Comments on: Breaking: Romanian Bigfoot Photos

By: Cryptonut

Cryptonut — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:52:25 +0000

Six Million Dollar Man action figure, followed by otters. Seriously, no one thinks this is real, right?

By: i am sasquatch

i am sasquatch — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:25:34 +0000

O thats good… was this photo taken in Romania or on the set of “Strange Wilderness”?

By: Maer

Maer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:22:19 +0000

His toes look very clean. Clean abs, clean toes. This guy works out and showers afterward.

By: Point Radix

Point Radix — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:01:17 +0000

Why would anybody fake something that so obviously looks like a hoax? The fact remains that if this was a definite hoax, they would have at least made some effort to do a better job.

Fake or not, its a picture of something really there, look at the 2nd and 3rd images, first the images are almost the same, but in one of them the background trees are in focus (with the humanoid and earth bank out of focus) and in the next one, its the other way around (the trees out of focus, with the humanoid / earth bank in focus). That type of thing really happens with digital photography, especially when you are trying to get a shot of a moving object. That would be difficult to fake, and once again, anyone who has the time to invest in such a hoax would probably have a more ’standard’ or believable bigfoot.

The apparent ‘glasses’ are actually evidence of a prominent brow ridge combined with sunken eyes.

Overall, the implausibility of the humanoid in the image, is what makes this seemingly more authentic. Who would go out of their way to produce a hoax that looks like this?

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:05:27 +0000

I’m with Shumway…the last two look like a toy and the first looks like it was photoshopped in…nice Groucho nose and glasses…

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:17:51 +0000

I agree with DWA completely that we should not say what the creature should or shouldn’t look like based on what we THINK it should look like. After all we are talking about an unknown animal here. For all we know, this is quite a typical specimen.

That being said, it is hard not to chuckle when seeing these photos. To me, it doesn’t look real at all and I am of the opinion of some of the other posters here that these could possibly be pictures of a figurine. I’m no photo expert, but that is what these suggest to me.

By: Dr. Strings

Dr. Strings — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:41:27 +0000

It looks like a doll to me, especially in the second and third “photos”. No question it’s hoaxed, just a matter of how it was done. The background looks like a poster or some sort of matte painting (vinyl, canvas, toy diorama backdrop, etc.). It almost looks like a diorama with some photoshop work. Oh boy!

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:59:42 +0000

Whatever it is, it’s rubbish.

By: kittycatbandit

kittycatbandit — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:45:35 +0000

Since when do Bigfoots have a mustache and receeding hair line?? FAKEY!

By: ScoobyLovesJazz

ScoobyLovesJazz — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:25:46 +0000

I am going to have to go along with the other commenters and say that this is a shot of a model or action figure. The photos just look “wrong” if viewed as photos of a full size creature, but if you look at them thinking model, everything seems right. (Plus doesn’t the break on the “tree” in the first shot seem more like a break you would see if you snapped a twig off a larger plant?)