Bigfoot Found
- Thread starter cat2only
- Start date
You are correct. That is a human dressed up as some sort of creature. To
bad, again, the photographer can't get a good close up of the thing isn't it?
The bears are in focus though, what happened when he took the so called
picture of "big foot"?
bad, again, the photographer can't get a good close up of the thing isn't it?
The bears are in focus though, what happened when he took the so called
picture of "big foot"?
No, this is clear:
I'd be interested to see any comparable photos of bigfoot. Anything anywhere near this unambiguous. Same goes for UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc.
Why do these people always have such shit cameras. I mean, you'd think just one of them would once...
Ah, never mind.
My belief is the the myth of bigfoot orginated in a real giant ape that existed concurrently with people about 10,000 years ago which was about twice a big as the largest modern gorilla.
"long ago as five million years to as recently as 100 thousand years ago in what today are China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as early hominids such as Homo erectus."
Not only is the timing off, but so is the location.
When did man start arriving in North America?
Not only is the timing off, but so is the location.
When did man start arriving in North America?
Orleander, the honest answer that few will give, is they really have no fucking clue.
has a Gigantopithecus fossil ever been found in North America? has anything even remotely looking like it could be a bigfoot remains ever been found?
Heck, sounds like Bigfoot could be God,don't need proof, just faith that it exists.
Its a bear with mange. Same as the chupacabra they caught was a coyote with mange.
Heck, sounds like Bigfoot could be God,don't need proof, just faith that it exists.
Its a bear with mange. Same as the chupacabra they caught was a coyote with mange.
Ooh. Feverishly debated on Sciforums as the news broke, and then... nothing. Thanks for the update.
Bells
Staff member
Looked like a bear to me.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The first picture looked like bears...so did the third (though "background bear" was scratching the top of its head against the ground). It's only the second one that looks odd to me, and I chalk that up to a very thin bear and a very blurry photo.
Still nothing at all unusual about the first picture to me
Still nothing at all unusual about the first picture to me
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Excellent point. Wonder what mama bear would do to anything around her cubs. Bears are protective aren't they?
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Actually the myth started in 1905. Two towns in western Sask. were competing for the R.R. that was headed west. A newspaper in one town filed a story about an "ape boy" being found and the R.R. headed that way.
Also the word "sasquatch" is not an native American word. It was made up at the same time.
Article in SCEPTIC about three years ago. Sorry, I don't have the issue at hand.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
To be fair, in this instance the camera was a Bushnell trail cam. A model with lousy auto focus and the company is not known for decent optics. This time there really is an excuse. All the other fuzzy, blurry, junky photos,, well hoaxers need 'em and the gullible buy 'em.