red_pill_junkie–Hey! How have you been? It seems a lot of the great regular and long time posters are showing up in this thread. I love the humor in your posts! I especially like what you said in your post here. You always use humor and then go in with the teachable moment! You also always put things into perspective and you do so from both sides of the coin or argument! Oh, by the way, your responses in the last two Bigfoot related posts I read was awesome and spot on.

Arewethereyeti–You are very welcome! I always try to take the complicated BS technological terms out and replace them with everyday words or examples that even a layperson can understand. Hopefully, when I am done translating, it makes some sense to the readers here at Cryptomundo. I definitely appreciate the feedback! I also think you are spot on when you posted that, “Alas, it appears “too good to be true” raises its ugly head again and the “blobsquatches,” intentional or not, will continue to haunt us for, at least, the foreseeable future…”

So where do we go from here? I think it is going to take an experienced photographer with quick reflexes and a pretty large wallet to get a decent photograph of a supposed Bigfoot. The photographer’s wallet has to be big enough to at least afford high amateur or professional photographic equipment. I don’t think we are going to get any decent photograph from just some Bigfoot enthusiast out there actually looking to get a Bigfoot photo. Many times, in reported Bigfoot encounters, it is a hiker or camper that unexpectedly stumbles upon a possible Bigfoot. This is where the quick reflexes come in. The experience comes in when the photographer sees the Bigfoot and then using his lifetime acquired knowledge and experience, to change the camera settings to get the most perfect shot possible.

I have written about this before in prior threads and my opinion has not changed. If we are ever able to get something better than a blobsquatch photograph, I think it is going to be from an avid photographer, who is already in the area and actually seeking to photograph another known anima such as bear, elk, birds, etc. Eventually, a supposed Bigfoot will ramble by. The Bigfoot will see the photographer and become aware about the same time the photographer becomes aware. The photographer will have seconds to adjust, overcome fear or apprehension, dial in the correct settings, compose and shoot the photograph with a steady hand. It will probably happen in low light conditions, making the task all that more difficult. But maybe, just maybe then, we will get a decent photo and not a blobsquatch.

I used the words “supposed Bigfoot” above because there is always the possibility of some hoaxer in a suit, trying to pull a fast one on an innocent photographer. It will be up the jury, those here at Cryptomundo, to give their verdict on those photographs. I think this is what makes cryptozoology a participatory club. Everyone will have input. That input will be from different frames of reference for each juror. And together, a verdict can be reached. Hopefully, there will be no hung juries!

Man, I love Cryptomundo! I also love the air of professionalism that is brought to this site by Loren, Craig, Mystery_man, John Kirk, and all the members of Cryptomundo!!!

In the short term better costumes are the way to go. Eventually, rogue scientists will be able to approximate what people will accept as a bigfoot and create one.

It is surprising that effect studios don’t get involved in these hoaxes. It obviously boils down to money and time. Why waste money and effort if there is not a way to at least recoup expenses. Still, there have noticeable improvements to make-up/costume fx since the Patterson-Gimlin footage was taken. It would be interesting to see some modern professional bigfoot material instead of this blurry, obscured nonsense.

It seems to boil down to the fact that there are few artistically talented people who are also interested in pulling of bigfoot photos. You have to have some artistic talent(or money for an untraceable costume) AND the desire to create bigfoot photos.

Surprisingly, photos shot in the late ’60s are the best bigfoot shots we’ve seen so far. Professional effects people need to get involved to create unique costumes made under secrecy. Mass produced store bought ones that are made by pros are traceable.

These weekly fuzzy obscured nonsense photos taken by untalented folks only fool a small percentage and get very tiresome.

Alas, it appears “too good to be true” raises its ugly head again and the “blobsquatches,” intentional or not, will continue to haunt us for, at least, the foreseeable future…

Nah, I kid. I’m very thankful this forum relies on someone with your expertise to share his knowledge about photography.

So maybe this new tool Adobe is developing will not become the ‘magic wand’ —Photoshop has one already —that will allow us a 100% certainty with every single Blobsquatch photo. But I still think it’s a good example of how technology will keep empowering the average user with even more powerful resources, which —if applied correctly— will greatly enhance the quality of evidence gathered by serious cryptozoologists.

Then again… maybe even after Adobe manages to include all sorts of whistles and gizmos, and hunters go into the woods carrying state-of-the-art photographic equipment, we might STILL be getting nothing but blurry Blobsquatches. I guess we’ll all be owing Nick Redfern an apology then

Serious, it sounds wonderful. But I will say, I’m rather fond of blobsquatch for their amusement value, without them, debate will be less colorful.

Everyone thinks that whizbang technology should have brought the sasquatch to light years ago. Everyone neglects to remember that it’s not the technology, but what one brings to it, and how it is used.