Saturday, 3 January 2015

Bigfoot, or Big Tree?



Today I visited one of the Facebook Bigfoot groups and a discussion had started about an old alleged Bigfoot sighting from 2010, however, the video was only recently posted on YouTube.
If you have time check out The Genoskwa Project Ohio , it's a fantastic group.

Here is the video. It's a series of still shots. Link: Paranormal Central




This alleged sighting was also discussed in this video: Bigfoot Photo From Trail Cam





Right from the get go I had problems with this video. First of all, the titles state that the subject in the video is a real Bigfoot without a shred of real evidence or proof shown.



When I see marketing tags like these, it usually raises red flags with me. How can the individuals be so confident that this thing is a Bigfoot?


I watched the video about six times and left some comments in the thread that was discussing this anomaly. From the stills in the video I created some overlays to show what I considered to be nothing more than a tree, foliage and shadows blended together that gave the illusion of a large dark upright body.

Jeffrey Gonzalez from the Sanger Paranormal Society jumped all over me for my own opinion. There were plenty of  "LOL!!!", followed by other words with exclamation points. Mr. Gonzalez, as a last resort, started in with the expected ad hominem attacks. At no point in time did Mr. Gonzalez provide any further evidence to support his claim, save for this ONE photo.



If anything, this one photo helped support my assertions that this is nothing more than pareidolia.


I will lay out the photos down below so you can decide for yourselves.



Zoomed image

Jeffrey Gonzalez at the location


They did do a good job of getting the angle right in this photo but that's about as good as it gets in my opinion.


The next photo is a side by side comparison. Note the shadowed tree behind Mr. Gonzalez. Also, note the bright sunlight on the photo on the left. I believe this is causing a darker and/or larger shadow.



This gives a reasonable size comparison between the "Bigfoot" and Mr. Gonzalez. The scale of the two photos is a bit off in the above picture.

That has been corrected in the overlays below.






I don't have a decent animated gif program so I used Bandicam for the following:



So, is this a blurry Bigfoot? A huge bear? Pareidolia?  I'm sticking to my own opinion on this one but don't let that sway your own opinions.

I do not think this is an outright hoax but I do think it's a simple misidentification or wishful thinking...or maybe both.

If someone, especially those with a public platform, are going to assert that something is genuine, I would hope that these people perform their due diligence to rule out ALL possibilities before jumping to the conclusion that something is a Bigfoot.

I suppose trees don't garner much excitement though.

55 comments:

  1. I enjoy watching "Paranormal Central", hosted by Jeffrey, and this photo, much like most of the others making the rounds, is questionable. But, to hear the complete story behind it is interesting. I've forgotten the details, but I remember thinking,....hmmnnnnn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Convincing stories mean nothing. There's a guy out there who can talk for 6 hours straight giving incredible detail into his exploits of time traveling and visiting Mars for the U.S. government lol, but obviously he's full of shit.

      Delete
  2. Bigfoot pareidolia is a huge factor for many bigfooters on (mostly) Youtube.
    Without it, they would have absolutely no reason for people to click or subscribe to their channel or website. Several of them know that it is pareidolia, but the support and fanfare they receive from supporters and viewers gets them excited to post more and more. Knowing full well none of it is real.

    IMO some people (not everyone of course) honestly believe that what they are seeing is genuine and proof that they are experiencing bigfoot activity in their research area.
    They want it to be real so bad that most skeptics opinion or point of view is met with hostility and anger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Randy, could you post the 2 pics I sent you, on this site, for people to see?
      My pics are too detailed to be pareiodalia, IMO.

      Delete
    2. ur pics are a tree stump ds. get over it and move on, geez.

      Delete
  3. not suggesting any form of hoax but with an original image as poor as that there's little point. Can it be disproved, probably not but it should never be a case of these are Bigfoot until proven otherwise. People posting these types of images only cast a shadow over the whole Bigfoot movement. Pareidolia is alive and very active in the BF world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Randy, I hope you give Sasquatch Ontario your full attention. This "Mike Paterson" guy is a total dickhead, and IMO he needs his ass handed to him. Maybe you already have noticed/know these things, but here are some things I have figured out so far.

    1.) They are located in Hamilton Ontario.

    2.) I have noticed all the photos which "Mike" claims have been taken seconds later by Sasquatch in a "different dimension" never have a date stamp. Also the "arm" on the snowmobile photo does not have a date stamp.

    3.) he had a video of "toe splay" which he interpreted as a space between the big toe and the rest of the toes (idiot). Needless to say, all footprints since that video have been reverted back to the traditional footprint.

    Anyways, just a few things I noticed. I'm looking forward to you using your ability towards other hoaxers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DS!! Here's hoping to you bringing your pic conversation over here.

    My opinion-- I do not think you are a hoaxer. I think a hoaxer is someone who knows what they have is not what they claim to be. I think you believe you have what you claim you have.

    That being said, the face pics sure just seem like leaves. They do LOOK like faces(or at least the one or two I saw), but they also LOOK like leaves. My opinion... not faces. All of the tree structures are interesting and are caused by...who knows?

    But unfortunately, there isn't much debate to be had about them, and they are certainly not definitive proof or evidence of sasquatch. At most, they could be evidence of 'something.' But then the two camps minds are already made up.

    Anyway, I think its cool what you do, and the structures are interesting. And the faces, yes, can look like faces. And they can also look like leaves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a bunch Johnny! Thanks for the invite here. A few people were waiting to see my evidence pics, so I finally did a video, and I wanted you all to see it, but didn't have any intentions to have the blog "about me." Sorry, I was just responding to others.
      I guess I was a tad butthurt, because my research was kinda shunned. But I shouldn't be, because I'm convinced I've discovered what they do. I'm so close to knowing how they mark the woods where they live. I've compared the 4 pics I have, 3 of which are different locations. All have identical markers/breaks, all of them. I have 10 habituation sites, and all have the same markers/breaks. An open minded person like yourself Johnny, has to ask, How is that possible? Same group of people, with ladders, decorating the trees? Hardly, but I'm the nutty one, right?
      There was an upside down Y hanger, above the BF pic in question, I went and checked the area last week. The other BF pic, 2 trees over, had a large stick woven in the trees above it. These are BF markers (believe it or not) were above the subjects in question.

      Delete
    2. Johnny, it's been said that the Indians have writings about BF, and that they would witness a BF throw a deer carcass or wolf carcass over themselves, and turn into that animal (shape-shift)
      This is pretty far fetched, and I don't buy the interdimensional bologna.
      One weird thing though, In my 1st BF pic, it looks like there is a deer ear, or something on it's head. And the pic that you say is a leaf, looks like there is a deer ear, and deer legs half skinned, on the left hand side of the tree, opposite of the subject.
      I'll make a 10 sec video so you can see what I'm talking about, because I know you have an open mind. I'm sure I'm going to get jacked hard for this one, but like you said Johnny, I'm convinced I have something, and it doesn't matter what other opinions are.
      And for the record, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SHAPESHIFTING. They were probably munching on it.

      Delete
    3. Ok, Here's the short video.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNsNxYStdzs

      Delete
    4. stump squatch

      Delete
    5. Why does the software filter out everything except the face??

      Delete
    6. There's more evidence that my pics are real, as opposed to your "I think it's a stump"
      1) Dozens of tree break/markers are what led me to the area.
      2) The BF are sitting on the shady side of the tree, should be shade, not faces.
      3) There are markers/hangers above the area where the pics were taken.
      4) The one pic shows the sun coming in, and you can see half the creature, and the other half you can't. I have no control over the sun. I was in the right place at the right time. How could it be a shadow, if half the face is in the sun, then full face in total sun?
      5) The after photo's of the area show there isn't a stump there.
      6) My nephew who's 5 said he saw a white BF, 10 yards from where the pics were taken. He has no clue whatsoever that there are white BF! He said it looked at him, and nonchalantly turned and walked off.....again, he has no prior knowledge of BF behavior.
      If it's not a BF, I JUST MADE PAREODALIA HISTORY!!

      Delete
    7. MAKE SURE TO HIT "CC" CLOSE CAPTION ON YOUTUBE VIDEO....BOTTOM OF VIDEO, NEXT TO (*) BUTTON.

      Delete
    8. I have been reading the comments about your photos, DS. I wasn't going to say anything but it seems like you're getting emotionally attached to your evidence.
      You are refusing to dismiss all natural explanations. I'm not here to bash you, just here to give my two coppers worth.

      1.) How do you know for a fact those are Bigfoot tree breaks and markers? Did you see a Bigfoot do this? Did you rule out other animals, the wind and snow?

