274 replies to this topic

[JesseCuster]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

If it's ears were larger and more circular than a humans, a set of radar dish ears would come in handy. If it were tall, muscular, and bi/quadrapdal, it could out maneuver anyone or anything in the forest. If it had a broad flat nose with large nostrils, it would probably have a keen sense of smell also. No magic needed.

A keen sense of smell, great hearing and being quick on the move doesn't make an animal invisible to cameras.

Since when has any of those things made it impossible to take a clear photograph or video footage of an animal?  Especially an animal that is described as being 8ft tall and 500lbs?

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

[Stardrive]

Archimedes, on 06 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Since when has any of those things made it impossible to take a clear photograph or video footage of an animal?  Especially an animal that is described as being 8ft tall and 500lbs?

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

Even if there were clear photographs, would you not call hoax on them?

[Rafterman]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Even if there were clear photographs, would you not call hoax on them?

If there were hundreds or thousands of clear, high definition photographs of Bigfoot (like there are with many of animals that even more rare than the big guy), then many of us would have to accept that they exist.

I will gladly come on board once we have those photographs in hand and cataloged.

Here's the list of the rarest mammals on the planet:

http://www.greenexpa...s-in-the-world/

In some cases there are fewer than 100 in the wild and, hey look, crystal clear photographs.

[Stardrive]

And just how long has HD photography been around? Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question.  Good counter-point, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

I was wondering Rafterman, I read on here where alot of folks are internet squatchers. Why hasn't anyone started a topic on it? Seems like it would generate some interest.

[Stardrive]

Archimedes, on 06 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

Have any of these same wildlife photographers you speak of gone out to specifically get an HD pic of bf?

[Rafterman]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

And just how long has HD photography been around? Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question.  Good counter-point, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

I was wondering Rafterman, I read on here where alot of folks are internet squatchers. Why hasn't anyone started a topic on it? Seems like it would generate some interest.

I'll be generous and say that the ability to take high resolution photographs and high definition video has been around for a decade or so.  Plenty of time for there to be hundreds if not thousands of photos of old squatch.  We don't seem to have any problems taking such photos of even more rare creatures as I stated above.  And yes, while the one-oft photo can be hoaxed or manipulated, one would think we would reach a point where the amount of high quality photographic evidence was so significant, that it could no longer be questioned.

And no, that's not apples and oranges.

I have no idea what you mean by "internet squatchers".

[Rafterman]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Have any of these same wildlife photographers you speak of gone out to specifically get an HD pic of bf?

Yes.  If not professional wildlife photographers, then certainly amateurs.  I believe there's even a television show about it called Finding something or another.

[Stardrive]

Rafterman, on 06 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

I'll be generous and say that the ability to take high resolution photographs and high definition video has been around for a decade or so.  Plenty of time for there to be hundreds if not thousands of photos of old squatch.

Right. 10 years is plenty of time for wildlife photographers to get out there to specifically get an HD pic of a squatch. Have they attempted that yet?

Quote

We don't seem to have any problems taking such photos of even more rare creatures as I stated above.  And yes, while the one-oft photo can be hoaxed or manipulated, one would think we would reach a point where the amount of high quality photographic evidence was so significant, that it could no longer be questioned.

And no, that's not apples and oranges.

What I meant was, you're implying that taking an HD pic of a BF is no different than taking an HD pic of any other rare animal. Really?? you see no difference? So it's the same difficulty factor taking an HD pic of a Kangaroo as it is a Snow Leopard?

Quote

I have no idea what you mean by "internet squatchers".

I'll have to show you, it's badass and alot of fun.

[Stardrive]

Rafterman, on 06 March 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Yes.  If not professional wildlife photographers, then certainly amateurs.  I believe there's even a television show about it called Finding something or another.

If the source was an amateur, down in flames it goes. The show Finding whatever isn't about getting any kind of conclusive evidence. It's for entertainment only.

[JesseCuster]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

And just how long has HD photography been around?

A lot longer than digital photography has been around.  35mm film has been capturing crystal clear video and photographs of rare animals for a long time.  Until recently, film photography was still the standard for the likes of landscape photography, portraits and wedding photos, etc. because until the recent advent of 20Mp+ digital cameras, it could actually capture more detail than and digital cameras.  Digital photography is simply far more convenient for obvious reasons.

Professional photographers have been capturing 'high definition' colour photographs of wildlife for decades.

[JesseCuster]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

Right. 10 years is plenty of time for wildlife photographers to get out there to specifically get an HD pic of a squatch. Have they attempted that yet?

Isn't the onus on the bigfoot hunters claiming he exists to go out there and get the photographs?  If none (or hardly any) have attempted to get decent quality photos of bigfoot, then what does that tell you about how serious they are about their quest to prove his existence?  And 10 years is a serious underestimate for the time hd photography has been around, like I already said, 35mm film in a decent camera more than qualifies as high definition.

If I was a bigfoot hunter, a digital SLR with a zoom lens would be part of my standard kit.

[Stardrive]

You sir are correct. HD technology has been around for a while, albiet that type of pre-digital photography was very cumbersome to transport, set-up, and maintain.

[Stardrive]

Archimedes, on 06 March 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

Isn't the onus on the bigfoot hunters claiming he exists to go out there and get the photographs?  I

For some I guess. But I can't seem to get him to come out into the open and pose for a nice shot.

Quote

If I was a bigfoot hunter, a digital SLR with a zoom lens would be part of my standard kit.

I have an old dinosaur Sony video cam. It takes nice pics but the resolution is poor. What I have in mind is something about cell-phone sized that can take high quality/resolution sound, video, and pictures. Any suggestions? Something that doesn't look like the standard camera/video cam.

[JesseCuster]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question.

Photos certainly can be hoaxed.  But if you're familiar with photo manipulation you'll know that it is far easier to manipulate and hoax poor quality photos.  It's not too hard to hoax a monster or ghost or whatever into an image, and then deliberately degrade the quality of the image by reducing the resolution, adding noise or grain, blurring it a bit, etc.

I don't know the origins of the following pic, but it's not hard to imagine how it could have been photoshopped or that it's some dude in an ape costume or just a blurry picture of a gorilla.



On the other hand, it's a hell of a lot harder to hoax any of the really good quality amateur and professional wildlife photography that exists.  Do a Google image search for gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, etc. and then do one for bigfoot.  The whole subject of bigfoot is too much like other fringe areas, full of excuses for the lack of evidence or poor quality of the evidence.

Edited by Archimedes, 06 March 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[JesseCuster]

Stardrive, on 06 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

You sir are correct. HD technology has been around for a while, albiet that type of pre-digital photography was very cumbersome to transport, set-up, and maintain.

Pre-digital SLRs were no bigger or cumbersome than current models.   35mm SLRs generally use the same body style and size as digital SLRs.