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.

 

Bigfoot Pics !

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hey guys I ran accross some Bigfoot pics. Pretty nteresting:

Bigfoot pics!

Pics look cool, clearest pics of supposed evidence.

Alittler hard to take as 100% proof but you never know. I'm not a photograph expert, or an expert on what these thngs look like up close.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by niato007]




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
sorry but im gonna break out the old 'fake' stamp. notice how not only does it scream photoshop, the leaves and branches are in different places on the zoomed in images. this is all IMO of course



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Thanks DarkDude, after giving it a 2nd and third look, it does get harder to beleive the authenticity of the pics.

Thanks for you insight.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
just throwing my two cents out there. heh i just noticed that based on stuff around it, it looks like the "creature" would only be about 3 or 4 feet tall. doesnt match the supposed story that goes with the pics, it does make the story kinda funny though


Wig

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Thanks for your BF link.

But it looks too short to be a BF, I disagree about the leaves/branches having different positions on the zoom, looks ok to me in that respect. It looks like a simple gorilla suit hired from any decent pantomime hirers, like the ones in the pink panther film.

How come only one photo? And the terrain doesn't look like it is very rocky to be throwing rocks. Hoax IMO



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The zoom is from a different photo.
The leaves are different and the zoom is a clearer pic than the far away one. thT doesn't happen when you zoom in..



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
We've already been over this one about a month ago. These people have multiple videos and they are hoaxes.


Wig

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
There are two photos, the first is zoomed out, with a blurred blow up as you would expect.

The second is a zoomed in photo (using the zoom lens) the gorilla has moved slightly from the first photo. The 2nd "blow up" is not a blow up at all, it is just a cropped image from the second photo.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Thats a pretty sweet operation they got goin' on there
, although they definitely need to find someone taller to wear the gorrilla suit
.


JbT

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Things like this only go to backup the claim that the Patterson-Gimlin film taken on October 20, 1967 just may have been real, IMO.

Still to this day, fools like these guys cant even come close to that video. Day by day, new video by new video, new pics after new pics, I find Pattersons video more believable.

These pics, on the other hand, look fake. IMO, its a monkey suit with a dude in it. They dont even have it moving like Patterson captured.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by JbT]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I still don't get what is so important about discovering big foot.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here's a nice artwork resembling the patterson pic of the bigfoot seen in
1967:BigFoot artwork pic



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   


Here's a nice artwork resembling the patterson pic of the bigfoot seen in


Nice pic


But about the BF photo's, they are fake, I think we already had these on ATS not too long ago...



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
I still don't get what is so important about discovering big foot.


Call it an obsession, but its what we Cryptos try and do for fun.

Mostly because people don't believe us, though.


On the P&G Film, it is most definately real. I've seen a rather nicely stabalized version and I swear I could see the fat bounce when it walked, and the muscle tighten when it picked up its feet.

As to the current pics, the 'Bigfoot' is too short, the 'face' is way too gorillia like, and last time I checked Bigfoot didn't have LED lights in his eyes.
My official anylasis: FAKE



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
HAHA!!
That guy in the gorilla suit looks like my ex-boyfriend..lol



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I think that this is a fakey. Unfortunately.

It looks too short to be Bigfoot (or Sassie, or Orang Pendek or whatever you wanna call him)
Plus the way he is positioned is just too convenient. He was just popping his head out form behind a tree and the photographer took the pic? Accidentally giving him red-eye?

Plus the tufts of fur from the side of the face seem artificial to me.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Proberly a picture of a Zoo



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
The 1-liners on this page are unwanted.

If there is nothing you have to say, don't post. Okay?

The next 1-liner I see will get a 20 point deduction and that would put a couple of you into the minus or near it.




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
The 1-liners on this page are unwanted.

If there is nothing you have to say, don't post. Okay?

The next 1-liner I see will get a 20 point deduction and that would put a couple of you into the minus or near it.



What does that mean? People can't post messages that are 1 line long?? How come? Maybe thats all they have to say. Pretty screwed up rules if you ask me.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Honestly the Gorilla looks like it was taken from an old poster for the san diego wildlife park that I think I remember seeing back in the day. Looks like they just cut and pasted then touched up the photo so that "bigfoot" looks to be in the shot. The face is clearly a female gorilla though, probably not even a suite, just some photoshopping. The Grimlin Patterson video in my opinion still does look like the real thing. Maybe if they had used sign language Koko there wouldn't have charged them supposedly. Also why charge an intruder if your a nomadic bigfoot with children? They apparently utilize a large territory for them selves, so why not just grab the kids and go to the next ridge for the day? It's safer.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join