Jump to content
Guest poignant

Petersen Picture - Pikes Peak Colorado

Recommended Posts

Guest poignant

Hi all, I would like to highlight a picture taken by Ron Petersen and enhanced by a BFF member, kfoster.

Backstory and original post here:

http://sasquatchinve...gfoot-pictures/

At the bottom right of this picture, observe a clear view of the BF's left lower limb and its foot propped up on a rock.

No need to look for faces in the foliage either.

Enhanced picture by kfoster:

post-7914-0-46647300-1354859466_thumb.jp

Cool picture. Does anyone see a midtarsal hinge? Perhaps forward this to Jeff Meldrum (if he hasn't already seen it).

.

Edited by poignant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

Nice picture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crabshack

That photo is creepy, the subject has a very I'm in control, at ease and intelligent look about it.

Like in It's thinking about the situation and just what its going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I know this wont be a popular opinion with some of you, but i think this photo has several "problems" with it...

The following two things I find odd- look at the outlines I've drawn, then go back and open the large picture in the OP above, and look at those areas.....

#1 if that is indeed a leg, it presents a position that would seem to be almost anatomically impossible... the top flat portion of the thigh, follow it back and it goes right in under it's chin- like the leg would originate from the creatures chest area. ..

I have oulined what would be the leg with a yellow line....

Even in a sitting, or squatting position, there's just no way a leg can be in that position.....

BFleg.jpg

That doesnt look "right" at all to me.....

#2 there is some other "stuff" going on, which ive agained outlined in yellow, on the right side (as we view it) of the creature, that appears to be part of the body, but again is quite odd looking from an anatomical perspective.....

What is it ??

BFotherstuff.jpg

Yea, the face is "cool" looking, but there's some odd stuff going on with the rest of the body that really make me wonder if the whole thing isnt some giant pareidolia. Even as interesting/compelling that face/head is, the other parts seem awfully suspect to me.....

Thoughts ?

-A-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crabshack

What if the "foot" is really its hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

There's a good chance that we are seeing "parts" of two different individuals. They tend to "clump up" when they're watching us.

Also, (if it's only one we're seeing), their joints probably aren't much like ours, & they can get into positions that would be impossible for us, such as the one in Chris Noel's video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whistler

My thoughts on this photo and the issues Art brought up. #1). When I looked at the original and compared it to the enhanced- it looks as though the being is placing its left hand on the root base of the tree next to it. It doesn't look like the thumb was enhanced, but if you look at the original- you can see what could be a thumb below and was never enhanced. #2). I can see that face, as well as several others in the photo. You can make as many as you can imagine. If you go back to the original and look at the enhanced, it should become clear that the face pointed out is no more than light hitting two tree limbs crossing. It looked like there could be several after studying the image, but after further observation- it doesn't look like it's anything more than tree limbs to me. My two cents.

Cheers

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

Why do I see a sleeping cat off to the upper right? ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kfoster

Ron Peterson, who took the photo, was actually just trying to get a wide angle shot of a line of tracks in shallow skiff of snow near Pikes Peak, Colorado. The portion of the photo as displayed here on the forum is actually only a very tiny portion in the upper left of a much larger photo. Peterson was not a bigfoot researcher when he found the tracks he was trying to photograph. He has now become very interested and joined a team of people who made a website called "Sasquatch Investigations of the Rockies". You can view the full photo he took there, and context whereby the photo was made.

I selected what looked like the portions of the photo with the same relative reflectivitys and textures, then enhanced the colors, and tried to increase the contrast to hopefully bring out the subject from the background a little and maybe see more detail. Refer to the original photo portion, not the contrast and color changes I made to make any kind of evaluation of the subject.

The skull structure seems very like the Patterson/Gimlin film subject. I have been trying to sculpt the P/G film subject, which made me notice similarities.

Any formal use of the Peterson Photo should only be done in direct contact with Mr. Peterson himself.

The general location of the photo is interesting to me as I have done personal interviews with two professional hunting guides with very close range and distinct sightings in that area of Colorado. Tracks in snow are also found on a fairly regular basis in the general area. Probably one of the best areas in the USA to have a fairly good chance of finding tracks yourself with a week or so of searching while snow is on the ground. I have investigated several sets in the area.

I find no reason to think the original photo is a hoax or doctored in any way. I have examined the full res photo that came out of the camera, which I did my enhancement from, kindfully provided to me by Mr. Peterson.

The foot itself seems kind of small in comparison to head size, but then exactly how big is a bigfoot head in comparison to it's foot in the individual photographed. Sure looks like a foot in the photo. ???

The nose appears less hooded than what one generally thinks of a bigfoot as having. The two guides I interviewed described hooded noses, with the nostrils exposed but facing down somewhat. The possibly more open nostrils of the subject in the Peterson photo does not concern me or dissuade me from thinking it is a real sasquatch in the photo. Humans and other apes have quite a bit of variation in soft tissue parts of the face. Plus there is always the possibility of damage to the nose in the wilds, such as freezing of tissues or physical damage.

What his camera captured is sure interesting, to say the least. I think there is just too much there to chalk it up as a blobsquatch of lights and shadows coming into an imaginary form. If it were a blobsquatch, it is the first one that really has interested me. The foot, if that is what it is, might actually be the foot of a different individual maybe on the back of the individual who's face is recognizable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

Here's what I'm seeing. BFFootPic.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JenJen of Oldstones

I like this picture a lot and I think it's real. But, looking at that picture, trying to put the "foot" with the Bigfoot face makes me crazy. I don't think that's a foot. I think it's a hand, and that the Bigfoot is bracing itself with its arm. The arm is turned so that the palm of the hand would be facing forwards, but it's bent backwards at the wrist and all you can see is the thumb because the other fingers are behind it or below it. Does that make sense? It's not sitting in the feet forward birthing position. If that's a foot, it's too small to belong to the Bigfoot face, as is the leg it's attached to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

It could be that he/she is leaning his arm on his leg. The leg is using a branch for stability. That's what I'm seeing. Plus there is an outline of another face off his/her right shoulder. Take a look very closely.

Cheers!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

Yea, the face is "cool" looking, but there's some odd stuff going on with the rest of the body that really make me wonder if the whole thing isnt some giant pareidolia. Even as interesting/compelling that face/head is, the other parts seem awfully suspect to me.....

Thoughts ?

-A-

Looking at the original it could well be pareidolia. That does look like a leg and foot though, so I'd say if it's really BF we are seeing, there are at least two of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kfoster

I kind of like Sasfooty's interpretation of a hand hanging there in the photo. It kind of reminds me of a sculpture I did of a sculpturesquatch that was supposed to be a male bigfoot with the relative dimensions of the Patterson Film subject and based on the head and face of that film subject as best I could see it as a wildlife artist. I have attached a photo of the sculpture so you can see what I am talking about.

I also kind of wonder if I highlighted too much area to enhance with constrast in the photo and the size of the head is actually smaller from the brow back than I highlighted. Like I said, refer to the original portion of the photo, not my first impression enhancements. Maybe the foot is a hand, maybe some other individuals foot, maybe Sasfooty has it right. Maybe it is a blobsquatch of lights and shadows (I don't think it is).

What is interesting is how we can interpret things differently as humans, based maybe on our preconceptions or what we think we know. What is also interesting, but maybe sad, is that if you just happened to get a crisp clear photo of a sasquatch at some point in your life, there will always be those who said it is a hoax and it will never go beyond that. Might be a curse to get a photo of a real living breathing sasquatch. You would be branded a hoaxer.

I think sasquatch are real only because I found a line of some 20 tracks that were 17 inches long in a wilderness area of southern Colorado in 1993 that I feel no one would have hoaxed in such an out of the way place. Something real left those tracks, but I can't force anyone to accept the tracks I found as real. Heck, I would not have believed someone telling me they found such an incredble thing, so how can I expect anyone to believe me. Guess I'm actually one of those "have to see it to believe it" persons. I saw it, maybe unfortunately for me. I'm sure some probably see me as a nut, for even researching the silly subject.

I've been fortunate to get to correspond with 6 professional hunting guides and outfitters with personal sasquatch experiences and 5 law enforcement persons in Colorado with personal experiences, and am pretty dang sure they were not mistaken about what they witnessed. They all seem to match for some reason. I've also investigated a number of track find incidents that all seem to match for some reason in the state of Colorado. Some I investigated along side law enforcement and department of wildlife biologists that also came to the "scratch their head" interpretations of the tracks. Are all those professionals mistaken? Just seems even weirder than sasquatch itself if they are all so looney. The one nice thing about all the looney nature of sasquatch sightings is that there are sometimes tracks left at the scene to be reviewed. After all the personal investigation of the matter in Colorado, I guess I should not be surprised when an odd photo that looks like one of them shows up.

The sculpture photo I am attaching, may or may not be representative of the species we seek. I bet it is closer than Harry or Jack Links sasquatch though. Time may or may not tell.

post-6221-0-22903900-1354903469_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest poignant

I do not like looking for second or third squatches when the first one is not immediately obvious.

Sasfooty:

Yes this is what I'm seeing too.

kfoster:

Thanks for the more detailed reference to Peterson's picture. Your sculpture is amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...