• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
Redbone

The Chicken Coop Trail Cam Photos

34 posts in this topic

I'm using a 27 inch retina display and I am not visually impaired. With that said, the image quality is so poor that it's a stretch to come to the conclusion that it's a boot. However, I do believe it's the subject's foot. I could say I see rubber slip on bigfoot costume feet and a toothy grin on the face of the subject, but I wouldn't because with such poor image quality, I really can't make such definite claims. Distorted images can do tricky things when it comes to making something look different than it actually looks in reality. 

Edited by Carnivore
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redbone,  in looking at the animated pic in your last post, I can see what you are seeing in the picture. I used a laptop and an EeePC and it took the smaller screen on the EeePC to see it. I couldn't distinguish much of anything on the laptop.

I could see what you were calling a boot and a cuff, although it's not easy to distinguish. The "boot" is a darker shade than the pants/costume and the "cuff" appears to be fairly straight, like any pair of pants. Is that the way it appears? 

Don't BF costumes normally have feet on them, rather than the leg ending in a cuff, like any pair of pants?  

3 hours ago, Carnivore said:

@OkieFoot

The motivation to do it is really quite simple. Some people enjoy trying to deceive others whether it be just a prank or they get some other type of satisfaction and/or attention from doing it. You ask why a stranger or the property owner would do it? Well the photo has gotten enough attention to be posted on websites and even end up as an object of discussion on here. That is all the motivation a hoaxer needs. They cast their nonsense out into the world and see where it goes.

 

Also /lol @Redbone thinking he sees a boot and pant cuff in an area of the image that is so degraded that you can't even make out the shape of what would be the feet. Just to be clear, I think the photo is more than likely fake but just because there's a dark patch where the feet should be doesn't mean you should let your mind start filling in blanks. People get so set on proving something one way or another that they are willing to start fabricating details to confirm their belief. 

 

Carnivore, your explanation makes more sense than anything else. Hoaxers want attention, otherwise there wouldn't be much reason to do it. If it was a hoax, I think I would lean to the property owner being in on it. I have to go along with what SWW said earlier; a trespasser in a rural area is asking for trouble. Would they want to go ahead and rouse the chickens and gamble whether or not the property had guns? I'd bet most do.

 

Is someone getting their BF picture discussed on the Bigfoot Forums like a stage actor making it to Broadway? ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OkieFoot

I think the property owner is most likely in on it if it is a hoax. However, there is always the chance that someone that knows the property owner is playing a prank. I think that for some people that try and pull off large scale hoaxes it does become a matter of seeing how far they can take it. They put out a video or image and see how much attention it can draw. The hope is that they will be successful in fooling a large amount of people. It can also be hard to trust people who willingly go on news or tv shows saying they saw a bigfoot. Some of these people seem genuine while others appear like they just want to be on camera.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the pant cuff, I would speculate that the costume might not have been a good fit for the person wearing it and he (or she) tucked the bottoms under.

I am no expert on how costumes are constructed. If it is the costume I showed in the original post, I would also speculate that the fake feet didn't fit either, thus the dark footwear.

(maybe they just cut the feet off - creating the appearance of a cuff pant leg)

 

While I'm speculating (or fabricating details to confirm my belief) I'd guess that we only have these two pictures of the subject behind the coop because any other pictures that showed him (or her) out in the open would have made the fakery even more obvious than it already is.

 

1 hour ago, Carnivore said:

With that said, the image quality is so poor that it's a stretch to come to the conclusion that it's a boot. However, I do believe it's the subject's foot.

I don't really think It's too much of a stretch to conclude that there's a boot on a foot, because I have concluded (based on the evidence available) that it's a guy in a suit.

I will concede that instead of a boot it could be a shoe, or sock, or perhaps a slipper.

Edited by Redbone
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Redbone

 

It's a stretch when the image is so poor that all we have to look at is a glob of pixels in varying shades of dark and light. We can only say that it's the foot in that area of the image because we know the rest of the body is above it and so there's little else that it realistically would be. The issue I take with this whole thing is people zooming in on grainy images and coming to "conclusions" because they can't deal with something being inconclusive.

 

You mention the available evidence but sometimes the available evidence isn't enough to draw a conclusion from. Everything aside, sure it could be a boot, but I've just grown tired of all these ridiculous photos/videos where people "see" things that aren't there or make specific claims based on distorted pixels that deceive the eye. Your analysis is nowhere near as far-fetched as others I have seen, though. At least yours is a lot more probable than a photo of leaves/branches with two eyes and a mouth drawn on it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carnivore said:

The issue I take with this whole thing is people zooming in on grainy images and coming to "conclusions" because they can't deal with something being inconclusive.

You do understand that I'm a bigfoot proponent, right?

It's my opinion that this particular set of photos is not inconclusive. If it was, I'd be able to deal with it just fine.

 

Quote

You mention the available evidence but sometimes the available evidence isn't enough to draw a conclusion from.

I agree with that statement. In this case, I truly believe there's enough there for others to get to the same conclusion I have if they look at what I've been looking at.

I welcome those you can debunk or correct my efforts if I'm wrong. Show me!

 

Quote

Everything aside, sure it could be a boot, but I've just grown tired of all these ridiculous photos/videos where people "see" things that aren't there or make specific claims based on distorted pixels that deceive the eye. Your analysis is nowhere near as far-fetched as others I have seen, though. At least yours is a lot more probable than a photo of leaves/branches with two eyes and a mouth drawn on it. 

If you have problems with the photos of leaves and branches - please take it up with the people who post them.

You're 'tiredness' seems to be directed at me for some reason. I'm not presenting faces in the foliage, I'm presenting a guy in a suit, behind a chicken coop... and these are not my images.

If it helps others cope, I'll offer this statement: "Everything that I've said in this thread is my own opinion, and others should not assume it to be fact. Please form your own conclusions."

Edited by Redbone
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You do understand that I'm a bigfoot proponent, right?

My responses aren't in any way associated with your stance on the existence of bigfoot.

 

 

Quote

I agree with that statement. In this case, I truly believe there's enough there for others to get to the same conclusion I have if they look at what I've been looking at.

I welcome those you can debunk or correct my efforts if I'm wrong. Show me!

It's not that there's a desire to "debunk" your efforts. I know your efforts are well intentioned and you aren't just trying to prove it as fake for the sake of not believing in bigfoot or something along those lines. However, it's hard to show you because... that's the problem... there's not enough there to show anything with certainty. 

 

Quote

If you have problems with the photos of leaves and branches - please take it up with the people who post them.

It's not all of those images in general, just certain photos that reach a little too far. 

 

Quote

You're 'tiredness' seems to be directed at me for some reason. I'm not presenting faces in the foliage, I'm presenting a guy in a suit, behind a chicken coop... and these are not my images.

I mentioned the foliage photos of that variety to provide an example of people seeing things in an image that aren't necessarily there in reality. I know that there is most likely a foot in that area of the image, but to make a conclusion about it's shape, position, or footwear is not realistic due to the quality.

 

What people don't take into account is that they are looking at a distorted image, and so shapes/objects as they appear in the image may appear differently than they do in reality. This can lead to a lot of misinterpreted details regarding what is being seen in an image.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have our own opinions, no sense in beating each other up over a disagreement.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, to me that's not just a boot, but one with a high heel.  I think that the eyes look wrong too.  It may be motion blur, but the rectangular slits are not what I would expect.  And I wouldn't expect both eyes to be identical rectangular slits.  I agree with the lack of bulk, and the neck muscles just aren't there.  The subject clearly has a neck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 0:15 PM, JDL said:

Yeah, to me that's not just a boot, but one with a high heel.  I think that the eyes look wrong too.  It may be motion blur, but the rectangular slits are not what I would expect.  And I wouldn't expect both eyes to be identical rectangular slits.  I agree with the lack of bulk, and the neck muscles just aren't there.  The subject clearly has a neck.

 

Just to touch base on the last part of your post.  I believe the probability that a majority of BF have a lower mounted skull and/or muscular shoulders and necks.  Often I think people use this as a marker of "real" BF.   We could be ruling out a charecterstic of juvenile, female, or smaller built BF.  Not enough is known about BF's physical build or diversity to use as a qualifier.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me it looks like someone wearing a hooded coat and a full ski mask and not a costume.  what was the outside temp?  Was it cold?  if not maybe just someone stealing chickens

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember where this photo was first reported, but I saw it the other day while looking for something else, and it shows horizontal, rectangular slits where the eyes are:

 

17ae5f85c6fb6cc3eb4f1c4b6d5c2e79.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to concur with Redbone on this. A great deal of my time, hundreds of hours annually, is spent restoring historical photos for the Montana Military Museum, some dating to the late ninteenth century. I've developed a pretty good eye for discerning detail in grainy, often stained, torn or otherwise damaged, monochrome photos and negatives. Viewing the image on the very good screen of my Pixel XL (on vacation so away from the desktop) the leg clearly appears to end abruptly as in a cuff with a smaller foot below. I don't claim to make out a particular type of footwear, though the first thing that came to mind was an old style high top tennis shoe. The upper torso and head also appear very similar to the subject in LeafTalker's photo above, which seems obvious to me as a person in a suit.

 

Additionally, the fact that the subjects of all the photos are looking at the cameras is suspicious. The cameras should not have drawn attention until after the initial flash. Even if they used an IR focus lamp, I doubt it would immediately draw the eyes to the lens.

Edited by Airdale
Added an additional thought.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF have had their eyes and noses photographed right in the lens of a trail camera. I'm betting their attention wasn't suddenly "drawn" to the trail camera to make that happen, either. They already know the cameras are there.   

 

Also interested to hear about all the costumes that have thin horizontal rectangular lights where the eyes are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyes of person in suit could be reflecting the flash through eye holes. Rectangular shape may be due to shape of eye holes or simply a refractive artifact or pinhole effect. If they were artificial, LEDs integral to a mask, it seems likely they would have  more than the roughly 3 inches of separation indicated by Redbone's analysis.

 

I'm not a scoftic as one of the beasties played pat-a-cake on my bedroom wall, but based on my read of these photos informed by extensive experience with the medium, I believe the subjects in each are human beings in costumes. I also suspect either the same costume is used in each photo, or they are the same design. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.