New photo of possible bigfoot holding animal.

For me it's not believing or not believing in any cryptozoological creature it's the dubious images that turn up on the internet. The web is full of crapola and any schmo that can register a domain name can perpetrate any garbage he desires without limits. The main thing that the majority of people refer to is Wikipedia. Where else on the planet does any printed encyclopedic source allow ANYONE to edit and publish it?

As short a time ago as, say, 15 years a hardcopy of the photo in question would have been available to scrutiny by photographic experts to tell if it was doctored or not. Even if the news item of a sighting ran in the back page of a newspaper it was a more credible source than internet images from who knows what origin.

Now every blurb about anything floats around gaining myth and innuendo with no basis most of the time. Even though many of us like-minded folks like to discuss these things remember that there are people that love to make fun, verbally degrade and perpetrate hoaxes just because they can. I don't understand what they get out of coming to sites like this and attacking everything with skeptism and negativeness.

The events that hold credability are ones where you find a couple guys who decide where they're going to go on a last minute whim, park, walk 5 miles off the dirt road which is already 30 miles from the nearest habitation, make a sighting or find 500 clear tracks with dermal ridges and the obvious change in toe placement between steps.

That's a credible event because no one, not even they knew where they were going to end up. How is this important? No one could hoax them by knowing where they were going to be later. The likelyhood of anyone faking tracks in the middle of nowhere just hoping someone would find them requires a weak mind. The easy to fake wooden shoe tracks are very obvious to ascertain as phoney since they do not move. Unlike the living foot which animates its movement relative to the terrain for foot and toe placement the wooden tracks are the same without normal variation.

It is easy to measure the compression of the soil for weight applied. Certainly if a track was made from compression of weight on the order of 800 lbs. we know it's not old Goober at 165 lbs hoaxing. Dermal ridges are the identifying features of the skin on the toes as are fingerprints on fingers. This is about impossible to fake along with articulated toes.

The placement of the ankle realtive to the foot is apparent in tracks is seen by experts in physiology. An ankle and foot mechanism needed to bear the weight apparent in these animals shows in the heel and ball of the foot in impressions. It' sfundamentally different than humans' and Cooter and Gomer don't have a clue how to fake that.

The answer is than nobody can make fakes good enough to fool experts. And the likelyhood that everyone for hundreds of years made up the same fantasy is stretching what we can believe. To believe such is to imagine that a secret society of hoax perpetrators have played tricks on humanity all over the worlds for generations.

Ah what a perverted bunch they must be secretly laughing that the largest conspiracy known to humankind has perpetuated for centuries undetected for just the opportunity to fake someone out. Yeah right!

[edit on 10/4/06 by Cruizer]

[edit on 10/4/06 by Cruizer]

[edit on 10/4/06 by Cruizer]

Wow that's a pretty good picture despite the fact that is is somewhat blurry. I can definetely see a "baboon"- like face. I can make out the ape figure standing and he is holding what looks to be a goat or some other animal.
Very interesting indeed!

It IS extremely interesting...

Though I wouldn't have thought that it was a goat!!!!

Why has the same type of creature always been reported?

For hundreds of years, dating back to the 1700's, enormous, hairy, bipedal creatures have been written about hundreds and hundreds of times.

The likelyhood of these reports being based on pre-conceived notions from the news media coverage is very unlikely. Information via printed media (the most obvious way rumors of such creatures would have been spread) was very regionalized.

Imagine lotsa little islands with very little information exchanged back and forth. In fact think about the enormous amount of exposure to the media we have in this new millenium, television, internet, radio, newspapers, periodicals, classifieds, the list goes on. But can you recall hearing or reading about goings on in even the nearest city to you? Of course not. Information exchange in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds was obviously less. Yet time after time reports can be found of outstanding sightings of these large hairy bipedal creatures. Sorry chaps my common sense tells me that there is something quite remarkable lurking about our remotest areas.

Now THIS is what I'm talking about here!!!!!

Sightings like these havent just cropped up out of nowhere!!!!

Interesting picture. I looked at it a lot, saved it, blew it up, lightened it, darkened it, zoomed way in, etc.

My guess is, it's nothing more than a rotted tree, that has broken off, and is leaning a little bit.

#1: As a pretty experienced outdoorsman/hunter/fisherman/outside photographer, I don't think I could miss something like this in the woods, while photographing something. Your eyes can detect movement in the woods very well, and your ears can pick up sound from a long way off. If you here so much as squirrel run through the leaves next to you, you know something was there. I doubt a person could be taking a scenic photo, and have a sasquatch type creature, holding another animal, be in the picture, and not notice it while he/she is snapping it.

#2: I know you really want to hope it's a picture of a cryptid, I do too, and it very well could be, but, when really looking at this, it highly resembles a very old, rotted tree trunk, you can make out where it's darker that it is hollow looking. I'm sure I will get plenty of replies that say "how do you get a tree trunk out of that?!" Give me a little time, I will use a photo editing program and show you.

Just an educated guess, could be anything though, including a strange animal

Cool pic, keep things interesting.

If it were a tree trunk it would still be there in the updated photos, and even if removed for some weird reason, there would be evidence that there was once a tree there.

Not a tree.

Yes we see movement quite well, but bigfoot are renowned for being unnoticeable. The bigfoot in the pic is probably standng perfectly still, no movement & good camouflage, almost impossible to spot by some guy 40 feet above admiring the scenery (i.e. not looking for anything).

I laid 2 meters away from Charlie as they past by when I was on listening post in Vietnam. In thick vegitation you don't see anything that isn't moving unless it's real close.

This same photo has appeared in other websites going back a few years. The consensus from the other sites (as I recall) was the picture was not in Quebec because of the forest type ( I am withholding judgement. There is not enough vegetation in the picture and it is too poor quality to make that call.)

One photograph from an unreliable source should not be taken even as evidence, let alone 'proof', regardless of your stance on the issue.

I think what the last couple posters may be missing is the fact that this is actually one of many pictures taken that day, and all are available to look at on the link in my original post. the guy has even gone back and taken reference shots with someone standing where the "creature" was. whatever it is, it's not there in any of the other shots. if it was something as simple yet so "rooted" as a tree trunk, i'm pretty sure it would show up in the subsequent photo's. as for it not being quebec, my family is from there, and that terrain looks pretty normal for a summery quebec day. I don't see how anything would be gained by claiming Quebec falsely.

be good.

This is getting even more interesting!!!

Has anyone been to site since the photographer was there?

searched?

Anything?

reply to post by Mechanic 32


I AM STUNNED THAT NOBODY HAS DISCUSSED A SIMPLE, NON-MYTHOLOGICALLY-BASED POSSIBILITY. LAST YEAR, ENGLAND ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS GOING TO CREATE ANIMAL-HUMAN CHIMERAS (MIXED SPECIES EMBRYOS). IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT CROWD OF TOLDAS (NEW NAME FOR THE ELITE) THAT THEY ANNOUNCE THINGS AFTER THEY HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THEIR ILL-CONCEIVED EXPERIMENTS AND CANNOT KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM FINDING OUT.

I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS DESCRIPTIONS OF LARGE MANLIKE CREATURES WITH WOLFISH FACES INCLUDING ONE FROM NEW MEXICO WHERE THE CREATURE WAS WEARING THE REMNANTS OF CLOTHING. WHAT IF THESE ARE HUMAN-ANIMAL GENETICS EXPERIMENTS GONE AWRY (AND AWOL, FROM THE LOOKS OF IT.)

Originally posted by DuneGrrl
I AM STUNNED THAT NOBODY HAS DISCUSSED A SIMPLE, NON-MYTHOLOGICALLY-BASED POSSIBILITY. LAST YEAR, ENGLAND ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS GOING TO CREATE ANIMAL-HUMAN CHIMERAS (MIXED SPECIES EMBRYOS). IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT CROWD OF TOLDAS (NEW NAME FOR THE ELITE) THAT THEY ANNOUNCE THINGS AFTER THEY HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THEIR ILL-CONCEIVED EXPERIMENTS AND CANNOT KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM FINDING OUT.

A simple solution? O_O You obviously don't have any idea on how long it would take to make a being this size... And this picture is 2 years old, and what you are reffering to are a project that should start just one year ago.

I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS DESCRIPTIONS OF LARGE MANLIKE CREATURES WITH WOLFISH FACES INCLUDING ONE FROM NEW MEXICO WHERE THE CREATURE WAS WEARING THE REMNANTS OF CLOTHING. WHAT IF THESE ARE HUMAN-ANIMAL GENETICS EXPERIMENTS GONE AWRY (AND AWOL, FROM THE LOOKS OF IT.)

Can you share these descriptions with us?

And please, don't use caps lock anymore.

[edit on 7/3/08 by Thain Esh Kelch]

This looks real... from what I can see...

no signs of digital editing, but if it is a costume they would have pulled it off. The figure is covered just enough and the resolution is low enough... could be a costume.

Awesome photo, have no problem considering if it were real. But it's not clear enough to be sure.

When I see Patty I know I am seeing a real bigfoot. We need another clear shot of a specimen.

If this is Sasquatch, then it has a Baboon face. That is no Gorilla or Australopithecus face, which is how most witnesses have described Sasquatch. There is no mistaking that for a human.