Comments on: Chow and Ang Explain

By: Mausinn

Mausinn — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:55:58 +0000

It is easy to see how these guys could have been fooled by the photos. The moire effect is only present if the screened print is reproduced using the same halftone process again. The use of two screens is what produces the moire effect. It can be reduced by rotating the screen before shooting the second print, but it would not show up if the original was simply scanned and printed, which this obviously was. Given the usually poor pixalization ratio of most computer screens and most printers, I doubt that a significant dot pattern would show up at all. It would simply look like a photo. Most newspapers use about a 125 to 175 line screen and most glossy high quality magazines and books use screens in the 250+ range.

By: Dark-Obsessor

Dark-Obsessor — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:25:20 +0000

Very nice

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:46:29 +0000

There is a phrase I heard so long ago that I cannot recall the source that I find quite apt here-

“Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.”

Words to live by, if you ask me…

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:12:02 +0000

David V I agree 100%

By: mrdark

mrdark — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:27:03 +0000

I think this is all starting to sound like one hoaxer jumping into the midst of a group of very enthusiastic and -untrained- individuals who haven’t been exposed to the decades of fakery we in the US have seen. Let’s face it: other than imported US stories, how many hoaxes have we had from that nation? No prominent ones, to my memory.

I’m no longer convinced anyone was ‘in on’ the fraud other than the initial source. Everyone else’s sin was incompetence, not malice, I think.

By: David V

David V — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:41:37 +0000

Well, I never fell for it, this whole thing stunk from day one. Unfortunately my BS detector is finely tuned due to all the hucksters and snake-oil salesmen that are in this world, chow and ang among them. I’ve found that liberal skepticism is a good guard against the inevitable tomfoolery of all the hoaxers out there. Well, heres to hoping that we get some REAL evidence soon!

By: Mr Tito

Mr Tito — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:00:19 +0000

All suspicions were correct.

By: bambookid

bambookid — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:15:37 +0000

‘…We, too, had our own reservations as to where the photos came from because it is very difficult to capture the Bigfoot on film. We stated that very clearly from the beginning, but people have short memories…’

I think the ones with short memories are Chow & Ang. “The most earth shattering discovery…” doesn’t come across as skeptical.

In my opinion… their credibility = 0

Every time I see one of their names, my first reaction is to ‘turn the page’… but I always seem to want to take a peek inside the sideshow tent, just like a curious little boy at the fair.

“When will the fair leave town, daddy? Soon, my son… soon.”

By: Chicago Dan

Chicago Dan — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:52:30 +0000

How many times will the buck be passed here.

First Chow and Ang deny any deception on their part and blame JWPA.

JWPA initially denies they released any photos. Now they pass the buck to a Michael Yap who they cannot contact.

Mmmmm….bet we never hear or see any trace of the real source of this episode. Unless lawyers become involved then maybe who, what, when will come out, but I doubt it.

What an ugly stain on Cryptozoology.

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:10:51 +0000

yawn