It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bigfoot allegedly photographed in Virginia on June 28, 2014

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: TDawg61
Someone should call Trapper and his A.I.M.S.team for an investigation.Their in Virginia.
Btw, if bigfoots supposedly weigh 5 or 600lbs.that one must be the runt of the litter.


Don't you know they have whole families of big feet in the forest now. Just ask Bo Bo. I think the Trapper crew is the most hysterical show on TV. Shear hillbilly comedy.


That show is fake and scripted. And "hillbillys" aren't the executive producers of it, either. So is it really "hillbilly comedy" or just an attempt to show hillbillys in a certain light? rhetorical. Oh, and the hillbilly ginseng show is fake too. I know many of those people and have ginsenged all my life. I laughed when I watched that stupid show. One of the main characters on that show said that if those TV idiots want to pay the money that they do, they'll go along with it. And the creators and producers of that show aren't "hillbillys" either. Go figure.


OT:
Why do people always insert stupid music behind their videos? That takes away from the authenticity of it, I think.


I don't know about showing hillbillies in a bad light, but as a Virginia resident I am surrounded and enjoy every minute. You know the show is fake when they never catch anything, only have one FLIR, there gun handling is down right scary, and not one has an AR10 you want a 308 if the creatures were real. Not a handgun and a shotgun.

Blood, bones and buds..... Lets make it a show!




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

I'm trying to follow your logic and I've looked. Are you really saying both pictures are of the exact same spot but just a slight shift in camera perspective?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Is this some inside joke? Did you just tell your buddies "hey, I'm going to post a lame bigfoot story/image and I bet I get people to star my post" I don't know what's crazier, the very lame image or that people did in fact star the post...uggghhhh



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ThinkingCap

Les Stroud did have a bigfoot special and I'm sorry to say that he is falling into the trap of making a quick buck off of this hype...he had a person who alleged having some bigfoot contact which inlcuded a horrible special effects bigfood head on video..Les said that he could not confirm nor deny it's aunthenticity.....what a joke..



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I played with the photo lighting,contrast, and such.

It looks like a guy in a ghillie suit holding either a rock or a piece of wood
Edit: it appears im having issues with resizing
edit on 7/2/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48

I'm trying to follow your logic and I've looked. Are you really saying both pictures are of the exact same spot but just a slight shift in camera perspective?


Not a slight shift. Quite a big shift. And taken from further away than you might think.

Here are seven separate features labelled with the same colour in each frame.



Look at how the perspective shifts. I've centred the GIF on the "Bigfoot".

Objects closer to the camera, like the tangle of roots or branches in the water, ringed in blue, appear to shift right

Objects further from the camera, like the trees in the background ringed in purple, the branch ringed in orange and the tree trunk ringed in red, appear to shift left

Objects at a similar distance from the camera as the "Bigfoot", such as the large stump ringed in yellow and the small branch on the shore ringed in purple, appear not to move much.

Simple perspective. Try arranging a few objects on your desk at different distances and shifting your viewpoint back and forth and you'll see.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

LOL! its a cut out propped on the woodline
great stuff



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

You're spending way too much time on this. In the bushes, you'll get many objects that appear to be the same. While you might have a point about the perspective thing, I really don't see what that point resolves. It's rather distracting from the thread actually. What gets me about your perspective issue is, how can a branch that's on the right of a stump get to the left of the stump? Perspective alone won't do this.

Anyway, what was your point again? I assume you're trying to say it's a hoax or something because some branches changed perspective and the camera guy changed positions.

idk, you tell me.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

It's not distracting to the thread at all.
The point of the perspective issue is- one pic is from the direct front view, the other is(from the angle of the camera) quite a bit further to the left. This is where it gets silly, the "bigfoot" distorts in a way that no 3 dimensional creature would. the point, it's a 2 dimensional image thats clearly being rested against a bush.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

I am saying it is the same object, motionless from two very different vantage points.

Here, perhaps this will help you see how much the camera has swung round.

I've drawn a line connecting the stump to the half-submerged roots/branches in the water.



That line is stationary. See how the camera has moved round and you are now looking at the side of the stump? Either that or Bigfoot has suddenly got skinnier!


What gets me about your perspective issue is, how can a branch that's on the right of a stump get to the left of the stump? Perspective alone won't do this.


Do you see now? Follow that line back behind the "Bigfoot" stump. That leaning treestump in the back will appear to swing around to the left, behind the prominent upright stump closer to the riverbank. The camera is rotating as well as moving sideways.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
What kind of ignorant fool tells their child to shot into the dark at night?

Seriously!

It could have been someone drunk, lost, scared, on drugs, or maybe even a mentally ill child/person.

Any outdoor-mans/sportmans knows never to shoot at something, unless you know exactly what it is and you have a clear shot to kill.

Not sure about the entire story and the pics, but something doesn't feel right about this one.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I believe in bigfoot.

This is not real.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

So this idiot starts shooting without knowing what he is shooting at. Ya, I trust people like that.....YA. As for the picture what is more likely a mythical creature that has never been captured or a bear. I do appreciate the post OP this is what ATS really is about and what brought me here.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I haven't read the entire thread, but a few thoughts come to mind:

- What does the first incident have to do with the second? The only thing it possibly does is make the 2nd incident more questionable, in that he likely went out there *wanting* to see a bigfoot, so was more open to suggestion. The 2nd incident has to stand on its own, and it can hardly do that based on those photos.
- Why only 2 photos? If I were to see something that I strongly believed to a be a mythical creature, I'm snapping like crazy.
- Why no video? Unless he has an older phone, just about every phone that does photos does video.
- Did he witness this thing making movement?

And thanks to Rob48 for his analysis - at the very least, it provides a much better perspective on those photos.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Let's keep this simple for starters.




the first picture, the camera is dead on straight. Notice nothing in the red circle
the second picture, the camera has stepped to the right and looking left. Notice the fallen tree in the circle.

It's irrelevant which picture is first btw so let's not get caught up on that. Why would a fallen tree be more visible when looking to the left than being dead on? If, in fact you're correct about this being the exact same spot.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It looks like a charred tree to me.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
25 years ago cell phones didnt exist like they do now. Nor did they have a camera. It was a bag with a shoulder strap. Also, if they went out camping, I doubt they were there to take pictures of nature. Most likely killing things in nature, though.
a reply to: roadgravel



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

The image is interesting Springer it however is hard to get a good exterior make on it from the photos. It is amazing how elusive these CREATURES are or may be. Maybe its associated with their past encounters with humans or others that has made them hard to capture good imagery of.
At times when pondering the underground passages of MALTA & the lady C. Lois Jessop who ventured into them & her description of what she observed there seemed to be BF like beings there. So there is strong evidence possibly of other large primates unclassified as of yet being here factor in them having technology and things may be better left hidden until correct times...

NAMASTE*******
edit on 7/2/14 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48

Let's keep this simple for starters.




the first picture, the camera is dead on straight. Notice nothing in the red circle
the second picture, the camera has stepped to the right and looking left. Notice the fallen tree in the circle.

It's irrelevant which picture is first btw so let's not get caught up on that. Why would a fallen tree be more visible when looking to the left than being dead on? If, in fact you're correct about this being the exact same spot.


Those aren't the same trees. The tall thin tree circled in the top picture is almost hidden behind the "Bigfoot" stump in the bottom one. (You can just see it to the left of Bigfoot, to the right of your circle).

The fallen one you have circled in the bottom picture is visible just to the left of the tall white stump in the top one.

Look at my GIF above with the pink line. It makes the rotation obvious, and shows why the fallen tree appears to "move the other side" of the stump.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

I'm calling Hoax and here's why: On the very same day the pictures were supposedly taken, June 28, the youtube video was created and uploaded to youtube, complete with spooky music, effects, a call to subscribe at the end of the video to support .....support what?
It reeks of hoax to me...just my opinion. (please move to skunk works...haha...oh wait you're the site owner.)




top topics



 
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join