Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

reply to post by Tazkven


I had actually just decided the same thing (and I was going to reference your previous post to make the point).

Specifically, I'm thinking it's two brown/grizzly bears. The musculature seems most fitting of the brown bear.

Originally posted by Frogs
As for the one photo - the article says its from a trail cam. That explains it.

Typically, they are set to take a photo (or vid) every X seconds (up to minutes) if they detect movement. So, if its like mine set for every 30 seconds (so I don't get 1000 pics of one deer) its very possible that whatever this is got up and moved out of camera range during that time.

In general, unless you have it set to a very fast setting one pic per passing critter is all you get on a trail cam unless they stick around for an extended period.

Almost as bad as the first images of mars, you can't quite make things out

Originally posted by ChristianJihad
reply to post by zazzafrazz

 

Anyone know what the plural of bigfoot should be ?
Bigfeet ? Bigfoots ? Bigfeets ?

Trouble

The fact that we haven't accepted the possibility of the entire species, not much time has been devoted to the vernacular aspect I imagine.

My suggestion is, ask a Native American. They know they're real and probably have a lot of dedicated names for them.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
or ....
A bear taking a dump?

It is a gorilla taking a dump

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
The Patterson film was the best we will ever get, but the herd refuses to accept it then and now. Even if we produced a corspe people would deny the authenticity.

I am afraid the ship has sailed as far as this generation is concerned.

You're out of your mind; nobody would ignore a bona fide corpse. We just don't want the cops trying to sell us a bunch of meat in a sasquatch costume again, got it? And this photo certainly does not constitute proof of the existence of bigfoot, just a big round ball of fur (why does reason go out the window, is it more likely a bear or a legendary creature that may not exist?)

reply to post by LoveisanArt

Originally posted by LoveisanArt

Nor is it a chimpanzee

(someone on the first page claimed that ..) [color=BDA27B]Alberta doesnt have chimps lol! This is Canada, its not popular place for monkeys

I've got a $100 Bones that says you're wrong. A friendly wager?

Regardless, the article stating that this image was snapped by an unnamed trapper from Alberta, is not conclusive evidence that this image was actually taken while he was in Alberta.

[color=BDA27B]The Calgary Zoo has partnered with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Ape Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) Conservation Initiative......

This collaborative effort, bringing together contributions from almost 40 other North American zoos to support high-quality conservation projects for wild apes.... ....a total of approximately $400,000 will be dedicated through 2012 to ape conservation projects.....

....Apes are split into two different groups: greater and lesser (smaller) apes. The great apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. The smaller apes are gibbons and siamangs.

CalgaryZoo.com

[color=BDA27B]Gorilla Behind the Scenes

[color=BDA27B]Get up close and personal with our Western Lowland Gorillas...... ....You will be going behind the scenes with the Gorilla Zookeeper and visiting the keeper kitchen, off exhibit areas, and of course our gorilla troop.....

CalgaryZoo.org

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag


To me it looks like a black bear in a rather unflattering position.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Your standards may be a bit high.
For some, that bar is set much much lower.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
At first it's a "wtf!?" picture, but upon closer examination, it does in fact appear to be a bear and a cub.

Edit:

Here's how I saw it:

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

lmao. What a nonsense interpretation. A bear hind leg the same length as the torso? The front leg where? You just drew in a fat red line where you think there should be a front leg. Since when do bears have a calf muscle if that is a hind leg. And why is it bent over so much with it's head stuck in the ground? Ridiculous.

ETA: And this is a bear tail for the record

The more I look at this picture, the more I am convinced that it closely resembles a gorilla. However, since gorillas are not native to Canada, I'm kinda thinking this may be the real deal. It seems this creature is sitting in a position where its probably eating some flower or seeds that seem to be growing around.

The muscular arm sticking to the left side seems like a very developed arm (bicep, tricep) muscle. Plus the fact that these trail cams take pics one after the other, I think that if it was a bear and her cub, more would have appeared.

And one more thing.. The area which some of you claim to see the bears' face (below) may just be the palm of this creature. So his left arm would be touching the ground directly with the palm and his right arm is slightly twisted to his back with his palm facing up.

reply to post by seabag





Also, for the this to be a bear bent over, then it is anatomically incorrect. A bear can't bend over in that silly position without having its front legs tucked backwards. Where's the front legs?

Originally posted by Caligo
It doesn´t look like a gorilla... but it doesn´t look much like a bear either. That arm looks quite primate... not saying its a bigfoot, but it certainly is an interesting pic :O

It looks like two gorillas next to each other if you ask me... a lot like it

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by seabag

 

Also, for the this to be a bear bent over, then it is anatomically incorrect. A bear can't bend over in that silly position without having its front legs tucked backwards. Where's the front legs?

What you're calling a calf muscle, I'm seeing as a gorilla arm .. to me it looks like a gorilla from behind, looking down to the right at another gorilla who's lower to the ground.. the way you describe it, this is some kind of thin legged animal doing a yoga move =)

reply to post by AHuxley


You can't be serious

reply to post by miniatus


No, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of it being a bear hind leg. I agree with you being a primate arm.

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by miniatus

 

No, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of it being a bear hind leg. I agree with you being a primate arm.

Understood.. and true.. not saying it's not a bear, but sure doesn't look like one to me .. nor is it a big foot

Could be one of two things...

1. Mr. Bigfoot, sitting with his back towards the camera, left arm stretched out used for support, right leg propped up, "readying" himself for Mrs. Bigfoot to come out of the patch of woods just ahead (wink-wink).

2. Or, more probable, a black bear facing the camera, bending over and digging it's lunch out of the ground. To it's left is either it's left arm that is bent so it can lower it's head into the hole it just dug, or as others have stated, a cub.

reply to post by miniatus


Gorillas don't live in N.America though. If it's not a bear or gorilla, then what else could it be?

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by miniatus

 

Gorillas don't live in N.America though. If it's not a bear or gorilla, then what else could it be?

manbearpig.

Here's a better example of the anatomical impossibility



Now look again.


No bear there.

Originally posted by Druid42

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
I toyed with the original pic in photopaint (not photoshop). First thing that caught my eye is that there is writing on it:

Unfortunately, the pic is low quality, so there's no way I could find to make it legible:

So I think it's a pic someone picked up on the web and downgraded it a lot to make people believe it's something that it's not.

In GIMP, I did a zoom, and applied a sharpen filter, and scaled the image up a bit to make the text a little bit more legible. Here you go:

That's the same site the pic originated from. Why, oh why, would they apply a watermark so small and unnoticeable?

Hmmmmm.

Can anyone explain the watermark? What's the best explanation for hiding a watermark, and making it so small and nearly invisible? Hoax?

Originally posted by RealSpoke

I like this reference pic of a bear.

But of course, there will be those who see primate, which are not native to Canada, instead of applying Occam's Razor, and seeing bears, which are native and very common.

It's much easier to believe a bigfoot plopped his butt down to take a breather, perfectly framed in front of the trail cam. Gee, how often does that happen?

I'm sticking to my premise of altered photo to make it "appear" that we are looking at a bigfoot.

And I'll await patiently for someone to explain the watermark. To me, that's the clincher of a hoaxed picture.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
At first it's a "wtf!?" picture, but upon closer examination, it does in fact appear to be a bear and a cub.

Edit:

Here's how I saw it:

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

Thats one long hind leg. I don't buy it.