Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

http://sangerparanormalsociety.com/bigfoot.html

If it is an animal, it appears to be nothing more than a bear standing up and scratching his back against a tree.

Not very compelling.

Da BEARS!!!!

One of the gentleman involved with this photograph was on coast to coast am last night.
His quote "there is nothing else that it could be" led me to believe they must be pushing
it to be authentic for a reason. A quick poll of co-workers in the immediate area, with no
knowledge of my love of the topic ranged from, "I can't see anything","maybe a bear",to,
"it must be Bigfoot, it's all blurry."

Seeing as how it comes from a paranormal website, I'd imagine they have alot of pics of all the paranormal all-stars. I think they are pushing this to complete the set. Ghost pics? Check. UFO's? Check. Bigfoot? Check.

Beware of any group that investigates everything - ghosts, bigfoot, ufos, etc.

I listened to the first two guests on the show from the Sanger Paranormal group. They tried to put a paranormal spin on BF - invisibility, mind reading, blah, blah.

I don't know who picks the guests to be on the show but they should be shot and then fired. The caliber of the guests has really dropped off in the past year or so.

Here's what I see. They mention on the website that it cant be a bear because no snout is visible. Sorry the line is so thin, you might have to enlarge it to see what I drew.

I seems the camera angle changed too. If you look at other pictures of the guy standing in the same location as to where the trees are in the back ground the angle is all wrong.

However, if the range is the same and the vertical line is the same that is one really really tall bear. or a really short guy....LOL

If it is a game cam then why are all of the pictures of the different animals and pictures of people and alleged BF taken at different angles?

Sides I have blob squatch pictures that are atleast that good......and I do mean blob........LOL

A terrible, terrible investigation over all.

Ain't that the truth! I sometimes listen to the show on my way home from work at night, and it used to be at least mildly entertaining. Now it seems like the only qualification to be a guest is that you are breathing and have something completely idiotic to share.

I refer to shows like that as car crash entertainment. Same goes for the majority of reality tv. You know its going to be awful, but you cant help but look, or listen in this case.

Mixed feelings here. I agree with the investigators the arms are too long to be a bear. However, in the original photo I see a small rounded ear on the top of head.

Its a shame, C2C used to be a good show with the occassional goofball. Now it's the opposite with a primary focus on the paranormal.

As for the pic, it could be anything and most likely nothing. These "well known and respected"(?) investigators are probably just trying to stir up some publicity. Another blobsquatch to toss onto the pile.

My 2 Cents

Yeah, bear...the body shape is all wrong to be a Sass...

Exactly right. If you look carefully the "bear" is just a a shadow of the tree. This tree is clearly visible in the other photographs, but because of the angle that the shot was taken from, the rear tree "touches" the front tree. You can see clearly this is the case in the picture where the deer is running up the hill.

Because of the very poor lighting in the photograph, the whole tree, which is visible in the deer photograph is blurred out in the BF photo. You can see on other trees in the full photograph that this is the case.

Pathetic excuse to try to make money off of nothing. Whatever they start selling DO NOT BUY!

Seems like the number of scam artists and charlatains has increased exponentially since the big hoax of 2008.I'm glad to see that people aren't falling for every piece of BS "evidence" that comes out...

I don't think that these folks are what I would consider hoaxers, more like romantics who need content for their website.

What's just as bad is that our good buddy George Noory is using sensationalizing crap like this just to get ratings and sell CC Radios. C2C radio was always down the hill, even in the 90's when it was at its top with Art Bell. I think at this point it has fallen "deep somewhere in earth" as the announcer puts it. George himself should at LEAST have questioned that this is a shadow.

Thing is, he needs content, where ever he can get it. The paranormal field is a bit limited. After awhile, hasn't it all been done? If he were to get too critical of things, he might end up having a hard time getting guests knowing that they will be seriously questioned.

Asking why it could not be a shadow is not a hard question. He lets most of his guests go too far. Art did too, but George goes even further. You should at least play devil's advocate, and if you preface your questions like this: "Now people are going to say that this looks like a shadow, how do you explain that?" then it takes the burden of heavy questioning off of George. He doesn't even bother doing that.

Curious, the upper chest isn't the typical muscular, barrel chest we see in other apes, or in the Patterson film. Its not at all like the typical description we read from the credible reports out there. Sure is one skinny bigfoot.
It is waaay too tall for a black bear.
This whole bigfoot topic in my mind is very much like the UFO phenomena. This forum is full of fairy tales and nonsense. Deer blinds being presented as bigfoot evidence. A tree shakes at night, it MUST be a bigfoot, what else could it be? There are too many things posted that automatically get attributed as proof of bigfoot when the reality is far from it. If you assume that 97% of what you hear or read about bigfoot, or UFOs, is some form of false information, that leaves about 3% of it that makes for some very interesting reading. However this trail cam photo falls in to the 97%. In the case of this forum, change the numbers to 99% and 1%, there is still that 1% thats pretty interesting stuff.

Edit to take my comment off, not worth it.

This is old news. It's just a play of light on some trees. Under enhancement, you can see it. Not even a bear. Just trees.

Have no idea what is there but shadow or animal, the thing looks over 12' tall. Seems too large for bear or BF?


The drawing shows around a 8' BF. The 12'2'' blobsquatch seems unreal and unlikely.

I don't know, but, I see what kinda, sorta looks like gorilla-like fingers on the red lined image's left hand. Looks like a gorilla suit hung from the tree trunk to me.

Who knows?
Gimme a closer shot with the squatch saying "cheeese!" and I'll be better able to throw out more idle uneducated
speculation.

George seems like a super nice guy. But, he can't hold Art Bell's jockstrap IMO. The show was much more interesting w/Art. He had the Intelligence to ask good questions, and converse with the guests. It seems to me George just wants to let the Interviewee do ALL the talking. Now, I realize a good Interviewer lets the subject do most of the talking, but George takes this to the extreme.

As far as this particular pic, HOGWASH in my view.

What do you think of my picture analysis? A 12' BF...............I don't think so!

12' BFs are rare and this shadow looks too skinny.

Wouldn't the NBA love this guy if someone can find him.

If he can make free throw shots, they'd permanently bench Shaq.

I musta been sleeping when it was confirmed what the body shape of a sasquatch really looks like.

t.

Click to view attachment

Seems to me that the guy is standing much further behind the tree. forced prespective anyone? funny how his feet are blocked.

Hooowdy!

To all my colleagues and the wanntabee bigfoot researchers. In response to the sierras bigfoot photo. If you are a "qualified" research, someone who is educated/trained/studied/interned or somebody that really spends large amount of time in remote areas researching our "ancient people", then this spill will make sense. The sierra's photo in it self is a classic "blobsquatch". What many of you failed to ask or even consider is what were the circumstances that led Mr. Gonzalez believe that this was an authentic bigfoot photo. Instead many of you said it was a shadows, imagination or even hoax without any professional education or training to qualify their opinion, statement or just plain rude comments. I will entertain any comments, suggestions, opinions regarding the photo if it done so in a respectful, well thought out manner.

OK, I'll play.

What, besides shadows, directed your attention to that particular tree in that particular area? What activity were you engaged in at the time? Why were you at that particular location in the first place? Had you ever been there before, day or night? Had you ever been Bigfooting before? Had you ever had a sighting before? Were you aware of previous sightings near that tree? near that forest? near that town? county? Did anybody on the ground identify movement or sound associated with the shadows??? Noises???? Feelings??? If affirmative to any of these, please qualify your answer in detail and state whether there were accompanying witnesses that can verify your truthfulness or not?????

Has anyone seen comparative photos taken from the same spot as the trailcam at the same time of day, with the same weather conditions, and optimally, at roughly the same time of the year? None of the other photos that I have seen show anything close to the original picture angle focused on the same spot.

To be very honest, it looks like a shadow, perhaps coupled with darker colored areas of trees or vegetation. The only way to even have a chance of telling for sure is a TRUE comparative photo.

MHO.

Professional, educated, trained, interned Bigfoot hunter.

Everyone show their PHD's now.

Actually, we gave OPINIONS. And by reading the thread you will see that those opinions vary. If you show a pic to 5 people and get 5 different opinions as to what's in that pic, how much value can you place on it?
I understand your condescending tone, but you've got to realize, in the time that your fellow posters have been here, they've seen a whole bunch of pictures, and dont place much value on hardly any of them. I'm sorry if we may seem like we're being a bit short with our replies. Call it "BlobSquatch Burnout" if you'd like.

A blobsquatch is a blobsquatch is a blobsquatch...hardly need to be "educated/trained/studied/interned" to come to that conclusion when presented with yet another in a thousand blobsquatch pics. Seen one you've essentially seen them all. How is yours any different from the rest?

Which brings to mind another question, exactly what kind of formal education justifies one to lay claim to the title of an "educated/trained/studied/interned" researcher of these "ancient people"?
And, what evidence do you have that these creatures are, in fact, an "ancient people"?

Finally, since you've thrown down the gauntlet with the condescending tone of your post , what are your qualifications to lay claim to the title of BF researcher? An "educated/trained/studied/interned" researcher?

*crickets*

Wait, wait, let me guess BgftSeeker, your going to claim to be Native American aren't you? That or a United States Marine, perhaps both?

Hi Bgftseeker,

I have a few camera questions. I am not a colleague nor wanntabee bigfoot researcher. I'm just a guy with working eyeballs and a brain that works for a very small portion of the day.

What do you think triggered the camera? It seems that the subject is too far away to trip a normal sensor. If the subject did trip the sensor, that will lead into my next questions....

How many shots are there? If there are more than one, are they all they same or how do they differ?

Was there ever an attempt to duplicate that same shot to see if it was just shadows or a tree bark formation anomaly?

Hope you find time to respond. It would be greatly appreciated.

FG

Waiting...waiting...waiting...

If you are a "qualified" research, someone who is educated/trained/studied/interned .... what a bunch of crap. You think having a degree makes you qualified?... Qualified for what? If you so called qualified researchers were any good, the Bigfoot debate would have been resolved long ago... HELLO!!!

Interesting photo,...However I recall seeing a video on youtube several years ago of a bigfoot standing beside a tree and it looked exactley like this picture. I've tried looking for this video over the years but have came up empty handed. Pretty strange if you ask me!