• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New BF photo

Photoshop anyone? (quick and dirty example)

bigfootsnowboarder.jpg


Look! One snowboarding Bigfoot is going uphill! Amazing!

What makes anyone think this is a real photo to begin with? I see an obvious white-ish outline around BF whereas the other objects against the background sky do not have much of an outline. And ARE those footprints in the snow or a natural result of wind etc? My example may be bad, but this photo is so easily faked, I'm surprised nobody has even mentioned it.
 
schplurg said:
Photoshop anyone? (quick and dirty example)
What makes anyone think this is a real photo to begin with?
Click to expand...
Well, you're right, it could be a fake. Thing is, if it is one, it's a very good one. I checked these Photos for a while and IMHO they don't show any hint of fakery. That doesn't make sure that they are real, but most amateur's photoshop work can be debunked rather easily.
Take a closer look at your picture for example (I know you quickly touched these up, but just as an example): Brighten it up a little and you see that the blacks don't match the enviroment, the jpg artifacts aren't in line etc.
I see an obvious white-ish outline around BF whereas the other objects against the background sky do not have much of an outline.
Click to expand...
This outline is a combination of a lightwrap plus an artifact of the sharpening/contrast enhancement most digital cameras do. And you can see it equally all along the mountain edge on the left hand side. (And also around these bushes on the right, it's just a bit weaker since the edges aren't that defined)
And ARE those footprints in the snow or a natural result of wind etc?
Click to expand...
Good question. I actually thought the latter since otherwise this would be a rather busy area...

Bottom line is:
1.) I have no good reason to believe this photo's been doctored.
2.) I have no good reason to believe this photo shows bigfoot.

Why could it not just be another hiker? Doesn't that seem way more likely? I'd say the guy who took the photos would look pretty much alike from the same distance.

Another question is: Where is the third picture? From the report:
Right after I took the first shot (1) it moved or stood up so I took another picture (2). It then moved towards the south, away from me. I then had to reajust because the wind was so strong. It was difficult to move because the snow was waist deep.

I got closer to a rock to steady myself and took another picture (3). It was then was moving down the hill.
Click to expand...
(Numbers in brackets by me)

So, my guess is, the third picture wasn't mysterious enough and maybe showed on closer examination that it's no BF at all, but rather BS...

FR
 
There have been a few occasions when, well before sunrise on a winter morning, I would be walking to the bus stop and would see, in front of me in the darkness, a person clothed in a heavy parka with a fur-lined hood. With the streetlights twenty metres in front of him and in the gloom of the pre-dawn a person looks exactly like an upright bear. Residents of a city are likely to recognize the figure for what it is - a human. However, it is easy to see how people in a less populated region can let their imagine get the better of them. "What is that thing? No one, that I know of, lives around here. And besides, it is five in the morning. It can't be a bear because it is standing upright far to long. Beside, bears aren't that steady on their hind legs. What is it? Its gotta be a sasquatch!"
 
Has anyone taken the time to think that may actually be a rock? There are other rocks on the mountain that can be seen. And, it being a digital camera, where are the other photos of this supposed creature in motion?
 
Beelzebubba said:
Has anyone taken the time to think that may actually be a rock? There are other rocks on the mountain that can be seen. And, it being a digital camera, where are the other photos of this supposed creature in motion?
Click to expand...

Could easily be a rock with a bit of snow in the area that looks like an arm gap.
 
Tricky said:
Here they are, but they don't look the least bit interesting. Looks like a human in a hooded coat, just what you'd expect on a snow-capped hilltop.
29_icon_Silver_Star_Mt._029.jpg


30_icon_Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg


30_crop_Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg
Click to expand...

Classic example of a person walking over a hill with a bright background and a rather dispersive lens/atmosphere between the camera and the person.

This is proving bigfoot how?
 
force_redo said:
I know, I lined them up. The hiker still moves...

FR
Click to expand...

I lined them up the old fashioned way, by crossing my eyes. The camera gets closer as it goes up the mountain, and the object in question shifts less than the mountain. Could easily be parallax. We also see an outline, that could be more than one rock lined up in front of the other. The atmospheric perspective makes it difficult to separate without a closer look.
 
I'm going to interrupt the photo analysis a moment. They just discovered (actually in '03, but the pics were just released) a new carnivore the size of a cat in the deep, dense jungles of Borneo. Source

The ivory billed woodpecker was found in a faraway bayou in Arkansas in '04, though everyone assumed it was extinct.

I seem to remember a new monkey species recently discovered somewhere in Asia.

These are relatively small beasties that no one was looking for. Why can't they find a creature bigger than a person that lots of people are looking for?
 
c4ts said:
Could easily be parallax.
Don't think so. Look at the bushes on the right and the direction and distance they paralax. The go the opposite direction as the hiker does and a rather small distance.
Assuming these bushes are approx. the same distance from camera as the hiker is, which is indicated by a similar level of fogging.

Reading the link Diogenes provided, it might be just a well made fake...
(If it is, it's really one of the best I've seen)

FR
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
We all know that this can't be a Bigfoot, from the scenery.

The Pacific Northwest, after all, has such thick and dense tree cover that trained trackers can't possibly follow an animal through it. At all. Ever. We have been assured of this repeatedly. Unlike the airy bayous, where ivory woodpeckers frolic and the line of sight goes on forever, the PNW is as densely packed as green fiberboard. It's impossible to track through it. Hikers are routinely lost forever when attempting to cut across someone's lawn.

As I see no dense vegetation, this is obviously not bigfoot country. Although it might be a bayou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom