BillMcD Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Probably just a matter of time before someone uses Google Glass in the quest. Maybe bigfoot doesn't read the latest developments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) While out, I also have at least my little cheapo camera on and in hand, with thumb over "RECORD"...lately I'll have my Sony Handicam instead (little camera is easier to hide and more quiet). In the past 3 years and over 20 trips, I've managed to film a fleeting black bear, a fleeting cougar and and a fleeting deer. Blurry? Heck yes. But, it's dang good practice. I also did a little experiment with the Sony just a couple weeks ago while out in a remote wilderness area. I had it on "stand-by", which technically is supposed to allow you to point and shoot. By the time I did so, at least 3 seconds had elapsed. Doesn't sound like much but I can tell you while out in the wilds, trying to film a creature of any sort and 3 seconds is a LONG, LONG time. Namely, as in: much longer than the average sighting of a non-habituated mammal. Ready to shoot, and I'm betting you don't have anywhere close to a money shot if those animals aren't already confirmed by science. Edited May 21, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Add to that the intense shock of viewing something that shouldn't actually exist in the first place, then adding the fact that you're highly likely to be scared out of your skin when doing so, then recalculate.. Spot on. Anyone who has an up close and personal encounter would be dealing with the 'flight or fight' response immediately. Fishing around for a camera would be much further down the pecking order whilst putting distance between you and it would be the primary objective. Eating lunch in Denali National Park. Saw a big brownish tan ball roll around a boulder about a quarter-mile or so away, down in the valley of the Sushana, where we had been planning to go do some exploring. (And where Chris "Into the Wild" McCandless would be found, about a year later.) Stood up. Told my buds, grizzly. Packed like mad. The bear was in no hurry. Came toward us. Quartering, looking up now an again to fix on us, but never really looking at us. But always moving in our direction. Got to within 30 yards, us backing away slowly (after my wife and I corralled the other two, who were running), waving, talking to it, letting it know what we were. It finally went over the ridge. After a confab so intense that when a band of caribou went past about 20 yards away I was the only one who registered it, we topped the ridge - and found the bear planted on what we'd planned as our escape route. After some time just standing there, the bear basically followed our planned route, downhill into dense low-elevation forest. Whoops. A camera hung around my neck the whole time. I never once thought about it. This was a bear that had just been kicked out by its mom, I think. If that had been a sasquatch...? Oh, I know why we don't have more shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Blurry is going to happen. If you look at Airdale's photos, you'll notice that the subject doesn't differentiate greatly from the background. Even the best digital cameras have to have a point to focus on. Even stationary targets don't focus properly 100% of the time. If you know a wedding photographer, ask him to look through his raw photos and you'll see plenty of blurry photos. Add moving targets and the "great shot" percentage is extremely low. If we could get BF to stand in front of a green screen every time we went out, I'm sure we'd have a lot more photos to be shared around. And Elaine, most of the time (notice most lol) when someone criticizes a photo, it's exactly that. Criticizing the photo, not the photographer's story. What you saw and what you're showing others doesn't always equal out and in the online world, a story isn't enough to make a blurry photo turn into a good photo. Getting a photo that will actually make someone believe is basically luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Nobody could say it better than DWA just did. I had a camera in my pocket, but it never crossed my mind, fear did and getting out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 My problem is not with the individual(s) who didn't get their device out in time. I understand that part well enough and have to absolutely concede that, in the moment, it would be hard to capture an image. My problem is with the videos ( especially videos) where there is always something in the way, or some sort of bad angle, or poof the video stops just as the blobsquatch was about to be clearly revealed. I think you all know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 trash, that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) While out, I also have at least my little cheapo camera on and in hand, with thumb over "RECORD"...lately I'll have my Sony Handicam instead (little camera is easier to hide and more quiet). In the past 3 years and over 20 trips, I've managed to film a fleeting black bear, a fleeting cougar and and a fleeting deer. Blurry? Heck yes. But, it's dang good practice. I also did a little experiment with the Sony just a couple weeks ago while out in a remote wilderness area. I had it on "stand-by", which technically is supposed to allow you to point and shoot. By the time I did so, at least 3 seconds had elapsed. Doesn't sound like much but I can tell you while out in the wilds, trying to film a creature of any sort and 3 seconds is a LONG, LONG time. Namely, as in: much longer than the average sighting of a non-habituated mammal.Ready to shoot, and I'm betting you don't have anywhere close to a money shot if those animals aren't already confirmed by science. Correct. The unproven ones run faster too. Edited May 21, 2013 by bananasquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 In a chance encounter it may take a bit to get out the camera, but what about all of these so-called habituators? They have all day long to prepare a camera and still have nothing to show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 ^^ They are not about getting video evidence of Sasquatch. That would break the covenant they have with the "Big Guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 21, 2013 Some have pictures. There are things in this world you won't find on YouTube. Things you don't get by bullying disrespect for the people who have them and are in control of the choice to share or not share. BF researchers are their own worse enemy when it comes to obtaining the very proof they seek. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 " There are things in this world you won't find on YouTube" Surely, that can't be true? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 BF researchers are their own worse enemy when it comes to obtaining the very proof they seek. Truedat. The funniest thing about this field is all the proponents arguing about something none of them can confirm. Of course, now, we have to give the skeptics their due too, for making this a taboo topic for the mainstream to take up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 ^ Yeah, not really. I have nothing to do with mainstream science,nor do I care for traditional taboos. I just don't feel compelled by the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Last year I had a cougar bolt across the road about 8ft in front of my car. It was in Waterton Lakes National Park where the speed limits are extremely slow, luckily. I bet it was 400 yards into the bush before I remembered my video camera on the seat next to me. Most of the time spent not remembering the camera went like "Holy bleep that was a big cat!! Was that a cougar?? I've seen a lynx and it didn't look anything like that. Wasn't a wolf... Saw three bear yesterday, was it a bear? Nope, it had a tail about 5 ft long couldn't be a bear. Had to be a cougar, WOW!" I can't even imagine what would go through my mind before grabbing a camera if I saw a sasquatch. PS Waterton Lakes National Park is one of the prettiest places on earth, and the wildlife is beyond prevalent. I really did see three bear(two black and a grizzly) in one day, numerous deer, mountain sheep and the cougar in one overnight trip. And they have had Sasquatch sightings too. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/crandellcampground.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts