Guest toejam Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 In Native American lands I often wonder just what could inspire tales of large hairy man beasts. The land was revered and imbued with spiritual overtones. Of course it could just be that a face was seen high up on a mountain top. I would say that 50% of the times I go out into the woods, I will find some tracks that make me wonder who made them... I find them in snow, mud, sand, dirt, doesn't seem to matter, but there is a common denominator other than a human sees them. I don't look towards the shadow for holding Bigfoot. I sit and wait. Cameras on tripods, binoculars in hand and a strong cup of coffee for hours. I love getting out there and often meet very nice and informative people. They don't laugh when they too are deep in the woods. So here are few pictures I have taken in the last two months in my study area. The Glacier Pk pic is the first time I ever saw that face shape up there. I put these pictures on my computer desktop and as a screen saver. I get quite a few people stopping by my desk to see just what I was up to over the weekends. So, these are from my most recent adventures. I won't share everything because after all it is some else's thread. Nice shots. Love the first one. Did you run these through an hdr process, hence the darkened snow? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I over exposed 1 stop, took three images on a tripod, ran it through Photomatrix, layered a multiplier, layered a guassian blur at 65%, then dodged and burned where needed. I also ran the images through a seperate pro sharpening program. I used a 10mp Canon G-1 for these images.. I corrected white balance with a light digital warming filter. Photomatrix runs around 100 dollars. The G-12 runs about $400. I shot at 80 ISO and made both jogs and RAW images, made at the same time. Photomatrix used the jogs, producing a 16 bit TIFF, then used CS2 to save for the web, remaking them as jogs at a 25% the original file size. The tone mapped TIFFs ran at around 160mb and you can see the file sizes I reduced them to. I use the Canon G-12 kind of like a grab camera. It is always with me on a single point assault weapon bungee strap attached to a R1 thread replacement for a manfrotto quick tripod adapter plate. This makes it very easy to carry under a jacket or vest, whip out to take a picture or disconnect to attach to a tripod. I took 239 images in about 8 hours at my study site. My study site is an intersection of 3 watersheds, about a 20 x 20 mile square area. It takes me about 6 months to cover the area, so I get to see most everything twice a year, which I try to do in inclement weather. I do this because tracks are easier to see and vegetation gets attend down a bit, I also get to mask my scent and sound. So I travel with the G-12, a 5D Mark II, 24-105mm lens, three tripods, one with a quick handle mount, and Leica binoculars. Sometimes I might take my Canon F1n, because I have more lenses for it, or a medium format film camera. I carry my big HD video camera only if I have a specific shot list I want. The G-12 and 5D Mark II shot HD video as well ( G-12 @ 720 though). Like I have tried to tell people, if you go into the woods to look for this animal, have an encounter or find, and only come back with the story... Shame on you. Not that I really want to prove anything and have one of these animals killed or captured. A typical day in the field for me is driving to several observation sites early to set up and wait for the evening light. I usually don't take pictures till around late afternoon, leaving me only a few hours of light this time of year. I am also on the west side of some tall mountains so evening light is my best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Tracker, I see the black one clearly, however I can't see the gray ones. Could you help? Interesting, as (so far) no other poster has stated they see anything "clearly." Yet you state you do. While I might see that you're referring to, I'd hardly describe much in Tracker's video as being discerned "clearly." A humble opinion, expressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 How many times have you observed the female in real time? 2 maybe some are same hair color so it's hard to say for sure? follow up question: (I'm not clear on what your answer meant. sorry ) On the two times that you observed the female, was it with your naked eye in real time or via later review of the video? What was the approximate closest distance that you observed her? 15' as in this vid unless she was in shelter or behind barrier as I went in? follow up question: So you have observed a Sasquatch, with your naked eye, in real time, at a distance of 15 ft? Could you see her full body? No, i just believe it's a young female from behavior mostly. She's very casual about letting me see her as opposed to the serious males stalking, protecting, hiding and peeking. The answers to the above questions will clarify that last one methinks. Thanks! Thanks in advance for bearing with me on my questions. I just want to be clear. Again, very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) How many times have you observed the female in real time? 2 maybe some are same hair color so it's hard to say for sure? follow up question: (I'm not clear on what your answer meant. sorry ) On the two times that you observed the female, was it with your naked eye in real time or via later review of the video? What was the approximate closest distance that you observed her? 15' as in this vid unless she was in shelter or behind barrier as I went in? follow up question: So you have observed a Sasquatch, with your naked eye, in real time, at a distance of 15 ft? Could you see her full body? No, i just believe it's a young female from behavior mostly. She's very casual about letting me see her as opposed to the serious males stalking, protecting, hiding and peeking. The answers to the above questions will clarify that last one methinks. Thanks! Thanks in advance for bearing with me on my questions. I just want to be clear. Again, very interesting. What exactly do need to be clear on since you've asked the same questions three times? I think I've been more than polite Sd. The answers is, both. T Edited January 19, 2012 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Interesting, as (so far) no other poster has stated they see anything "clearly." Yet you state you do. While I might see that you're referring to, I'd hardly describe much in Tracker's video as being discerned "clearly." A humble opinion, expressed. I guess JohnC, & Slab Dog are no others. Sorry guys Perhaps you and some others could share with us their experiences @ spotting real Bf's? thanks tracker Edited January 19, 2012 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I guess JohnC, & Slab Dog are no others. Sorry guys Perhaps you and some others could share with us their experiences @ spotting real Bf's? thanks tracker It always boils down to this. Okay, I grant you, yours is "bigger" than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) It always boils down to this. Okay, I grant you, yours is "bigger" than mine. Ah come on Inc, Point is, how would most know what to look for in the first place. Even one moving in the open in daylight are in doubt. IMO There's far too many experts in this field that's never seen one. General statement nothing personal. T Edited January 19, 2012 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Tracker, I have very mixed feelings when I see blobsquatch photos posted by a member whom I WANT to believe is seeing these creatures. The problem is unfortunately, that no matter how hard I try to see what you say is in the pic, I just can't make the leap to say, "Oh, there it is!" If you take this personally, it's not intended to be so. The hard reality for me is that I could have circled another five areas in the photo that would be, in my mind, candidates as well, based on the quality of the photo. I grew up hunting and spending a lot of time in the Florida woods, and was always told that I had a good eye for spotting animals when others could not. I only offer this information to say that I know when I see an animal and I know when I don't. In your photo, I have to say I don't. It doesn't mean they are not there, just that I can't see em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) In this case I do not think it matters what some people can see, and some people cant see in the picture/clip. It is not being presented as "proof", or intended to be "proof". It is part of a collection of evidence,combined with first hand sitings,foot prints, structures, etc. Tracker is stating he see's anomalies in the clip, and I agree. In the center the dark figure does seem to move, and even track the pan of the camera to a degree. Is it a combination of light and low resolution tricking me? It very well could be,,but combined with the other evidence Tracker has accumulated, the reactions of his dog, etc., I will happily view it, and find it interesting because its part of his research,and part of the mystery. He feels they where there watching him, and the clip is part of his confirmation, he knows the area,and feels there is anomalous activity there. I have seen many examples of this from other researchers. There is many who do pan clips like this,because they are aware that it seems to be difficult to pick them out when you are in the field. I often wonder if we should be pondering why it is that when we "feel" that sense of something is there kick in,and start filming, we later find anomalies on the video? Some examples of this are very difficult to pick out, and other examples are not as difficult. So making the leap that not all of them are tricks of light and shadow, and I am sure if you did some searching you would find some that make you go hmmmmmmm, then I wonder to myself,why don't we see them,even though we "sense" them,and the camera see's something? There may not be any Scientific proof in this,and its just a play ground of a topic for "skeptics", but you have to wonder if it occurs enough to warrant some attention? I think anytime your in doubt,pan the camera,you just don't know what you might get. Edited January 19, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted January 19, 2012 Admin Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) It is not being presented as "proof", or intended to be "proof". Are you sure? Tracker was calling for a scientist and was going to copyright his video before releasing it. BTW, where is the video described below? I know everyone is skeptical. I sent the vid to a few peers and I am ready to bring a scientist. And yea I shot vid with same old camera, sorry but I never expected anyone to be @ home. I'll tell you guys this just in case Dr Meldrum lurks on BFF? Please PM me Dr. I need a scientist at this stage. You were in Ontario prior and know about the Bf activity in the north. In the vid I see approx 7 Bf's. 4-5 in the shelter including toddlers and 2 adults in woods(sentries). One toddler is sitting on the big reds back and has feet sticking towards me. another at the back by tree i think? if only big red would just move a bit. But most importantly since the adults are just glaring at me from only 6' away is the toddler at the bottom right. When i look at him and pan towards him with camera he moves his head left and hides behind a thicker branch. Identical to Maine vid of baby in tree but smaller. Now I know i made some opponents here BFF but please consider that i risked my life walking into that shelter with nothing except my small camera and guts to get that vid. I am a family man also. This is 30 years of chase come down to 6:15 seconds of video and :44 at close range of a Sasquatch Family group in a shelter they built. Then i show up and walk right in after maneuvering around the adults outside. nice Edited January 19, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Seriously Tracker, don't say where you see them. I sent KC a PM to come look at it, I think he may indeed see more than you see, but if he sees them in the same places as you do on the tape, then to me, that is some indication that something is indeed there. Go ahead and send me your markers where you see them, and then I'll get KC to send his to me without either of you seeing the other's results. Then I'll post them together. Did this ever take pace, and if so, what were the results? I'm dying here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Tracker, I have very mixed feelings when I see blobsquatch photos posted by a member whom I WANT to believe is seeing these creatures. The problem is unfortunately, that no matter how hard I try to see what you say is in the pic, I just can't make the leap to say, "Oh, there it is!" If you take this personally, it's not intended to be so. The hard reality for me is that I could have circled another five areas in the photo that would be, in my mind, candidates as well, based on the quality of the photo. I grew up hunting and spending a lot of time in the Florida woods, and was always told that I had a good eye for spotting animals when others could not. I only offer this information to say that I know when I see an animal and I know when I don't. In your photo, I have to say I don't. It doesn't mean they are not there, just that I can't see em! No worries Most researchers/investigators don't realize what they are up against when they go looking for them. So I selected this one as my vid to show here on BFF because of the way they can stalk and hide. And they are a 100X easier to spot in the vids then in real situations! Tracker In this case I do not think it matters what some people can see, and some people cant see in the picture/clip. It is not being presented as "proof", or intended to be "proof". It is part of a collection of evidence,combined with first hand sitings,foot prints, structures, etc. Tracker is stating he see's anomalies in the clip, and I agree. In the center the dark figure does seem to move, and even track the pan of the camera to a degree. Is it a combination of light and low resolution tricking me? It very well could be,,but combined with the other evidence Tracker has accumulated, the reactions of his dog, etc., I will happily view it, and find it interesting because its part of his research,and part of the mystery. He feels they where there watching him, and the clip is part of his confirmation, he knows the area,and feels there is anomalous activity there. I have seen many examples of this from other researchers. There is many who do pan clips like this,because they are aware that it seems to be difficult to pick them out when you are in the field. I often wonder if we should be pondering why it is that when we "feel" that sense of something is there kick in,and start filming, we later find anomalies on the video? Some examples of this are very difficult to pick out, and other examples are not as difficult. So making the leap that not all of them are tricks of light and shadow, and I am sure if you did some searching you would find some that make you go hmmmmmmm, then I wonder to myself,why don't we see them,even though we "sense" them,and the camera see's something? There may not be any Scientific proof in this,and its just a play ground of a topic for "skeptics", but you have to wonder if it occurs enough to warrant some attention? I think anytime your in doubt,pan the camera,you just don't know what you might get. Yea it's just part of my personal collection. The bar is set too high now for vids to be proof. Besides many have the same or better footage as me but won't come forward. When your eye's fail trust your instincts., T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 "And they are a 100X easier to spot in the vids then in real situations!" If that's the case, Stevie Wonder will have a Bigfoot sighting before I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Most researchers/investigators don't realize what they are up against when they go looking for them. So I selected this one as my vid to show here on BFF because of the way they can stalk and hide. And they are a 100X easier to spot in the vids then in real situations! Tracker (bolding mine) Tracker So what do you think that means? As a guy who works with real time observation and video recorded observations everyday....I'm trying to wrap my head around that concept and statement. I actually find I see things (especially things at a distance) better in real time and watching it later on video diminishes the incident. In all fairness though...I am not video taping in the woods....however I am an avid outdoors man / hunter and I have been known to spot a flickering squirrels tail from 50 yards This is a serious question I am posing: Why do you think it's easier for you to pick them out later in a video as opposed to in real time? Are you trying to not look directly at them in real time so as not to alert them? Or are you actually trying to see them in real time but just can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts