Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

To those who say, well it can't be a gorilla, since they don't live in Canada. It must be a bear then, maybe even from a zoo.

Why is no one mentioning that this very well could be a pick of a gorilla, at a zoo, with some flowers or something added to make it look like NA ecology.

With all that said, I still can see how someone might perceive it as a bear. In all likelihood it actually is a bear. However, there is simply not enough information to come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by deathlord
For those thinking it is a gorilla or something of the sort, there is nothing around that has its shoulders level with its face. There is no kind of visible neck on there, its head would be going straight down out to the shoulders in a very odd shape that I've never seen in a primate of any kind.

not even close

This post is amusing because of how similar those two pictures actually are. If you took the first photo from a lower angle, and the gorilla stooping it's head slightly, you'd end up with the same photo. (albeit with different fur color and texture)

Humans, unlike gorillas, are almost totally upright, and yet I could still hunch my shoulders, and stoop my head, enough to produce a picture with a form somewhat similar to this.

I just saw something I didn't notice before. look at the "Bigfoots" left arm. It is in front of it's ribcage. Look at the "Lats" on the side in relation to 50% of the animals "left arm" anatomically it simply can't be in the position it is in to be an arm. Its shoulder joint would have to be somewhere in the middle of the animals left pectoral. We're looking at a hip joint not a shoulder joint.

I wanted this to be a sasquatch but it's a bear.

reply to post by renegadeloser


Well when you or any primate hunches their head down to their shoulders, do they magically connect straight to the top of your head? It's one straight line from the "shoulders"(hind leg of the bear), all the way to the top of the "head"(tail of bear). Though if you can make your shoulders morph into your head, then you need to get yourself a circus act.

Originally posted by Corpsehoagie
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Sorry I wish I could highlight it but I'm only on my crappy droid :/......illusion or what I'm not sure I just played with the zoom function and I can see them standing there haha clear as day

Well, with a nice high-res screen, and photo editing software, i can't see anything like that. Maybe it is some digital rendering issue with your droid? I have zoomed WAY in, and WAY out, played with resolution, etc., and I can't see any reflection at all, much less clear images of people.

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by freedomwv

 

Can science disprove it by continuing to not produce any type of biological samples? And can you provide your analysis which shows that this is a bigfoot or 'something altogether totally different' rather than a bear?

edit on 9-8-2012 by jeantherapy because: (no reason given)

There have been quite a few samples found over the years. Hair, scat, even some DNA with odd results, off of a nail. In those cases, it's always something very close to human, but with little differences, and the experts won't say if those differences are real, or some testing issue. Many of the footprints show dermal ridges, virtually impossible, to my understanding, to fake. About all they don't have is a body (and there are stories of more than one of those, sent to museums and "vanished").

The thing is, most mainstream scientists won't even go out looking for evidence. However, that said, Jane Goodall, who is surely among the top primate experts, states that there is a primate in North America.

her comments

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by freedomwv

 

Can science disprove it by continuing to not produce any type of biological samples? And can you provide your analysis which shows that this is a bigfoot or 'something altogether totally different' rather than a bear?

edit on 9-8-2012 by jeantherapy because: (no reason given)

There have been quite a few samples found over the years. Hair, scat, even some DNA with odd results, off of a nail. In those cases, it's always something very close to human, but with little differences, and the experts won't say if those differences are real, or some testing issue. Many of the footprints show dermal ridges, virtually impossible, to my understanding, to fake. About all they don't have is a body (and there are stories of more than one of those, sent to museums and "vanished").

The thing is, most mainstream scientists won't even go out looking for evidence. However, that said, Jane Goodall, who is surely among the top primate experts, states that there is a primate in North America.

her comments

Thanks for the link. I'm a bit shocked such an ardent skeptic as yourself believes these things exist... I guess one must pick and choose their battles

My own personal opinion is that "samsquanch" is a primitive offshoot of evolution. Not necessarily a monkey or an ape, but a species which evolved beside (and in tandem) with mankind. A primate by definition, but much more closely related to our own species.

I also think they are highly intelligent (bordering on human like intelligence), and may even bury their dead, and have some form of communication.

Of course, this is all conjecture, but the evidence seems to suggest they exist (I know someone personally who witnessed one in the Jasper/Banff area of Alberta personally, and swears it was bipedal, hairy/furry, and white (i.e not the local type of bear species).

I still contend however, that this picture is of a bear and her cub.

Since everyone is drawing pictures. I still think that it being the butt of a bear is the most convincing explanation. However I can still see why people see gorilla. I think it's a tough one to call, whatever your guess being there is simply not enough information for it to be definitive. Maybe if the owner of the trail cam had been there shortly after, and had been able to collect hair and stool samples, this would have made a better case for big foot.

In case my picture is too awful to be helpful at conveying the message. Essentially his neck is close to parallel with the ground, pointed away from you and to left. Off set from the ground roughly 10 degrees give or take.

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
The Patterson film was the best we will ever get, but the herd refuses to accept it then and now. Even if we produced a corspe people would deny the authenticity.

I am afraid the ship has sailed as far as this generation is concerned.

That film was fake. A man even came forward and stated that he was asked to don a suit for the film. He decided to go ahead with it, and they both made this 'bigfoot' film.

reply to post by zazzafrazz



It is two bears. The bigger part on the left is the rear end of one bear, what appears as an arm is the left rear leg. Then the other thing at right is another bear or cub less visible. The reason she suggested this is because she knew what it was and was taking pics. Then she saw this pic and released it with no real claim so she can't be labeled a hoaxer.

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
The Patterson film was the best we will ever get, but the herd refuses to accept it then and now. Even if we produced a corspe people would deny the authenticity.

I am afraid the ship has sailed as far as this generation is concerned.

That film was fake. A man even came forward and stated that he was asked to don a suit for the film. He decided to go ahead with it, and they both made this 'bigfoot' film.

So because someone says it is so, that must make it so? Funny how the same logic doesn't go the other way, no?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the patterson film wasn't faked, starting with the subjects breasts, that weren't even visible until modern technology was able to further define the footage.

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
The Patterson film was the best we will ever get, but the herd refuses to accept it then and now. Even if we produced a corspe people would deny the authenticity.

I am afraid the ship has sailed as far as this generation is concerned.

That film was fake. A man even came forward and stated that he was asked to don a suit for the film. He decided to go ahead with it, and they both made this 'bigfoot' film.

Do a little research on the guy who claimed to be in a costume (Bob Heironimus) and you'll find that he had every reason to lie in order to cash in by jumping into the mix. In the year of the Patterson film we did not have a costume that was that realistic. Also, analysis of the video showed that bigfoot was about 7 feet tall where Bob Heironimus was only 6'2".

I watched the video numerous times and I think it's legit due to the way the creature moved as well as the musculature of the creature. It even had breasts which is why scientists who think it's real call it a female.
There is plenty of info out there about the movie and analysis done on it, but in the end you have to decide for yourself.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
*snip*
Thanks for the link. I'm a bit shocked such an ardent skeptic as yourself believes these things exist... I guess one must pick and choose their battles

My own personal opinion is that "samsquanch" is a primitive offshoot of evolution. Not necessarily a monkey or an ape, but a species which evolved beside (and in tandem) with mankind. A primate by definition, but much more closely related to our own species.

I also think they are highly intelligent (bordering on human like intelligence), and may even bury their dead, and have some form of communication.

Of course, this is all conjecture, but the evidence seems to suggest they exist (I know someone personally who witnessed one in the Jasper/Banff area of Alberta personally, and swears it was bipedal, hairy/furry, and white (i.e not the local type of bear species).

I still contend however, that this picture is of a bear and her cub.

edit on 10-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

...."ardent skeptic"??? ME?!?!? I can't tell you how long I was laughing at that before being able to respond. I am far from a skeptic, on quite a number of issues! Heck, I have SEEN too many things to not believe we don't know all there is to know. I even have one sighting in a book (Gerhard). When it comes to cryptozoological issues, believe me, I am no skeptic!

I saw, along with my entire family, while I was in high school, a buzzard (turkey vulture, technically) with a wingspan so wide it hung over the edges of the road; at least 15 feet across. On the ground, in front of our car, someplace in Texas. I really don't recall where, because we went all over that year. Galveston, Corpus, and even to this place called Alamo Village, where they have filmed some movies. Some dirt road, wide enough for two cars to pass (just), and this collection of turkey vultures was on the ground, some in the road, after some sort of road kill. This one was HUGE, way bigger than the accepted max size for them. He could see into the car from a standing position, and his wings, when mostly (NOT entirely) spread out, overhung the road. BIG bird, indeed! We didn't realize he was beyond the record size, and joked that "Wow, things really are bigger in Texas!" I could kick myself for not taking a picture, but what HS girl wants a pic of a big ugly bird?

Another time, my brother and I saw something flying about (that's in a book), that was NOT any bird, and very threatening.

So, yeah, I can accept the probability of Bigfoot being real. Most won't believe what I saw, and I won't doubt other stories without good reason.

Interesting idea, yours. The DNA they have tested is VERY close to human. There are some that do think they are some sort of primitive people. Hard to say, but many guys with guns said they would have shot, but they looked at the face, and it was too human to do so. That or some very smart ape, either way, I think they are real. Yes, might bury their dead. However, studies show that a body in the wild can vanish in a week or two, so not finding one dead isn't a sign they aren't real. They aren't stumbling over bear carcasses all the time, either, and we know those are there.

I don't know anyone "face to face" that's seen one, though some online friends have. Credible people.

This pic, I still can't see bear. Either it is a gorilla in a preserve someplace, or it's a Bigfoot. What I really want to know is how the trail cam was set. Motion sensors, or timed pics, and if times, at what intervals? One picture only, not even any blurry before and after, would seem to indicate either timed, and not too close together, or misrepresented. Hope it's real - VERY clear shot, and an expert should be able to ID the thing.

Originally posted by renegadeloser

edit on 10-8-2012 by renegadeloser because: First and failed attempt at embedding. Got it figure out in the next post.

So, how DID you get the picture to embed??? I always get a fail on that, and can only manage to post a blasted link. Same with video. Know I am missing something, but it's frustrating. BTW, nice pic. I see a primate, too. My ONLY question is if it's a known one, or a real Bigfoot.

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
The Patterson film was the best we will ever get, but the herd refuses to accept it then and now. Even if we produced a corspe people would deny the authenticity.

I am afraid the ship has sailed as far as this generation is concerned.

That film was fake. A man even came forward and stated that he was asked to don a suit for the film. He decided to go ahead with it, and they both made this 'bigfoot' film.

That man lied. There is no suit, no proof that he's telling the truth, and the best possible modern attempts to duplicate the walk, the limb movements, everything, all fail. Computer analysis even shows that it is not possible for any normal human to duplicate the walk, because of differences in joint placement, limb length, etc. Gimlin emphatically states that this man claiming to have been there isn't honest, and that they filmed a real animal. Patterson is, I believe, deceased.

I saw that film from the time I was a child. This was when there were a LOT of wildlife shows on, and we did watch those regularly. I know what real footage looks like. I also know what the BEST Hollywood could do at the time was, because we saw that in the Planet of the Apes. WAY inferior to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The movie people didn't even use whole costumes, because anything like that back them was very obvious. Check out old movie clips for proof of that. I have looked at all of the attempted recreations, and not one looks convincing. The original stands unscathed. That is a real animal.

I'm going with a young buffalo. The 'arm' is actually it's left hind leg, it's head on the right on the ground, probably in the process of lying down. You can even see a tail just at the top of the hind leg.

It's a buffalo's butt.

reply to post by Nammu


Even full-grown buffalo legs are skinnier than the "arm" in the photo.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


That man lied.

That would be your personal opinion only. Though it proves nothing, he was confident enough to take...and pass, a lie detector test.

the best possible modern attempts to duplicate the walk, the limb movements, everything, all fail. Computer analysis even shows that it is not possible for any normal human to duplicate the walk, because of differences in joint placement, limb length, etc.

Even Meldrum discounted the "compliant gait" idea. It's nonsense, get up out of your chair and give it a go. One of the very reasons science dismisses it, is that there is nothing about it's walk or proportions which rules out a human in a fur suit.

I also know what the BEST Hollywood could do at the time was, because we saw that in the Planet of the Apes. WAY inferior to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The movie people didn't even use whole costumes, because anything like that back them was very obvious.

The Hollywood movie people also shoot in high quality film, with close ups. Not shaky, blurry, grainy footage that no detail at all can be drawn from. Apart from the obvious biological contradictions ie. modern western human face with sagital crest, male sagital crest/ female breasts, breasts covered in thick hair/fur...Did you know Patterson wrote a book a couple of years earlier in wich bigfoot was portrayed as having...breasts.

It seems Gimlin appears honest IMO, yet that doesn't mean it was a real bigfoot. It is too inconclusive, can only be opinion either way.

This is a good thread to add this classic late-great Mitch Hedberg line:

I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry and that's extra scary to me because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside.