Impressive New Bigfoot Photo From Manitoba Canada
Not much is know about this photograph, but the Bigfoot community already has some enhancements leading some to believe that there are actually two Bigfoots in this photograph. Kris F. claims this photograph came from a "friend's buddy snapped" in Manitoba, Canada. Though this was originally posted in the BFRO Facebook group, no detail about the encounter was given. Suzy Matiash of the Facebook group, Bigfoot Community, is currently digging deep, trying get the complete back story to this. Here are some enhancements by April P. who wrote:
"I am posting the picture from Manitoba Canada, for Kris Friesen. I have lightened it and zoomed in. It must had been taken with a cell phone or a low resolution camera. This is as close as I could zoom without loosing to much detail."
- April P.
 |
| Some believe the figure above is possibly carrying a juvenile on its back. |
First
ReplyDeleteIt's always stunning to see the quality of Bigfoot photos
ReplyDeleteShawn apparently found it to be "impressive", I guess he'd be impressed by any old thing.
DeletePlenty of wrinkles at the elbows in the fabric. Cheap suit.
DeleteCheap trick.
Chick
stump!!!!
Delete^^^^ Literally LOLed that top comment...thanks for the laugh :)
DeleteStump Squatch
DeleteThis is 2013, why is every photo or video of bigfoot filmed on a camera from the 1970s? Zooming in these days is FLAWLESS. Unless it's a photo or video of bigfoot. Then it's terrible. I'm embarrassed for the people that keep posting this absolute garbage.
ReplyDeleteStudy some photography. With limited focal length and light (especially in woods) it is non-trivial to take good photographs of fairly distant objects.
DeleteGo to the woods, take your camera of choice. Try taking a photo of your loved one at different distances. At home compare the images and see how quickly image quality deteriorates even at maximum zoom at only 50 yards.
Try it.
Can it come out that black though?
DeleteIt depends. The problem with cameras, even professional ones, is that they use only a small area or multiple small areas on the sensor or on secondary sensors for determining the amount of light.
DeleteThe light metering in cameras tries to make the lightest object (which in photos taken outside in daylight without artificial sources is the sky) not clip. It reduces the gain on the sensor to achieve this. This prevents overexposure but causes underexposure of dark objects.
There is no easy solution to this except manually adjusting the exposure. Set +1/+2 stops, so that dark areas are not underexposed. This will however make the sky and many other objects overexposed.
For comparison; I am sure you know typical photos of very white people with their black friends. The camera underexposes the black skinned people to a point where they can become almost indistinguishable from a dark background.
Addendum: The true solution of course would be to have a image sensor that has a higher dynamic range. Dynamic ranges comparable to human vision are still not possible. It will take some more development in this field to make that possible.
DeletePerhaps this is a good tip to Bigfooters; If you go out to take a photo of a Bigfoot: Bring a DSLR with a sensor with the highest possible dynamic range. Take a lense with long focal length (300+mm) and most important of all, set TV-mode on your camera to have at least 1 / (2xfocal length) so that you eliminate motion blur. (So for 300mm you are looking at 1/600 s). This is why you need a "fast" lense; Ideally F2.8 or lower. These will set you back at least $2000, but they are the only lenses that give you half a decent chance of taking a photo that comes close to a "money shot".
I think the focus in bigfootery is too much on video anyway. Videocameras have limited resolution and their focal lengths start off at a wide-angle so you can record your aunt's birthday, but not the naked neighbor a block away. Even with 20x optical zoom, this will not be enough focal length.
DeleteA decent DSLR has at least 10 times the resolution a videocamera has and you can offset the focal length by picking the right lense. You could even get a relatively affordable 200mm F2.8 and add a 2x extender that will give you 400mm at a decent F4.0.
I so much wish I was on the right continent for bigfooting.
Here is a good video in which nature photographers discuss their equipment.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbli8lh9Pcw
You will need equivalent equipment to get a good photo of bigfoot.
Where are you from? But you see how in the foreground would that area come out that black as well? To me that appears as if someone went in with photoshop and blacked that out. Just so the blacking out of the supposed Bigfoot wouldn't seem so conspicuous.
DeleteBullshit.
DeleteI am an amateur photographer and with today machines it is nearly impossible to come up with these results.
The point is that it is not a one off the blurry picture, but is that Bigfoot photos are blurry
EVERY FUCKIN TIME
Man a film from 1967 stands still today as thr clearest shot to a Bigfoot. A bit suspicious, uh?
Ala Mitch headberg
Delete^^ Win
Deletehttp://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
DeleteVery glad I could have helped you with that.
Peace.
That was for 2:52.
DeleteAgain with that shitty video? I'm not arguing if it is legitimate, the point is that the video quality is shit. Fact. End.
DeleteOh, clearly squatches are invisible to dogs then.
Yawn
Joe's only hope left is that video with hoax davis voice. He desperarely grasps to that video.
DeletePoor old boy Joey
Haven't you learned yet??
DeleteBigfoot is just blurry.
You have in the Russian Yeti a much younger specimen than Patty, probably a juvenile; this would account for the possible extra stealth displayed, as it would also explain the reason why the witnesses dog does not react in fear. A reference to dogs not being as afraid of younger Sasquatch as opposed to older specimens is the recent 'Listen to Squachers Lounge Podcast Tonight at 7PM PST With Special Guest Damian Bravo (Archived)' blog page... If you skip to 19mins, there is a reference to this regarding the Georgia house 'Visitors in the Twilight' location that has been stalked by Sasquatch. Also, in Leaping Russian Yeti video the video (especially with the breakdown subtitles version), you will notice the kid doesn't see the creature, hence the level of reassurance the father gives for capturing it.
DeleteYou must remember that Sasquatch are not dumb animals, have different tempraments and different agendas. A confused intimidated female with a gun pointed at it (Patty), would act differently to an anxious, younger male confronted by a man and his kid. If you look at MK Davis' screen shots of the Yeti, you will notice that it's a matching specimen... And even harder for anyone to claim 'man in suit'.
Oh, and Anon 3:19... You bring me a laugh every time you post, because you are so desperately dense it's quite astonishing. Whatever your opinion of MK, it's totally irrelevant, because MK merely puts screen shots to the footage.
You have in the blah blah blah
DeleteBlah blah blah blah blah
Blah
Blah blah blah
Blah
No bigfoot.
Maybe... it might be... probably...
DeleteThat is quite a lot of informations regarding an unrecognized species, haha!
Joe keeping to adjust reality to his will, never considering that things might diverge from what you like to think? Oh sure damian bravo is the most credible voice in anthropology... where did he get his degree? Cannot remember
DeleteIt's best to just say "you're right, you're always right."
DeleteAnd just let the retard alone to play with hot wheels and paper hats.
Oh dear...
Delete3:38... There you a Bigfoot with motion changes (bipedal and quadrupedal), muscle tone, limb length and girth, speed and agility. Pretty impressive eh?
3:42... Damien's qualifications are pretty irrelevant, what he does have however, is a advanced knowledge of this subject and was present at a podcast where an example of a dog not being scared of Sasquatch was highlighted. Again, you focus on irrelevancies in your panic and stumbling to counter with at least 'something'.
3:44... I'm not always right in fact, but your comment suggests a verbal slip in that you've had your arss handed to you more than once by me, and here in lies the problem... For you anyway.
I'm not saying that the dog should be scared, but at least he should recognize the presence of an animal and at least give a brief look at him... and he does not, so I presume that the bigfoot is more probably a man in a suit that the dog knows quite well
DeleteOh dear
Yawn
Sigh
Someone hears about someones dog not being afraid of a juvenile sasquatch with ZERO proof = 100% proof all dogs are not afraid of juvenile sasquatch.
DeleteThat's some Moneymaker science right there.
4:09... Ok, let's look at the original footage then shall we? Let's;
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSmKQcPnVgk
Here you will notice a full 30 seconds of a 54 second video goes by before the dog comes into the frame. Can you honestly account for the 30 seconds of what that dog is behaving like, let alone the duration prior to the creature being filmed? You must remember that the father in the footage has already turned the camera on and is pointing at the sounds emanating from that part of the forest; not in an 'action' fashion, but if you listen to the price of footage, then you can hear considerable limb snaps as it bulldozes through the brush... Again, so consistent. Therefore, you have an entire time period unaccounted for that you cannot state with any confidence that you know what the dog is behaving like.
Also, the kid doesn't see the creature. Could it be that the dog happened to not see it either?? Also... The dog sits down. Is this the dog capitulating to the creature?
I think that your argument is; "because there is a dog in the footage, I don't have to counter the subject's motion changes (bipedal and quadrupedal), muscle tone, limb length and girth, speed and agility"; and that is pretty much avoiding the your biggest obstacle.
4:14... Ok, let's just say that the subject in the footage is indeed real; which I have yet to see an argument to counter; then don't we have documented evidence to back up that account?
You make a lot of hypothesis, but you are not able to consider the hypothesis that this video is fake. That is intellectually wrong from a scientific point of view.
Delete"Also, the kid doesn't see the creature. Could it be that the dog happened to not see it either?"
Ahhahaah after this, I'm out
Oh, I considered the possibility yes, I even thought Patty was fake for a very long time until I looked at the facts and the wider picture. A scientific point of view would consider the subject's motion changes (bipedal and quadrupedal), muscle tone, limb length and girth, speed and agility are not within the possibilities of a normal human, and not focus on the behaviour of a dog that can quite easily be one possibility of a list of many as opposed to the one thing you are suggesting. To look at all these possibilities would actually be acting scientifically impartial, and you want to talk scientific points of view?
DeleteIs that laughter a little nervousness??
Schooled, smell ya later!
(sigh)
Delete"you're right, you're always right."
yawn
I like how Joe makes every post that goes beyond 4 replies about himself.
DeleteThere is nothing inhuman about leaping Davis footage. You simply cannot give me exact extremity measurements, not any measurement for that matter.
Just because YOU say it's not within human range is hardly a reason to think otherwise.
YOU say a lot of things that are patently false.
Quite frankly, I never saw 'muscle tone' on that footage anyway.
Ha ha ha !!
Schooled.
You do know anything about anthropology and biomechanic. The only thing you do is quoting other people that as you do not know about anthropology and biomechanic. Until you do not get a degree on these subjects and conduct a scientific study on the matter, you cannot take your thoughts as 100% real. Fact. End.
DeleteGlad to have made you recognize your ignorance.
Schooled (too easy).
(Sigh)
Yawn.
Hahaha
Nighty night
Fin
The creature in it's last moments switches from bipedal motion to quadrupedal motion. It is there in front of your eyes... I have shown this part of the video to skeptical thinkers and they are in agreement.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTddczieNdQ
... At 1.47 mins, you see it pull itself along with it's arms in that terrain. Make sure you look at the screen shots and play it back to see the creatures last few moments; where it switches from two legs to all fours... Ridiculously fast. There is great need to explain how someone could achieve those movements, because they are not achievable by a normal human's capabilities... They would break their wrists jumping from bipedal motion to quadrupedal motion at that speed in that awkward terrain. But hey! Here we have someone deflecting again; asking for measurements?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
The plain and simple truth is, you see what you want to see. In Leaping Russian Yeti; you either see a creature jumping from bipedal to quadrupedal motion in very tricky terrain, leaping feet into the air in transitioning those motions, muscle tone in the back and arss, limb length and girth matchable to patty... Or you see 'nothing inhuman' without offering an explanation how that stealth would be accomplished; even in a bulky, no-neck outfit. You see... This is where I can make the claim that you are again; in denial of evidence that you are requesting, it's really quite amusing to me if I'm completely honest.
Oh... And I would suggest you go over and look at the Breakdown of it too... I think you will find Polling's conclusion on it; anything but conclusive... That's unless you know something he doesn't.
Degrees in Anthropology and biomechanics?
DeleteOh dear... Do you have those things? I do believe you can merely have a basic understanding of human motion and forest terrain in coming to a conclusion not based on your fear of things that are out of your control.
First we had dogs... Then we had measurements... Now we have degrees in anthropology and biomechanic?? Man up and grow a pair you wimp.
Something for you to have some nightmares about anyway 5:01, ha ha ha ha ha!!!
You're right, you're always right
Delete... Says the 'always schooled guy'.
Delete; )
You're right, you're always right
DeleteWhat does the degree matter, anyway Joe? You already look down upon science and people who have freely posted their doctorate in related fields. If you scoff at them, why would another degree be any different.
DeleteThere is nothing inhuman about leaping Davis, no matter how hard you want to look, frame by frame...nothing inhuman.
But rest still beating heart, for Joe has shown skeptical thinkers the leaping Davis video.
It's no use to even attempt actual dialogue with someone who believes bigfoot is modern human but there are also unknown human bigfoot's of several unknown taxonomy.
Schooled
Ha ha ha !!
"It's no use to even attempt actual dialogue with someone who believes bigfoot is modern human but there are also unknown human bigfoot's of several unknown taxonomy."
DeleteI'm gonna keep this, well played Sir
Nope! Ha!
DeleteYou keep proving me right and I absolutely LOVE THIS!!
You see it pull itself along with it's arms in that terrain. Make sure you look at the screen shots and play it back to see the creatures last few moments; where it switches from two legs to all fours... Ridiculously fast. There is great need to explain how someone could achieve those movements, not just claim there is nothing inhuman about it, because you are a liar, denialist or simply a little too silly... Because those motions are not achievable by a normal human's capabilities... They would break their wrists jumping from bipedal motion to quadrupedal motion at that speed in that awkward terrain.
You have been totally and utterly schooled sir, you and your little cheerleader!! Ha!!
Explain this... Stop wimping out, avoiding... Man up and explain this. Oh that's right! You can't so you simply just deny... What a pathetic situation for you, old boy!
Also, the theories that there are different races of this creature is nothing new... People widely report different anatomical and morphological attributes to these creatures and have done for thousands of years. Some of these differences would be human faced with physical proportions similar to ours, and others would be more ape like features with longer arms. The subject in the video you are getting educated over; is the latter.
; )
What level of 'sick in the mind' must someone be to deny what's clearly in front of their eyes?
DeleteThis is text book 'skepticism' right here for everyone to see guys! I could claim that the creature does cartwheels and the tango and not have to explain myself.
Quite a pathetic situation eh? Oh how I love this piece of footage!
; )
Dog BS - schooled
DeleteMeasurements BS - schooled
Degrees in Anthropology and biomechanics BS - schooled
Motion BS & avoidance - schooled
... Let's see what he has next? I reckon more denial myself; but these numpties never fail to suprise.
Drum roll please...
and the winner is...
DeleteJoe Fitzgerald for Self-smoker of the year for making a complete and utter ass of himself.
Where is all of our crow you retard?
Awh, what's the matter numpty... Got you a little upset have I?
DeleteThe crow is in this thread. You ask for a Bigfoot and are too thick & scared to counter footage of one when presented.
Schooled.
99.9999999% of the world thinks that Bigfoot is crap, but obviously must be wrong surely. I mean, he HAS TO BE WRONG. Joe Fitzgerald, mk davis and bill munns are enough credible
Delete99.9999999%???
DeleteI think Sykes would have an issue with that assessment; surely someone investing all this time, money and effort wouldn't be concerned with such made up statistics?
Peace.
^^ Really this guy believes that Sykes believe in Bigfoot?
DeleteReally this guy believes that Sykes invests his own money in the project?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
"Bryan does believe, as do I and everyone else at Bigfootology, that there is something out there and we continue our work to discover “WHAT” they are, not “IF” they exist."
DeleteRhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, PhD-ABD, CAF, MHP
Bigfootology
Joe says that Rhettman says that Bryan says. Do see the problem here?
DeleteAlso "Bryan believes that there is something out there" could very well refer to a combination of bears, racoons, bloke in a suit, hoaxes etc...
DeleteSCHOOLED.
Sorry guys... I think it's quite clear what Sykes agenda is, and if I had another agenda, I certainly wouldn't be letting Mullis talk on my behalf. Did you know his long term study is called the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.
DeleteThe clue's in the name, yeah?
; )
Joe knows Sykes in person. Also Mullis.
DeleteI bet Sykes and Mullis would be happy to know that the mighty Joe Fitzgerald speaks on behalf of them.
Let's review the name of the Sykes project:
DeleteOxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project
Let's review what a hominid is:
a primate belonging to the family which includes modern man and his fossil ancestors.
10:31 and previous twerktards in this thrilling cascade of comments, contrary to your claims, what Sykes thinks could be out there is revealed in the name of his project:
hominids.
Please review the name of Sykes' project before you comment again on what Sykes thinks.
You'd think footers would learn from past mistakes. "Sykes is coming!!!!!! tick tock! Scared?" etc...
DeleteA study that has been called "Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project" from the BEGINNING before samples were even gathered = Bigfoot will be proven real!
That's some Moneymaker science right there. Again.
The name of the project reflects the will the study the facts about this "hominid" phenomenon, doesn't mean that this hominid exists. Instead, the hominid phenomenon has turn out to be bears, racoons, african woman, beaver, ecc. ecc.
DeleteSchooled (and over and out, I have a life)
"Bryan does believe, as do I and everyone else at Bigfootology, that there is something out there and we continue our work to discover “WHAT” they are, not “IF” they exist."
DeleteRhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, PhD-ABD, CAF, MHP
Bigfootology
(Tip for you... You can school and still use an iPhone)
flunked ^
DeleteI think that zoomed in photo is actually a screen cap from Donkey Kong on the NES circa 1984. Well done all around.
ReplyDeleteGOOD MORNING mujā fujā what is goin on I'm with the last guy there's no way something could be that dark and void of any color I'll go with donkey kong screen grab
ReplyDeleteYGNALI
ReplyDeleteYGSANLI
DeleteJGDALI
DeleteJoeGetsDickAndLovesIt
Especially big black ones.
Freudian slip?
DeleteJGDALI
DeleteFS
DeleteYou might want to actually look up what a Freudian Slip is....because I don't think you have it quite right....
DeleteA Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind, a subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought guided by the super-ego and the rules of correct behaviour.
DeleteThink I got it right enough.
Oh goodie.
DeleteIt's just a contextual issue that you have then.
"A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind, a subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought guided by the super-ego and the rules of correct behaviour.
DeleteThink I got it right enough."
Nope, a Freudian Slip is when something accidentally says something that is indicative of their subconscious feelings. A deliberately typed message can't be a Freudian Slip by definition.
That depends on your definition of what constitutes a deliberately typed message.
DeleteA moment's reaction at the fingertips and enter being pressed, is the same, old boy.
; )
fooled ^
DeleteMy congratulations Joe,
Deleteit is quite impressive how you manage to be schooled on every subject.
You have to be quite a big dick in order to be able to do that
(Sigh)
DeleteProfanities? Sure sign of real schooling right there ya know!
^^ Said by one that always make offense to other people, including Ph.Ds
DeleteWhy is everyone so quiet did I miss something was there a falling out did people get banned whats goin on
ReplyDeletemmg banned or quit. gone. jf next.
Delete2:41... MMG isn't banned, he's got a social life... Unlike the people upset like you for having their main source of social life unsettled and riddled with truth that hurts.
DeleteHEY HARRY!!!
Between Bigfoot Patriot spouting off homophobic and racist Jesus talk again and Joe being an obnoxious freak, I just really don't want to post.
DeleteThey are made for each other.
Good mornin joe, good mornin anon
DeleteHell yes I'm Homophobic. Didn't you here about my buddies kid getting gang rapped. How about al those prison gang rapes. Homo priests, pators, coaches attacking boys (sandusky). If you all keep your Gayness to yourself, I'll keep my religion to myself. See how this is going to work!
DeleteI'm not racist. Why don't you bring some proof thier asswhipe!
It's a tree stump.
ReplyDeleteStump Squatch loves the camera, he just can't stay away
DeleteAh ya beat me to it : it does look like a tree stump - again.
DeleteHarry. Good Morning from Sulphur Springs Texas. At any moment Smokey Crabtree will jump out from behind a tree and shoot me. Headed to a funeral my brother. Take care. M
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about your friend Mike. Take care :)
DeleteChick
At to the photo. Just because someone says Blobsquatch. Doesn't mean it ain't a Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteThat's correct, it might be a totally genuine photo of a Sasquatch, but this photo is so bad there's absolutely no way of verifying it. This photo counts for nothing as evidence.
DeleteIt also doesn't mean it ain't manbearpig.
DeleteOr a dogman. Or a chupacabra. Hell even mothman. Sheepsquatch?
DeleteGood morning Mikey be careful you drivin or flyin
ReplyDeleteDriving. I thought it would give me time to grieve. Turns out it just took my road rage into a Mad Max like psychotic fervor. What did you think of the animated discussion thread our biologist linked you into the other night?
ReplyDeleteIt cracks me up that there are more people who loathe me within our own research group than in this blog comment forum. I shouldn't taunt them. But some of those tree huggers make me want to Obamanos!
ReplyDeleteAnyway. I'm going walleye fishing and black powder hunting. And I'm going Squatching while I'm here. Whiskey for warmth, dogs for comfort.
ReplyDeleteThere is a straight vertical line along left arm cutting point of a cut n paste...
ReplyDeleteWho studies this crap before passing along?
the entire photo has a grid pattern not only on the subject but also the trees. I thought that was just the pixelation from a low res digital camera.
DeleteGood Eye. I can't see it. But I believe you.
ReplyDeleteHey Mikey you make too much money for an obamanos phone lol but were you talkin about those emails and yes I often get psychotic road rage but I don't just drive to an office so only people who drive for a living spend more time in a vehicle I drive to get the company truck drive to the first job then to all the subsequent jobs then back to my car then home
ReplyDeleteI thought you had to go to MO what happend
ReplyDeleteI'm headed there. Texarkana is half way. Pulled over for some rest brother
ReplyDelete^ WHO THE HELL ARE YOU ? I never heard of a mike brookreson. STOP ! name dropping me dude,, LYLE BLACKBURN.
DeleteThought about calling Lyle Blackburn and staying with him. Probably too many hot chicks to find a place to crash. I like that dude. He's like the Bret Michaels of Squatching. And a helluva writer.
ReplyDeleteHis parents basement is full, Mikey. You'll have to call up another basement crypto fanatic.
DeleteI don't know I imagine his book sales left him pretty solid. Return to Boggy Creek was well researched and written. And he's earned his noteriety I think.
DeleteYou wanna come with me 3:21. I could use a knowledgable outdoorsmen on this trip. M?
DeleteHere's your question of the day 3:21. To see if you'll do. You left your dirt scent or scent lock at camp. All you have are the basics from your rudimentary camp at your disposal. What's the best way to block your scent using just what you'd find in an everyday camp?
DeleteC'mon 3:21. When spouting off about mommies basement one needs a working knowledge of the outdoors. I'm waiting.
DeleteThe answer,3:21, is firewood ash. Best natural scent blocker in the absence of a man made one. Have a nice day. M
DeleteUnless you're book was a #1 best seller, it doesn't make much money.
DeleteBtw it's charcoal, not 'firewood ash.'
You can also eat it if you have a violent upset stomach or consume to much of an acidic food.
Don't give me that boo hoo someone I once knew 25 years ago died and now I'm all sad in my heart attitude either. Drama queen.
DeleteIt's Lyles book not mine. Noone uses charcoal in a basic camp. And charcoal is only Ingested to block poisoning. Not for an upset tummy. That's Tums or Mylanta sub genius. Now. Thank you for your stewardship and have a nice day.
DeleteNoones giving you a thing 3:42. Quite simply. You are too irrelevant to give or owe anything to. Have a nice anonymous day. And always remember. If you haven't heard anything stupid for a whine. Try speaking.
DeleteCharcoal is the foundation of your 'firewood ash,' not your local BBQ charcoal pellets.
DeleteCharcoal is in your fire pit when the wood burns down.
That as a matter of fact, when you don't have any valid poultices or stomach treatments, is used to calm down violent stomach reactions. Peppermint can also calm down a sour stomach.
Charcoal is also one of the main items used in 'scent blocker technology.'
DeleteDrama queen.
Weren't you supposed to release some type of Bigfoot footage?
DeletePatience... Patience...
Deletefooled ^
DeleteSchooled ^
Deleteflunked ^
DeleteJoe. Good morning my friend. Long drive ahead. Have a great day
ReplyDeleteBuddy, I've sent you some emails, expect a lot more!!
DeleteCgi (and a poor one at that)quite clearly seen in the first image.
ReplyDeleteLooks more like the blob.
There is an other little bigfoot by the tree on the right.
ReplyDeleteI even see two bigfoots right behind the one in the front. Mayby It's a family, father with juvenile on his shoulder, an older child behind the tree and the mother in the background.
ReplyDeleteI See it now it's Elvis in a windbreaker!
ReplyDeleteShitsticks what the hell is goin on people
ReplyDeletehi harry
DeleteBall Boy
this picture looks unmistakenly the real deal. too bad the canadians pushed to many hoaxed photos prior to this so i'm thinking this is just one-upsmanship. where are the other photos? i guess like a photo shoot you wait for the *cough* bigfoot to pose and take the money shot.
