(03-21-2020, 09:27 PM)BIAD Wrote: Alberta, Canada seems to be the place where Bigfoot and his family like to hang out.
What do you think? See the baby clinging to its mother's back?!

I didn't even see the momma, much less the baby clinging to her back. I blame it on old age and the poor eyesight that comes with it.

.

Not a Bigfoot, but an Appalachian cryptid nonetheless. These are trail cam photos taken in the Appalachian mountains. The first is a cat, a really big one. The second is a fella named Bill, who stands about 5' 10" tall for size comparison. The last, if it works, is an animated GIF I made to cycle between the two photos so you can get an immediate idea of the cat's size.

It had really big teeth, too.

The photos were taken by a trail cam strapped to a tree within minutes of one another. Bill was on the trail of the cat, ready to shoot it if he needed to, but it moved faster, and he never caught up with it.

They were taken closer to Mystic Wanderer's neck of the woods than mine.



















There's THINGS out in them big dark woods...





                       



.

(03-22-2020, 04:11 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Not a Bigfoot, but an Appalachian cryptid nonetheless. These are trail cam photos taken in the Appalachian mountains. The first is a cat, a really big one. The second is a fella named Bill, who stands about 5' 10" tall for size comparison. The last, if it works, is an animated GIF I made to cycle between the two photos so you can get an immediate idea of the cat's size.....






There's THINGS out in them big dark woods...

Sh*t @Ninurta - That thing is f*ckin' HUGE!!!
Looks like depictions of what I imagine a prehistoric Sabre Tooth might look like.
(And I thought that the house-spider I caught last night was big.....)

G

I know it's difficult to see, but after enlarging the video, there's supposed to be a large hairy being
stood with its back to the camera.

We're introduced to a deer carcass splayed on a conifer and just behind a snow-laden branch,
a 'Bigfoot' is leaning against a trunk and supposedly attempting to remain still. There is a breeze
and if you look carefully at what is believed (or what is wanted for you to believe) the head area,
black hair does move along with slight movements of the head.



This isn't to say this is real, it could well be just a guy in an ape suit and if it is, then he's doing
a lot of shivering work to impress you!



The alleged 'baby-Bigfoot' is lower down and looks like (with its back to the camera) to be clinging
at around the waist area.
...........................................
@Ninurta.

Wow, that is one big cat! Do you think it's been identified and classified in the zoological mainstream
circles?

[attachment=7335 Wrote:BIAD pid='36114' dateline='1584870299']
@Ninurta.

Wow, that is one big cat! Do you think it's been identified and classified in the zoological mainstream
circles?

Nah, but it's not anything I can't handle with my trusty pointy stick!

@"Gordi" - That's what I thought too - Smilodon. It has the proper massive forelegs and slope to it's back, but I can't make out enough of the tail for a stronger ID. I saw a skeleton of one from La Brea Tar Pits in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History one time, but that was years and years ago, I was just a kid, and can't recall how big it was. the only sure thing is that it would have looked a lot bigger at the time, because I was littler.

I'll scare up a couple more images that are alleged to be the same thing, from different angles when I can. Neither of them show the tail, however, and one shows nothing but the ridge of it's back.

The pictures were all taken in Cherokee County, NC.


ETA - The other pictures:

Footprints - 







To be honest, the footprints don't look right to me. A big cat's forepaw is usually wider than it is long, and it's rear paw is longer than it is wide - these are closer to perfectly round.


Side view - 





Just it's back - 





That one was taken by a trail cam placed on a post at a tractor shed on a farm. It could be anything, from a coyote to a wolf to a cryptid to a dog... well, you get the idea. I have no idea how high on the post the trail cam was placed, but it was put there to attempt to identify miscreants mucking about in the shed who weren't supposed to be, so I'm guessing it ought to be about man-height.








                           


.

I went back and reviewed the bigfoot video with the pointers in mind. What I thought was the baby's head moving at first turned out to be a branch waving in the wind. I don't know - it seems awfully still to be a massive creature that could break the videographer in half...

I still couldn't make it out even with you pointing to the body parts.   :smallundecided:

(03-23-2020, 05:30 AM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: I still couldn't make it out even with you pointing to the body parts.   :smallundecided:

Ah yes... Well that's YouTube!!!

Hi Folks,
I've tried to look a bit closer into the images shared earlier in the thread...
I've adjusted the Brightness and Contrast in the Big Cat ones (as well as a slight crop to eliminate some flash-back from the structure to the left) to hopefully bring out some more detail...






I've also done a brightness/contrast enhancement along with a hue adjustment to try and see more detail in the "bigfoot" imagery too...




Thoughts?
G

(03-23-2020, 10:39 AM)gordi Wrote: Thoughts?
G

Cheers for that, Big G. Your new images certainly seems to change things.

Ninurta's Cat:
There's a small voice in me that keeps saying 'canine'... I can see that something in the step-forward
indicates a large cat, but the rough mane and head-posture reminds me of a wolf-like creature.
In every image it looks like a large lion, yet to me, it's like a faint 'canine-ghost' is hovering around it!!

BAID's Bigfoot:
When the image is made mono, the hair becomes more apparent and from what I've read, standing
motionless and not seeking eye-gaze assists to confuse an observer. It helps in the idea of confrontation
by not revealing one's typical stance in the area of attack or defence.

With snow also on the conifer branch and the alleged Bigfoot's hair, this also helps to puzzle the eye.

@"gordi".  Thanks, that helped a lot.

I am able to make out a face now, especially the eyes. But still, I don't see the baby.

(03-23-2020, 04:27 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: @"gordi".  Thanks, that helped a lot.
I am able to make out a face now, especially the eyes. But still, I don't see the baby.  

