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.

 

Les Stroud. You all know who he is right? Well...

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

It does look fake, I'll give you that. Until it blinked! The wtf moment


I have to disagree. The blinking was the icing on the Hoax cake for me. In my opinion, this is so poorly done that it shouldn't be considered for even a second. Ok maybe for 1 second, but after that 1 second and you realize that the head you are looking at doesn't move, then it's back to claiming hoax.

If anything, the first close up of the head had me head scratching for a few seconds, but the second was just plain old CGI in my opinion.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

The head does move ever so slightly. Watch the branches around its mouth stationary against its head. There's movement.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

I am sorry, no amount of persuasion will convince me that this is real footage of big foot. I want there to be footage, and I believe that they exist but I don't believe this is it.

Obviously there are 2 different "creatures" in the clip right? Yet the only footage we have is of both of them being completely still (except for the minor movement you claim, not being facetious here but I don't see it yet) with the exception of an eye blink on the 2nd, which I think is wholly CGI anyway. To boot, they are both completely still with their mouths closed. It is just too convenient. Again, I believe the 2nd head shot is wholly CGI.

Have watched it full screen a few more times. I see a slight bobble forward to backward on the first head shot, I think this is the movement you are talking about. As for the 2nd head shot, the blink is way too slow to be natural. If it was an actual Bigfoot and it really blinked, it was done intentionally very slowly. Either way I haven't changed my mind.



edit on 7/9/2014 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

Did you notice the fly buzzing out of the first one's fur?

I have no intentions of convincing anyone really. I'm not even convinced.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve




the blink is way too slow to be natural.


Because the speed was slowed down. At least that's what I've read.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Yeah I did see the insect.

As well I saw some movement on the second head shot. At about 1:19 or 1:20 of the second head shot you can see the head come slightly forward. There is a branch in front of it's nose that covers it's nostril when the movement happens, but I can't find any movement what so ever in it's right shoulder.

As someone else mentioned, when you blink you don't move your eyebrow. This "creature" seems to move it's eye lid by moving it's eyebrow down. Again, I think the second headshot is wholly CGI.

Also I realize you aren't trying to convince me, just commenting. I am not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, just replying to you. Just so we are on the same page.
edit on 7/9/2014 by sputniksteve because: Clarifying.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: FlySolo

Yeah I did see the insect.

As well I saw some movement on the second head shot. At about 1:19 or 1:20 of the second head shot you can see the head come slightly forward. There is a branch in front of it's nose that covers it's nostril when the movement happens, but I can't find any movement what so ever in it's right shoulder.

As someone else mentioned, when you blink you don't move your eyebrow. This "creature" seems to move it's eye lid by moving it's eyebrow down. Again, I think the second headshot is wholly CGI.


Yes, anatomically incorrect. For human standards. idk, I'm not a neanderthal anthropologist.

Here's the movement


eta:
I think a good indicator if it's CGI or not would be to take as many frames as possible and compile them into a .gif. Then examine the light variance and shadows with the movement. Or compile it into the euralian software.

2nd eta: I want everyone to pay close attention to this gif. Now i'm no CGI expert but notice the out of focus frame of the branch. Notice the out of focus on its mouth (the spots).
edit on 9-7-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

That's what I was talking about thanks! Is it possible for you to do the same with it's shoulder region for the same time on the video? Does that make sense? As far as I can see there is no movement in the body. That in itself doesn't prove or disprove anything but sitting in my chair and trying to replicate that movement is very akward. Try and move your head without moving your neck or body. I don't see that as natural at all.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

I'm not sure if I can even see a shoulder. There's an out of focus branch obscuring its position



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I will say that when I saw this last month when it was broadcast I had a visceral reaction I have never, ever gotten from animatronics... my brain processed it as real.

Thousands of people swear they've experienced them... some real, not yet debunked, evidence in the form of morphologically correct, detailed prints and unidentified dna has been found.

All the stuff calling Standing a hoaxer stems from his evidence being too good and trying to get money for it as far as I can discern.

My gut tells me it's real and that's all I can say. As always, I sure could be wrong ... if so, Standing should be working in Hollywood for millions... no joke.

Reality changer... either way. Cool.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
How about these apples? My first response was hmph. Then followed by WTF ?!?


I remember reading somewhere "if Les Stroud can't find Bigfoot..." well I think he just did.

Have at it.


Hoax - squatchdetective.wordpress.com...

This was interesting too - bigfootresearch.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

There is definitely a spot that is basically his shoulder, although it isn't outlined, but there is fur where that spot is. In any case there is no movement there.

Either way, from what you pointed out on his lips, and the links provided above this is 100% hoax now in my opinion, no room for argument.

Embarrassing for Les and a couple others possibly. Oh well, we all knew when we clicked on it what we would get didn't we?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JrDavis

I don't think you read through the blog very much. After his analysis, I had a few questions regarding his methods.
First, why is he calling it a still? It's not a still, it comes from video. Then further down the page I found my answer:

“I think you’re full of crap. This “still” jpeg image was created from a single frame taken from a digital video source. Most likely an MTS file from an AVCHD capable camera. All you have to do is capture a screen shot of the original video, convert the captured image to jpeg format, and you can manipulate it and add all the “convincing” meta data yourself


This sounds entirely plausible. The meta data would then be changed. That was enough to raise reasonable doubt for me. Junk science.
edit on 9-7-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Watch the eye blink at about 1:13.
Look very Animatronic. If this was real, why isn't it all over the news? This kind of evidence should blow the lid off. But............. crickets.


Assume for a second this is real footage of a real bigfoot - we don't know the mannerisms of a creature as elusive as it. My first reaction was that he was sitting contently and looked down briefly, as if a fly landed on him. I think we're naturally inclined to automatically attract to the first hint of debunkery. The only reason I might sound like I'm defending this is because I absolutely refuse to believe that Les would be involved in anything that intentionally hoaxes the public. IMHO, he has a ton of credibility.

And the whole "why isn't this all over the news"? Exactly because of your reaction - no one in the main stream news would touch this seriously with a ten foot pole, exactly because of the strong potential of being a hoax, simply based on the track record of bigfoot so-called "evidence".

All that said, the biggest red-flag to me about this video is - where is the *rest* of the it?? This giant beast sitting in front of you and you only have a few fleeting moments of video? Isn't there something with more movement? Of it getting up? Turning its head? Why isn't this video longer?!?
edit on 9-7-2014 by redtic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo
Hoax.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I thought so too but there is eye movement in the beginning of the last scene.

I recall Les on the Joe Rogan podcast talking about his Big Foot encounter from days past so it would be ironic if he accident captured one on film while on Surviorman.

Love that show.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Just for fun, let's assume Bigfoot is real. A neanderthal primate undiscovered (technically) living in our national parks. Spying on campers as they sleep. Let's put all the hoaxing on the shelf for a moment and give the benefit of the doubt.
How full do you think your pants would get if this happened to you in the middle of nowhere?



The back story to this was he was apparently surround by about 5 BF as they strategically darted around him in the darkness. Breaking branches and generally just freaking him the F out.
edit on 10-7-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Did you ever see the Blair Witch Project? No witches or special effects were actually needed to sell the movie. People CAN freak out over nothing also but I highly suspect this is acting.

There are plenty of things in the woods that will eat you besides bigfoot. For instance, you would get the same effect from most people if a raccoon decided to grab some food from your campsite.


edit on 10-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

The brain itself IS the thing that scares us... wriggly, wet blob of pasta that it is... ewwww.

But it is designed to scare us for some good, usually furry and fanged, reasons that occasionally crossed paths with us.

As far as the Blair Witchy clip... acting? Maybe... possibly... probably... sure... but that clip of the little guy in the woods blinking... IF it's all b.s. as common sense would indicate, then whoever did the makeup sure as heck could make a very decent living as a special effects wizard... maybe Standing is doing the long con to set up a special effects career... or his "sister" is the genius as some have speculated... but gol' darn it, that make up is good.

And my autonomic nervous system told me that clip was of a biological creature... and no cgi, make up or animatronics has done that to me before... ever.

Personally, I'm filing this under "maybe"... but sure do lean towards "yes."

ETA and the clip was funny... but I've run into some fat, big, human tolerant 'coons that have bit better men than I to the bone... so maybe our brains have us so high strung for a reason... heh.


edit on 7/10/2014 by Baddogma because: grammaticalistic oopsie-daisy

edit on 7/10/2014 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

It´s Chewie!!!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join