Just out of curiosity...

Just out of curiosity...

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 1:09 am #1

<script language="Javascript" src="http://www.network54.com/Votelet/55195? ... \n</script>


Quote
Like
Share

Grumpy
Grumpy

February 14th, 2010, 1:57 am #2

but even these old eyes can see what appears to be two separate upright creatures, one with arms clearly swinging. I've seen many bears in that same area and none even remotely resemble these, when a bear stands upright the shoulders, head and neck just aren't the same but that's just my opinion.
Quote
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

February 14th, 2010, 4:17 am #3

<script language="Javascript" src="http://www.network54.com/Votelet/55195? ... \n</script>


nothing that, if it were a picture taken today and posted on the web tomorrow, would get much support from the BF community.

I think of that pic from who-knows-how-long-ago of a BF. When zoomed in, was just a tree stump.

Also, remember that pic of the Jeep and G. Shepherd? (MH - was that your pic?). I took a half-BF shape and flipped to create a monster......but it didn't pass muster. And that BF shape was pretty darn close-up!

So, in regards to the frames posted.....possibly BF? Yes. Without a doubt? IMO - No.

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 2:41 pm #4

Though it is clear to me I realize most haven't seen the film or animations as I have...but I also know a few would say they couldn't see them at all..I'll get a better animation if possible...the film person was moving at the time either to get better film or dodging bullets...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 2:42 pm #5

but even these old eyes can see what appears to be two separate upright creatures, one with arms clearly swinging. I've seen many bears in that same area and none even remotely resemble these, when a bear stands upright the shoulders, head and neck just aren't the same but that's just my opinion.
Like trying to slip a sunrise past a rooster...
Quote
Like
Share

Rick Tullos
Rick Tullos

February 14th, 2010, 5:32 pm #6

Though it is clear to me I realize most haven't seen the film or animations as I have...but I also know a few would say they couldn't see them at all..I'll get a better animation if possible...the film person was moving at the time either to get better film or dodging bullets...
Tree stumps don't swing their arms!
Quote
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

February 14th, 2010, 6:28 pm #7

True, stumps don't swing arms. But, two or three frames is difficult to judge by. Any debris in the area could, with a moving film camera and poor focus, cause the illusion of movement.

Again, could it be a BF? Yes.

Beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt (for my tastes)? No.

I remain conservatively optimistic on this subject, though

Only a confession by surviving conspirators (or other bombshell evidence) can say for sure. Let's hope that won't be too long off!

-Mike

Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 6:32 pm #8

Tree stumps don't swing their arms!
just to disagree with me...LOL...that's fine...I mentioned ignorant in a previous thread...these people are not interested in the facts that provide the truth...

People lie...film doesn't...


























Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 6:35 pm #9

True, stumps don't swing arms. But, two or three frames is difficult to judge by. Any debris in the area could, with a moving film camera and poor focus, cause the illusion of movement.

Again, could it be a BF? Yes.

Beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt (for my tastes)? No.

I remain conservatively optimistic on this subject, though

Only a confession by surviving conspirators (or other bombshell evidence) can say for sure. Let's hope that won't be too long off!

-Mike
Not only is there arm swing Mike...you can see a body the shape of a creature...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 14th, 2010, 6:59 pm #10

Quote
Like
Share