Guest BFSleuth Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 First of all, 'new technology' doesn't always mean better. A lot of cellphones do indeed have cameras in them, capable of taking pictures and recording a varied amount of action. And to be fair, we have seen a handful of cellphone video/images. You know what they all have in common? They're all pretty terrible quality. Well said. Let's take video cameras as an example. I've heard folks say that cell phone videos are plentiful and should get "the shot" very easily. However, the video quality on these camera phones is abysmal, especially when they use digital zoom. What is digital zoom? It just crops the picture and makes bigger pixels. Want to really get "the shot" as video? Something that will be high quality broadcast value? Start thinking in the $6000+ price range. Television stations are investing $20000+ for their cameras. Now start thinking about your budget for lenses.... oh yeah.... Ever see all the gear that Survivorman lugs around when he goes on a trek? That's a starter kit. Ever look at the crates of gear that a wildlife videographer lugs into the bush to spend a few weeks getting one minute of prime video, freezing in a blind waiting for that perfect moment? Cameras on cell phones are great for taking the classic "me standing in front of ______" pictures. But when was the last time you tried to take a family portrait while your family was peaking from behind the bushes? BF doesn't do group photos very well....
Guest Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 If it's too bad, it's dismissed as not being conclusive. If it's too GOOD, it's promptly labeled a "hoax".
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 I agree with your statement to a point, Mulder. For example, the photo that Melissa released could be conclusive evidence of BF if the photographer/witness was willing to step forward and give provenance. That seems to be the deriding factor for skeptics to shoot down a good clear photo, the fact that normally these kind of photos or videos to date have been submitted by the videographer or photographer on a "need to be anonymous" basis, without provenance and without complete background information and site analysis. If we ever get a clear video or set of photographs that has clear provenance and follow up investigation, then IMHO it would certainly give a lot more credibility to the visual evidence. It is just so unfortunate that thus far we either have people more than willing to jump into the public spotlight with poor quality visual evidence or we get pretty good looking visual evidence without anyone wanting to be in the spotlight. For once it would be great if we had great visuals with solid provenance and willingness from the person behind the camera to tell the whole story and support follow up investigation.
Sunflower Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) If I have made this statement before in another topic please forgive me. Those who have photo evidence, and I mean good photo evidence, have realized after the first researcher or group of researchers has come to their property or area, they decide that one person or one group is enough. There have been too many instances where the information leaks out, neighbors put together the facts or any number of reasons and the location is compromised. The owners soon realize that they have made a big mistake. The results are either the hairy people get annoyed and leave or the hairless people get to sit around with guns to protect their property from trespassers. I am speaking from experience with friends that have had this happen and they are not pleased. Do not doubt that the hairy people exist. The big problem is respect and we hairless ones seem to want to own and control every stinkin' thing on the earth, including them. If there are those with excellent pics then please give them the respect by receiving the info without "trespassing" on their feelings. If you want the evidence, get up off the counch and go find it. You will only believe your own experiences and you will have the satisfaction of knowing that. And, yes they are smarter than you think.................. Edited August 13, 2012 by Sunflower
Rockape Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 I agree with your statement to a point, Mulder. For example, the photo that Melissa released could be conclusive evidence of BF if the photographer/witness was willing to step forward and give provenance. One thing I agree with Todd Standing about is that no photo or film will ever be conclusive evidence as it can easily be dismissed by skeptics as a hoax. It will take a body to prove it once and for all.
Guest poignant Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Footage of a bf doing a superhuman act (show of strength/power, e.g. scaling a cliff, leaping a high fence) COULD pass the hoax-ability test, and in my opinion will do in place of a body for now. Sadly how often does a video get taken, and how often does a video taken show bf doing something other than walking away? Close to never. Then again even if you do get the bf on video, you'll get skeptics saying that advanced special effects were involved, it was a viral video, it's CGI, etc etc. So maybe the logical conclusion is the one-kill stance.
salubrious Posted August 13, 2012 Moderator Posted August 13, 2012 ^^ The problem there is one of the more super-human things they are really good at is making themselves vanish
Guest Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 I agree with your statement to a point, Mulder. For example, the photo that Melissa released could be conclusive evidence of BF if the photographer/witness was willing to step forward and give provenance. That seems to be the deriding factor for skeptics to shoot down a good clear photo, the fact that normally these kind of photos or videos to date have been submitted by the videographer or photographer on a "need to be anonymous" basis, without provenance and without complete background information and site analysis. If we ever get a clear video or set of photographs that has clear provenance and follow up investigation, then IMHO it would certainly give a lot more credibility to the visual evidence. It is just so unfortunate that thus far we either have people more than willing to jump into the public spotlight with poor quality visual evidence or we get pretty good looking visual evidence without anyone wanting to be in the spotlight. For once it would be great if we had great visuals with solid provenance and willingness from the person behind the camera to tell the whole story and support follow up investigation. I agree with the intent of what you are saying, Sleuth. Take Temagemi for example. That is EXACTLY what happened. The couple didn't want to be in the spotlight because they KNEW that the photos (and by extension they themselves) would be treated. They took steps to remove information from the photos that could specifically identify the site to protect their privacy and anonymity. And look what happened to them. While I'm on record that those with evidence have a duty to come forwards with it, I understand that not everyone wants to put up with the crapstorm of deresion that gets flung at people proffering evidence by the Skeptics.
Guest poignant Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 ^^ The problem there is one of the more super-human things they are really good at is making themselves vanish Haha I said superhuman, not supernatural. They overlap, but not completely.
Recommended Posts