Moderator TaleSpinner Posted October 22, 2007 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2007 Thought you might find this interesting. The first picture is of two bear cubs, taken by the same camera. The second and third, well, you decide what it is? Jacobs Photos TS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Looks like a human in a Chewie suit to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgtriplec Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Looks like a human in a Chewie suit to me Well everyone know bigfoot looks like a blurry guy in a cheap Chewie costume... duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krztoff Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 It's clearly Robin Williams without clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Administrators kit Posted October 22, 2007 Super Administrators Share Posted October 22, 2007 I was watching a show on PBS Nature about grizzlies, and I was surprised to see how prehensile their front paws were and how much their proportion looked human when they walked with straight limbs or stood up. Looks like a scrawny young bear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRigger Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 No no no, it is too tall to be Robin Williams... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I was watching a show on PBS Nature about grizzlies, and I was surprised to see how prehensile their front paws were and how much their proportion looked human when they walked with straight limbs or stood up. Looks like a scrawny young bear to me. awww kit you just took all the fun out of this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Administrators kit Posted October 22, 2007 Super Administrators Share Posted October 22, 2007 Pshaw. Doesn't take much imagining that young bear fretting over a zit or the fact that he can't learn to dance in time for prom. And highwaters. Urkle Bear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilesuck Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 It's a chimp out for a stroll, in the woods of Pennsylvania ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 hmmm maybe BS, maybe . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outek Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 No bear (wrong bone structure). Shame they weren't able to get the pictures in color; this could just be some hunter out at night in one of the myriad types of ghillie suits. Also, only humans (that I am aware of) will bend over at the waist to check/pick up something on the ground. Closest thing would be 'descendants' of Gigantopithecus or an 'unknown' developmental branch of hominoids/great apes. There's the possibility, but these pictures can easily be disproved. temporary 's advocate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixminis Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Everyone knows it's a Berenstein bear in the buff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kutz Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 If you look at the waist of the third picture...you can see the waist band of the sasquatch's pants. The other problem I have is with the claims made. They state a Bushnell trail camera was used with an Infared flash. I've got one of those (used it to get a picture of a mountain lion that started coming around last year). The time delay for that camera is 30 seconds, 1 minute or 2 minutes once the camera is triggered until the PIR no longer is being triggered. Well, the time delay between the second and third image is 36 seconds. The time stamp isn't possible. Unless they did some serious tweaking to the setup...it just isn't a feasible picture quality either. Mine has a range of around 12 feet from the camera with the IR flash. Anything past that is just a grey mess. This one shows details in the tree bark and ground cover that really isn't possible with the camera they say is being used (and Bushnell only has a single trail camera with an infrared flash...so I am pretty sure I am comparing apples to apples). There is also the issue of the salt lick. In the first picture it is setting up right (you can see a dark shape with a lighter colored square sitting on it in the foreground). The second and third picture it is upside down. What flipped it? Why is that important? Well anything which is big enough to flip over a 50 lb block of salt that is in a tray designed to keep it from being flipped over will generally scare off other wild life (I would assume that would include something as shy as Big Foot...). Since the supposed time line places the big foot on the scene shortly after (28 minutes) the block was upright. Now if it was a big foot that flipped it...that would be the money shot. Time is also somewhat of an issue - but without seeing a shot of the area during the day time it would be hard to say for certain... The time stamp places the second shot happening at 8:32 PM. In Northwest Pennsylvania, sunset was at 7:25 PM...so you should still have a fair amount of light (twilight you know). Now it is possible that the clock wasn't set correctly...but if you are going to be taking remote night photos, you usually want to know what time they were taken. Anywho - resident skeptic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgtriplec Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 If you look at the waist of the third picture...you can see the waist band of the sasquatch's pants. The other problem I have is with the claims made. They state a Bushnell trail camera was used with an Infared flash. I've got one of those (used it to get a picture of a mountain lion that started coming around last year). The time delay for that camera is 30 seconds, 1 minute or 2 minutes once the camera is triggered until the PIR no longer is being triggered. Well, the time delay between the second and third image is 36 seconds. The time stamp isn't possible. Unless they did some serious tweaking to the setup...it just isn't a feasible picture quality either. Mine has a range of around 12 feet from the camera with the IR flash. Anything past that is just a grey mess. This one shows details in the tree bark and ground cover that really isn't possible with the camera they say is being used (and Bushnell only has a single trail camera with an infrared flash...so I am pretty sure I am comparing apples to apples). There is also the issue of the salt lick. In the first picture it is setting up right (you can see a dark shape with a lighter colored square sitting on it in the foreground). The second and third picture it is upside down. What flipped it? Why is that important? Well anything which is big enough to flip over a 50 lb block of salt that is in a tray designed to keep it from being flipped over will generally scare off other wild life (I would assume that would include something as shy as Big Foot...). Since the supposed time line places the big foot on the scene shortly after (28 minutes) the block was upright. Now if it was a big foot that flipped it...that would be the money shot. Time is also somewhat of an issue - but without seeing a shot of the area during the day time it would be hard to say for certain... The time stamp places the second shot happening at 8:32 PM. In Northwest Pennsylvania, sunset was at 7:25 PM...so you should still have a fair amount of light (twilight you know). Now it is possible that the clock wasn't set correctly...but if you are going to be taking remote night photos, you usually want to know what time they were taken. Anywho - resident skeptic. Actually their are 7 different Bushnell Trail Cameras, I was shopping for one recently. They have five different mega pixel designs, they also have five different infrared flashes from 15-30 feet and the PIR ranges from 45-90. I don't think that is a waistband. I have never seen a Bigfoot, ape or gorilla costume that was two pieces, they are waist-less jumpsuits. The salt-lick holder is not to keep it from being toppled, it is to keep it off the ground. The holder itself is just a heavy plastic dog dish type thing, it probably weighs five or six pounds. It is highly probable that the cubs knocked the salt over. A grown black bear can push over a rooted tree. When I lived in Gatlinburg one attacked a pickup truck and beat the hood until the axle broke and the climbed on top and beat the top of the truck until it shattered the windows and flattened the cab. They had to get the jaws of life to cut the woman out of the truck... she had been feeding him KFC. So, I'm sure those little guys could knock over a salt block. The photo was taken on a deer path by a hunter who was getting photos for hunting season. So, its reasonable to assume the are pretty deep in the woods, especially since PA has a very popular rifle season... rifle hunters need to be deep in the woods so their bullets are stopped by trees as a bullet from a deer rifle will travel over a mile. I'm sure the woods in PA are pretty dark an hour after sunset, twilight isn't much of a factor beneath a canopy of woods. Anywho - resident devil's advocate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushmaster Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 So that's where the extras for Star Wars go when they're out of work ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.