MIB Posted August 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted August 7, 2014 Obviously pareidolia. The light color which is supposedly the dog is in actuality a field in the distance. What would be the eyes, nose, ears are small leaves in the foreground. Leave out judgmental words like "obviously", make it a question, or "it seems to me to be" to take the edge off and it's a whole lot more palatable. Snark like this is why I won't share pictures and recommend others don't either. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 You're right about sharing pictures, MIB. I know better...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Sorry Sasfooty but that pic isn't lining up with elements in the original photo in question. Obviously taken from a different location. And MIB, when I state my opinion I will state it how I want to, not by your standards. If you find the word "obvious" to be snarky, that's your problem and you seem to be looking for something to get upset about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 and you seem to be looking for something to get upset about. And what about you, RA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 If you look at the upper left hand part of the tree trunk, you'll see that the clothes line pulley is the same distance from the left side of the trunk in both pictures. If the picture was taken from a different location, the pulley would be a different distance from the side of the trunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 OK, I see the pulley and closeline in both, but they are still taken at different spots. The angles are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 My dog doesn;t believe in bigfoot either. He spelled it out in kibble cursive. Then he mindspoke it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Thanks, Sasfooty! Those are really amazing pictures. You obviously took pains to document the situation carefully, with the comparison daylight photo (which was really helpful to me). Thanks for sharing the amazing things you know and have experienced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Rockape. They are taken from the same location. The night picture was taken vertical and the day picture was taken horizontal/panoramic. The only other difference is the angle of the clothes line. The night pic the clothes line is weighted down on the left hand side. When you compare the 2 side by side it is really creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Thanks, LT & David. Rockape, I may have been slightly closer to the tree in the comparison picture, but even so, there is still no field in the background. The only possible way I would be able to get an open space in the background would be to go way around the tree to the left, in which case the clothes line would be in the right side of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Squatchy Mcsqautch. your dog must think you very slow if he had to spell it out for you and then also explain to you what it meant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Sas, we arent attacking you. It's been shown time and time again that two people can look at a set of given data and come to completely different conclusions. Our interpretation of the data is not a reflection on your opinions of you, and I hope this doesnt prevent you from sharing with us in the future. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions that occur after a piece of evidence such as yours is shared. It's what makes the bigfoot community live and breathe. Hey, just cause I'm not on board with one explanation for that piece of data doesnt mean I'm right. I'd love to be wrong on this, the undiscovered wonders of the world are what get me up in the morning. I just dont see it. But who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Rockape, I may have been slightly closer to the tree in the comparison picture, but even so, there is still no field in the background. The only possible way I would be able to get an open space in the background would be to go way around the tree to the left, in which case the clothes line would be in the right side of the picture. It's more than just being closer to the tree, it seems you would need to be several feet to the left to match up better with the original. And why is this latest photo so clear when the original photo is so dark and blurry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 The first one was taken at night & the second one was taken in the daytime. Did I really have to type that? OH!!! And a BF dog was in the first one so that probably contributed to the blurriness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Well, it doesn't appear to be taken at night. Late in the day perhaps, but it not at night. That still doesn't explain why it is so blurry. Hard to discern any detail when it's so blurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts