Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) False infrared is a film that replaces common color schemes when reacting to infrared light sources and their reflectance. B&W infrared replaces some light sources reacting to the silver halide crystals in film. Mixing infrared and visible light has two different focusing points, it is either one or the other. Cheap lenses do not show the IR focus point. Auto focus cameras must be altered internally to use IR focus. Digital cameras must have the internal IR filter removed. IR is a weaker source of illumination thus the potential to underexpose is greater with distance. Compensating this exposure error just introduces noise and grain (you really cannot open up shadow areas after the fact). B&W IF film is very slow, requiring a tremendous amount of light or time exposures. IR is not visible to the human eye and the effects cannot be anticipated before making an exposure. Reflected IR degrades image edges, making them appear to glow. The moon does not reflect enough IR light to make effective night time pictures unless resorting to time exposures. For the most part, IR effects can be produced in a computer from full color images if the effect of altering foliage contrast is the desire and converting them to B&W is acceptable. The biggest IR advantage is that it may not be detectable to the subject when the picture is taken. Edited April 12, 2011 by damndirtyape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 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. Me too. If I had a bigfoot photo of this resolution and clarity, and I could demonstrate details of authentification (e.g., no digital manipulation, ownership trail, etc), I would write up a manuscript and propose a new species of extant, bipedal hominin using the photo as the "type specimen." Discussions along the lines of "science will never accept a photo" are moot because "science" has never had the opportunity to consider a photo anywhere near the quality of the one gigantor's posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 A solid picture for proof... Well it will have to contain to corpse which will probably be hit by a train, logging truck, or some sort of accident in the woods, like a tree or a widow maker taking the species out.... Ya take multiple picture's to the news and then inform the authorities you have talked to the news guys and then wait to see who shows up first at the site... I am pretty sure this is how this mystery ends and yes it starts with a clear bunch of pictures and a dead Sasquatch.... Yup best guess and as always IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Me too. If I had a bigfoot photo of this resolution and clarity, and I could demonstrate details of authentification (e.g., no digital manipulation, ownership trail, etc), I would write up a manuscript and propose a new species of extant, bipedal hominin using the photo as the "type specimen." Discussions along the lines of "science will never accept a photo" are moot because "science" has never had the opportunity to consider a photo anywhere near the quality of the one gigantor's posted here. I don't know about that. Without being able to see it's feet , it would be tough to call it "bigfoot" even if it was standing upright. You'd need to have some definitive features that are definately not Gorilla Gorilla and not Sapiens Sapiens and be able to prove that it's not makeup or a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest young sasqua Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 We have video of a flexing calf muscle from 1967! Theoretically impossible. Now my phone takes better pics . I believe the days of convincing video are over for doubters but not for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Not full body though. I think we'd be able to tell. Actually, some taxidermy is pretty darn good. I was just thinking of a man-in-a-suit situation, but a quality mannequin could look very real. There is nothing in that giganto picture that really screams "mannequin". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 For a pic to be useful there has to be a second object of known size to give the scale. BF tripping over a fire hydrant for example. A face pic with good definition would be really compelling. It might raise enough interest to do some good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Does anybody believe a new perfect photo would make any difference? Depends on what you mean by 'make any difference". For proof of existence? not the slightestest difference. Nor would your perfect pic and 100 more equally as clear. It will instantly be dismissed as a hoaxed or a misidentification and by most interested in the subject. Science, other than maybe Dr. Meldrum, won't even bother looking at it. But don't feel bad, neither will a truckload of monkee poop, a bushel basketfull of stinky hairy, a ton of track casts, a pile of pics showing Xs, bows, and twists, a 1000 hours of recordings of something howling, screaming, and monkey-chattering, none of this will be looked at or make the slightest difference either. Nothing will matter or be taken as non-hoaxed by the majority of people interested in this subject, without and until a type specimen is brought in and distributed publically to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So are there folks out there who are claiming regular contact with bigfoots who are not taking photos because they think science won't accept them? I certainly hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So are there folks out there who are claiming regular contact with bigfoots who are not taking photos because they think science won't accept them? I certainly hope not. No no there tons of pictures, videos, ect. just you and I don't see what others see in the pictures:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 NDT, why do you think it is that none of the evidence you mention would have any significance towards official recognition of the species. Much of that evidence is used everyday to effectively document the presence and distribution of many animals, and some of which is not hoaxable or subject to much misinterpretation. To throw all the evidence out is to defeat the very methods we would use to find this species in the first place. I understand that science would want a body but if the species is genus homo they will have to forgo it. Are the standards different for bigfoot because it is so extraordinary, or is bigfoot a taboo creature because it crosses the line between animal and man? Hypthetically, how would we explain say 20 to 40 individually collected hair samples yeilding some unique primate DNA that can't be attributed to any known species? Also assume that the same results are repeated several times over by subsequent studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 For a pic to be useful there has to be a second object of known size to give the scale. BF tripping over a fire hydrant for example. A face pic with good definition would be really compelling. It might raise enough interest to do some good. Good one. I forgot to include scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 NDT, why do you think it is that none of the evidence you mention would have any significance towards official recognition of the species. Much of that evidence is used everyday to effectively document the presence and distribution of many animals, and some of which is not hoaxable or subject to much misinterpretation. To throw all the evidence out is to defeat the very methods we would use to find this species in the first place. I understand that science would want a body but if the species is genus homo they will have to forgo it. Are the standards different for bigfoot because it is so extraordinary, or is bigfoot a taboo creature because it crosses the line between animal and man? Hypthetically, how would we explain say 20 to 40 individually collected hair samples yeilding some unique primate DNA that can't be attributed to any known species? Also assume that the same results are repeated several times over by subsequent studies. Because it hasn't to date. All this has been provided/found and we're all still on square one. Science isn't under obligation to look at or explain anything. To the contrary, they are much like lay BF afficianados (I hate to use the word "researcher" when speaking in the context of lay people interested in monkees) in that their first instinct is to dismiss anything new w/o ever having actually seen or examining it. I don't blame them. Scientists have to pay the bills too, and one doesn't get & hold tenure fiddling around with something like boogers. Every hoax, every internet urinating match, every wild allegation (like paranormal powers, ability to speak/understand several languages, and so on...)every internet forum thread demeaning the likes of Dr. Meldrum, by lay people interested in BF labels this subject and the people in it as a lunatic fringe thing, and puts us that much farther away from science even wanting to be involved. It all comes down to a big, stinky, bloody ape carcass rolled out of the back of a truck onto the steps of a major college bioligy department building with multiple media on scene recording the event and the faculty pouring out of every door to stare slack jawed at what Bubba the Monkee Chaser has wrought.... Unless & until that happens all the efforts of lay-folk in this field, doing whatever they are doing for whatever reason they are doing it for are interesting to a few like us, but are a big (if you'll pardon the pun, but I can't resist) monkee spanking fest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grazhopprr Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Unfortunately, the PG film seems to be a fluke, as nothing like it has come out since. Out in the open, bright sunlight, on good film with a good camera. The examples of gorilla shown in this thread, seem to be impossible, or there would be examples of BF already. So, we have to use the experiences of blobsquatchers everywhere, thus far, and find a solution. 99% of all retail cameras and camcorders out there, are now point and shoot, with automatic functions, taking the manual adjustments away. Walmart cams will not bring the best results out there to satisfy "science". Being in a perfect situation, with BF out in the open, can't be planned on, so we have to compensate against their tendancies to hide behind stuff. Most people don't have the experience with cameras, to do that. Nor the time to bring up the cam, adjust it in real time, and get quality video/pics. My experiments with blobsquatching, post editing, camera functions, etc, have me focusing on fulltime infrared hacked cameras. In the daytime, they can be adjusted to see through the darkness, as it see only infrared supplied by the sun, and not limited to human color vision. BF hair soaks up infrared, so it will stick out like a sore thumb against the infrared, which is various shades of white to grey, in the cams. As the focal point is off, manual focus is needed. My experiments have been on the cheap, with older cams that I can afford to take apart, and chance failure. Would be great to take a $1000 HD, and find a way to hack it, but until then, I'll just hope to find some BF hiding in the bushes, thinking I can't see it, so I can get a real time, in motion, shot in infrared. I'm not sure science would accept infrared, but, it's my focus for experiments. The best thing for others to do, is take your camera out and experiment with it. Have someone in a black coat, hide in the bushes. Test the settings on your cam to find that person. Find the best settings and keep them set in the cam. Learn to bring that cam up, like a ninja, or you'll miss that shot. Just buying a point and shoot cam, and taking it out in the woods hoping for a miracle, won't work, without the luck of the gods. Science may not accept it, but you'll have a personal gem of your own. These are examples of my experiments so far: http://www.youtube.c.../12/7plSGJ1sxQ8 Infrared gorilla: http://www.youtube.c.../11/yqM-eC1jJEM http://www.youtube.c.../10/HPVtUWg26X0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Because it hasn't to date. All this has been provided/found and we're all still on square one. Science isn't under obligation to look at or explain anything. The last sentence here explains the first quite well . So science dismisses the evidence because science isn't obligated to look at it? Scientists have to pay the bills too, and one doesn't get & hold tenure fiddling around with something like boogers. This is contrary to what some say here. They say that scientists are always looking to discover something new , they rail against the status quo and push the boundaries of our knowledge ever further. Why is messing with boogers so detrimental to a scientists career? Would scientists care what people believe about bigfoot if they had solid biological evidence to stand on, or is the sociological stigma to great for even that? Graz, I appreciate your work with daytime IR filming. I currently use a Hi 8 Sony CCD TRV65 camcorder which is one of those models that allows the manual exposure settings in night shot. I like how the tree trunks stand out against the much lighter foliage even in the shadows. The contrast is something that is much needed given the sort of habitat real footage is likely to come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts