Bigfoot Caught On Trailcam. New Image.

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceg0at
 


LMAO... that was a good one.. an Italian dude.. like always no one never had a good picture. either the pictures are blury, to dark, or like this one only the back... I have never seeing a real good picture and I don't think we never will. Funny that we can find thousands of millions years old dinosours bones and fossuls all over the world, but NO ONE had ever found a freeking bone from a supostubly todays Squach.. now Why is that? I tell you, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BIGFOOT!!!!!!




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
my response to all the members who opine that its the pelvis and tail root of a dog

1 - unless a hoaxer has groomed the dog ro set its coat - the " lay " of the coat is the " wrong way around "

2 - isnt the tail root too large fir the size of the pelvis ?

PS - before our resident dog experts rip my head off - the above opinions are based on allowing an alsatioan to be my house guest for 10 year -



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Looks like the top of a balding man's head.

Need more pics.


That man has a deformed head then because you can see skin at the front just like the rest.

So it can't be a hair flip at the front.

Also look at the right arm. you can see the definition of the arm curving and the should/arm.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I have no idea what it is, but if this were the tail end of a dog, it seems to me the hair is going in the wrong
direction. I've owned a lot of dogs in my time, and I don't remember any of them having hair growing in the direction of the photo.






posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NightFlight
 


No, I somehow missed that. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
On the bottom left part of its shoulder there is a small laceration. You can see what I’m talking about if you look between the shoulder blades on lower left side. Not sure if this is a fake or not but that would be a pretty clever detail to add to the hoax don’t ya think….



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesBronson
 


Monster make up and creature design is all about over detailing the work to help sell it as more believable.
Living creatures are all full of imperfections that sometimes can only be seen from just the right angle or in the right lighting.
It is more believable to see an imperfection than a uniform object.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by guanicaPR
 


Funny that we can find thousands of millions years old dinosours bones and fossuls all over the world, but NO ONE had ever found a freeking bone from a supostubly todays Squach.. now Why is that?

The reply to that might be, "Meet Gigantopithecus".

Because we have only the lower jaws to go on, it’s hard to reliably estimate the size of the entire creature. Ciochon et al. (1990a) estimated that it was about 10 feet (3 m) tall and weighed about 1200 pounds. Simons and Ettel (1970) suggest it was proportioned like more like a gorilla, standing about 9 feet tall and weighing about 900 pounds.

It should be noted that no connection between the fossils of Gigantopithecus and Bigfoot have been proven yet. All connections today appear to be speculation from cryptozoologists.

Not surprisingly, cryptozoologists like Heuvelmans in 1952 and later many others also made suggestions that the Yeti (and later, Bigfoot) were surviving descendants of Gigantopithecus. If you read the cryptozoological literature, it is full of bizarre unsupported speculations about how these immense apes spread all over Asia and North America from different primate stocks, and Bigfoot and Yeti are their relicts. None of this amateur speculation bears any relation to what anthropologists know about the real history of hominid fossils and human evolution.

I remember reading about fossils from these apes found in North America that lived in relatively recent times but that too may have been nothing more than speculation.

If you're interested do a google search for 'Gigantopithecus in North America'. I'm reading up on the results now.
A search in ATS also shows some results.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Can't debunk this one Pred. Could be but there isn't quite enough data to render a definite. The search continues.
Tasty lil tid bit tho. Stay on it like bluebonnet partner.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Definitely a great picture. If its faked, thumbs up on quality.

If its a Squatch, I say we all chip in an help the fella out.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I don't know how to load an image to this post but I downloaded this image and looked it over. I am a veteran (Navy) combat photographer and I know what to look for concerning a manipulated image. This is a fake. I can easily tell by the direct pixel line down the right side of the ear. It looks like a easy Photoshop selection. I would like to believe in BigFoot as much as all of you but.........This one isn't it. It could be a bigfoot from another image placed into this one. But that's just stupid. Just show the original. If someone can tell me how to load an image I can show you what I found. But take a close look at the ear. Pixels are to straight and "cut" to be real! Sorry!



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by airmansperk
 


Please note that the image you are reviewing is NOT the original, has been cropped and altered as described in the links found on page 1 to obscure identifiable landmarks.

What you may be seeing is an artifact of the processing involved.

Were this the original image, untouched, I'd say 'kudos', but, as it stands, this is just a teaser where nothing worthwhile can be sifted from any data, or close inspection.

Supposedly the 'witness' who presented this photo to the person that posted it (detailed on page 1) has several other photos.
Getting that witness to come forward with them, however, has taken 4 years so far. Thus, with this teaser, we're stuck until we can get some meat on our plates to examine.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I know like 10 people hairier than this guy.

I can't believe I'm commenting in a big foot thread on a major conspiracy site. No wonder my cell phone stopped ringing years ago.

Of all the conspiracies out there, I think this is the one I can never believe in no matter how much evidence I see.



I was thinking the same thing!


This looks like my brother's back, and if he let his hair grow out longer, he could look exactly like this! Similar size, hair coverage, and musculature...... and he LOVES fresh fruit!

In fact, this bigfoot has a lot of skin showing through... my brother doesn't have any skin showing through, his is all fur!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
It's too convenient to be real. Yes great picture, but the fact that they could get that close to take a pic of his back and couldn't get any of his face leads me to believe this has to be fake



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Its definitely not a bigfoot.

The reason why I state this is because the size of the leaves are big compared to the size of the head and the rest of the body.

If this was a bigfoot creature, which it isn't, it would only be about the size of a boy.

Bigfoot creatures that are older with gray hair are stated to be very large and very broad.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Well...he is not moving...because the foto is too sharp. But what bugs me is why it is motionless...facing the bushes in that way...
It looks that the camera took a picture from a Big foot taking a leak/pissing!


Good picture any way!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis
 


One main reason for a flash or strobe for a picture is to 'freeze' the action. Yes, it is also used for illumination, but even if the animal is moving the strobe only lasts for 1/500th of a second to stop the action, so even if he was moving the strobe would make it appear as if he is not as it only registers the 1/500th of illumination from the strobe.

I hope that came out right.


Anyways I promise I know what I am talking about, I'm a professional photographer.

Pred...



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187

Anyways I promise I know what I am talking about, I'm a professional photographer.


Well...i am not..for sure!..Im a total ignorant about photography


I thought that any moving object, was always blurred when photographed!


Thank you very much for the explanation mate!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 


If it were a dog stood on its hind legs the hair would be in that direction.... Looks very much like Irish wolfhound hair too me...




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 

Dog Butt!

img.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4/3/2012 by SeenMyShare because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join