Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Did The Trapper In Alberta Canada Capture A Bear's Rear End?


Sometimes, the biggest skeptics of all are from within the Bigfoot community itself. Every photo that gets published seems to get are weighed, measured, and scrutinized to hell and back. The latest image to succumb to such measure is the "Trapper" Bigfoot photo from Alberta, Canada. A few blogs that we know of are saying it's probably a bear's rear end.




"After doing a few photoshop manipulations on the photo, I THINK I might be able to see the following features in the photo that make me think it represents a mother bear and her cub. The eyes are the most obvious, noses with round nostrils not so obvious and the ears are a little vague and blurry. This is my interpretation of what I'm seeing, anyway:" - Dale Drinnon, via frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com



"Misidentified game cam photo. this is most likely a bear with it butt in the air and it head rolling on something." - The Crypto Crew



"It's my opinion that this is a photo of the rear end of a bear. Subject to the right is a cub. The bear could be digging, scratching it's face, rubbing, cleaning or playing with the cub." - SasquaiNation, via Bigfoot Evidence forum.

76 comments:

  1. except for 1 or 2 delirious spammers, we all realized yesterday this is a bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have examined the response of the many writing styles entered within this blog. I have reviewed my findings carefully. It is fact the vast majority of peeps responding, here are women...

      Delete
    2. Also, very few peeps on here are qualified to gather wood much less research BF.

      Delete
    3. Obviously it wasnt Bigfoot, but IMHO the hair looked different than Bear.....then of course the truth came out....gamecam, notorious for snapping blurry out-of-perspective photos.....the important thing is AGAIN, fo what ever egotistical reason, someone made up a BS backstory to convince us this was true evidence....the usual modus operarandi....

      Delete
    4. Obviously it is indeed a Bigfoot and no bear as the hysteria from the skeptics showed yesterday, but that old trick just ain't working no more.

      Delete
    5. Anon 3:38,

      Is an obvious mouth breather.

      Delete
    6. A truthteller more like it.

      Delete
  2. Agreed, it's 2 bears. For comparison, I tried to post a link to a photo of bear in a similar position, but my comment was deleted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you try to post after 225 posts it wont show.This blog can only handle 225 posts.After that it wont take anymore.

      Delete
    2. You should post the image on the forum.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. That is not hair. It is just brown snow.

      Delete
    2. Don't tell me,you ate the brown snow.

      Delete
  4. I don't know what this is, but one thing is sure. This is NOT bigfoot. Any why is this?

    1) The person only took one bad picture. I guess if it really was bigfoot, she/he would have taken a lot more (and better) pictures. Instead she only took one bad picture, that could be anyting. What does that tell us.
    2) The person who took the picture is a anon
    3) Clearly if it's an animal, it's out in the open. I though bigfoots were supposed to hide behind tree's everytime a human is nearby (or a camera, LOL)
    4) If this was actually a bigfoot, we would know. There wouldn't be any doubt, since they should be up to 9 feet tall.

    So shawn, once again, you post another topic that is just... yeah.. I'm out of words.. Was this really the plan with your bigfoot blog, when you started it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm not saying this is a sasquatch, but i can't conclude that it isn't. and it most likely is not based on the image. but i don't believe that the reasoning you've got is definitive in concluding that the image is not a sasquatch, or is a bear.
      1) having only one picture isn't a reason to say it is definitely not a sas. what if the person said, oh efff, that thing is huge, i'm snapping one pic and getting out of here pronto.
      2) because it's anon ? what if the person doesn't want the attention, or ridicule, or the barrage of people calling him/her out ? who really wants credit for a bigfoot pic? believe it or not, not everyone is seeking attention. also, 90% of the comments here are anon. does that mean we discredit the validity of each person's comment right away ?
      3) not all of the thousands of reports of bigfoot sightings are tree peeking.
      4) if this is a bigfoot, well, it seems to be sitting down. if this is a bear, it's doing some serious downward dog yoga.

      Delete
    2. From what I read, this is a trail cam photo.

      Delete
    3. I don't care if it's real or not, but what happens when someone captures an actual photo and it happens to not be behind a bunch of trees and blurry? You bitch when the photos suck and you bitch when the photos are relatively clear. You suck

      Delete
    4. actually bigfoot sucks because it is like the us govt all lies bullshit and misrepresentation

      Delete
    5. Confirming it's a trail cam, then it's definitely not a bear because other photos would've shown it too. Instead typical standard practise one release backside BF pic.

      Delete
  5. Deffinately a bear, but Dale Drinnon's analysis cracks me up. Best laugh I've had all day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep,that Drinnon dude is one card shy of a full deck.

      Delete
  6. ANON at 3;27--You are a freaking tool. Not every single thing Shawn posts on this blog is going to be a bigfoot. He even says it won't be. It is making him money from getting "hits". Thats why he constantly updates things and even has duplicate topics--such as this one. I don't inderstand why people havent figured this out yet. Its been posted before. maybe he takes down post regarding money.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've got the strangest feeling of deja vu,It feels like this just happend yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can imagine this guy took a pic, his wife saw it and said that looks like a gorilla, and a light bulb went off.

    great pic though...easy to trick someone

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is clearly not a bear. Can't people think of something better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep definitely no bear, now we have what's known as denial setting in and unfortunately it's sometimes just as bad in bigfoot circles as with the cynics. The obvious is right in front of us yet we deny it and blame poor eyesight. Now we even have this and other blogs drawing funny doodles all over the picture. Talk about seeing faces in the clouds, you're doing what you accuse FB/FB of. LOL I was under the impression the photo's from a trail cam or was it just a guy snapping away? Because if the guy's there at the scene surely he'd know what the hell he's taking pictures of, unless he's stupid. So trail cam, is it? Then the same possibility as yesterday still stands, more pix likely exist and withheld. Bears don't have typical barrelchested male squatch torsos, do they? News to me then. Either it's a gorilla, an orangutan or a bigfoot but a bear I'd say this is not. You can even see the other (right) arm bent across the chest.

      Delete
    2. Anon @ 5:21- if it is indeed a gorilla, then it isn't from any zoo enclosure around here. Gorillas and other primates are in a lower enclosure and people view from above. This kind of foliage is not from a zoo.
      This is an outdoor shot, in the open. It's a bear in the wild caught on a trail cam. The dogsledder, the one who allegedly passed on the trail cam picture to "Penny", even said he thought it was a bear. "Penny" thought it was a Sasquatch and posted the photo to her facebook.
      I've lived in Alberta for 25 years and I know the terrain. This is not a Buffalo's butt or a Bigfoot, it's a bear with a cub.
      That's my educated opinion.

      Delete
    3. I have anecdotal evidence that suggests lack of discernment in interpreting mildly ambiguous photographs signals lack of discernment in general decision making.

      People tend to fill in the blank with what they want to see, when they truly have no prior reference to draw upon. They must either do that, or be honest with themselves.

      http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/News_Articles/2008/galinskyseeingisbelieving.aspx

      https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/how-convenient

      Delete
    4. Yeah, submit this to the same guy who wrote the article and see what he says it is.......dollars to doughnuts its "bear".

      Delete
    5. Bear...ha-ha, hee-hee. I love how he drew in the round little noses and pointy ears to make them look like bear/pigs. I have one problem with how/where he drew the facial features: There is no face or ears where he drew them. The way this person "drew" whatever he wanted to get the result he wanted in hillarious. Why not simply draw in a patio grill or luggage (suitcases) and then state that it is obviously someones luggage that has been displaced. Fools.

      Delete
    6. Absolutely agreed, same old tactic setting in full swing whenever something too good like this surfaces quickly out comes the marching bear band. Even pretend BF guys like SN whose all too obvious never-a-bigfoot act isn't fooling me by the way. Until further more concrete evidence the lame bear claim is the most ridiculous of all, curious how the trolls always have explanations for the best most obvious photographic BF evidence. It just humors me that it's always something else to them, either a completely deliberate programmed action or plain naivety. Probably the former sadly because the latter could sort of be forgiven.

      Delete
    7. To anon 3:51: Well said. I could't agree with you and anon 3:23 more. To me, this picture looks like a large, bulky humanoid figure. I know that critics will say, "that is just what you are wanting to see." To test this theory, I asked my wife to look at the picture (w/o any background information) and tell me what she saw. Her response was, "it looks like a bigfoot to me." I later asked my 10 year old son what he thought the picture was of and he said that it looked like a big gorilla. Oh well, so much for the "anyone can see this is obviously a bear" theory.

      Delete
    8. Indeed, it is most likely what we're all here to discuss in the first place (though some wish it's not) a bigfoot. My guess is male because of the torso shape, not bulky squarelike ala Patty.

      Delete
  10. Pretty sure I see bigfoot's diick in there. Definitively not a bear dick, I've seen tons of bear dong and I can say with 100% certainty that's not a bear cock. Yup, it's a sas wang.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bad troll levity, work on it.

      Delete
    2. Justin shot my dick off!

      Delete
    3. ^And shoved it in your taterhole.

      Delete
  11. Where's the other bear and Goldilocks?

    ReplyDelete
  12. i thought i clicked on bigfoot evidence, not bear evidence

    ReplyDelete
  13. its a big fucking yellow balloon with another small yellow balloon beside it on a busy street in down town L.A.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Replies
    1. FFFFAAAARRRTTTTTTTTT.
      fart
      fart
      fart
      fart
      fart

      Delete
  15. Do we seriously still have a moron claiming this isn't a bear in here? Tards like these should be exterminated, seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idiot, it's not a bear so you're in need of immediate termination.

      Delete
    2. Prove its not a bear. Its a bear, deal with it. We know "those" exist, prove its not a bear. I'll wait, burden of proof...........or lack of.

      Delete
  16. Replies
    1. Yes troll there was for a bear anyway your on-going bear nonsense kinda proves it. Squatch it is.

      Delete
    2. Squatch it isn't. Only a true moron incapable of a rational thought would think otherwise. You make Forrest Gump look like Einstein. Choke yourself now so you never breed. You would've made a better contribution to society if your mother would've swallowed you. Suck on that......

      Delete
    3. Technically speaking Forest Gump was depicted as a millionaire business owner, Congressional Medal of Honor award winner, Olympic Gold medalist, heisman award winner.....So, in theory, Gump probably was as intelligent as Einstein. You my simpleton friend are like the hippie that Gump whooped in the movie. A silly, narrow minded individual who obviously needs a set of very strong bi-focal glasses if you think this pictures doesn't resemble what has been depicted/described as a Sasquatch.

      Delete
    4. Yes the vile bigfoot haters are getting desperate once more the truth again too hard for them to handle. Trust me, they have squads all ready everytime trail cam pics turn up with their same old bear tales then popping up.

      Delete
    5. Dumb ass 3:01,

      We're talking about this picture. Stay on topic mouth breather.

      Delete
  17. What a mean lookin Tater hole!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its all fun and games until the Ol' Shovel Head pulls out a green bean........then things get real and it isn't all that fun anymore.

      Delete
  18. Hi, I am looking for bigfoot evidence. Can anyone direct me?

    ReplyDelete
  19. So it's like I said a couple of days ago - lighten/adjust the the levels on the photo and you'll see a bear. Where are all the pro "It's a Bigfoot!" commentators now, who insulted those like me for saying so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I have looked, re-looked, lightened, enlarged, shrunk. Guess what? No bear. You are seeing whatever you want to see. You are like the sheep in the book Animal Farm. You simply state what everyone else states w/o having any forethought. Some nimrod squealed bear, then everyone without eyesight apparently jumped on board snorting bear. I can clearly see a large furry unicorn. Now go spread the word on this forum. Make sure to throw in some facts and techniques to back up our claim.

      Delete
    2. You got it, the immature Randi kooks are merely at it again seeing their own pretend-skepticism defeated and redundancy approaching. Everyone with a serious Bigfoot knowledge can both see and knows it's no bear, we've just had a run-in of clueless cynics lately junking up the place with their insane ramblings.

      Delete
    3. So, if you think you have good reason to believe it isn't a bear and make a good case for it being a Bigfoot, why don't you head over to the forum and present a coherent and compelling counter argument over on the Bigfoot Evidence forum?

      So far all we've heard from the detractors is "it isn't a bear" or "it's Bigfoot!".

      Delete
    4. Sorry all-knowing Anonymous 3:27 - I wanted to see a Bigfoot. That was my foreknowledge. Now go fuck off with this imaginary Bigfoot. Thank you.

      Delete
    5. Anon 5:20. Sorry if I offended you with the facts, but generally speaking a simple minded, immature person who has no rationale resorts to cursing and name calling when they have been exposed for what they are; a simpleton.

      To state the obvious about the picture in question; It appears to depict a large, living, hair covered creature with it's back toward the camera. Further, the creature looks as if it is setting on its buttocks while "propping up" it's upper body with its arms extended downward onto the ground. The left shoulder/arm are clearly evident, and the right arm is not clearly defined. The animal's head appeared to be conical in nature and it does not display a readily visible neck. The "cub" could be the creatures lower limbs, possible in the crossed position. Now, the picture goes "hand in hand" with hundreds of eye witness reports of how they describe the creature. It is possible that what we are looking at is a bear, but it definately doesn't look like a bear. It looks like a bigfoot. Anyone who doesn't see this is simply refusing to see the "forest for the trees."

      Delete
    6. Many people have stated that they initially interpreted the image in the same way as you, but changed their mind after further scrutiny. Yes it superficially resembles a primate, but there are problems as the physiology needed for this posture do not make sense.

      Conversely there is a strong correlation with known bear behaviour and their physical traits.

      Delete
    7. To think this is a bear means you're telling your brain that, you're doing a reversed bigfoot sighting and everything you accuses witnesses of. To you a bigfoot witness always turns something innocent or known like bear into a bigfoot, which is pure nonsense of course. Use the logical approach if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck - this is bigfoot here though.

      Delete
    8. Not at all. As I stated above many people, myself included, started out thinking this looked like a Bigfoot. But you have to stand back from initial responses, ask 'what are we looking at?' and then consider all of the possible options.

      That's the critical an impartial way to consider this kind of evidence. In this case I think that the form and behaviour most closely resembles that of two bears. I might be wrong and missing some vital analysis that rules out that conclusion in favour of it being a Bigfoot, but so far the only counter argument I hear is 'it's Bigfoot dummy!'.

      So, why should I believe it's Bigfoot and why can't it possibly be a bear/s?

      Delete
    9. No takers? Can't say I'm surprised.

      Delete
  20. The photo is all wrong for a bears back end. It's not a bear - if it is then the tail is in the wrong place and the anatomy of the back is wrong. The link is a bear tail. http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=18798
    This photo is now a bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would help if you were comparing the same species.

      Delete
    2. How can an obvious bears anatomy be wrong for an actual bear? You're patently retarded.

      Delete
    3. What does species have to do with comparing cracks/bung-holes. Please enlighten me here. Last time I checked, a black bear, grizzly/brown bear, polar bear, etc. are all basically shaped and put together the same way. That is no different than attemting to say that a black person's anatomy is different than a white persons. Aside from the different species size and color, there is basically no noticeable differences. You Crit-it-cull
      Think-erhz take the cake.

      Delete
    4. Straw Man - human ethnic groups do not belong to different species......unlike grizzly, black and polar bears. There are commonalities, but there are also significant differences in fur density and musculature, so your comparison doesn't really add much to the debate.

      Delete
    5. No bear anatomy here but all squatch ditto.

      Delete
    6. All bear anatomy here as Sasquatch anatomy doesn't exist, thus making your comment nothing more than delusions of grandeur, as usual.

      Delete