      2.) The shady side of the trees is a mix of shade, the tree, leaves and branches but that is my opinion. Extreme zoom distorts photos and aids in creating pareidolia.

      3.) You do not know for a fact those are marker made by A Bigfoot.

      4.) I honestly do not see a clear image of an upright bipedal humanlike primate.

      5.) Where is the after photo? Where you there at the same time of day, under the same conditions, at the same distance and correct angle?

      I think you're a good guy DS, and I wouldn't call you a hoaxer. I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance with your new evidence.
      Absolutely every natural explanation must be ruled out first before anything can be attributed to Bigfoot or any other unproven entity. You have to be objective.

      Like I said earlier, this is not meant as disrespect. I decided to leave a comment in order to try to help.

      I come across tree breaks every single time I go out. I come across "structures" and I even have my own pareidolia photos that viewers sent me.

      If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be your own worst critic. Posting evidence is fine but I would refrain from making definitive statements with regards to said evidence.

      Delete
    9. Thanks my friend.
      I am emotionally attached to my evidence, I honestly spend so much time scouting, learning, comparing, measuring, and documenting everything. There are too many structures that rule out people, unless the fire department is driving their trucks with their tall ladders through the woods. I have not witnessed any of these BF making these structures, it is an assumption on my part, but an accurate on at that. I have ruled out snow fall, I don't take those pics, because snow can't ram a tree into the ground, it just bends it over. The intricateness of the weaves, shows intelligence. There is a physics trick, I wish I could show you, using levers, and I find this in the woods! This is literally mind blowing to me! Wind cannot intricately weave formations like the pics I've shown. The one weave is 10 feet up, and woven through 5 trees, 5!!!!!
      When people were calling me a hoaxer on your other site, I was going to say that "Randy thinks it's Pareodalia, but I bet he will say I'm not a hoaxer!" And I was correct, and I'm not. (Even though that's what hoaxers say, lol, sheez)
      The after photo was not taken at the same time, it was taken this winter. I Just took the pic in Aug, so I have to wait til next Aug to replicate it. But taking the pic in the winter, took out all of the foliage, and not I could walk directly to the spots. There was an upside down "Y" hanger, DIRECTLY above where the face pic was, and a weave at the other tree were the other BF pic was. 2 coincidences? 2 Pareodalia's? Possible I guess, but highly unlikely (Trying to be my own critic) :-)

      Delete
    10. Ok, here's a challenge! If there are BF sightings in your area, find a tree stand in the woods, and I'll be willing to bet there is a 2-3 foot stick, about baseball bat size, with both ends visibly broke, within 10-20 yards around the stand. This is a BF marker, I've seen this at every stand I've looked!
      Also find a buck rub, and I'll bet anything, there is a "Y" hanger in the tree above it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    11. I have a question for you, and the skeptics.

      Why don't I find any of this evidence is residential areas? They have wind and snow there too. No hangers, no markers, no breaks, by homes. Only in the woods. Anyone care to answer that?

      Delete
  6. As usual Randy you are spot on with you analysis. I watch the ParaBreakdown channel on YouTube he does breakdowns of bigfoot videos. It would be awesome if you two teamed up. Then hoaxers would have such a hard time! (Or they would really have to work for it)

    I am coming to this blog from your Dyer blog. You are awesome! Thanks for all your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  7. DS I'm glad your over here, the Wolf's are hungry back at BT. They haven't had enough RickyDicky input lately so they were turning on you. Keep trying and you'll get that clear pic. BF (JamesinSFL)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks bro, you're 100% right about the wolves! But I don't think they really mean I'll will toward me, just venting from no Dyer.

      Delete
  8. "Why don't I find any of this evidence is residential areas? They have wind and snow there too. No hangers, no markers, no breaks, by homes. Only in the woods. Anyone care to answer that?"

    because people always say bigfoot is this elusive creature and will do whatever it takes to remain hidden, THEREFORE someone wanting to doctor up evidence will do so in the woods and not in a residential area to make it more realistic I guess?. I mean if I were going to create fake evidence I would do it in the woods because its more believable to gullible armchair squatchers. Until someone comes up with a CLEAR pic or a real body, bigfoot is nothing more than a myth. As for your vid DS, its a stump and leaves, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So explain why these markers ate the same in Oh, PA, MI, AL, and other States?? Just had someone tell me he saw identical structures off the highway in Kentucky??
      Saying that people are doing this is HILARIOUS!! I'm one of the only researchers studying this phenomena....... SO PEOPLE ARE ON TO ME HUH, DECORATING THE WOODS JUST FOR ME??? ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS MY FRIEND! I appreciate someone attempting to answer the question.

      Delete
    2. lol I guess you are the only person in one state trying to push a stump squatch photo. 5 second google search shows identical images of these blair witch structures so if I was someone trying to convince people of my claim and needed to spruce it up a bit, I could reference the other 5 million blair witch structure images on google. and its even more amazing how we have ALL these structure photos yet NOT ONE SINGLE bigfoot photo. let me rephrase that, we have 5 million CRYSTAL CLEAR blair witch stick structures and 5 million 18th century photo clarity bigfoot photos. why is that DS? do you squatchers use a 50 billion mega pixel camera to take pictures of the sticks and then set up your "camera obscura" and hope bigfeet strolls by and snap the pic? lol

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure what these Blair witch pics are you're talking about? Maybe post a link? Its been said that you cannot film BF in digital, only analog. I just bought a $1000 camera with night vision, and had a deer 50 yards away and could not see it!! I could see with plain eyes, but deer looked almost invisible with digital camera!?
      I have BF pics, you just don't believe it. I ran the pics through high resolution software that filters out all shadows, how could a face still appear? I'll make another video later tonight, with some of the filtered pics.

      Delete
    4. NEW SHORT VIDEO.
      Shows a couple pics of BF syllabic (sticks they use on the ground to communicate) I put down 20 of these patterns, and 17 have been changed!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp6INyYRWw

      Delete
    5. blair witch sticks meaning all the structures or whatever you call them. amazing how everything BUT bigfeet pics are crystal clear. saying you cant film bg in digital is complete bologna. and you have bf pics, blurry stumps. you should probably take that 1000 dollar camera back if you couldn't see that deer. my 2003 piece of shit Kodak digital camera takes wonderful non blurry wildlife pics lol. the blurry photo thing is just an excuse and I could go on for days about that but I wont.

      Delete
    6. You haven't taken a BF pic ever, so how would you know how they turn out on film??
      I recommend watching Sasquatch Ontario new documentary!! Its almost 2 hours long. He claims some really out there stuff, makes me look normal, I'll say that much! He claims BF are going in and out of dimensions, and the BF told them that, and that's why they are blurry on film, whoa!
      It almost seems like he has demonic activity going on, and BF? I haven't witnesses any of his magical claims myself.

      Delete
    7. BTW, I didn't say you couldn't film in digital, other researchers make that claim, but I can see what they mean. If its out in the open, great footage, but if blended in with bushes, can't see it. If you had a high quality camera, you'd see what I mean.

      Delete
    8. so you are telling me a ten year old 50 dollar Kodak digital camera takes better pics than a new 1000 dollar camera? hmm. and no I havnt taken a bf pic neither has anyone else, stop kidding yourself ds. I go back to my original statement, it amazes me how you guys try and push these blurry bf pics, and I mean ALL of you, yet the sticks and fake footprints etc are always crystal clear. i mean wouldn't bigfeet leave blurry footprints and blurry hairs too? please let me know what make camera you paid 1k for so that i stay away from that model, i mean it cant even take a clear pic off a deer.

      Delete
    9. if bigfeet is supposed to be this highly intelligent, elusive beast then whats the need to draw attention to themselves by building sticks by the road? are there retarded bigfeets just like humans or what?

      Delete
    10. No one is looking for thee markers, except the BF. No one notices these, or thinks they're from wind.

      Delete
  9. Hmm, maybe just maybe its easyer to get a clear pic of stick structure since there not moving or trying to hide. BF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that's a thought, except every single bigfoot pic is blurry. makes you wonder how people get clear pictures of other animals running, jet planes flying, nascar races etc etc. hmmm

      Delete
    2. I think every squatcher uses the exact same camera that takes great pictures of everything like a cheetah running, a f 16 flying and what not but when if comes to bigfoot its just a big blur. its almost like the squatcher is trying to hide something, or umm doctor something up. hmmm

      Delete
    3. It has something to do with their hair I believe. I do not believe the inter dimensional crap, that makes pics blurry. I speak from experience about high quality cameras, don't knock it til you try for yourself, I have!

      Delete
    4. But I have a remedy up my sleeve!! They make x-ray vision lens for my camera! You can see tattoos right through multiple layers of clothing! I'm banking on this filter to see through foliage, and see BF hiding!

      Delete
    5. "I speak from experience about high quality cameras, don't knock it til you try for yourself, I have!"

      ds, you are not making sense here. are you saying the reason your deer pic is blurry is because you used a high quality camera? I can take a pic with my 99 cent phone and get a clear pic of a deer. what are you trying to say??

      Delete
    6. I wished I didn't delete the video. The deer looked like a hologram in the camera, I could not find it, but could see it through the bushes with naked eye. I emailed another research her and told him what happened. He said, yep, he sees same problem, and recommended analog. If a deer is in the open, sure my camera can see tics on its back, but put it in she brush, and good luck! The deer are always at the end of my street, so I'llget another video and show you what iI mean.

      Delete
    7. PART 3, MOVE EVIDENCE!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvNnTyMTngk

      Delete
    8. hmm, odd. google "deer in brush pic" and there are thousands of clear pics. like someone else mentioned, this blurry pic thing is just an excuse. to each his own.

      Delete
    9. You guys crack me up. This was a VIDEO in winter in the brush. Yeah There are probably a thousand videos showing a deer, but I couldn't see this particular deer. Not making excuses, not making it up, I just couldn't see it! It was 50 yards away, and I didn't see it until it moved! And when it did, it looked like a hologram. Say what you want, just relaying what happened that day.

      Delete
    10. so your 1000 dollar camera is junk then. id take it back. what model is it so that I know not to buy one.

      Delete
    11. No, it's rated top for 2015! The zoom is incredible, stays focused the entire zoom! The stability is beyond incredible, and the night vision is decent. The picture quality is 1080p at 60 frames per sec.
      I'll make another video when I see the deer, and show you.

      Delete
    12. yet you cant see a deer lol. what model is it? its been asked like four times now...

      Delete
    13. I FOUND THE DEER VIDEO!
      Ok, now you'll see what I mean.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghlTKLzbwFs

      Delete
    14. lol you can clearly see the deer the second it moves, other than that its hidden behind the tree and brush, natural camo for any woodland creature but it wasn't blurry at all. you said you couldn't see a deer in night vision though??? and what model camera are you using??

      Delete
    15. If you look at EXACTLY what I said, I said I couldn't see it until it moved with the camera, but I could see it the entire time with plain eyes. When it finally moved it looked like a hologram, natural camo, exactly!
      I never said anything about filming with the night vision. You can see it was not the camera...it was the winter surroundings, and the camo of the deer.
      Camera + accessories + IR pass filters + IR flashlight, $1000

      http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-HC-W850K-Recording-Camcorder-Filters/dp/B00JRD3GFW

      Delete
    16. you said something about nigh tvision up there somewhere lol. and I didn't look like a hologram at all, it looked like a clear pic of a dear. anyone can hide behind a tree and brush and not be seen, that's not the issue. the fake blurry photos are the issue.

      Delete
    17. Blurry a little, fake, not a chance! When I zomed in on the deer it almost seemed transparent, like a hologram.
      If you think I filmed leaves that's your opinion my friend, and I respect that, but don't use the word fake, at least respect my research, and my opinions, it's fine to disagree, but when your out trying to prove this, and someone says "fake" it's very disheartening.

      Delete
    18. DS, every singe person here that looked at it says it leaves. only you and this "severe skeptic" that showed up all of a sudden think its not. let me say the only person that you are trying to convince is yourself, we already know its leaves and a stump. its probably time to move on from that footage and work on getting somemore blurry images. it you cant handle the criticism then this aint the thing for you cause since no one ever has produced a clear image or body of a bigfoot, well then you get the idea.

      Delete
    19. It's about a 50/50 split with people here...and 100% to people I show in person.
      The severe skeptic slipped on ice, and made an appointment, what the heck?

      Delete
    20. BTW, the severe skeptic came in for his follow up visit this morning, and said to tell you guys that he is still a skeptic, just can't comment on my pic....I don't think he expected to see anything.

      Delete
  10. Could it be one of the lost heads from Easter Island?

    ReplyDelete