What Would Be Required Of The Optimal Bigfoot Photo?

[Guest]

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?

It just might. I know thats something I'd like to see but what event, or series of events it would take to initiate such an undertaking I can only guess.

[Guest]

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?

It'd be enough for me to write a proposal to do just that, yes. I seriously doubt I'd be the only one of my colleagues so moved by such a development.

This is the message I've been trying to express here for the past few weeks - don't pooh-pooh the ability of actually good photography to be game-changing. Heck, Sasfooty claims she had two bigfoots around her house just last night. Get those suckers on camera and you just might have something.

[Guest gershake]

Here is just some of what you are going to see:

A full facial close-up:

~ nose similar to ours (but w/ larger nostrils)

~ slightly chapped, rosy lips

~ pink mouth, blackish tongue

~ pointed teeth, like fangs

~ deep set eyes that dart around and don’t blink

~ her head is round, shaped more like ours than a gorilla’s, but her brow is much more prominent

~ she has lots of fine, flowing hair on her head (dark reddish brown) and soft short hair on her face

~ when she walks away, she moves just like the female in the Patterson Film

If this was an accurate description for a video, would it be diagnostic?

Surely it would have to be if it was all one shot? Just no way to show the inside of a non-human subject's mouth and have the subject walking away afterwards because the head couldn't be a dummy, right?

[Guest]

Not to turn this into an Erickson Project topic, but with the exception of the chimp touching its face @ 0:39, it's eyes were darting and it never blinked...

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:

PS,

"The quote function works like this:"

Thanks Shake!!!

Edited March 4, 2011 by Efrum

[Guest]

Hi Chris! Keep up the great work! Again, not to turn this into an Erickson Project topic, but... hey this thread IS about the optimal bigfoot photo.

The pic and the DNA would likely do the trick. Chris B.

My fingers are still crossed...

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

My fingers are crossed too Efrum! Chris B.

[Guest Forbig]

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.

A photo will never convince the public we have many pristine photos of Bigfoot. Did you ever notice that as soon as one comes out everyone says it's either a man in a suit or a mangy bear? The simple truth is that without a body there's no photo that will ever suffice.

[Guest gershake]

A photo will never convince the public we have many pristine photos of Bigfoot.

Links please?

[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

A dead body in hand to back up the picture would work, maybe

[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:

Why do they both have sticks? Is that a common trait for monkeys, and what do they use them for, besides poking cameras?

[Guest MichiganMonster]

I personally don't think just a single photo will do it. There will too much debate on it whether it is faked or not. It would have to be a video of remarkable detail with it either carrying something off like a chicken or urinating or walking along side of a structure of known size and location. Muscle tone would have to be visable as well as facial movements and features. Also, a possible trackway seen in the video then, somebody casting it. It sounds like an enormous undertaking but one day I bet something will present itself. Alot of talk going around about Kentucky and all that is soon to be released. I'm a believer but it is hard to keep faith in a subject such as this. Too much hype and things blown out of proportion. I've questioned myself many times as to why I am still interested in this subject... I guess I'm just a mystery lover with a hope that this legend never dies.

[Guest]

I think that a non digital photo format would be more convincing. Film especially motion picture (cine) would be harder to hoax. A good, clear 16mm or even Super 8 film of a sasquatch at close range could be a major breakthrough. If an action was filmed that was beyond the capacity for a human in a suit to perform, so much the better.

[Guest gershake]

Was there ever any info about what equipment was used for the Erickson material both by the witnesses and Erickson's team?

[southernyahoo]

I think that a non digital photo format would be more convincing. Film especially motion picture (cine) would be harder to hoax. A good, clear 16mm or even Super 8 film of a sasquatch at close range could be a major breakthrough. If an action was filmed that was beyond the capacity for a human in a suit to perform, so much the better.

There are some people who feel this way, the older film was much more difficult to tamper with. Still the prospect of the subject looking like a guy in a suit forces the content of the film to include a height above 7 ft. , a stride of 4 ft. + , a lateral leap over 20 ft. , a step over a 4 ft. fence, weigh over 500 ibs, some other inhuman physical feat, or have insanely inhuman proportions , or in other words , be something they on average, are not.

If you filmed a large one go 4x4 across 20 yards in two leaps then smack a 150 lb hog against a tree, then by gosh you might have it.