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.

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.