Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest River]

I see darker shapes within but I can't make anything out of them. Sorry Sasfooty.

Hey if anyones got better pic's of something they took, post them. She's trying to back up her reports with her own evidence so take it easy guys. Be objective, not rude and sarcastic. We do want new reports and evidence to be submitted do we not. Or do we want to scare away everyone.

Objective:

1ob·jec·tive adj \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

Definition of OBJECTIVE

1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs

3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Pareidolia:

Pareidolia (pronounced /pærɪˈdoʊliə/ pa-ri-DOE-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.

Edited November 10, 2010 by River

[Sasfooty]

(edited to add)

I agree with GF that it would be better to see/analyze the original photo file uncompressed, directly from the camera.

I'll email it to you if you think you can do anything with it.

GF said it was probably too far away.

It's not on the camera card anymore, but I'll send you the whole uncropped picture. That's the best I can do.

[masterbarber]

In that case I'm not sure that there can be anything further derived from it but I'll PM you.

Is it possible for you to take another photo of the same area at approx. the same time of day and post that?

[Sasfooty]

In that case I'm not sure that there can be anything further derived from it but I'll PM you.

Is it possible for you to take another photo of the same area at approx. the same time of day and post that?

I have one that was taken last winter that shows what's there without so much vegetation, & another one that was taken in the summer with a lot of undergrowth. That one was taken in early spring.

[Sunflower]

I use black & white occasionally but on my monitor it was so clear that I didn't need to go there.

MasterBarber, thanks for posting those. I want to mention that Sasfooty's pic was 72 pixels. I increased the pixels to 500 and made other adjustments. The last thing I did was crop and email it to her.

Indiefoot, thanks for posting those crops and actually it inspires me to look further amongst this pic.

Sasfooty, thanks for sending me this pic. I was "elated" to say the least.

[masterbarber]

Okay, let's have a look at those- if you don't mind posting them.

ETA:

Sunflower, keep in mind that when you increase the pixel size, the computer will randomly add the extra pixels.

Edited November 10, 2010 by masterbarber

[Sasfooty]

Here's the winter one. Turns out it was march, but any way, there isn't much brush in the way.

Judging by the shadows, it may have been taken a little later in the afternoon than the other one was.

[masterbarber]

That's not much help I'm afraid. See if you can photograph the area again from a much closer vantage point as opposed to zooming in on it. I'm trying to determine if there's anything there that may cause the two odd shadows I pointed out.

[indiefoot]

Just a reminder of my earlier statement.

When you enlarge a photo this far you have to take the detail you see with a grain of salt.

When you go into a photo that starts out compressed, gets cropped and re-compressed, enlarged and re-compressed.... you can see where I'm going. Looking at the original file will give you an idea of whether there is enough detail in the shadow areas to determine what is going on back there. A series of stills taken at the same time gives you a reference for movement of possible subjects. Comparable comparison shots give reference between what was and what is there. Even with all that you end up with an inconclusive photo.

[Sasfooty]

I just took this one just a few minutes ago.

[Guest River]

Why are these images all of varying pixel size if they are from the same camera and are all the "out of camera" original? Just curious.

Edited November 10, 2010 by River

[masterbarber]

Yeah, it's crazy. I used to have an older Sony (with the floppy disk storage) that would do something like this on landscapes. Sass, What make/model camera are you using if you don't mind me asking?

[Sasfooty]

Kodak DC215 Zoom

It's pretty old, about 1998 or so.

Did you get the pic I sent?

[Guest Yeti1974]

Sasfooty, just out of curiosity, but when was the last time you tried sitting out at that pond with some food in hand?

[Sasfooty]

I never have.