 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JodiW
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 57
|
 Posted: February 18th, 2008 05:11 PM |
     |
|
Same here.... with Tex's years of experience and hours logged in the field, I'd say he was more of an expert regarding bigfoot than most of the rest of us sitting in our computer chairs reading these posts.
I am very impressed and amazed with your knowledge and insite Tex... thank you for sharing
I believe... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
Thank you Valley....but I do respect Windwalkers views.....just I have experience in both bear and Squatch.......thank you.........
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 05:34 PM |
|
|
Thank you Jodie
I am far from an expert.....I need another 10 years doing this to even consider it....I have much more experience in matters that I would be labeled as one...but not in Bf Investigations.....I just know the intimate knowledge of these photos and that I have seen BF reach out and bend over just like that....I haven't seen a bear reach out with one "Hand" yet.....
Thank you
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roboron
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Windwalker , I've been side by side with Texbfro and made a call myself when we got a response so close it sounded like it was in our back pocket. He was in my truck at 5am going up a mountain road when we heard a howl that sounded like it jumped in the bed of my truck. Those are few occurances that he has experienced on Expeditions that he has been on. Not counting the experiences he has had on his own private investigations. I know this man and believe me it's hard to earn my trust. I can smell B/S a mile away. But him I trust and consider a friend.I too have seen these pictures way before they were made public and know the background of the pics. I've hardly expressed any opinion on the matter but I will let you know that the person that has submitted them has seen bears all his life and when he saw what was on his trailcam, it confounded him, because a squatch was the last thing on his mind.
(Edited by Roboron)
R.Boles
BFRO investigator for the Ozarks
" IF Theodore Roosevelt believed,why can't I ?" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ohio_cryptid
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Valleydude wrote:
For what its worth, Id bet my money on Tex.
|
This is what has me very intrigued. I look at the pics and could go either way with them but Tex is behind the Bigfoot as 100%. I am very curious. (In no way am I questioning Tex credentials or anything, I am just curious about what else Tex knows behind all of the photos.) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
|
Ohio
Check your PMs
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 08:35 PM |
|
|
| Big foot is only a comparison to our feet My foot compared to my hight =5.4. A 7 ft. squatch with a 17 in. foot =4.9 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 08:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
dksac wrote:
Big foot is only a comparison to our feet My foot compared to my hight =5.4. A 7 ft. squatch with a 17 in. foot =4.9
|
I understand about what you are getting at with the numbers, but I don't understand how it applies to the photo in question. One can see proportions like those you point out with the unaided eye, and when I look at the critter in the photo I see something that has relatively short feet compared to leg/body proportions. It may be a "big foot" on the end of that leg, but one can see plainly that it does not have the proportions, or length, to be perceived as a "bigfoot". It looks to me like a relatively short, stubby foot, with longish toes.... like, well, a bear, maybe. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 09:21 AM |
|
|
Mgalla
Good point...for the sake of your point...can you find a picture of a mangy bear with shoulders and long forearms/upper arms, long legs and hips and a ability to bend at the waits and keep its balance on a slight down grade....in photo#3 can a bear bend at the waist like this...why not just go to all 4s and sniff the ground....BF (some/not all) bend like this when they are sniffing the ground...kind a weird but they do.
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 09:29 AM |
|
|
This may have absolutely no importance whatsoever, but I started to wonder what happened to a broken branch in one of the pictures. In one shot you can see a section of tree with a broken branch in the foreground. In the other it is washed out by the light. I superimposed that limb back onto the pic and it shows how the broken branch partly obscures a section of the animal, giving it a slightly different outline than it should have.
I think this provides some evidence that what we think we see is not always what we are actually looking at. I'm not arguing one way or the other as to whether it's BF or a bear, I'm just pointing out that pictures taken in the dark, with shadows and obstructions, of a creature in a weird posture at that very moment, should not be considered conclusive of anything. I admit that my interpretation of the animal's foot being too small in proportion to the body could also be just a result of darkness and shadows, but I also tend to go with Occam's Razor. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 09:33 AM |
|
|
Very good thoughts.....thank you
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury
Unregistered
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 11:21 AM |
|
|
I am very curious. I would love to have the resources my self...but I know there a ton of tech savy guys out there.
I have seen some picks with outlines for both bear and bf. I also saw the one with the investigators measured the tree, etc. What I would LOVE to see is ONE pic with over lays of everything that camera recorded before it was moved. Th pics with the bears and with the bf. Overlay the bear photo with each of the potential bf photos seperately. Kind of like how animators overlay when they do their jobs. Wouldnt this give us an excellent view of the size in comparison? Has this already be tried?
Kevin A |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 04:33 PM |
|
|
| they should be somewhere in this thread |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sarah
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
These pictures being tossed around show everything. The first one is just an outline. All of the detail in the middle is real as the entire picture came from a clean copy. The second one the color was adjusted to help it stand out. Now come on guys thats a human hand. The back toe may even have had some nice pedicure work on it. I'm sure Bears and Bigfoot never do there nails.
Sarah |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 06:52 PM |
|
|
I don't mean to be an argumentive sort, but I'm looking at the un-altered image here on my harddrive and I don't see the slightest indication that the hand and front part of the foot highlighted here exist at all. Not even the slightest hint of either of those highlighted attributes can be seen on my saved image, and it's a relatively large pic. The position of the "hand" in those photos above also looks very un-natural.
In fact, I'm looking again, and there is a surface feature on the ground that passes in front of the animal's foot, right through where the toes of the BF should be. If there was a BF foot there that had been partly washed out by light, then that surface feature should not be visible in that spot. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sarah
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: February 19th, 2008 09:53 PM |
|
|
Before it was outlined.
Sarah |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
|
This forum is for discussion. I will offer my input.
I'm looking at this picture, with a very high quality computer screen I might add, and even if I use my imagination I can't see anything in the way of toes beyond the end of the dark area.
I think the scale on the tree in the daylight picture is misleading due to angle and distance, making the figure seem to be the wrong size. I also think I see a person bending over a gun in a case. If you look at the surface of the "arm" you can see that it appears to be shiny, like leather or vinyl, or something like that. It doesn't have the same texture as the rest of the figure. It's exactly the right length and shape for a gun case. The other thing is, it really looks like there are back pockets on the rump of that "squatch" butt.
I am convinced there is something out there in the wild that people have come to know as bigfoot, or sasquatch, but I am not going to be convinced that I'm looking at one in this picture. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JodiW
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sarah wrote:
These pictures being tossed around show everything. The first one is just an outline. All of the detail in the middle is real as the entire picture came from a clean copy. The second one the color was adjusted to help it stand out. Now come on guys thats a human hand. The back toe may even have had some nice pedicure work on it. I'm sure Bears and Bigfoot never do there nails.
|
Sarah,
Why would a hunter be barefoot in the middle of the woods? That makes no sense. If any hunters can comment on that please do. And the length of the arm, wrist, and hand that you pointed out is so un-natural for a human.
I believe... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 05:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mgalla wrote:
This forum is for discussion. I will offer my input.
I am convinced there is something out there in the wild that people have come to know as bigfoot, or sasquatch, but I am not going to be convinced that I'm looking at one in this picture.
|
No one is asking you to be convinced by this one picture. You have posted your opinion. Others have theirs. That's OK. When this thread turns into a 'he said' 'she said' ramble, then it's time to move on.
Many of us who have read this site for months or years have seen all the pictures (more than once) and heard all the arguements (more than once). Each time someone new comes along and shows their earthshaking rendition - it's old news. Most of the time the new folks haven't taken the time to read the old threads and look at those pictures. The analysis done by a few of the forum members is fantastic!
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 06:44 PM |
|
|
On the contrary. I think it's very important to get a person's honest, personal opinion on something. I actually did read the old posts that mention this figure looking like a hunter with a gun case, but the fact of the matter is, that is exactly what I see when I look at it. Why should I not bring it up again if that is what I see. Those who think it's a bigfoot mention over and over again what they think it is, therefor there is no good reason to supress anyone else's opinion on it. I see nothing other than a hunter bending over, and I do not think it's a sasquatch, and I do not think it's a bear, and I feel I should have the right to bring it up as much as I think I need to in order for people to stop and really look at it. That is exactly what it looks like, and you don't have to do anything fancy with special effects on a computer to see it. Just look at the shine on the gun case. Just look at the way the legs meet the hips. Just look at the arch of the back. Imagine that the person is bending with his head somewhat away from the camera. And what are those two symmetrical square bumps on either butt cheek if they aren't pockets?
Please, take the time to really look at it and see what I'm talking about. I know it's been said before, but people are still not convinced, therefor I feel it needs to be brought up again.
That drawn-in hand position in the outline above is so un-natural looking for any creature. Even if it was a BF, the arm would have to be 3/4 the length of its whole body!!! Doesn't anyone think that's unreasonable?
If I didn't think it was important I wouldn't bother to press it, but BF research needs to be on the ball, or nobody will take it seriously. I agree with another member who said that seeing Jake on the main page of the BFRO site was a bit of a down point. Sorry people, I don't mean to offend, I really don't, but I honestly think that this picture on the BFRO main page will detract from the organization's credibility. We don't want that, do we? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
|
| As a spectator I don't believe its necessary for them to shut down the entire site and hide in the closet until someone finds a dead one. Id rather see them explore all the possibilities. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 20th, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
You mean, like the possibility that people could be mistaking a person for a bigfoot? I feel like this idea is being brushed off just because people want to believe it's a bigfoot. I'm seeing a hand up in my face with somebody saying "talk to the hand, talk to the hand".
