Has anyone seen this ?

The Face of Bigfoot ?

It was way too blurry to even reconize what it was. It could've been anything. It could've been a pudding stain, a painting of a 3 year old - it looked like everything besides Big Foot's face. Seriously, that was crap.

Well, I watched it again, and this time I did see something but in no way does it prove anything. It's still crap...

Agreed ^

Its so blurry, it can be anything. I dont see anything that could be the face of Bigfoot.

It looks more like the face of the lion from the wizard of oz to me. If I only had some c-c-c--c-courage!

All I see is a confused looking lion, or someone's hot breath against a camera lense. I don't know how anybody can see Bigfoot in that picture. Why the heck is it so blurry?

You're kidding, right? You can't be serious.

looks like a man with a mustashe..

I like this one better!!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WcYnCXNfK4o

nice video who knew bigfoot could shake his thang

All I saw was a morphous blob, it's way too blurry

If you notice, his face is kind of on the left side, and the blurs sort of make the image of a nose, mouth, and eyes. It looks much more like a lion than a bigfoot.

Yea it could be anything even a human being, I don't see how they could jump to the conclusion that it's bigfoot.

Well, if it was on a piece of toast you could sell it on eBay.

Yes, and I'm not entirely sure how they managed to figure out it's eyes were closed and it was flared up by lighting...? Wouldn't they have a better camera out than that?



Toast? Hahahahah! I saw someone who was selling a corn chip that looked like Illinoise and people were bidding into the thousands and I'm like 'what the heck?! I find more interesting and more Illinoise and other strange states/item looking things in my food!' I mean honestly, what the heck are you going to do with a cornchip? It didn't even look that much like Illinoise!

Looks like the guy setting up the camera antecedently took a picture of himself while he was putting the camera up.

Or a confused lion winking at the camera.

What kind of wildlife camera has such a small field of view? Even if bigfoot was that close, you'd expect the picture to be less blurry. I'm gonna go ahead and say this has been edited to show the "face" and not all the other evidence that there's not sh** here.

It's Bigfoot! This must be good evidence, as Biff only seems to produce blurry out of focus photo's, therefore logically, this must be Biff!!

Been hanging around Mayakka too much haven't I............

I saw big foot

Thanks for the memory. This is one of my favourite films.

I don't understand, what am I looking for?...All I see is mottled blotches.
How can something this blurry be considered proof?

I think the word YouTube says it all.

Actually reminded me of one of the lion people from this show when i was little called zoobalizoo, i think id rather see big foot than a person dressed as lion, for reason they strike a creepy nerve with me.

here's a photo maybe some of you guys remember the show as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/Pas...zoobileezoo.jpg

And as for the video, it's just you mind playing off the suggestion the poster has made, if he claimed to see Jesus or the virgin Mary for the people who fall for this stuff, would be seeing Jesus or the virgin Mary as well.

You are onto something here!!!!!!!!

I am going to go and attempt to burn a Biff into my toast and sell it on Ebay........

The image is certainly rather blurry. However it just doesn't remind me of a lion so much, but rather a face with human characteristics, and yet there is something unusual about it.

Thank you Infobyte for posting this! I had not seen it before.
I watched a couple of times and I do see a face of some sort there.
A few minutes ago, I pulled my 15 year old son into the room. I didn't let him see any of the words on the screen and when the picture popped up, I asked him, "What do you see?"
He said, "A bunch of trees."
Maybe we are looking too hard?

Lol, I just did that with my sister. She said "Uuh, a lady who painted herself black and is running through clouds with weird hair?"

Most likely someone took a picture of their own face and said it was bigfoot's face...or something like that anyway.

Mr. Rotten Potato Head.

I second that!

I saw half a face, but really, it's nothing.
Why so blurry? If they could afford all that high tech stuff (trip activated camera, floodlights etc.) then how come the photo is so blurry?

It could have been anything, the floor, breath, A TOMATO? Nah, maybe not a tomato, but still. =D

It reminds me of those "optical effect pictures" that were widespread a few years ago. One could look at them for a while without seeing anything in particular, and then suddenly the image would materialise before one's eyes.

From what I could see of the generic blur, it can be pretty safely said that this image looks nothing like the face of the bigfoot from the Patterson 1967 footage.

Not sure why a video clip of almost 4 minutes was needed anyway, to show that same blurry image continuously...

You are correct Guayamar, it looks nothing like the Patterson footage. Do you consider the Patterson footage real and therefore a model to compare other evidence with?

Edited to say: This is an honest question and not meant to be smart alecky in any way.

Your point about which model to compare with is interesting Jennie 1. With so many reports of sightings, together with related photos and footage, just how does one decide on a benchmark Bigfoot image for comparison?

I still can't see anything

Here's an interesting video

BIGFOOT, Malaysia proof

That is such a lovely response, LOL, that made me laugh. Seriously, I cannot see anything, no bigfoot, no picture of a guy accidentally taking a picture of himself no nothing. Well, since he set it up high in a tree, he probably just took an extreme close up of a part of the tree. Aw, I really wanted to see it

I don't understand. Perhaps it's because the image shows only half of the face. As mentioned earlier, it's probably a bit like those "optical effect" pics where the image stands out after a period of time.

Another interesting Bigfoot video

Bigfoot Sightings

OK, I consider the Patterson footage to be real, i.e., it genuinely shows SOMETHING, but I cannot say for certain whether it is an actual Bigfoot or something else.

I was closely following this story over the past few weeks, since it had become quite topical - with the "theories" of one M.K. Davis making the full round of other websites, and I was hoping that some sort of further information on that footage would be forthcoming. But those discussions did little more than bring new conspiracy theories; they allege something to the effect that closer analysis of the Patterson footage shows a hairy human, with a walking stick, top-knot and pony-tail, and even a gunshot wound on one leg...there were even assertions in the recent internet flood of bigfoot theories, that an entire family of these hairy humans had been found and there was a massacre of sorts by Patterson and/or Gimlin. So, unfortunately, all that new activity shed more heat than light on the famous 1967 footage.

Overall, to return to the question, I suppose that the Patterson footage will inevitably be used as a model for comparison, simply because there is little else available....

As an aside, I saw a poll right here on UM that gives an idea of what the users of this sight think: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/pollhistory.php

Does the Patterson Bigfoot footage show a genuine creature ?

Yes, its genuine: 41.4%
No, its a hoax: 34.7%
Undecided: 23.9%
Total votes: 896

So, it looks like there is no consensus here on this site; none of the options have a majority, but it is interesting that the largest minority (i.e. the highest number of respondents) believe it is genuine.

As it should being the nature of this website.

I have always wondered about people who call the police to report a Bigfoot attack or disturbance, i found one 911 call...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=axYHrFdh-rk&feature=related

Thanks for coming back to answer!
I believe that the "largest minority" and the "majority" are the same thing, aren't they?
Thanks for giving me the condensed version of recent discoveries, saved me the trouble of reading it all.
I was just curious really, whether or not you judged all other bigfoot evidence by this one example.
I know that I find myself doing it.



Thanks for the link 14!!!! Very interesting!!!!

not a bad vid. not what i would call 'proof' though. because we see that here to in N.A.

Your welcome Jen..

says its a private video....i guess if i were able to see it i would say its too blury

thats pretty funny