Photos: Russian Yeti - Sheregesh, Kemerovo Oblast, Russia

I do not believe in bigfoot or the yeti. I used to, but honestly, if there were 800 pound, 8ft tall bipeds living in the woods there would be lots of evidence. As one who has spent a huge portion of my life outdoors in woods far from people I can tell you the evidence is not there. You need a certain amount of food per animal. You need a breeding population of a size large enough to prevent genetic mutations caused by inbreeding. And all of those animals have to eat.

When a bear lives in an area you can tell. The berry bushes show signs. There are prints. There is scat. There are places where they sleep with the undergrowth matted down. I've seen it. The biggest creatures in the woods are bears. When they are around it is obvious. All animals leave signs behind showing they have been there.

If bigfoot was carnivorous you'd find signs of kills. There would be shortages of certain animals that are prey items. That would be noticed. "We killed the wolves, bears and mountain lions, why is X animal not showing a population boom?"

If bigfoot was a herbivore the destruction to the plants would be obvious. Gorillas leave a trail of destruction every day as they eat their way through the woods. They eat a little less than bigfoot would, so where is the debris? Gorillas live in the jungle because they need the lush vegetation on order to survive. The forests of North America do not have anywhere near that level of lushness. There isn't enough food to sustain a breeding population of 800 pound herbivores without showing extreme evidence.

So bigfoot simply can't exist. And to assume such a creature could live in the frozen wastes of Siberia or Nepal is even more foolhardy. If there isn't enough food to sustain them in the Pacific Northwest then there certainly isn't enough to feed them on a barren mountain or frozen pine forest.

S&F for the post. Two things that make me doubt it.. First is the fact that the "fur" looks very glossy and faux. My sis is a fashion designer and she uses quite a bit of faux in her designs and they have that same texture. Real fur in the wild would be more matted and dirty.

Second, this Bigfoot looks likes hes posing and playing for the cameras. Not really something I can imagine him doing

I too share the faux fur suit opinion. If you look at the back/shoulder area you'll notice a GIJoe like arm attached to a very straight back which seems to have no shoulder blades. Also look at the photo which has its' left foot in stride and pointing towards the camera, showing the bottom. The is no arch, just a flat pad. Would you all agree? This is fun, but that's as far as I'll take it.

If this is a real Sasquatch photo it has to be the clearest and best quality photo I've ever seen. I've done a lot Sasquatch research the past 5 years and I can tell you now I've never seen fur like that.

Maybe it's time for me to invest in some glasses, but I don't see anything in those pictures other than shadows on the back sides of trees and naturally occurring occlusion do to depth of field and reflective light.

I don't see a single image that looks like there is some kind of animal in it. The key indicator being that any of the parts that look really black, would have to be in a different physical depth (by meters) from the objects that I can only assume some of you are referring to as "fur".

I see trees and stumps, and some snow falling off of branches (Or thrown as a snowball and breaking up in the branches) and shadows and foreground occlusions and a camera with a modest (low end sorting) auto focus.

Maybe one of you can download the pictures and draw an outline around the "creature". Cause I just can't see it.

I do see one image, I think it is #7, where there is a tree stump that kind of looks like an elephant foot. But it's obviously a tree stump, or base or broken branch as you can see the rest of laying into the distance. The fuzzyness is because the auto focus is picking the distance between that stump, and the foreground.

The reddish "Cylon" eye bar that appears above that is just light hitting some foliage that is wet or frozen and is already dead-ish which is why it's rusty colored, or again just a dead bunch of needles that are pointing away, in direct light, and further back than the midground focus.

Yeah there is no way you could be that zoomed in, or that close, to a living thing of any kind, and have it absorb so much of the light around it that it would result in pictures like this.

I don't see a creature anywhere.

Originally posted by gort51
Thousands...in fact EVERY animal keeps its coat pristine, unless they are sick or about to die. Primates have always groomed each other...Humans do it!!!

No.
this is false.
Dogs roll in carrion to bring the smell home to the pack.
Wild higs rip their skin and wallow in mud to pack dirt into the wounds, so the scr tissue hardens and makes "SHEILDS" that cover their body like armor.
This will even stop a bullet.


This isnt a comment on whether this pics are fake or not.. but a clarification on the false claim that all animals keep their coats "pristine".
That's just not the case.

What kind of nerds are you guys? It's a damn wookie. Looks like chewbacca's fallen on hard times.. you would think George Lucas would lend a hand : /

I don't have a good graphics program at the moment, but on the 2nd photo down, right below where I think the head is, it looks like a smudge brush was used on the branches to obscure and smudge out the face, in fact, I swear I can see several smudge brush areas and even some fake branches in a lot of the photos. It makes me wish I had my old psp program.

My vote is fake, but I have nothing to back that up other than to me it looks photo shopped.

reply to post by gort51


Where are the pictures of the footprints? I would go to the spot and take close-ups, far away shots, and follow the tracks. What is it called, BIGFOOT! Let's see pics of BIG FEET!

I copied the pics and I'm going to run it through some software that I have to see if I can find anything.

In the second photo, it looks like human hair hanging out from underneath a hood. Well kept human hair to boot. I grew my hair out once and even with brushes, shampoos and conditioners, I was hard pressed to keep my hair looking as good as that big foot.

In the 7th photo, his leg looks shapeless, much like a snow suit covering the legs would.

And in the 5th photo, his shoulder looks weird, like there is something underneath the fur suit.

