'Baby Bigfoot' caught on camera wandering through woods with deer

[psyche101]

Just now, Piney said:

@psyche101 Remember this gem that I made with that guy's fake picture to show actual size?

I do!!

I going to have to start posting more in the section again.

 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

@psyche101 Remember this gem that I made with that guy's fake picture to show actual size?

First thing I thought of looking at the pic actually. 

Troll doll? 

[psyche101]

More proof!!

Bigfoot babies!

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

No. You can prove that??

Let's not be hypocritical now, since when is the standard for your beliefs and conclusions, 'proof'?

[TheFightingHellkitties]

Chaka! 😂

[superman73]

8 hours ago, pellinore said:

I've looked this up (I'd never heard of Chaka) and it's prompted me to download the 2009 movie. 

Watch the original series,it's effing hilariously terrible.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

Um, you can't prove that Bigfoot or crypto deserves 10%

You don't get logic. Anything between 0% and 100% is a judgment estimate. 0% or 100% is a statement of complete certainty.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Let's not be hypocritical now, since when is the standard for your beliefs and conclusions, 'proof'?

It's logic. When someone's reading says 0% or 100% (as in this case) that is essentially claiming proof. If I claim 'essentially proven' then I will provide the evidence. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It's logic. When someone's reading says 0% or 100% (as in this case) that is essentially claiming proof. If I claim 'essentially proven' then I will provide the evidence. 

That's not logic, that's making assumptions and putting words into other's mouths.  Ever hear of the words 'personal estimate'?  You should since you've stated that it's essentially your 'basis' ('my judgment', ''all things considered' approach') for your beliefs countless times.

Or the other option it is logic, namely math.  Your meter 'measures' down to a whopping 2 significant digits, so if someone estimates that the chance this is a real Bigfoot is less than 0.5%, then it's okay to denote that as 0%.  See: rounding.

[Resume]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You don't get logic. Anything between 0% and 100% is a judgment estimate. 0% or 100% is a statement of complete certainty.

You don't do logic; you do fee-fees.

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's not logic, that's making assumptions and putting words into other's mouths.  Ever hear of the words 'personal estimate'?  You should since you've stated that it's essentially your 'basis' ('my judgment', ''all things considered' approach') for your beliefs countless times.

Or the other option it is logic, namely math.  Your meter 'measures' down to a whopping 2 significant digits, so if someone estimates that the chance this is a real Bigfoot is less than 0.5%, then it's okay to denote that as 0%.  See: rounding.

We’re splitting hairs but 99,5% says something logically different than 100%.

[+Hammerclaw]

Little Sean Mcgillicuddy in his Wookie suit.

[+DieChecker]

Looks like a set up hoax to me too. The face is what makes me think so.

[Bendy Demon]

On 7/14/2024 at 7:08 PM, papageorge1 said:

No. You can prove that??

Look carefully at the image. Tell me why, at waist level, you can clearly make out the edge of a jacket and when you look at the arms and hands you can also make out the slightly drooping sleeves.

On the ankles you can clearly see where the pants leg ends then there is that classic thinning where the ankle is then the big furry slippers.

Nothing about the image indicates any level whatsoever of legitimacy but if you are convinced that it harbors even the slightest mote of proof that it is real then please enlighten me.

[qxcontinuum]

On 7/14/2024 at 4:58 PM, Ell said:

Bear?

More like teddy bear 🧸 

[+DieChecker]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

More proof!!

Bigfoot babies!

No way. Thats an Orang Pendek. 😉 

[+DieChecker]

Here's the best full length I could find. The hands look very suspect to me. As does how framed the face is. And the feet do look like slippers.

[Dan Homestead]

Never mind

Edited July 16 by Dan Homestead

[Trelane]

On 7/15/2024 at 11:26 AM, papageorge1 said:

It's logic. When someone's reading says 0% or 100% (as in this case) that is essentially claiming proof. If I claim 'essentially proven' then I will provide the evidence. 

Nothing you rate on your meter is supported by logic, reason, science or facts.

[iAlrakis]

On 7/14/2024 at 11:12 PM, Bendy Demon said:

As I examine the image I can clearly see that this child actor is wearing pants and some sort of gloves. Looks staged to me.

Agree.  Plus the 'enlarged' picture on top of the original article is impossible without software to 'increase the quality'.  Been messing around with different steps for about 20 minutes now and you just can't get there from the original image.  There's just not enough data captured.

[Bendy Demon]

1 hour ago, iAlrakis said:

Agree.  Plus the 'enlarged' picture on top of the original article is impossible without software to 'increase the quality'.  Been messing around with different steps for about 20 minutes now and you just can't get there from the original image.  There's just not enough data captured.

Seems that a great many of these blurry photos are deliberately created so that you can't really do anything to it and the closer you zoom into it the more loss of image data occurs.

You can use your mouse to select the image or just hit Ctrl + A to select the image and you can more easily see the jacket edge, slippers and the pants. Furthermore if you look at the arm that is sticking out (the one on the right) there is a strange bit of brown 'ghosting' that looks to me like the 'bigfoot' image was taken in front of a different background then inserted into the forested scenery.

This is why I have learned long ago to never, EVER trust any image without question. Too much deception, hoaxes, frauds...modern technology and software makes it relatively easy to deceive the general populace.

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, Bendy Demon said:

Seems that a great many of these blurry photos are deliberately created so that you can't really do anything to it and the closer you zoom into it the more loss of image data occurs..

Your right and is the way are designed just like UFO photos.

4 hours ago, Bendy Demon said:

You can use your mouse to select the image or just hit Ctrl + A to select the image and you can more easily see the jacket edge, slippers and the pants. Furthermore if you look at the arm that is sticking out (the one on the right) there is a strange bit of brown 'ghosting' that looks to me like the 'bigfoot' image was taken in front of a different background then inserted into the forested scenery.

This is why I have learned long ago to never, EVER trust any image without question.

Too much deception, hoaxes, frauds...modern technology and software makes it relatively easy to deceive the general populace..

That’s certainly accurate, unfortunately there are still those who fall the BS hook line and sinker.

4 hours ago, Bendy Demon said:

 

 

 

[+Razman]

Also seems a bit convenient with the deer right there.

[Grim Reaper 6]

27 minutes ago, Razman said:

Also seems a bit convenient with the deer right there.

Yes it certainly does look convenient, with all stated across this thread I think it’s very to assume that it’s a fake.

[Kenemet]

On 7/14/2024 at 4:10 PM, Piney said:

With facial mange? 

Porcupine was my first impression, based on the hair.