Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums

Canadian Rottweiler

Mar 4 2005, 08:36 AM

QUOTE(justin @ Mar 3 2005, 07:10 AM)

You didnt see a point reading this thread yet you decided to!!!

Not only was it your post but you go and decide to throw my photo album in the middle of this!!!

I still dont think u understand!!!! But good luck to ya!!!

[right][snapback]509486[/snapback][/right]

Who cares.

mr_halo

Mar 4 2005, 09:22 AM

well it looks very man in suity, but i have no idea really....

i'm not familiar with the animals in the area that these photographs were taken, anything around that could be mistaken for bigfoot, bear or something?

Zepher_One

Mar 4 2005, 01:01 PM

QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Mar 4 2005, 04:35 AM)

QUOTE(Zepher_One @ Mar 3 2005, 07:55 AM)

QUOTE(C-iscus @ Mar 3 2005, 11:42 AM)

edit: overlokked something and I've taken back my post
[right][snapback]509508[/snapback][/right]

Wow, that was totally awsome! Enjoyed viewing all your pictures! Makes one become a believer for sure! Thanks for sending them along!

[right][snapback]509521[/snapback][/right]

You have never seen those sasquatch pics before?...you must be shittin me

[right][snapback]510472[/snapback][/right]

Yes, i have seen several, but not as many as you have!!!!! No fooling!

justin

Mar 4 2005, 01:02 PM

Ok Canadian rottweiler!!!!

U say u have seen this picture before!!!!

WHEN have you seen them??

WHERE have you seen them??

Can you provide a link to where you saw them????

mr_halo

Mar 4 2005, 03:17 PM

QUOTE(justin @ Mar 4 2005, 01:02 PM)

Ok Canadian rottweiler!!!!

U say u have seen this picture before!!!!

WHEN have you seen them??

WHERE have you seen them??

Can you provide a link to where you saw them????
[right][snapback]510620[/snapback][/right]

i saw them on cryptozoology.com, but thats where you got them from i think

justin

Mar 4 2005, 06:18 PM

These pictures just recently surfaced over at the CZ site( liek within the last 2 weeks)

I want to know where Canadian Rottweiler has seen these pics before!!!

And when did he see them the the site that provided these pics!!!

The reason im asking this is because lately there has been talk about these pictures surfacing over a year ago!!!

Personally I have never seen thiese pics till last week!! But who knows!!

Walken

Mar 4 2005, 06:32 PM

Is CR under the grill? Are you trying to catch him out?

You won't. Of everyone I've met on this site he's the most dedicated to his feild, cryptozoology.

If he says he’s seen the pics before, why doubt him?

And maybe ask him nicely if you want his link?"

justin

Mar 4 2005, 08:20 PM

Hey I am simply asking him a question they came in here claiming these pics were old news!!!

Well if they are prove it!!!!!!

Walken

Mar 4 2005, 08:23 PM

Why don't you prove their not?

Mr. Rottwiller is one of the most respected members on UM. You can't come in here and start questioning him so impolitley. Thats not nice.

Maybe rephrase it: CR, can you show us your source?

And btw, you will learn as you study the art of writeing and grammer, that the more you use something the less of an effect it has. In your case, triple exclamation marks.

justin

Mar 4 2005, 11:57 PM

Oh but its ok for CR to post here and so blatantly say that these pics are old news without even providing any info as to how or why they are old!!! ( u like exclamations good heres more)!!!!!!

U (walkken) come in here claiming u are great buddies with this CR and that he is well respected in here, well thats great I dont care that u have 5000 post between the both of you and everyone loves you!!!

Im not here never was here to start a pissing match with you!!!

So as far as I know every little bit of information I have posted here is true, these pics were indeed taken no more than a month ago until proven otherwise!!!(information taken from the sender of these pics himself)

MJB222

Mar 5 2005, 03:53 AM

The pictures in your first post looks like a freesh, dry cleaned shirt hanging in a tree

xeno

Mar 5 2005, 11:13 PM

QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Mar 4 2005, 08:35 AM)

QUOTE(Zepher_One @ Mar 3 2005, 07:55 AM)

QUOTE(C-iscus @ Mar 3 2005, 11:42 AM)

edit: overlokked something and I've taken back my post
[right][snapback]509508[/snapback][/right]

Wow, that was totally awsome! Enjoyed viewing all your pictures! Makes one become a believer for sure! Thanks for sending them along!

[right][snapback]509521[/snapback][/right]

You have never seen those sasquatch pics before?...you must be shittin me

[right][snapback]510472[/snapback][/right]

Oh please, and you have seen them before? I call bullsh*t. Give us a link sporty.

Mysteryman

Mar 5 2005, 11:22 PM

Ok - so the photographer of these images happened to be really close to this figure that is believed to be "Bigfoot" - If this photographer was that close to Bigfoot, don't you think some astonishing achievements would be made, even by leaked information from the press and the photographer and therefore be all over the news? I believe this was set up. Someone was to put on a "ape-like" suit and the photographer will publish the picture and hope to make some money - hoax.

QUOTE(Hoagy @ Mar 1 2005, 01:28 PM)

whatever it is, it's coming toward the camera, look at the trees in relation to the object, I would be intrigued to see any other pics from this outing.
[right][snapback]506905[/snapback][/right]

Not arguing with you, but the second picture that the originator provided us was closer to the camera. The third picture that was in a different post was farther away. It seemed to me as if the figure was walking away from the figure. If the figure came to the photographer, and most likely would probably attack the photographer, don't you think it would be on the news? I don't know honestly but thats what I think

Also, wouldn't you be able to see atleast some facial appearances on the face of this figure?

QUOTE(Pyxis @ Mar 1 2005, 01:57 PM)

That's true. If Bigfoot exists I highly doubt there'd be any in Kentucky anyway. There's just not enough wooded area left.

Which is sad.
[right][snapback]506955[/snapback][/right]

But we really don't have enough data and information about the way Bigfoot could live and what it could live in. It could live underground, in caves, in grassland or farmland (Kentucky?) and of course as we all know - most likely deep forest...But we really don't have enough information to conclude that it would only live in deep forests. I'm not sure and I'm just providing my opinion so don't take anything the wrong way.

mr_halo

Mar 5 2005, 11:26 PM

are these images stills from a movie clip?

or did the witness just take photos of the creature?

Mysteryman

Mar 5 2005, 11:34 PM

I doubt it because I believe the originator of this thread said it was a photographer taking 2/11 pictures...I believe.

mr_halo

Mar 5 2005, 11:40 PM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 5 2005, 11:34 PM)

I doubt it because I believe the originator of this thread said it was a photographer taking 2/11 pictures...I believe.
[right][snapback]512604[/snapback][/right]

oh i see, well the photos are quite clear, but rather dubious...

he just seems to close to that creature/man in suit whatever.....

Mysteryman

Mar 5 2005, 11:46 PM

Yes I can agree with you on that. The pictures are clear. What is being focused on is not though. Either the back facing the camera or the face, no facial appearances can be seen. The only conclusions that we can come to I believe is that it is hairy [which I'm not even sure of] and its pretty big in size (broad shoulders, large head).

xeno

Mar 6 2005, 02:14 AM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 5 2005, 11:34 PM)

I doubt it because I believe the originator of this thread said it was a photographer taking 2/11 pictures...I believe.
[right][snapback]512604[/snapback][/right]

They are pulled from a video...they show interlacing.

mr_halo

Mar 6 2005, 02:52 AM

QUOTE(xeno @ Mar 6 2005, 02:14 AM)

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 5 2005, 11:34 PM)

I doubt it because I believe the originator of this thread said it was a photographer taking 2/11 pictures...I believe.
[right][snapback]512604[/snapback][/right]

They are pulled from a video...they show interlacing.
[right][snapback]512719[/snapback][/right]

you see i thought the images were from a video

anyone got the video?

justin

Mar 6 2005, 03:48 PM

Ok! I just went through this whole post again and I think I may have been confused as to what CR HAD posted.

CR you posted: You have never seen those sasquatch pics before?...You must be shittin me!

I now know you were not talking about the alleged KY bf pics you were talikng about my photo album that RS posted(right)? I know the photos in my photo album are old news thats why they are there.lol

And for that I truly apologies. I just jumped to the gun thinking you were refering to the KY phots being old news...

I wanted you to prove that because there has been rumors surfacing about these being taken along time ago, and maybe for a low budget movie. But so far that is what it is 'JUST RUMORS'

justin

Mar 6 2005, 03:56 PM

Ok and now the follow-up report!

Return email from sender of the KY bf pics!!!
Allan Gellar:

Hello its good to hear from you.sorry about the root canal.Are you an investigator ,I need more input from outside sources,Aperrently everybody is going wild over this creature sighting and the pics in Ky and its spreading ,a TV crew interviewed the woman last night and she said she was still freaked out anout the incident and wont ever go hiking by herself again.She seemed very cincere so I would rule out a hoax.she was in a very deep wooded area that isnt traveled by hikers much si I cant imagine a person up there.Unfortunately on the east coast there arent many experts on hairy bipeds.This case hasnt been thouroughly examined yet,apperently a zoologist looked at all the photos and said it is deffinetly a large primate of some sort but something we havent seen yet.he appeared in the program and said it could be of a variety formerly thought extinct."

Zepher_One

Mar 6 2005, 05:31 PM

QUOTE(justin @ Mar 6 2005, 11:56 AM)

Ok and now the follow-up report!

Return email from sender of the KY bf pics!!!
Allan Gellar:

Hello its good to hear from you.sorry about the root canal.Are you an investigator ,I need more input from outside sources,Aperrently everybody is going wild over this creature sighting and the pics in Ky and its spreading ,a TV crew interviewed the woman last night and she said she was still freaked out anout the incident and wont ever go hiking by herself again.She seemed very cincere so I would rule out a hoax.she was in a very deep wooded area that isnt traveled by hikers much si I cant imagine a person up there.Unfortunately on the east coast there arent many experts on hairy bipeds.This case hasnt been thouroughly examined yet,apperently a zoologist looked at all the photos and said it is deffinetly a large primate of some sort but something we havent seen yet.he appeared in the program and said it could be of a variety formerly thought extinct."
[right][snapback]513241[/snapback][/right]

I can really know what that woman must of felt like, Whew, to be that close and be able to take pictures even is unreal! I am from Va. and i read somewhere there is a Big Foot roaming around this neck of the woods too, although no one has ever mentioned ever seeing one! But Va. is very Woodsy and Hilly with thousands of wild springs and Mountains, i often thought that This would be an ideal spot for a big foot to reside in! It could very well remain elusive as there is so-oo much wild brush,etc! Millions of big Pine trees, oaks, caves! But with everything, whose not to say it couldn't be a Big Foot in these parts too??? Just a thought! I am not saying there is any proof to it, as i have none as of yet! There is still places on our Earth that has yet to be Explored, Even our Oceans! "where Facts are few, ,experts are many",.............

Zepher_one

Mysteryman

Mar 6 2005, 05:35 PM

QUOTE(mr_halo @ Mar 5 2005, 09:52 PM)

QUOTE(xeno @ Mar 6 2005, 02:14 AM)

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 5 2005, 11:34 PM)

I doubt it because I believe the originator of this thread said it was a photographer taking 2/11 pictures...I believe.
[right][snapback]512604[/snapback][/right]

They are pulled from a video...they show interlacing.
[right][snapback]512719[/snapback][/right]

you see i thought the images were from a video

anyone got the video?

[right][snapback]512729[/snapback][/right]

My bad, I thought the originator of the thread said it was a photographer. Sorry -

Zepher_One

Mar 6 2005, 05:35 PM

QUOTE(MJB222 @ Mar 4 2005, 11:53 PM)

The pictures in your first post looks like a freesh, dry cleaned shirt hanging in a tree
[right][snapback]511654[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, been trying to figure out too, whats around that tree in the pictures? A big piece of Pllastic?????

Mysteryman

Mar 6 2005, 05:38 PM

The way your thinking, it sounds like you take it as a hoax, and if you are - I agree with you.

Zepher_One

Mar 6 2005, 05:54 PM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 6 2005, 01:38 PM)

The way your thinking, it sounds like you take it as a hoax, and if you are - I agree with you.
[right][snapback]513325[/snapback][/right]

No i am not saying it's a Hoax, anything could be possible, if you really look close at those Pictures of Big-Foot, i think that ragged piece on the tree is an old cutain, cause, if you look at the pleats above it, it sure resembles an old curtain! We have the right to doubt, yes, as well to assume it's real! It's up to the person, what they believe or discount it ! I am saying it could very well be an actual Big-Foot seen in KY. I will remain Nutural on this topic! Zepher_one

Mysteryman

Mar 6 2005, 05:56 PM

Ok but I personally feel that their are to many negative sides of this picture to conclude that it could really be fact. I'm not saying for sure that it is a hoax because I dont have the power to. I don't know much of it but I'm personally just saying how I feel about this picture; don't take it wrong.

Canadian Rottweiler

Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM

Good statement there.

Zepher_One

Mar 8 2005, 02:07 PM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 6 2005, 01:56 PM)

Ok but I personally feel that their are to many negative sides of this picture to conclude that it could really be fact. I'm not saying for sure that it is a hoax because I dont have the power to. I don't know much of it but I'm personally just saying how I feel about this picture; don't take it wrong.
[right][snapback]513349[/snapback][/right]

To each his own interpatation of said topic! Will not take it wrong, ok? Zepher_one....

Walken

Mar 8 2005, 03:48 PM

Lets remember let we are always debateing in the cryptoid department. Sometimes people take it the wrong way, but there are no personal insults, and we simply debate the creatures.

Btw Mysterey, I have no problem with you, dont worry.

Canadian Rottweiler

Mar 9 2005, 08:49 AM

Of course there are no personal insults,just heavy discussions.

Zepher_One

Mar 9 2005, 01:48 PM

QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Mar 9 2005, 04:49 AM)

Of course there are no personal insults,just heavy discussions.
[right][snapback]517437[/snapback][/right]

That is what we do, debate, without any insults to those who post an opinion, i would hope!

We all do not think as others, and we should respect it! No matter how we might feel towards what others have said! Zepher_one.....

Wooddevil

Mar 9 2005, 04:13 PM

There are too many hoaxers out there to put much interest in pictures of dark shapes lurking behind forest undergrowth. If the cameraman was willing to get that close in the first place, he'd be willing to move either left or right for a clearer shot. To leave the purported creature partly hidden behind branches is too convenient for a couple dudes looking to pull one over on us.

It's sad, really, because with idiots like this out there, you can't trust even the best of pictures anymore

Walken

Mar 9 2005, 04:21 PM

Whats disgraceful is that in most case's, the beleivers make the hoax's. Then they blame it on people trying to discredit their beleifs once they're found out, but in fact it was them who discredited their own feild.

Am I rambleing?

Zepher_One

Mar 9 2005, 05:29 PM

QUOTE(Wooddevil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:13 PM)

There are too many hoaxers out there to put much interest in pictures of dark shapes lurking behind forest undergrowth. If the cameraman was willing to get that close in the first place, he'd be willing to move either left or right for a clearer shot. To leave the purported creature partly hidden behind branches is too convenient for a couple dudes looking to pull one over on us.

It's sad, really, because with idiots like this out there, you can't trust even the best of pictures anymore

[right][snapback]517841[/snapback][/right]

Well if in fact, these are fake pictures of BF, and it is a Hoax, it's a Shame! I think it was a woman, who took the photo's, which would be the reason for not getting any close ups of the creature?

Pyxis

Mar 9 2005, 06:08 PM

Now now, don't start with women and picture taking

I would like to know where the pictures were taken. I've looked at all the online newspapers from around Kentucky and haven't been able to find any stories about it. Since I'm from Kentucky, I just wanna know what area I'm looking at before I make any decisions.

Mysteryman

Mar 9 2005, 09:19 PM

QUOTE(Zepher_One @ Mar 9 2005, 12:29 PM)

QUOTE(Wooddevil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:13 PM)

There are too many hoaxers out there to put much interest in pictures of dark shapes lurking behind forest undergrowth. If the cameraman was willing to get that close in the first place, he'd be willing to move either left or right for a clearer shot. To leave the purported creature partly hidden behind branches is too convenient for a couple dudes looking to pull one over on us.

It's sad, really, because with idiots like this out there, you can't trust even the best of pictures anymore

[right][snapback]517841[/snapback][/right]

Well if in fact, these are fake pictures of BF, and it is a Hoax, it's a Shame! I think it was a woman, who took the photo's, which would be the reason for not getting any close ups of the creature?
[right][snapback]517990[/snapback][/right]

Actually, the Patterson footage of Bigfoot was never proved hoax. Their still actually debating about it and trying to prove that it could be a man in a costume while everything was all set up. I personally believe in the Patterson footage.

Walken

Mar 9 2005, 09:21 PM

I do not. It's been proven time and time again that patterson was a con man, and the way that ape movies is surreal. Unnatrual.

Mysteryman

Mar 9 2005, 09:24 PM

But its also been said that the shoulders on Bigfoot could not be created to fit such a costume nor can it fit the one of a man to the point where the man in the costume cannot see where he was going. It was clearly shown that the figure was trying to go somewhere -

Zepher_One

Mar 9 2005, 10:07 PM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 9 2005, 05:19 PM)

QUOTE(Zepher_One @ Mar 9 2005, 12:29 PM)

QUOTE(Wooddevil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:13 PM)

There are too many hoaxers out there to put much interest in pictures of dark shapes lurking behind forest undergrowth. If the cameraman was willing to get that close in the first place, he'd be willing to move either left or right for a clearer shot. To leave the purported creature partly hidden behind branches is too convenient for a couple dudes looking to pull one over on us.

It's sad, really, because with idiots like this out there, you can't trust even the best of pictures anymore

[right][snapback]517841[/snapback][/right]

Well if in fact, these are fake pictures of BF, and it is a Hoax, it's a Shame! I think it was a woman, who took the photo's, which would be the reason for not getting any close ups of the creature?
[right][snapback]517990[/snapback][/right]

Actually, the Patterson footage of Bigfoot was never proved hoax. Their still actually debating about it and trying to prove that it could be a man in a costume while everything was all set up. I personally believe in the Patterson footage.
[right][snapback]518556[/snapback][/right]

I also believe the Patterson film was authentic! Ok what about the Yeti? Do you think it exists?

Mysteryman

Mar 9 2005, 10:10 PM

Well basically the Yeti is the samething obviously, but titled for a different area. Otherwise, I totally believe it exists - as long as it has a dense place and unpopulated place to live and hide and stay away from their worst enemies, humans.

Fable

Mar 9 2005, 11:28 PM

I've taken the time to try and analyze the pictures as much as possible. Trying to void out the mass of surrounding trees, this is the best that could be determined. Basically, you can't make out a true muscular structure, that in itself makes it almost impossible to try and verify what this is. However, if it is a hoax, it was very nicely done. The creature appears to have large mats of hair on his body resulting from the forest environment. If you look at his legs, you can make out a few of them hanging off. The first picture is the hardest to make anything out of other than a large black hulk. The photos on page three are somewhat better. Although the first one is very limited by branch obstruction, the second and third pictures offer a little more. It appears that the creature is in what would be considered a normal 'gorilla' stance. Perhaps I am looking to much into it but, it seems that the forearms and hands are quite visable. You can make out the way the hands are formed sitting on the ground. The fingers appear to be once again curled into the walking position of a gorilla. The last photo gives a better visual of what the physical structure of the creature looks like. You can make out the mats a bit more.. as well as the way the feet are positioned on the ground. It's a shame that the photographer didn't return to the site afterwards to try and find some type of physical evidence. Feet casts are pretty crucial.

It's a pity that there isn't a way of photographing something now without having high speculation that it is a complete and utter hoax. With great costume effects, makeup and photoshopping techniques, anything can be created. However, I am not truly convinced that this is a hoax. If so, it's quite elaborate and well done.

Zepher_One

Mar 9 2005, 11:41 PM

QUOTE(Fable @ Mar 9 2005, 07:28 PM)

I've taken the time to try and analyze the pictures as much as possible. Trying to void out the mass of surrounding trees, this is the best that could be determined. Basically, you can't make out a true muscular structure, that in itself makes it almost impossible to try and verify what this is. However, if it is a hoax, it was very nicely done. The creature appears to have large mats of hair on his body resulting from the forest environment. If you look at his legs, you can make out a few of them hanging off. The first picture is the hardest to make anything out of other than a large black hulk. The photos on page three are somewhat better. Although the first one is very limited by branch obstruction, the second and third pictures offer a little more. It appears that the creature is in what would be considered a normal 'gorilla' stance. Perhaps I am looking to much into it but, it seems that the forearms and hands are quite visable. You can make out the way the hands are formed sitting on the ground. The fingers appear to be once again curled into the walking position of a gorilla. The last photo gives a better visual of what the physical structure of the creature looks like. You can make out the mats a bit more.. as well as the way the feet are positioned on the ground. It's a shame that the photographer didn't return to the site afterwards to try and find some type of physical evidence. Feet casts are pretty crucial.

It's a pity that there isn't a way of photographing something now without having high speculation that it is a complete and utter hoax. With great costume effects, makeup and photoshopping techniques, anything can be created. However, I am not truly convinced that this is a hoax. If so, it's quite elaborate and well done.
[right][snapback]518807[/snapback][/right]

Looking at the pictures of the so called BF over and over, to me i don't believe it to be a Hoax, but with feet casts there would still be some doubt i believe, as many have been hoaxed too, maybe some hair off the creature would be of better proof, as it could be sent off to an analylist, to see if it was of human species or Ape of some sort?

Fable

Mar 10 2005, 12:11 AM

Yeah, I'd love for there to be a good sample of hair to finally study. Seems like back a year or so ago that they had some hair analyzed, but that they couldn't come to a final answer as to what it was. If it was the same case I am thinking of, I guess it would have pertained to the Yeti.

justin

Mar 10 2005, 12:48 AM

Even if you have a bf hair(even if u ripped it from bf himself) it still wont prove a thing!

There are plenty of alleged sasquatch/bf hair out there! Lots of people have them studied day after day.

Since bf has yet to be captured, there is no way of determining if that supposed hair is from a squatch... It will just show up as primate hair or inconclusive because there is NOTHING to match it with...

The only way were are going to prove bf exist is with a 'BODY'

Mysteryman

Mar 10 2005, 01:09 AM

The hair could even trace back to just any ordinary monkey for all we know but hair does contain DNA and it just might lead us somewhere.

I once watched this program where a team proved how easy it was to forge a Bigfoot cast. Pretty amazing how easy it could be done.

Fable

Mar 10 2005, 01:46 AM

Unfortunately so. How about prints though? Just like we each have unique finger prints and foot prints, what about the sasquatch? From what I have read, it seems as if the bottom of their foot is bare. Maybe it's not much to go on, but it wouldn't hurt either.

Aha, a corpse or live specimen! This is where I become somewhat skeptical on whether or not this beast does exist. Even if a mammal of fair intelligence were to be very elusive, sooner or later something would turn up. Whether it be decaying remains, skeletal remains or even one that was still alive... something would have been found. Sightings are literally made by the dozens in fairly short amounts of time, and with a very rough estimation of these sightings occuring worldwide, nothing adds up.

Mysteryman

Mar 10 2005, 03:40 AM

Actually, you know I never thought about that. Casts of Bigfoot's foot were bare indeed. Their were no prints except for its big foot. But also that might be due to the way the cast is formed. When the figure presses its foot into the future cast, it might not pressing hard enough for exact details to be imprinted on it. So that is something you'd have to see for yourself in order to say that it does not contain any prints but good notice...

Fable

Mar 10 2005, 03:47 AM

Good point. Also, a lot of the time for a good print to be made into a cast it has to be really fresh for the details to still be intact. It's definitely a hard subject to try and make a conclusion on, thats for sure.

Zepher_One

Mar 10 2005, 03:58 AM

QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Mar 9 2005, 11:40 PM)

Actually, you know I never thought about that. Casts of Bigfoot's foot were bare indeed. Their were no prints except for its big foot. But also that might be due to the way the cast is formed. When the figure presses its foot into the future cast, it might not pressing hard enough for exact details to be imprinted on it. So that is something you'd have to see for yourself in order to say that it does not contain any prints but good notice...
[right][snapback]519082[/snapback][/right]

What we really need here is either a corpse or a live speciman to prove one exist!