Jump to content
ThePhaige

Pretty Decent One

Recommended Posts

daveedoe

 

 

:lol:

I'll see your  :laugh:​

 

 

I'll second that and raise you a "Ludicrous" 

 see your "ludicrous"

I'll call :)

 see your call

all I have is a "pere Idolia's  :crazy:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

^^

 

Haha its actually a  Pair of Dolli ahs...  there are two and adult and an infant allegedly...many clearly see the infant "Dolli-ah" leaves first and then the adult Dolli-ah whose profile is seen in the other stills " then moves forward in the last part of the film

 

below is what people were seeing as the infant its real ambiguous ...

 

this is a quick gif showing the overlay (not perfect) and how the Root Ball moves about

 

Kirks%20SSq_zpsqhyzbvug.gif

 

 

 

 

SS52_zpsehdaiali.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

^^  They do sound so cool and interesting, you are so right! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Wouldn't it be great if these people could go back and take some nice clear verification footage of said trees before labeling them as Bigfoots? I know that in this field it's asking too much, but it would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

How bout this... until such a time as we have the SSq in the facial recognition data base we will absolutely verify without a doubt there are in fact trees in that video... as blurry as they are we can thankfully still tell they are trees :) great idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Like I said before, it's asking too much isn't it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Wouldn't it be great if these people could go back and take some nice clear verification footage of said trees before labeling them as Bigfoots? I know that in this field it's asking too much, but it would be great.

Seems a logical, necessary step in the provenance process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

Well as mama always said...its never wrong to ask , but to what degree we have control over how people present things and claim them to be this or that is subjective and even a bit ambiguous. In speaking with the filmer he had seen them with his own eyes in the area as allegedly so have his co-footers which adds a piece of context to the side of the assumption. It is clear to me from my perspective that where the figure was in the early sections of the vid it is not in the latter sections. Anyhoo it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes its all just opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georgerm

Is the video blurry because it's been blown up or the BF is so far away from the video shooter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiggyPotamus

I suppose that I see the "face" that is described in the outline, but that is pretty much all I can make out from the entire video. I can also see the "baby," but what I see and where the outline is are somewhat different. The question that kept running through my mind while watching this is "why didn't the person filming DO something?" They could have waited to see if it would move, or could have gotten close to force it to move, throw a rock at it (they do it to us), or SOMETHING. IF it is an actual bigfoot face in the beginning, I want to point out that the flat, upturned nose seems to be the outline being placed over the pixelization. And IF that is a baby bigfoot, the outline is placed showing it facing upwards, when the "face" I see is looking to the right. I will not come out and say I am positive that this is not a bigfoot, but I am definitely not convinced. This is inconclusive at best, and is just shapes in nature at worst. Actually, at worst would be a hoax I suppose. And at best would be a bigfoot that only slightly resembles a bigfoot. Or maybe it is a bigfoot pretending to be pixelation, you know, like camouflage. My advice to the videographer, if they are serious about capturing something on video, is this- if there are bigfoot present in the areas where you shoot video, it is likely that you will be able to get footage that is clearer than this. If you see something you think could be a bigfoot, get closer. See if it moves. I understand being scared, but if you are close enough to be scared then you are probably close enough to get it on video, lol, because you should be able to see it relatively clearly. One should not be afraid that the animal will harm you, because they always seem to give you a chance to leave the area, and will let you know that they want you to leave. A bigfoot is only likely to fight when facing another bigfoot or animal who also wants to fight, with neither wanting to leave after the other displays verbally and physically that it wants the other gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

My understanding in talking to the filmer at length is the distance was approx 150+ yard away so zoom was at full and its very hard to be stable in full zoom. As to whether its a SSq and yard gnome or a hoax is up to the observer. It is my feeling that if its a hoax then the filmer was not in on the game. and he sees them quite often in his area. The fella that did the capture is not what I would call a serious researcher and this is a hobby for him. His attitude is hes tired of the argument and just shows what he captures and leaves the dissections up to the individuals own subjective ability.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...