I took a look at the stills available on the web and when the images are turned to grayscale,
it seems quite a bit of 'after-work' has been done around the shoulder areas.



I've shaded this above to show the general outline of the supposed Bigfoot and I'm sorry
that I can't offer the outline of the clinging baby. That's because it isn't there on the stills!!

So to make up for my failure, I added another photo allegedly taken from another of the
YouTuber's videos that is supposed to show the face.
Friggin' fakers!

An interesting slant on the Patterson-Gimlin footage.
Here, Scott Carpenter relates his discussions with the late-Bobby Short, a woman who said she knew
the back-story and missing footage of what really happened at Bluff Creek and how certain elements
of the establishment control the topic of Bigfoot.

Scott mentions someone called Steve -from 'How To Hunt' in regards of this so-called revelation, so
here's the link to that. Link. If true, the story is horrendous.




Also, renown Bigfoot investigator M.K. Davis talked about evidence of the 'massacre' a number of years ago.

I have to watch those videos later, to much going on right now.
But I am very interested in them.
Thanks 

The other side of this alleged story. Bob Gimlin, January 2019

I believe Bobby.


Why can't people just leave them alone? They're so far up in the mountains that they're not hurting anyone. If they ever do come down and start causing problems for someone, then that's a different story and something might have to be done.

If Bobby's account is true, it's just more proof of how humans are more "animal" than Bigfoot is.

(04-19-2020, 05:57 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: I believe Bobby.


Why can't people just leave them alone? 

The US lumber industry is one reason and the realisation that everything you knew about mankind's
origins were wrong. If the scientific world is seen as incompetent and revelation that a human-like
creature deliberately hid from us for their own reasons, what trust we have left in those who govern
our societies will be lost.

Vast monies will be lost for the sake of environment-safety for the Bigfoot, housing construction will
have to be re-evaluated and rights will be called for to -not only protect the Bigfoot, but place them
on par with ourselves.

The sport of hunting and fishing will be effected and loss of livestock would have to be approached to
alleviate the cost. If humans are killed -for whatever reasons, by these creatures and Bigfoot are seen
as sentient, how do you hold them accountable?

Just a few reasons why they can't leave them alone.

Well, Hunt, Fish, Camp, Hike, Bike and Fuck at your own risk! 

Most Humans with a Brain and Not a lump of Shit Between their ears have known that Scientist are Incompetent every sense the Global Warming Bull-Shit. JMHO 

(04-17-2020, 02:17 PM)BIAD Wrote: An interesting slant on the Patterson-Gimlin footage.
Here, Scott Carpenter relates his discussions with the late-Bobby Short, a woman who said she knew
the back-story and missing footage of what really happened at Bluff Creek and how certain elements
of the establishment control the topic of Bigfoot.

Scott mentions someone called Steve -from 'How To Hunt' in regards of this so-called revelation, so
here's the link to that. Link. If true, the story is horrendous.




Also, renown Bigfoot investigator M.K. Davis talked about evidence of the 'massacre' a number of years ago.

I watched the videos. I cannot comment much on the first one, other than to say trophy hunters hunt for trophies, whether they are hunting man or beast, so if what he says is true, it's not unexpected. Some men take heads and are called "head hunters", some take ears, some take fingers or other, more disreputable appendages, and all of them are "trophy hunters" when they hunt for trophies.

The second video, that of Mr. Davis, I found lacking. VERY lacking. It looks to me like Mr. Davis is reaching, and if he reached much harder, he is liable to get gravy on his tie as he drags it across the table in his effort to get a main course. I saw no blood, nor did I see any evidence of blood. What I saw was dirt, and it was unsurprisingly dirt-colored.

I fail to see how a dog, even a dog as magnificent as the one he showed, could hold on to a paw full of blood in order to plant ONE bloody paw print in the middle of a sand bar where there were no other bloody prints. It's been my experience that substances adhering to a foot, whether a foot of man or beast, gradually fade away as the individual walks and the substance is deposited in the prints. There is invariably less of it deposited in each succeeding print.  I know of no cases whatsoever that anyone or anything has been able to hold on to the entirety of that substance while walking, in order to deposit it all in ONE place, at least several steps removed from the place of contamination. That print looked to me like a print in wet ground, where the surface is drier than the subsurface.

The "pool of blood" was no such thing. There would not be that much blood in 10 bigfoot bodies, large as they are, much less half that number, and even then ALL of them would have to have been hung and bled in a single spot to gather all of their blood into one pool... which I imagine would be difficult to do with a grown bigfoot that was not injured until you hung it to cut it's throat. Prior injuries would of course have resulted in blood in other places, and less for the pool o' blood.

The "ditch" or "excavated cavity" was just that - it was dug into dirt, and had dirt-colored sides. No surprises there, either.

The "lens flare" that Mr. Davis is claiming to be a muzzle flash defies physics if it is one. Muzzle flash, in the absence of a flash suppressor, follows a line from the muzzle in the direction of bullet flight, with a bulbous ball of fire at the distal terminus of the flash. If a flash suppressor is present, there is a linear or star-shaped pattern radiating outward perpendicular to the muzzle. In order for that to have been a muzzle flash, the operator would have had to have been firing straight up, into the sky overhead.

There may, or may not, have been a "bigfoot hunt", but Mr. Davis' video gives no evidence either way - it appears to me to not relate to the tale at all!


.

I tried to watch the second video but lost interest very fast. To be honest this big foot thing has just got silly. It would be nice if some one would take an honest look at the storys behind all the big foot types all over the world. What I do find interesting is that almost every country has some sort of creature, big foot, wear wolfs, reindeer's (that can turn into people or the other way round) the list goes on and on. Why do we have such creatures in almost every culture. Is there something behind all the storys ??