Why is it that everyone who sees Bigfoot is a lousy photographer?

[shemp]

I mean, we never get any clear photos/videos of Bigfoot. The "evidence" is always some blurred grainy photo or a cheesy out-of-focus video. You would think that just ONE person who sees Bigfoot could get a clear shot of it, but NOOOOOOOO!!!! Is there a good reason for this?

[Blue Mountain]

Well, there's also the possibility that the photographer realizes he's pointing an unusual device at a large hominid of unknown temperament and making sudden and possibly threatening noises.

[madurobob]

Well, there's also the possibility that the photographer realizes he's pointing an unusual device at a large hominid of unknown temperament and making sudden and possibly threatening noises.

That would hold water but for the fact that we have a whole gaggle of professional bigfoot hunters out there desperately trying to get a decent pic.

As for me, I vote for trans-dimensional bigfoot in honor of Hostorian/Burgstahler

[TjW]

And there was the possibility presented by one bigfoot researcher that, as a transdimensional (or interdimensional, I forget which) being, bigfoot is actually blurry.

ETA: It's hard to argue with, or parody, claims like that.

[Arthur Denton]

I mean, we never get any clear photos/videos of Bigfoot. The "evidence" is always some blurred grainy photo or a cheesy out-of-focus video. You would think that just ONE person who sees Bigfoot could get a clear shot of it, but NOOOOOOOO!!!! Is there a good reason for this?

Bigfoots doesn't exist. I know that may shock you, but they don't.

[Locknar]

That would hold water but for the fact that we have a whole gaggle of professional bigfoot hunters out there desperately trying to get a decent pic.
True...but I figure they get so excited they plotz; and who can take a clear accurate picture while doing that?


As for me, I vote for trans-dimensional bigfoot in honor of Hostorian/Burgstahler
lol

[GT/CS]

That would hold water but for the fact that we have a whole gaggle of professional bigfoot hunters out there desperately trying to get a decent pic.

As for me, I vote for trans-dimensional bigfoot in honor of Hostorian/Burgstahler

Hmmmm, would those be the same courageous professionals who cower in fear when someone throws a rock at their cabin?:boggled:

[Wowbagger]

If you define "Bigfoot" as short way of saying "someone in a gorilla suit pretending to be Bigfoot", and "lousy photographer" as a short way of saying "someone who might be a decent photographer, but pretends to be a lousy one, for a particular effect", then I would have to vote for "Yes. Everyone who sees Bigfoot really is a lousy photographer".

[Correa Neto]

Bigfoot travels aboard UFOs. That's why both are always blurry.

[madurobob]

Hmmmm, would those be the same courageous professionals who cower in fear when someone throws a rock at their cabin?:boggled:

Point taken :)

[billw]

Being out in the boonies in an altered state of consciousness is no doubt conducive both to Bigfoot sightings and bad photography.

[GT/CS]

Being out in the boonies in an altered state of consciousness is no doubt conducive both to Bigfoot sightings and bad photography.

Yes, it would be interesting to find out how many bigfoot sightings involve alcohol or other perception-altering substances.

[Fnord]

Possibly. The Florida swamp bigfoot eats canned beans*; the Sahara swamp bigfoot presumably eats dried beans.

*As per Creekfreak, anyway.

So maybe, just maybe, the blurry images occur when trying to photograph something that is surrounded by steamy vapours.

[dirtywick]

A lot of them are pretty good with photoshop if that's any consolation.

[SeanDamnit]

This one is pretty good:

http://internetservices.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/bigfoot-1.jpg

[Achán hiNidráne]

Because hicks in monkey suits are lousy models.

[rjh01]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.

[madurobob]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.
There are thousands of quality motion-activated trail cams out there in "bigfoot country". They don't get scared, they don't leave the lens cap on... and they don't get any bigfoot pics.

The only logical answer is that bigfoot is trans-dimensional.

[Starthinker]

Bigfoot is a multi-dimensional hyper-intelligent being that is surrounded by a protective sheilding device which prevents it from being photographed. This same protective shielding won't, however, protect it from freight trains.

[Monza]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.


Isn't that the same situation that most amateur bird watchers find themselves in? Yet they are able to take quite clear photographs, not unlike the one in your avatar. :)

[Amapola]

Bigfoot is a multi-dimensional hyper-intelligent being that is surrounded by a protective sheilding device which prevents it from being photographed. This same protective shielding won't, however, protect it from freight trains.

:D You forgot to say that this "shielding" stops them from leaving footprints, dung or bodies. That's some pretty interesting shielding.

[steve s]

Is there a good reason for this?

It's for the same reason that aliens who don't want to be seen always cover their spaceships with bright flashing lights.

Steve S.

[rjh01]

Isn't that the same situation that most amateur bird watchers find themselves in? Yet they are able to take quite clear photographs, not unlike the one in your avatar. :)

I took that photo. Let us see the procedure for that photo.
1. Magpies turns up, demands feeding.
2. I prepare camera and cheese
3. Feed Magpies. They stay several minutes feeding.
4. Me take heaps of photos.
5. Me look at photos
6. If photo good then use.
7. If want more photos go to step 1.

[learner]

Special bigfoot cameras with wee little vibrators in em.

[Juustin]

Well, there's also the possibility that the photographer realizes he's pointing an unusual device at a large hominid of unknown temperament and making sudden and possibly threatening noises.

Mitch Hedberg: "I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here. "

[Fnord]

I took that photo. Let us see the procedure for that photo.
1. Magpies turns up, demands feeding.
2. I prepare camera and cheese
3. Feed Magpies. They stay several minutes feeding.
4. Me take heaps of photos.
5. Me look at photos
6. If photo good then use.
7. If want more photos go to step 1.

Even pron pics are not as blurry as Bigfoot pics...

1. Girlfriends turns up, demands sex.
2. I prepare camera and...

Why can't Bigfoot pics be as clear as pron? I mean, Bigfoot just is not as great a distraction for the camera operator, right?

[Skeptic Guy]

Special bigfoot cameras with wee little vibrators in em.

Oooh, I like the sound of that! Where would one purchase such a camera? :D

Even pron pics are not as blurry as Bigfoot pics...

1. Girlfriends turns up, demands sex.
2. I prepare camera and...

Why can't Bigfoot pics be as clear as pron? I mean, Bigfoot just is not as great a distraction for the camera operator, right?

That's it then, we figured it out, we need to start producing Bigfoot pron.

[tyr_13]

All Bigfoot are expert ninja, and throw smoke bombs at their feet a split second before any picture is snapped.

They also have mystic hado surrounding their bodies, which deflect photons of course. When you have as much hado energy as a ninja bigfoot, I'd like to see you try to get a good picture of yourself. Honestly the nerve of some people. A photographer getting a picture of a hado charged ninja bigfoot.

The only thing that could get that picture would be a ninja photographer, but I'm too busy.

[Psi Baba]

Oooh, I like the sound of that! Where would one purchase such a camera? :D



That's it then, we figured it out, we need to start producing Bigfoot pron.
I think you're on to something here. Using pr0n logic to debunk Bigfoot: If Bigfoots had sex of any kind, there would have been numerous (hi-res) pictures of such on the internet long ago. Therefore, Bigfoots either do not have sex or they do not exist. Since it is impossible that the species could flourish without reproducing, then, they do not exist. I think this one's done. Let's move on.

[Skeptic Guy]

What would Bigfoot prOn music sound like?

[tyr_13]

Wood knocking.

[TjW]

Why am I unsurprised to find a thread started by Shemp has drifted to Bigfoot pron?

[Monza]

Well, you know what they say about mythical primates with big feet...

[Fnord]

Uhh... they're more fun at parties?

[Tanstaafl]

I took Planet X because you didn't have my choice:

Is there a good reason for this:

Yes - they know if they took a clear picture, the gorilla suit would be obvious.

[Senex]

The day I discovered this site was also the day I discovered Bigfoot was the most prolific thread under "General Skepticism..." I felt it was a joke. I felt no one would post Bigfoot stuff on a skeptic site unless they were making a joke.

I still feel that way, but for some reason that Bigfoot thread continues to be popular. There is no Bigfoot. Sorry to break the news.

[learner]

[QUOTE=Skeptic Guy;4021091]Oooh, I like the sound of that! Where would one purchase such a camera? :D

Now ive created some demand il get into production

Camera...check

vibrators..check

Gaffer tape..check

:D

[Psi Baba]

The day I discovered this site was also the day I discovered Bigfoot was the most prolific thread under "General Skepticism..." I felt it was a joke. I felt no one would post Bigfoot stuff on a skeptic site unless they were making a joke.

I still feel that way, but for some reason that Bigfoot thread continues to be popular. There is no Bigfoot. Sorry to break the news.
Quite right. That thread itself has reached mythical proportions. I doubt that there is a single forum member who has read all 15,000+ posts in that thread. It's virtually impossible for anyone new to join in that, ah, "discussion."

[desertgal]

Wood knocking.

Performed by an ivory billed woodpecker, of course.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quite right. That thread itself has reached mythical proportions. I doubt that there is a single forum member who has read all 15,000+ posts in that thread. It's virtually impossible for anyone new to join in that, ah, "discussion."

I understand that many newcomers haven't read every post, but I know I have, and I'm sure several of the other regular participants have ..

It's no big deal to read a page or two every day, over the course of three years ..

[I Ratant]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.
.
Yeah, this nighthawk had no concern for the photographer's ability to take a quick photo, with the subject in focus.

[rjh01]

.
Yeah, this nighthawk had no concern for the photographer's ability to take a quick photo, with the subject in focus.


1. The photographer took several shots on that day (and other days) and this is the best.
2. The photographer was expecting the bird to be their at that time and so was ready to take that shot.
3. It does not take long for a camera to focus on a object.
4. The subject is not moving towards or away from the camera.

Some details about the shot
Manufacturer = FUJIFILM
Model = FinePix S5100
Exposure Time = 1/210 sec [0.005]
F Number = 28/5 [5.600]
Original Create Time = 2007:06:24 18:09:40

Even at that speed I can see that the wings have moved slightly.

[Locknar]

1. The photographer took several shots on that day (and other days) and this is the best.So you are implying that BF'ers only have single shot cameras, or are otherwise incapable of taking multiple shots of a object?


2. The photographer was expecting the bird to be their at that time and so was ready to take that shot.I was not aware that animals in the wild were so kind to post their schedules, or "will be back" notes.

Odd that BF'ers, actively in the field looking for BF, would be so shocked/suprised in seeing one they were not ready to take a picture.


3. It does not take long for a camera to focus on a object.Yet a camera can't seem to focus on BF?


4. The subject is not moving towards or away from the camera.So you are contending that the bird/object was moving in parallel to the camera...or in such a radius as to maintain perfect, consistent distance between it and the camera? This seems unlikely.

The other implication is that BFs only run away, or charge toward, people they might encounter...never standing still, or moving in a parallel (to the camera) direction...equally unlikely.


Some details about the shot
Manufacturer = FUJIFILM
Model = FinePix S5100
Exposure Time = 1/210 sec [0.005]
F Number = 28/5 [5.600]
Original Create Time = 2007:06:24 18:09:40

Even at that speed I can see that the wings have moved slightly.So not only to Bf'ers have "single shot" cameras, they have SLOW "single shot" cameras...incapable of clearly capturing objects in motion?

[Almo]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.

Are you serious? Do you really believe this is why bigfoot pics are blurry?

[learner]

The people who can take a photo of bigfoot have only a few seconds to take a photo. This is done at the time of bigfoot's choosing rather than the photographer's. That means that the photographer does not have time to prepare for the photograph. It is a matter of shoot now or never.

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.

Either that or they don't exist...erm weigh up both possibilities...Yep Ive got it...they don't!

UPDATE;
Made the first two prototype cameras, luckily they got a buy one get one free deal on Vibrators at Miss Daisies in town. Strangely, they sell Gaffer tape as well!

[tyr_13]

1. The photographer took several shots on that day (and other days) and this is the best.
2. The photographer was expecting the bird to be their at that time and so was ready to take that shot.
3. It does not take long for a camera to focus on a object.
4. The subject is not moving towards or away from the camera.

Some details about the shot
Manufacturer = FUJIFILM
Model = FinePix S5100
Exposure Time = 1/210 sec [0.005]
F Number = 28/5 [5.600]
Original Create Time = 2007:06:24 18:09:40

Even at that speed I can see that the wings have moved slightly.

The Fuji FinePix S5100 is a nice camera, but not even an SLR or of what I would call 'pro-sumer' quality. It is for an advanced hobbyist, and isn't a particularly advanced camera. I would expect a camera of its physical size to have more than 10x optical zoom and a 4 MP CCD. It is however, nicely priced at between $170-$350. However, it is mostly sold for $499, which makes it a poor choice as the current Rebel is in that range and a FAR better camera. I mean, the Fuji only takes four AA batteries instead of rechargeable LI-i.

How does this relate to Bigfoot you say? Easy. If footers spend so much time and money looking for bigfoot, why the hell can't they spend $250-$500 dollars on a digital camera and get eight shots in four seconds? And hundreds of shots over the day? I'm not even as good a photographer as my mother or my brother, and even I can do that. It isn't hard.

Sorry rjh01, not a single one of your points appears valid as it relates to bigfoot. I'm sticking with the mystic ninja bigfoot and hado energy blocking the photons.

[I Ratant]

I like the Fuji, it does well, and the video mode comes in handy.
The auto-focus only mode is a pain though.
My Pentax *istD is slightly better, but no video, and selectable focus.
Jack Rabbit with the Pentax, Raven with the Fuji.

[tyr_13]

Oh I wouldn't call the Fuji a BAD camera, as it has a good lens and video modes are fun toys. It was a better choice when it first came out though. Where you able to get rechargeable for it? That's my only real gripe with it, and the shutter priority mode not giving the full range of the camera. Why on earth would they limit you to 3 seconds when the camera is capable of 15?

[I Ratant]

I use 2100 mah Nimhs in my Fujis.. the first one I had (3100?) sucked batteries dry overnight. The 5100 takes a few days, if not used. I usually open the battery compartment when not using the camera.
The continuous frame rate has to be selected every time the camera is turned on, which is a pain.
I got the Pentax so I could use the many Pentax lenses I had for the film cameras, but the new lenses with the digital camera are so good, I almost never have a use for the old lenses except for the 100mm Macro.
The autofocus on the Pentax is aggravating, if there's a lot of motion on the subject, like wings beating. It won't focus, and won't take the picture, so I use manual most of the time.

[tyr_13]

I still like my brother's Rebel SLR. We can actually use the main lens as a macro, by taking it off and holding it on backwards. I never thought that would work but it does.

We rarely use the old film lenses either, but it is a nice option to have.

[I Ratant]

Even a point-n-shoot can do good work, if you try.
This r/c jet turbine is doing well over 150 mph, and the LCD viewfinder is useless in daylight, yet the photo is good!

[tyr_13]

Oh yeah! You can get perfectly usable pictures out of a $120 Kodak. Yet another reason that all Bigfoot photos shouldn't be blurry.

[Locknar]

Even a point-n-shoot can do good work, if you try.
This r/c jet turbine is doing well over 150 mph, and the LCD viewfinder is useless in daylight, yet the photo is good!WRT your picture...there are only 2 possible conclusions following the logic line offered by rjhol:

- Your picture is a hoax; the jet picture was taken while it was on the ground (and not in motion) by a professional photographer and the photoshopped into a sky-blue picture

- BF always moves at tremendous speeds well in excess of 150mph, which accounts for all BF pictures being blurry

However, injecting reality into the logic line you get a 3rd option (which seems by far the most likely)

- There are no clear pictures of BF because it simply does not exist

qed

[I Ratant]

To get this photo of a typical BF situation, I had to spot the subject, stop the bike (mountain bike riding in the desert out back), get the camera out of the pocket in the back of the shirt, turn it on, and take the photo at the decisive moment.
Pretty good picture.
Wiley usually takes off like a shot when he see pipples..
Canon SD100, 7.1 mPix,no zoom

[Correa Neto]

You would not do this with such an ease if you had stumbled at night on a 3m-tall ape with glowing red eyes emmiting infrasounds and a foul smell

Don't bother, their excuses never end...

[Skeptic Guy]

[quote=Skeptic Guy;4021091]Oooh, I like the sound of that! Where would one purchase such a camera? :D

Now ive created some demand il get into production

Camera...check

industrial vibrators..check

Gaffer tape..check

:D

I corrected it for you.

Wood knocking.

1. The photographer took several shots on that day (and other days) and this is the best.
2. The photographer was expecting the bird to be their at that time and so was ready to take that shot.
3. It does not take long for a camera to focus on a object.
4. The subject is not moving towards or away from the camera.

Some details about the shot
Manufacturer = FUJIFILM
Model = FinePix S5100
Exposure Time = 1/210 sec [0.005]
F Number = 28/5 [5.600]
Original Create Time = 2007:06:24 18:09:40

Even at that speed I can see that the wings have moved slightly.

You are really reaching here. Besides the points already brought up, wouldn't you think that there would a difference in the speed of a bird's beating wings and a BF's beating walking body?

[LTC8K6]

Dynel and like fibers inhibit autofocus...

[Minadin]

I voted for bad photographer, and here's my reasoning:

The people I've noticed who report and / or photograph sightings of bigfoot don't seem like the brightest or most talented people in the world. Therefore, I find it to be no major leap in logic to suspect that they might have difficulty in operating a camera properly.

[kitakaze]

Here's an entertaining Fox News interview with Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization head Matt Moneymaker in which he discusses the difficulty of obtaining photos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJj6X27f4Mk

My favourite part at 1:05:

Fox's Bill Hemmer: "If you had good stuff, Matt, you could really rid the world of a lot of doubt."

Matt Moneymaker: "We have really good stuff and that's what we're shooting for."

BH: "And when are you planning to unveil this really good stuff?"

MM: "We don't have really good stuff yet. (laughter in background) I said that we have stuff, it's not really good."

Talking to Bigfoot enthusiasts can be hard to follow sometimes.

[jenpohl]

As someone who has worked in a photo lab for the past three years, I can say that the vast majority of people are lousy photographers. At least the people who get their film developed/photos printed at Target.

[tyr_13]

Wal-Mart has a better printer in my experience than Target. Just a side note.

[technoextreme]

Plus the equipment used is amateur grade. Very difficult to get a good shot from a point and shoot.
Pfttt...... I have a amateur grade digital camera. I can defiantly get better pictures than that. You would think with digital cameras someone would be able to get twenty pictures off of him and at least one would come out decent.
EDIT:
Let me show you some of my amateur grade pictures of a skydiver. Probably a better comparison than a bird because they were flying out of the sky and somehow I got pictures of them when I wasn't expecting them like you claim what can't happen with Bigfoot.

[Drewbot]

One reason why bigfoot photos are blurry, is that, A. Bigfoot is fast B. Bigfoot is emitting Infra-sonic waves, which can affect small motors and servos in the camera, and 3. Most bigfoot sightings happen when someone is really tired and in no condition to make focus judgements as that sleep hallucination starts.

[Eos of the Eons]

If there were yetis/bigfoots around, then there would be remains around. There should be teeth marks in their food, and poop that is not moose or bear poop. There would be fur/hair left around. Caves or other living spaces with even more evidence. With bear populations decreasing, then yetis should be increasing.

Yet. Nothing. Just blurry photos of people in costumes and fake footprints. A huge letdown as a scam even. Never one orphaned yeti wandering around crying. Not one big foot bone from any deceased.

Why do people even want them to exist? What is the point?

[I Ratant]

One reason why bigfoot photos are blurry, is that, A. Bigfoot is fast B. Bigfoot is emitting Infra-sonic waves, which can affect small motors and servos in the camera, and 3. Most bigfoot sightings happen when someone is really tired and in no condition to make focus judgements as that sleep hallucination starts.
.
Another reason.
It's just at sundown, and the ISO setting isn't proper for the lack of light.. oh, and panning with the subject..

[Ron_Tomkins]

"On Planet X, Bigfoot takes blurry pictures of you!"

No, that's on Soviet Russia.

[Hitch]

Wait... is that a bigfoot I see through those trees?

[Miss_Kitt]

Hitch! Are you blind, dude?


That's not Bigfoot, that's the Virgin Mary!!!

Quick, where did She appear? Where was this picture taken??

[bruto]

It seems to be part of the bigfoot hunter's ethos that one should never actually prepare for the hunt. Old saying is that a crow can catch the glint of a gun barrel no matter how far off. Perhaps it's the same with bigfoots and cameras, so the experienced BF hunter leaves the good gear behind.

Now if I were a cynic, I'd be tempted to observe that a blurry picture is better than a sharp one if the sharp one shows the seams and zippers.