It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


07-23-07 Possible Bigfoot Sighting Washington State

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:44 AM
Thought the first one looked interesting- until I watched the second. Looks like a doll to me.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by Pinkus2323]

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:33 AM
Yeah, the second one looks completely static and rather small.

The quality of the first one is far too poor to tell. I didn't even notice what I was supposed to be looking at on my first viewing

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:38 AM
not even remotely plausible...

First video: What's supposed to be there?

Second video: What's supposed to be there?

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:14 AM
1. The clip has clearly been through video editing software - you can see it best in the second clip - it looks like the movie was shot with a pre-"standard 8"/"Super8" camera. Why on earth would you want to give your Bigfoot clip the "old movie" effect? This alone already takes away all credibility the film could have had.
2. "Honey, I shrunk Bigfoot". The Bigfoot isn't much bigger than the leaves and grass visible in the seconds prior to the shot of the waving Bigfoot. (Well, that said it would be nice to see a Bigfoot waving for a change, and not give the angry "over-the-shoulder-Patterson look".) I'll put my money on action figure - or doll as Pinkus2323 suggested.

So hoaxers aren't even going out to the woods anymore? They're just doing "it" in their own back yards? Lazy scum.

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:18 AM
These hoaxers neem to get more creative. The effort to do this falls way short of the desired effect. Oh well, D+ for effort.


posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:30 AM
Looks more like some naked deformed guy when you pause the video. It doesn't even look hairy and its all flesh colored.

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:06 AM
I have to give this one a big ole' sigh.
That was the worst piece of garbage I have ever seen.
What is in the second piece? It looks like a small figurine of Bigfoot?
Is this meant as a joke.
I am not laughing!

[edit on 25-7-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:17 PM
Why waste our time on such obvious garbage? No imagination went into the videos to make them even partly watchable, and even if it had, they're still hoaxes!
For goodness sake, these excreble attempts are crippling serious discussion.

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:53 PM
its 2007 and people can't operate a video camera without it shaking violently all over the place?

i don't know about you guys but if i saw big foot and had a video camera with him i would focus on trying to get big foot on film.. this is ridiculous

and the quality? surely they're joking right? i've seen better quality in videos from like the 60 s and 70 s . this is sad

new topics


log in