Sunday, March 13, 2016

Analyzing Bigfoot

There are many out there in the world of Bigfooting that feel compelled to analyze, or nitpick if you will, every up and coming video and picture claiming to be the million dollar shot of the big man himself. Granted, most of these videos and still shots are nothing more than easily explainable phenomenon such as peradolia or simulacra, but more often than not, just an imagined shape caused by a combination of shadows, lighting and blurriness fueled by an aggressive imagination.

Truth be told, I've probably taken hundreds of these shots, and thought they were pretty good ones. At least until I was able to get them home and run them through my software to see what it really was that I was looking at. But I do have some good ones, though not definitive in their quality and thus useless as providing truth of this creatures existence. This is where the difference lies with many of us out there. Some of us will examine what we have before we present our evidence, rather than letting our exuberance rule the day and running home to post our work as soon as we can.

However, this post is not about those of us who post our own work, but about those people who post the work of others under the guise of such loosely bandied about terms as "breakdown", "review", "analysis" or other names. Usually these sites and posts, whether in video or other format, are designed to sensationalize the video itself, rather than to provide an in depth analysis of the work in question. The big question here is: is it right for these videos to be made?

The obvious response is that of course they should, its a good way to expose hoaxers and scammers. But then, are they really exposing hoaxers? Or are these analysts really just taking advantage of someones exuberance?  Granted, the bulk of these videos do expose poor examples of proof, as well as outright scams, but they also provide a reason for those who may have some viable work to present from coming forward out of fear of ridicule.