• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Mount Lassen, 4 bigfoot pictures.

Entia non multi said:
Strings said:
......Thats one Bad BF suit....

maybe Big Foot dresses up in bad Big Foot suits to confuse people

Guys, the last picture is practically identical to the patterson bigfoot. So anyone who buys the patterson thing must find this credible as well as the bigfoots are practically twins.

Patterson
patters1.jpg


Mount Lassen
walking.jpg
 
I know where your coming from Human_84 -but as Forteans all we can do is read ,listen. and look at the evidence..and wonder. Until its really caught or a body is placed before us..we just don't know. :(
 
ruffready said:
I know where your coming from Human_84 -but as Forteans all we can do is read ,listen. and look at the evidence..and wonder. Until its really caught or a body is placed before us..we just don't know. :(

I agree. But I feel like I'm takin cRaZY PiLLs !!! Not a single person will stand with me on how it looks like the little brother of the patterson Bigfoot. Am I taking crazy pills or no?
 
no! your normal..its just that when your stuck on a assumption , it feels right if you can get some feed back and such!! I know the feeling!! But ! just do what your doing and put all your info on the playing field and ..who knows ?? something might click!! send me PM's if you get any info . I'll do the same! keep up the good fight! ruff :D
 
Just a thought Human_84, I live just a hour or so from 'skunk ape land" but I can't get anybody I know to spend a weekend out in the boonies with me to check it out!! most of my freinds around here wouldn't know fortean if you snuck it in there beer!! I won't ask Rowdy to go look with me , cause you know how these bigfoot treat dogs..and I sure as hell ain't gonna go by myself !! (hell I'd rather fly through a nest of SAMS!!) I HAVE BEEN BUGGING MY BROTHER "WHO was a marine re-con" but, so far his wife has been in the way of that!! But, I won't give up!! If I can get my brother out in the florida skunjk ape areas with me ..he can sniff it out!! :smokin:
 
i stand with you humnan_84! :)

it does look just like the patterson film ape.
i personally am not convinced that the patterson film is real, so i would have to say someone copied the patterson ape suit for their picture.
 
Nope, it dose not look like the Patterson film,this looks altogether wrong,just like a human walking with bent arms,size is wrong,shape is wrong,gait is wrong. Its a fake.
 
ruffready i would love to take a trip with you, BUT i stay FAR away from skunk ape land.. try New york. anyway i will be moving to florida soon so i will be doing my own research on this creature. btw human i see what you are saying, they do look alike but i STRONGLY believe the patterson film is real. You just have to think, out of all the hoaxes on bigfoot why is it that this one is soooo hard to debunk? makes you wonder if we are looking at the real thing and just dont want to believe it... ;)
 
I think the Patterson film is real too. They have done so much research on it and it is one of the few that they have not been able to debunk. In fact, they have picked out muscle movement and tone. Also, the bone structure and the way it turns it's head to look back at the camera leave all who disect it scratching their heads. I am not sold on the other one though. It just looks to human.
 
These photos are fakes.... no doubt about it.

I have hunted many creatures in many parts of the world and I'm here to tell you that the "creature" in these photos simply does not "fit" in with the surrounding landscape features...unlike the Bigfoot in the Patterson film.


:!:
 
My argument for the authenticity of this photograph is that it has the obvious 'eye-slit'. It appears to be a fairly large opening so that the person wearing the suit can breath. And you're thinking, why would the fact that it looks like a costume make it seem more authentic. And my answer is this...

Why would someone who was truly trying to create a hoax use a costume that looked so blaintently fake? They wouldnt, because it would be a dead giveaway right? Therfor, it leads me to beleive that it could be real. Who is to say that the real bigfoot does or does not have hair on its face!

And then I take into consideration that the faces of this beast, and the patterson beast look practically identical, and hence the reason theres a fair chance of it being real in my eyes seeming how the chances of two faked videos having the bigfoot appear so similar is quite rare and I know the eral bigfoot might have a hairless face. Can you guys see the logic I use in this?
 
The Patterson Bigfoot doesn't look like an eye slit to me... it looks like part of the face.
 
Human_84 said:
I agree. But I feel like I'm takin cRaZY PiLLs !!! Not a single person will stand with me on how it looks like the little brother of the patterson Bigfoot. Am I taking crazy pills or no?

No, I don't think you're taking crazy pills (though in the best fortean tradition, perhaps I should keep an open mind ;)), my thing is, I'm still left wanting for somekind of background/context for the photos as alluded to here:

Human_84 said:
And I hadn't seen these before either. Supposed to have been taken in the 70's though. Just now being put online? I'm not sure. Someone probably knows more about this and can tell us.

You're right, "someone probably [does] know more". I'm not challenging you, personally, to provide the information, but as of now all I have are anonymous images on my computer of a hairy biped "creature" in what appears to be an outdoor setting. That's simply not enough for me to offer much of any opinion.

TVGeek and ignatius said they looked similar to a mid-70's bigfoot faux-documentary...however, going to the links to the movie that TVG & Emps provided, I don't see any stills from the film. Anyone have any they could post and we can then compare?

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but I do have to say, that's my $.02 so far.
 
^ ^ ^ ^ Regarding the photo taken from the video that I posted..

Enhanced photo of Bigfoot from the footage taken by Ivan Marx as the Bigfoot charged at him.

This is an enhanced photo of the Bigfoot aggressively running at Ivan Marx.

Marx, a hunting guide whose family has lived in Burney for nearly 50 years, announced in 1970 that he had caught Bigfoot on film in Washington state. He boldly stated that he would capture one live within a year.

Six months later, the film was deemed a hoax. A fellow Bigfoot hunter argued the alleged animal was a man dressed in fur.

Critics continue to blast Marx on various Bigfoot Web sites. But his widow, 79-year-old Peggy Marx, defends his name and says this latest encounter was real.

"Some believe, some don't," Peggy Marx said Friday. "They're entitled to their opinion. You just let it fly by — you learn not to pay attention to people like that."
 
I wish I had a suit like in those pictures, just think of all those situations it could come in handy.
 
INteresting pics, although they look fake to me. As noted by others, the lighting varies between them. The first ones look like a badly photoshopped shadow was added. The last one looks odd, I think, because the angles of the light seems to be off. As if the light is hitting the background from one direction and the "BF" from another.

OTOH, the skunk ape pics we saw a while back looked pretty good. There's always debate on this stuff. Some people will see what they want to see, not matter what's actually there.
 
"Confessions"

Look, I don't know whether the Patterson film is a hoax or not. Likewise, I don't know if it is genuine or not.

But if some guy long after Patterson's death "confesses" to being the "guy in the gorilla suit" DOES that make the "confession" automatically true?

If you believe that all "confessions" are authentic, please talk to any Police Department detective. He or she will set you straight REAL quick.
 
mothman8 said:
I wish I had a suit like in those pictures, just think of all those situations it could come in handy.

Yeah it would come in handy if you wanted to get shot. People would love to have a dead bigfoot.



hedgewizard1 said:
The first ones look like a badly photoshopped shadow was added.

These are scanned in pics from 1970 something. No real opportunity to photoshop.
 
Ruff, I'm taking the whole Eamtribe to Florida to do the tourist thang end of Feb for 3 weeks.

Not sure I'll have time to meet up though, but I'll keep my nose tuned in to stinkyness just in case.

If I can, I'll get a day or two to myself to wander afar instead of hanging knackered around Kissimee & Orlando, theme-parked out. :roll:

I must admit, the idea of a skunk ape hanging around swampland has a very plausible edge to it.
I'm definatlely pro big ape & will have my camera ready 24/7.

(you never know).
 
Fake

The first three shots look as if they were taken from a distance as the foreground blurring would suggest but if look at the "animals" feet. They are in focus and the grass around the feet are not. Plus there is no colour loss that occurs at distance. The surrounding ground has a slight mistyness that distance brings. The creature doesn't. It's a half arsed cut and paste in my opinion.
The Fourth pictureis way too slim to be a strong creature that lives in the forests. It's a guy in a suit in short!
 
Back
Top