Don't know what to make of that red spot.

reply to post by cripmeister


that's not true

Originally posted by Ookie
I do not believe in bigfoot or the yeti. I used to, but honestly, if there were 800 pound, 8ft tall bipeds living in the woods there would be lots of evidence. As one who has spent a huge portion of my life outdoors in woods far from people I can tell you the evidence is not there. You need a certain amount of food per animal. You need a breeding population of a size large enough to prevent genetic mutations caused by inbreeding. And all of those animals have to eat.

When a bear lives in an area you can tell. The berry bushes show signs. There are prints. There is scat. There are places where they sleep with the undergrowth matted down. I've seen it. The biggest creatures in the woods are bears. When they are around it is obvious. All animals leave signs behind showing they have been there.

If bigfoot was carnivorous you'd find signs of kills. There would be shortages of certain animals that are prey items. That would be noticed. "We killed the wolves, bears and mountain lions, why is X animal not showing a population boom?"

If bigfoot was a herbivore the destruction to the plants would be obvious. Gorillas leave a trail of destruction every day as they eat their way through the woods. They eat a little less than bigfoot would, so where is the debris? Gorillas live in the jungle because they need the lush vegetation on order to survive. The forests of North America do not have anywhere near that level of lushness. There isn't enough food to sustain a breeding population of 800 pound herbivores without showing extreme evidence.

So bigfoot simply can't exist. And to assume such a creature could live in the frozen wastes of Siberia or Nepal is even more foolhardy. If there isn't enough food to sustain them in the Pacific Northwest then there certainly isn't enough to feed them on a barren mountain or frozen pine forest.

While I respect your personal experience, I simply take issue with your statements concerning the amount of available food...I am sure there is enough food available...even in the Pacific Northwest...That is actually one of the largest rainforest areas on the planet...

This is the first set of photographs from my analysis of the photographs provided from this thread.I tried many methods but this is the best I can do with what I have to work with.

I am using clips from the famous Patterson Footage for comparison. The Patterson Footage, as of yet remains to be disproved and still remains to be the best footage of a Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti to this day.

This photo was taken from this thread.



This photo was taken from the Patterson Footage.



I will be back with more later.

(Note: I am not an animal expert. This is just my opinion. I feel I am only pointing out the obvious.)

reply to post by mikemck1976


Wow I've never been so impressed by detective work on the internet. You did a really good job with debunking this thing. I gave you a star for your awesome work.

reply to post by Reptius


Thanks! But I'm not done with it yet.

This is the last photo I'll post here because I think this just sums it up.



This proves to me that this is just another man in a suite

Thousands...in fact EVERY animal keeps its coat pristine, unless they are sick or about to die. Primates have always groomed each other...Humans do it!!!

I have read many reports where they have described Bigfoots coat as,matted,dirty,as having sticks and leaves,moss stuck to the hair.So no,they arent always pristine looking.As far as the line about bring out the suits comment.All i have to say is i believe there is some unclassified being out there and not just Bigfoot.

edit on 5-11-2011 by DrMorbius because: (no reason given)

reply to post by predator0187

Although I did notice that red spot on the back of it's neck. Could that be a injury or something that shows the costume?

That's the tag that says:

Wash with like colors
Do not use chlorine bleach
Tumble dry low

Made in China

Originally posted by Ookie
I do not believe in bigfoot or the yeti. I used to, but honestly, if there were 800 pound, 8ft tall bipeds living in the woods there would be lots of evidence. As one who has spent a huge portion of my life outdoors in woods far from people I can tell you the evidence is not there. You need a certain amount of food per animal. You need a breeding population of a size large enough to prevent genetic mutations caused by inbreeding. And all of those animals have to eat.

When a bear lives in an area you can tell. The berry bushes show signs. There are prints. There is scat. There are places where they sleep with the undergrowth matted down. I've seen it. The biggest creatures in the woods are bears. When they are around it is obvious. All animals leave signs behind showing they have been there.

If bigfoot was carnivorous you'd find signs of kills. There would be shortages of certain animals that are prey items. That would be noticed. "We killed the wolves, bears and mountain lions, why is X animal not showing a population boom?"

If bigfoot was a herbivore the destruction to the plants would be obvious. Gorillas leave a trail of destruction every day as they eat their way through the woods. They eat a little less than bigfoot would, so where is the debris? Gorillas live in the jungle because they need the lush vegetation on order to survive. The forests of North America do not have anywhere near that level of lushness. There isn't enough food to sustain a breeding population of 800 pound herbivores without showing extreme evidence.

So bigfoot simply can't exist. And to assume such a creature could live in the frozen wastes of Siberia or Nepal is even more foolhardy. If there isn't enough food to sustain them in the Pacific Northwest then there certainly isn't enough to feed them on a barren mountain or frozen pine forest.

My oh my.. answers for you.

1. There is lots of evidence. Tonnes actually.
2. Berry bushes signs of bears. Well, does a human picking up berries by hand or mouth leave traces. If so, that`s what you need to look for.
3. Tracks. Tonnes of them, and bear scat looks a lot like BF crap.
4. Kills have been found, lots of them. As well as "forensic evidence" by teethmarks.
5. A bigfoot would eat about as much as a bear, but the choice of foods differ a bit. Although it is not believed that they eat the same as the gorilla.
6. Are you saying hunters haven`t killed bigfoot? Do you have proof that say that the reports are incorrect?
7. Not enough food to sustain them you say. What do you know of their diet. It is thought they eat roots. Not many animals you will find that eat roots - except f.ex. humans and deer.