http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/06/p...-6709-bfro.html

I see a hollowed out tree or stump....but nothing more.

Ditto that.

I see a blobbear scratching his back against the tree. But I had to use my imagination to see it. I can almost make out the blobclaws.

interesting i think

Actually if you zoom in you can see a brow, nose and mouth. Not sayin it's BF, but there's more there than just a hollow in a tree.

Huh, he's wearing sunglasses, that's cool.

Heh???

I could've sworn I saw Elmo's nose?!?! (or was that Bert's?)
Hey stop that blinking at me up there in post #8 StacyInMI, I think it's contagious

It's a side profile. If I had the software ability, I would point to each of the features. Look below the elmo nose.

edit: Ok I figured it out. I had a hard time following the profile of the face, so the nose looks bigger than it's supose to. But you get the general idea.

Somebody shoot me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

No no no you have it all wrong! The face is looking straight at you! And he's winking at the game cam!

It's a Muppet!!!! Henson's final legacy ?

Why don't they ever post an image of the scene with "it" not there so that the two pics can be compared???

Maybe because that would prove that there was nothing ever there ?

Why don't they ever post an image of the scene with "it" not there so that the two pics can be compared???

Here, I cleaned it up a little and refocused it.

Nothing unusual, just another Bigfoot researcher running through the woods with a bacon air freshener attached to his ass.


Click to view attachment

Move along folks, nothing to see here...


By the way, I apologize for the double post. Not sure how that happened...

Hi

LMAO ~ ~ I can't see though the tears i am laughing so hard.

Peace
Tim

Think you're laughing? I know him in real life and spend time in the woods with him!! Hmm... Maybe I should rethink this whole Bigfoot thing.

Ty, that's why I come here for stuff like that.

HA! The red circles are back!

Boy has it been a quiet 2009 so far...

That might actually work.........

Or perhaps a new tactic is advised?

Are those self adhesive?

I think Bill Green summed it up nicely, nd as always I agree with him.

[size="3"]The previous posts are humorous but David may or may not enjoy the humor. His photo is a blobsquatch for sure and I wouldn't have said it's a Bigfoot. It would have ruined the reputation I don't have

Anyway, I don't think it's a digital artifact or any failure of the camera system or a hoax. That leaves either a BF or a bear. It's possibly a bear even though the ground has a high degree of tilt. However, it isn't accompanied by additional evidence such as footprints or observed BF behaviors.

Conclusion: Most likely a bear but the area bears more watching and research because if the photo is legit it might be possible to get another or a close-up.

LL

There has been an update to this posting with several photos of the area and press release from Sanger Paranormal. Lon Strickler, Phantoms and Monsters

Phantoms and Monsters - Sierra National Forest UPDATE

Yah, this is the thread that medeyle was double-posting re: this morning,

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=547608

the "makin bacon" strip must have been a mental block...... speaking of mental block, Playfoot and Elmo's Nose, man that thread has it all

to the above replys --- updates as this continuessss...... goood evening folks ty bill g .

Jeffrey here from Sanger Paranormal Society.

Just had my webmaster outline the object in the photo, your right, it sure looks like a bear, what was I thinking

www.SangerParanormalSociety.com

Welcome Jeffrey

I did look at the other pictures that you put up on your website. It was nice to see the follow up but I'm having a hard time putting the views together. Are there more pictures which would make it easier to put the image in scale?

Thanks

I shall admit that its a picture of Frankensquatch, now if ya'll will
excuse me I have to run full blast into a brick wall.





dav

Anybody else notice the tree's bark cleft defect right above the dark spot as if there was a dark tree defect photographed? Anybody go back and show a pic without the dark spot in front of it and with the cleft still noticed in the tree? Just curious and don't remember, the bacon ass photo got me off track awhile back.

Jeffrey- I'll hand it to you for being courageous enough to come into a forum like this, but I'm not sure why anyone would bother to "investigate" these as it is quite apparent (at least to me) from all the other camera trap photos that the same black shape (negative space with black background maybe?) is always there, right down to the parting of the leaves (arrow) that looks like a "head" in your photo.

Click to view attachment

Sorry but this is clearly just an optical illusion...and maybe also a deliberate hoax (the shot containing the "bigfoot" appears to be cropped, deliberately washed out (to help hide what actually triggered it?), and differently labeled than the other camera trap photos from that location). Did anyone investigate the immediately prior and subsequent images from the camera?

A

My photo analysis on this, for those who may be interested:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/...ational-forest/

(Yes! It's Autumn! I crawled out from under my rock. Hi everybody! )

good analysis Autumn


dav

Hello again, this is Jeffrey from the Sanger Paranormal Society. Autumn just released a analysis on the Bigfoot photo. Here is my take on your analysis...YOUR WRONG!!!!!!....if you take a look at the photo with the Bigfoot you noticed the tree in front of the Bigfoot is the one you have circled saying that tree is causing the shadow illusion...But wait, if that's the tree causing the illusion then why can I still see it in the original photo. Ok, so I wasn't standing in the same place as the bigfoot, the person taking the photo (my wife) was very close and to the left. Now if we were to move to the right then the darkness of the tree becomes more apparent as if you were walking around the tree..But you still can see it regardless of the Bigfoot being there or not... .I tried going to www.oregonbigfoot.com so I could look at other photo's and stuff she has done in the past but you have to pay a fee to join a membership in order to look at those photo's W...H...A...T...Oh, I get it now... $4.95 a month....

If you'd email her, I'm sure she would give you a 24 or 48 hr. membership to post your rebuttal.

Nobody put me out of my misery. Electro-shock is needed. This can't be serious.

Makes me wonder why I got out of the paranormal community. Oh yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this kinda stuff.

Jeffrey,

The analysis was posted on my blog. It's available to everyone and all of your rebuttals - even the unnecessarily rude ones - have been posted.

As for my member’s section and your obvious dig regarding that: I am a single mother with a freelance web business and very little income. I cannot AFFORD, Jeffrey, to pay for the bandwidth consumed by the many thousands of visitors who would download the hundreds of huge media files I have available in there if they were posted on the public site. I had a choice… keep them in my files and don’t share them at all, or ask those who wish to see them to help absorb the cost of making them available. Most folks understand that.

If you’re making claims that a photograph has “CONFIRMED” the existence of Bigfoot, it had better be a CLEAR photograph that it isn’t open to interpretation.

In other words… you shouldn’t have to outline the “figure”.

When you bring evidence forth, it is up to YOU, as the claimant, to provide supporting evidence and thorough research. Especially if you’re crowing from the rooftops. Your supposed “evidence” is a single photograph, and a poor resolution one at that, in which the subject in question comprises approximately .05% of the total pixel data available in the photograph. Supporting evidence, then, would be photographs taken within STRICTLY controlled circumstances, from the exact location during the exact type of lighting, to PROVE that the subject in question WAS, in fact, there and was not a simple trick of light and shadow.

You have failed, thus far, to provide that evidence to support your claim. And if you expect everyone who questions your claims and lack of supporting evidence to stop what they’re doing, get on a plane and head to your neck of the woods in order to gather it themselves, based upon a brown blob WAAAY in the back of a photograph, I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a while.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t feel that this photograph warrants any more of my time. Even if it were a Sasquatch standing there, the photograph is not detailed enough to constitute “proof” in any way, shape or form.

Others may feel differently, and I wish you the best of luck in your future research.

No, not here. I feel the same way about it. That was very well said.

I pretty much agree with Autum's post. She said it very well without being rude or personal. She clearly stated she disagreed and why and her reasons make sense. I would not have posted that picture and claimed it's a bigfoot. There's simply to much about it that can't be confirmed.

Proof requires firm evidence and this particular photo while quite interesting as a blobsquatch doesn't qualify. Someone may someday get a game camera photo of a BF who isn't being as careful as they normally are but this one isn't it. My best,

Actually, it doesn't look like a bear. It looks like nothing.

I wonder if there's anymore pictures following that shot, those will explained everything.

Let me try a different tack. We have tried to be honest and say the picture can't be posted in this manner with the claim it's a BF. Autumn has said so while she doesn't have a degree in photo science she does know a good deal about images. I've had 49 years of experience with film and digital photography plus 10 years full time as a pro in the USAF.

This photo has gone beyond the point of the cameras ability to resolve an image. Most of the work of Marlon Davis with the Patterson film is in this category. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach has a good paper on this on Bobbie Short's site http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ He explains the subject quite well.

Your only course of action is to get one of the scientists in the community to agree with your statement about proving Bigfoot and that isn't going to happen. The photo is quite interesting as a blobsquatch and that's about it. Respectfully to all,

I don't, good Post from Miss OR....

I thought it was this guy.




Click to view attachment