Bigfoot allegedly photographed in Virginia on June 28, 2014

originally posted by: FlySolo
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.

Where are you getting "20 feet" from?

The pink line I drew which joins the roots in the water to the stump is almost pointing straight at the camera in the first frame. Look at the angle it makes in the second one — way off to the right.

And remember, these are not full frame. They are cropped from the original photos.

Look how much water is in the foreground of the image on the video.



To get that change of angle, the camera moved much further than 20 feet.

Flat (roughly concave) burned out tree stump. I did a quick rough 3-D stereo pair of the scene and it's pretty clear. Sorry all you Bigfoot enthusiasts. Keep looking elsewhere.

I apologize if you take offense, none is intended, but this is the kind of video and setup that hurts bigfoot research more than it helps. It's not intriguing evidence; it was a single photo of a blobsquatch. The spelling was atrocious, sorry but if you are going to scroll a story in your video, you should use spell check at least. Unless it was intentional to make people who are interested in bigfoot look ignorant. Also, you can't help but notice the "click here to help support this" setup. Let me guess, doing so is a way to help the person who posted this video make money?

This is terrible...

And the people who just shot at night, into the woods at "something" are absolutely disgraceful.

originally posted by: blupblup
This is terrible...

And the people who just shot at night, into the woods at "something" are absolutely disgraceful.

sad story.
I lived near a guy a few years back who shot at something in the dark without identifying it.
He shot his own dog.

A Bigfoot selfie would be much more exciting. a reply to: Springer

originally posted by: FlySolo
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.

Right, this is my last post on Perspective 101. I just snapped these two photos in the car park.



Tree in background appears to RIGHT of tree in foreground, ie between foreground tree and metal post.

I now take THREE PACES to my left.



Tree in background now appears to LEFT of tree in foreground. And yet the round manhole cover on the ground has moved RIGHT! How about that?

Three paces, that is all. No "going behind the tree" or anything like that. "I don't care how far you walk, it will NEVER go to the other side". Er, yes it does.

I can't believe I am explaining basic perspective on a Bigfoot thread

So Springer...you've BANNED any talk about an Elvis/John Cotner connection and even insulted those who were involved in the discussion. THEN YOU POST THIS CRAP! Get a life! What makes you the expert on what's ridiculous and what's not. A cell phone photo of black fur!?

a reply to: Battlefresh

His house, his rules.

a reply to: Rob48

Bravo! Except 3 feet at 6 feet away from your subject would be like 3 inches at 75-100 feet like in the OP picture.
This is what I'm talking about man. Your spacial ratio is waaaay off. And you're arguing with me about it. smh

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48

Bravo! Except 3 feet at 6 feet away from your subject would be like 3 inches at 75-100 feet like in the OP picture.

Yes, and 40-50 feet at a distance of 75-100ft would be exactly the same angular motion as 3ft at a distance of 6ft.

And the camera could easily have moved more than 50ft to the side between shots.

Look at the angle. The camera has turned through at least 45 degrees wrt the line from stump to the roots in the water. You can see how much the "Bigfoot" has rotated.

Over and out.

a reply to: Springer

I'll say this...if I shot something that "red eyes," and it did not die and ran off causing a commotion equivalent to a "volkswagon(sic)," when it hit the water, I sure would have contacted the DNR/conservation officer that very instant and would not let it go until I received an explanation of some sort...
"Clearest most "non-blurred," images I have ever seen..."the video poster says...yeah....right...

a reply to: Rob48

And you can see significantly more of the left hand edge of the "Bigfoot" stump in frame 2

Classic...that ought to be retained as a signature line...LMAO!

originally posted by: TSOM87
What would happen if we found it/them? Would we go down the road of putting them in Zoo's and doing Experiments on them? Could we just leave them as they are? Would that be possible knowing that they are alot of gun nuts who love the hunt fix.

Observing nature and history it would all depend whether we can communicate with them and their intelligence level.

If we are significantly smarter than them, it will not be good for them, and they better hope there aren't any Asian legends about big foot tooth powder.

Might not be a good thing when and if ET makes contact with us.

A little selective color enhancement really brings out the shape of... nothing.

Whatever it is, it's holding something IMO.

a reply to: Rob48
Where are the Daniel Boone's of our time? We need a bonafide bear rassler to go out and get those s.o.b.'s.

originally posted by: FistOfFreedom
Whatever it is, it's holding something IMO.

Those two white spots? If it's holding something, it doesn't move it at all in the time between image one and image two.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: FistOfFreedom
Whatever it is, it's holding something IMO.

Those two white spots? If it's holding something, it doesn't move it at all in the time between image one and image two.

That or it has a patch of white.. hmm.

a reply to: Springer

What 15 year old or even a grown man calls his father "daddy".

I call this fake, maybe a burned tree like ThinkingCap said or a bear at the waters edge like Rob48 said.

Stari