Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
WSA

Randolph County, WVA photo

22 posts in this topic

The plaster casts all fit the general profile of amateur faked footprints. It’s very much like Freeman’s work. I’ll hazard a guess that the entire report is faked

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I was originally suspicious of the photo, which is the part of it I'm proposing for discussion. The photo obviously shows an object hidden by the trees, and my original presumption was there should be a series of shots as the subject moves from behind them, right? Why no follow-up photos then? On a second look, I realized the subject is moving away from the camera and into a screen of heavier brush (looks like hemlock saplings), so this shot might have been the last glimpse of the subject before it disappeared into the scrub and behind the large tree in the right foreground. But then I ask, why no f/u on tracks in the snow, and photos of those?  Very curious.

 

Pretty serious tree twist though...whatever did that, either BF, weather or a mechanical agency, it has some impressive torque!

 

Very intriguing report. The context rings true, and the backstory, and I don't see any blatant flags in the footprint casts as you do. 

Let me just say too...either his nephew keeps miniature cows, or he is seriously naive as to what it takes to fence them out! I can't see any cow I've ever known letting a few stacked sticks keep them from a cool pool of water if they seriously wanted to get to it!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe...but where is the story leading up to the photo that left him so "shook up"?

 

Elkins, WV is a very squatchy area if there is one in the state (and I believe they're there).

 

Only sighting(s) I know of in my family come from WV, albeit many years ago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that one picture the only one taken? If there are others, where are they?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we knew what angle we're looking at.  If that is the back of the creature, the head is set pretty far forward on the shoulders or the shoulders are very broad for a human.  I see a face, but I think that's just pareidolia caused by the branches and twigs.  It seems like that could be the ear of a bear on the right, but that would be a mighty big head not to see the other ear.  It wouldn't be the backside of a bear because they don't walk with their head up that far.  It's the wrong color for deer or elk, plus we don't see an ear on what would be the head.  I'll go with 'hmph'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran this photo through http://fotoforensics.com/  to see if any further info can be found. It appears to have been taken in February of 2014.

Using a tool called the ELA or error level analysis there appears to be a large anomalous area in the center foreground of the picture. I may not be interpreting it correctly since I haven't used it much but something doesn't look right there. Give it a look and decide for yourselves...:)

Edited by OldMort
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see something brown behind some trees.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, experienced investigators can look at these and not think there’s nothing wrong with them

 

55583k.jpg

 

It’s as if I’m in a different world 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OldMort, it seems to be the snow that's showing the anomaly you're referring to.  Maybe that's caused by the whiteness of the snow?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but its only one area of the snow, not all of it.

"With JPEG images, the entire picture should be at roughly the same level. If a section of the image is at a significantly different error level, then it likely indicates a digital modification."

Interesting picture though, and a fun program to play around with...

0

Share this post


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

Apparently, experienced investigators can look at these and not think there’s something wrong with them

 

corrected

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun, enlighten us... what's wrong with them?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three of the casts in that report have only 4 toes, even though they’re very different from each other and would have to be from different individuals. One of the 5 toed casts has its big toe very thin and smaller than the three toes next to it. The guy didn’t properly do his homework on what Bigfoot tracks actually look like, but it’s not suprising given that to the typical hoaxer, all Bigfoot tracks are likely fake. From their perspective, they’re just creating another one that’ll fit in with the rest.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0