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.
Showing posts with label Bigfoot video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bigfoot video. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
A Kokomo Bigfoot
This video was published on December 14th of last year. A Kokomo Bigfoot is a study of two newspaper articles relating the captures of two “wild men of the woods.” The first piece, “A Wisconsin Wild Man” tells of the capture of a wild man said to be about 60 years old. What strikes me about this piece is the description of his strength and the way he gets around by leaping on all four limbs, much like a kangaroo, as the article’s writer puts it.
He was nearly able to escape, but the sheer numbers of men present at his capture defeated his efforts, and he was finally subdued and brought into the jail for keeping. Ostensibly a story of just a man gone wild, demented in his own right, but there are several questions that arise that give one pause to wonder if this might not really have been an odd encounter with the Sasquatch.
The second story, from Indiana tells of a similar wild man capture, again of an older man. He was said to have a herculean physique and strength, and was found moving about on all fours, and also was unclothed. Both of these men uttered unintelligible sounds, with the only word coming from either of them being what sounded like the word or name Jacobson coming from the Kokomo specimen.
Probably just a couple of tales of strange men, but what if these were really stories of Sasquatch, or Bigfoot people encounters. They were of similar mien, and were found less than 500 miles apart, and in the same year. These two articles pose lots of questions. Maybe someone from those areas can take the research further and find some answers.
Sorry about the audio in this video, by the way, but I do need to invest in some new equipment which will have to wait. Also, the images at the end of the video are cuts of just a few of the headlines I have found dealing with the wild man of the woods enigma. Hope you enjoy, and don’t forget to subscribe, like and share if you do. And don't forget to visit Bigfoot Tales on Facebook!
He was nearly able to escape, but the sheer numbers of men present at his capture defeated his efforts, and he was finally subdued and brought into the jail for keeping. Ostensibly a story of just a man gone wild, demented in his own right, but there are several questions that arise that give one pause to wonder if this might not really have been an odd encounter with the Sasquatch.
The second story, from Indiana tells of a similar wild man capture, again of an older man. He was said to have a herculean physique and strength, and was found moving about on all fours, and also was unclothed. Both of these men uttered unintelligible sounds, with the only word coming from either of them being what sounded like the word or name Jacobson coming from the Kokomo specimen.
Probably just a couple of tales of strange men, but what if these were really stories of Sasquatch, or Bigfoot people encounters. They were of similar mien, and were found less than 500 miles apart, and in the same year. These two articles pose lots of questions. Maybe someone from those areas can take the research further and find some answers.
Sorry about the audio in this video, by the way, but I do need to invest in some new equipment which will have to wait. Also, the images at the end of the video are cuts of just a few of the headlines I have found dealing with the wild man of the woods enigma. Hope you enjoy, and don’t forget to subscribe, like and share if you do. And don't forget to visit Bigfoot Tales on Facebook!
Sunday, February 8, 2015
The Yellowstone Bigfoot
Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything, but I'm going to try to remedy these lapses as best i can, especially in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch arena. In addition to having to work seven days a week at multiple jobs, I've also had to endure a fatal crash of my computer, resulting in the loss of most of my work. Backup will restore most of it, but it will take time to restore programming and drivers. But for now....
By now most of you have heard about and seen the many versions of the video coming from out of Yellowstone Park. It's a nice (b-roll) video, but does it really show what is purported to be a Bigfoot? In my opinion no. For one thing, if that was a real Bigfoot in the background behind the bison, the bison wouldn't be casually grazing as they strolled around.
From all accounts I have read about or seen on the tube, animals flee in terror when the Sasquatch people are in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the figures in the background appear to be more human in stature. They seem too thin, and don't appear to be overly tall in comparison to many height reports. They seem to me to fit within the parameters one would expect an average human adult to fit within.
I say "they" because it has been claimed that this is a family unit of Sasquatch. To me, it looks more like two adult couples out for a snowshoe hike in the snow.There are only a few seconds of the figures shown, bit it looks to me like the last one on line as a lighter colored jacket on, and as soon as this fact becomes apparent, the videographer zooms back out to a panoramic or wide view of the scene and we loose sight of them, whatever they are.
The usual breakdown kings and queens have all issued their proclamations as to the veracity and usefulness of this video to we Sasquatch researchers and fans,but I merely find it to be just another distraction in my search for the truth.
I've attached a YouTube video here so that you can take a quick look if you want to, but again, I find it useless as evidence, and shiws nothing Squatchy at all about the figures in the trees. Feel free to come to your own conclusions, and remember, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, bit we're not always in a place where sharing that opinion is allowed, and as always, facts are facts.
By now most of you have heard about and seen the many versions of the video coming from out of Yellowstone Park. It's a nice (b-roll) video, but does it really show what is purported to be a Bigfoot? In my opinion no. For one thing, if that was a real Bigfoot in the background behind the bison, the bison wouldn't be casually grazing as they strolled around.
From all accounts I have read about or seen on the tube, animals flee in terror when the Sasquatch people are in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the figures in the background appear to be more human in stature. They seem too thin, and don't appear to be overly tall in comparison to many height reports. They seem to me to fit within the parameters one would expect an average human adult to fit within.
I say "they" because it has been claimed that this is a family unit of Sasquatch. To me, it looks more like two adult couples out for a snowshoe hike in the snow.There are only a few seconds of the figures shown, bit it looks to me like the last one on line as a lighter colored jacket on, and as soon as this fact becomes apparent, the videographer zooms back out to a panoramic or wide view of the scene and we loose sight of them, whatever they are.
The usual breakdown kings and queens have all issued their proclamations as to the veracity and usefulness of this video to we Sasquatch researchers and fans,but I merely find it to be just another distraction in my search for the truth.
I've attached a YouTube video here so that you can take a quick look if you want to, but again, I find it useless as evidence, and shiws nothing Squatchy at all about the figures in the trees. Feel free to come to your own conclusions, and remember, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, bit we're not always in a place where sharing that opinion is allowed, and as always, facts are facts.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
On The Bigfoot Trail
Let's face the facts here, Bigfooters bear the brunt of much humor from the world today. But there is good reason for that. A large part of that reason is because we run away from the "scientific" aspect of this field of interest. Because we (at large) refuse to accept the procedural demands of the scientific community, our discoveries and theories rest within the world of fantasy and science fiction.
If we are to change the perception we have created of ourselves we need to learn a few things about the realities behind scientific research. One of those realities is that there actually is a difference between a fact and supposition. What is a fact? A fact is something that can be demonstrated, and repeated with the same results. Supposition is an idea, and while it may be a valid idea, it is not supported by fact.
Most of what we see and hear about the world of Bigfoot research is mere supposition. There are a lot of theories thrown about as fact, but there is no supporting evidence to support and prove these theories. Therefore, when we present these unsupported claims as fact, the scientific community simply chuckles at us and carries on with their own work of trying to find facts that support the suppositions they wish to present as fact.
An observation here is that more often than not, belief in unsupported suppositions presented as fact is equated with religious belief. This is a correct observation. Belief in something that cannot be proven by empirical evidence is supported by faith, and faith alone. But it is unfortunate that so many people take belief in unsupported theories and accept them as fact.
Take the issues between the creationist and evolutionist belief systems. Neither one is necessarily supported by what we call empirical evidence, but many consider creationism an unsupported belief, and evolution as a fact. This of course is not true, and can be demonstrated by the "fact" that evolutionism is actually supported not by empirical evidence, but pure supposition. Evolutionists claim that we descended from the apes, or with the apes or many other sub-ideas that try to prove that humans evolved from a lower form of life, but where is the proof of that claim?
There really is no demonstrable proof aside from suggestive manipulation of the fossil record. No one saw mankind develop from a lessor form of creature, and so the claim is unable to be demonstrable. No one can demonstrate the claim by showing that it can be repeated with the same results. Belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific fact. A demonstrable fact is that, for example, if you tip a glass full of water over ten times, the water will respond to gravity by falling to the floor. Gravity is a fact.
And so, to get to the point of todays video, if we want to begin the transition of Bigfoot research from a fantasy game to a realistic research endeavor, we need to start following the regimen that scientists cling to. We need to learn to support our claims with demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
On the Bigfoot Trail shares some evidence that suggests that maybe there is some reality behind these assemblages of trees and such that we call Bigfoot stick structure and sign. I have observed in three separate locations repeated structure forms that, when plotted on a map, indicate that these structure could very well serve to act as trail markers. A sort of Bigfoot road sign.
The se structures include V shapes, bends, teepees and II type structures. In the example I share here, a bend signals the start of a trail diversion. If we were to walk in a straight line from this tree bend, we come to a V shaped structure made by two trees being pushed over and propped by other trees.
Continuing on in a straight line from that V, we come to a three legged teepee structure. Two legs are close together, the third extends further out, sort of like an extend arrow if viewed from above. By diverting from the straight line at the same angle as this single leg is propped at, you can go in a straight line to a second V shaped structure. The one in this video was destroyed over the winter by storms, but you can see it by going back to some of my earlier research videos.
By going straight through this V, you come to a natural growth where two trees grow close together to look like this II, or a sort of door frame. These two trees grow on the edge of a steep stream bank. Across the streambed, which has little water in it but is always quite muddy, lies a log anchored in place by sticks. You can scramble down the bank, and walk along the log to the opposite bank without leaving footprints in the mud. The trail clearly continues on from that point.
There is more in the video, but the bottom line here is that by following this trail instead of the well worn and groomed trail in a public area, one can avoid being seen from a ridgeline in plain sight of the highway and some houses, as well as avoiding having to jump across a cut through a bank that is some thirty or so feet across. This cut is more canyon like and cannot be navigated without leaving clear evidence of having been there.
This still does not provide valid proof of Bigfoot, so I present this as a mere supposition. This could be just a random sequence of events, but what I find most intriguing about this supposition is that I have also seen structure laid out in similar fashion in two other locations. Enjoy the video and keep on Squatching!
If we are to change the perception we have created of ourselves we need to learn a few things about the realities behind scientific research. One of those realities is that there actually is a difference between a fact and supposition. What is a fact? A fact is something that can be demonstrated, and repeated with the same results. Supposition is an idea, and while it may be a valid idea, it is not supported by fact.
Most of what we see and hear about the world of Bigfoot research is mere supposition. There are a lot of theories thrown about as fact, but there is no supporting evidence to support and prove these theories. Therefore, when we present these unsupported claims as fact, the scientific community simply chuckles at us and carries on with their own work of trying to find facts that support the suppositions they wish to present as fact.
An observation here is that more often than not, belief in unsupported suppositions presented as fact is equated with religious belief. This is a correct observation. Belief in something that cannot be proven by empirical evidence is supported by faith, and faith alone. But it is unfortunate that so many people take belief in unsupported theories and accept them as fact.
Take the issues between the creationist and evolutionist belief systems. Neither one is necessarily supported by what we call empirical evidence, but many consider creationism an unsupported belief, and evolution as a fact. This of course is not true, and can be demonstrated by the "fact" that evolutionism is actually supported not by empirical evidence, but pure supposition. Evolutionists claim that we descended from the apes, or with the apes or many other sub-ideas that try to prove that humans evolved from a lower form of life, but where is the proof of that claim?
There really is no demonstrable proof aside from suggestive manipulation of the fossil record. No one saw mankind develop from a lessor form of creature, and so the claim is unable to be demonstrable. No one can demonstrate the claim by showing that it can be repeated with the same results. Belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific fact. A demonstrable fact is that, for example, if you tip a glass full of water over ten times, the water will respond to gravity by falling to the floor. Gravity is a fact.
And so, to get to the point of todays video, if we want to begin the transition of Bigfoot research from a fantasy game to a realistic research endeavor, we need to start following the regimen that scientists cling to. We need to learn to support our claims with demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
On the Bigfoot Trail shares some evidence that suggests that maybe there is some reality behind these assemblages of trees and such that we call Bigfoot stick structure and sign. I have observed in three separate locations repeated structure forms that, when plotted on a map, indicate that these structure could very well serve to act as trail markers. A sort of Bigfoot road sign.
The se structures include V shapes, bends, teepees and II type structures. In the example I share here, a bend signals the start of a trail diversion. If we were to walk in a straight line from this tree bend, we come to a V shaped structure made by two trees being pushed over and propped by other trees.
Continuing on in a straight line from that V, we come to a three legged teepee structure. Two legs are close together, the third extends further out, sort of like an extend arrow if viewed from above. By diverting from the straight line at the same angle as this single leg is propped at, you can go in a straight line to a second V shaped structure. The one in this video was destroyed over the winter by storms, but you can see it by going back to some of my earlier research videos.
By going straight through this V, you come to a natural growth where two trees grow close together to look like this II, or a sort of door frame. These two trees grow on the edge of a steep stream bank. Across the streambed, which has little water in it but is always quite muddy, lies a log anchored in place by sticks. You can scramble down the bank, and walk along the log to the opposite bank without leaving footprints in the mud. The trail clearly continues on from that point.
There is more in the video, but the bottom line here is that by following this trail instead of the well worn and groomed trail in a public area, one can avoid being seen from a ridgeline in plain sight of the highway and some houses, as well as avoiding having to jump across a cut through a bank that is some thirty or so feet across. This cut is more canyon like and cannot be navigated without leaving clear evidence of having been there.
This still does not provide valid proof of Bigfoot, so I present this as a mere supposition. This could be just a random sequence of events, but what I find most intriguing about this supposition is that I have also seen structure laid out in similar fashion in two other locations. Enjoy the video and keep on Squatching!
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Butte Bigfoot Exhibition
While I have titled this a Bigfoot exhibition, it was back then labeled as a "wild man" exhibition, as the term "Bigfoot" did not exist until the late 1950's time frame. Nor was it referred to as a wild ape or monkey display as at the time, the trend to label these wild men as ape-like creature still had not gained momentum. It really wasn't until Fred Becks encounter with the wild men in 1924 that the reference to the simian world took hold.
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
Certainly sounds like it fits the Bigfoot bill, although the height was a little lacking. But maybe it was a younger Bigfoot, not fully all grown up? Was this story a hoax, was it a real Bigfoot, was it just a wild man? Follow along on the video and find the answers as Bigfoot Tales shares the story of the Butte Bigfoot Exhibition...
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
This
creature was short, well built, and his body was covered with hair of the
length and shade of a black bear's. The hair of his head was in clusters and
mats as big as your hand, lying plastered on his head and dangling on his neck...he had
eyebrows fully four inches long, sticking nearly straight out, behind which
glistened as bright a pair of round, quick, glittering brown eyes as were ever
seen in ape or chimpanzee.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Baumann's Bigfoot Tale
Most avid Bigfooter's are familiar with the story told by Theodore Roosevelt in his book "Wilderness Hunter'" but many haven't actually read the entire tale. Follow along with me as I share this intriguing story that some have come to consider as a Bigfoot attack on a trapper in the wild west. Was it a Bigfoot, or was it a bear? Come to your own conclusions with this story and a little bit of the backstory behind the tale.
Don't forget to comment, rate and share, as well as subscribe!
For more Bigfoot tales: http://bigfoottales.wordpress.com/
For more Maine Bigfoot discussion: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MaineBigfootResearch/
My bookstore at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/dlsoucy
Don't forget to comment, rate and share, as well as subscribe!
For more Bigfoot tales: http://bigfoottales.wordpress.com/
For more Maine Bigfoot discussion: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MaineBigfootResearch/
My bookstore at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/dlsoucy
Friday, April 25, 2014
Photo of a Bigfoot Kill?
I thought I'd share what has become my most viewed video today. I won't say most popular because it has in fact attracted the most numbers of dislikes, and some of the most acerbic comments I have read on any of my videos. In fact, this video is the main reason I simply turned off the comments of all my videos.
With over 130,000 views to date I have some interesting stats to glean from its record, as well as the ability to quantify some of my opinions regarding the Bigfoot community at large. For instance, the video is nineteen minutes long, but the average minutes per view is only 2.9 minutes. that means a ton of people have clicked onto it, only to realize that while the photo analyzed in the video is not really a Bigfoot kill. Duh, you think maybe? Common sense says that if there were ever to be a legitimate Bigfoot killing, it would be plastered all over the front pages and the evening news.
So why do we keep going to these videos expecting to see a real dead Bigfoot? Well, that gets us embroiled into a sticky situation that will just piss people off because no one likes to be wrong. That would be like bringing up a study that was done a while back that showed that the majority of people that believed in things like UFO's, government conspiracies, alien abductions and yes, Bigfoot, were all people of what are commonly termed, lower ability.
But I guess that's neither here nor there. There is a lot of crap on the internet that isn't true, and yet we continue to get suckered into clicking onto link after link, only to be disappointed with the product offered us on the other side. So what does this video have to do with all that?
Well, it is an example of the classic situation of fooling some of the people some of the time paradigm. Yeah, it's a little bit on the mystical side here, so lets delve into a little backstory of the video here.
About a year ago I got a message from somebody regarding this picture, and wanted to know if I knew the story behind it. (And no, I'm not going to name names here, so stop wondering who.) I did not know the story behind it, but I had seen it before and already knew that while it looked historical, it was obviously a fake photo.
The advent of editing software has birthed a plethora of hoax minded individuals who seem to thing that changing reality around a tad is a fun thing to do. And I don't really have a problem with that, provided the hoax is presented on the right type of platform, and done in a way that people are not so easily taken in on the hoax.
A couple of publications here come to mind as examples. One of them is the Weekly World News. Interesting rag that it is, there is no real news about it. Well, almost none. Once an incredibly newsstand product, the WWN has become just another seedy online sideshow, still disseminating the same old hoaxes packaged as real news. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that buy into these faux articles hook line and sinker. These unfortunate souls really believe what comes out of WWN is true news.
