Re: Bigfoot photos: Real or Fake?

On Oct 25, 3:07 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mike3 wrote:
george wrote:

>> For slightly more than $100 you can now buy a traditional film camera

and fine grained film that wouldn't pixilate (turn into fuzzy squares)
at any magnification.
And if they got that close to a 'bigfoot' why the hell didn't they
check the area for bigfoot *** and fur ?

That's because he was not looking for Bigfoot. He was just
wanting to hunt deer! He had NO INTENTIONS of looking
for Bigfoot or anything like that. He was looking for DEER.
Why would he want to look for poo or fur from this
"Bigfoot" thing or something if he had no interest
in it? And why use a high-resolution cam if you just want
to hunt game?

He used a Bushnell trail camera, though it is named on the
bfro.net cite as a "Bushell" trail camera. Looking it up, I
find one can now get their 1.3 MP (megapixel) camera -- thats
2.7 times the pixels in the photos at issue here -- featuring
motion activation and 30 day battery life, for about $100.
For better images, a 2.1 MP version is $125; a 3 MP model
jumps to around $350.


Of course he could have. But like I said, why would he
have the need to: his intent was never to prove Bigfoot
exists, it was just to hunt game! If his existing camera
already served him well enough in his mind, why would
he bother getting a better one?

I find that impressive. Back when I got my "Maryland Safe
Hunter" certification, there was no such product. Putting
such a system together would have cost a fortune.
Mass-production makes sophisticated stuff amazingly
inexpensive. Hunters can now easily afford the equipment
to get the images to help them easily find the game.


But if that camera was serving his purposes well enough,
why would he want to scrap it for a new one?

Or are you just annoyed that the photos are of
low quality?

So how come no one has found Bigfoot for real? Why is the
1967 Patterson film -- that looks like we'd expect a guy in
a monkey suit to look -- still the best pro-Bigfoot evidence?
The parks are much more popular today, and there are vastly
more cameras about. Hmmm... could we figure out a clue in
there?


Who says that Bigfoot must have to go to parks?
How many people have cameras with them during
all the times when they claim to have seen Bigfoot?
Those are the things I'd like to look at.

[...]

I don't know if there is or isn't such a thing as Bigfoot,

No need to keep us posted on the vastness of what you do
not know. On this issue, you should have gained some grasp
of reality by now.


Since one cannot prove a universal negative, one
cannot say that the reality is that Bigfoot does not
exist. Since there is no proof of the positive yet,
one cannot also say that Bigfoot does exist.
That's the "reality", period.

As for the photo, it could just be a bear, after all.

but
I'm not going to hang my hopes on these couple of photos
that there is. I just watch and see what comes up, and if it's
bunk, oh well. What's so bad about that?

Kinda late to game on that.


Too late for what?

--
--Bryan


.

Quantcast