Bigfoot allegedly photographed in Virginia on June 28, 2014

a reply to: Springer

In my humble opinion, the only way this could not be a deliberate hoax would be if the pictures were taken at random, and only after they were then re-examined did they "think" the burned out tree looked like a bigfoot.
If they claim to have seen bigfoot and snapped a photo, then it's not looking good.

originally posted by: ThinkingCap
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yes, this is not bigfoot. It is a burned tree.
I am 100% confident of this!

Thanks for the fine investigative work, now we need us a gifmaker for the two photos.

Here you go:



The "Bigfoot" looks taller and thinner in one frame than the other, suggesting that it is a flattened shape being photographed at an oblique angle in that frame.

Also note the two paler patches, which do not move between frames. In fact none of the "Bigfoot" appears to move at all between frames.


A further red flag, to my mind: The YouTube uploader only has eight videos in total, and the seven before this one are all tutorials, including "How to make YouTube video" tutorials, dating back three months - well BEFORE this picture was supposedly taken.

www.youtube.com...

Almost like he's been planning to go viral!

You know it's funny to me that people are saying, "There should be more pictures," or "There should be a video of it."

Truth be told, if you saw a freaking big foot by the river your first thought isn't going to be, "Holy crap I should get my cell phone out to take a video." or "let me take more pictures of this thing."

No your desire is going to be wanting to look at this thing with your own two eyes, unclouded by a camera lenses, etc. You would want to see it clearly - as it might be one of the most rare things a human being will ever get to see, and you will want to take it fully in - not waist precious seconds taking a picture of it.

That being said - it could be a fake, or it could be real. But if it is real - it wouldn't surprise me that there isn't a video or more photos, as the viewer would want to see it with their own two eyes for a longer period.

originally posted by: TDawg61
Someone should call Trapper and his A.I.M.S.team for an investigation.Their in Virginia.
Btw, if bigfoots supposedly weigh 5 or 600lbs.that one must be the runt of the litter.

Don't you know they have whole families of big feet in the forest now. Just ask Bo Bo. I think the Trapper crew is the most hysterical show on TV. Shear hillbilly comedy.

i like the part where he states he has never seen anything like he shoot that night yet he didn't see what he shot other than possibly reflection from light on it's eyes.

A quote from the text in the video:

"Just shoot where you think it is" ..... Father to son instructions on shooting a shotgun at night after seeing red eyes and hearing noises.

Good thing it wasn't Uncle Joe playing a prank 25 years ago, because there were people that know nothing about gun safety out there with a shotgun.

SMH.

Why didn't they show a picture of the spot after it ran off. Guess they didn't care to watch it and get more pictures?

a reply to: Springer

Hi Springer!
Well thanks, now I know why I don't fish, camp or shoot at beer cans!

I just don't quite understand the story itself.
If something with red eyes was staring at me out in the woods, I don't think I'd keep sitting there.
They shot it, and heard a huge splash...yet still spent the night there? (Bigger cahonies than I have, lol)

Then in the morning they see a path cleared to the water, but don't return to investigate any further?
The father returns 25 years later, and sees it again...and takes 2 pictures?

It just sounds fishy to me. I'm not saying it wasn't a bigfoot...I just don't understand their behaviour under the circumstances.
If my house tells me to "GET OUT!" I'm outta there! (as in Amityville Horror house)
If I see red eyes watching me and I shoot at it, then heard it plop into the water like a Volkswagon...I'm outta there!

And if I SEE something that might be a bigfoot...I would take MORE than 2 pics of it!! (then I'm outta there!)

jacygirl

a reply to: butcherguy

Dad, I think I shot the game warden. I am in trouble.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Dad, I think I shot the game warden. I am I trouble.

Not around here, son... just cover him with some leaves.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

Taking a picture of the spot with it gone would tend to give evidence that something was there and left.

a reply to: Rob48

Thanks.

May the search for Bigfoot continue.

I think it is time this thread was moved to the hoax section.

If I had a cellphone and was taking pic's of a bigfoot in the wild they would be better than this. And whatever this is, it's small. The size of a black bear. But I don't even think it's a black bear. I think it's a burned-out tree like another poster said. I don't know if the guys story is true or not, but the pic's are not a bigfoot.

Oh, and this guy broke the golden rule: You never shoot into open woods unless you damn well know what you're shooting at. What if it had been one of their family or friends just sneaking up on them to scare them?? He'd be dead. Pure stupidity shooting blindly like that.

A labelled version of the GIF:



I've circled a section of tree roots in the water (blue) and a tree trunk on the bank (red).

Looking at how they move relative to each other (and how the circled tree on the bank appears to move to the other side of the prominent pale stump) you can see that the camera moved significantly to the left from frame 1 to frame 2. You can also tell this is the case by looking at the apparent movement of other trees in the background, notably the one with brown leaves that is at about 2 o'clock from Bigfoot's head in frame 1 and almost directly above it in frame 2.

And you can see significantly more of the left hand edge of the "Bigfoot" stump in frame 2, while the dark face of it appears more oblique and thus narrower. Basically, from the camera's (moving) position you are seeing the stump appear to rotate anticlockwise from frame 1 to frame 2.


TL;DR: It's a stump, you chump.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: TDawg61
Someone should call Trapper and his A.I.M.S.team for an investigation.Their in Virginia.
Btw, if bigfoots supposedly weigh 5 or 600lbs.that one must be the runt of the litter.

Don't you know they have whole families of big feet in the forest now. Just ask Bo Bo. I think the Trapper crew is the most hysterical show on TV. Shear hillbilly comedy.

That show is fake and scripted. And "hillbillys" aren't the executive producers of it, either. So is it really "hillbilly comedy" or just an attempt to show hillbillys in a certain light? rhetorical. Oh, and the hillbilly ginseng show is fake too. I know many of those people and have ginsenged all my life. I laughed when I watched that stupid show. One of the main characters on that show said that if those TV idiots want to pay the money that they do, they'll go along with it. And the creators and producers of that show aren't "hillbillys" either. Go figure.


OT:
Why do people always insert stupid music behind their videos? That takes away from the authenticity of it, I think.

a reply to: Rob48

so bigfoot is a ninja!

a reply to: Rob48

I noticed the same thing of the branches underneath the StumpFoot.

I am wondering how long it will now take for others to realize this has already been debunked.

A report in the media today details DNA testing of ''Yeti'' samples from around the world and matched to GENBANK.

Most were bears, cows, canines etc but two matched Paleolithic Polar Bear DNA, suggesting there could be a brown bear / polar bear hybrid in some areas, some weren't even hair, but fibres / grass etc.


www.theguardian.com...

The scientific team received a total of 57 hair samples. Visual, microscopic and infrared fluorescence examinations eliminated two samples as "obvious non-hairs" (one was plant material, the other was glass fibre). Of the remaining screened samples, 36 were selected for genetic analysis based either on their origin or historic interest.

The samples were cleaned, the DNA was extracted and a short segment of mitochondrial 12S ribosomal DNA was amplified and sequenced. This highly-conserved DNA fragment is suitable for identifying species to genus but was not sufficient to distinguish between closely related species. Thus, this amplified fragment could identify the sample as originating from a canid, but it was not sufficient to differentiate between, say, a wolf, Canis lupus, a coyote, Canis latrans, and a domestic dog, Canis domesticus.

DNA was recovered from 30 of the specially selected hair samples. DNA analysis revealed they originated from a variety of well-known animals, including American black bear (6 samples), canids (4 samples), cows (4 samples), horses (4 samples), brown bear (2 samples), deer (1 sample), North American porcupine (1 sample), sheep (1 sample), Malaysian tapir (1 sample), serow (1 sample), human (1 sample), and even raccoons (2 samples) – remarkable since one sample identified as a raccoon was collected in Russia, which is far removed from the raccoon's natural range.

Although this study didn't reveal anything new to those of us who stay informed about cryptozoology, two samples returned strange matches. Both samples (25025 and 25191) were 100 percent matches to DNA recovered from a Pleistocene polar bear, Ursus maritimus, that lived more than 40 000 years ago on Svalbard. Weirdly, the authors report that neither sample gave a 100 percent match to modern polar bear DNA sequences, and neither specimen originated from within the polar bear's modern day range.

Professor Sykes and his colleagues elaborate (somewhat) in their paper about these two peculiar samples: "Hair sample no. 25025 came from an animal shot by an experienced hunter in Ladakh, India ca 40 years ago who reported that its behaviour was very different from a brown bear Ursus arctos with which he was very familiar."

A 100 percent match between two geographically distant hair samples to a Pleistocene polar bear is … spectacularly bizarre, in my opinion. So I contacted one of the world's foremost authorities of polar bear evolutionary history, Frank Hailer, a postdoctoral researcher at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (Biodiversität und Klima Forschungszentrum) in Germany. Dr Hailer compared the authors' two reported DNA sequences to previously published data from other polar and brown bears but was unable to confirm the authors' reported results.

Dr Hailer instead found that the two sequences were 100 percent identical to a polar bear that was sampled somewhere between Siberia and Alaska approximately 10 years ago. He found that the Pleistocene polar bear sequence differed at one position from the sequence data reported from the authors' Himalayan "Yeti" samples. So, unless the database sequence submitted by the authors is incorrect, their hair samples actually do carry a DNA sequence that is present in modern polar bears.

But why might polar bear DNA be found in brown bears? A few years ago, Dr Hailer and his colleagues showed that polar bears hybridised with brown bears long ago in the late Pleistocene (doi:10.1126/science.1216424), so that may be the reason for Sykes and colleagues' genetic findings. Additionally, although several bear species occur in and around the Himalayas, none have so far been identified as carrying mitochondrial DNA from polar bears.

"If true, this would raise some interesting questions about the movement of polar bears, or at least their genes, outside their current arctic distribution", writes Dr Hailer in email.

"Brown bears might transport introgressed polar bear alleles far beyond the polar bear range. Of course, this assumes that the reported geographic origin of the hair samples is correct.

a reply to: Rob48


um, what? Not exactly sure what you're going on about. All I know is, those pictures are completely different spots. Not just a left to right pan of the camera.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Rob48


um, what? Not exactly sure what you're going on about. All I know is, those pictures are completely different spots. Not just a left to right pan of the camera.

Um, no, they're not. Use your eyes.