Mike A

[Mike A]

it’s interesting how access to Matilda “footage” always comes down to the bare basics – licensing costs…..

the issue with the Bigfoot community is always money – if someone has footage that “proves” Bigfoot/Sasquatch is real, their first question to anyone looking to authenticate the footage is “How much is it worth to you?”

that’s why the mainstream don’t take the topic seriously, because anyone who claims to have unedited/unreleased footage of actual creatures refuse to share it unless money exchanges hands

[Mike A]

this is a wind-up right?

[Mike A]

I’m with Steven, I’m not clear on the purpose of your post as it sounds as though you’re calling for people to “believe” in order to see the same things, especially in the blob-type images, as what the photographer has presented them to be.

I’ve seen people presenting photos online of some trees in a local park (taken in France or in England, not the US or Canada) and seen those images presented as a dark forest or a tree line etc, and as a result I’ve seen people responding with comments like “Yeah I can see the face, check out the hair on it’s arm etc” and saw one photo where someone drew a red circle on it to “highlight” the face. this is obviously pareidolia (especially if the image is presented as a Sasquatch photo) so it’s difficult to believe the blob-type images as anything other than that – an unidentified blob

for this reason, I’ve got to agree that Steven’s correct, if a photo or video needs to be digitally enhanced in order to see the target in question, either through digitally zooming/expanding the image (which introduces issues when you factor in pixelation or distortion of older images etc) then the image cannot be used as “evidence” because it is no longer the true original image

same with these 12 second videos we see on Twitter and YouTube where the video is obviously a shortened clip and the person filming claims to see something, but the video then needs to be enhanced or edited in order to view it properly. I’m still confused why people take random videos where they’re zooming into a branch 3 feet away from them (with no context for filming a branch etc) and then claim there’s a Sasquatch across the river, in the total opposite direction from where they’re filming…. if you’ve just seen Sasquatch, and you’re ALREADY filming, surely common sense would say to point the camera and zoom in on the direction you’ve just seen it right???

yes there are probably clear images, or at the very least, images which can be viewed and “trusted” as a good quality photo or video of an unknown creature, but why people insist on adding red circles or fading a specific area to highlight it better, when all that does is destroy the image credibility because it is no longer unedited footage

hopefully now that people have more and more access to high-def equipment in their daily lives, we’ll be able to see some clearer footage over the coming months/years!

[Mike A]

thanks for the response Knobby, don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that I disagree with the concept that in order to use the photos/videos for any media or publishing purposes that the “owner” should not be fairly compensated, what I’m talking about is the people who claim to have video and photographic evidence that clearly details what the creature is, how it looks (one person claimed to have a video of two eating) but prior to allowing anyone to view the footage, they wanted $25,000 to see it, and a further $25,000 to obtain a copy….

who pays twenty five grand in order to view a video which cannot be corroborated as the person will not give any information about the specifics of the case prior to payment?

there is a reason why TV folk treat the Sasquatch/Bigfoot community as a joke topic – this is why, there are people determined to undermine the integrity of those who do try to carry out proper research

I fully agree that many people who like to hunt/fish and have “their” spot don’t want others to encroach on it and ruin their hunting season, that’s perfectly understandable, but when we’re specifically talking about the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon and the uncertainty around what such a creature could be, there are people who will only start to share information once their “credible” evidence has been bought.

for media purposes, there would be a contract in place to “licence” the footage for publicity purposes, but no court will stand by and support anyone who provides cash in advance, and then receives blurry images or pictures of a faked scenario (which people have been known to do) and the people who paid will rightly feel like an idiot, and treat the wider community as a bunch of frauds

[Mike A]

personally I’m confused why people seem to have crystal clear photos, yet then say “I’m not willing to share this with anyone” – in my experience of trying to ask people who claim to have photos like this, it comes down to money

the people with the images usually ask for money in return, and lots of it – their view seems to be that prior to sharing any photos which have clear details, they want payment (in full) which always makes me suspicious, especially when people won’t confirm the location where the images were taken for an independent check of the location prior to payment….

which brings me onto a larger question about the very common layer of secrecy around this whole topic – why do people refuse to give out the locations where they’ve seen one, if they claim to have crystal clear photos of them? surely if you expect payment for your images, you must accept that the purchasers would expect to verify the images in question, such as a visit to the location to confirm it looks like the images et

I know someone who is currently producing a documentary about the legends surrounding the Himalayan mountains, and they’ve been approached by people claiming to have HD video footage of creatures which prove their existence, yet before they’ll even show the footage to the production team, they wanted thousands of dollars in advance – that’s not how normal business transactions work, and that’s what ruins the credibility of the Bigfoot community in the eyes of the mainstream media – try and hold them to ransom, and they’ll never want to produce a serious documentary because the “community” clearly isn’t serious

[Mike A]

David, what I mean is why are people still only using trail cams that record photos – there’s kit now that can record full 1080p HD videos, so why are people still only using equipment that captures photographs? it was more of a general question about why people use trail cams that only capture photos

it seems a bit pointless to me to use kit which can only take a still image, and doesn’t allow the owner to receive more information than whatever is captured in that image – a video would offer more info about the way creatures walk, their speed, the direction they’re headed, maybe provide details about how they move around trees etc, all of that isn’t possible from a photograph, yet many people looking to capture evidence of Sasquatch are only using low-cost kit

perhaps it’s simply a money thing, and people don’t want to spend more than a hundred dollars on kit for a hoax (like this one obviously is) but if I lived in an area where I believed there’s a solid chance of sightings, I’d definitely be investing in the right kit to capture videos instead of photos if I was serious about trying to get footage of Sasquatch

[Mike A]

why are people still using trail cams that only show stills, rather than recording videos??

[Mike A]

Comment deleted.

I knew in time someone would say something about Garrett in it for the money, etc.

[Author]

Posts