Bigfoot allegedly photographed in Virginia on June 28, 2014

a reply to: Springer

There are two or three in that photo, if the photo is legit, one to the right, one behind that one

a reply to: Rob48

Agreed, sure looks like a standing black bear.

This was debunked on the second page.
Should have been moved to the hoax forum, surprised it hasn't been yet.

It would seem to me like after 25 years, it was about time for the kid to go back to the spot, pose for a photo shoot, and then choose the best 2 pictures to post on YouTube.

originally posted by: TSOM87
What would happen if we found it/them? Would we go down the road of putting them in Zoo's and doing Experiments on them? Could we just leave them as they are? Would that be possible knowing that they are alot of gun nuts who love the hunt fix.

"Could we leave them just as they are???" --- We cant even find ONE, so yeah, I think they will be fine.

"Would that be possible (leaving them alone) knowing that they (there) are a lot of gun nuts who love the hunt fix?" --- So gun nuts are sitting on their couches instead of hunting....?... Waiting for a bigfoot to be caught/identified/shot before they can get off their couches to go hunt??!!... That doesn't make a lick of sense!

a reply to: Springer

Interesting Springer ...


Well Me say Something to you you may find interesting ...

Where I'm am from there are many legends of Supernatural Creatures..

From the Span of Cornwall Ontario to Montreal Quebec Canada and From St Lawrence County, Akwasasne ( Mohawk reservation ) Plattsburgh New York The Legends are Were Wolfs , Mountain Lions , Wolfs , Big Foot ( Hominids ) to Little People, Lake Champlain Monster ( like Scotland's Nessie ) Between the Boarders of Canada & US along the St Lawrence Sea way

Tho most Reports Lately are Wolfs, Coy-wolves and Mountain Lions ( Cougars ) tho the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation say there isn't any ! tho people have claim there was and had many article's in local News saying there is ..

Here a Thread Ive made long ago.


Mountain Lions in upstate New York and Coywolves
posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:27 PM
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some sites ..

Area mountain lion sightings might not be so farfetched
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 3:58 pm
northcountrynow.com...
Group hopes to track cougars in St. Lawrence County and Adirondacks, seeks help from public
northcountrynow.com...

In the Conservationist Magazine of NY

there was a article about the Coywolves

and some around the Net

Canis soupus: The Eastern Coy-Wolf

northernwoodlands.org...

Eastern Coyote
Scientific Name: Canis latrans
www.dec.ny.gov...

Local Newsite

Coyotes in St. Lawrence County are wolf-dog hybrids, scientist says
northcountrynow.com...



New York Bigfoot Society
www.newyorkbigfootsociety.com...

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY, NEW YORK
BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS
www.gcbro.com...

Le Loup Garou / French Canadian folklore
www.werewolves.com...

Little people Mythology Native American Folklore
en.wikipedia.org...

"Gigantic" Newcomers to the Prehistoric St. Lawrence River Valley
www.genesis6giants.com...

Video Revives Lake Champlain Monster Mystery ABC-NEWS
abcnews.go.com...

Champ (cryptozoology)
en.wikipedia.org...

So There it it is the Folk Lore Legends around my Home Town.

around Youtube there is a few showing these.. legends or telling the tale

Big foot in your Video Springer has it Back towards the Camera

Well I cant wait to see a Real Video of One .. let alone a captured Bigfoot/ hominid
around here they seam to hide in Wild life reservations , The Nitches ... as Lloyd Pye would say.. Smart Buggers ..

Ohh it doe s Look like a Burned out Stump . lol.. thanks to low res .. it can be anything .. LOL

Dont we have HD phones now .. It should be a New Rule No Low Res Photos or it DIDNT HAPPEN !!

might as well be a vintage hub cap and claiming it as a UFO ..

This thread is living proof that members are heavily prone to giving a response before actually reading the previous replies.

It's been a charred tree since page 1 people. Time to move on.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FlySolo

I am saying it is the same object, motionless from two very different vantage points.

Here, perhaps this will help you see how much the camera has swung round.

I've drawn a line connecting the stump to the half-submerged roots/branches in the water.

That line is stationary. See how the camera has moved round and you are now looking at the side of the stump? Either that or Bigfoot has suddenly got skinnier!

What gets me about your perspective issue is, how can a branch that's on the right of a stump get to the left of the stump? Perspective alone won't do this.

Do you see now? Follow that line back behind the "Bigfoot" stump. That leaning treestump in the back will appear to swing around to
th89e left, behind the prominent upright stump closer to the riverbank. The camera is rotating as well as moving sideways.

Im I the only one that finds that pic pretty funny.

Now that you mention it... a reply to: interupt42

I am laughing my ass off.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FlySolo

I am saying it is the same object, motionless from two very different vantage points.

Here, perhaps this will help you see how much the camera has swung round.

I've drawn a line connecting the stump to the half-submerged roots/branches in the water.

That line is stationary. See how the camera has moved round and you are now looking at the side of the stump? Either that or Bigfoot has suddenly got skinnier!

What gets me about your perspective issue is, how can a branch that's on the right of a stump get to the left of the stump? Perspective alone won't do this.

Do you see now? Follow that line back behind the "Bigfoot" stump. That leaning treestump in the back will appear to swing around to
th89e left, behind the prominent upright stump closer to the riverbank. The camera is rotating as well as moving sideways.

Im I the only one that finds that pic pretty funny.

Bigfoot is just pleased to see you.

a reply to: Springer

Why do people make a 4 minute video and have a 10 seconds of whatever the vidso is supposed to be about and rest is either talking heads or text. Who gives a xyz about anything other than what the dam video is supposed to be about

a reply to: learnatic

Just adds to the illegitimacy, IMO

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FlySolo

I am saying it is the same object, motionless from two very different vantage points.

Here, perhaps this will help you see how much the camera has swung round.

I've drawn a line connecting the stump to the half-submerged roots/branches in the water.

That line is stationary. See how the camera has moved round and you are now looking at the side of the stump? Either that or Bigfoot has suddenly got skinnier!

What gets me about your perspective issue is, how can a branch that's on the right of a stump get to the left of the stump? Perspective alone won't do this.

Do you see now? Follow that line back behind the "Bigfoot" stump. That leaning treestump in the back will appear to swing around to
th89e left, behind the prominent upright stump closer to the riverbank. The camera is rotating as well as moving sideways.

Im I the only one that finds that pic pretty funny.

Bigfoot is just pleased to see you.

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether Bigfoot was excited to see us, taking a whiz (and writing his name in the water)... or playing with his light saber.

Easily good be a Gorilla at some Zoo park or whereever.

a reply to: Springer

Springer...Really man? This is an absolute BS this post. Makes me question even coming to this site anymore when the site owner posts garbage like this.

a reply to: Jefferton
This was way better than your flying humanoid video!! Now that was the worst video of all time. people are always quick to attack on this site.

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Springer

I'll say this...if I shot something that "red eyes," and it did not die and ran off causing a commotion equivalent to a "volkswagon(sic)," when it hit the water, I sure would have contacted the DNR/conservation officer that very instant and would not let it go until I received an explanation of some sort...
"Clearest most "non-blurred," images I have ever seen..."the video poster says...yeah....right...

Contacting anyone would be my last thought... that is until I have cleared a path of my own directly opposite in direction from the sound I just heard after shooting in the dark at "eyes". Nope.. no packing stuff. No putting out the flickering campfire... just flat out beat feet fast. Hanging around for the rest of the night would not be an option.

I have studied so many bigfoot photographs that I cannot remember if I've ever seen this. If it was just released then I definitely have not. Having devoted a large portion of my time to studying the phenomenon, and having seen one of these majestic animals firsthand, I can confidently say that pictures or video do not matter. They will never be enough to prove the species, and at this point that is all that matters. Some might see images and believe, but the thing with any visual evidence is that it can be faked.

And because there is absolutely no way to verify whether an image is real or fake, it is left up to one's own beliefs. What annoys me the most are skeptics who claim that others should go out and capture visual evidence, when the truth is that even when this occurs it does not alter their arguments or beliefs one bit. There are legitimate sasquatch images available to the public, although some of the better videos and images remain unreleased to the public, which given my above argument does not really affect anything one way or the other. I have seen some private images, and heard of others, and although it is aggravating to know such things exist yet haven't been released, I can often understand the reasons people keep evidence to themselves.

So with the image in question, there is not enough present to make a determination. It would simply be a guess. I could assign a probability to its authenticity, based either on the eyewitness account or the image itself, or both. But again, this is not definitive. Something that many fail to realize is that sasquatch do not behave like a wild animal. They behave more humanlike in many respects, and when one attempts to study them in traditional manners, it is much more difficult and a lot is left up to luck.

Another thing few seem to grasp is evidenced by this particular image. Cameras are only designed to shoot within a certain distance for optimal quality. This picture shows a large bipedal figure, but details are lacking. Why? Because of the distance. Cell phone cameras, even if one zooms in, are notoriously bad for shooting at ranges over say 10 or 20 yards, or something like that, depending on the camera. The image might be relatively clear, but you still will lack the detail.

So why don't people just get closer when they take the picture? There is a misconception about sasquatch being highly elusive. They are yet they are not, and there appears to be a number of factors that could determine how these animals will behave within the presence of a human. The vast majority of the time they will turn and go in the other direction. Hands down this accounts for the majority of reports where one happens upon a sasquatch. They are likely to be aware of you before you are aware of them, especially in a forested environment, but sometimes they do not see the person while the person sees them. This is more rare however, but it happens.

This image seems to indicate something of that nature, given that a sasquatch is not likely to simply stand out in the open, exposed, when a human is nearby. Having studied sighting reports diligently, I believe that often times when they do not see a person it is because they are engaged in some manner. They are focusing or concentrating on something. I do not know if that is the case here, as I honestly did not read the encounter report. I will do it later when I have a bit more time. But I would suspect that the animal did not notice the photographer.

We do not know what they're thinking, but I hypothesize their avoidance instinct can be overridden by their intelligence in certain situations. Meaning that they can choose not to flee in the presence of a human, for whatever reason. But this does not mean they walk up and want to shake hands. They are generally leery of people for some reason, whether my hypothesis that this is based on instinct is correct, or whether they are always just making a conscious decision on the matter, I do not know. It is probably a bit of both. I would be highly interested to know just why they shy away from people the majority of the time.

I do not believe they are that intelligent. They are more intelligent than any other non-human primate, but not as intelligent as a human. They seem to possess the ability to reason, to plan, to make decisions based on certain criteria, and they have some sort of at least primitive logic. Again, greater than any other mammal aside from humans. They are at the top of the food chain, and likely are not prey to any other animal, therefore for them to be afraid of humans does not seem likely. Unless they know we possess some greater advancement than they do. But they are not advanced culturally. In fact, I would hypothesize that they do not have the culture of the most primitive peoples to have existed on earth. They seem to be relatively solitary, not progressing beyond family groups. This alone could be some indication of low intelligence, and it likely is, but this need not be the case...Although it is the most likely explanation for their seeming lack of refinement.

I just realized I left an argument hanging earlier. Why don't people get closer? The only time one could get closer would be if the animal had not noticed you. It uses sound, sight, and smell to pick up on humans. At least this is what I have gathered from studying encounter reports. Their sense of smell is either outright better than ours, or theirs is more honed for things in their environment. They have been seen sniffing the air like a dog, which might be an indicator of a better sense of smell, but perhaps not. Anyway, it is difficult to get closer to one of these animals even when they haven't noticed you, because as soon as they do notice you, which will likely occur when trying to get closer, they will quickly flee. Their large gait means they cover a lot of ground even when just walking. What would take you 10 steps would take them 2 or 3. Some of the trackways found in snow, some of which go for miles, are evidence of this large gait, but this is corroborated by video evidence as well, and trackways found all over North America. But again, it is rare for these animals to not notice you.

So the vast majority of the time, if you see a sasquatch, it is going to be moving away from you. This is what happened in my sighting, although I do not think the animal ever noticed me. This was because he was already walking away from me, towards the cover of the treeline. I got lucky to see him at all, considering he was not in the open for very long. He was just cutting across a field I suppose. They cut across roads as well, although roads are hard to avoid in certain areas. One might have to go exceedingly far out of the way to avoid directly crossing the road, maybe finding a bridge or something. This is why road sighting are so common. And I am not convinced that sasquatch understand what vehicles even are. Or that people are inside them. And I definitely believe they get highly confused by the speeds of vehicles, which would account for strange road sightings in which the sasquatch could have simply waited a while and crossed unseen. But I digress again.

So if one happens upon a sasquatch and they do not have their camera at the ready, or cannot get it out and snap a picture within a matter of seconds, the opportunity will likely pass. These animals have not remained undiscovered because they stick around for everyone to see them.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Well this one stuck around, motionless, between the two photos.

That's because it's a stump.

I just can't see it..
ATS is the best for getting to a truth.

I have the Loch Ness Monster 50 miles north here in Scotland (Tourism)
I wouldn't go to the woods if there was one of them there...
...WAIT!! I live in the woods