Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was in the news, did I need to? I thought you were following the story.
 
Jodie said:
It was in the news, did I need to? I thought you were following the story.
Click to expand...


People in different countries get different news. I gave the UK newspaper link which is all I had. I think you should have provided a link and not just assumed that I or anyone else have seen the news that you have yourself.
 
Alan Lowey said:
You've no evidence of that what-so-ever. At least Mr Stoneman has located the exact spot for others to see that there is no root-ball there.

It wouldn't be a particularly clever prank as well as out right lying to newspaper reporters because root-ball similarities are well known about. He said the entities were moving through the forest.

P.S. They do look just like root-balls in the photo, agreed, but the man's testimony has to be given some credibility unless he's a well known hoaxer.

ETA: Take a look at the two photos. You can see the tree with the bend in it so it's the same spot.

The article adds:




................
Click to expand...


The photos may be of the same spot, but they are taken from different angles

The photo that supposedly shows bigfoot (left) was taken from a point some distance to the left of where the other photo (right) was taken. You can establish this easily by lining up the wispy tree in the foreground with the clump of 5-6 trunks behind it.

From the position where the right photo is taken, parallax would bring the area containing the alleged bigfoot directly behind the clump of trees to its right. Very suspicious; the right photo is taken in the perfect position to hide the area of importance.
 
Alan Lowey said:
People in different countries get different news. I gave the UK newspaper link which is all I had. I think you should have provided a link and not just assumed that I or anyone else have seen the news that you have yourself.
Click to expand...

You must live under a rock then if you didn't see the follow up news, or selectively tuned it out. It pops up first when you google Pennsylvania bigfoot.
 
Northern Lights said:
it was approximately 9 feet tall, and was making it's way through a very thick forest without a light source. Now, you tell me how a person could pull off a hoax fitting all those details.
Click to expand...

Hoaxing footers isn't difficult. Just rattle some branches or throw a rock, and there you go: Bigfoot. Better question is how does a 9 foot tall monkey remain hidden for over 200 years?

Answer: It doesn't.

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Certain things about her like the knee bend aren't possible for humans to successfully replicate
Click to expand...

Even Meldrum has abandoned that red herring if I'm not mistaken.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It's actually debunked by default.

Believers need to bunk it.

By default, it's a human wearing a suit.

One would need to prove it's a bigfoot.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion and there is no "default" in the debate. Tell me who has put in the time to study the film and make a valid claim as to the veracity of the content.

Edit-On second thought, instead of hijacking this thread, I will take it over to the appropriate thread for this discussion. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom