• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ChrisBFRPKY

Are Blobsquatches Important?

57 posts in this topic

Is there a photo that is not a "blobsquatch"? I was under the impression that a blobsquatch was the accidental image seen in the scenery shot or the dark form peering out of the woods behind Aunt Martha. It has come to describe any photo that is not clear and conclusive and that includes all of them if I'm not mistaken.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree partially with what most posters are saying here. However, if you are in the woods and hear noises, start snapping away and keep the camera away from your face. At least there would be a chance of catching a worthwhile blobsquatch.

The majority of the time they will duck down and hide behind anything if they see you point an object at them. If they see you raise it up and put it near your face, you can just kiss that photo op goodbye.

I take pics of hubby with the woods behind him. If they are watching, they can see that nothing bad is going on. Then hubby takes pics of me, same scenery. I've gotten some really good blobsquatches. :blink:

Edited by Sunflower
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a photo that is not a "blobsquatch"? I was under the impression that a blobsquatch was the accidental image seen in the scenery shot or the dark form peering out of the woods behind Aunt Martha. It has come to describe any photo that is not clear and conclusive and that includes all of them if I'm not mistaken.

That's how I see it too indiefoot. Any photo that's possibly a bigfoot rather it's blurry or a clear image, is referred to as a "blobsquatch" I'd love to see more images myself but the ridicule thing keeps most from sharing I think. Chris B.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started this thread guys to see what some of you think about the importance of blobsquatch photos. Are they important? It depends. If you expect them to prove the existence of an unknown primate into the science books, it's not gonna happen. Look at the P/G film. 43 years later and it's still up for debate about what exactly is shown in the video. And "Patty" as she has become known is fairly clear in the video.

For the skeptical, I can understand that blobsquatches are not gonna be very important. After all, the skeptic wants proof and a blobsquatch doesn't qualify as that.

For the fence sitter, I can understand that blobsquatches may seem interesting to look at but since they lack any definite proof, nothing much is likely thought of the blobsquatch.

For the researcher, ah for the researcher they're a tool. Not definite proof of Bigfoot, but a tool nonetheless. As an example:

Let's say you're a BF field researcher. You get a call from someone's elderly Aunt Sally. Aunt Sally lives in a rural area. Aunt Sally tells you she's been having some BF sightings happening daily and asks you if you'd like to come out and take a look around.

So you go there, interview Aunt Sally and she tells you every day at 4 o'clock old Bigfoot comes down the hill, stops at her apple tree, picks an apple, pops it in his mouth and treks back into the woods. The first thing most researchers would ask is "Did you get any pics?" If Aunt Sally says "nope." you'll probably take a look around for any evidence, finish the interview (and likely be waiting somewhere nearby at 4 o'clock) If nothing happens at 4 o'clock for a few days, you may even think Aunt Sally may have been having some fun with you, leave her a disposable camera and likely dismiss further verbal reports from her.

But now let's look at it another way. During the first interview with Aunt Sally you ask her "Did you get any pics?" and she says "Sure! they're not very clear but here's pics of the last 6 times he's stolen my apples!" After viewing the blurry pics you can still tell there IS something at the apple tree that appears large, hairy and bipedal. Now you're gonna ask Aunt Sally if you can move in.

So, to the researcher, I think Blobsquatches can be a very important tool. What do you guys think? Chris B.

Once you've seen enough they're backround noise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn right such pics are extremely important! Man, they have offered first hand scientifically repeatable & incontrovertible evidence that bigfoot are magnificent trans-dilus.. er I mean -dimensional, partially-invisible, and blurry creatures that wander our forests. tongue.gif

Maybe its we who should think of them as actually being clear pictures of blurry subjects? wink.gif

As once proclaimed by the Late Great American Comedian Mitch Hedberg:

1bab659992cbd97d78b36fb4bfb0727b36e988fc81540e7a2ba4260d4621fafc6g.jpg

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn right such pics are extremely important! Man, they have offered first hand scientifically repeatable & incontrovertible evidence that bigfoot are magnificent trans-dilus.. er I mean -dimensional, partially-invisible, and blurry creatures that wander our forests. tongue.gif

Maybe its we who should think of them as actually being clear pictures of blurry subjects? wink.gif

As once proclaimed by the Late Great American Comedian Mitch Hedberg:

1bab659992cbd97d78b36fb4bfb0727b36e988fc81540e7a2ba4260d4621fafc6g.jpg

they are a waste of time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since its my post you quoted, what a downer you seem to be! What happened, get coal in your stockings? wink.gif

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with everyone carrying a camera, is the "point and shoot" myth about the cameras. Point and shoot is great for football games, and picnics, but not for people who are trying to get detailed pics of something in the brush. You get what you pay for, imo, and you get what you deserve, if you don't study what the camera can and can't do. You have to really learn what it does, take it out, experiment, change settings of exposure, shutter speed, actually look in the eye piece and test the camera. You won't see a documentary filmographer, using a 150 buck camera out there. If you're going to depend on pics and video, for evidence, at least learn how to get evidence in the first place. My work in infrared is an example of trying to get beyond the point and shoot limitations of retail cameras. Every camera out there, has settings of some kind, to eliminate blobsquatches. Take the time and find out what yours does, before complaining that no one sees the BF in the darkness of that pic.

Scroll down to my older uploads.

http://www.youtube.com/user/grazhopprr#p/u

Edited by Grazhopprr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a fuzzy photo is useful to a researcher? Why not? Some times intelligence isn't perfect, and it's up to a researcher to put the puzzle pieces together.

It's the people that think their fuzzy photo is going to prove something that is maddening.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For entertainment purposes it's definately exciting. But if it's going to be used as any sort of proof, then a follow up picture has to be used as a comparison.. imo photographer standing in the same spot same time of year, same weather, same lighting, same camera, same camera settings, then compare. All other blobsquatches are as good as a cardboard cutout.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grazhopprr certainly has a great point. With digital options, if people would just learn the capabilities of their equipment and maximize it we could be looking at sharper images. Camera shake kills. With dig, there is also noise problems when you blow images up so .. you can shoot a couple stops higher.. than the exposure indicates. Practice with the modes available and make the equipment a part of you so that when that special time comes no proble on what buttons and dials and lenses are flipped through. You might only have seconds... If its nonmobile then even better..

just no free flying elbows !! with slow shutterspeeds!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with the camera statements. There is only one rule:

KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT!!

Most, if not all, digital cameras can be changed from multi-spot focusing to single-spot focusing, yet a lot of people figure the more spots the camera can focus on, the better their picture is going to be. Not true at all. My Pentax K-x is always set to center-of-field single spot focus. That way, whatever I aim at is going to be sharp. My film speed is usually set no lower than 800 ISO, and if I'm in the woods, I set it to "Sports" mode. That gives me up to 7 frames per second, and I can start shooting BEFORE the camera reaches my eye. That way, I might get lucky and get a good pic before Patty knows what hit them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blobsqutches are a kind of Bigfoot Rorschach test. Some will see a Bigfoot some will see a vague hunk of nothing. However the fact that virtually all Bigfoot videos and photos are blobsquatches it raises the question of the preponderance of outright hoaxes against the could be real variety of Bigfoot image captures. It does not bode well for the reality of the beast.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot figure out how to say anything nice here so.. lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0