dopelyrics Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Not on a phone, no. But perhaps on another camera. Let's hope so. Yes, it's possible they saw a Sasquatch, too. Unless they are lying for some reason. Best, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest azguy Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Have some extremely clear sasquatch cellphone shots: http://bfro.net/GDB/...rt.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. DWA, interesting pictures and thanks for the link. But really, one cannot even start to think that's a BF. Just not sharp or clear enough but really, really interesting. Especailly the reported size. Funny, don't you think, no footprints or pictures of prints and the witness said they could find no evedinace of a path, trail or where it had walked or entered or exits the road. It also looks like it clearly was walking on all fours and the witness clearly went out of his way to say it wasn't. It doesn't look like a bear to me, but I guess anything is possible. It's a very cool link and interesting encounter. Again, if it was me, I would have trail cams all over the area in a few days flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 DWA, interesting pictures and thanks for the link. But really, one cannot even start to think that's a BF. Just not sharp or clear enough but really, really interesting. Especailly the reported size. Funny, don't you think, no footprints or pictures of prints and the witness said they could find no evedinace of a path, trail or where it had walked or entered or exits the road. It also looks like it clearly was walking on all fours and the witness clearly went out of his way to say it wasn't. It doesn't look like a bear to me, but I guess anything is possible. It's a very cool link and interesting encounter. Again, if it was me, I would have trail cams all over the area in a few days flat. Well my point (made a bit sarcastically) was: this is what you get with all that newfangled tech that's gonna prove Bigfoot on somebody's Sunday picnic. You're right. I would be all over that area with, er, ah, money and, um, well, time. Which is the problem, hardly any of either. The shots add something to the report. You can see that that big object wasn't there when they did the follow-up visit, and that it was moving, which rules out boulders, trees/shadows, etc. Here's another pair of shots that only make any sense at all given the backstory: http://texasbigfoot.com/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos You'd have to read the story and think about it to see what's compelling about them, though. By themselves, they're meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 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. Not to mention if she were out to get scenic or landscape type shots, she would probably have a wider angle lens as opposed to large focal length lens. So by the time it's cropped to the subject we would just have a blobsquatch regardless of the fabled megapixels. There is a big difference between shooting animals and landscapes. Different equipment,mindset and skillset. If she were using a super tele "knock around" lens like my Tamron 28-300, the better copies tend to be slow as rocks growing with the conditions she states. You end up with a shutter speed so slow that it's a blobsquatch even at 18 MP. Anybody that thinks it's easy to get good clear pics of wild animals really needs to invest just a couple grand in a half decent camera body and lens(most of it on lens). Then go see how long it takes them to get a good clear pic of a WILD fox,bobcat, or mountain lion. I'm not talking about a half tame suburban animal. And for the love of life don't use the auto setting or the auto focus. And at least read a little or take a class on basic photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Not to mention if she were out to get scenic or landscape type shots, she would probably have a wider angle lens as opposed to large focal length lens. So by the time it's cropped to the subject we would just have a blobsquatch regardless of the fabled megapixels. There is a big difference between shooting animals and landscapes. Different equipment,mindset and skillset. If she were using a super tele "knock around" lens like my Tamron 28-300, the better copies tend to be slow as rocks growing with the conditions she states. You end up with a shutter speed so slow that it's a blobsquatch even at 18 MP. Anybody that thinks it's easy to get good clear pics of wild animals really needs to invest just a couple grand in a half decent camera body and lens(most of it on lens). Then go see how long it takes them to get a good clear pic of a WILD fox,bobcat, or mountain lion. I'm not talking about a half tame suburban animal. And for the love of life don't use the auto setting or the auto focus. And at least read a little or take a class on basic photography. No. Freakin. Kidding. The 'skeptics' ' foundation in this argument is the society's inability to think through their 'arguments' of how easy this all should be to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA 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? If I had a nickel for every time a 'skeptic' told me there is no way a bigfoot will do that....lost count of how many sightings are made in open country. And yep, whatever you say, that makes it impossible. Too long a view, impossible. Too short a view, impossible. You say black, I'll say white. Which is why you can count on this. When I get my own personal discovery moment, even if I think of the camera, it isn't coming out. I am going to enjoy every second of this, and now I know, and I don't care about everyone else. See what scoffing gets you, 'skeptics'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 30, 2012 Admin Share Posted November 30, 2012 Here's the dealeo.......... I could have six Natgeo photographers in a studio with lighting taking pictures from EVERY angle of ole Mr. Squatch having a rectal exam with his Proctologist........and do you know what? Everyone would STILL say it's a hoax. Look.........forget a clear photograph........you have a clear freakin motion film of the creature taken back in 67. In a time when ape suits looked like this: If the PGF doesn't get your funk on for you...........there isn't a lot any of us can do for you. Cuz I promise you my 99 dollar game camera is NOT going to make you happy if one wanders in to chew on deer droppings. Maybe the bigfoot community can pool our money together and make professional photographers take a combat course or something..........we could shoot at them with paintball guns while they load their cameras? Or place them in a grizzly bear cage while they work on lighting and angles? I have no idea if this will help..........I'm not a professional photographer, but it seems to work in the USMC. This is why I'm so adamantly pro kill.......you cannot in any way shape or form argue with a dead body lying on the table. Would it be nice if a yanno Dna study fills the bill? Yah.......sure. am I holding my breath that this will seal the deal? Not likely. But I for one am just sick and tired hearing about how yanno people are tired of the fact that a clear photo hasn't turned up. We have three films right off the top of my head that show a pretty clear image of a big two legged ape motoring along. They are certainly clear enough to know it's not a bear.........or a moose..........a person in a fur coat. But could it be a hoax? Well........yah it could be a hoax. Humans do fit into two legged ape costumes pretty nicely. They even fit into four legged ones. So where do we go from here? Cuz I highly doubt there is that ONE elusive photograph that is going to make a skeptic a believer. If I had a nickel for every time a 'skeptic' told me there is no way a bigfoot will do that....lost count of how many sightings are made in open country. And yep, whatever you say, that makes it impossible. Too long a view, impossible. Too short a view, impossible. You say black, I'll say white. Which is why you can count on this. When I get my own personal discovery moment, even if I think of the camera, it isn't coming out. I am going to enjoy every second of this, and now I know, and I don't care about everyone else. See what scoffing gets you, 'skeptics'? I hear your frustration........ But I have a different plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just so I understand, are you saying that a still photograph will never do, regardless of how clear it is, because some people will always maintain it is a hoax? I have never really thought about it that way but I would now agree with that. I don't believe I have seen one still image of a purported sasquatch where I haven't though, “Fakeâ€. Or at least “could be fakeâ€. Can you tell me what the other two films you feel that are possibly genuine? Best Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just so I understand, are you saying that a still photograph will never do, regardless of how clear it is, because some people will always maintain it is a hoax? I have never really thought about it that way but I would now agree with that. I don't believe I have seen one still image of a purported sasquatch where I haven't though, “Fakeâ€. Or at least “could be fakeâ€. Can you tell me what the other two films you feel that are possibly genuine? Best Lee That is exactly what he has conveyed. It's the truth as well, sure it may change the mind of some fence sitters, but it still isn't enough. Look how many people still disregard known science for whatever reason. I can't speak for him, but I believe the Freeman footage is 100% real. The casts from the site were purchased by Meldrum and contained dermal ridges as well. That sucker was massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 30, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted November 30, 2012 Not on a phone, no. But perhaps on another camera. Let's hope so. Yes, it's possible they saw a Sasquatch, too. Unless they are lying for some reason. Best, Lee Only gonna happen with a long distance sighting, then it all depends on the Camera that is being used. For a close range sighting like this, that only thing that anyone's going to be focusing on is going to be the subject that you're looking at, and nothing else. Lee, it shouldn't be there, what you're looking at isn't in any book, TV program, taught in any Schools, Uni's, Colleges etc, it doesn't " belong " and you shouldn't be looking at it. Add the fact that invariably it's big and pretty tough looking and you then bring in to play fears for your own safety. Unless you're looking at one on a distant ridge or something like that and have the relevant equipment to hand, you're not getting a picture, certainly not as close as this was anyway. Oh yeah, and also, a clear photo will never prove anything, there will always be some who say " hoax " especially with what is possible to do with computers these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 30, 2012 Admin Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just so I understand, are you saying that a still photograph will never do, regardless of how clear it is, because some people will always maintain it is a hoax? I have never really thought about it that way but I would now agree with that. I don't believe I have seen one still image of a purported sasquatch where I haven't though, “Fakeâ€. Or at least “could be fakeâ€. Can you tell me what the other two films you feel that are possibly genuine? Best Lee The Freeman footage and the Memorial day footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renie Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I can relate to that, lol....How true, how true. Thanks for the comments guys, it's just frustrating when someone that is in the woods to shoot pictures, sees one and can't get a shot off. Maybe the rain played a large part in the camera being put away. I guess my frustation lies in the fact that with such a great recent sighting I would return, put up some trial cams and