104 replies to this topic

[Robbie333]

DieChecker, on 03 May 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

http://squatchdetect.../VtTrailCam.htm


Supposedly they had a photo expert look at the pic and conclude that the shadows indicate it is a real animal in the position it appears to be in.

Appears to be much larger then a normal human.



Some people have said it is an Owl with its back to the camera and some say it is a bear. Any other opinions?

I think it looks amazingly like what a bigfoot might look like in such a position.

        Hmm, I want to say Owl as well. The only thing I would like to see is an "expert" run some size schematics. I would like to know the size of the tree to the right of --whatever it is. Great pic though. It would certainly excite me if I had it on a trail cam.

Edited by Robbie333, 05 May 2011 - 02:43 PM.

[Vance665]

I think the owl/bird was probably under the camera and took off fast across it. This would account for the motion blur and why only one pic from a set of three shows it. Was there any bird food under where the camera was sitting?

[BlackCurtains]

What's with the spots? I'm inclined to agree with the owl hypothesis but those bright spots throw me off.

[Night Walker]

BlackCurtains, on 06 May 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:

What's with the spots? I'm inclined to agree with the owl hypothesis but those bright spots throw me off.

That particular game camera uses an infrared flash and the camera CCD has the ability to see into the near infrared wavelengths. What most people don't know is that certain fabrics and or dyes "reflect" infrared light so they look white even though the fabric may look black during daylight to the naked eye. Also, some common laundry detergents leave residue on newly washed clothes, these residues reflect infrared light. The white areas around the subjects shoulder region are a dead giveaway of infrared reflectance of the cameras flash off of something like a fabric of some sort. Unfortunately, the person doing the hoaxing didn't know about infrared reflecting fabrics that can only be seen using an infrared sensing camera. This is why I don't think the property owner is doing the hoaxing, otherwise he would have seen the "white" undergarment in his photos and tried to figure a way to darken the light areas. I think a neighbor or friend is hoaxing him but didn't know about the infrared reflective material.

William Dranginis
Manassas, VA.
www.VirginiaBigfootResearch.Org '

http://bigfootforums...cture-revealed/

[S.C.I.-P.R.O.]

It could look like anything that you wanted it to look like. Blurry pic. short story no info at all. What about foot prints? Did he leave any apples that could be finger printed or did he bring a bag with him? I think it's a hoax. Next time color your story up a little....

[undertheflow]

I'm definitely seeing an owl now.  

And really, what's more likely-- an owl or a currently undiscovered bipedal ape creature?  Not saying that this isn't worth investigation, but let's keep our feet on the ground.

If they're so serious about thinking this is Bigfoot, they would do well to search the perimeter for footprints, droppings, etc.  I fear they won't find anything, however.

[fatbadger2]

Sakari, on 04 May 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

You made me go back and look....

1. Correct, not a apple tree at all....

2. Not a deer, a dog or Coyote.

3. A gillie suit, the bright areas are where the suit is opened up and not covering everything, the IR picks it up and brightens it.( light colors )

4. The camera is NOT in the same position it was for the first shots, it is much closer to the road...Unless someone moved the tree it was strapped to, I would say the camera was being held by someone while the other " posed ".

5. Again, the camera took 3 " burst " shots on the first pictures, why only one of the guy in the suit?...Cameras have settings for 3 burst, 6 burst, etc..No need to change from a 3 burst setting to a 1 burst....

6. I can not quite make out the dates on the first set of pics, but the time is later at night, 9 or almost 10 PM....The temperature is 65 degrees....Yet the Gillie suit picture is at 78 degrees, and says 5:55 PM, with a explanation that the time stamp is off...That does not add up at all....Temperatues do not rise during the night, they fall or stay stable...The excuse of the time stamp being wrong was to cover the time of 5:55 PM....Fail.

Not in the mood to look further, if someone get's bored, find the temperature at this location for the date of 09/02/10 at 12:30 A.M.....I would be willing to bet it was not 78 degrees.

The site that did the investigation either did not bother, or did not catch what they have posted.They have the temperatures....78-80 degrees around 6 P.M....Below 70 after 11:00 P.M. ......Good investigators.....LOL

As said, total fake.

I think many know I use trail cams, and have started a thread on it that many are contributing on.

I can safely say I am positive of above...

Stick a fork in this one its done in my opinion. More holes than Augusta in the replies you posted sakiri.

I don't think its an out and out hoax per se i just think they want it to be more than just another weird pic of something normal. This would explain the gaps in the story regarding the time stamp etc. Its not that they're trying to make a bf sighting but more they're trying not to let it be something mundane i think.

[sean6]

    Is this picture proof that Bigfoot exists? Vermont man claims the mysterious monster is the ape-like creature but wildlife officials say it's just an owl


A Vermont man is convinced that Bigfoot is roaming through his apple orchard at night...and he claims to have footage to prove it.
Frank Siecienski, from Hubbardton, noticed that his apple trees were being ravaged at night but he suspected a deer was to blame.
But one night the man decided to install a camera to catch a glimpse of the mystery intruder and footage showed what appeared to be a large monster, he suspects could be Bigfoot.

http://www.dailymail...y-just-owl.html

Edited by sean6, 25 November 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

This may already have been discussed on here.

But yes, "Patches" , the mama bigfoot with vitiligo and her baby, is proof for some. For others of us, no, it is not proof.
But it is nice to see the creature getting around (Vermont).
But I do like the pic and the "baby bf's" fingers clasping mom.

My guess, it is not a large monster either. But I am all for large monsters.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 November 2012 - 01:19 AM.

[AliveInDeath7]

Well.. I can see the obvious feathers. It looks like the back of an owl attacking it's prey

[QuiteContrary]

NikkiAidyn, on 25 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Well.. I can see the obvious feathers. It looks like the back of an owl attacking it's prey

That's what some say. I believe a wildlife officer he asked said it was an owl.

[AliveInDeath7]

QuiteContrary, on 25 November 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

That's what some say. I believe a wildlife officer he asked said it was an owl.

If I saw that picture without viewing this thread first, that's what I'd see.
I don't know how anyone could see a bigfoot out of it.

[Codeblind]

The video says the guy who set up the camera has been a bigfoot hunter or something similar for years..after that I thought..hmmm and one just happens to be stealing his apples, not that, that isn't possible..but id need better evidence before I said I had proof

[Likely Guy]

A guy that's been researching Bigfoot for the last 15 years just happens to catch a picture of one in his backyard?

Way too coincidental. He's either in on it or a friend or neighbour in a furry suit playing a joke on him.

[AliveInDeath7]

Likely Guy, on 25 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

A guy that's been researching Bigfoot for the last 15 years just happens to catch a picture of one in his backyard?

Way too coincidental. He's either in on it or a friend or neighbour in a furry suit playing a joke on him.

They could've come up with something that actually looks like bigfoot.