Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

Wow, so much controversy over a picture of a bear's backside.

I'm going back to the Aliens and UFO forum for something more likely.

Originally posted by Unthought Known


If you or anyone else can show me a bear, of any kind, that has that long and skinny of a leg, then I will believe it is a bear. Otherwise, to me it is either a gorilla or a sasquatch.

Well I do think its a bear.
But it is missing body bits and hasn't the fat tummy part either. Also I do think its just the "luck" of getting a body contortion in that picture.

I am as always open to be convinced otherwise

reply to post by Unthought Known

If you or anyone else can show me a bear, of any kind, that has that long and skinny of a leg, then I will believe it is a bear. Otherwise, to me it is either a gorilla or a sasquatch.

So you’re more apt to believe that it’s a mythological creature like sasquatch (which there is no proof of) than a more common animal that closely resembles the picture in the OP? It looks like a bear's ass to me and I think that is a more plausible explanation.

How about this skinny bear leg?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Unthought Known

 

If you or anyone else can show me a bear, of any kind, that has that long and skinny of a leg, then I will believe it is a bear. Otherwise, to me it is either a gorilla or a sasquatch.

So you’re more apt to believe that it’s a mythological creature like sasquatch (which there is no proof of) than a more common animal that closely resembles the picture in the OP? It looks like a bear's ass to me and I think that a more plausible explanation.

How about this skinny bear leg?

Actually I more thought it was the ape and since the only other explanation, for me at that time, was that it was a mythical creature because it looked like a primate.

With that said, I stand corrected as that is a picture of a bear with very long, skinny legs. So now it looks a lot like a bear to me. Thanks a lot for bringing logic and evidence to the thread and making me lose my fantasy that they may have found bigfoot!

Originally posted by Unthought Known

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Unthought Known

 

If you or anyone else can show me a bear, of any kind, that has that long and skinny of a leg, then I will believe it is a bear. Otherwise, to me it is either a gorilla or a sasquatch.

So you’re more apt to believe that it’s a mythological creature like sasquatch (which there is no proof of) than a more common animal that closely resembles the picture in the OP? It looks like a bear's ass to me and I think that a more plausible explanation.

How about this skinny bear leg?

Actually I more thought it was the ape and since the only other explanation, for me at that time, was that it was a mythical creature because it looked like a primate.

With that said, I stand corrected as that is a picture of a bear with very long, skinny legs. So now it looks a lot like a bear to me. Thanks a lot for bringing logic and evidence to the thread and making me lose my fantasy that they may have found bigfoot!

edit on 8/6/2012 by Unthought Known because: (no reason given)

Star for you, sir. It takes a sharp and durable mind to admit ones own biases, and admit that you may have jumped to conclusions. I have done so many times (and I am sure I will do so many more).

reply to post by DeadSeraph


If you want to be real, try applying accoms razor to what your looking at instead of fabricating somthing out of nothing, youve got the pic in front of you as we all do, the appendige your looking at on the left side is not a hind quarter but a front left arm, note the musculature. While were at it, note the back, it widens as it gets closer to the shoulder not the other way around. Which makes the second figure "a" second figure, not a part of the first.

From where I sit these are "two" obvious entities with seperate bodies.

Edit to add that bears, especially at this time of year dont have that corse of hair. Riddle me that bat butt!

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Out of curiosity ...how do you see a bear? Explain how it's sitting..or feeding or interacting w/ cub....

I personally do not see a bear in any position....but I do see a primate. I find it parcuilar that there's only one pic?.but then I don't know the rest of the story....and I don't remember where or if anyone said it was taken...and can that for sure be validated...

Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

If you want to be real, try applying accoms razor to what your looking at instead of fabricating somthing out of nothing, youve got the pic in front of you as we all do, the appendige your looking at on the left side is not a hind quarter but a front left arm, note the musculature. While were at it, note the back, it widens as it gets closer to the shoulder not the other way around. Which makes the second figure "a" second figure, not a part of the first.

From where I sit these are "two" obvious entities with seperate bodies.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. We have no photographic evidence of bigfoot, no skeletons, no specimens, and generally a shaky case for their existence at best. While I personally believe they exist, The simplest explanation for this photo, is that it is a bear.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to picture a bear and a cub, as I have outlined. You'll have to pardon my hasty photoshop job, but if you compare what I have said and illustrated with the original photo, it is clear that this is a possibility.

I'm not skeptical because I refuse to believe. I'm skeptical because I want to, and because it's important that such subjects are met with proper scrutiny. If they are not, they will never be taken seriously.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Where in the physical composition of this creature do you see a bear or a cub for that matter. Easiest explanation doesn't mean the most stupid explanation.

reply to post by tracehd1


Well I dont see a bear, I see a primate shape, but a shape doesn't make a bigfoot
so common sense tells me its a bear.

Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Where in the physical composition of this creature do you see a bear or a cub for that matter. Easiest explanation doesn't mean the most stupid explanation.

Did you bother to read the thread or just comment on what you wanted to see? I've provided an illustration and a written explanation of what I think I see.

It appears to me, to be a mother bear digging in the earth (as bears often do). The appendage to the left is her hind leg, and the camera is facing her head on. The bulk of her neck partially obscures her right paw (or the left as we see it), which is swept back in a digging motion. Her cub is directly to her left (our right), and her snout is against the ground, obscured by the tall grass.

If you look close enough (given my description) you can even make out some slight variations in light and color where her ears would be.

To you, it's obvious it's a large primate because that's what you want it to be. To me, that was the first thing I saw as well. But I have provided a reasonable explanation as to why it is a bear and a cub.

I don't know what it could be....

Here is a gorilla at the Pgh Zoo

reply to post by Unthought Known

With that said, I stand corrected as that is a picture of a bear with very long, skinny legs. So now it looks a lot like a bear to me. Thanks a lot for bringing logic and evidence to the thread and making me lose my fantasy that they may have found bigfoot!

Congratulations!!

You’re the first and ONLY member of ATS that I've persuaded with my argument! SUCKER!!!

Seriously though, I wanted to believe it was a sasquatch; I really did!

I couldn’t wait to open the thread and see this “evidence”! Turns out a hunter’s camera caught a bear’s ass in the woods…go figure!

Peace

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Yes I read the thread and saw your little outline, now answer me this, if you will, how is it that the hair on every mammal I've ever seen flows from head to rear. But based of your Accoms Razor theary this perticular creature has it's hair flowing in the oppisite direction of of your pathetic diagram?

Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Yes I read the thread and saw your little outline, now answer me this, if you will, how is it that the hair on every mammal I've ever seen flows from head to rear. But based of your Accoms Razor theary this perticular creature has it's hair flowing in the oppisite direction of of your pathetic diagram?

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

If you had the capacity to visualize what I am attempting to demonstrate, you would see that my admittedly pathetic diagram illustrates this perfectly, and does not break your "rule".

I'd 3d model it for you, but you called my 2d pathetic

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Well, then I suggest you try again because for a critical thinking mind your explanation carries no weight. Now answer or refute my hypothisis about the hair or shut up

Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Well, then I suggest you try again because for a critical thinking mind your explanation carries no weight. Now answer my refute my hypothisis about the hair or shut up

You have no refute, and no hypothesis. I have already answered your concerns about the direction of hair flow. In the future, perhaps you could be a bit more civil when someone challenges your mind?

You have't answered a thing, how do you account for the direction of the hair?

reply to post by Jetman44


much less fur on the legs on the gorilla you posted

Originally posted by twohawks
You have't answered a thing, how do you account for the direction of the hair?