check them every week until I hit on something if I was the one that had that sighting. I would think when she said how scared and uneasy she was the whole time that she isn't going back anytime soon. remember not everyone that has a sighting is out to prove they exist. She saw, was scared and left. She was n the area for some scenery shots, not on a bf expedition. Now for some here who WANT to see and prove, maybe going back with trail cams etc would be in the future, but not everyone thinks "I want to prove it's out there." Edited November 30, 2012 by Renie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I would think when she said how scared and uneasy she was the whole time that she isn't going back anytime soon. remember not everyone that has a sighting is out to prove they exist. She saw, was scared and left. She was n the area for some scenery shots, not on a bf expedition. Now for some here who WANT to see and prove, maybe going back with trail cams etc would be in the future, but not everyone thinks "I want to prove it's out there." My sense is that the typical sasquatch eyewitness was a scoffer; has just really had their world shaken; and never wants an experience like that again. When one reads the reports, that is what comes out most often. Then there are those who want to see one again, so badly for some that they become researchers. Many report fear (to the point of running away) even though they could tell the sasquatch didn't have any hostile (or gustatory) intent. But it does seem to me that the skeptical take is that every eyewitness is a proponent who is putting the animal where there wasn't one. Reading the reports, nothing could be further from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just so I understand, are you saying that a still photograph will never do, regardless of how clear it is, because some people will always maintain it is a hoax? I have never really thought about it that way but I would now agree with that. I don't believe I have seen one still image of a purported sasquatch where I haven't though, “Fakeâ€. Or at least “could be fakeâ€. Best Lee I 100% believe no picture or film will be good enough for classification. Even with "unknown" primate DNA. Thus the need for a body. Some clear pics,I believe, as Bobby stated would move some fence sitters over. It also may clarify some longer range sightings for some people that aren't willing to take the leap publicly with what they've seen. It also may get more mainstream scientists to take a look if there is some good DNA. In other words I don't think they (pictures) would hurt anything.I'm only posting a little photography related stuff in a couple threads because there seems to be a widespread misconception about what game cams and cheap cameras are capable of. As to game cams, I've put entirely too much money in that trash can. I find them as useless as teets on a bore hog for taking pictures of what you want pictures of. Although in the proper scenario they may be able to be used tactically for BF. What I have faith in proving Sasquatch is real... Nosler, Barnes, Sierra, Hornady, etc. Or somebody stumbling across a dead one. Then the body not disappearing. Another problem (among many) with a photo is depth of field issues. Shooting at a high F-stop (low number) creates the need for very accurate focus. When stopped down (high F #) you reduce the depth of field so focus is not as critical but your shutter speed slows down. That creates the need for a very steady camera (especially in low light). Without EXIF data this makes recreations extremely difficult. It would take a lot more than the halfhearted attempts at recreations I've seen on various shows and described in various forums. What I'm getting at is that with everything it takes to get a good clear photo or video there is a much better chance of a bullet giving us a good clear look at a Sasquatch that would be hard to cry hoax at. I agree with what has been said about the emotions involved for an unsuspecting witness and that not everybody is trying to prove it. Then I factor in that most people don't realize they are going to be treated as crazy or a liar until after they tell somebody... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 On 11/28/2012 at 0:22 PM, Guest azguy said: Here's a recent report from the BFRO website. Here is a great example why I'm sceptical.....In the first few lines it says she was there to take pictures, professsional photos at that. Well, if I was a professional photographer I would have been prepared for the photo op of a lifetime. I mean, you couldn't really be hiking and camping in the Pacific NW and not have any idea that BF's may or may not be there. Even if you were a non-beliver you may joke about having "your camera near, just in case". etc. etc. That's a long post but here is all I need. This isn't a good reason to be skeptical. (This guy "wants to believe." This is not about belief.) An Ontario witness said that when you see one of these, you don't react the way people think you will. And reactions are all over the ballpark. You can tell this guy hasn't made a decent study of the encounter literature because if he had, he'd know these things. Patterson and Gimlin got their film because unlike most amateur researchers, they approached their objective like scientists do. They believed the animal to be real (based not on "belief" but on *evidence*). They went into an area from which much recent evidence had come. Patterson was so prepared to get the video they very explicitly went in to get that he got it despite being thrown off his horse...largely because that camera was ready to go on sight. THAT prepared. If you aren't...you'll be like the witness in the report this guy talks about. (Compelling witness. Compelling report.) When you see something that you knew for sure wasn't real...why the helling hell would your first impulse be to take a picture? Say the many witnesses who *had a camera ready.* For, you know, something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts