new big fella photos

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:19 am

some interesting photos on this site :-) make up your own mind some of the photos have had images put on top to compare(patterson footage)

these images were added to the site this month :-)

"Posted by albertcrouch, [email protected], on Mar 1, 2005"

http://www.cryptozoology.com/gallery/gallery.php

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:32 am

i played around with the bottom photo, the one you can see its face. well i hope this is a bit easier to see

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:41 am

now i looked at the patterson still next to this new photo and does it seem different? as it does to me, mainly in the face. If i was to put money on it these new photos they look real, but you never know. Anyone here can compare to a our aussie friend at close range?

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:55 am

on another note back to the patterson footage here is a still from the same site of the patterson footage claiming there is another big fella in the movie where the red arrow is

Unread post by **Alex** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:11 am

Man, they're some good pics. Thing is, it's way to blurry 'n stuff to tell if it's actually a valid sighting, or just some nut with a monkey suit.

Were their any other valid witnesses?

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:04 am

the guys email addy is there in my first post who submitted the photos maybe someone couls contact him?

Unread post by **MAGZDA** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:24 pm

WOW!! Very nice pics. Looks real enough.

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:03 pm

Has anyone looked at that still from the patterson footage? claiming there could be another big foot in the forest?

Unread post by **angel95** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:44 pm

hello everyone oh my god great photos where abouts did you see that?

Unread post by **madineo** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:15 pm

Very Interesting...would be interesting to know though what the height demensions are compared to the trees nearby...
It seems to be pretty tall which leds me to think if its a mate in a monkey suit he must be a giant

On saying this though its hard to tell height from the photo's...

Unread post by **Buck** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:05 pm

Okay folks...

I'll go out on a limb here.

There is no doubt that we are looking at photos. What the photos can tell you...

The trees are real and I believe that there are no special effects used in camera or post camera.

Judging by the light and shadows, the direction of the creature in question is heading up the hill in a South West direction. This was taken with the operator below the subject and to the North of the Subject. I could be wrong but I've picked it to be morning not afternoon... I have no real evidence for the time... just a feel for the light. If I'm wrong just reverse the compass.

I think it is fall... or Autumn looking at the lack of foliage. The area has been logged in the past and there is some regrowth with tell-tale lichen on it.

If it was original growth I would expect there to be more lichen on it. Lichen grows very slowly...

Lichen is also a very good indicater of pollution. I don't think this near any heavy industry like farming or a large community...

There is a lot of doubt as to the origin of the species and the story. As Cass pointed out there is more than one source of posts from the same series on the one link. I've counted four... I think.

I had a go at calculating the hieght by picking out what though was an average looking leaf on the ground. This is a stretch I know because the detail is so lousy but I thought I'd have a crack at it.

My first number was 17' 10''... a stretch as I said... my next attempt was 10' 11''... I don't think either measurement is reliable... but it's size beggars belief anyway.

As to the authenticity of the photos... the most convincing was the set of three pictures close together showing something large picking it's way through the terrain.

There next bit is the the stump that appears in a number of the photos... it seems to be consistant with on set of photos taken with the subjects desitre to move up the hill... it doesn't really deviate... It is probably the best refferrence point in the set. Which gives some weight to the story of the viewer snapping away in a state of awe and not moving...

The least convincing is the photo of the creature at the crest of the hill... it appears a little convenient and staged...

Anyone like to concur or disagree? Has anyone got any other observations or clues to the origin of this set?

Cheers Buck

Unread post by **Stainmaster** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:29 am

i have read storys of Big foot looking at people, so who is to say he is having one last look?
Its like all animals they all are individuals. someone who has say 2 dogs one might run when scared and not stop and the other might run then stop to look into what had scared it. So as to saying it not real based on that it has stopped to look back, I dont know? i am on the fence on this one, as to other points i agree with you.

Unread post by **Buck** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:53 am

Absolutely Stainmaster,

If I were that big I'd look at anyhting I wanted to.

Cheers Buck - Great photos by the way.