In response to "The Beast of Seven Chutes"

Chutes Beast - Bigfoot Evidence

    Bigfoot Evidence, one of the most active bigfoot blogs on the internet, ran a story today on a photograph taken in 2005  in Seven Chutes Park, Quebec. In the photo one can see what appears to be a humanoid figure standing upright and grasping a white...well, a white something (there is much debate as to what the figure is holding, dead animal? Small dog? We're really not sure). The story was quite informative and did a great job bringing this photo and subsequent comparison photos to light. However, I feel that I must disagree with the author on one specific point.

    The photo on the right is zoomed in on the "beast" (The original can be found here). The author of Bigfoot Evidence's story on this alleged creature proposes the theory that the figure has a snout, "This animal has a snout like a dog or wolf, leading some to call it a 'dogman' or a werewolf." The author continues to say that this figure does not "match up" with most descriptions by bigfoot eyewitnesses and lists a few reported sightings of a "dogman" creature from Michigan and Wisconsin. Now, I'm not here to shoot down evidence for other possible cryptids, but I highly doubt this photo shows any "werewolf" type creature.

    At first glance, the animal does appear to have a snout. However, the longer I look at it, the more I am inclined to believe that this "snout" is an illusion created by a combination of bald skin on a sasquatches face mixed with a low resolution photograph. Many researchers believe, and many eyewitnesses confirm, that sasquatches have bald faces. If this is indeed the case, lighter colored skin on the face would cause glare or light reflection (to a small degree) in the facial region. Viewed in a low resolution photograph this could cause light artifacts. I believe this "snout" is exactly that.

    So, if this figure isn't the wolfman, what is it? Some commenters on Bigfoot Evidence thought it could be a misidentified tree stump. However, the photographer knew what he was doing and returned to the location to take follow up photos. The follow up photos (also included in the Bigfoot Evidence article) clearly show there is no tree stump in the vicinity.

    (Note: If you are lucky enough to get a photo of an unidentified animal, always, always, always, return to the spot and take follow up photos. Or, contact an organization like the BFRO and have them do so. This helps in analyzing the photo immensely.)

    Although the figure does appear to have some typical saquatch features (oval shaped head, defined brow ridge, auburn-brown colored hair) I think we have another blobsquatch. Now, I'm not saying this isn't a bigfoot, I'm just saying the figure isn't clear enough to declare either way. As a bigfoot enthusiast I am coming into this situation with a bias. I want this photo to show a bigfoot. But it is important to try to minimize the effects of bias when considering evidence such as the above.

    Many thanks to Bigfoot Evidence for drawing attention to this story and author Vicki W for her work. For further reading, Phantoms And Monsters ran a story on this photo which can be found here. Their story included a bit more background on the photographer as well as the conditions in which the photos were taken. The photographer behind these photos has also created a website to explore possibilities of exactly what this animal could be. It can be found here.

    Thanks for reading!

- A.Z.