NCBFr

Do you see something weird in this pic

96 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, MIB said:

That's the pattern recognition algorithm at work.    We are hardwired to take pieces of an image and compare those pieces to known patterns even before we have the whole image processed. 

MIB, I tend to concur. Doesn't lend credence to sightings, reports. YMMV

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

MIB, I tend to concur. Doesn't lend credence to sightings, reports. YMMV

 

Agreed ... but it shouldn't take it away, either, not for someone who is "critical thinking" properly and not just using "critical thinking" as a platform to scoff from.  Remember, sometimes there really is a tiger.  

 

MIB

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree entirely.

 

The human brain can look through a rifle scope, ID a target and hit it out to 2000 yards with the right equipment.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you responding to, and what that was said?   I don't see any connections, that's like asking what's "2+2" and getting a response of "butter".    Connect the dots, please, so your response has some relevance to the conversation?   Thanks, in advance ...

 

MIB

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think most reports are based on humans having their minds play tricks on them.

 

Incorrigible

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember, sometimes there really is a tiger.  "

 

Words to live by, to be sure.....

 

MIB-  loving the "butter"!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

MIB, I tend to concur. Doesn't lend credence to sightings, reports. YMMV

 

I guess generally one could see that conclusion as having merit. On an individual basis though it would be hard for me to think that this was someone's mind filling the blanks. It also in a sense is a sad tale if it was true that the creature was "ushering" them out of the area and. as the report says, not apparently trying to catch up? The date is October 19, 1959 and apparently occurred about 4 miles southeast of Tenmile, Oregon in Douglas county:

 

"Walter Stork (or possibly Peck ?) and Wayne Johnson went to place where Walter had seen a strange animal three days before. They saw it down the hill from a ridge they were on, but it also saw them and started up towards them. They fled but it appeared on the ridge behind them with incredible speed, then chased them, arms spread in a herding motion, apparently not attempting to catch up. They both fired at it, and Wayne stopped running several times to fire again with his 30.06. Twice it slumped until its knuckles hit the ground but got up and kept coming. At some point the creature screamed. The boys kept running, until they looked back and it was no longer there. A week later Bob Titmus interviewed them and went to the site, where he found clear footprints coming up the hillside, 5 toes, 8 inches wide, but only 11.5 inches long, with 5-inch-wide heels. Most of the tracks were an inch deep, but where there was a wet area on the side of the hill they sank 14 inches. Bob could sink a heel print only two or three inches there by jumping downhill, and in other places he left no prints at all. Casts made. Down in the valley he found a bed of crushed vegetation 12 feet across at the site with a very strong smell. Site referred to on file card as Porter Hill."

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MIB said:

Remember, sometimes there really is a tiger.  

MIB

.....or a bigfoot.

 

I had one caught right in the middle of a big open pasture, on the night of a full moon, with a good video camera, gen 3 night vision & a 3X lens. The only problem was that she was keeping herself directly between me & the only tree in that part of the pasture, & I fell for it. I looked at her for a few seconds, & decided she was the tree trunk. If I had known what she was & waited, she would have had to do something to get away & it would have been an amazing piece of video. As it was, I got 22 seconds of her standing there, looking like a tree trunk, turning around & backing up, & probably telling me that there was nothing to see there & to turn the camera off. Which is exactly what happened.

 

I didn't even give it anymore thought until the next afternoon. When I finally looked at it on the TV, that tree trunk could be plainly seen with two arms & two legs, & moving all around until the film stopped.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations Sasfooty! And what a surprise it must have been for you too. It would seem that this disguise-by-using-natural -objects stuff has some merit. AND that they know it works LOL. Also the camera shy thing looks to be secondary to the Human shy thing. Thanks for sharing the experience. Nice piece of equipment too. Gen 3's aren't so cheap either. I have a Gen 1 with video but here in Maine I doubt I'll ever get to see one. Pretty slow state for sightings. Of course I have some questions for you but they can wait.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Butter"...almost spit out my beer ! haha !

:drinks:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one of the problems with photos is that everything becomes 2D once we have taken a picture. MIB mentioned that he didn't see anything until the next day when he reviewed his pictures. I'm thinking that nothing registered because in person he was seeing it 3 dimensionally. With depth of field. In the picture he posted the branches and sun highlights tend to create an outline that then stands out as a recognizable something in the photo to our mind. 

 

When I'm in a situation like that in the woods and think I'm seeing something, I will pull out my binoculars and check the image out. Usually with that resolution I can make out what I thought was a shape of something resolve itself into a jigsaw puzzle of bits and pieces of vegetation, light and dark shadows and differing depths of various items making what I saw as some kind of shape. The trouble with a photo is we can't do that, we are basically stuck with the initial impression. 

 

I do agree... Sometimes there are tigers. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, norseman said:

I do not think most reports are based on humans having their minds play tricks on them.

 

Incorrigible

 

Thanks, I was a little lost. 

 

This may be a little subtle, but I think we sort of pass through what might be called "mind playing tricks on us" as we refine our translation of the optical input.    It goes from "green splotch" to "green bush with leaves" to "green bush with leaves with hair behind them" to "green bush with hair behind them ... TIGER!"   If there was no tiger, if it was a goat, then our minds played tricks on us.  If we didn't process the visual cues as hair and stopped there, then our mind played a trick .. but that's less important than getting eaten.  

 

The mind playing tricks stuff, regarding bigfoot, is where we make a mistake at some leap in the process and are unable to step back and adjust ... say we fail to go from "green bush with leaves with hair behind them ... Tiger! ... no, it was a goat after all"  and run around telling our friends and neighbors about the scary tiger we barely escaped from.   

 

I know it's a silly example, but we do sometimes see that process among bigfoot fanatics who "need" to see something all the time, need to have drama drama drama.   We need to identify who they are and give our BS filter a little extra juice when talking to them.   

 

(Sorry, I'm rambling again.   Not enough sleep or something.)

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PB - Can you do me a favor?  Please do the same analysis with the 2 pics that are 1 day apart.  Those two pics are just enough off that it may be slewing your conclusion.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Thanks, I was a little lost. 

 

This may be a little subtle, but I think we sort of pass through what might be called "mind playing tricks on us" as we refine our translation of the optical input.    It goes from "green splotch" to "green bush with leaves" to "green bush with leaves with hair behind them" to "green bush with hair behind them ... TIGER!"   If there was no tiger, if it was a goat, then our minds played tricks on us.  If we didn't process the visual cues as hair and stopped there, then our mind played a trick .. but that's less important than getting eaten.  

 

The mind playing tricks stuff, regarding bigfoot, is where we make a mistake at some leap in the process and are unable to step back and adjust ... say we fail to go from "green bush with leaves with hair behind them ... Tiger! ... no, it was a goat after all"  and run around telling our friends and neighbors about the scary tiger we barely escaped from.   

 

I know it's a silly example, but we do sometimes see that process among bigfoot fanatics who "need" to see something all the time, need to have drama drama drama.   We need to identify who they are and give our BS filter a little extra juice when talking to them.   

 

(Sorry, I'm rambling again.   Not enough sleep or something.)

 

MIB

 

Bigfoot fanatics that need to see something are probably NOT seeing anything at all.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I have absolutely no problem in knowing and understanding what I see in the woods no matter how hard I looked and thought about what I/we were looking at. If something wasn't seen long we were in the woods that day, there is no reason to look back over videos and pictures to see if something was standing behind a tree looking at us a few yards away. It's a waste of time. Basically if we didn't see, smell, or hear it long we were there, then it simply wasn't there to begin with and no need to waste time on it..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites