It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
they mentioned that it might be a model in the paragraph beneath the pictures but the surrounding vegetation doesnt fit a models proportions,unless the model was "life sized'. i just bought a really nice fuji digital video/camera and i live only a couple of miles from the bridgewater,mass. "triangle" located in the hockomock swamp area,guess where i'm going! >>> en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Domo1
My opinion is that these look like a model of a bigfoot. It stands in the same position in both pictures. Are we really to believe the thing wouldn't notice a guy taking pictures? I have never seen these pics though so thanks for posting them. I want to believe in bigfoot and love hiking around WA with a camera at the ready.
you'll notice that the shins of the creature are wet.you can also see a leg shadow across the water beneath it as well.it looks like its really standing in the water.if the photographer was moving to the side a little as he took these pictures,it would account for the creature standing in the same position,as only a couple of seconds may have passed between frames...
Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by blocula
I agree the vegetation does not match unless it's a huge model. That is unless they took a picture of the model, then superimposed it onto a picture of the creek. There was a really good thread on photo manipulation I'll try and find. Also, the edges of bigfoot look very off.
hi,thanx for your comment...the picture "feels" real to me when i look at it,if that makes any sense.a lot of pictures of ufos,ghosts and creatures dont feel right,obvious fakes....these pictures dont look or feel fake to me at all.also i have read some sasquatch/bigfoot encounter reports where the witnesses said that the creature had no neck,"the head just seemed to come out of its shoulders",if it was a faked suit or a model,i dont think that they would have made it neckless...
Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by Domo1
The wiki page says that the photos have been examined and don't show any signs of tampering. Shouldn't be too hard to determine considering the pics taken in 1995 were likely not digital.
I'm still not sold on this thing NOT being a small model.
would be nice to see the other 5 or 6 photos maybe he caught it in a different pose.
the creature, if you look closely, has moved a little between photos,you can tell by the position of the stump near its left leg,heres a link with more information about the photos and explanations concerning the sunlight,shadows and reflections...i dont think its faked >>> www.angelfire.com...
Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
To me its a small model stuck in a little pond.
1) the foreground grass is too large.
2) the foreground mud looks too saturated sodden with water and would be washed away by the 'river' if it were of any significant size.
3) the directions and refelections on the surface are all wrong, the branches and folliage indicates that they are almost directly overhead. Given the photo's are looking down on the 'bigfoot' then they must be really massive high trees. Yet everything is bathed in sunlight.
Originally posted by blocula
the creature, if you look closely, has moved a little between photos,you can tell by the position of the stump near its left leg,heres a link with more information about the photos and explanations concerning the sunlight,shadows and reflections...i dont think its faked >>> www.angelfire.com...
Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
To me its a small model stuck in a little pond.
1) the foreground grass is too large.
2) the foreground mud looks too saturated sodden with water and would be washed away by the 'river' if it were of any significant size.
3) the directions and refelections on the surface are all wrong, the branches and folliage indicates that they are almost directly overhead. Given the photo's are looking down on the 'bigfoot' then they must be really massive high trees. Yet everything is bathed in sunlight.edit on 29-8-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)
i was'nt there. who am i to say that what this person says they saw and photographed is'nt real...in the link it explains how many photo experts analyzed the pictures and they are not faked and they have even gone to the same spot and figured out how big and tall this thing is...7 to 10 feet tall !
Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by blocula
Just because it "feels real" to you don't give it any more credibility. I mean come on man, try and think critically here. You can't go feeling your way through life.
as i said,i was'nt there. according to all the information provided in this link they are real > www.angelfire.com...
Originally posted by Ajax
My apologies for potentially sounding rather crass...but i CANNOT BELIEVE this thread has gone on for as long as it has. This image has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Where are all the 'experts' and others that have seen this thing a million times?
It is a model that was photographed ages ago, try a search function and look around a bit next time, then post.