Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) You know what is more dangerous than a human? A human with something in their hands. Wildlife have been conditioned to seeing a human with something in their hand and they hear a real loud BOOM!, next thing they know their animal friend Bob is laying on the ground dead or dying/profusely bleeding. That and quick movements are enough for any animal or person to react in a fight or flight mentality. Don't believe me? Walk up to a LEO and make a quick movement toward the inside of your jacket...let me know how that goes for you. Edited November 28, 2012 by SmokeyMntnHooch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Although I have yet to purchase one of these, it seems that it might be a potential good investment, as it is a hands free device. Cap Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) After reading hundreds of BFRO sightings, I can tell you, I haven't read a single one where the witness was out looking for Sasquatch. It seems to always happen by chance. Like other members have said, the sightings generally last no more than a few seconds. I can only think of a few where someone has actually watched one for over a minute. With that being said, it also seems that when people see one for the first time, they are in a state of shock and often times scared. Taking a picture is simply not on their mind at the time. One last aspect is, many people just don't have a camera on them to begin with. Once you add these facts together, it starts to become clear that even if there is such a thing out in the woods, getting a decent picture of one isn't going to be easy. The most reliable way to get good photo or video of one in my opinion, is to actually go out there and be prepared. Kind of like Roger Patterson Edited November 29, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 You cannot have it both ways. Over in the PGF forum I'm reading posts asking WHY Patty walked out in the open for so long allowing Roger to film it so freely. So because Patty was filmed strolling along in the open it must be a hoax. And now I'm reading in this thread that a report is being called into question because a head of one was observed peeking through the fauna for 3 seconds......... What if the picture of the head was taken? In low light with brush and trees as back drop? Does anyone think this photo would convince anybody of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) ^Once you look at the circumstances surrounding the PGF, it becomes clear how Patterson got that film. Patty was on the other side of the creek. Running water blocks out a lot of sound. And Roger and Bob came around a bend. Any creature standing where Patty was at that time would be at a disadvantage when it comes to both hearing and sight. Plus Roger was ready. Edited November 29, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 ^Once you look at the circumstances surrounding the PGF, it becomes clear how Patterson got that film. Patty was on the other side of the creek. Running water blocks out a lot of sound. And Roger and Bob came around a bend. Any creature standing where Patty was at that time would be at a disadvantage when it comes to both hearing and sight. Plus Roger was ready. Nope........it's a hoax because he got so much GOOD footage! And all the blob squatch pictures are hoaxes too.........because they are BAD footage! Are you beginning to see a trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Lol I see what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Honestly, people just don't get it. When I had my close encounter. I could NOT move. AT ALL. I was fearful, startled, and had a ton of adrenaline. Honestly, even If I had my camera or phone in me, I couldn't have grasped myself emotionally and physically to even more an inch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Honestly, people just don't get it. When I had my close encounter. I could NOT move. AT ALL. I was fearful, startled, and had a ton of adrenaline. Honestly, even If I had my camera or phone in me, I couldn't have grasped myself emotionally and physically to even more an inch. Well, try pulling the phone out and you may get a grip on your emotions next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Azguy, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Many professional photographers are always primed and ready to go; they realise that capturing significant moments in time are fleeting and that you don't get a second chance. I guess it depends on what type of photographs a professional takes, but many talk of the "money shot" (no, not that type of money shot), especially photo-journalists, whose images can sell for thousands, even hundreds of thousands. The lady who made the report says she takes photos for a web-site and that she was hoping to get some "great scenic shots". I'm not sure whether she means she was looking to take vista-type shots of where she was, but that's the impression I get. Anyhow, this suggests to me that to get these great scenic shots she is likely meticulous and takes her time to get them. After all, unless she is trying to capture lightning or wildlife (we can rule this out) then there would be no need for her to be ready to shoot in an instant, I wouldn't have thought. She was walking in a "densely wooded area" and therefore she may not have had her camera at the ready when she encountered what she says she did. But I think the biggest factor in this is that she likely froze and probably didn't even think to take a picture. Yes there are people who take photos in war-zones, or those who take pictures of tigers close-up or who are nose to nose with white sharks, but these people are fully cognisant of their situation, and their job is to get these photos. This lady was on a hike and Bigfoot was probably the last thing on her mind. Not everyone is the same, I suppose. There are many people who claim to have taken footage of Bigfoot on their phone. Funnily enough, I've never seen one that appears genuine, to me at least. This report is compelling, I found it interesting to read, thanks for posting. Best regards, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Have some extremely clear sasquatch cellphone shots: http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160 Proof, far as I'm concerned. Professional photographers are always ready to take the specific picture they have been planning to take. Bigfoot ain't that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Hi, Those photos are nothing like proof in my opinion, but again it's an interesting report. As for them being clear, do you mean clear in comparison to other Sasquatch pictures taken on a phone? Best, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 29, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted November 29, 2012 I believe the answer lies within the sighting report of the OP: "She gaped in disbelief for about 3 seconds and grabbed her partner's hand. By the time she turned to look again, the figure was gone." Three seconds. I challenge anyone to uncap the camera, point and shoot for the cover shot of National Geographic in three seconds.... let alone fumble with your "smart" phone and get to camera mode. Add to the fact " I grabbed my fiance's hand, too afraid to tell him what I had seen. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I'm saying: Forget the idea of ever getting a decent sasquatch picture on a cell phone. It is not going to happen. Those photos would be total nothing were it not for the rest of the report, which makes pretty clear to me that they saw a sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts