I guess the gist of my rant is why cant somone take a decent picture of bigfoot... I mean seriously, people take clear pictures of rare woodpeckers that haven't been seen in 200 years, but can't focus on a 10 foot tall ape. The ape has to be less rare than the woodpecker... Even my cell phone takes pictures better than most purported bigfoot blobsquatch photos. They can film some slug on the ocean floor in total darkness, but when it comes to filming bigfoot, its always shakey, blurry, grainy and inconclusive. People in the woods take decent pictures of the woods themselves, scenery, deer, bear, each other...

In a similar vein, how close to a game came does the animal have to be in order to get photoraped? Seems like the cams have maybe a 2 foot depth of vision, resluting in extreme close ups of the back of a dog or the side of a bear. And if the camera shows the back of a dog, how high off the ground was it? Was someone trying to take a picture of bigfoot's knee? :new_stun:

Lastly, with something like the Skookum cast... why would bigfoot (an animal that lives outdoors, in the woods and in all weather conditions) lie down and shimmy across a mud puddle? I figure a 10 foot tall ape would just walk over to the apple, bend over and pick it up. Would be a lot less messy that way... now he has to clean the mud off half of his body. And, why not put up a camera to watch the apple in the mud pit? So like ok, someone makes this big mud pit, puts an apple in the middle to attract bigfoot, then doesn't put a camera up to watch? :icon_bang:

rant over... just things like that bug the crap out of me...

Car

I hope your not talking about the Ivory Billed Woopecker, because the alleged film is extremely blurry and inconclusive. Wildlife photography is tough field, it takes alot of talent, patience, and pricey equipment. Something most researchers and hikers/campers/hunters don't have. Filming rare, wild animals can take years to do, last night there was that "Planet Earth" doceumentary on the Discovery Channel, and it showed wildlife photographers taking many months to clearly film a group of camels in a desert. A group of apes in a temperate rainforest would take much longer.



It wasn't a mud puddle, I have read that it the consitency of loamy soil, not mud. Gorillas eat in similar positions, as Meldrum has pointed out.

I think the group wasthin on cameras and had them else where.

And the theory that they may try and hide their footprints (it is now thought that chimps may be aware of their own footprints, so why not a BF?), so that is why a BF supposedly lay down in the mud and reached across for the food.

I think we have been spoiled by 'wildlife' tv shows that depict animals kept in large game reserves where the keepers know where all the animals hang out. The shows look deceptively easy.

Did you know for example, that until 2005 the Giant Panda had never been filmed in the wild? Until then, only captive Giant Pandas had appeared on film in wildlife documentaries.

Here in the UK, there are sizeable wild populations of wallabies and wild hogs, but not once have they been captured on film.


In Los Angeles, only one drive-by shooting has been captured on video, so don't be too hard on people for not videoing or photographing Bigfoot.

But you are right, I hate the blobsquatches - if it doesn't look like a bigfoot, it ain't a bigfoot.

Actually I made the woodpecker example up, but you get the idea. A lot of rare and unusual stuff gets photographed all the time... just not bigfoot. Even UFOs photograph better.

In 2007 you would think that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE could take a photo that wasnt blobby

Yeah but not by normal people.

Perhaps we should try recruiting some retired Pro wildlife photographers... :happy:

Or wait for one of the not yet retired ones to come back from the field with that elusive photo . . .

This is a good question and one I have asked myself before. It seems strange to me that a Bigfoot would behave in this manner just to pick up a piece of fruit off the ground, especially considering the fact that the mud was present.
Was there a theory to try and explain why it might have done this, I can't seem to remember if there was.

I also thought there would have been better film footage or photographs of Bigfoot by now, considering all of the game cameras out there, or at least it seems that way anyway.

Worse than that - the BFRO had thermal imaging cameras on the expedition that resulted in the Skookum cast, but for some reason didn't use them.

It wasn't mud and gorillas behave in that matter. I don't see the mystery there. Game cameras are relatively new, I think that might just catch one sometime. I'm suprised that less idiots in monkey suits havent been setting them off, but I suppose I forget that most people really don't care about the subject and wouldn't think to hoax it.

Slinky

Show us your deer photographs, taken in thick forest while they are moving away from you into deeper cover while you are trying to get into a better position to film.

I'd like to see what it is you expect from amateurs walking through the woods with hobby cameras.

I know you're frustrated as we all are. But show us what it's supposed to look like.

Dan

I think we have all become spoiled by those nature programs which use million dollar budgets and film animals in captive environments for the most part.

We tend to forget that the lousy shots end up on the cutting room floor and only the clear and compelling shots are presented.

I mean no disrespect but doesn't water + dirt = mud?

Has anyone ever given an explanation as to way primates such as gorillas behave in this way?
Is it to cover their own tracks?

:laugh: Too funny and way too true. Maybe this thread could become an ongoing list of everyone's 'rants' of similar nature. To wit...

Simply amazing.

Seems every one of the BFRO Expeditions™ has had some kind of Bigfoot Activity™, yet not once have they managed to snap a good OR bad picture of the bastards. In fact I don't think they've ever shot a picture of...anything. Not jack rabbit, mountain lion or a dead trout. "Yet, yer sure it was Bigfoot™, right?" "Uh huh." :ohmy:

It wasn't dirt it was soil, if I remember right, and was loamy. Mud sounds like more water than soil, and would have sticked to whatever layed down.

I can tell you why there are no clear pictures of them.
First, they don't want to be anywhere near a human (that knows they are there). They know their territory like you know the numbers on your picture-taking cell phone, & if anything is different, they will know what & why before they come anywhere near it. When they do come near it, they can be there & gone in seconds. Usually, they just go somewhere else & don't come back for several days.
Thus the reason expeditions fail so miserably.
How many people have the time or patience to sit in the woods, for days on end, (where one might or might not be), with a camera ready to take a picture within seconds? They would have to be ready, because by the time they got the camera out & made the noise to turn it on and get it ready to take the picture, they would be lucky to get picture of a blur in the distance.
Since they don't usually come out of hiding except at night, you would need 3 or 4 thousand dollars worth of night vision equiptment on that camera & both would have to be turned on, & have the lens cover :new_weirdsmiley: off.
When one is seen up close, it is a complete surprise to both the BF & the person, & both are usually trying to go opposite directions as fast as possible, with no thoughts to picture taking, even if a camera is available.
Critizing people that are actually trying to get a picture is a easy, but actually getting out there and doing it isn't so easy.

Hear him! Hear him!

Personally, why bother with a picture? It'll just get put on the internet and the "experts" :new_rolleyes: will just tear it apart claiming it to be a fake and the person who took it to be a liar anyway. "The fur looks fake, the muscle tone is all wrong, I see a zipper, and my favorite: why would a wild BF stand there and let you take a good picture? Must be a guy in a suit..." Unfortunatly, it's the same with all the videos. Yes there are a lot of fakes out there, but even if there weren't, who would believe it anyway? If Joe Blow down the street took a clear video of a BF, it would be instantly discredited because one of famous "experts" didn't get it first so it's obviously a fake. I won't even start about the personal accounts. The way things have gotten, you could bring in a live one or a body of a dead one and some website would still say it's a fake. Nowadays I can really understand why more people don't say anything about what they see or hear, not only do you have to deal with the local media, you get crusified on the good ole world wide web too. Sorry, just my .02.

Yeah, ask a michigan wildlife photog if he has ever taken a picture of a cougar. I'll bet he'll say nope.

I tried to take a picture of some squirells with my cell phone, all I got was a bunch of gray blurs. Shucks.

Love the rant ...its got me thinking ....keep on ranting!!!! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

I sometimes wonder how many bigfoot pictures become that "after the fact". It happens all the time with pictures of UFOs and ghosts. Nothing is observed or noticed by the photographer at the time the picture is taken, but once developed or downloaded there it is. Maybe while in the field they heard twigs snapping or smelled an unusual odor but didn't actually see anything. Once they release it for public viewing they feel the picture will be more "credible" if in fact they claim they saw something and that's why they took the picture. I'm sure some may have seen some movement, shadow, or something to draw their attention to that location. Over time I can understand one's memory changing slightly to actually make them believe in fact they did see whatever is shown in the picture after all they were there taking the picture and it's in the picture.

Where have you been...the pictures are clear, bigfoot is blurry!

In my opinoin, this could also be a way for a possible hoaxer to not have to field any questions as to what it was that was photographed. By simply saying "I didn't see it untill after the photo was developed", leaves the researcher or viewer with only the photo to analyze.

Im not criticizing anyone, just stating something that I think is somewhat obvious... With how many billion people on earth, you would think one would have snapped a decent Bigfoot photo in the last 150 years of photographic history. Especially nowdays. I'm also not saying that people take tons of wildlife pictures in the woods every single day, but some people do...

I guess too I view Bigfoot as an animal. He's not superhuman. He doesn't have psychic powers. He's flesh and blood and no different than a bear, chimp or dolphin. Gorillas are secretive and it did take until the 20th century to find them, but they are still animals and have animal failings. He can't be smarter than a person since he doesn't make tools or fire. He's curious enough to look in buildings, root in trash dumps, run back and forth across roads, sneak up on parked cars out on dead ends in the woods, etc. I just figure someone someplace would have gotten a better picture by now.

You have to admit that the few bigfoot pics and films, either real or fake, tend to be pretty bad for the most part. Some are good enough to be useful, like the PG film, but the rest could be who knows what.

Bf may not be smarter than a person in our environment, but he may be smarter in his (or hers, with apologies to Patty).
My view is a BF is intelligent enough to outwit humans stomping through the woods -- I don't find that idea fantastic at all. We hear a lot about how hunters, trackers or self-described "nature boys" (and no offense to the hunters, trackers, etc. here -- I am mainly describing the blowhards who claim "If it's out there, I woulda seen it by now!") being the ultimate in back woodsmanship, but I have to think something like a BF -- who is probably somewhat intelligent -- who lives in his environment 24/7, should be able to avoid the best of the best.
Most people aren't out to get a picture of a bigfoot, because most out there don't believe that the animal exits anyway. When you have a smaller amount of the population actually looking for an unknown animal, I think there is a lot less potential to get a decent pic. I honestly don't know what the odds are. Didn't I read somewhere that it's pretty darned near impossible to get a pic of a wolverine in the wild?
Basically with what meager resources are being utilized to look for something that (in my opinion) hasn't been proven to exist, the lack of good photographic evidence isn't all that troublesome.

Let me answer the question of why bigfoot photos are always "blurry" with some questions of my own:

1.) How many people care enough about the subject (or have the time) to trounce through the densest of North America's woods with a camera perpetually at the ready?

2.) How much chance does your layperson--camera in hand or not--loudly slashing his/her way through the foliage have of getting the jump on a sasquatch while on ITS turf, especially if anecdotal evidence regarding its behavior paints an accurate portrait of the animal as shy, solitary, nocturnal, stealthy, etc.?

3.) Say an individual--like most Americans, I'd be willing to venture(despite having just come from a palm reading or a peak at his/her horoscope in the newspaper)--who has heard of "Bigfoot" but has always mentally compartmentalized the idea of the thing as a fairy-tale actually stumbles upon one. The two meet in the forest. Suddenly, this average American, in the space of mere seconds, has had a long-standing aspect of his/her belief-system turned on its head. If he/she can finish standing agog and stupified long enough to manage the wherewithal to reach for his/her hypothetical camera (its quality notwithstanding), where do you think the sasquatch will be by the time all of this is finished and the picture ready to take?

(An aside: I make the jest about the palm-reading because I'm sure that if a survey of, say, 5,000 Americans were taken, and the question asked was "which 'paranormal' phenomenon do you believe to be most likely legitimate," and the survey contained the choices "Angels," "Psychic abilities," "Astrology," "Ghosts," "Aliens," and then "Bigfoot," BF would come in last place. Why? Because we believe what we *want* to believe, and all of those phenomena--save for BF--offer us something "higher" to look toward. The idea of BF is probably a threatening one to most [whether they realize it or not] because it posits an animal that, at least on the surface, acts and looks a lot like us and therefore forces us to reflect on our roots as animals ourselves, a fact of our existence not a lot of us like to have reiterated. So, despite it being the least outrageous of the choices above, believers in BF-as-a-real-animal seem to catch more flak than those who say that their marriage was a disaster because it wasn't "in the stars.")

