The biped photos.........

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
These photos are kind of a big deal to me because they took a long time to acquire, and many trips with friends, What I have gained in knowledge is hard to explain because I am not any smarter, just more aware of the subtle things people don't notice. Whether this is because the public doesn't want to or just can't, I do not know. The various times I've been out I often wonder if I'm crazy for looking for something that is said not to exist. I think it would be "crazy" not to ask that question. After coming to the conclusion that if I am "crazy" I sure have a lot of other people who don't believe I am. Instead they are a little scared that I just actually might find "something". And, that may be because when I have gone out with others, After 5 or 6 times something usually is "unexplainable". Whether it be the sounds of bipeds in the trees close enough to catch glimpses of, but never really see. Or, close enough to hear and not see. Regardless, the point is they are close enough. Close enough to have someone doubt what they have been taught to believe. Close enough to make an astounding realization that maybe there is more out there.
I won't even get into the Paranormal aspect and psychic phenomena, because I could write chronicles and never really due the genre any justice. That said lets move on to the reason. The reason I began "looking", as do others. Initially I didn't look at all. I worked for 9 years as a flyfishing guide in a very rugged and remote area in Northeastern Utah. During that time locals would "joke" about things I never really took seriously. I quit guiding and still frequent the area for personal reasons (fishing). On a trip down the river I was with my now fiance and we both saw "it". An immense bipedal creature hiding behind a massive log. It didn't move at all. Then, moved fast enough, it was gone....That quickly! And, that's where it all started.
Now as for the reality of it all. Some people say: No, it will never appear unless You believe. Wrong! Others say it helps if you believe and/or co-create the experience.True!

Not as neat as some of the pics I've seen out there, But I like them cuz they're mine.....

there is a story about the areas recently posted following the pics




posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
WOW this is quite a full report.........awsome pics!
I wish I had the gumption to go hiking with you.

I wondered about the fire up that way as well.........would it make it easier to navagate the area with alot less brush? Would the fire chase away the wildlife?

I have not heard about 3 toed bigfoots..........are they a differant creature all together? I mean, in human terms ALL humans have a certain number of fingers and toes unless they are malformed................are 3 toed bigfoots malformed? is this some kind of inbred Utah bigfoot?????



[edit on 2-4-2007 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Very nice UBH,just curious,did you take these with a camera or game cam?I live in central pa. with mountains that run on the north and south sides of my house.I currently have 1 game cam(i intend to get a few more)that i set-up to take wildlife photos.Not too many BF sightings around here,but there have been some in surrounding counties.Any tips on what to look for ,besides the obvious footprints?Thanks and keep up the great work!



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The whole three toed thing is a huge topic. Although mainstream professional bigfoot organizations don't even want to tackle this yet. The mainstream is still trying to get the public to accept 5 toes. There are many theories. Orang Pendek: which is a species of bipedal ape that is rumored to still roam sumatra and other areas always leaves what appear to be 3 toed tracks, however it's most avid followers claim it is because it's toes "bunch up" and create the illusion of 3 toes.
Now the Orang Pendek is a whole different creature from the North American sasquatch, However in my own personal opinion: I believe they are also present here in North America.
The other theory: If you ask Swamp Ape researchers in Texarkana areas and Boggy Creek , They will tell you not only are three toes out there, but also 4 toed are very common. Go figure. And they have a very very long history with beasts coming out of the swamps and hundreds and hundreds of sightings.
I like to think I am knowledgeable about such issues, however the reality is: When you are dealing with a species of North American Ape that has avoided capture and for the most part any type of compromising situation, you have to wonder what exactly it is you are dealing with. Native American culture offers that they are "higher" level creatures with Paranormal abilitites including but not limited to shapeshifting. If this small piece of information is accepted. This would explain alot.
The problem lies in the fact the mainstream bigfoot research organizations have no option other than to use science and only science to explain existence to the public. Dr. Jeff Meldrum is on the leading front of bigfoot scientific research, and tries to avoid the paranormal aspect all together for fear that it will rob credence to his studies. And, with good reason.
So it seems, the more I learn the less I know, but it sure is interesting!

[edit on 2-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The circled 'bigfoots' looks like stones and shadows to me. And the footprint looks like dirt that has been cleared from the ground - There are not a single pebble left, and you try to accomplish that, even with wet feet. And it is totally flat, there's not a small hole after the weight of the creature.

I certainly don't buy this.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The circled 'bigfoots' looks like stones and shadows to me. And the footprint looks like dirt that has been cleared from the ground - There are not a single pebble left, and you try to accomplish that, even with wet feet. And it is totally flat, there's not a small hole after the weight of the creature.

I certainly don't buy this.


I have to admit I feel somewhat the same. The footprint is'nt showing any displacement, unless whatever made it was so dense that whatever it trod on it totally crushed it to dust, but then further prints would'nt be a problem to find.

I am also inclined to agree about the Bigfoot images being stones casting shadows. Are there any close ups of these images???



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Thanks for the input guys... I think I downloaded the pictures correctly, so if you click on them with your mouse they do in fact zoom in. There were a ton of tracks identical to the one pictured. Kind of weird I know. I had the very same reaction. In fact to me the track looked like a guy in a barney suit or dinosaur suit or something made them. Of course that is not the case. They are just a really weird track.
The weirdest thing about the tracks is when we asked a friend of ours who has worked for the department of wildlife resources here in Utah for 20+ yrs what he thought the track might be he offered up info that these tracks have been cast before in the very same area and that it has always been associated with sightings.
As for the shadow idea I can see where that would be a concern. However, especially in the 2nd pic where two are circled, I find that even if someone was trying to do that with shadows the chances of finding two shadows in that close of proximity and along the same trail and ridgeline is virtually impossible. I haven't done the math but I'm sure it's unlikely.
There is also video a friend of mine is trying to get to me in a dvd format of a creature in this very same area walking for a full 4 minutes! A guy from Layton was scoping for deer, saw the biped and ran in his house to get his video camera. He then called Utah researchers to show them the footage. It is amazing footage and is similar to the "memorial day footage" although it is not as clear. www.aliendave.com...
This area is steeped in legend and countless sightings. I am going more and more often, and although the "creatures" seen to be moving into deeper and higher terrain the tell tale signs are numerous.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter
Thanks for the input guys... I think I downloaded the pictures correctly, so if you click on them with your mouse they do in fact zoom in. There were a ton of tracks identical to the one pictured. Kind of weird I know. I had the very same reaction. In fact to me the track looked like a guy in a barney suit or dinosaur suit or something made them. Of course that is not the case. They are just a really weird track.
The weirdest thing about the tracks is when we asked a friend of ours who has worked for the department of wildlife resources here in Utah for 20+ yrs what he thought the track might be he offered up info that these tracks have been cast before in the very same area and that it has always been associated with sightings.www.aliendave.com...
As for the shadow idea I can see where that would be a concern. However, especially in the 2nd pic where two are circled, I find that even if someone was trying to do that with shadows the chances of finding two shadows in that close of proximity and along the same is virtually impossible. I haven't done the math but I'm sure it's unlikely.
There is also video a friend of mine is trying to get to me in a dvd format of a creature in this very same area walking for a full 4 minutes! A guy from Layton was scoping for deer, saw the biped and ran in his house to get his video camera. He then called Utah researchers to show them the footage. It is amazing footage and is similar to the "memorial day footage" although it is not as clear. www.aliendave.com...
This area is steeped in legend and countless sightings. I am going more and more often, and although the "creatures" seen to be moving into deeper and higher terrain the tell tale signs are numerous.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]




The link doesn't work.

Now it does,


[edit on 2/4/2007 by Jibbs]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The circled 'bigfoots' looks like stones and shadows to me. And the footprint looks like dirt that has been cleared from the ground - There are not a single pebble left, and you try to accomplish that, even with wet feet. And it is totally flat, there's not a small hole after the weight of the creature.

I certainly don't buy this.


I feel the same way the pictures are so far away they could be rocks. Of course it's just a picture unfortunately it doesn't show motion like a video camera but without motion they do just look like rocks.
I couldn't zoom in on the pictures. I'm not sure whether anyone else has the same problem but I zoomed in on them for you with CS2.

Picture023
Picture034 (Left Biped)
Picture034 (Right Biped)



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
First of all... interesting pics.

They seem pretty big those prints
How tall would the creature be with a set of feet like those? Some 2.5 metres or something like that?

And... has anyone ever tried chasing after one of them? From what I've read they don't seem hostile and always seem to be moving away from people who see them...
It would be cool to see some photos even just half the distance of what you were at that time.
I wont take responsibilty for what might happen though, hehe



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Good questions. I have heard of a couple folks "chasing". But it never seems to work out. What I have been told and found to be more useful is carefully following. And, yes I think you are right about size. Ver big.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The "footprint" killed it for me. All you have there is someone who cleared the rocks and stones out of the way to make something that resembles a footprint - of a dinosaur maybe


Footprints don't work like that! The foot is a series of levers that is used to propel a being forward. As a result you have different variations in weight as the foot proceeds through it's normal motions leaving varying indentations in the ground - none of that appears here. It honestly looks like someone took their hand and cleared away all of the gravel and rocks to make a shape appear in the dirt. That dry dust would've caught toe-joint ridges, arch, heel imprint etc... all void in this photo. Maybe even some dermal ridges, of which I see none.

The other pics are your typical blobsquatch - likely shadows, other hikers etc... Sorry, there is nothing even close to conclusive to have me believe. Please keep trying though. I'm hoping for some REAL evidence someday.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The Dermal ridges where there in many prints, just not this particular print which is actually my favorite because it was such hardpack, and still left a picture perfect print and outline. I hear ya. But check this-
Three toed links:

There has been much discussion as to whether three toes are possible. However given the fact that the multitude of researchers believe there are various species or subspecies of the sasquatch.

members.tripod.com...

We have gone back to this site numerous times and only once have we found anything that even resembled five toes. Now I'm with you man. Don't get me wrong, I didn't buy it for a second when I first started seeing three-toed tracks. I think any researcher would rather have tracks with five toes. That's what I wanted. It just wasn't what's there. If I were to fake a tack.. (what would be the point).Which I wouldn't, I would make it "look" like something I figured everybody would expect. Unfortuneately it just isn't the case here.

For example the "Skunk Ape" Is known to have three toes..

www.geocities.com...

And hey, just to go off for a minute...Why would someone fake tracks and run around the woods like an idiot for hundreds of hours looking for tracks they made themselves and knew were fake? Retarded....Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'd rather go for days and days and not see anything, than see something stupid and faked. I know when we find "the goods" it isn't all that often ...But I do "know" it's the real deal.

I especially like this link which explains how tracks of three toed sasquatches "scare" this researcher.
www.gcbro.com...

No worries...I probably would have talked more smack than you did about three toes. I actually never believed in them until I found them in the wild and saw there was nothing they could possibly be ...that we know about. Then I began doing more and more research on them online and there are a lot more threee toed sightings than one would expect. Now my friend who took his three toed cast to Dr. Jeff Meldrum. said that Meldrum wants to concentrate on what he knows abd that is 5 toes for now and then, and only then ,....after there is some proof that the beings exist, we can move into proving other facets of the "paranormal" nature, which has been alltogether avoided up until this point by the scientific community.

3, 4, or 5 toes....The similarities of character...activity ...AND Validity seem to be uncanny. Is it the same creature? Or different sub-species?



[edit on 4-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
i don't mean to be insulting, but I can't see anything that resembles bigfoot here. shadows and scrub is all I can make of these photos.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   


And hey, just to go off for a minute...Why would someone fake tracks and run around the woods like an idiot for hundreds of hours looking for tracks they made themselves and knew were fake? Retarded....Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'd rather go for days and days and not see anything, than see something stupid and faked. I know when we find "the goods" it isn't all that often ...But I do "know" it's the real deal.


Did you even consider the obvious fake look of that picture that was pointed out earlier? Walking dont remove the rocks from under your foot. And I believe you pointed out that the place was a hotspot of some sort? Hotspot of what? More silly looking footprints like that one?

Maybe theres some local business owner that likes to keep a myth alive, who knows? The thing is when ever I see "evidence" of something amazing and I end up looking at a video or a picture of a blurry mass of _something_ I really cant be bothered to take anything that is being claimed about it very seriously. Sure its something but if you actually took pictures of beings moving around for example can you give us more than one blurry shot. Maybe a set of blurry shots that actually show the targets are moving? Also it would be very nice if the pictures werent so blurred out that you cant even make out what you might be looking at.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter

picture two: Three toed track? darn I wanted five. LOL
i151.photobucket.com...



< RANT >

why do " big foot investigators " never take a tape measure / ruler / reference scale with them ? or never use it

size / scale / orientation is a CRITICAL element of a footprint or other impression photo

do you never watch CSI or any documentaries on forensics ?

< /RANT >

i am not even going to go into my thoughts on the alledged footprint - kozmo has politely covered the objections to the "footprint " - i have little to add to his excelent denouncement



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
All I see is rocks and shadows, and as for the footprint it looks a little to neat to be real. Have you ever walked over stony mud? The pebbles don't move out from under your feet they get pushed into the dirt beneath your foot.


Wig

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
UBH

Let me give you some advice, when you start a thread on a subject promising photos to follow

first thread

Post the photos in the thread that you started. Also when it is pointed out to you that your OP has a double paste (the first reply to your first thread), when you then decide to start a new thread (unneccessarily) and you decide to copy your OP from your 1st thread - edit out the double paste!

Now onto the subject of the thread,

Your pictures are frankly rediculous. In your account you said there were a series of tracks, and yet you show no series of tracks but just 1 single 'track' which looks like you just scraped the stones away with your finger into a funy shape.

You said:

"The Dermal ridges where there in many prints, just not this particular print"

well where are the pictures of those other tracks?


"And hey, just to go off for a minute...Why would someone fake tracks and run around the woods like an idiot for hundreds of hours looking for tracks they made themselves and knew were fake?"

Well the sceptic would say you didn't search for tracks for hundreds of hours - but maybe you did and found nothing so made 1 (one) of your own. I ask Why would someone who encounters hundreds of tracks only take one photo?


"There were a ton of tracks identical to the one pictured."

And only 1 photo.

Then you have a photo of a casting being made, where is the photo of the footprint before the casting - a common sense logical thing to do. Where is the photo of the finished casting itself? Where are the surrounding prints in the casting photo - I see no prints surrounding it.

Now onto the rock shadows, what made you think those were animals and not shadows? Did they move? Where is the photo of the same rocks after they had moved? What happened when you got closer, you became aware that it was just a shadow.




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Wow Is this opening an old bucket of worms or what? I was just browsing my very first threads and came across this one. This is so cool to be able to go back and see you first threads. Anyway I guess it wouldn't be correct of me to leave the thread "hanging", so I'm here to tie up a few of the loose ends.

To the last 5 debunkers: I agree.

That is correct, I would agree completely with not only your opinions and general ranting of the subject, but also of the pictures. I was pathetic! I should have a lot better pictures, and now know this. Not to mention I believe this was my first post EVER, or very close! So I apologize for the weakness of photographic evidence and poor quality of equipment. I have since "upped" my game so to speak, by about $10k in just cameras, and will bring better quality pics and research to the table the next opportunity nature gives me. I have gone out countless times since then and have had varying luck. But be sure I am now prepared. At the very least, thanks for taking the time to overlook the post and point out it's weaknesses. Many people wouldn't have even taken the time. That shows a lot of class on your part. Thank You. You have made me a better researcher.




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I agree with everything stated about that footprint. theres no way in hell it would be that neat unless the foot actually dragged the debris out from under it, in which case there are no signs of dragging.






top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join