It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Yet Another Claimed Bigfoot Photo

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:01 PM
No story to go with this one. Still searching for more info. Very interesting tho. This is said to of been taken in Florence County, Wisconsin in 2002. I have never seen this one before. Researchers are saying a very good area with recent activity. When you blow the picture up 2 creatures appear.
Claimed BigFoot Picture

Someone noticed this in the photo also:

It looks like there's a tree bent over the river and some fingernail scrapings on the trees to the right.

Photo taken at coordinates N45 49.851' W88 17.400'... November 6,2002

Link To Enlarged Photo

If anyone has more info please post.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:09 PM
Well that's a new one. Not very many "unintentional" bigfoot pictures out there.

Not possibly a bear, proportions don't fit right. Doesn't seem to be just a guy with matching waders and a coat, no seams and all seems to be one piece/is real. The stance is a little bit odd considering how steep of a hill he is walking up. Upon closer inspection it looks kind of weird and out-of-place, like a really good photoshop. The lighting and focus is about the same as the trees around it, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that the picture is original and genuine. Either real or a guy in a suit. I've seen trees and branches make weird shapes before, but that doesn't seem to be what this is. Can't add much more than that at this time, though.

And I can only see one of the creatures you say show up when the picture is blown up.... unless you mean the guy as well

Good find, thanks for sharing!

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Yarcofin]

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:43 PM
Interesting, I think the "second" one he is talking about is below and to the left if I am not mistaken.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:04 PM
Hmm I don't know. The original seems like it could just be foliage or something of that nature making an odd shape, on the zoomed ones it looks like a real figure.

Looking at the zoomed one you can make out an arm and two legs. It looks like one leg is propped up on a log or something and you can see the head. At the "Head" there is like this white hazy line in the middle which would be the face however you can see that it goes through the head making it seems like it's just an odd shape made by foliage.

Good find

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:50 PM
Well I was gonna say "I'll check it out for photoshopping and get back to you" but, I can't seem to save the picture to my comp. Everytime I try, it just saves a .gif named spaceball(a 1x1 pix image file). So since I can't save it and blow it up but I COULD easily make a fake like this I am gonna have to say that I beleive it is fake. Show me something that I can't duplicate using my computer and I'll be much more impressed.

Keep em' coming Harry55. Where in the world are you coming up with all this Bigfoot material?!? Good Job!

Ok, I got it on my comp and I have to say it doesn't appear to be a Photoshop. Not saying it is really Bigfoot but it does appear to be a genuine photo. On the other hand it is still way to blurry to say whether it was PSed or not.

I wanna see a bigfoot pic so close that we can see his nose hairs!!!

[edit on 30-11-2005 by adamneldon]

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 06:02 AM
hi all - for some reason the image hosting used is playing silly buggers , and wount allow direct save , so i have relocated copies to image shack :




i have resized them at the best res i can , enjoy

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 06:11 AM
ok - one quck comment , in light of the continued claims on the lines of :

" big foot is shy "

big foot is stealthy "

" big foot avoids humans "

etc etc etc

the target of this set of pics seems very curious and makes ZERO attempt to hide

etc etc

just my views , YMMV

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:56 AM
The only way the stance of the creature looks right to me is to picture it going up the hill and we are looking at it's back. Because if it is front on, where are the bottom of it's legs? You would think that guy would hear something? Or maybe the river is very loud.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:49 AM

The 'second' creature looks like its wearing a yellow jacket no? Could just be two people walking around.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:57 AM
it looks added to me.

fits neatly between trees. there appears to be a ring around the creature in the enlarged version and there isn't any sign of the creature on the left side of the trees. also, the image is much clearer on the left side of the trees.

also, is it not odd that in every bigfoot picture the beast is turning its face to the camera?

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:02 AM
great find Harry

I only see one Bigfoot and he's carrying/dragging something away from the yeah we're looking at his back.

The fact that it is an unintentional pic, makes it more appealing to me as "real" one.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I only see one Bigfoot and he's carrying/dragging something away from the yeah we're looking at his back.

must be another link because the one I went to had a "creature" in the background, between trees with the left arm and leg extended in a walking motion and the pelvis, body and head all seemed to be facing the camera.

I certainly did't see anything clear enough to indicate a creature caryying or dragging something.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:06 PM
NYGDAN : what ` second creature ` , what yellow jacket - are we looking at the same image ??

CRAKEUR : regards the fact that you cannot see the creature on the left side of the tree - IMHO comparing the lengh of the left arm and the angle of the right humerous - the right hand should be obscured

regards the " creatures facing - the angle and position of the left leg and arm tell me that we are looking at it face on too

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:34 PM
in this enlarged shot

it almost looks as if the right arm is holding onto the tree as the thing leans around to give a ful frontal shot. there's no sign of the right arm to the left of the trees.

I'm neither an expert in photoshop, nor am I an expert in the field of monkeys, apes or any animals resembling them but this just looks staged to me.

another thing to point out, this guy is clearly a picture taker (check out his other photos). Now, someone who takes pictures like his (some are scenic, artsy etc but the ones posted are all good) is probably going to take more than one shot in succession. no sign of that here tho. every photographer I know takes multiples, just in case the first shot didn't work.

lastly, if I am snapping a picture of a friend I will be looking thru the viewfinder, making sure the picture is just right. that means at least 30 seconds of staring at the scene thru the camera. he didn't notice a bigfoot walking right into the center of the picture, right between the trees almost dead center in the frame and almost completely framed by a gap in the trees?

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:45 PM
He looks surprisingly urbane, what with the sneakers, NFL jacket, clean shave and fresh coiffure. Maybe all the media attention is giving the old guy dreams of fame and fortune Hollywood-style.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:54 PM
I had to keep looking after every post just to see what you people are seeing.

Crakeur, it does look like it is facing the camera almost like it's doing the monkey dance for us.

I think I have to correct myself, the yellow stuff, the thing I thought it was dragging is most likely natural, because the color matches the color along the shoreline.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
the monkey dance.

mental note, if I ever am walking thru the woods and someone is taking a picture off in the distance, do the monkey dance and become famous for possibly being a bigfoot.


posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:22 PM
another good find Harry.

If I was saying real, I'd say it's right hand (our left) is either holding onto the trunk and he's leaning out whilst his hand is round the trunk...but I think that particular trunk is a tree further down the slope so that would be impossible. So his hand might be resting against the trunk (the trunk on our left of the two trunks) and that part of his arm is then obscured behind the other trunk. There seems to be a dark bit in the V of those two trunks which I am taking to be his hand. Something which strikes me as real is the out of focus branch that crosses his face. But it could be some guy in a hired monkey suit.

However I can't say that I think this is real, but why would anyone want to fake something like that?

Be interesing for someone to go to the location and stand in that position and note where the trunks are relative to the position of the bigfoot. and to get a size comparison.

Has anyone put the coordinates into google earth? and can you give a link to the equivalent in google maps for those of us who can't use earth.


[edit on 1/12/2005 by Wig]

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:38 PM
This one looks good, but it might just be someone in black attire hiking. But I'm more partial to thinking that it's a Bigfoot, as skeptical as I am about this stuff. Nice capture.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:43 PM
The way I see it is it's 'shopped' there's elements around it that indicates that
a shape has been seen and utilised later.
I believe the figure wasn't added, just made to be clearer as a humanoid shape.
The blurring is subtle and don't effect the pixels around it too much.
Check the close-up image and look at the pixels on the 'creature's' right-hand
shoulder, I think something went on here.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in