New Footage: A Trapper In Alberta Canada Took This Amazing Photo Of Bigfoot

Bear bottom!

Given that so many people are still adamant that this cannot be a bear and must be some kind of unknown primate, does anyone think it's odd that there has been no counter analysis?

I was looking at gorilla and orangutan images earlier and thinking of doing a comparison - mostly to show why this can't be a Bigfoot - but is there any point.......it's a bear right?

The only thing that concerns me is leg ratio. If you look at a bears....then this photo, a bears hind legs will start out massive then taper off towards the feet. In this photo, I don't see this.

Woodwose wrote:Given that so many people are still adamant that this cannot be a bear and must be some kind of unknown primate, does anyone think it's odd that there has been no counter analysis?

I was looking at gorilla and orangutan images earlier and thinking of doing a comparison - mostly to show why this can't be a Bigfoot - but is there any point.......it's a bear right?

I think its 2 bears as well.
the nose area you show is what i think really gives it away. Unless someone wants to try to explain what it is in regards to bigfoot.

Detral wrote:The only thing that concerns me is leg ratio. If you look at a bears....then this photo, a bears hind legs will start out massive then taper off towards the feet. In this photo, I don't see this.

But does it fall within the spectrum of variation you can expect to ind amongst a species. The larger bear appears to be on the scrawny side, but I don't think that's enough to doubt that we are looking at a bear.

CMcMillan wrote:Unless someone wants to try to explain what it is in regards to bigfoot.

But why hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate if it's obviously a Bigfoot - as many people claim?

Woodwose, I think your outlines of the two bears are spot on and the most definitive to date. I always thought it was two bears and this reaffirms it.
I would welcome anyone to present an analysis that supports this being Bigfoot as well, but I think the majority belive this to be two bears.
Great job!

The problem as I see it is that only having comparisons to bears makes things look a bit one sided and I think it would be helpful to see something from a different perspective.

I'm just surprised that those convinced that this is a Bigfoot are unable or unwilling to put their case forward. Where' FB/FB when you need them?

Woodwose wrote:The problem as I see it is that only having comparisons to bears makes things look a bit one sided and I think it would be helpful to see something from a different perspective.

I'm just surprised that those convinced that this is a Bigfoot are unable or unwilling to put their case forward. Where' FB/FB when you need them?

I've read various other blogs regarding this photo and the general consensus is that this photo contains 2 bears. It would be nice to see the other side of the debate present something though. Maybe some people are afraid to step outside their comfort zone, and I can understand that. Putting yourself out there can be a bit nerve racking and there is always the chance an analysis can be off, or wrong.

I think as the forum grows and people get settled in, we'll see some other coming forth with their views.

Well I think that many Big Foot Believers do recognize something like this that just seems to obvious that its a bear in a weird position.
When I first saw it i didn't think Big Foot i thought Bear.

Yes SasquiNation, I'd like to see the forum grow in that way.

It's just a pity that some of the more vocal contributors to the BFE blog comments section don't make their way over to this forum and put their money where their mouth is.

They seem pretty self assured when it comes to the blog comments, so why hold back from participating on this forum?

On the plus side we seem to already have a good base group of forum contributors......and hopefully things will get better as the forum establishes itself.

Shawn could however do more to encourage this. I would suggest setting up a new forum topic for each new blog entry and then conclude each blog by suggesting everyone discusses the story on the forum.

That would easily sort out the trolls fom those who have something valuable to on tribute to the field.

Rant over

CMcMillan wrote:When I first saw it i didn't think Big Foot i thought Bear.

I'll readily admit that my first impression was 'it's Bigfoot'. That didn't last longer than a few seconds though.

Sadly I don't think a lot of people get past those few seconds, but it would be good to see someone articulate how they reach the conclusion that this is bigfoot.

I agree with you on that Woodwose but the forum will need categories soon so it isn't cluttered with several threads that belong in one category.
Arranging the BFE articles here could be done the same way. I'm sure there will be a few growing pains but I already dig this forum and the people here.

True, but I think that there should be closer links to the blog so that it shuts down the trolling and encourages a good dialogue that benefits everyone.

If further discussion is aimed at the forum the comments section will no longer provide a platform for a pissing contest and people from all sides will be forced to put up or shut up.

If everyone from this forum responded to the blog comments by saying 'take it to the forum' it would make it clear that unsubstantiated opinion holds no weight. It would force people to prove their metal and result in a much more vibrant forum.

Woodwose wrote:True, but I think that there should be closer links to the blog so that it shuts down the trolling and encourages a good dialogue that benefits everyone.

If further discussion is aimed at the forum the comments section will no longer provide a platform for a pissing contest and people from all sides will be forced to put up or shut up.

If everyone from this forum responded to the blog comments by saying 'take it to the forum' it would make it clear that unsubstantiated opinion holds no weight. It would force people to prove their metal and result in a much more vibrant forum.

I can certainly agree with you on that.

I like this photo a whole lot. When I first saw it I was intrigued, but the minute someone said "bears butt" the perspective changed like looking at the woman at the makeup mirror and not seeing that it's also a skull(until someone tells you and the entire picture changes) .

I pictured it differently. I thought it was a BF sitting down almost Indian style with its back towards us. The left arm was sticking out to hold up its weight and the bear cub-as people on here say that other lump is-was some other baby BF laying down or something. The head has a saggital crest on it where it was described on here as the shoulder or something else.

Gabeesh?

I think a lot of us interpreted the image like that when we first saw it. It's also a very common stance for gorillas (apart from the legs) and its worth looking at images to see why this can't be a primate.

The one thing that is conspicuously missing (if you think it's a sitting bipedal ape) are its haunches. The gluteus maximus is incredibly important when it comes to walking upright and you would expect to see that anatomy clearly defined (we've gone from talking about bear butts to Bigfoot butts ).

Instead we get a waist that tapers down to nothing i.e. the area where you can see a bear snout and paw.

Looks to me like a bear with a cub..My view of it

what makes me so angry, is the fact that the " trapper" knew this was a bears butt. after all it had to be moving around. so after finding this "amazing" photo ,they decided to become another internet hoaxer. hope they enjoyed their fifteen minutes of fame.

Couldn't agree more!
Myles

The funny thing is that it's one of those pictures you can see whatever you want to see in. When I first saw the pic I thought, "wow, look at the Sasquatch relaxing in the sun"!

Now that it is shown that it could be a bear I can tell and look at the photo with new eyes. I can see the bear I really wanted it to be the real deal because I know they are out their.