For some I guess. But I can't seem to get him to come out into the open and pose for a nice shot.
Forest dwelling wildlife in general doesn't come out and pose for photographers but that hasn't prevented innumerable quality pics from both amateurs and pros from being taken of all sorts of weird and wonderful and sometimes extremely rare forest species.
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.
You can get entry level DSLRs that not only take great quality pics, but that come with full HD video recording functionality for less than $500. You'll need to spend extra for a decent zoom lens if you need it though. And if you want, they typically have stereo mic inputs so you can hook up an external microphone for better sound quality.
Edited by Archimedes, 06 March 2013 - 07:25 PM.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.
Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:02 PM
One problem with bigfoot pics is that usually they are enlargements of an original pic. Usually the "bigfoot" in the pic was a tiny little enlongated dot on the original photo and whoever owned it blew it up to look for bigfoots. And a snag, stump, or even a dark bush look a lot like a bigfoot from a quarter mile away.
The problem with game cams is that people set the timer, or it comes pre-timed, and whatever was there triggers it and is gone. But, that is really just an excuse, because pics of deer, and other fast animals are taken all the time.
Sakari often posts pics of the deer living by him and if the deer are moving the game cam picks are often blurry.
Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker
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?
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?
I'll have to show you, it's badass and alot of fun.
I'm not implying that it's no different. I'm stating for a fact that it would be much harder to take a picture of a Red Wolf, for example, than a Bigfoot. Did you even look at the link I posted? There are roughly 100 red wolves in the wild and yet plenty of high quality, crystal clear, photographs.
According to the bigfoot experts, bigfoot ranges the world over and by necessity must have a breeding population in the tens of thousands to support that. So where are the photos? There are tens of thousands of trail cams set out annually. And millions of HD still and video cameras going into the woods each and every year. Not to mention the specific expeditions that set out each year to find old squatch.
And yet, not one, single definitive photograph. Not one.
"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Without a body to back it up there'll never be such a photograph. Not one.
With habituation sites, why speak of only one definitive photograph? There should be dozens of them. Showing bf eating and playing with the toys and whatever else. Videos would also be "de rigueur" by now. And they'd go a long way in proving bigfoot's existence or at least in luring in science.
Biology has no blobology or blurrology as it is, so you can't blame them.
And for the millionth time "Why? Why? would a bf be afraid of or avoid cameras?" I want just one good reason.
I've heard it said bf smell film. Even if they could, that doesn't answer "why" they are afraid. And what about digital cameras?