Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Night Walker

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot (2005) Revisited

40 posts in this topic

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot (2005)

Photos and information:

"Most snowshoers or backpackers in these conditions would look different than this silhouette."

Interesting Photos - BFRO

Randee Chase (photographer): "On the ridge across from me I saw something I thought looked a little strange, so I got out my camera and took some pictures. Right after I took the first shot it moved or stood up, and I took another picture. It then moved toward the south, away from me. I had to readjust because the wind was so strong, and it was difficult to move because the snow was waist deep. I got closer to a rock to steady myself and took another picture. By then it was moving down the hill. I don’t think it was another backpacker or snowshoer."

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot - Cryptomundo

Randy Perez: "In my view, after spending an entire day with Randee Chase and going to the sighting location, there is no hint this was a hoax. Mr. Chase is a very credible eyewitness and not the type of person to be playing a practical joke in my view. It was obvious by having Randee Chase stand where he photographed Bigfoot, there could be no mistaking this for a man in a heavy black jacket... As a Bigfoot researcher for the past quarter century, I think Randee may have snapped pictures of Bigfoot."

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot Photos - UndebunkingBigfoot

Previous UM Threads:

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot Photos

New 'Bigfoot' photos taken on Silver Star Mt.

Comparison photos:

30shshz.jpg

2ajywr8.jpg

[source 1, source 2]

Notice anything unusual about the comparisons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigfoot in the photo is in front as you can see the landscape comes closer, I beleive this 'bigfoot' is only a normal man size. We need someone standing in the same spot to correctly judge.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if those hikers know the danger they are in? :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's no human. That's there a real bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's no human. That's there a real bigfoot

proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He came to me in a dream and told me that this is the only real photo of him. There's my proof.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly it's never going to be anything more than inconclusive. Folks are going to see what they want to see and no amount of red lines and comparison shots are going to change that.

From my perspective, I find it odd that Bigfoot, the most elusive of creatures that some claim have the ability to morph reality and use Predator-esque camouflage, would simply walk his huge brown ass across a white snow pack with zero cover.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What I notice when I compare the two photos is a prime example of most bigfoot body visual evidence.

(besides not being able to match up the two photos conclusively, because I lack the knowledge of how to do so (Are there GPS coordinates given?)

That is the clear detailed image that is the hikers and the monochromatic out of focus blob in low light that is an alleged bigfoot

Excuses abounding? Camera. Time of day. Nature of the beast (covered in hair from head to foot). Bigfoot was shivering violently from the cold and thus the blurred nature of the photo.

If poor quality visual evidence was the exception, we might have something to talk about. But it is the rule. Far too often it is the rule, for me to conclude it's all just coincidence.

Poor quality visual evidence as in -obstructed view of subject, poor lighting, out of focus, too distant, questionable backstory, no follow-through, etc

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randee Chase: “I don’t think it was another backpacker or snowshoer.”

John Callender (BFRO): “Most snowshoers or backpackers in these conditions would look different than this silhouette.”

Cliff Barackman (Finding Bigfoot): “The more I look into his photographs, the more I am convinced that they indeed show a bigfoot.”

Daniel Perez (Bigfoot Times): “there could be no mistaking this for a man in a heavy black jacket”

But why couldn’t the figure simply be that of a regular person? This is not really some isolated spot deep in the wilds – Silver Star Mountain is only 20km from the ‘burbs and is a popular spot for sightseers year-round.

Isn’t it most likely, then, that the figure captured was just a fellow sightseer?

But look at the comparison pictures – the figure is huge in comparison to the hikers!

bj5r9w.jpg

If the hikers are of a comparable distance from the camera as figure (which is what it appears to be) then that rules out some sort of false perspective where the figure is larger because it is actually much closer.

All who have personally investigated the case agree that Chase is honest and not the kind to do a hoax – and I agree. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Chase doesn't think it was another sightseer but nor is he convinced it was Bigfoot – he remains curious and open.

No chance that it is some other creature – canine, elk, bear. The figure is clearly upright and human-like in appearance.

So if the figure is indeed huge then what else – other than Bigfoot – could it possibly be?

Let us take a closer look at that comparison – notice how the curve of the hill tops don’t match up well:

10ri7n4.jpg

If you haven’t already - try messing around with graphics in the Raptor photoshop thread to get an idea of how to re-size images. If two pictures of the same scene are taken from the same spot at different times then those images can be overlayed and having the corresponding features accurately lined-up so that relevant figures stay in proportion. That forms a valid comparison.

In the Silver Star Mountain comparison, however, the curves of the overlapping terrain do not match up at all – the image containing the unknown figure is too large which then makes it only appear to be huge when it is not necessarily so.

[Next: the 2nd comparison]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zvvrip.jpg

In the 2nd comparison pic (above) the slopes of the overlapping terrains are aligned which indicates that the image containing the unknown figure was re-sized.

To maintain the correct perspective it is necessary to re-size 45 degrees diagonally so that height and width remain in their correct proportion.

If the image is de-sized only horizontally (left-right) then the figure would retain its height (which remains unadjusted) whilst appearing thinner. This is what has occurred in the 2nd comparison image which maintains the false perspective of a huge unknown figure:

28wij46.jpg

[Next: Bigfoot re-sized diagonally and aligned]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rshimh.jpg
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not really some isolated spot deep in the wilds – Silver Star Mountain is only 20km from the ‘burbs and is a popular spot for sightseers year-round.

o5usdd.jpg

https://www.google.c...1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about arm length comparison, NW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2sb055y.jpg

Arm length seems comparable to other winter hikers - similar bulk too.

However we should take into account the following proverb: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it must be a Bigfoot...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigfoot in the photo is in front as you can see the landscape comes closer, I beleive this 'bigfoot' is only a normal man size. We need someone standing in the same spot to correctly judge.

30shshz.jpg

I too think it is forced perspective. The trail leading down to the right seems about right for the scale of the "bigfoot" for a mountain trail. The grass along the trail also seems bigger then normal. Without taking the perspective into consideration we're looking at 4 foot tall grass there. Which, as a citizen of the Pacific Northwest, would seem very unusual to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The trail leading down to the right ...

2ibl24n.jpg

Although the trail along the ridge is covered with snow, a trail of footprints is still visible there:

2s7z0hf.jpg

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job!

Yes, of course, it's BF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2ibl24n.jpg

Although the trail along the ridge is covered with snow, a trail of footprints is still visible there:

2s7z0hf.jpg

Which all appear (to me) to be consistent in scale with the figure. More proof of a hiker??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most animals, at least those that are somewhat elusive, tend not to skyline themselves especially in broad daylight. Now bigfoot is, according to all bigfooters, the most ellusive animal on the planet with super stealthy habits at the least, and some sort of paranormal ability to evade man at the most. So, being the super stealthy creature that it is, of course it would skyline itself in broad daylight ontop of a mountain. Hell even deer avoid that most of the time.

Mike

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Night Walker,

The first photo in your OP, this one...

ssmbf.jpg

...is obviously not a bigfoot.

This photo, however...

ssmbf2.jpg

...definitely is a bigfoot. Notice the red circle around the figure, definitively identifying the figure as bigfoot.

:mellow:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this photo, however...

ssmbf2.jpg

...definitely is a bigfoot. Notice the red circle around the figure, definitively identifying the figure as bigfoot.

:mellow:

:nw: LOL!!!! You are a shrewd observer, Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree. It could be a bigfoot. I wish there were cleaner photos.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really makes you wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:nw: LOL!!!! You are a shrewd observer, Sir.

Why, thank you, QC. I had to use a special filter (MS Paint), and then clean up the image a bit - but once I did the red circle was clearly visible. It was then I knew the figure was a bigfoot! B)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are cool, devil-may-care type slouches also characteristics of a 'squatch?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.