medeyle
Jul 17 2009, 08:48 AM
I searched but didn't come up with a topic about this, so if there is one I apologize.
http://www.sangerparanormalsociety.com/bigfoot.htmlIMO, a nice picture of a bear scratching his back on a tree in the Sierra National Forrest in CA.
jimf
Jul 17 2009, 08:53 AM
I agree with that opinion. My question is, if they thought it was a Bigfoot, why didn't they either get closer to it, or at least adjust the focus?
Dantallus
Jul 17 2009, 08:57 AM
At least the Sanger sight took time to do some comparison shots. I personally will have to go with bear on this one.
medeyle
Jul 17 2009, 08:58 AM
I believe it's a game cam photo... Not sure how those things work exactly, but I don't think they can adjust focus much.
jimf
Jul 17 2009, 09:01 AM
If it was a game cam, then you can adjust the setting to shoot 3 picture bursts, or even AVI. ( At least on the model I have.) Would have gone a ,long way to definitive identification.
Spazmo
Jul 17 2009, 09:09 AM
That could be anything. Bear, guy in suit, whatever. There's not much definition to the shape, and there is almost no contrast in the object itself. So there's just no way to say what it is.
But, based solely on the odds, it's probably a bear.
bipedalist
Jul 17 2009, 09:11 AM
Not very convincing, and I think we had a thread on this somewhere recently?
BCSasqwatcher
Jul 17 2009, 09:16 AM
QUOTE(jimf @ Jul 17 2009, 08:01 AM)

If it was a game cam, then you can adjust the setting to shoot 3 picture bursts, or even AVI. ( At least on the model I have.) Would have gone a ,long way to definitive identification.
I agree ... AVI would simply put to rest any questions that always arise with photos. It is easy for me to say that I would have the cam on AVI all the time but I don't know enough about them.
However I saw an episode of a series (forget which series) where the cams were solar powered and the images/AVI beamed dirctly to a laptop miles away, which would make cam data storage moot. That would be sweet. When I win the million I am buying 600 of those and everybody here gets two each.
medeyle
Jul 17 2009, 09:25 AM
QUOTE(bipedalist @ Jul 17 2009, 11:11 AM)

Not very convincing, and I think we had a thread on this somewhere recently?
Bill Green posted a thread on the NJ alleged BF photo. Mods, if you find a thread on this CA one please combine. Thank you!
I think we mostly agree it's likely a bear. What I wonder about is why the research group is so convinced it's a BF?
billgreen2005bigfoot
Jul 17 2009, 09:48 AM
interesting possible new sasquatch photo but more research enhandsments need to realy be done to it. the people need to interviewed or contacted from people here i see something in the photo. keep me posted ok. ty bill g
JayleeD
Jul 17 2009, 10:15 AM
medeyle
Jul 17 2009, 10:52 AM
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Jul 17 2009, 12:15 PM)

LOL! That was excellent.

And his elbow sticking out looks just like the alleged "arm" in the photo.
bipedalist
Jul 17 2009, 11:35 AM
QUOTE(bipedalist @ Jul 17 2009, 11:11 AM)

Not very convincing, and I think we had a thread on this somewhere recently?
Funny the paranormal people picked up on the lights at the bottom of that webpage taken with the same trail cam.
Some of them could be explained as insect reflections.
I must have picked that original pic up from Cryptomundo when visiting or another site: here is another version that
explains the difficulty that a bear would encounter standing against/rubbing on that particular tree:
http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/pa...orest+-+UPDATED!
twinkletoes
Jul 17 2009, 03:10 PM
I'd say it was a bear, but not sure of what it could be..
bipedalist
Jul 17 2009, 07:57 PM
makeitfiction.com
Jul 24 2009, 11:39 PM
i found this, he appears to be making crop circles
Teresa
Jul 24 2009, 11:54 PM
that thing isn't going anywhere for me makeitfiction.com Goes to a wickipedia site about html and coding
oregonbigfoot
Jul 30 2009, 11:21 AM
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.

)
Dantallus
Jul 30 2009, 11:53 AM
Nice analysis Autumn, thank you !
oregonbigfoot
Jul 30 2009, 01:06 PM
The photographer wasn't too happy with the results, if you read the comments below my blog post...
Apeman
Jul 30 2009, 02:27 PM
Autumn-
FWIW I think you're correct on it being a black splotch (likely a negative space with black background) that they've confused as being an object, but I think it's probably the other splotch (Splotchsquatch?

)
Click to view attachmentSee my full comparison with the game cam pics (which I think are better aligned that the "investigation" pics) in the other thread here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=548761If you have a dialog with the investigators and they want to deny this ask to see the game cam pics immediately before and after and also why these "bigfoot" shots appear to be cropped and relabeled compared to the deer pics from the same game came?
-A
StoneyRocks
Jul 30 2009, 04:46 PM
QUOTE(jimf @ Jul 17 2009, 08:53 AM)

My question is, if they thought it was a Bigfoot, why didn't they either get closer to it, or at least adjust the focus?
Cause it was a bear, they knew it was a bear, and bears eat people....chicken s@#t photographers...
Crazy Ape
Aug 8 2009, 08:47 PM
Anytime you have to draw the dreaded red outlines to show people what they're looking at, it's just not going to be worth much.
Hopefully someone gets clear, close footage someday soon so we can put an end to the blobsquatch debate. Odds aren't real good, but I still hold out hope.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.