Guest TooRisky Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Does anybody believe a new perfect photo would make any difference? Well to answer this question with a question, would a nice picture be fine to you...? There seems to be many motivations for evidence ranging from proof to a scientist to just proving to yourself there is a little more out there than "proper society" wants to admitt... Some are in it for fame and for fortune while others want to study and test on it, then there are some who just want to see it one more time... So to answer your question, with a question is this, what do you need in the way of evidence to satisfy yourself...? Or there's good ones like this gorilla, or is it a mangy bear? I am calling mangy bear or man in a monkey suit.... Sure is NOT a Ape... A high resolution pic of a BF would go a long way, imagine a pic like this, but of a BF: It would certainly make me reconsider my position on the subject matter. Defintly a mangy bear, check out the lack of tail and that bad mange on its rear end.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I think a vocalization on film would solidify it as something incontrovertible. If you pause this footage at eight seconds, it gives a unique perspective on what a bigfoot might resemble when vocalizing. The world's best animatronics experts probably couldn't do it. And scientific proof needs to be repeatable right? You can use that logic multiple ways... Edited April 12, 2011 by Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 12, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 12, 2011 Defintly a mangy bear, check out the lack of tail and that bad mange on its rear end.... good thing I know you're jesting. I think a vocalization on film would solidify it as something incontrovertible. Yeah, but that's raising the stakes. The question was about a pic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) True, true... Second line. http://i9.photobucke...topithecusB.jpg Something like that looks real, but it's actually a recreation of Gigantopithicus. Edited April 13, 2011 by masterbarber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Or there's good ones like this gorilla, or is it a mangy bear? It just depends whether or not if the pic is posted on Matt Moneymaker's site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 12, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 12, 2011 Something like that looks real, but it's actually a recreation of Gigantopithicus. Not full body though. I think we'd be able to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) That 'gorilla' photo is an OBVIOUS fake...Look at the 'diaper butt' in the shot from the rear! Edited April 12, 2011 by Smitty in Florida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) ajciani said: Now, a zoomed in face shot. That would provide some fine detail about the face, skin, eyes, nose and hair, maybe even teeth. A good face shot could be a really awesome piece of evidence. It is also much more difficult to fake well, and a fake face is usually easily identified as such. Susi says: I had not thought about how important a good facial picture could be for species recognition. That's an excellent point, and very well stated. Thank you and hugs for your excellent postings. That 'gorilla' photo is an OBVIOUS fake...Look at the 'diaper butt' in the shot from the rear! Smitty, I don't know about that being a fake rear end. The picture and butt look real to me. Why do you think it's a fake? Carl said: I think a vocalization on film would solidify it as something incontrovertible. Susi says: You nailed it. That is so true. I do realize that some people will settle for nothing less than a body that the skeptic would need to see, touch and smell before admitting the BF species is real, but some others may accept your recommended head shot and vocalization. However, I believe that it would require both in one piece of film for the most impact. that was a well said and thought out posting from you! Man, I wish I could find the link, but I actually have read a Jane Goodall interview in which she claims that excellent photographic or video evidence would be enough to classify bigfoot as an actual animal. Carl, I sincerely hope that you can locate that info to post here. If you can locate it and post it, would you PM me so that I don't miss it? I would really hate to miss that posting of Jane's thoughts about what could help establish the reality of the BF species. Hoping to hear from you soon.. .Major Hugs from me to you!..Susi Edited April 13, 2011 by masterbarber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Yes, I do, but it requires some context to go along with it. No interpretation required as to what main subject is. Properly exposed (black and white points sets). Properly focused (main subject). Visible light (not thermal or false infrared). No motion blur. Enough resolution (4mp or better, 30mb file size at 1600x2400 min or able to blow up to 8x10). Proof of no manipulation (electronic files or negative). Proof of non-static display or life (such as non model). Tracks (photos of these and casts, preferably multiple from left and right). Multiple witnessed (with affidavits). Repeatable (able to repeat the photo and or bring others witness to bear). Maybe someone should ask NASA what their criteria is in discovering life on another planet. Will they have to bring back a body? Keep away from: Digital zoom Small cameras with low resolution (sub 35 digital or anything below 35mm in film) Optical zoom lens Still images taken from video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Smitty, I don't know about that being a fake rear end. The picture and butt look real to me. Why do you think it's a fake? Sus.. im pretty sure his comment was "tongue in cheek" or sarcasm..... Just goofing on the skeptics and the skeptical believers who pounce on photos when they appear on here- sometimes immediately dismissing them as "fake" or "hoaxed"... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Sus.. im pretty sure his comment was "tongue in cheek" or sarcasm..... Just goofing on the skeptics and the skeptical believers who pounce on photos when they appear on here- sometimes immediately dismissing them as "fake" or "hoaxed"... Art Susi says: I'm so gullible.. Thank you for explaining this to me. Yikes, If your criteria is completely met, you could be assured that you have a sighting of something! Your post was very thorough and *well thought out*,and I thank you for taking the time to post all of that pertinent information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I'm a proponent of good video with enhanced audio as good proof for me if taken by me. I have no confidence in the eventuality that any video would meet every persons criteria as being credible or believable. You'd have to dodge all these red flags. 1. If the creature walks, why didn't it run? 2. If it runs, why did it run. (to hide the fact it's a guy in a suit?) 3. If the arms are long, it's probably extensions. 4. If the arms are short, it's definately a guy in a suit. 5. If it throws a big rock, it was made of styrofoam. 6. If it screams, and hollers it's obviously a human. 7. If it runs on four legs and blows by a horse, it aint a sasquatch, thats impossible. 8. If it jumps across a thirty foot wide creek, it's CGI I don't care what you say. You get the picture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Smitty, I don't know about that being a fake rear end. The picture and butt look real to me. Why do you think it's a fake? That was sarcasm. I was referring to some of the controversial aspects of the Patterson Gimlin film that come up when no new evidence arises...People seem to make a hobby out of seeing things in the PG film that aren't there...Baby squatches, armed riflemen, a 'diaper butt' indicating an ape suit. So, was joking, but to make a serious point about how easy it is to see things that aren't there, whether your bent is skeptical or optimistic. Personally, the more times I watch it, the more detail I see, the more I think over time that the PG film is of a real, living, bipedal ape...Walking across a real creekbed, in an actual place we can go to and look at today. We know where, when and how it happened, and have done a pretty good job of documenting it. NO other crypto evidence does this for me. Over time, almost all of it has come to look less than possible. If someone shows me a collection of dinosaur footprint casts, or a MODERATE quality video of one walking around in the Congo, I will reconsider. Smitty P.S.: Greeting to all the new members who I don't know, yet...I am from the old Bigfoot Forum. Used to live in British Columbia, now back in west central Florida. Yes, I do, but it requires some context to go along with it. No interpretation required as to what main subject is. Properly exposed (black and white points sets). Properly focused (main subject). Visible light (not thermal or false infrared). No motion blur. Enough resolution (4mp or better, 30mb file size at 1600x2400 min or able to blow up to 8x10). Proof of no manipulation (electronic files or negative). Proof of non-static display or life (such as non model). Tracks (photos of these and casts, preferably multiple from left and right). Multiple witnessed (with affidavits). Repeatable (able to repeat the photo and or bring others witness to bear). Maybe someone should ask NASA what their criteria is in discovering life on another planet. Will they have to bring back a body? Keep away from: Digital zoom Small cameras with low resolution (sub 35 digital or anything below 35mm in film) Optical zoom lens Still images taken from video Keeping the list in the quote, because that is a damned fine set of criteria. Now, we wait for the people to say these are too harsh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Visible light (not thermal or false infrared). DDA, could you explain this further, as I'm not sure what you mean by false infrared. Are you saying daytime photography is prefered over infrared night time photography? What would be wrong with using infrared to film a dark hairy subject at night against a backdrop of eluminated foliage, other than perhaps the detail potentially being less than perfect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 DDA, could you explain this further, as I'm not sure what you mean by false infrared. Are you saying daytime photography is prefered over infrared night time photography? What would be wrong with using infrared to film a dark hairy subject at night against a backdrop of eluminated foliage, other than perhaps the detail potentially being less than perfect? I bet the bolded part is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts