Jump to content
NatFoot

For the knowers who have seen them up close...

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

Thanks for the photos Forest Person.   Photos are so rare that it is good to get more added to the ones that have been published.     When blown up a couple of them look like an adult holding a juvenile.    May I ask what type of camera you used to take the pictures?   Either they are extreme blow ups or the camera was not up to the task.    You seem to have the talent to have contact so I hope you are not relaying on a cell phone for pictures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter

Why is it that people always imagine babies into the blobsquatch photos?  There has to be something to why people want to see baby BF in photos that you honestly can't actually see BF in?

This is one of the things BTW that drives me nuts about Bigfoot Tony and his Youtube videos.

 

I will agree if Forest Person is able to get photos on the regular then they need to invest in a very good camera system.  It would be more than worth the investment imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

  Well it could be that at any given time like human women of reproductive age,    BF females are likely to be tending a juvenile.    They don't lay eggs.  One thing I have found with some people not seeing things in pictures that other people are seeing is what sort of device they are viewing it with.     Often when asked they are looking on an Iphone or Ipad.    Something with a small screen.    I have both and can compare pictures with what I am using right now.    That is a notebook computer with a 17 inch screen.    There is a big difference.   For some reason, the Apple products, at least the ones I have, do not deal with shadow or dark areas very well.    Something readily seen with the high res larger screen of this notebook cannot be differentiated on the smaller Apple devices.   When I looked at Forest Persons pictures yesterday on my IPhone I could not tell what he was seeing.   Totally different on the laptop with SVGA resolution.   That tends to get Apple devotees irate but like I said I have both and can compare.  

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62
41 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

  Well it could be that at any given time like human women of reproductive age,    BF females are likely to be tending a juvenile.    They don't lay eggs.  One thing I have found with some people not seeing things in pictures that other people are seeing is what sort of device they are viewing it with.     Often when asked they are looking on an Iphone or Ipad.    Something with a small screen.    I have both and can compare pictures with what I am using right now.    That is a notebook computer with a 17 inch screen.    There is a big difference.   For some reason, the Apple products, at least the ones I have, do not deal with shadow or dark areas very well.    Something readily seen with the high res larger screen of this notebook cannot be differentiated on the smaller Apple devices.   When I looked at Forest Persons pictures yesterday on my IPhone I could not tell what he was seeing.   Totally different on the laptop with SVGA resolution.   That tends to get Apple devotees irate but like I said I have both and can compare.  

I agree I'm using my laptop viewing them now.. Last night was on  my phone . They do look better now but the pics are still blurry . Just for the heck of it I just opened my window and used my phone to take a pic of a bird maybe 70 yards away on a light pole . The pic wasn't blurry . These blurry pics drive me nuts      :banghead:and this is not a dig on FP I appreciate her sharing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Yes I mentioned that blurriness in a previous post and wondered what kind of camera was used.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62

I hope she invests in a better camera because if she's having regular contact this is amazing to me.

1 hour ago, Old Time Lifter said:

Why is it that people always imagine babies into the blobsquatch photos?  There has to be something to why people want to see baby BF in photos that you honestly can't actually see BF in?

This is one of the things BTW that drives me nuts about Bigfoot Tony and his Youtube videos.

 

I will agree if Forest Person is able to get photos on the regular then they need to invest in a very good camera system.  It would be more than worth the investment imho.

Now a days good cameras are not that expensive either . I bought a nice camcorder on sale that zooms to 40x and takes crystal clear photos or video .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

FWIW, here's my blobsquatch. I'm assuming that this is who/what yelled at me. 

 

Obviously I zoomed way in. It was 50 yards away, behind dense brush and bushes. 

 

I think this could be a Sasquatch because if how I got the photo (above) and I've found barefoot prints in the same area numerous times, and have found all sorts of other stuff that we generally associate with bigfoot nearby. 

 

I took it on my cell phone while walking my dog. I was not expecting anything to be there. At all! In fact, I took this pix before it yelled. After that, I hightailed it back to my truck and my only thought was to put a lot of distance between the noise maker and myself and my old dog.

 

And, no I don't think there's anything else in this pix. We've been back there, and it's just not dense enough to hide more than one. He may even be laying down and peeping. IDK.

 

This is why I keep going out there.

 

0113191126.jpg

Edited by Madison5716
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Madison

On your picture you have two faces in that picture. You have the one face in that square and then you have the one that is just to the right of it. They both look some what human but what do I know. Since the one 's that I have seen have long hair and looked chewbaka like . There was one photo I took by a fence that looked real ape like that I had no idea it was there when I took the photo. I took another photo in the same spot with the same weather conditions to see if it could of been done by shadows and no it could not be done again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forestpeople
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thank you for sharing. I agree the second photo is much better. The casts look like human tracks to me. I do appreciate your efforts.

I was wondering if you ever had any of the hair samples analyzed and  what the results were.  

The hair was tested on two different samples and came back matching other sasquatch samples that had been tested.

3 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

Back years and years ago when I was here, another forum member sent me some photos that looked very much like this.  He asked me not to share them and so I never did, though they may be buried deep in my email account I think I deleted them.  I wasn't convinced by his photos and I honestly am not convinced by this photo either but that's not important tbh.

 

My question is why do you think you've been able to connect with BF in two different States much less two different locations?

What are the odds of that if they are truly rare and thinly populated?

 

Im not sure why. I think that since they have always been around me since I was a kid they just accept me. No clear answer for it other than im grateful for it.

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Thanks for the photos Forest Person.   Photos are so rare that it is good to get more added to the ones that have been published.     When blown up a couple of them look like an adult holding a juvenile.    May I ask what type of camera you used to take the pictures?   Either they are extreme blow ups or the camera was not up to the task.    You seem to have the talent to have contact so I hope you are not relaying on a cell phone for pictures.  

Thank you very much for being kind. I have q ton of pictures.  Some just there heads peaking around a tree. I usually have either a digital camera . Doesn't work great or my cell ph. I dont always carry a camera. I have found if you take random pics if scenery they show up in them. If you focus on them the pics are more blurry. I also have one in the middle of cloaking. I was very hesitant to post pics here. I get tired if the ridicule.  Not from here but in general.  I do not try to prove anything but im happy to show what i have. People have to decide for themselves.  Ive had many sightings so im happy with my own truth. Im thankful everyone is being so kind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

ShadowBorn, I really think that thing to the right, and the bright eyed thing to the immediate left are leaves. I can see several things that look like faces in the dark, but the only one that I think is real is the outlined one. But thank you for your opinion. Since I didn't see this with my own two eyes, I only heard it, who knows? It's all conjecture.

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
1 hour ago, Forestpeople said:

The hair was tested on two different samples and came back matching other sasquatch samples that had been tested.

Im not sure why. I think that since they have always been around me since I was a kid they just accept me. No clear answer for it other than im grateful for it.

Thank you very much for being kind. I have q ton of pictures.  Some just there heads peaking around a tree. I usually have either a digital camera . Doesn't work great or my cell ph. I dont always carry a camera. I have found if you take random pics if scenery they show up in them. If you focus on them the pics are more blurry. I also have one in the middle of cloaking. I was very hesitant to post pics here. I get tired if the ridicule.  Not from here but in general.  I do not try to prove anything but im happy to show what i have. People have to decide for themselves.  Ive had many sightings so im happy with my own truth. Im thankful everyone is being so kind.

I ask because I have some background in photography.     Taught a photography lab at my Collage.   Much of the problems with blurry are the result of cell phone cameras.   How many people clean their lenses on the cell phones?   Since you said you use a digital camera the other issue is autofocus cameras.     While they work well with your relatives lined up in a row without obstructions, their focusing algorithms look for faces mostly, unless you change default settings.   I have one camera that I can teach a picture of a human and it will always keep that human in focus.    Some landscape setting might work better than a portrait setting.   That way the camera is not looking for human faces.   So you see a BF back in the brush and get out your camera.    The first thing it does is look for a human face.    It may or may not recognize a peeking BF as human.   But if there is brush between you and the subject the camera focusing starts looking for something human to focus on.   If it cannot recognize a human it probably thinks you are interested in the bushes.    So it might focus on them or be completely undecided and run the focus in and out looking for something else.   Finally I think the camera gives up and thinks you like the bushes.    The bigfoot behind them probably will be out of focus.      You really see this in video cameras taking video of a BF behind the brush.       You may get a far better picture if you fix the focus on some object at a 50 foot range.   That way anything near that range with be in focus even if there is brush in front.    If you commonly see things closer, fix the focus at a shorter range.     The P/G movie camera was fixed focus.   It very well may have been more blurry if it had a focusing system trying to focus on Patty.    Another tactic is to set some amount of telephoto.     Telephoto pictures have a greater depth of field..   Depth of field is the region in which objects are in focus.   You see that on TV football games where everything anywhere on the field is in pretty good focus because they have strong telephoto lenses with huge depths of field.     Many of us might have better luck if we found a fixed focus 50 year old camera.   Like the old Kodak Brownie.    Certainly if your camera is capable of operation with fixed focus you can turn it into a 50 year old camera by changing settings.    .      

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
7 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

  Well it could be that at any given time like human women of reproductive age,    BF females are likely to be tending a juvenile.  

1

 

I think it has more to do (everything to do) with people WANTING to see baby bigfoots for some reason.  That to me is an interesting aspect of the BF crowd... but it still drives me nutters.  Again, that is one of the major issues I have with BF Tony's videos.

 

I look at the forum on my laptop, never a phone btw.

Edited by Old Time Lifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug

As far as blobsquatches go, those are pretty good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor

"If you take random pics of scenery they just show up in them..."

 

Tells me all I need to know.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
43 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

"If you take random pics of scenery they just show up in them..."

 

Tells me all I need to know.

 

 

Why don't you explain pareidolia NatFoot?    I get tired of doing it.    One of my examples of it  is that I have a marmolium floor in a bathroom.      If I sit and look at the random swirls and patterns my mind creates monkey faces,   bigfoot images,  faces of people I do not know, sometimes faces of monsters, or president Lincoln.   The mind constructs images out of random patterns.    Just how our brain works.      I would encourage someone not to take random pictures of the woods because you will always find something in them.    The likelihood of it being anything real is near zero.     The best method to maybe get something real,   is if you hear a noise then take a picture in the direction of the noise.     You have just been given the gift of knowing something is moving in that direction.   Something moving is orders of magnitude more likely to be something real that just taking pictures of the still woods at random.  .   Better yet if you have video gear,   hold the camera absolutely still and take video in the direction of the noise.    If a BF is behind a tree and peeking, with the camera being held still you will see movement and pick up something real moving.as it peeks at you.       If you watch a video with the camera absolutely still, anything moving will jump right out at you.    A leaf flickering in a gentle breeze etc.    That works best if you rest the camera against a tree or mount it on a hiking pole like I do.   The pole acts as a photography monopod.   Anything that holds the camera still is better than just hand holding it.     Most of the time movement will be a deer or squirrel but you never know.   The worst thing is to pan the camera.   By doing that everything is moving in the video and you cannot likely find something moving watching it at home.     Getting off my well used soapbox now.     R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×