Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

page: 10
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Optix
 



Originally posted by Druid42

Originally posted by Druid42

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
I toyed with the original pic in photopaint (not photoshop). First thing that caught my eye is that there is writing on it:



Unfortunately, the pic is low quality, so there's no way I could find to make it legible:



So I think it's a pic someone picked up on the web and downgraded it a lot to make people believe it's something that it's not.


In GIMP, I did a zoom, and applied a sharpen filter, and scaled the image up a bit to make the text a little bit more legible. Here you go:



That's the same site the pic originated from. Why, oh why, would they apply a watermark so small and unnoticeable?

Hmmmmm.


Can anyone explain the watermark? What's the best explanation for hiding a watermark, and making it so small and nearly invisible? Hoax?


Originally posted by RealSpoke


I like this reference pic of a bear.

But of course, there will be those who see primate, which are not native to Canada, instead of applying Occam's Razor, and seeing bears, which are native and very common.

It's much easier to believe a bigfoot plopped his butt down to take a breather, perfectly framed in front of the trail cam. Gee, how often does that happen?

I'm sticking to my premise of an altered photo to make it "appear" that we are looking at a bigfoot.

And I'll await patiently for someone to explain the watermark. To me, that's the clincher of a hoaxed picture.



Bumped forward for you.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


I explained the watermark page before, pretty much all the images on their site has it.

They are saying they think its a bear, so hardly a hoax, they posted it to ask what people think it is, just as this thread is asking.

From what I can see by reading their post. They are not implying it is bigfoot but leaving it up to researches/ readers to answer.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
or ....
A bear taking a dump?


edit on 6-8-2012 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



I wonder if he used a rabbit afterwords....?


No silly...They use charmin. Haven't you seen the commercials?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Gotcha. There are a few other sites toting it as a bigfoot, as well. Good thing you have a ? in the title.

It's a bear, perhaps a pair, but not a bigfoot.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I'm voting for a digging momma bear looking for tasty insects to share with the baby.


gallery.usgs.gov...-4



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


ya a bear is pretty much what I said in the OP, but people are coming up with good points and I'm enjoying the points of view they are presenting..



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Gorillas are found solely in the mountanous jungles of the Congo or in Zoos around the world. If you look at the flora in the background, it doesnt seem to be similar in nature to what you would see in any of the nature programmes. My best guess is it is a gorrilla in one of the wildlife parks you find in Europe and the US.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Hey guys, Greg from Who Forted here. Saw that that there has been some discussion on the watermark, it's actually not as mysterious as it looks... I hid it on purpose.

People snag # all the time without crediting us, so I've started getting creative with the watermarks. What good does it do if people can't read the watermark? Good question. It's not for traffic.. it's so I can call bull# on the jerks who snag the images without bothering to credit the source. When they go "no way, we found this on our own", I can just point out the only-visible-if-you're-really-looking-for-it watermark. It's seriously just to call out places like Cryptomundo. That's it.

When it came to the guy who sent us images of three-toed footprints that he claimed were extraterrestrial in origin, I put these big ass, ugly watermarks all over it anticipating them to be stolen without credit instantly. Hilariously.. they were STILL stolen, and then our watermarks cropped out so much that the image was half it's original size. THEN they put their OWN watermark on it and tried to pretend they had their own inside source. Ridiculous.

So anyway, it's just me getting creative with nabbing liars and thieves, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it couldn't be a hoax, I think we're staring at a buffalo's bung hole to be honest, but if it is one, I don't really have any inside information about it. The woman whose "friend" took the photo was supposed to send us some originals before facebook stripped all the EXIF data from it, but that hasn't happened yet.
edit on 8-8-2012 by GregNewkirk because: unnecessary info



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GregNewkirk
Hey guys, Greg from Who Forted here. Saw that that there has been some discussion on the watermark, it's actually not as mysterious as it looks... I hid it on purpose.

People snag # all the time without crediting us, so I've started getting creative with the watermarks. What good does it do if people can't read the watermark? Good question. It's not for traffic.. it's so I can call bull# on the jerks who snag the images without bothering to credit the source. When they go "no way, we found this on our own", I can just point out the only-visible-if-you're-really-looking-for-it watermark. It's seriously just to call out places like Cryptomundo. That's it.

When it came to the guy who sent us images of three-toed footprints that he claimed were extraterrestrial in origin, I put these big ass, ugly watermarks all over it anticipating them to be stolen without credit instantly. Hilariously.. they were STILL stolen, and then our watermarks cropped out so much that the image was half it's original size. THEN they put their OWN watermark on it and tried to pretend they had their own inside source. Ridiculous.

So anyway, it's just me getting creative with nabbing liars and thieves, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it couldn't be a hoax, I think we're staring at a buffalo's bung hole to be honest, but if it is one, I don't really have any inside information about it. The woman whose "friend" took the photo was supposed to send us some originals before facebook stripped all the EXIF data from it, but that hasn't happened yet.
edit on 8-8-2012 by GregNewkirk because: unnecessary info


Hey! Nifty! Thanks for coming over to give your explanation.
Maybe you will find something here worth sticking around for.
If not, thanks again for at least trying to clear up a bit of the confusion.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GregNewkirk
 


Hi Greg, welcome aboard!

Thanks for joining the discussion. It's an honor.

It's pretty clever how you hid that, and thanks for the in depth explanation. There are a few other sites that haven't figured it out yet, but we have been following the story here about 5 hours after you guys broke it.

Personally, I don't think we'll get the EXIF data, it would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm good with the bear theory. I think the person that sent it to you guys had doctored it a bit first, anyway, thus the FB origin.

edit on 8/8/12 by Druid42 because: added a sentence.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


And I appreciate people who make interesting threads to read. Thanks for the OP!

(Gotta love ATS...)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Thanks for the warm welcome, guys! Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I've browsed ATS threads late into the night, but I've just never made an account. So thanks for the push, now I have no excuse to not join in the conversations


I'll shoot Penny another email and pester her for the images, but like you said, I don't think we'll see them. I've had fun reading the theories on them though. So far I've heard Buffalo rolling in the dirt, bears digging, bears crapping, a gorilla eating it's kill, a man in a gorilla suit, bigfoot (obviously), and, one of my favorites.. one bigfoot hunter told us with 110% confidence that it was a Sasquatch cranking one out. Not even joking.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GregNewkirk
 


Yes Welcome Greggles

And Thanks for the update to the thread.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GregNewkirk
 





So thanks for the push, now I have no excuse to not join in the conversations


A bit of collaboration is always nice as well. Hope to see you around!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 



Yup. You could convince people that this bear was actually an ape it its head was cropped out of the photo.
edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


That's so veeeeery tempting. You're absolutely right.

Must. Not. Load. Gimp.





posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I just want to say to all the bear sayers out there - stop smoking da crack!

Honestly, there isn't any part of that thing that looks like a bear. you can clearly see the spine running straight down the back of this thing, and the muscular arm (huge forearm).

This is either a decent hoax or a stupid squatch.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Try as I might, I simply cannot see "bear" in that picture. Not "bears", either. It looks like the back of a primate, resting on the left arm, with the right leg bent. Very clear shot, and I really hope someone is setting up more cams in that area! I would also hope that whoever got the trail cam shot (and thanks for whoever clarified WHY there was only the one pic!) checked that area for hair, scat, prints, etc. Very interesting pic, in any case!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
The first few posters claiming its a bear and a cub.. this is a TRAIL cam, which takes photos in intervals. If the "big bear" wasa laying or sitting, and the "cub" was laying with its parent.. the trail cam would of snapped many more pics of these "two bears". It takes more then a couple seconds for two bears to get up and move out of view from the trail cam. So its deffinately not a bear and cub.


And what makes you believe we are seeing the ONLY pic? Perhaps the other pics taken make it obvious that its not bigfoot so they were never uploaded, and possibly deleted from the camera.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AHuxley
What's wrong with you people? The person who's trail cam took the picture even states that it's a bear bent over with it's cub. YOU EVEN CLEARLY SEE THE ADULT BEAR THATS BENT OVER SHOOTING A TRAIL OF URINE OUT OF ITS ANUS AREA!

To all the dolts who feel this picture is showing a primate/Sasquatch sitting down from behind and confuse one of the bear's hind legs as the Sasquatch's arm, Why is this "Sasquatch" urinating out of its left shoulder?

The amount of ignorance displayed in this thread is astounding.
edit on 7-8-2012 by AHuxley because: (no reason given)

Dude there is no urine stream. I sat there and stared at this photo, scanning and scanning, looking for stream of pee... to no avail. It's simply not there. 'Twould be nice if there were, would settle the debate.





top topics
 
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join