Guest Knuck Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Even if someone actually got serious about the disposable camera thing. There is one issue that NEEDS to be adressed. After FUZZY snaps the first pic (of who knows what) there it is. Who th hell is going to wind the film to the next unexposed frame? DOH!- Knuck
Sasfooty Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Who th hell is going to wind the film to the next unexposed frame? DOH!- Knuck Ahhhh. The voice of reason. Just wait, though. Somebody will be along later to say "You're just making excuses."
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Oh. Was I supposed to be insulted? No. I hoped you might be intrigued enough to give something like that a try. If bigfoots have hands like ours, I wouldn't worry about them not figuring out how to advance the roll.
Sasfooty Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) If they figured out how to advance the film, wouldn't it be likely that they would also notice that it was a camera, throw it down & stomp it in a hundred pieces? Edited March 2, 2011 by Sasfooty
indiefoot Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 A waterproofed one of these would have been an interesting experiment, when you could afford the film. Current prices are about 5 bucks a pop when you buy 6-10 packs. Take some pictures of objects in the area and then leave it and the pictures lay. See if they find the right button, or stomp it into pieces like Sasfooty suggested. Has any one tried putting Bigfoot art prints in a clear sleeve and leaving them out? Might get a finger print.
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 If they figured out how to advance the film, wouldn't it be likely that they would also notice that it was a camera, throw it down & stomp it in a hundred pieces? I can't see why they'd be more likely to stomp a camera to pieces than any other humany object.
Guest gershake Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Has any one tried putting Bigfoot art prints in a clear sleeve and leaving them out? I love that idea. - Shake
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I love that idea. - Shake I think it's a great idea! On a more serious note, who's going to explain? No these were just pictures!! I don't have #6 in the house!! No I don't have her/his address?? :D That is going to be one awkward conversation.
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I know. It's such a shame. So perhaps you'd like to explain why such creatures would intentionally destroy cameras because they are cameras?
Sasfooty Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I don't know that they would. It could happen, though. In case you haven't heard, they don't like cameras.
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 In case you haven't heard, they don't like cameras. I've heard that claim, I just haven't also heard any kind of plausible explanation why that would be the case.
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I've heard that claim, I just haven't also heard any kind of plausible explanation why that would be the case. May I ask, why do you post here if you don't accept answers to your questions? I've been curious because when someone answers you to the best of their knowledge you seem quite unsatisfied? Thanks.
Sasfooty Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I've heard that claim, I just haven't also heard any kind of plausible explanation why that would be the case. Because they don't want their picture taken. Grayjay, that is the nature of skeptics. They never accept an answer that could destroy their skepticism.
Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Because they don't want their picture taken. Sasfooty you know that I'm not a bigfoot skeptic, but do you know how they would know that cameras take pictures? How would they even know what a picture is?- Shake Edited March 3, 2011 by gershake
Recommended Posts