Questionable Photos

[Ray Ford]

I'm going to start this thread by re-posting what I have posted before under the question,
What is a blobsquatch? 

I first heard the term in a discussion of Bulletmaker's photo--in a duscussion of the Spencer Creek Image.  Although the term itself suggested some things to me, I didn't know, at the time, exactly what a blobsquatch was, so I asked the question--and I suggested that it was one of three levels of photos--of images.

Level 1 -- A photograph that is clear and distinct and shows a clear and distinct image that CAN BE, with a high degree of certainty, identified as a Sasquatch. 

Level 2 -- A photograph that is clear and distinct and shows a clear and distinct image that CAN NOT BE, with a high degree of certainty, identified as either a Sasquatch or as something else.  There is something there, but....

Level 3 -- A photograph that may or may not be clear and distinct but shows an image that is NOT clear and distinct and CAN NOT BE, with any degree of certainty, identified as anything.  This is a blobsquatch--in my humble opinion.

I place the Spencer Creek Image at Level 2.  It is a relatively clear and distinct photograph which shows an image that is relatively clear and distinct but which can not, with a high degree of certainty, be identified.  The image might be a backside shot of a Bigfoot.  It might show, as B.M. contends, the partial face of a primate baby and the profile of another individual.  But those things can not be asserted with any high degree of certainty.  It could be another critter--or it might be a hoax.

I am still waiting to see an example of a Level 1 photograph.

I believe that I have seen several examples of Level 3 photographs.  Images in such photographs typically are "blobs" of dark--or of light.  I am particularly suspicious when a generally clear and distinct photograph contains an image that is not clear and distinct.

The words "with a high degree of certainty" are key in the above. 

[Ray Ford]

Prairie Ghost posted about questionable photos on the "Habitchation at BFRO" thread under "General Discussion" on this site.  You can read his complete post there.  I hope that he will not take objection to me quoting a part of what he says there here:

"I grow immediately suspicious with people who pull out dozens of photos that are        suppose[d] to have bigfoot hiding in them.  ...all I see are rocks or trees." 

[#59]

IMHO, "blobsquatch" qualifies for both level II & III status as the object (per your parameters) is unable to be clearly discerned with the level of identification affixed to it being subjective to the intent and motives of both it's viewers as well as the owner(s) of said photograph which makes it incumbent for the photograph's owner to have impeccable credibility for any degree of seriousness to be attached.

Outside of the Patterson-Gimlin film I have not observed much of anything that qualifies for level I status.

[Bill]

Claiming no expert status or definitive qualifications to support my position I label anything a blobsquatch if:

I can see nothing in it to clearly identify it as a Bigfoot BUT the photo purports to be a photo of Bigfoot where by the owner of the photo or any other person. If no one is purporting it be a Bigfoot then such a photo is otherwise just a piss poor photo.

I have observed that most folks who seem quite interested in the Bigfoot topic and who spend a fair deal of time observing, investigating, researching or whatever term you wish to insert take a fair number of photos. These folks most often do not claim that a bigfoot per-se is in them but they they represent things Bigfoot has done. Things such as break limbs or trees or pile up things in various shapes or maybe even an indistinct foot print.

While I cannot say that such images are or are not evidence that Bigfoot was there I generally view them as completely lacking as far as evidence of a Bigfoot presence simply because there is no way to clearly tell what caused the events. It might have been a Bigfoot or it milght have been a human or even in the case of broken trees or branches the wind or some other known wildlife.

I'm not saying it's wrong to post these or even to elude that maybe the big guy did them but I do say it's wrong if you specifically claim that if you cannot also provide additional and specific evidence of his existence.

In this regard the photos from Ammi come to mind. She has posted photos that she thinks but I don't think at least in what little I read she states definitively that bigfoot did them. She has some images with what appear to be black blobs or black areas of the images when viewed as shown on the site. Such makes one wonder what the heck might that be and that's just what I wondered when I first looked as well. One even looked for all the world like maybe a face with maybe an eye showing.

BUT when I copied the image and used Photoshop to expand the size of it on my monster monitor (I use a 32" monitor) it was clear that the black was limbs and nothing more.

Out in the wild we find a lot of different colors and shades in the trees and limbs of trees and bushes. Black is one of those shades as is gray and browns and all others. If we look at an image in a wider view those black areas or brown areas can make us wonder what might they be. But if the image quality is good enough to blown it up and see detail I think most times what the blob is can be discerned. Ammi's image I blowed up was of a quality that did allow me to tell that particular black area was just limbs. In fact one limb is very clear int he image and it has a very defined area where it turns from brown to black. That transistion area is what looked like a nose on a face in the smaller image with an eye to the left. But my enlarged image on my huge screen made it quite clear what was really there.

I am NOT saying he is in any way trying to decieve so please don't infer that. I'm just saying that the few images of hers I looked at were either just scenary or if it had a blob could easily be shown as not a bigfoot. Sure she might have them on her land and if so I hope she gets some good evidence to prove it. I'm willing to be convince Bigfoot exists but until I see that proof I'm gonna remain a skeptic but a skeptic willing to believe if I can just see, hear or experience something to change my mind.

BTW Ray whatever happened to the discussion you were gonna have on those images you asked me to post in a new thread for you?

[#59]

Bill,

This is why photos taken on grey (overcast) days tend to be so much more revealing as there are no light/shadows contrast to deal with but unfortunately, those type of pics seem to be few and far between...wonder why?

[saycheez]

Blobsquatch is a term that has been applied to inconclusive images of what the picture taker believes may be Bigfoot. When you can clearly identify the subject as something other than an unknown primate then it's no longer a blobsquatch, it's a misidentification(probably a lot of these). If you have convincing evidence that the image was staged or created in any way, then it is no longer a blobsquatch, it's a fake. When you have looked long and hard at a picture and you can not conclusively say it's an unknown primate but by golly your still going Hmmmm...... Then you have a Blobsquatch.

