Sorry Charlie slew FOOTSEE

but your speil is fishy and devoid of truth or facts.You may want to be E.B. junior but your not.E.B. took a lot of photos and posted them as maybe a bigfoot or too.But he used 35 mm film like I do.So saying I put 6 and 7 foot tall puppets in a tree is nonsense. My fiest photo was not supposed to be a photo of bigfoot,but one of his track.Since I had no camera,I returned to the area with an overpriced disposable.Little did I know that he had found the apples I left at the track site and when I bent down to pour the plaster he went ballistic.So the photo was not the best.#% mm film for clarity runs from 100 to 800 with the higher number used to catch motion and not clarity.So a disposable has middle of the road film ,lousy lenses and the one I used caught him in motion.So it was lucky just to get him on it much less in focus The one you are crying over is not the picture of what looks like a sog ibn a tree.But but of ma and baby bigfoot standing just to the right of the tree.For your city eyeballs it will be two roundish black blobs just above two furry brown legs,The legs by the way help prove it IS real because they are in sunlight and not shadow like the TWO faces above them.Look again moron.Even E.B. knew you can"t argue with a 35mm negative as proof.Also my motion cameras ARE DIGITAL with one significant difference,they have a hard drive and not a chip.Again you cannot hoax what is on a hard drive as it cannot be reverse recorded or subject to later enhancement.They are what they are ,just as you are a moron!