What Would Be Required Of The Optimal Bigfoot Photo?

[Guest gershake]

Kind of picking off from the most recent two pages of the "modern researches bypassing traditional acemia" thread, I'm wondering just how the optimal bigfoot "money shot" would look like. Saskeptic (for examples) says that one good, clear photo of a bigfoot should be convincing enough for some biologists to at least consider the possiblity of a hairy biped roaming NA's woods.

I'm wondering just how such a photo should look like, and of course how it could be obtained. I'm wondering because it seems to me that it would be very hard to obtain "the" optimal photo. (Let's disregard video for this thread, please.)

For example, consider we had a clear photo of a bigfoot from behind. Would that be convincing evidence to anyone? It seems to me that many of the clearer alleged bigfoot photos(/videos) to date (i. e. those that are un-blurry enough not to fall into the "stump" category) have been described as guy-in-a-suit (e. g. Freeman video). As someone on here said in a Patty thread, what if bigfoot just looks like a guy in a suit? (Not defending the Freeman video here.) Let's assume we had a clear photo that was objectively true to be of a bigfoot, and it showed its backside. Would it be impossible for someone to build a costume/suit that looked almost exactly the same?

Next, let's assume it was a front view photo, but the squatch was 100 yards or so away (sorry, using yards here because they're roughly equivalent to metres and I'm too lazy to convert to foot). Let's assume it was a not-too-tall squatch and later measurements of the area would show it to have been roughly 6' tall. Even with very high resolution, would there be enough facial detail to confidently determine it couldn't have been a suit on top of a mask?

Saskeptic also said of the photo of a robin that it was doing very robin-like things. What would be a very sasquatch-like thing for it to be doing on a photo? Twisting a tree? Slamming a hog against one? What if we had an ultimately clear, close frontal-view photo of a human-sized bigfoot that was just standing there not moving at all? Couldn't it always be a costume with arm extensions, a mask, etc.? What gives away that the sasquatch in any given still in "Letters from the Big Man" is not the real deal (except for limb proportions, which I assume could be faked in a non-moving photo)?

Any opinions or thoughts on the matter appreciated!

- Shake

[bipedalist]

Well I'm no pro but I'd say telephoto for 300 yards (less than 10 wide angle-zoom lensed) digital SLR with 12 mp plus, on a manual focused monopod under stakeout conditions in a known zone free and clear of overhanging/underlying brush, tree branches/leaves, heavy shadows, etc. at an optimal time of day say between 10:30am to 1:00pm to reduce shadows, maybe with accessory or fill-in flash on rapid fire multiple shot mode.

A squatchy thing to be doing might be attempting to tear into a log or throw a log at you (or a large boulder held above it's head just before the splash next to your small watercraft on still waters as you fire away at the squatch with SLR on a small sandless muddy or rocky beach).

[norseman]

Maybe a photo where the animal is packing a 200 lbs buck on it's back while holding onto it with one hand? Or ripping a large tree out of the ground? Walking over a 5 strand barb wire fence?

As Sas and I have been over, because of the ambiguous nature of a Sasquatch (easily faked by man in fur costume) it's going to take something extra ordinary to convince anyone.

The default setting in analysis I see is thus:

Is the quality poor? Blobsquatch.

Is the quality so so? It's a bear.

Is the quality excellent? Hoax.

The subject cannot just look good in my opinion. It has to be doing something that no man can physically accomplish.

[Guest]

The perfect picture.

Bigfoot posing with the family for the money shot. Holiday pictures are classic.

[norseman]

The perfect picture.

Bigfoot posing with the family for the money shot. Holiday pictures are classic.

NEXT!

[Guest]

This is just a sampling of the quality photos camera traps can provide. There are no "blobtigers" in these photos - they are diagnostic images of real creatures in the wild. For this discussion it's important not to get hung up on the difficulty or the expense associated with obtaining photos like these and just concentrate on the quality of the photo. The object is to "stir up attention from science." Assume none of these animals are currently described in the scientific literature. Do you think these photos would be good enough to stir up attention? I sure do.

These are cheating a bit because they're not from trailcam photos, but apparently from professional photographers. Again, ignore the expense of getting them and concentrate on what's been gotten. Check out especially photos 7–9.

This is cheating because it's video, but it is a must-see, and certainly there are video cameras out there that could record a bigfoot. Something like this would do the trick for proving bigfoot:

[bipedalist]

LOL, hey in there, you....termite, how bout some action.

[Guest]

Yep Saskeptic, that would about do it. I'd love to see a picture or video up close with detail so vivid that even you would be hard pressed to question its validity! Lol,maybe someday.

Edited February 24, 2011 by MarkMc
space between words makes them easier to read.

[Guest ThePattyArcade]

Daww...that chimp poking the camera with a stick was so cute to watch.

...Sorry, just had to say it

Personally, I think that body > film. No matter how high the quality, they'll always be skeptics who say it's hoaxed. After all, this is the age of Adobe Photoshop. Artists can do some pretty amazing things.

Just my thoughts....

Edited February 24, 2011 by ThePattyArcade

[Guest]

I think this is a great question! In my opinion I think the best situation would be multiple pictures of one subject. Kinda what we're trying to do with the Olympic project. That's why we really like the rapid fire cameras. A lot could be learned from multiples. Also from stationary cameras you can get an exact height, do human comparison photos, see the variations of musculature as the creature moves from frame to frame and so on. Unfortunately photos wont verify species, but good multiples would be hard to argue with.

[Guest]

Also from stationary cameras you can get an exact height,

Have you thought about marking a tree in the background at different heights, kind of like the thingies near the entrances to convenience stores? Sure would be nice to have the scale exactly determined in a photo, rather than having to do a bunch of post-hoc work to estimate the size of things in the photo.

[Guest]

Personally, I think that body > film.

Of course - infinitely better. But I think it's important for folks to really consider how important photography could be. No matter how cogent and persuasive guys like norseman can be in their quest for a whole body, there remain A LOT of people interested in bigfoot who will not be swayed from their "no kill" stance. If such folks are nonetheless serious about producing some proof of bigfoot, I agree with norseman that the traditional emphasis on plaster casts ain't cutting it. So why not turn energies toward at least getting a decent photo?

No matter how high the quality, they'll always be skeptics who say it's hoaxed. After all, this is the age of Adobe Photoshop. Artists can do some pretty amazing things.

Right, and we'll need the skeptics to ask such questions precisely because people hoax bigfoot photos. I work from the assumption, however, that with the original files, film, etc., it is possible to determine if some special effects have been applied. It is true that a video that just shows up on You Tube from a production company or worse - anonymously - will be suspect no matter how good the imagery is. But that doesn't have to be the case. I know that if I clearly photographed a bigfoot, I would make the original files available for analysis for the expressed purpose of demonstrating their authenticity.

[Guest ThePattyArcade]

Right, and we'll need the skeptics to ask such questions precisely because people hoax bigfoot photos. I work from the assumption, however, that with the original files, film, etc., it is possible to determine if some special effects have been applied. It is true that a video that just shows up on You Tube from a production company or worse - anonymously - will be suspect no matter how good the imagery is. But that doesn't have to be the case. I know that if I clearly photographed a bigfoot, I would make the original files available for analysis for the expressed purpose of demonstrating their authenticity.

I agree, but it's just a bit frustrating that all we have is blobquatches like the New York baby or the Jacob's creature

I think a good photograph should be clear of any obstructions (trees, rocks, etc) to prevent misidentification, and would have a good zoom so we can see the details of the creature, good lighting, and several different angles. I am not a photography expert but those are my thoughts

This photo is a pretty good example of what we are looking for. Maybe the lighting around the face could have been better, but a least we're seeing it from the front.

Shame it turned out to be faked

[Guest Cervelo]

Now we all know what a hand looks like close the camera!

[WV FOOTER]

Saskeptic, an excellent piece of film. Thank you for sharing. Now if Bigfoot would only cooperate in such a way. The better the quality of the camera(s) and lenses, the better the quality of the results, its that simple. With the existence of Bigfoot at stake, it would have to be crystal clear, just like the cute little chimp.