I bet you didn't get the memo, according to the BFRO <cough burp>, Bigfoot™ has gone 'global'. Apparently there's a little known law that requires at least one Bigfoot™ delegate actually live and scare people in every county in every state in the US. I recently read one was spotted 'sneaking' into an OK Indian casino buffet (Crab Night®, I think). Somebody in there musta had a camera.

I tried to place a long distance call to Bigfoot with my camera, and all I heard was "click, click, click........"

Thom Powell has an account in his book about a juvenile belly-crawling toward fruit bait. It may just be an normal way for them to approach something strange. (The witness failed to get the picture because an 8'-possibly 9' male seemed to indicate taking a picture would result in death.)

The ground was hard around the mudhole in Skookum Meadow and it was right next to a road. There may have been a footprint in the mud that was squashed when the animal sat down.

There were cameras set up, on Ridgetop at least. One of the inverters failed and "the film crew ran into a problem with both the thermal camera and the infra-red camera shutting down due to excessive moisture getting into the components".

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayfive.htm

They were also not quick enough to photograph a mountain lion behind them.

:laugh: :laugh:

Then again, as someone else mentioned, any still photography of BF has been rendered moot in the evidentiary sense given today's computer technology. Plus, say one is taken and the subject in the photo is completely unambiguous, the skeptics will just flip-flop, saying that it's suspicious how *well*-shot it is.

Save for a video of a BF eating, defecating, and then giving birth (not necessarily in that order), nothing short of a body will ever work.

i guess it all depends on how you view the material. if your strictly viewing pictures or film over the internet you're probably SOL. take you tube for example. i don't think i have ever seen a clean video on there. they are always sketchy looking, whether its little tommy crashing on his bike or dad blowing out some birthday candles. they always look blurry or pixelated. even filming with professional equipment, after you compress it, load it onto the net, there is an extreme amount of quality loss. the once sharp footage now looks a hair soft, jitters or has some type of traser effect to it. now how many random joe shmoe's are there in the woods is filming with a proffessional grade camera? most of the time people are only carrying little hand helds. which are great, they are affordable and do the job if your subject is within 100 feet of you. but if you want to film something at great distances they are not your best case scenario. we have all seen those videos that point out a little dot on the hillside on the opposite side of the valley. you can't see anything but a dot. now with the right set up you could clearly make out and film what it was. the problem is that the right set up can cost a bit much. around $12,000. i don't know about many other people, but i don't have 12 G's laying around.

I agree entirely. Then add to this the shock of coming upon one with your cheap camera in tow. This is what I was saying.

(Speaking of YouTube, there's been yet another one added: some *thing* filmed by two youths in a place called "Enchanted Forest" somewhere in Canada. I'm assuming it's being discussed among the threads here somewhere already, so I won't embarrass myself by making a new one.)

yeah, the kids video. there are some links on here, but truthfully, whatever. how funny is it that all videos start out the same exact way. shaky, not quite sure what your looking at, then catch a quick glimpse then shaky looking at the ground and blam, your looking at a bigfoot or something thats supposed to resemble one. check this link out.. i think the very first one is pretty interesting. i guess some people are pretty skeptical of the the dude that took the video but, who cares. looks legit... i think.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry379077

Thanks for the link.

Well, if you go watch the Freeman footage at YouTube, you'll find many complaints that his film isn't the least *bit* shaky. In fact, he seems in full control of the situation, emotionally and...uh...videologically. I'm not sure what one should be more suspicious of: footage that seems to indicate rushed distress on the part of the person behind the camera and the inevitably poor quality images, or that such as Freeman's, where he's so (relatively) cool about it that he's actually narrarating. Granted, what Freeman filmed isn't National Geographic material, but it's obviously something big, hairy, upright, walking bipedally, and is not a bear. So it's either a suited accomplice or the real thing. With these two kids, it's hard to say just *what* the hell they caught on film. (Personally, though, if I were going to pull a fast one, I'd at least have kept the subject in the shot for a longer period of time...unless it was a particularly terrible costume.)

It's funny how Patterson "got it" just right: for the first few seconds, it's your standard bigfoot-film-related shakiness because he fell off his horse (purportedly)...then he gets his act together and gets a nice clear shot of WHATEVER it is as it ambles away. The best of both worlds, so to speak, and the best footage there exists.

true that mcmanus.