What Would Be Required Of The Optimal Bigfoot Photo?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Gershake, I noticed you used a figure of about 100 yards. I think this is a bit much to ask of a normal cam. Maybe something with a good long telephoto lens may bring out some facial detail, but the standard cam won't do it. I have a shot taken from 120 feet with an 8.1 MP cam and you cannot make out facial features. Even the high resolution fades away into pixellation when you zoom in to the subject's face. Although I was very proud of the pic, the most common comment among skeptics was that it's a bush or a tree or shadows or leaves or my imagination. (I didn't release the video of it walking away.)

I don't think any pic will do the trick. Even 1080 HD video captures are reduced in quality to about 4 MP resolution. Perhaps a good HD video of a creature tripping a DNA collection trap, in conjunction with the DNA obtained, then maybe a few eyebrows will raise. Other than that, everything is a blobsquatch and will likely be received as such.( I have some experience with these matters.) Chris B.

[Guest]

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:

Saskeptic, I agree with you, it would have to be this to prove it for sure. No more BLOBSQUATCHES or as a new term was recently used BLURSQUATCHES. If you have to circle it to show others where it's at, then the photo is pointless, folks.

[Guest gershake]

Gershake, I noticed you used a figure of about 100 yards. I think this is a bit much to ask of a normal cam. Maybe something with a good long telephoto lens may bring out some facial detail, but the standard cam won't do it. I have a shot taken from 120 feet with an 8.1 MP cam and you cannot make out facial features. Even the high resolution fades away into pixellation when you zoom in to the subject's face. Although I was very proud of the pic, the most common comment among skeptics was that it's a bush or a tree or shadows or leaves or my imagination. (I didn't release the video of it walking away.)

That's exactly what I meant. The question whether facial features could be distinguished from that distance was somewhat rhetorical.

Is your pic still available to view somewhere?

- Shake

Edited February 25, 2011 by gershake

[southernyahoo]

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.

I use two 5 foot sections of pvc pipe joined together and marked at 1 foot intervals. If I should happen to film something from my video camera mounted on tripod at an fixed elevation , I can then triangulate camera position from different views in the video, then reshoot the exact location of the subject while a helper holds the pole on the ground where the subject stood or next to any fixed object in the original scene. This can atleast establish the height of the subject and I think it would need to be over seven feet and not show any evidence of head / neck extensions, among other things.

[Incorrigible1]

Let's just see some photos. Good, decent photos, where the subject is clear, no need for red arrows or circles. A good photo and this forum would explode.

Of course a body would be better, but since we've not been blessed with such, how's about a clear photograph?

[Guest]

You can just make out the make-up line on the chimp(s) looking at the camera. World class artist behind that one, and good acting too

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

That's exactly what I meant. The question whether facial features could be distinguished from that distance was somewhat rhetorical.

Is your pic still available to view somewhere?

- Shake

Sure, they're on the Pic page here: http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

Chris B.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Great topic.

I recall a similar discussion - on the old Boards I think - re the PGF. Basically, we were kicking around - if the PGF film doesn't "do it", what footage COULD? What would a new piece of footage have to contain, that the PGF doesn't, that would nudge the hard core skeptics towards thinking "Wow - maybe so!"? What would be required? Crystal clarity? Some amazing feat of strength? Taking a bite from an apple and chewing it? Vocalizing? I mean, the PGF DOES show its subject in bright sunlight, walking a distance, with no obscuring brush...pretty good. How likely is it that ANY piece of footage would "beat" that (assuming BF is real)?

We kicked that around a bit. It was honestly hard to come up with additional elements to the footage itself; many of the suggestions worked around the footage containing collaborating elements beyond the visual... the BF snaps off a tree branch which can then be examined, or shoved over a stop sign, or ... well, you get the picture (no pun intended). Or the sighting was witnessed by a group of twenty people at a park, and TWO of them filmed it, from different angles. Or some such.

The more we talked, the more it SEEMED that we were saying that it would take a VERY unlikely piece of footage to move the "hard core" skeptical crowd, to beat the PGF. A LOT of things would have to align. A LOT. And all of this assumes that, in this day and age of digital imagery and manipulation, there was NO chance of the footage having been doctored in some way.

I don't think it likely that any ONE photo could do much of that. Any one single image. MAYBE a series of stills...maybe...but even there, I wonder. I think it almost has to be moving footage.

And one last thing...I think there is a difference, or should be, between "a piece of footage which makes you think BF deserves to be taken seriously" and "a piece of footage that 'proves' BF is real". We return to this point often, although I am not sure it comes across well at times...for "Skeptical Believers" like me, I don't think the expectation is that any piece of footage would "close the case". It is more that a good piece of footage - and no intent to provoke here but I think the PGF is a good piece of footage! - should get BF to be taken more seriously, in general.

Shadow

[VAfooter]

I am in the camp that no photo will suffice. As has already been mentioned, in this day of PhotoShop, you can put just about anything in an image and have it look convincing. That is why even having a photo of BF lifting your Toyota over its head is not sufficient. Maybe, possible, a series of photos might work, but they would have to be close enough together to preclude the possibility of fraud and the originals would need to be turned over to photo experts for verification. A video is not going to work 100% either due to many of the same reasons. For most folks (scientific community), a specimen is the only thing good enough.

Edited February 26, 2011 by VAfooter

[Incorrigible1]

Let's see a photo or two, then we can discuss/cuss them to death. It's a cop-out to say that since it's not likely proof positive, then a photo will be of no use at all.

[southernyahoo]

If there are any clear photo's out there they will probably be released with other up coming research results. People won't be satisfied with just what they see in a photo. They want the whole story with it, plus any other corroborating evidence all at the same time. You can't dictate what evidence you get when, but you can wait until you have put enough together before going public.

[Guest]

I think the one single criteria for photographic evidence is the ability to follow the same or similar procedure and be able to gather more evidence. No matter how sharp or blurry, how close up or how thoroughly analyzed any photo or video is, in the current environment of skepticism and using the current visual technology, the only thing that will convince an objective and impartial judge of the evidence is if one can actually demonstrate that they can repeat whatever it was they did and get another picture and provide instructions so that others with similar skills and experiences and following the protocols used for the previous ones, end up getting some similar and/or better evidence themselves which would naturally result in other corroborating evidence such as trackways, hair, body lice exoskeletons, etc. Anything else will simply be suspected of being the product of a hoax unless it leads to more supporting evidence that can be objectively analyzed and which supports the claim. I don't think this is necessarily impossible using today's technology but am not aware of anyone using or having any objectifiable success, though the Olympic Forest game cam project seems to have some merit even if nothing conclusive seems to have been generated so far. Considering how rare and elusive a creature such as BF is thought by many to be, I'm not particularly surprise. Perhaps thinking of them as creatures with mental capacities similar to humans with the ability to think the much the same way we do and so avoid close proximity to us, might lead to strategies that would prove more productive, but as to what those might be one can only speculate. Pf course, and as always, the production of a corpse, or identifiable and recent remains, either intentionally or by accident, would trump all other efforts. So far, nothing.

[Guest]

I have a shot taken from 120 feet with an 8.1 MP cam and you cannot make out facial features. Even the high resolution fades away into pixellation when you zoom in to the subject's face. Although I was very proud of the pic, the most common comment among skeptics was that it's a bush or a tree or shadows or leaves or my imagination. (I didn't release the video of it walking away.)

Why not?

Sure, they're on the Pic page here: http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

Chris B.

When are you going to release the full 8.1MP size picture?

[Guest]

If there are any clear photo's out there they will probably be released with other up coming research results.

Exactly. In all these discussions about "how good a photo would need to be," the question is a non-starter if the photo can't be verified to be free of manipulation. I know I can't necessarily look at a piece of film and accurately determine what, if any, components have been manipulated, but other people can. If we can't trace that photo to the person who took it and the original card on which it was stored, then the authenticity immediately is called into question.

[Guest gershake]

When are you going to release the full 8.1MP size picture?

He already has done: http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0042UECOPY.JPG