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.

 

New Bigfoot Photos ( Taken By Hiker 11-17-05 )

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:
Wig

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Hi there,

Glad someone is interested.
The original BFRO page on this
www.bfro.net...

I believe the latest photo is the first photo taken, RC gives a short accont of what happened on this page
www.coasttocoastam.com...


Right after I took the first shot it moved or stood up, and I took another picture. It then moved toward the south, away from me. I had to readjust because the wind was so strong, and it was difficult to move because the snow was waist deep. I got closer to a rock to steady myself and took another picture. By then it was moving down the hill.


Photo #1

Photo #2

Photo #3


The first & second photos are most likely going to be the ones with the rocks in the fore ground, he then got close to these rocks, hence you can't see them in the 3rd shot.

The only problem is the BFRO website numbers our photo #3 as 029 and our photo #2 as 030. If those were the numbers given by the digital camera, and BFRO did not alter the numbers, we have to ask why the photo numbers don't match the story.

Mind you, he does only mention 3 photos, and he says it stood up *after* taking the first photo, well our #1 is already standing, and our #2 is turned away from the camera. So is this a hole in the story or is there a fourth photo (the real photo No1) still to be released? OR perhaps our #1 is how he first saw it (because it is slightly hunched isn't it) and it stood up from that position.




[edit on 21/12/2006 by Wig]




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Photo #1 intrigues me, the posture, the almost lack of an apparent neck, the arms hanging down.

Sure, it COULD be a guy in a big gortex coat but I still think its worthy of more attention and investigation.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
My first thought upon seeing the photos was that the suspected Big Foot is a rock formation.
The seems to be what effect did the photographers movements have on the photos that were taken after the first one ?

The increase in size of the suspected Big Foot could be explained by the Photographer moving close to the object. The change in angle of the suspected Big Foot is harder to explain. The only real way to clear this up would be to have someone pay a visit to the area with a camera.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think these are some of the most interesting alleged photos of bigfoot I've seen in a while, good find!


Not sure though if the statement that they were pulled directly off the digital camera means much though, I can save images back to my camera from my computer.


That was a nice find!



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Nice find, but they aren't that new, there from last year if I'm not mistaken. About the story, people's minds can play dirty tricks on their memories so don't get worked up if there is a tiny hole in his story, he might just have a blank you know. Anyways Happy holidays to everybody!


-Jimmy-



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here. "



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I have seen these pictures about a year ago, back then I wasn't an ATS member yet...

When I look at then now I still have mixed thoughts about it. The first time I saw it I was sure that it was fake. But as I took the time to think about it I more and more got the feeling that it might be something after all...

It's too bad that there are so little images like these available, because real or not, this picture is beautiful



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Hmmm, Why are all the pictures of "big foot" always blurry, and you can never distinguish the details on him? With all the advanced cameras and photo shops, I'd think we'd be able to get a good picture of "big foot" And if it was so mysterious, why didn’t the photographer get a little closer to get a better picture to prove that it was big foot?

Makes ya wonder doesn't it?


[edit on 2-1-2007 by MissAshleyDear]


Wig

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MissAshleyDear
Hmmm, Why are all the pictures of "big foot" always blurry, and you can never distinguish the details on him? With all the advanced cameras and photo shops, I'd think we'd be able to get a good picture of "big foot" And if it was so mysterious, why didn’t the photographer get a little closer to get a better picture to prove that it was big foot?

Makes ya wonder doesn't it?


Yeah it does make me wonder, like I wonder why you haven't bothered to read the photographers story before posting. I also wonder why anyone would think these pictures are blurry they are beatiful photos in focus. As to why they are not zoomed in, that's pretty obvious, the guy was hiking he took with him his mini camera. Not many people go hiking carrying an SLR with a big zoom lens ya know. And if he did have a mini zoom, maybe this was on maximum zoom.


JbT

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MissAshleyDear
Hmmm, Why are all the pictures of "big foot" always blurry, and you can never distinguish the details on him? With all the advanced cameras and photo shops, I'd think we'd be able to get a good picture of "big foot" And if it was so mysterious, why didn’t the photographer get a little closer to get a better picture to prove that it was big foot?

Makes ya wonder doesn't it?


[edit on 2-1-2007 by MissAshleyDear]


I suggest you look around the internet and try to find pictures that are better "Quality" than these...

Im willing to bet that these are among the best quality (Non-grainy) pictures of a possible Bigfoot on the net. Ive seen many, Im sure not all the pics, but many. This set of pics is at least among the best Ive seen as far as Quality of picture.

Also, you really should read the story before you make comments 4-5 pages into a topic. If you would have read, you would have known that the guy said that the snow was waste deep and higher in places, making it very slow moving for him (the camera man). I belive there is also an account from others who have been in that area also, and they all say the same thing about the terrain, being that its waste deep snow off the beaten track.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
eh i dont belive the snow is "waist deep"...look at the trees to the left..they are hardly buried..and then theres all the bits of peices..of the mountain showing where it shouldnt be showing...and finally theres sets of tracks in the snow if anyone bothered zooming in
either way if the snow was deep or not i would ran after the mother trucker and would of been snapping pictures like crazy!...btw if that was a creature that was in snow that is very deep..he would of been about 7ft+ tall...you can see him standing in the snow and its like up to his knees at most!


Wig

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
C of U,

Hi.

I think I made the same point in one of my initial responses to this thread. But snow has a tendency to drift, the snow looks shallow "over there" but that is an exposed ridge. It is possible that where he was standing the snow had built up against the rocks.

I also would have made damned sure that I made my way over there no matter how long it took me no matter how deep the snow was, I would have gone there and photo'd the tracks.

I'm very disappointed no ATS crypto user lives near silver star mtn, this really should have been investigated by now.
One of the things that was to be investigated was the hieght of that tree over there - you see the snow has formed a hollow around it.

[edit on 4/1/2007 by Wig]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
While these are the best non-grainy photos of Bigfoot I've seen in a long time, how come we don't see any detail on the big guy?

I mean, you get a small amount of detail on the snow around him, but when it comes to the Bigfoot he's just a gray-blue smudge.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   


I also would have made damned sure that I made my way over there no matter how long it took me no matter how deep the snow was, I would have gone there and photo'd the tracks.


I think it wouldn't do you any good. The photo's seem to be taken from a long distance away. He was probably even standing on a different mountain.
Since these mountain are covered in snow they are likely to be very high(on the other hand, this picture was taken in november, so it does not necessarily have to be eternal snow).

It would take you a very long time to get from one mountain to the other. Plus, there's also the change that when the hiker got to that point. The bigfoot is long gone already, and the footprints may already have vanished by wind or new snow...

But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't go there as well, just in case old biggie was taking a nap on a mountain



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I guess I better explain myself before I get ripped apart again.

These are some amazing pictures; they are the best of a lot that I've seen. Though, everything is in focus on the mountain side...You can see the details in the rock on the side of the Mountain...the tracks just in front of "big foot", but why is he almost just a silhouette?

There is no criticism here, just simply a question. Why do most of the pictures of “big foot” seem to always have him blurred? It’s this way with most of them. The pictures surroundings are in focus and are amazing pictures, but then “big foot” is blurred and you never can see any real details on him. You see his basic shape…but no actual features on him.

There are functions on cameras that make it so there is a blur free picture...so if you are in motion it makes it not blurry. Whether this camera had that specific function on it or not, I don't know, but it makes me wonder why then is everything else mainly in focus and not him. That is what I was saying. That is what makes me wonder.

MissAshleyDear

[edit on 1/5/2007 by MissAshleyDear]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
hmmm..you know....MAD does have a point...she states that everything around is quite detailed....yes look at the trees..very detailed and you can see the tracks....hmm that is intresting that he is so...blurry..hmmm btw the type of camera used does look like it has some zoom capablity because of the rocks in the one picture...hmm.....I see what MAD is saying.....anyone care to disagree?


Wig

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Yes I disagree,

He is not blurred, he is in focus, as good as can be expected at such a distance.

The reason you cannot see detail is because bigfoot has dark hair, and this is a picture of a dark "object" against a bright background. You're simply not going to see his facial features at such a distance or things like his biceps/chest pectorals. and you are certainly not going to see them when taken not only at distance but also against a bright background.

examples
www.snow-world.fr...
www.cuhwc.org.uk...
www.projo.com...
tmurphywild.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
These Photos actually look real.. I hope the guy follows up on this and keeps looking


Wig

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGrude
The JPEG header ( EXIF ) data seems consistent with their statements, but it doesn't prove anything.

Bit Depth : 24
Frame Count : 1
Equip. Make : SONY
Camera Model : CYBERSHOT
Color Representation : sRGB
Flash Mode : No Flash
Focal Length: 24mm
F-Number: F/10
Exposure Time: 1/800 sec.
ISO Speed : ISO-100
Metering Mode: Pattern
Light Source: Tungsten
Exposure Program: Normal
Exposure Compensation: 0 step
Date Picture Taken: 11/17/2005 2:37:11 PM (Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg)
11/17/2005 2:36:54 PM (Silver_Star_Mt._029.jpg)

So the photos appear to have been taken 17 seconds apart, which looks consistent with the motion of both the subject of the photos and the apparent movement of the photographer between shots.



Can someone tell me how to pull this information from the jpg file? Without buying expensive software, ie. using freeware software or similar. I do have ACDC 7.0 though. I'd like to find out if the coast to coast 3rd picture has any of these details on it.

Apologies for the photos not showing above I can only blame that on imageshack. I now have another nice photo of this summit from a similar view, with no bigfoot
just for comparison
can be found here
www.summitpost.org...

and here
www.summitpost.org...

and here
www.summitpost.org...

www.summitpost.org...
A view of the photographers position as seen by the bigfoot. Could that be our tree on the left there next to the path? Looks about 4 feet high.

The money shot
www.summitpost.org...

For those who have doubted what bigfoot was doing there in the firstplace
www.summitpost.org...

We can use the summit in the foreground against the ridgelines in the distance to determine where or roughly where our photographer was. Initially my impression is that he was standing on the main rocky summit of silverstar...which is where most of these photos were taken from. And I have now confirmed this but I am working on proving the proof in pictures. I have determined the "money shot" is from the same position, and bigfoot - if the two pics were lined up - is standing to our left of the lady sitting down.





[edit on 8/1/2007 by Wig]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
WIG : down load IRFANVIEW , its free and has an EXIF reader



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join