Incorrigible1 Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Right next to Santa Claus. Can't help thinking we're being spoofed. C'mon, this can't be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I don't spoof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Hello Sasfooty, Unbelievable! Edited August 15, 2014 by salubrious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I guess you had to be there, but the scale looks wrong for that to be legs unless what you were looking at was closer than the background foliage. In that case it would seem like you would be able to see more details. It's hard to tell anything about the photo as it is, do you have the means to get a better camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 They were considerably closer than the woods with a shimmery "something" between me & them. I have a better camera, but it has a mind of it's own & we don't get along very well. This old Kodak takes a picture when I ask it to & doesn't care whether things are just right or not. So it gets used most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 So you are referring to the light tan objects in front of the dark green trees? I've read reports of BF getting shimmery which brings up the paranormal side of the bigfoot debate. This is not the focus of this thread since there is a thread devoted to this area already, psychic bigfoot. If you want to discuss the shimmering effect let's move over there. We are way off topic since there is a separate section for videos and photographs. Back to the topic: What about BFs and its dog. Is it for food or friends or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 No, georgerm. The arrows are pointing to three or four pairs of rust colored feet & legs in front of the tan weeds. The point of the arrow on the far left is directly between that first pair of feet . The bodies are blending in with the shadows on the trees in the background, but with a good monitor you should be able to see the difference in color where the bodies are. I guess this may not be the best thread to post this picture in, but I wasn't planning to get into a paranormal discussion. Just explaining why I didn't see them when I took the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Hello Sasfooty, Could you post a pic of the same spot for comparison? It would help a lot. Same light and time of day would be good too Edited August 15, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I could, but it wouldn't help to take one today. It was taken in September 2012 & it looks a lot different there now. I had a couple of others that were taken at about the same time but I can't find them now & may have deleted them.I'll look for them again, but they're probably gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Hello Sasfooty, OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I found them in an old email. They aren't as clear as they were before being emailed, but it's better than nothing. I've circled the weeds that are without a leg in front of them. Thanks for reminding me of the other picture, Hiflier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Is it possible that the wind might have caused the foliage to look different from shot to shot instead of it being bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Hello Sasfooty, Thank you! Considering the number of emails and pics I deal with I think it amazing that you found this one LOL. Other than the field looking like it's been cut on the lower one I am surprised how identical the two photos really are when considering not only the blue sky but the cloud sturcture as well. I might add that in this case, in a bit of humor, that the "old Kodak" was doing double duty. Might I suggest you take a couple of weeks to re-bond with the better camera? You may find your like for it better than you ever imagined. Thanks again for your efforts at digging into the "archives". Edited August 15, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Is it possible that the wind might have caused the foliage to look different from shot to shot instead of it being bigfoot? Yes I found them in an old email. They aren't as clear as they were before being emailed, but it's better than nothing. I've circled the weeds that are without a leg in front of them. Thanks for reminding me of the other picture, Hiflier. Good grief!!! Edited August 16, 2014 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts