note:

The photos are inconclusive, but they are potentially relevant. The figure you see could be a sasquatch. The silhouette is comparable to the lanky silhouette in the Marble Mountains footage. It also looks similar to some eyewitness sketches. As in the Marble Mountains footage , there's nothing in the outline to indicate that it's another person (except for the upright posture).

Maybe it was a guy walking around up there in a Bigfoot costume. In which case, I would have to add it to my list of Bigfoot hoaxes.

Cryptozoology

Posted on Sun Dec 04, 2005


Comments

They look like a guy in an anorak, with his hood up, to me.
Posted by Boo  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  02:59 AM
... and a backpack.
Posted by cvirtue  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  04:03 AM
Agreed.
😊
Posted by Boo  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  04:39 AM
Read somewhere Shaq recently went on vacation in the Washington Mountains. Coincidence?
Posted by Craig  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  05:45 AM
Looks like every picture of a hiker my husband has ever taken. 😊
Posted by Steph  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  06:03 AM
Is that a ski jacket collar I see in one of the pics?
Posted by LaMa  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  09:29 AM
I see the collar as well.....but, ofcoarse, maybe the so called big foot may have a clothing stock pile from the people that have had first hand encounters and never lived to tell about it.....it's obvious.
Posted by X  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  12:02 PM
Inconclusive. You can't see her feet at all. My hunch is it's real.
Posted by booch  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  12:51 PM
Did the photographer bother to walk up there and check for footprints?
Posted by Captain Al  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  01:29 PM
Some people see what they want to see. Years ago I was driving down an old county road one night when the radio news reported that a black panther had escaped from a local zoo.

Almost immediately after the report I saw a black panther walking towards my car in the opposite lane. It had its head slunk down. And it walked like a large cat, with its shoulder blades coming up and down as it walked. I was shocked and didn't know what to do.

But my quandary took care of itself as I passed the animal, before my eyes it turned into a black labrador retriever. I turned the car around to make sure, but it was just a big black dog walking along the side of the road.

Like I said, some people see what they want. That night I sure did.
Posted by Ima Fish  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  01:50 PM
Pictures, schmictures. Did they do the DNA test yet?
Posted by Big Gary in Eddy, Texas  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  04:14 PM
That black panther thing is pretty common, they're a frequent "sight" in the British Isles, and I'd be surprised if the Beast of Bodmin Moor turned out to be anything other than someone's pup taking itself for a walk. Just like your panther.
Posted by Anne  on  Mon Dec 05, 2005  at  10:19 PM
Ok. I admit it. I believe in Bigfoot. But even I think these guys are just being a little too hopefull. I mean:
A) You can't see it properly and
B) It is most likely just a person taking a walk up the mountain. These guys happen to catch the person on camera, thinking it's Bigfoot, and presto. Major publicity for them. People most likely are going there now more often just to see if they can see Bigfoot, while he's not really there.
Posted by Lady Hedoniste  on  Tue Dec 06, 2005  at  09:13 PM
I know the area pretty well, and it's far more likely to be a drunken redneck than bigfoot. Besides, if I saw something I thought was bigfoot, nothing would have stopped me from heading over that hill to get more evidence. That's the big thing that's lacking. Why just two far-away pictures?
Posted by Kristen  on  Wed Dec 07, 2005  at  11:13 PM
This picture is much to vague for anyone to be calling it bigfoot, especially the BFRO. The fact that they have been backing up these photos, and the "footage" from Sonoma, CA really makes me loose respect for the organization. I am a believer in bigffot, but there hasn't been any good footage since the Memorial Day footage, and there are only two other pieces of footage that are credible: the patterson footage, which is still the best, and the Paul Freeman footage. The Redwoods footage looks legit, but it's also questionable. Even with the proof of dermal ridges found on casts from the 1967 Patterson site, and other prints, science and the rest of the skeptics will never give interest until the smoking gun turns up.
Posted by A Thomas  on  Tue Jan 10, 2006  at  04:28 PM
i wondered about the follow up on this pic. then found this. i also question why the photog did not investigate closer. there are alot of footprints on the ridge between the pic and the object.
Posted by checkncheckagin  on  Sat Jan 28, 2006  at  12:18 PM
it is almost certainly a genuine sasquach.
Posted by Fraces Griffith  on  Mon Jul 10, 2006  at  06:56 PM
You cant see it and it is probably a hiker
Posted by Haggii  on  Sat Oct 21, 2006  at  02:12 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.