Bigfoot allegedly photographed in Virginia on June 28, 2014

a reply to: Rob48

Oh I see. Is it correct to say you're saying it's the same tree in both pics?

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.

because the trees circled in your post are not the same trees. the one circled in the top pic is also the one on the very edge of the bigfoot bush in the bottom and the one circled in the bottom pic is the leaning one next to the one that is just left on the outside of the red circle in the top pic.


beaten to it

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48

Oh I see. Is it correct to say you're saying it's the same tree in both pics?

here.




see whats going on here?

a reply to: Rob48

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.

Either things are getting lost in translation or...idk.

That fallen tree is NOT going to appear as an illusion on the other side of that broken tree stump. This is where you lose me and I think your pounding square pegs in round holes.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Yes I see. Both of you are using a parallax description to explain the illusion of a fallen tree on the opposite side of a tree trunk. Which is impossible

a reply to: FlySolo

I'm certain you think we're both idiots.

That was the point of the gif and pics showing the perception change which will show you that the bigfoot thing is flat and not a real flesh and bone creature

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

No, I don't think you're being idiots. I just think you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If the top picture you made with #1&2 shows a tree moving to the left of a tree trunk caused by the parallax effect, then how is it possible in the same picture showing the tree branches in the water move to the right? Follow what I'm saying?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

No, I don't think you're being idiots. I just think you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If the top picture you made with #1&2 shows a tree moving to the left of a tree trunk caused by the parallax effect, then how is it possible in the same picture showing the tree roots in the water move to the right? Follow what I'm saying?

I already explained this.

The tree roots in the water are CLOSER to the camera than the "Bigfoot".

The tree in the background is FURTHER from the camera.

The GIF treats "Bigfoot" as the fixed point, so as the camera swings round, objects in front of it will swing one way, objects behind it will go the other way.

This is the GIF that made it clear to me. Look how the foreground swings one way and the background swings the other way.

Imagine projecting that pink line back, right through the "Bigfoot", into the trees behind. It should be clear that if you do that, the "back end" of the line, behind Bigfoot, swings the opposite way to the "front end", right?

a reply to: FlySolo

im going to assume you mean the branches in the water from the bottom pic that look like they are attached to land in the top pic because the camera moved to the front position on them.

Im not talking about magic motion, im using the trees as an example. in the top pic where the camera is front on the "bigfoot" of course the bigfoot is flat and pretty and seems to be 3 dimensional. In the bottom pic when the camera has moved more to the side of the "bigfoot" if you zoom in there on it, you can see the 2 dimensional cut out has distorted like a flat object would and it has been set against the foliage at its back.

My bs detector just blew a fuse !
(Voice of comic book guy)
Worst video ever !

a reply to: Rob48

Imagine projecting that pink line back, right through the "Bigfoot", into the trees behind. It should be clear that if you do that, the "back end" of the line, behind Bigfoot, swings the opposite way to the "front end", right?

You're correct to a point. But trying to get behind you in your reasoning here...I just can't get there. The large broken trunk that the fallen tree jumps to the left of, should ALSO move in relation to perspective. But it doesn't. Not much anyway compared to the rest of the illusion. The more I put myself into your head space to conclude the same, the more it doesn't make sense. Too many things moving dramatically and to many things staying in the same spot.

so let see now... math time!!

1 BF = 3 BF's = 7 BF's and so on and on

in order to have baby, we will assume that there are 2 parents... and each of those 2 parents had 2 parents,,, there would have to be an awful lot of BF's running around to have sustainable pop. Sorry folks, just isn't possible.

Unless of course we can assume that there are only 3 BF's, and they use their own private chartered jet to fly around the world and randomly run across the road in front of people.

I believe that,,,, I fly Sasquatch United all the time!!

And BTW, after looking at those images again, I'm about 99% sure it's a case of pareidolia - I don't know what it is, but I think it's something inanimate (part of a tree, stump, etc), and about 99.9999% sure it's *not* a bigfoot. And if it is inanimate, and indeed was not moving, they had to know that (or are just really dumb) - so, I'm claiming hoax, or intentional pareidolia, if you will.

originally posted by: Jefferton
#1. Worst BF video of all time.

#2. How does this crap keep getting posted?

#3. Who stars & flags this garbage?

#4. Where is my beer?

Sasquach got your beer bro.

a reply to: FlySolo

The large broken trunk is right on the shoreline, and therefore at almost the same distance from the camera as the Bigfoot.

Best way to figure it out, if it is really bothering you, is to put four objects on a table in the right spots and move around to look from different angles.

Another thing in favour of hoax: why not release the original photos?

Everyone knows that once YouTube gets its hands on anything it gets compressed to crap. YouTube has to be about the worst place you could possibly choose to post still photos!

a reply to: Rob48

Please sir, this isn't my first day of life. I will say without a doubt, that tree will not jump to the other side of another when only moving 20 feet or less while everything else stays in its place. Maybe go take a camera out and snap pics of trees. Your point is the only thing keeping your premise together. Without it, means, well...back to the drawing board.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48

Imagine projecting that pink line back, right through the "Bigfoot", into the trees behind. It should be clear that if you do that, the "back end" of the line, behind Bigfoot, swings the opposite way to the "front end", right?

You're correct to a point. But trying to get behind you in your reasoning here...I just can't get there. The large broken trunk that the fallen tree jumps to the left of, should ALSO move in relation to perspective. But it doesn't. Not much anyway compared to the rest of the illusion. The more I put myself into your head space to conclude the same, the more it doesn't make sense. Too many things moving dramatically and to many things staying in the same spot.

Ok, i'm going to try to explain this to you one last time. If you don't get it after this, I'm going to drop out of the debate because i have more important things to do then try to explain what should be obvious to anyone who has ever been out in the forest.

In my post with the pics of trees labeled 1 and 2, lets say the top pic is the first one taken and the direction of travel by the camera man is to the left. in the bottom pic the camera man had traveled many feet to the left, the branches that looked like roots, you can now see are branches farther out in the water. tree 1 is farthest behind the focal point in the top pic and to the right of the stump, in the bottom pic it is to the left of the stump because the stump is closer to the camera. get it now?

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

No I don't get it because it just doesn't make any sense what so ever. Not because of me mind you...
In order to get that tree to move to the left of the stump/trunk or what have you, you would have to damn near be standing behind it. That's the only way you can reach such a leap in perspective. I don't care how far you walk snapping pictures of two trees to get one to appear the be on the other side. It will NEVER go to the other side. By then, you'll end up 180 degrees to the side. Even then it would never appear completely on the other side.

Give it up.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
It's their elusiveness that's the best evidence they aren't real.

Seriously. Something this big can't hide nowadays. It'd need a fair population to survive. Many others have mentioned about this.

I think generally mammals are mostly known about, although there're still species in the jungles we may not know about. I think when they go and explore extreme depths in the ocena, they still find new stuff. It's hte oceans we really do not know as much about - they're so voluminous. But I don't htink anyone is going to find a bigfoot in the ocean.

a reply to: FlySolo

You either know you're wrong and refuse to admit it, are trolling something fierce, or you genuinely don't get it.
Everyone reading this is most likely wondering why you for whatever reason cannot get it. this is fairly simple.
anyway, true to my word. im out