What happens most often is a picture is presented out of context.... cropped or "enhanced" or altered somehow from the original, without the original, full resolution image, to compare it to. Also, the pictures that I pay most attention to are the ones with a series of shots that show independent movement on the part of the subject. Even if I can't tell exactly what it is, at least I can tell it's not a stump.

Same goes with a comparison shot... a picture of the same area under similar conditions without the subject.

As far as questionable photos.... IMO that's all we have, even Patty would have a tough time if a jury was to decide if she was the real deal.

I've taken dozens of images that I think may have Sasquatchs in them, but so far none have been clear enough to fight over. I can tell you this much, none have ever been faked or hoaxed in any way.

[Ray Ford]

IMHO, "blobsquatch" qualifies for both level II & III status as the object (per your parameters) is unable to be clearly discerned with the level of identification affixed to it being subjective to the intent and motives of both it's viewers as well as the owner(s) of said photograph which makes it incumbent for the photograph's owner to have impeccable credibility for any degree of seriousness to be attached.

Outside of the Patterson-Gimlin film I have not observed much of anything that qualifies for level I status.

If I understand what you are saying, and I'm not sure I do since you sound like a lawyer in this post, you are labeling both my Level 2/II and Level 3/III as blodsquatch images and conditioning the interpretation, or acceptance, of both on the integrity/honesty of the person who comes up with the photograph.  My biases are a little different:

I think that, to qualify as a blobsquatch, the image has to be a blob--which is defined as "something of vague or indefinite form" by Webster's New Word Dictionary, 2nd Ed.  While images in Level 2 can not be identified with a high degree of certainty, they do have a relatively clear and distinct shape/form with visible detail.  In which case, we can say that the image is a photograph of something, not just a trick of light and darkness or of perspective.

While I am in agreement with you that the integrity/honesty of the person who comes up with the photograph is important, I do not believe that an image should be rejected outright because the person is known to lie or hoax or has some agenda--has some ulterior motive.  (Can "hoax," which is normally a noun, be used as a verb as I just did?)

I'm not going to discuss the Spencer Creek Image here: I'm going to discuss it, again, on that "new thread" that Bill referenced. 

[Ray Ford]

Claiming no expert status or definitive qualifications to support my position I label anything a blobsquatch if:

I can see nothing in it to clearly identify it as a Bigfoot BUT the photo purports to be a photo of Bigfoot ... by the owner of the photo or any other person. If no one is purporting it be a Bigfoot then such a photo is otherwise just a piss poor photo.

[Text deleted.  See above post.]

BTW Ray whatever happened to the discussion you were gonna have on those images you asked me to post in a new thread for you?

I think "expert status" or "definitive qualifications" can yield, at times, to "common sense."

As I told Telahnay's G'son, I distinquish between my Level 2 and Level 3 based on the definition of the word "blob."  If the image is "vague and indefinite," that is a blobsquatch.  If the image is relatively clear with discernible detail, that is a step up from a blobsquatch--even if what is photographed can not be identified with certainty.

I would be inclined to dismiss Level 3 images almost outright.  In a consideration of Level 2 images,
after I've looked at the photograph, I would be inclined to look at the integrity/honesty of the person and to question/examine his/her motives.

That discussion of the Spencer Creek Image for which you posted the pictures will get done/posted as soon as I find my "roundtuit"--which I seem to have momentarily misplaced.

BTW, do you want to know what my motives for Bigfootin" are?

Motive 1:  I'm curious about what might be out there in the woods and fields.
Motive 2:  I like being out there in the woods and fields.
Motive 3:  I think Bigfootin' is a good excuse to be in the woods and fields.
Motive 4:  I like to write about things.



 

[Ray Ford]

Blobsquatch is a term that has been applied to inconclusive images of what the picture taker believes may be Bigfoot.

[Text omited.  See above post.]

As far as questionable photos....  IMO that's all we have....

I've taken dozens of images that I think may have Sasquatchs in them, but so far none have been clear enough to fight over. I can tell you this much, none have ever been faked or hoaxed in any way.

You make some very good observations: movement, intact and in context originals, comparison shots, not fighting....  I appreciate your post.

[Prairie Ghost]

 I hope that he will not take objection to me quoting a part of what he says there here:

No objection whatsoever.

As far as the question about why it comes out clearer in the cloudy or gray days--I once asked a photographer outside why he was taking photos on a very cloudy day.  He said that it was the best day for what he wanted to photograph.  When it is sunny out, you have more of a white/black contrast.  Cloudy days tend to diffuse the light and bring out details that a high contrast washes out.

[#59]

Now, the guy is claiming a correlation between abstract art versus a questionable photograph and basically asserting that because some people place value upon the former they should be discounted for not proclaiming the authencity of the latter.

Last I heard, that was called a "reach" in the extreme. 

[jd45]

Why isn't anyone posting these photos? jd45

[#59]

Why isn't anyone posting these photos? jd45

Case in point....

A guy that used to frequent this place (D.G. aka: Deadbeat Griffin) recently opined about a batch of photo's he gave me a while back to post here in order to give this site a "leg up" on the competition.

First, the photo's that he (and Woodswatcher) actually took were allegedly of footprints in the snow down on Spencer creek.  Problem was in at least a couple of them your could clearly see the heel print of a boot as in fact, it was Ray Ford as the first to identify the faux pas.  



Garbage like that is why they didn't get posted.

The other pics (bows, etc.) were taken on my gamecam and were posted on other sites previously.  If someone feels I need to pimp things up around here with them as well...let me know.