What Would Be Required Of The Optimal Bigfoot Photo?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Why not?

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

I have several videos I have not released. The main reason is that none will prove the existence of a North American ape. So why bother with ridicule over something that's not going to prove anything anyway? With that particular video I have of the creature moving away, it also contains my wife and son. I do not wish their images to be out in the public domain. There may come a time when everyone will be able to view some or all of the videos and images we have taken over the years but for now they will remain private. I truly believe that the only video that will be considered by science is one that is shot in HD in conjunction with the creature tripping a DNA trap. The HD video along with the DNA collected is our goal.

As mentioned above, I have released the full 8.1 MP pic but the creature is a very small area of a very large pic. The subject is 120 feet from the camera, so whether you consider it to be an actual creature or a collection of leaves and shadows, it's too far away to make out the intimate details of the face, or leaves. So again, it proves nothing. It's just one piece of an ongoing study. Chris B.

[Guest]

A picture is supposedly worth a thousand words. If it takes a thousand words to interpret a picture, that picture is a failure.

[Guest]

Although it doesn't prove anything, that large pic at the top with what looks like a head turning toward the camera is at least interesting, ChrisB. As for one that would get some attention, one like this without the photoshop.

[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:

That chimp is so cute, and really tries to figure out what she is seeing by poking it with a stick, looking all around the edges,using her fingers to feel it, that's just too cute. Thanks for posting that.

[Guest]

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

I wonder if we had as many pictures of BF as we have of UFOs if they would still be denied, or accepted?

I truly believe that only a body will satisfy science. However, I'm very hopeful about Dr. Ketchem (SP?)and her soon to be released report. I may be foolish, but I'm hopeful even tho I'm sure science will say the results are *contaminated*, and w/o a body, we cannot prove BF lives.

[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.

Why would you think a good picture would convince the skeptics? We have good pictures, and they are *ignored*. It will take a body being dissected with numerous people watching and touching before people will believe.

Either alive or dead, it will take a real BF body.

[Guest]

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

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that any pictures would be of a man in a suit for the skeptics. We need a captured and released BF, or a body, and that is sad for me to think about. Their lives are so very difficult, and I fear adding to the dangers they face when they are revealed to be real, and living in the woods around us.

[Guest gershake]

Why would you think a good picture would convince the skeptics? We have good pictures

We do??

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Squatchaholic, I love that picture. And it would be ideal if you went ahead and bumped it with your vehicle to collect some hair or tissue off the bumper. The pic and the DNA would likely do the trick. Chris B.

[Guest]

Why would you think a good picture would convince the skeptics? We have good pictures, and they are *ignored*. It will take a body being dissected with numerous people watching and touching before people will believe. Either alive or dead, it will take a real BF body.

I dont think a picture would be 100% convincing to anyone. However, with that in mind I do believe Saskeptic to be open minded enough that when presented with strong evidence he would look at it objectively. Basiclly my post was just saying hello to a fellow member whose opinion I respect even though I don't always agree with his positions.

[Guest Sallaranda]

I have several videos I have not released. The main reason is that none will prove the existence of a North American ape. So why bother with ridicule over something that's not going to prove anything anyway? With that particular video I have of the creature moving away, it also contains my wife and son. I do not wish their images to be out in the public domain. There may come a time when everyone will be able to view some or all of the videos and images we have taken over the years but for now they will remain private. I truly believe that the only video that will be considered by science is one that is shot in HD in conjunction with the creature tripping a DNA trap. The HD video along with the DNA collected is our goal.

As mentioned above, I have released the full 8.1 MP pic but the creature is a very small area of a very large pic. The subject is 120 feet from the camera, so whether you consider it to be an actual creature or a collection of leaves and shadows, it's too far away to make out the intimate details of the face, or leaves. So again, it proves nothing. It's just one piece of an ongoing study. Chris B.

Just out of curiousity, have you released ANY of your videos/pictures anywhere to the public?

[Guest Sallaranda]

I dont think a picture would be 100% convincing to anyone.

What about a video? Unfortunately, technology has come such a long way that you can't really trust anything you see. In 1969 video editing technology didn't really exist yet - but today it obviously does. Would a close up, lengthy, high def video of Bigfoot be convincing enough in 2011?

[Guest]

I think a close clear HI-DEF video would go a long way toward the scientific acceptance of bigfoot if it could somehow be proven to be authentic. I'm no expert on new digital tech. though, so thats just an opinion. I've said before that I believe nothing short of a body, whether alive or dead, will be enough to close the case for good. Again just one little fat guys opinion.

[Guest Sallaranda]

I think a close clear HI-DEF video would go a long way toward the scientific acceptance of bigfoot if it could somehow be proven to be authentic. I'm no expert on new digital tech. though, so thats just an opinion. I've said before that I believe nothing short of a body, whether alive or dead, will be enough to close the case for good. Again just one little fat guys opinion.

So I suppose the next question is, do you think that clear HD video of Bigfoot would be enough to spark a large-scale, well funded, scientific investigation?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Just out of curiousity, have you released ANY of your videos/pictures anywhere to the public?

Yes, We released a few. They're on the pics pages of the Bigfoot Research Project of Ky site. Some are right here on the forum.

You can click the link in my signature or look in the websites section on the forum here.

Chris B.