ReplyDelete"friend's buddy snapped" .. huh. isn't that the same as a friend of a friend.
ReplyDeleteI'm not your buddy, guy.
DeleteOh Jesus ancient aliens is trying to get us to worship satan
ReplyDeletego on...ignore me....you son of bitch... :'(
Deletei'm really hurtin, Harry.
Ball Boy
ya uppity s.o.b.
DeleteBall Boy
Good morning chick
ReplyDeleteG'mornin Harry
DeleteBall boy
Good morning Harry, good morning everyone!
DeleteChick
could be GRAYs
DeleteHow's the sitting on dogs goin? Chick
DeleteBall boy I'll say hi but one more gay remark I'll go back to ignoring you for good
Its going good Harry, thanks. How are ya today?
DeleteToday is a slow day only 3 more visits to make.
Meh I don't know what the hells goin on I've been gettin bad headaches for like a week now
DeleteOh, thats the worst! Could be from so many different things. You can get "rebounders" from Advil or Aleve if you are taking either of those.
DeleteThar beez bigfeets abouts deep-deep in tham woods – U got to beez on your guard. 12 gage shotgun used – dang critters, followed up shots – slugs rounds and take that thar bigfoot down. Fer Shure
ReplyDeleteYawn...
ReplyDeletecould be a GRAYs secret base up there in Manitoba, Canada. bigfoots to keep folks out.
ReplyDeletejoe getting schooled as usual.
ReplyDeletesykes proved sightings/samples have been bears - no bigfoots
on the proboards tontar absolutely destroyed and debunked the munns paper so you have patty as an undeniable hoax
what are you left with?
tracks? yep they have been proven to be hoaxed
footers do not have a single piece of evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny because the evidence is an attempt to prove a non existent animal exists - an impossible task
Sykes proved samples that passed the expert analysis stage of identification; were bears. Shall we compare the amount of samples sequenced to the amount of eye witness accounts to this year alone? Regardless of the amount on data base, not even taking into account the amount not reported?
Delete(Sigh)
As for Bill Munns; he schools you with basic common sense; The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human. The arm length of Patty is 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. When matching this over that of a normal human, the problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. ill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25% , but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.
Tracks? You mean track that have been attained 50 miles into wilderness areas, that have toe bending, scar tissue, dermals consistent with species traits from years apart from opposite sides of the country have been debunked? HA! Didn't think so!
Tards don't have a single things that can't be kicked back at them. It is evidence of stupidity and denial (in 7:04's case; both), that they should think they are excluded or have a special right to acknowledge these points put to them.
Schooled.
fooled ^
DeleteSchooled ^
Delete7:04 sounds like Kitakrazy.
DeleteI think this photo was taken from a comparison photo a few years ago that originated out of the Temagami region of Ontario.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Good morning Mike,Harry,Joe....hope you guys had a good Christmas,I'm back to my painting,groaanm
ReplyDeleteHey rum I sent ya a Christmas email take it ya haven't been back to work good morning man
DeleteNo thank god
DeleteArt Bell is a bigfoot guru : )
ReplyDeletemountain monsters team AIMS can get on this with Trapper
ReplyDelete"Some believe the figure above is possibly carrying a juvenile on its back."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's clearly a jetpack.
Shhhh that's secret alien technology
Deletehe's gone he's gone I tell ya
ReplyDeleteShawn's titles suck. That photo is in no way impressive.
ReplyDeleteBigfoots are truer than fiction guarantee
ReplyDeleteIt's Weddingcakeheadfoot wearing a short-sleeved t-shirt, natch.
ReplyDelete"NO" its just little ole me, Milk turdintoiletbowelson, :)
DeleteSorry, this was DNA tested and confirmed to be a stump.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really impressive (still) is that people still get all wet about this as more evidence, proof, etc.
ReplyDeleteNorth America has a lotof gigfoot shaped stumps. that said ive seen a good few 'old lady' stumps. not sure whats more scary
ReplyDeleteutter bollox and this little chink gets all excited
That bigfoot sure looks like it's wearing a hoodie.
ReplyDeleteThe Unisquatch.
DeleteGRAYs be the shit GRAYs find U, U dont find them
ReplyDeletekeep sharing the article.
ReplyDelete