Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
reply to post by Magnivea
Can you read? Thats not proof its just more speculation. Its another possibility. Not proof of a hoax.
Damnit, you caught me, I can't read. I have to have someone read the retarded posts to me to criticize them.
I don't give a rat's ass if it's speculation to you, to anyone with the ability to reason this is obviously a load of crap. For one, a
cryptozoological creature just happens to look exactly like a suit made purely through speculation?
So the questions: Why did the original person not give permission for the release of this ONE photo for four years? Why release a single photo of IT'S
BACK? Where are the rest of the photos from the series and why have they gone out of their way to say:
Number of images in this series: This will
not be disclosed OR what number this photo is in the series
Why the big buildup to release at a predetermined (of course) EST? No motion blur? Why, when the fact that a game cam has a timestamp was brought up,
did the elusive witness suddenly pop up after months upon months of not responding to multiple contacts to only say that the photo was taken with a
35mm camera? Why is it so clean? Why is there no matting? Does bigfoot have access to a go-between who brings him shampoo with conditioner? Why was
the camera at the perfect level to catch the head and shoulders (possibly bigfoot's preferred brand of shampoo)? Why, even if it's not the suit from
the movie is there yet another possibility of where a hoaxer could have gotten the photo?
Several of us believe that this is a picture of a display of Bigfoot that was used in 2006 at the University of Texas at San Antonio Institute of
Texas Cultures. The "Bigfoot in Texas" featured a "life-size" bigfoot in a very similar background as shown in the picture.
(Before you look up
that quote and mention the blogger's response, please take into consideration that photos from that display are more elusive than the "witness" from
whom the photo came, thus rendering the blogger's response pointless)
Here's a photo from the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy page:
Weird how every avenue I take seems to lead to this non profit group who have a website with a store section full of overpriced crap and a donation
section... I wonder where they got that money for the suit above, and what exactly was the motivation to create it? Also, it seems convenient the the
species of Rhododendron that the plant is assumed to be is A) reportedly the similar to the one that was in the exhibit in Texas in 2006 and B) native
to the southern US.
Then there are the costumes all over the net:
That alone is a pretty good representation of how readily available these costumes are if you have the money.
I have had an interest in cryptozoology since I started reading. I also am a firm believer in bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti... Not to mention other
creatures. I personally would be happier than a pig in poo if this was real, but it's not.
edit on 2/25/12 by Magnivea because: Somehow spelled
"perfect" with a g.