Just happened upon this and found it interesting. Thought I would share it you rogues and roguettes . 

Quote:There is an astonishing photo from Canada taken in 1894 which would seem to be the oldest known photograph of bigfoot. The photo had originally been sent to Tom Biscardi by Lyle Billett of Victoria, Canada. Cryptomundo blogger Loren Coleman then posted the photo on his website, where I saw it. The photo also appears in the updated version of the 1982 book Bigfoot Casebook by Colin and Janet Bord.

It is said that a picture tells a thousand words, and this photo says a lot. It does not seem to be a fake. The photo is cracked from a fold in the upper quarter. A sasquatch is lying on the snow with its arms in front, so the hairy hands can be seen. The face is hairy but not very detailed. Snowshoes can be seen at the left edge of the photo. There seems to be a fence and a building on the right side, just beneath the crack. The feet of the dead sasquatch are not seen, cropped out of the right side of the photo.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplai...Ykz70gD_tI

(09-11-2020, 10:45 PM)kdog Wrote: Just happened upon this and found it interesting. Thought I would share it you rogues and roguettes . 

Quote:There is an astonishing photo from Canada taken in 1894 which would seem to be the oldest known photograph of bigfoot. The photo had originally been sent to Tom Biscardi by Lyle Billett of Victoria, Canada. Cryptomundo blogger Loren Coleman then posted the photo on his website, where I saw it. The photo also appears in the updated version of the 1982 book Bigfoot Casebook by Colin and Janet Bord.

It is said that a picture tells a thousand words, and this photo says a lot. It does not seem to be a fake. The photo is cracked from a fold in the upper quarter. A sasquatch is lying on the snow with its arms in front, so the hairy hands can be seen. The face is hairy but not very detailed. Snowshoes can be seen at the left edge of the photo. There seems to be a fence and a building on the right side, just beneath the crack. The feet of the dead sasquatch are not seen, cropped out of the right side of the photo.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplai...Ykz70gD_tI

you'd think they'd have got the feet in the picture, after all they were one of the key features even back then.

(09-11-2020, 10:56 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

I don't know. It doesn't look big enough in the hip and leg areas to be a Bigfoot.  Hard to fake those old photos, but still...  

Starving bear.

Understand that comes from someone who believes bigfoot is real, because I've seen one. This ain't one.

ETA: If that critter is bigger than a rag doll, then those are some HUGE snowshoes - who is REALLY the "big foot" around there?

.

I can't for the life of me see that as a Bigfoot or bear, but when I zoom in and rotate 90 degrees so the head is at the top of the picture, I can see a dog's head plain as day. So if its a dog, then the back half is really messed up. 

Looking at it again, the back end seems to be covered with something. Blanket? Tarpaulin?

It certainly look like a dog in the head area. The sholder to buttox area looks plausable for a thin human and the point at which the leg is raised as would be in a step.. That jives in my opinion. But what we see as a face appears a dog. The two nostril cavities packed with snow...  It is difficult to make a decission even enlarging the picture or turning it. The best view seemed to be the one given by you.

Another thing. the arm length. Most people's extended arm is below the hips a few inches at the extended fingertips.....

(09-11-2020, 10:56 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

I don't know. It doesn't look big enough in the hip and leg areas to be a Bigfoot.  Hard to fake those old photos, but still...  

What makes you think that the area you assume is the hip and leg region is exactly that?
(I'm not being nasty or confrontational!)

The lack of snow on what we would think is the lower extremities isn't there and I'd guess
it hadn't just been robbed of its trousers! I think there's been some 'cleaning-up' of the
image and what you're seeing is the back of another dead animal.

I'd venture further to say I can see some work done on the dark 'leg' area where dots -the
forerunner of pixels, have been duplicated. The sapling in the centre doesn't make sense
and may be something connected to any alteration.

In my humble and respectful opinion.

How big do you guys think the snowshoes are? I'm trying to get a sense of scale here.

(11-11-2020, 10:19 AM)WonderCow Wrote: How big do you guys think the snowshoes are? I'm trying to get a sense of scale here.

Those ones are big...i would say a 6 foot tall man would have that snowhshoe go over his hip and under his bottom rib max.

So those shoes are three to four foot long?

I have spent a couple of days googling various creatures sleeping or laying on their side and have come to some conclusions.

One, this creature is a quadruped, there are no obvious shoulders like we have. Therefore not a primate, certainly not Bigfoot. A sleeping ape looks nothing like this.

Two, what everyone thinks are its arms have all the joints in the wrong places, however, they are in the right places for the front legs of a large dog.

I think we are looking at something like one of the leggier newfoudland poodle crosses, its legs are just in an odd position making the chest and neck look strange, the back legs are pulled out straight behind it. 

Nothing anomalous, just a large dead? dog.