And... who was talking about shutting down the site? All I suggested was that Jake maybe should not be on the front page.
This is where people see what I mean when I said I was opinionated. Opinionated, yes. But I trust my own interpretation of what I see. I know every one who thinks the picture is of a BF is sitting there with a smirk right now, shaking their heads at me.
Well, if nobody wants to hear a sensible argument, that provides a reasonable and logical explanation for what should be quite apparent then I'll move on and leave it alone. Not much of a discussion, if you ask me.
Just for the record, when I showed the picture to my wife, she looked at it and as I was starting to explain that I thought it looked like a person bending over I didn't even get to finish before she said that's what she saw too. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 07:43 AM |
|
|
Jake is on there because he is real and that is what this is all about....people want to see something...there it is!
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 09:30 AM |
|
|
mg: This is -- demonstrably -- a subject upon which reasonable people can and do disagree but please accept the fact that what is "obvious" to you isn't obvious to everyone else. This thread has proven, if nothing else, that vast and amazing differences in perception exist within our ranks. Like you, I see a bi-pedal creature bending forward and down (quite un-bearlike!) but it is most assuredly not a hunter. And as hard as I try, I cannot for the life of me see those pockets you're talking about. If it's a hunter he's (a) a dwarf and (b) stalking thru the woods at an ungodly hour wearing dark, stocking-foot jammies (no pant-leg to shoe/boot transition being apparent). And Boss does have a valid point: if the identity of the mystery critter is so self-evident, it's a safe bet that someone else would have made your argument several months ago.
MARC
(Edited by mwebbles) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldilocks
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 10:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
mgalla wrote:
On the contrary. I think it's very important to get a person's honest, personal opinion on something. I actually did read the old posts that mention this figure looking like a hunter with a gun case, but the fact of the matter is, that is exactly what I see when I look at it. Why should I not bring it up again if that is what I see. Those who think it's a bigfoot mention over and over again what they think it is, therefor there is no good reason to supress anyone else's opinion on it. I see nothing other than a hunter bending over, and I do not think it's a sasquatch, and I do not think it's a bear, and I feel I should have the right to bring it up as much as I think I need to in order for people to stop and really look at it. That is exactly what it looks like, and you don't have to do anything fancy with special effects on a computer to see it. Just look at the shine on the gun case. Just look at the way the legs meet the hips. Just look at the arch of the back. Imagine that the person is bending with his head somewhat away from the camera. And what are those two symmetrical square bumps on either butt cheek if they aren't pockets?
Please, take the time to really look at it and see what I'm talking about. I know it's been said before, but people are still not convinced, therefor I feel it needs to be brought up again.
That drawn-in hand position in the outline above is so un-natural looking for any creature. Even if it was a BF, the arm would have to be 3/4 the length of its whole body!!! Doesn't anyone think that's unreasonable?
If I didn't think it was important I wouldn't bother to press it, but BF research needs to be on the ball, or nobody will take it seriously. I agree with another member who said that seeing Jake on the main page of the BFRO site was a bit of a down point. Sorry people, I don't mean to offend, I really don't, but I honestly think that this picture on the BFRO main page will detract from the organization's credibility. We don't want that, do we?
|
Is this the "pockets" you are referring to? Look at the "pockets" on what is clearing the ass of a gorilla which is a PRIMATE.
What human would go around with what would appear to be a golf ball in each back pocket? Come on now... admit that it looks like a gorilla's ass!
http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/1867...2380/426384.jpg
Lisa |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 10:39 AM |
|
|
mgalla rolls eyes -
OK, whatever. I won't waste my efforts on this topic any more. Easy to see now why subjects like this quickly come to an end. It ain't because they're not valid, it's because they're up against "those who know". I'll go focus my efforts on something I do agree with others on. That way I can beat a dead horse in a different direction. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 10:49 AM |
|
|
mgalla,
If you are here to "beat a dead horse" then perhaps you need to visit some other site. What is the point?
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 11:02 AM |
|
|
My point is that the forums are meant for "discussion" are they not? If my observations - which I feel are more than worth while - are being suppressed simply because people don't want to see what looks obvious to me, then there is no discussion. There is only nodding and smiling.
That's my point.
Just one last thing, and then I'll leave you all alone on this. I think it is possible that the one photo is not of the same "animal" as the other. One has the distinct look of a primate, the other does not (the one I say has a gun case). There is, after all, approx half an hour difference between them. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldilocks
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 11:14 AM |
|
|
you better go look att he photos again. Thereis a 28 minute difference from the bear cubs to the disputed creature. There is 36 SECONDS between the other two.
Lisa |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimbo_kirko
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 12:36 PM |
|
|
| I agree after studying the pic in the best way one can it apears to be nothing more than a bear, a sick one at that. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