Another site, which I personally find rather disgusting, is the Ringsider Report. But at least these clowns don't attempt to deceive people into believing the crap they post is real news. They publish their stories as though it were real news, but reading the stuff they sell is enough to convince all but the numbest among us that it is pure garbage. But still people read on.
But lets get back to the video. The picture of this Bigfoot kill has been around for quite a while, and every so often gets the joy of having some hack hoaxer latching onto it and presenting it as some kind of a new historical find. Yeah, right. Except that there are a few facts that really makes me ashamed that as a group of people, we allow these jokers to continue on with hoax after hoax. What's worse is that there are more and more of us that buy into the hoaxes, hoax after hoax.
This particular photo I look at was actually done as an entry to a photoshopping contest, and as such, and in the context presented, I do not consider the photograph itself as a hoax. It is actually a historical photograph of some hunters with a deer kill. The deer was expertly removed from the picture, and a composite of some other images were inserted in such a way as to present what the editor though a dead Bigfoot would look like.
A quick casual glance at the photo doesn't reveal that it is an edited photo. However, anything longer than a quick glance immediately begins to reveal flaw after flaw, showing itself to be the false image that was created in the eyes of the beholder. But enough of all that. Let's move on to the video...
With over 130,000 views to date I have some interesting stats to glean from its record, as well as the ability to quantify some of my opinions regarding the Bigfoot community at large. For instance, the video is nineteen minutes long, but the average minutes per view is only 2.9 minutes. that means a ton of people have clicked onto it, only to realize that while the photo analyzed in the video is not really a Bigfoot kill. Duh, you think maybe? Common sense says that if there were ever to be a legitimate Bigfoot killing, it would be plastered all over the front pages and the evening news.
So why do we keep going to these videos expecting to see a real dead Bigfoot? Well, that gets us embroiled into a sticky situation that will just piss people off because no one likes to be wrong. That would be like bringing up a study that was done a while back that showed that the majority of people that believed in things like UFO's, government conspiracies, alien abductions and yes, Bigfoot, were all people of what are commonly termed, lower ability.
But I guess that's neither here nor there. There is a lot of crap on the internet that isn't true, and yet we continue to get suckered into clicking onto link after link, only to be disappointed with the product offered us on the other side. So what does this video have to do with all that?
Well, it is an example of the classic situation of fooling some of the people some of the time paradigm. Yeah, it's a little bit on the mystical side here, so lets delve into a little backstory of the video here.
About a year ago I got a message from somebody regarding this picture, and wanted to know if I knew the story behind it. (And no, I'm not going to name names here, so stop wondering who.) I did not know the story behind it, but I had seen it before and already knew that while it looked historical, it was obviously a fake photo.
The advent of editing software has birthed a plethora of hoax minded individuals who seem to thing that changing reality around a tad is a fun thing to do. And I don't really have a problem with that, provided the hoax is presented on the right type of platform, and done in a way that people are not so easily taken in on the hoax.
A couple of publications here come to mind as examples. One of them is the Weekly World News. Interesting rag that it is, there is no real news about it. Well, almost none. Once an incredibly newsstand product, the WWN has become just another seedy online sideshow, still disseminating the same old hoaxes packaged as real news. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that buy into these faux articles hook line and sinker. These unfortunate souls really believe what comes out of WWN is true news.
Another site, which I personally find rather disgusting, is the Ringsider Report. But at least these clowns don't attempt to deceive people into believing the crap they post is real news. They publish their stories as though it were real news, but reading the stuff they sell is enough to convince all but the numbest among us that it is pure garbage. But still people read on.
But lets get back to the video. The picture of this Bigfoot kill has been around for quite a while, and every so often gets the joy of having some hack hoaxer latching onto it and presenting it as some kind of a new historical find. Yeah, right. Except that there are a few facts that really makes me ashamed that as a group of people, we allow these jokers to continue on with hoax after hoax. What's worse is that there are more and more of us that buy into the hoaxes, hoax after hoax.
This particular photo I look at was actually done as an entry to a photoshopping contest, and as such, and in the context presented, I do not consider the photograph itself as a hoax. It is actually a historical photograph of some hunters with a deer kill. The deer was expertly removed from the picture, and a composite of some other images were inserted in such a way as to present what the editor though a dead Bigfoot would look like.
A quick casual glance at the photo doesn't reveal that it is an edited photo. However, anything longer than a quick glance immediately begins to reveal flaw after flaw, showing itself to be the false image that was created in the eyes of the beholder. But enough of all that. Let's move on to the video...
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The First Bigfoot Hoax Prosecution
It is interesting to see the changes that have occurred over the centuries as I research this phenomenon we call Bigfoot today. Of course, we have only known this creature as "Bigfoot" since the latter 1950's, but he has been skulking around the shadows of our imagination since time immemorial. Prior to that he was commonly known as Sasquatch by some. Other peoples have had different names, but the bottom line here is that for centuries it was simply referred to as "the wild man of the woods."
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
The Bigfoot face Syndrome
This will be the last of my Bigfoot how-to photography series. I find myself tempted to drift far too distant from my core mission of sharing Bigfoot Tales and hunts. I'm not an instructor, never have been, and have no desire to be one. So, before I get too deeply immersed in what is wrong with Bigfoot research and photographic evidence, I'll leave you with this video I did on what I call the Bigfoot Face Syndrome.
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark; part 4
In the last installment of this series, we looked at a couple of the terms that relate to our subconscious ability to see things that are not there when we are out searching for the elusive one. This is one of the greatest obstacles to providing effective data in our search for this creature we call Bigfoot. In some ways, we could even go so far as to say that our earnest desire is actually crippling our efforts to a great degree.
If you have been hooked on Bigfoot for any length of time, and if you are reading this, you are hooked on Bigfoot, then you will likely have seen hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos presented by people that claim that their particular photo or video is the proof positive shot of the truth, the image that proves Bigfoot exists.
But there really isn't anything there to see. It's just a picture of trees and shadows dotted with occasional flashes of light. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying all Bigfoot photos are made of the stuff we call imagination. I have seen plenty of good images that depict what we call Bigfoot today. There are some good photographic and video evidence that are more than compelling. But we'll get to those at some other time.
What I am saying here is that more often than not, the Bigfoot we see are mere reflections of our imagination. We see something moving in the woods, and because we so badly want to see this thing we call Bigfoot that whatever is really there becomes this creature. So, for my second piece of advice here, (my first was to try to buy a camera with an optical viewfinder), I strongly suggest that you learn to keep your imagination in check at all times.
A lot of people go into the woods and call themselves Bigfoot researchers, but are they really researchers? Not really. That would be like a casual birdwatcher calling themselves an ornithologist, in a way. You are not really researching if you are just blindly walking around hoping to stumble upon some valuable piece of evidence.
When it comes to the photographic or visual component of data, we very often make some fatal errors when we examine the picture in front of us. One component is the three dimensional, or 3D aspect of what we are looking at. When we look at the real world, we are viewing it in three dimension; width, height, and depth. However, when we look at a reproduced image, we are only looking at two dimensions, width and height.
Granted, there are cameras today that can provide us with a stereoscopic image that we call 3D, but how many photos have you seen of Bigfoot that were made with one of those cameras? I'm guessing probably none. Therefore, when we look at one of these images, whether it be a photo or a video, we are looking at a reproduction of what someone else saw, but it is missing that third dimension of depth.
Because we can only see images in two dimensions, we are not seeing what the person who took and shared the image with us, exactly. Things look flat, in a way. However, this causes us to see the image in a different way than someone who was actually there, and we can easily dismiss what we are seeing as a hoaxed photo, or chalk the image up to a fantastic imagination.
Those of us that take these pictures and share them with the result of insult and humiliation getting tossed back at us, often become discouraged and more often than not fade into the background of the Bigfoot world, if not simply exit the arena stage left. That's too bad, because many of these pictures actually do contain images of Bigfoot, even though most people cannot see them for what they are.
In the next installment we'll talk about the Bigfoot face syndrome, and how we can change the way we take and present these images in ways that will make them more appealing, agreeable, and better evidence in our search for Bigfoot.
If you have been hooked on Bigfoot for any length of time, and if you are reading this, you are hooked on Bigfoot, then you will likely have seen hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos presented by people that claim that their particular photo or video is the proof positive shot of the truth, the image that proves Bigfoot exists.
But there really isn't anything there to see. It's just a picture of trees and shadows dotted with occasional flashes of light. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying all Bigfoot photos are made of the stuff we call imagination. I have seen plenty of good images that depict what we call Bigfoot today. There are some good photographic and video evidence that are more than compelling. But we'll get to those at some other time.
What I am saying here is that more often than not, the Bigfoot we see are mere reflections of our imagination. We see something moving in the woods, and because we so badly want to see this thing we call Bigfoot that whatever is really there becomes this creature. So, for my second piece of advice here, (my first was to try to buy a camera with an optical viewfinder), I strongly suggest that you learn to keep your imagination in check at all times.
A lot of people go into the woods and call themselves Bigfoot researchers, but are they really researchers? Not really. That would be like a casual birdwatcher calling themselves an ornithologist, in a way. You are not really researching if you are just blindly walking around hoping to stumble upon some valuable piece of evidence.
When it comes to the photographic or visual component of data, we very often make some fatal errors when we examine the picture in front of us. One component is the three dimensional, or 3D aspect of what we are looking at. When we look at the real world, we are viewing it in three dimension; width, height, and depth. However, when we look at a reproduced image, we are only looking at two dimensions, width and height.
Granted, there are cameras today that can provide us with a stereoscopic image that we call 3D, but how many photos have you seen of Bigfoot that were made with one of those cameras? I'm guessing probably none. Therefore, when we look at one of these images, whether it be a photo or a video, we are looking at a reproduction of what someone else saw, but it is missing that third dimension of depth.
Because we can only see images in two dimensions, we are not seeing what the person who took and shared the image with us, exactly. Things look flat, in a way. However, this causes us to see the image in a different way than someone who was actually there, and we can easily dismiss what we are seeing as a hoaxed photo, or chalk the image up to a fantastic imagination.
Those of us that take these pictures and share them with the result of insult and humiliation getting tossed back at us, often become discouraged and more often than not fade into the background of the Bigfoot world, if not simply exit the arena stage left. That's too bad, because many of these pictures actually do contain images of Bigfoot, even though most people cannot see them for what they are.
In the next installment we'll talk about the Bigfoot face syndrome, and how we can change the way we take and present these images in ways that will make them more appealing, agreeable, and better evidence in our search for Bigfoot.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark; part 3
In part two I discussed a bit about the new wave of cameras that hit the market allowing people to take better snapshots with less skill needed. This tool loaded onto almost all, if not all, cameras manufactured today. Marketing is the driving factor, and since most people buy cameras simply to take candid shots of friends and family under many different occasions, the people part of the photography world is a main selling tactic. Better people shots means more buyers for your camera.
The end result is of course that instead of making people take the time to learn the art of composition and clarity in photography, all they have to do is push a button and the camera does the work for them. It is great for wedding parties and the baby shower, but for Bigfoot hunting, it causes no end of problems.
Time and time again we look at the digital image on the back of our camera body and are certain we are looking at a Bigfoot. The reality is of course that what we are really observing is a composite image that has been created by the software in the camera of light and dark spaces, lines and dots that it thinks is a face. Since we are looking for a Bigfoot, we think that image is a Bigfoot. If we were looking for Lizard Man, we would think it was a Lizard man. The same rule would go far any sort of anthropomorphic creature we were looking for. If it has a face, then that is what we see in the camera view screen.
The lesson here is that when it comes to equipment, whether that would be a video camera or a still camera, we really should be looking for a camera that has an optical view finder as opposed to strictly a digital screen for setting up our shots. This eliminates that tendency to over-trust the image we are looking at because what we are looking at is the real thing, and not simply that composite image created for us by the camera.
We will still see faces in the shadows of course, because our brains also come with facial recognition software installed by the manufacturer. This is where a couple of terms come into play for we Bigfoot hunters. these two terms are pareidolia and simulacra. They sound rather brainy, and in a sense they are, but they help to explain why we see the things that we see, that really aren't.
Of the two terms, pareidolia is the most used. Unfortunately it is frequently misused, misunderstood, and overused. The term has been around for ages, but for those of us in the Bigfoot genre, it came into popular use after it was used by Ranae Holland in an episode of the hit TV show, Finding Bigfoot. As in many areas of popular followings, whenever a so-called expert emits a fancy term, the adorants of the hero figure latch onto the word and use it unceasingly because it fills a vacuum in their vocabulary. Eventually the term gets worn out and falls into disuse for the most part.
So what is pareidolia? Simply put, and I won't launch into a detailed explanation here, pareidolia is the unconscious act of our minds combining various features into what we perceive to be facial, or other, characteristics. In other words, facial recognition software. We so desperately want to find a Bigfoot that we subconsciously create a Bigfoot out of thin air, sort of, to satisfy that need. We create our own optical illusions to satisfy a need. Where this term gets overused is when we look at a digital image and see these images that others can see.
This is where simulacra comes into play. Pareidolia is entirely from our minds, and has no physical representation in the real world. Simulacra, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of those images that can in fact be reproduced for others to see, even without direction. Sometimes the image is too subtle for others to see, and become critical of the image. You can take a picture of a particular image that you know beyond any reasonable doubt is a Bigfoot, but nobody else can see it. Why is that.
Well, there are a few reasons for that, and the most common reason is that there really is nothing there to see. There is no Bigfoot in the image. But you know it was there. Pareidolia is driven by our imagination, and sometimes the need to see a Bigfoot will make us see a Bigfoot when nothing is there. We believe it in our minds so strongly that nothing can deter us from our claims.
Very often, someone else has presented a picture or video of what they claim is a bigfoot, but also is a picture of nothing but the forest. That same desire drives us to see what is not there, even though we did not see it in real life, and there really is no Bigfoot in the image in front of us. How do we correct that situation that we seem to get ourselves into so often.
The best way is to make certain of what we see. If you see a Bigfoot in your cameras view screen, then you should also see it when not looking through the view screen. If you can see it in your screen, but not with your naked eye, then you are probably not seeing a Bigfoot. You are seeing a simulacra, a simulated image, and others quite likely will not be able to see a Bigfoot when you show them the picture or video.
This problem also rests in our ability to view things in a three dimensional format. Normal cameras can only perceive and capture two dimensions, width and height, but we humans can also perceive depth of an image as well. I have seen very few purported Bigfoot images that contain all three possible attributes, but there are a few out there.
Next time we'll get into a little bit more about 3D images and how that can work to help you take a valid Bigfoot picture that you can share with others.
The end result is of course that instead of making people take the time to learn the art of composition and clarity in photography, all they have to do is push a button and the camera does the work for them. It is great for wedding parties and the baby shower, but for Bigfoot hunting, it causes no end of problems.
Time and time again we look at the digital image on the back of our camera body and are certain we are looking at a Bigfoot. The reality is of course that what we are really observing is a composite image that has been created by the software in the camera of light and dark spaces, lines and dots that it thinks is a face. Since we are looking for a Bigfoot, we think that image is a Bigfoot. If we were looking for Lizard Man, we would think it was a Lizard man. The same rule would go far any sort of anthropomorphic creature we were looking for. If it has a face, then that is what we see in the camera view screen.
The lesson here is that when it comes to equipment, whether that would be a video camera or a still camera, we really should be looking for a camera that has an optical view finder as opposed to strictly a digital screen for setting up our shots. This eliminates that tendency to over-trust the image we are looking at because what we are looking at is the real thing, and not simply that composite image created for us by the camera.
We will still see faces in the shadows of course, because our brains also come with facial recognition software installed by the manufacturer. This is where a couple of terms come into play for we Bigfoot hunters. these two terms are pareidolia and simulacra. They sound rather brainy, and in a sense they are, but they help to explain why we see the things that we see, that really aren't.
Of the two terms, pareidolia is the most used. Unfortunately it is frequently misused, misunderstood, and overused. The term has been around for ages, but for those of us in the Bigfoot genre, it came into popular use after it was used by Ranae Holland in an episode of the hit TV show, Finding Bigfoot. As in many areas of popular followings, whenever a so-called expert emits a fancy term, the adorants of the hero figure latch onto the word and use it unceasingly because it fills a vacuum in their vocabulary. Eventually the term gets worn out and falls into disuse for the most part.
So what is pareidolia? Simply put, and I won't launch into a detailed explanation here, pareidolia is the unconscious act of our minds combining various features into what we perceive to be facial, or other, characteristics. In other words, facial recognition software. We so desperately want to find a Bigfoot that we subconsciously create a Bigfoot out of thin air, sort of, to satisfy that need. We create our own optical illusions to satisfy a need. Where this term gets overused is when we look at a digital image and see these images that others can see.
This is where simulacra comes into play. Pareidolia is entirely from our minds, and has no physical representation in the real world. Simulacra, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of those images that can in fact be reproduced for others to see, even without direction. Sometimes the image is too subtle for others to see, and become critical of the image. You can take a picture of a particular image that you know beyond any reasonable doubt is a Bigfoot, but nobody else can see it. Why is that.
Well, there are a few reasons for that, and the most common reason is that there really is nothing there to see. There is no Bigfoot in the image. But you know it was there. Pareidolia is driven by our imagination, and sometimes the need to see a Bigfoot will make us see a Bigfoot when nothing is there. We believe it in our minds so strongly that nothing can deter us from our claims.
Very often, someone else has presented a picture or video of what they claim is a bigfoot, but also is a picture of nothing but the forest. That same desire drives us to see what is not there, even though we did not see it in real life, and there really is no Bigfoot in the image in front of us. How do we correct that situation that we seem to get ourselves into so often.
The best way is to make certain of what we see. If you see a Bigfoot in your cameras view screen, then you should also see it when not looking through the view screen. If you can see it in your screen, but not with your naked eye, then you are probably not seeing a Bigfoot. You are seeing a simulacra, a simulated image, and others quite likely will not be able to see a Bigfoot when you show them the picture or video.
This problem also rests in our ability to view things in a three dimensional format. Normal cameras can only perceive and capture two dimensions, width and height, but we humans can also perceive depth of an image as well. I have seen very few purported Bigfoot images that contain all three possible attributes, but there are a few out there.
Next time we'll get into a little bit more about 3D images and how that can work to help you take a valid Bigfoot picture that you can share with others.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark: part 2
Last time I started talk about the differences between digital imagery and celluloid or film imagery, and why digital evidence can be a bad thing in your hunt for Bigfoot. When you take a picture with an old style film camera, what you see is what you get, but in a digital camera, you get oh so much more.
Older cameras rely entirely on optics for an image, but newer digital cameras actually have software that can enhance what you see. That is pretty cool, but the drawback is that it can lead you to believe that something is there, when it isn't. Take this picture I posted last time for instance.
It kinda does look like a helmeted foot soldier with a pike and all. Was it really there? Of course not. However, the old adage states that the camera doesn't lie. That might have been true in the old days, but not any more. Today's digital camera's are expert liars.
Software manufacturers need to sell software, and so they develop software to sell to camera manufacturers who also need to sell cameras. And the cameras that sell, are also the cameras that people want. And people want cameras that take great pictures, without a lot of work going into the effort on their part.
Of course, I'm talking about consumer grade cameras here, not the higher end prosumer and pro models. These would be the DSLR's and other cameras that capture images digitally, but use high quality optics for visual targeting and focusing.
Here is the problem with today's digital cameras and why so many people can see a Bigfoot that isn't; facial recognition software. Now, I have posted this fact on several forums with a lot of negative feedback from many of the members of those forum members. The fact is, sadly, that many people would rather comfortably rest on a lie as opposed to putting some hard labor into the truth. The facial recognition software that is in these cameras, is not the same the facial recognition software that governments use to keep tabs on us.
Nevertheless, the detractors of my point don't care about facts, so to them I say; have a good day, and goodbye. To the rest of the community, I say; take a moment and learn something new. Here is how this software works: The software contains a set of predetermined parameters that are programmed to read various signals that may indicate the features of a persons face. Then it directs the cameras focusing mechanism to focus in on that specific point of the image to develop that perceived facial feature, while ignoring the rest of the image.
In a nutshell, if a set of shadows and highlights fall together in the right pattern, your camera will show you what it thinks is a person. It doesn't matter if there is a person there or not, what matters is if the camera thinks there is a person. My advice to you is that if you really want to take pictures of Bigfoot, if your camera has this facial recognition ability, try to turn it off.
Usually, this is a basic component of the autofocus function, and you will need to disable it. However, many cameras today also have various preset settings that you can also use that will disable this facial recognition software, such as scenic view or distant view. There are many names for these various settings, and the autofocus parameters will give you a different focus perspective, but at least you will not be seeing Bigfoot faces in the shadows. Maybe.
There are some other aspects that also need to be covered here, such as the terms pareidolia and simulacra, and we'll get into these phenomenon next time.
Older cameras rely entirely on optics for an image, but newer digital cameras actually have software that can enhance what you see. That is pretty cool, but the drawback is that it can lead you to believe that something is there, when it isn't. Take this picture I posted last time for instance.
This is a bit blurry, but understandable when you consider how enlarged it is from the original shot. It is a shot taken from a long distance of an area where I though I could sense something. I could not see anything with the naked eye, so I looked through my camera's viewfinder. I could see what I thought was a whatever, but when I got over to the place I took the photo of, there was nothing there. Naturally. Happens all the time in Bigfooting.
So, as we all do, I took a closer look at home, and upon examining it thoroughly, declared this to be an image of a medieval soldier. Yah, right. A medieval in the backwoods of 21st century Maine. Take a look at this image with the requisite redlines and all.
Software manufacturers need to sell software, and so they develop software to sell to camera manufacturers who also need to sell cameras. And the cameras that sell, are also the cameras that people want. And people want cameras that take great pictures, without a lot of work going into the effort on their part.
Of course, I'm talking about consumer grade cameras here, not the higher end prosumer and pro models. These would be the DSLR's and other cameras that capture images digitally, but use high quality optics for visual targeting and focusing.
Here is the problem with today's digital cameras and why so many people can see a Bigfoot that isn't; facial recognition software. Now, I have posted this fact on several forums with a lot of negative feedback from many of the members of those forum members. The fact is, sadly, that many people would rather comfortably rest on a lie as opposed to putting some hard labor into the truth. The facial recognition software that is in these cameras, is not the same the facial recognition software that governments use to keep tabs on us.
Nevertheless, the detractors of my point don't care about facts, so to them I say; have a good day, and goodbye. To the rest of the community, I say; take a moment and learn something new. Here is how this software works: The software contains a set of predetermined parameters that are programmed to read various signals that may indicate the features of a persons face. Then it directs the cameras focusing mechanism to focus in on that specific point of the image to develop that perceived facial feature, while ignoring the rest of the image.
In a nutshell, if a set of shadows and highlights fall together in the right pattern, your camera will show you what it thinks is a person. It doesn't matter if there is a person there or not, what matters is if the camera thinks there is a person. My advice to you is that if you really want to take pictures of Bigfoot, if your camera has this facial recognition ability, try to turn it off.
Usually, this is a basic component of the autofocus function, and you will need to disable it. However, many cameras today also have various preset settings that you can also use that will disable this facial recognition software, such as scenic view or distant view. There are many names for these various settings, and the autofocus parameters will give you a different focus perspective, but at least you will not be seeing Bigfoot faces in the shadows. Maybe.
There are some other aspects that also need to be covered here, such as the terms pareidolia and simulacra, and we'll get into these phenomenon next time.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark
There are a good many Bigfooters out there that have yet to see a real live, in the flesh Sasquatch, in spite of their earnest desire to have an encounter of their own. The vast majority of the worlds population will never even have an encounter. Those of us that have had an encounter usually have it as a matter of chance.
Perhaps we had never even heard of Bigfoot before, and saw a strange looking animal on the roadside, unsure of what we were seeing, and to a point even disbelieving the event. After all, for most of us, we don't even know what a Bigfoot looks like. But when we have that first encounter, and finally come to the realization that it was real, and we really did see something that is considered to be a cryptid life form, we become hooked for life.
Sometimes it takes years for us to really get into the meat of the subject for varying reasons, but sooner or later, we do, and we start spending more and more time in the woods searching for this elusive hairy man of the woods. But we often feel the need to share our experiences, and so we start buying equipment. Rudimentary efforts usually start with a cell phone. Maybe we splurge and get that fancy fifty dollar digital camera that does both still shots and videos.
But no matter the pathway you take, all roads lead to the necessity of sharing your time in the woods in a pictorial manner. This is a good thing because it provides a platform with which to share evidence by way of visual data This data is easy to share, inexpensive, for the most part, and can be transferred from person to person easily over the internet. But there are problems that arise with the use of this newer digital technology.
In the days of celluloid film imagery, the film had to be developed, and took days to mail to other researchers instead of through the seemingly instantaneous process we use today. But the imagery we obtained as evidence in those days was much more secure, and much more valid than todays digital files are. The biggest reason the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty the Bigfoot has retained such authority is because it is in fact a celluloid production. The pictures we see in the film are just that, a series of optical images that in its original state, cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is. And that is a bipedal creature covered with hair, apparently female, striding into the woods beside a river.
Of course, there is much argument and speculation over what that creature is, and whether it is a real animal, or a man in a suit. But we cannot argue that the film does indeed show a bipedal creature walking away from Roger Patterson as he films it. It is unquestionably a real film.
We can fast forward through the decades intervening between that day in 1967 to today, and observe the rapid growth of available Bigfoot imagery, and we can also observe the rapid growth of the plethora of Bigfoot imagery that isn't. And that, in itself, is where the greater part of dissension in the greater Bigfoot community lies. The now perennial question of; is it a Bigfoot, or isn't it?
That's the problem with Bigfoot hunting today. We present pictorial evidence, but the vast majority of these pictures and video become discredited, outright rejected, manipulated, and turned into so much rubbish. After all, if we see a Bigfoot in the brush, and take a picture of it, shouldn't everyone else see the same Bigfoot in the brush? I mean, it's right there behind that bush, you can plainly see its leg sticking out. Um..., yeah, sure it is. And that Bigfoot is sitting on a pink unicorn too.
Why is it that we can take a picture of a Bigfoot and not have anyone else see it in our photograph or video? That's a good question, and we'll tackle that in our next Bigfoot Tales blog post.
This is a picture I took of something I saw while on a Bigfoot excursion. I have circled the area and placed an arrow to point out the thing I saw for you.
Perhaps we had never even heard of Bigfoot before, and saw a strange looking animal on the roadside, unsure of what we were seeing, and to a point even disbelieving the event. After all, for most of us, we don't even know what a Bigfoot looks like. But when we have that first encounter, and finally come to the realization that it was real, and we really did see something that is considered to be a cryptid life form, we become hooked for life.
Sometimes it takes years for us to really get into the meat of the subject for varying reasons, but sooner or later, we do, and we start spending more and more time in the woods searching for this elusive hairy man of the woods. But we often feel the need to share our experiences, and so we start buying equipment. Rudimentary efforts usually start with a cell phone. Maybe we splurge and get that fancy fifty dollar digital camera that does both still shots and videos.
But no matter the pathway you take, all roads lead to the necessity of sharing your time in the woods in a pictorial manner. This is a good thing because it provides a platform with which to share evidence by way of visual data This data is easy to share, inexpensive, for the most part, and can be transferred from person to person easily over the internet. But there are problems that arise with the use of this newer digital technology.
In the days of celluloid film imagery, the film had to be developed, and took days to mail to other researchers instead of through the seemingly instantaneous process we use today. But the imagery we obtained as evidence in those days was much more secure, and much more valid than todays digital files are. The biggest reason the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty the Bigfoot has retained such authority is because it is in fact a celluloid production. The pictures we see in the film are just that, a series of optical images that in its original state, cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is. And that is a bipedal creature covered with hair, apparently female, striding into the woods beside a river.
Of course, there is much argument and speculation over what that creature is, and whether it is a real animal, or a man in a suit. But we cannot argue that the film does indeed show a bipedal creature walking away from Roger Patterson as he films it. It is unquestionably a real film.
We can fast forward through the decades intervening between that day in 1967 to today, and observe the rapid growth of available Bigfoot imagery, and we can also observe the rapid growth of the plethora of Bigfoot imagery that isn't. And that, in itself, is where the greater part of dissension in the greater Bigfoot community lies. The now perennial question of; is it a Bigfoot, or isn't it?
That's the problem with Bigfoot hunting today. We present pictorial evidence, but the vast majority of these pictures and video become discredited, outright rejected, manipulated, and turned into so much rubbish. After all, if we see a Bigfoot in the brush, and take a picture of it, shouldn't everyone else see the same Bigfoot in the brush? I mean, it's right there behind that bush, you can plainly see its leg sticking out. Um..., yeah, sure it is. And that Bigfoot is sitting on a pink unicorn too.
Why is it that we can take a picture of a Bigfoot and not have anyone else see it in our photograph or video? That's a good question, and we'll tackle that in our next Bigfoot Tales blog post.
This is a picture I took of something I saw while on a Bigfoot excursion. I have circled the area and placed an arrow to point out the thing I saw for you.
This following image is a blown up section of that area in the red circle. In it you can almost make out the image of what looks like a person, with its left arm sort of bent over its front abdomen area. Is this a Bigfoot? No, it is not. What is it? Well, tune in next time to find out.
Until then, thanks for watchin', and keep on Squatchin'!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)