Bigfoot Found

The legs are about right, little long but not out of line.
The thing that strikes me is the glow of the eyes. Even with reflected flash they seem too bright and too gold.

After rereading the article I notice that the flash was infrared. There should have been no reflected light at all.
 
Last edited:
Sorry crew!
It was me.
Yes, I'm big black and hairy and my size 15 Islander( never worn shoes) feet( I call 'em my flippers) make a splash wherever I go and you know me, egged on by a few northern brews, I couldn't resist that constitutional thing " it's ar'right to bear arms" or however your sacred thingy goes. Well, I was chargin' my legendary hirsuteness and massive flippers made a pisser of a sight! the locals were doubled over, the guy with his shitbox camera couldn't keep still, shit he was nearly as pissed as me! No wonder he couldn't focus.
Shit, I never thought the little shenanigannery and Tomfoolery would get so far out of hand.

Lucky they didn't post the pic of me urinating on the tree, they'd be running for the taxonomic charts ( new species folks)... Now what shall I call myself Homo gigantophallusus, Sasquatchia spudemperorius?...
 
Zeno said:
How can the last two photos be a bear? The legs look like they're too long.
Click to expand...

Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:
 
The only time most of you have seen a bear was when it had all its hair and was healthy. A bear with mange is not healthy. Mange = NO HAIR! Ever seen a big fluffy cat soaking wet? It looks a lot skinnier, right? Same with a hairless bear.
 
cat2only said:
Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:
Click to expand...

That's just silly. Exactly how many bears have you ever seen with no hair? I saw one that was captured in North Carolina with a bad case of mange - no hair at all. It looked almost exactly like a largish dog (except with a blunter head) with longer than normal legs.
 
This is the best topic since it was suggested that ancient Sumerians were six fingered giants. :wallbang:
 
snake river rufus said:
Actually spud those cameras are mounted on trees and things with screws
Click to expand...

O.K so you don't believe it was me. Fine!

Here's a tip or two for the good folk of Bigfoot research or whatever they call themselves: If you go to the trouble of screwing your camera to a tree( as opposed to ...umm..you know..setting it on a tripod( strange tripedal device specifically designed for keeping a camera steady for the purpose of PHOTOGRAPHY!), make sure it's a good camera,with a decent lens, set up a couple of flashes at differing angles which are preset to coordinate with the preset focal point of the camera and its preset aperture and have a motion sensor or trip beam to capture the animal remotely ( i.e, no-one even needs to be there night after night to get the image.)

Anyway, without getting any more facetious, these are standard nocturnal wildlife photography practices and the people who do it, can do it really well.

Absolutely no excuse for totally crap images. This is actually the technological age!

And as for my species name, I now like Spuddus bigflipperii.
 
SInce the first encounter with Bigfoot and with every subsequent contact since then I find it totally amazing that not one hunter or one photographer, anyone of them equipped with the most modern technology of the day in guns and cameras, were unable to get a decent shot.

This is an indictment against all manufacturers of guns and cameras but quite possibly a ringing endorsement for the distilling industry.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
SInce the first encounter with Bigfoot and with every subsequent contact since then I find it totally amazing that not one hunter or one photographer, anyone of them equipped with the most modern technology of the day in guns and cameras, were unable to get a decent shot.

This is an indictment against all manufacturers of guns and cameras but quite possibly a ringing endorsement for the distilling industry.
Click to expand...

They are actually an endangered species in my state and it is a felony to shoot one:rolleyes:
 
Spud Emperor said:
Here's a tip or two for the good folk of Bigfoot research or whatever they call themselves: If you go to the trouble of screwing your camera to a tree( as opposed to ...umm..you know..setting it on a tripod( strange tripedal device specifically designed for keeping a camera steady for the purpose of PHOTOGRAPHY!), make sure it's a good camera,with a decent lens, set up a couple of flashes at differing angles which are preset to coordinate with the preset focal point of the camera and its preset aperture and have a motion sensor or trip beam to capture the animal remotely ( i.e, no-one even needs to be there night after night to get the image.)
Click to expand...

Trail cams are mounted to something and left over night. The shutter is operated by a motion sensor. There wasn't a guy there at the time of exposure.
 
Another factor in the image is how digital cameras distort the image of a moving object, especially in low light. Digital cameras don't write the whole image to memory in the same instant. If you haven't noticed this effect before, try photographing a moving object with a stationary low-end digital camera and see for yourself. I suspect the lankiest-appearing figure is a normally-proportioned bear cub that happened to be in faster motion than others in that frame. You can easily make out the bear cub's characteristic snout- it's just distorted by motion.
3_creature_med.jpg
 
hypewaders said:
Another factor in the image is how digital cameras distort the image of a moving object, especially in low light. Digital cameras don't write the whole image to memory in the same instant. If you haven't noticed this effect before, try photographing a moving object with a stationary low-end digital camera and see for yourself. I suspect the lankiest-appearing figure is a normally-proportioned bear cub that happened to be in faster motion than others in that frame. You can easily make out the bear cub's characteristic snout- it's just distorted by motion.
3_creature_med.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a black bear.
 
Zeno said:
How can the last two photos be a bear? The legs look like they're too long.
Click to expand...

cat2only said:
Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:
Click to expand...

The legs only appear too long because the bear is very skinny. Same explanation for the torso (appears bigger in relation) and the obviously the belly.
 
snake river rufus said:
The legs are about right, little long but not out of line.
The thing that strikes me is the glow of the eyes. Even with reflected flash they seem too bright and too gold.

After rereading the article I notice that the flash was infrared. There should have been no reflected light at all.
Click to expand...

The light reflected is of course infrared light and the camera, being an infrared camera, picks that up fine.
 
No way. In your example: his/her front feet are pointed backwards. His/Her legs would have to be broken for that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top