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.

 

Sasquatch Photos,Washington State,Mt.Rainier -1995

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
these pictures are definitely some of the most vivid and strange bigfoot/sasquatch pictures that i have ever seen. they were taken in washington state, near mt.rainier, july 11th 1995 in the wild creek area by a retired forest ranger. whos to say if its the real thing, or a person in a costume? i was'nt there, so who am i to pass judgement on someone elses claims? they have to be looked at for what they appear to be. taking the time to really see these two images, upon closer analysis, certain details about this creature come to light that might be missed and passed over when only looked at in a passing glance. this creature appears to have no neck and massively proportioned. look how wide its chest is and how long its arms are. how tall is it? what does it weigh? if its really bigfoot, it might have been a really bad day for the person who was taking these pictures,should they have slipped from where they were standing above the creature and fallen down right in front of it...here they are >>> whats your opinion? >>> www.squatchopedia.com...
edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
My opinion is that these look like a model of a bigfoot. It stands in the same position in both pictures. Are we really to believe the thing wouldn't notice a guy taking pictures? I have never seen these pics though so thanks for posting them. I want to believe in bigfoot and love hiking around WA with a camera at the ready.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
My opinion is that these look like a model of a bigfoot. It stands in the same position in both pictures. Are we really to believe the thing wouldn't notice a guy taking pictures? I have never seen these pics though so thanks for posting them. I want to believe in bigfoot and love hiking around WA with a camera at the ready.
they mentioned that it might be a model in the paragraph beneath the pictures but the surrounding vegetation doesnt fit a models proportions,unless the model was "life sized'. i just bought a really nice fuji digital video/camera and i live only a couple of miles from the bridgewater,mass. "triangle" located in the hockomock swamp area,guess where i'm going! >>> en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


I agree the vegetation does not match unless it's a huge model. That is unless they took a picture of the model, then superimposed it onto a picture of the creek. There was a really good thread on photo manipulation I'll try and find. Also, the edges of bigfoot look very off.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


The wiki page says that the photos have been examined and don't show any signs of tampering. Shouldn't be too hard to determine considering the pics taken in 1995 were likely not digital.

I'm still not sold on this thing NOT being a small model.

would be nice to see the other 5 or 6 photos maybe he caught it in a different pose.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by blocula
 


I agree the vegetation does not match unless it's a huge model. That is unless they took a picture of the model, then superimposed it onto a picture of the creek. There was a really good thread on photo manipulation I'll try and find. Also, the edges of bigfoot look very off.
you'll notice that the shins of the creature are wet.you can also see a leg shadow across the water beneath it as well.it looks like its really standing in the water.if the photographer was moving to the side a little as he took these pictures,it would account for the creature standing in the same position,as only a couple of seconds may have passed between frames...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by Domo1
 


The wiki page says that the photos have been examined and don't show any signs of tampering. Shouldn't be too hard to determine considering the pics taken in 1995 were likely not digital.

I'm still not sold on this thing NOT being a small model.

would be nice to see the other 5 or 6 photos maybe he caught it in a different pose.
hi,thanx for your comment...the picture "feels" real to me when i look at it,if that makes any sense.a lot of pictures of ufos,ghosts and creatures dont feel right,obvious fakes....these pictures dont look or feel fake to me at all.also i have read some sasquatch/bigfoot encounter reports where the witnesses said that the creature had no neck,"the head just seemed to come out of its shoulders",if it was a faked suit or a model,i dont think that they would have made it neckless...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
To me its a small model stuck in a little pond.

1) the foreground grass is too large.
2) the foreground mud looks too saturated sodden with water and would be washed away by the 'river' if it were of any significant size.
3) the directions and refelections on the surface are all wrong, the branches and folliage indicates that they are almost directly overhead. Given the photo's are looking down on the 'bigfoot' then they must be really massive high trees. Yet everything is bathed in sunlight.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
To me its a small model stuck in a little pond.

1) the foreground grass is too large.
2) the foreground mud looks too saturated sodden with water and would be washed away by the 'river' if it were of any significant size.
3) the directions and refelections on the surface are all wrong, the branches and folliage indicates that they are almost directly overhead. Given the photo's are looking down on the 'bigfoot' then they must be really massive high trees. Yet everything is bathed in sunlight.
the creature, if you look closely, has moved a little between photos,you can tell by the position of the stump near its left leg,heres a link with more information about the photos and explanations concerning the sunlight,shadows and reflections...i dont think its faked >>> www.angelfire.com...
edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


See to me the picture screams fake. Bigfoot uncanny valley I suppose. I am by no means an expert on photography but it just looks very VERY fake to me. Personal observation. Really bugs me that the thing appears to be in the EXACT same position in both pics. Honestly, I'm surprised I'm still here because it seems so fake. You've just been so polite about my not agreeing that I want to stick around!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
To me its a small model stuck in a little pond.

1) the foreground grass is too large.
2) the foreground mud looks too saturated sodden with water and would be washed away by the 'river' if it were of any significant size.
3) the directions and refelections on the surface are all wrong, the branches and folliage indicates that they are almost directly overhead. Given the photo's are looking down on the 'bigfoot' then they must be really massive high trees. Yet everything is bathed in sunlight.
the creature, if you look closely, has moved a little between photos,you can tell by the position of the stump near its left leg,heres a link with more information about the photos and explanations concerning the sunlight,shadows and reflections...i dont think its faked >>> www.angelfire.com...
edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Just because it "feels real" to you don't give it any more credibility. I mean come on man, try and think critically here. You can't go feeling your way through life.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by blocula
 


Just because it "feels real" to you don't give it any more credibility. I mean come on man, try and think critically here. You can't go feeling your way through life.
i was'nt there. who am i to say that what this person says they saw and photographed is'nt real...in the link it explains how many photo experts analyzed the pictures and they are not faked and they have even gone to the same spot and figured out how big and tall this thing is...7 to 10 feet tall !
edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
It's a small model. I used to make and paint these kinds of figurines, and that is indeed what it is. Notice that the background is out of focus? A normal outcome when filming models. The vegetation is in scale? Of course it is, as you can buy scaled fake vegetation for modeling at any good model train store in the world...

J.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
whats a person to do when everyone says everything is fake???



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
My apologies for potentially sounding rather crass...but i CANNOT BELIEVE this thread has gone on for as long as it has. This image has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Where are all the 'experts' and others that have seen this thing a million times?

It is a model that was photographed ages ago, try a search function and look around a bit next time, then post.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Looks like my mate getting out the of the bath.

He won't be happy of these pics of him on the tinternet.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ajax
My apologies for potentially sounding rather crass...but i CANNOT BELIEVE this thread has gone on for as long as it has. This image has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Where are all the 'experts' and others that have seen this thing a million times?

It is a model that was photographed ages ago, try a search function and look around a bit next time, then post.
as i said,i was'nt there. according to all the information provided in this link they are real > www.angelfire.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Man I remember seeing this years ago when it came out, kind of scared me when I first saw the photo. If it is real can anyone even imagine what it must have been like to see such an awesome creature? I say the photo looks pretty good to me but I am no expert. The problem is that if I went out today saw a bigfoot, had a awesome camera took great pictures of the creature and then posted them or went on TV with my evidence there would still be a whole host of people that would scream FAKE. No photo is ever going to get it done, no video is ever going to get it done, you will have to have a Body. And to all those that say don’t shoot it, it could be the last of its kind. Well if there was only one Panda Bear left in the world and no one saw it living or dead, and it died then science will never accept it as a species. Because there is no proof of its existence. It’s kind of sad when you think about it. I am waiting to see the Sylvanic documentary should be good.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join