• 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.

New BF photo

JJEagan

Thinker
J
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
133
I am not allowed to post URL's, but you can find the new "photo's" on the BFRO homepage. Although I am completely skeptical about this photo, it does look interesting. Thank you.
 
JJEagan said:
I am not allowed to post URL's, but you can find the new "photo's" on the BFRO homepage. Although I am completely skeptical about this photo, it does look interesting. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Here they are, but they don't look the least bit interesting. Looks like a human in a hooded coat, just what you'd expect on a snow-capped hilltop.
29_icon_Silver_Star_Mt._029.jpg


30_icon_Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg


30_crop_Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg
 
Sorry Tricky, I meant that they would make interesting conversation. It does seem that some BF believers hang around here.
 
JJEagan said:
Sorry Tricky, I meant that they would make interesting conversation. It does seem that some BF believers hang around here.
Click to expand...
No problem, JJ. I guess you meant "interesting" in that they were clearly some biped. The description that the photographer gave is that they appeared to be "hairy". It sure doesn't show in the pictures.
 
Would you need the original photo to enlarge, add clarity, ect? I'm not very bright on those types of things.
 
JJEagan said:
Would you need the original photo to enlarge, add clarity, ect? I'm not very bright on those types of things.
Click to expand...
This apparently is the original photo, downloaded directly from the camera (sorry about spreading the thread size).

As you can see, there is mist on the mountains, so you don't expect a lot of clarity.
Silver_Star_Mt._030.jpg
 
I...grrr.....fsst....I'm just reading over the text accompanying the photos on the BFRO page
Irritating to say the least. Staggering the bland, blank confidence with which they make such assertions as:

BFRO said:
The figure does not cut the form of a hiker/climber in snow.
Click to expand...
Um, yes. Yes it does.

BFRO said:
It is not bundled up at all. It does not appear to be wearing a coat or a backpack.
Click to expand...
It does appear to be wearing a jacket. Or rather, it is consistent with what I would expect to see of a hiker in the middle distance who was wearing a jacket. I can't see any detail, but the overall silhouette is very similar to the 'figure' I 'cut' when I'm up in the local hills: biker jacket and a hood.
And any backpack could easily be on the ground at his feet while he stops to admire the view, or get his breath back.

BFRO said:
It does cut the form of a tall, lanky male sasquatch.
Click to expand...
Oh does it now? And you can back this assertion up with reference to known tall, lanky male sasquatches? Can you..?

Heck, these aren't even assertions, they simply state things as fact, as though confidence is enough to make them real. Or at least, sound scientifically credible. The whole attitude and tone smacks entirely of belief.
 
When I was stationed in Alaska every Airman in the distance looked this way. Especially when wearing your hooded parka and MB1 mittens.
 
Last edited:
JJEagan said:
When I was stationed in Alaska every Airman in the distance looked this way. Especially when wearing your hooded parka and MB1 mittens.
Click to expand...
So clearly the Sasquatch jumped an Airman and stole his parka and mittens
 
What I like is that they give a neat little process to get some comparative shots using a human model. It hasn't been done, and we have no way of scaling the figure as is, so OBVIOUSLY it's a huge sasquatch.

Where the heck is "Bob" when you need him?
 
I'm guessing that the distance is at least 250m to the object. Would the naked eye be able to pick out hair better than a camera lens at that distance? I do not see any dangling hair.
 
JJEagan said:
I'm guessing that the distance is at least 250m to the object. Would the naked eye be able to pick out hair better than a camera lens at that distance? I do not see any dangling hair.
Click to expand...
Depends on how good the camera is. I'm an amateur birdwatcher/photographer, and I often find that I can't identify the bird until I see my photos of it. Many cameras have much higher resolution than the human eye.
 
Tricky said:
Depends on how good the camera is. I'm an amateur birdwatcher/photographer, and I often find that I can't identify the bird until I see my photos of it. Many cameras have much higher resolution than the human eye.
Click to expand...

I'll vouch for that. I've frequently taken photos of, for example, backlit birds and been unable to identify them until I got home and adjusting the brightness, contrast etc. Did some redpolls last weekend, which I'd identified as siskins ... my how I laughed! :)
 
sphenisc said:
I'll vouch for that. I've frequently taken photos of, for example, backlit birds and been unable to identify them until I got home and adjusting the brightness, contrast etc. Did some redpolls last weekend, which I'd identified as siskins ... my how I laughed! :)
Click to expand...

I assume that you would be able to identify the difference between hair/parka?
 
JJEagan said:
I assume that you would be able to identify the difference between hair/parka?
Click to expand...
Even if you could discern hairs, that might mean nothing more than that the person was wearing a fur-covered parka. No, they're not that common, but they have at least been shown to exist, unlike Bigfoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom