• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ely Sasquatch Video

Well, would you follow a bear w/ cub into the woods? ;)

eta: Holy crap! I remember that bionic bigfoot in the $6 Million Man show, that was awesome! But then, I was 10 years old. :p


To your first question: Hell, no.

To your statement: Bionic Bigfoot had the best Afro in the 70's, which is just one in the long list of reasons why he rules. Kind of ironic that not only is he fictional like the real bigfoot, but he was fake even within the context of a fictional story.

Added: I swear I thought the title of the thread was "Elf Sasquatch Video."
 
I thought "nightvision" was green, like that movie Paris Hilton was in.

Depends, tube.

Nightvision is typically green, but the "low-light" feature on camcorders is not necessarily the same tech as nightvision. TO my understanding, the low light feature on most camcorders goes to black and white because color doesn't show well in dark, and black and white gives more clarity for less light. Not a true nightvision system, AFAIK.
 
Well, he says Nightshot, which is Sony's sytem. That is true nightvision as far as I know. You can use it with or without the IR illumination too.

That's another question to ask....

Actually a few more questions, since Nightshot has to be turned on. That's one more thing he had to do to get the shot.
 
LTC8K6:

Just checked. It's not an actual starlight system, like the military. It is more than I thought, though :)

Military Nightvision actual takes in and amplifies available light, as well as picking up infrared (you can see TV remote beams with them). They can operate both passively (picking up and amplifying available light) and actively (using an IR light to illuminate the area being viewed).

Sony's system also increase near infrared, but does not have the amplification features of the military system. It either picks up available ambient light and NIR, or also has an infrared light source. I would suppose it is black and white because it uses the same CCD card as a regular, color photo, but my guess would be it simply adds the values picked up by each color layer/pixel of the CCD for better resolution.

For those that don't know, a CCD typically is arranged in squares of pixels. Pixel 1,1 will pick up red, 1,2 will pick up green, 2,1 picks up blue, etc. Each pixel picks up a single color, and these are combined in the camera. So, a black and white mode can greatly increase resolution, because you can treat each of these as additive rather than seperate (you just want brightness, not color), and resolve a brighter image.

Now, the last bit is just my guess, but makes sense in the world I've created in my head ;) My guess is that the green color of military systems is just because that's what they chose (my guess is it disturbs your regular night-vision less), not a requirement of the system. But the Nightshot is not quite at the same level as military starlight optics, although the same idea is behind it.
 
It really looks like a bear to me.

It seems entirely possible it's a bear walking on hind legs (and struggling to) for a short distance, for whatever reason we can't really see.
 
Let me know if Huntster comments on this in a meaningful way (I have him on ignore right now).


Why am I surprised that I'm not the only one? I feel bad that I'm not listening to him anymore, but I kind of have to listen to him in moderation for the sake of my blood pressure.
 
Huntsman, I have seen shots taken with Nightshot that appeared green, and I have seen shots that were b & w.

I think that the shots where the subject is close enough to be illuminated by the IR leds appear greenish, but that's just a theory.

Maybe the IR leds give the greenish hue, and some shots weren't using them?

I have a Sony camera with Nightshot available to play with. When I get home I'll see what's what with it. I am pretty sure it has the option of using the IR leds or not.

I suspect there are different version of it even among Sony cameras. The newer version with the slow shutter option supposedly looks much better.

The camera model used would be good info to have. Wonder if we'll get it?

The built in IR light is good for about 10 feet, and there is an optional IR light you can get that's good for about 100ft.
 
Huntsman, I have seen shots taken with Nightshot that appeared green, and I have seen shots that were b & w.

I think that the shots where the subject is close enough to be illuminated by the IR leds appear greenish, but that's just a theory.

Maybe the IR leds give the greenish hue, and some shots weren't using them?

I have a Sony camera with Nightshot available to play with. When I get home I'll see what's what with it. I am pretty sure it has the option of using the IR leds or not.

I suspect there are different version of it even among Sony cameras. The newer version with the slow shutter option supposedly looks much better.

The camera model used would be good info to have. Wonder if we'll get it?

The built in IR light is good for about 10 feet, and there is an optional IR light you can get that's good for about 100ft.

Yeah, I did a google search for Sony Nightshot, and most of my info came from the first link. I checked a couple others just to verify, but mainly browsed them. Plenty of hits, though. The link does mention three generations of Nightshot, but all of them basically work by simply removing the IR cut-off filter that is normally in front of the CCD...this increases the sensitivity to NIR. There's no actual amplification.

I'd be interested to see some nighttime shots with it, myself. I've not been familiar with it until this thread (although I've used the military systems extensively). Let me know if you find anything interesting :)

FYI, Huntsman and Hunster are two very different posters...

THANK YOU!!!!

I'm getting very close to changing my user name because of confusion with that hypocritical loon :)
 
Yeah, I did a google search for Sony Nightshot, and most of my info came from the first link. I checked a couple others just to verify, but mainly browsed them. Plenty of hits, though. The link does mention three generations of Nightshot, but all of them basically work by simply removing the IR cut-off filter that is normally in front of the CCD...this increases the sensitivity to NIR. There's no actual amplification.

I'd be interested to see some nighttime shots with it, myself. I've not been familiar with it until this thread (although I've used the military systems extensively). Let me know if you find anything interesting :)



THANK YOU!!!!

I'm getting very close to changing my user name because of confusion with that hypocritical loon :)

It was easier to tell the difference prior to your recent avatar change.
 
I have a Sony with Nightshot and it does appear more like really washed-out color, almost black and white with no greenish tint. I use it to record Iridium flares in hopes to get a good enough one to convince people it was a UFO.

On the Ely video, I commented on this in another forum. This is the part that gets me: He hears a scream and slows down to 5 mph. By that time he's way down the road from where he heard the scream, even if he was going 45 or so as he claims (more like 65, knowing Minnesotans). So then, while driving 5 mph he sees the bigfoot and whips out his camera. No reason is given as to why he has his camera there, out of a bag, charged batteries, etc. But even at 5 mph he overshoots it with his headlights so it's conveniently under lit. I've shot from my car before and unless you get out you are almost sure of getting the door pillar, snow from the windshield, steering wheel, or something from inside the car. If he was shooting through the window it was amazingly clean and why can't you see the reflection of the "recording" light all Sonys have? So I'm assuming he must have gotten out. He said he was driving slow due to bad weather but have you ever driven after a snowfall and seen how dirty your car gets?

But I digress, he hears the scream slows drives at 5mph a little bit, THEN sees the bigfoot. First of all he's down the road from where the scream was, and second of all, if this was the bigfoot that screamed then how did he hear it, as at that point the bigfoot was still a ways down the road? See what I mean? This is also assuming he heard it with his widows rolled up and heater running and maybe a radio. Ever drive at 45 mph with the windows rolled up and the heater on? Good luck hearing even a siren from a ambulance let alone a scream.

I'm not buying this was made from inside a car, and if he was too scared to follow it I can't see how he was brave enough to get out in the first place, even hanging out a rolled-down window (kinda steady for that, another strange point) and if he was still behind the wheel, with enough steady nerves to record, why didn't he throw it in reverse and get some lights on it, even after it went into the woods?

Forget bear, this is guy in suit hoax. One more thing, recent sightings have been given more weight because of the presence of a "baby" so when people ask "why would they go through the trouble to dress a baby?" just reply, first of all it's not a baby in a suit, it just a fake baby, and they did that just because of all the sightings with babys tend to be believed more.

I know I'm over-analysing a hoax, but it's what I do.
 
Okay, I have looked at this video enough. I think that Damndirtyape over at BFF has it pegged as far as I am concerned. I am still open to more info, but as of now, this really looks like a guy stumbling around in a baggy suit.

IMHO... It's a hoax. I've now spent too many hours watching it and even the guys story has some doubt to it. The creature walks up the slight snow rise on the side of the road... catches the side of it's suit on that stump or tree branch it walks past, reaches down and pulls it away and then continues on into the dark.

The only thing I can't figure out is why they wouldn't shoot it again if this happened? Too much danger of traffic maybe?

As far as I can tell, there wasn't any measurable snowfall in the month of January in Ely, Minnesota.
 
One more thing, recent sightings have been given more weight because of the presence of a "baby" so when people ask "why would they go through the trouble to dress a baby?" just reply, first of all it's not a baby in a suit, it just a fake baby, and they did that just because of all the sightings with babys tend to be believed more.

Yeah, kind of odd that for years no one ever saw Bigfoot with a baby, then all of the sudden it's a freaking population explosion. Reminds me of how no one saw little grey men until a certain point in time and now it's almost nothing but little grey men.

This can only really mean one thing - Bigfoot is breeding like mad and we're about to be overrun! I now invite everyone speculate on gender roles in Bigfoot society. After all, we don't know if that was Mom or Dad carrying the baby.

I'm also about at the point where I think that anyone who claimed to me that they saw Bigfoot, regardless of whether they had a camera or not, and didn't pursue it to get a closer look might just get the beating of a lifetime. I mean, seriously! It could be the scientific discovery of the century! What the hell are you thinking? Grow a pair and get out there and take some pictures!

I swear if I spotted Bigfoot I would run that thing down until he lost me or killed me, taking pictures the whole time. And if I lost him I'd be back there the next day with as many people as I could muster, each one armed with some kind of camera and firearm.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom