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.


Monsterquest caught hoaxing evidence?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:50 AM
I just watched the latest episode of Monsterquest called Mysterious Ape Island.

The show focused on Vancouver Island and the supposed Sasquatch population that lived on and around the island.

Near the end of the program, the trailcam images were shown and one image shows what appears to be a bigfoot looking at the camera.

Thing is, once they look at the image and go 'oh wow' bla bla bla it isn't mentioned again, not even in their 'recap of evidence' at the end of the show.

To me it looks a lot like the Patterson bigfoot. I'm not saying I can prove Monsterquest have hoaxed the photo (if they did it would explain why they didn't focus on it in the program), but it does bear a striking resemblance.

These are the images from the episode. The first is the original image, and the 2nd is the image with an outline of what I consider to be the creature.

Now this is the famous image from the Patterson footage I was talking about, followed by an overlay of both the Patterson bigfoot and the one from this new image.

So what do you think? Is it just a strange coincidence, and a misidentified object in their photo? Or did they happen to get a photo of a sasquatch at the exact same angle as the famous patterson still shot?

Or, as I think, is it an attempt at hoaxing evidence to boost the ratings of the declining program?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by fooffstarr]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:08 AM
they've got commercials to sell like any television production...

ghosthunters is a show that makes that fact very clear, as well.

gotta have something for people to tune in for, even though its all nebulous and implied and adds up to utter inconclusion.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

You must remember this is a television show. They are in it for the money. They need to put something in the commercials to make you watch. There good at it. I get pissed off every time I watch the show . But dammit the commercials keep dragging me back to watch it again and again. I use to be a big Ghost Hunters fan but it has gotten to commercial. Take what they show you on these shows with a grain of salt my friend.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:41 AM
Yeah I saw that show, I was thinking the same thing. But to tell you the truth I just don't see anything in your comparison between your images sorry.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Here is what I see in the MQ image.

Now, you take that outline and place it over the Patterson photo and it matches quite well.

As I said earlier, It is only a theory. Just thought the resemblance was too good to be a coincidence.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:44 AM
At first i couldnt tell what in the hell you were trying to show us in the second pic..but after seeing the outline,I would have to say absolutely the same..

When they came here to Nj for the NJ devil show,I had a freind who was with them as a guid and helped in production..He is in a NJ devil hunters club,and lets say for the most part he did not like the way the cast of the show did there thing..They werent to enthusiastic in going to the harder places to get to in the pines,and generaly treated it as...well a show...he had told me that his club has done more involved searches then they did..
He was not impressed at all and turned him off to the show..

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:24 AM

Looks to me like the image is just some trees and clouds, with the whole thing thrown upside down.

Just my opinion.
Looks better with the trees right-side-up.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by LostNemesis]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:36 AM
It does in fact look amazingly like the patterson but if you focus on the light and not the shadow it could quite easily be a smaller tree or branch. I'd like to see what the picture looked like when they set up the camera.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

I see a similarity after you have done your editing.

But I remember something a tad different if you watch it again I remember him pointing to a different part of the screen. Not the location you outlined. But it's still odd that they did not bring the "Item" that was so dramatically pointed to back up in the episode.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by LostNemesis

Here you go this will work a bit better. It looks like a tree branch.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

You are probably right.

Another case of shadows and objects making something that isn't there perhaps?

Hell of a coincidence though, eh? That the combination to produce what looks like a recreation of the most well known bigfoot image in history happened to appear on a trailcam photo from a bigfoot expedition.

I'm still on the fence about it. Perhaps it is just the tree branch. You make a good case. Even if it is just a tree branch, you think they would have identified it as such in the episode, or at least made significant reference to its resemblance to Patty.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

No problem

I'm a firm believer in Bigfoot so I get very critical and defensive when it comes to evidence and or possible hoaxes.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by fooffstarr

The image looked like branches to me. If they had caught anything unusual on the screen, you can bet they would of hyped that throughout the week. They kind of put that image to the side and shrugged.

Otherwise, it would of been touted as the episode that caught Sasquatch on camera.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:10 PM
On the left side of what you have labeled as the chest, down at the bottom, there is a light colored area that looks like what could be an arm to me. And the right arm looks like it's curved towards the torso, not just sticking out straight. That's what I see anyway. Assuming it's an animal and not trees of course.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:45 AM
I agree that the image looks like that of foliage outside. It is also amazingly similiar to the Patterson footage. Makes me wonder.

To comment on MQ in general, it is entertaining. However, they do have a bad habit of going to Ghosthunters route of running around in the forest chasing after infrared blobs. I understand it makes for good television, but I'd rather have the show focus more on the science and investigation behind the creatures than having so much attention paid to the group wandering around and setting up camp.

I remember one episode where they were going after Bigfoot, and they're following the guide or whatever, and they see tracks in the snow. I remember it was an issue that fresh snow had fallen and you needed a snowmobile to get to where they were, and there were no snowmobile tracks nearby (aside form the team's), so no human should have gotten up there. The guide yells "What's that" and show goes to commercial.

Come back, and they find out the tracks are from a hiker that was on the mountain during the snowstorm and making his way back down.

Now, if the show were serious, they would cut that entire part out of the episode as it was just a misunderstanding quickly rectified. But no, they build it up and waste like 5 minutes of screentime on what they know is nothing. They dishonestly made you think they found something to keep you watching through the commercial. It's quite annoying, because I'm dumb enough to watch. I KNOW that if MQ actually found Bigfoot, I would have heard about it before the episode premiers

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Esoterica]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:20 AM
Ah, Blobsquatch. Long time no see.

MQ does a good interviewing eye witnesses, digging up the history for the particular case, and finding local experts for reference.

However, their investigations are hack jobs. I understand its a show and they can only be on location for a few days, but if they don't have any good footage then they shouldn't show it. Instead they always show these crap imagines of nothing.

The worse case of this is when they mounted a camera on a wild boar, and we were stuck watching a pig sit in a bush.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:17 PM
It does look similiar in my opinion. Good find.

Monsterquest always struck me as odd. Never could get into it although I have a strong interest in cryptozoology.

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:23 PM
most likely a hoax in my opinion. if this is a real pic or there are others that look like the patterson film, its probably because the patterson is one of the best examples of sasquatch behavior ever recorded. i hate when people do this cause it creates the stereotype that sasquatch believers are idiots looking for something that isnt there. to sum up, bigfoot is there, he is not a bear, so get used to it.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by deathhawk21

I agree entirely.

I believe the Patterson film is the best (and possibly only) Bigfoot footage ever captured.

I know it comes up all the time, but you can actually see the muscles moving independently under the thigh skin. How can that be a suit?

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 09:56 AM
it would appear to be a not so elaborate fake IMHO

like you said, a last ditch effort in the attempts to save a show that has been genuine up until this point, its sad people cant be serious about cryptozoology anymore, nowadays the masses all around the world HAVE TO SEE SOMETHING in order for it to be 100% possible and at least a little bit interesting

nobody can go back to the old roots of folklore and local legends.

as for the coincidence of the two images fitting im not sure
it probably is just coincidence.

good post

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in