What you’re using should be fine for what you’re doing Jason. Macs are the preferred choice of most digital graphics pros. I use a Mac system too.

The HD tag can be misleading. If the image you’re looking at isn’t in HD then it doesn’t matter if your computer output is HD. Just to make sure though, I asked my buddy Rick. He’s the art director for one of the largest advertising firms here in my area and they use all Mac systems by choice. Here is what he said (which basically confirms what I just said):

“The Mac OSX is a pdf screen format which is the highest def screen resolution you can get without updating to a high def card… can people with HD cards see things other people can’t? No. The resolution of the photo is constant.. the card resolution is meaningless.”

Take that original zoomed-in Mahoney image as an example… it’s roughly a 4 k. file… it doesn’t matter if your computer is rigged up for HD… the necessary detail in the original image just isn’t there to support the output view. Your system is fine for photo analysis of Bigfoot pics.

Not in this case; I have no expectations either way.

{{fear of ridicule}}

Ditto.

{{or having Intel integrated graphics with a standard CRT or LCD monitor and the details can’t be seen.}}

Could be. I’m using an iMac with 1440×900 resolution; unsure if this counts as high-def. I’m pretty sure the zoom-in on this photo is no longer 1440×900 resolution or better, though.

In any case, my rig has enough video horsepower to clearly see (and show in my report) that the ‘face’ (if there is a face) is almost completely blocked by the branch of a tree. That includes where the eyes would be on the face. This isn’t very obvious in the original photo, but it’s pretty easy to find when looking at the zoom-in (including when compared with the original scope, which shows where the tree branch is coming from.)

As my report also shows, almost all the ‘surfaces’ of the shape correspond exactly to surfaces of objects which are clearly something else other than a hominid. It isn’t impossible (strictly speaking) that a hominid standing behind those shapes would happen right at that moment of taking the photo to fit its own shape so exactly to those shapes; but it’s vastly even more improbable than that those other shapes would combine to create that outline in the first place (which has to be included as a factor now in any case.)

Considering that we know for a fact (as demonstrated even in the original photo) that large black rocks are native to this area; and considering that we know for a fact (as demonstrated in the subsequent photo several years later) that a large black rock sooner or later is back in those trees somewhere approximate to where the questionable shape is; and considering there is evidence in the photo of obviously non-hominid blackness close by and around the shape under examination; and considering the hominid-shape corresponds nearly perfectly to a composite arrangement of non-hominid surface shapes identifiable in the foreground; then the inductive weight against this being a photo of a hominid is, I would say, pretty extreme. A positive case in favor of it being a hominid is going to have a reallllly tough row to how.

JRP

Scott replies: I agree. An analysis shouldn’t have to take very long. If the photo is a good photo of a Bigfoot, the results should be fairly obvious right away. If multiple people are debating for a week on a blog about what they are actually seeing in the picture then it’s not a good Bigfoot photo in terms of evidence.}

Tookra says: “…There are honest people trying to share what they have, then they disappear and don’t discuss it anymore because of excessive skepticism and ridicule…”

Scott replies: Again, I agree. But, at the same time, there are two sides to every disagreement. Those presenting the photos need to be conscious of HOW they present them to the public when they do so. Some people make declarations (“my photo of Bigfoot”, or “here is my Bigfoot photo”, etc.) The problem may stem from semantics and intent… but when people describe their photo as “Bigfoot”… the people looking at the photo are expecting to see a Bigfoot. Therefore, when they realize it’s just a Blobsquatch at best… they get pissed. They get pissed because of frustration. They’re sick and tired of hoaxers and Blobsquatch photos being claimed as “Bigfoot”. So, some of the problem is in how it is all presented…

Witnesses need to remember that just because someone disagrees with what they claim is in their photo, that doesn’t mean they are being personally attacked. There is a difference between honest, hard questions about evidence as opposed to insults.

That said, I don’t think any witness should ever be publicly insulted, talked down to, or treated rudely by people analyzing their photos. I have seen such incidents turn into personal attacks and I feel that is very wrong to do so. Hard questions are fine, but keep them worded in a respectful and polite manner. Keep the discussion about the evidence being presented.

In general, I always try to be nice to people, but I too will occasionally get ticked off if a debate gets heated, and then I will sometimes start to give back what I get from the other party. It works two ways. Both sides need to be more understanding of where the other is coming from.

A good analysis shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes and probably longer if details are found that raise more question marks.

There are honest people trying to share what they have, then they disappear and don’t discuss it anymore because of excessive skepticism and ridicule.

I am admittedly hard on Bigfoot photo evidence. I am because of the increasing number of hoaxers who have access to photo manipulation software. Also, digital artists are getting more and more skilled and with the technological advances (and price reductions) in 3D modeling software, the opportunity for hoaxers is getting better and better.

If a photo is presented to the public as a “photo of Bigfoot”, the presenter is (in essence) claiming that the photo is “proof of Bigfoot”. Therefore, I simply expect to clearly see a Bigfoot in such a photo….

I shouldn’t have to squint at my monitor for 4 hours after zooming in to the point where the pixels are nearly exploding from my screen, trying to determine whether that amorphous dark shape hidden in vegetation, light and shadow is a Sasquatch, a bear, a hiker in a dark jacket, or just an optical illusion. Is it unrealistic for me to expect such a clear photo? I don’t think so… not if it’s supposed to be “proof” of Bigfoot.

If it’s presented as a “possible” photo of Bigfoot then I still want to see a Bigfoot, but I’ll allow a bit more leeway when analyzing it. The alleged Sasquatch should at least resemble our general view of what they look like.

So, IMO, if a photo is supposed to offer proof of Bigfoot, and it doesn’t clearly show a Bigfoot, … then it is worthless as evidence of proof. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a Bigfoot… it just means that it doesn’t prove it.

If you’re expecting a Hollywood quality photo, I’m pretty sure you won’t ever get that. If you think you have the best graphics card and monitor, go to Best Buy and take some photos with you on a thumb drive and compare them on the most expensive machine they have. It’s my supposition that most people either don’t know what they’re looking at or are too afraid of ridicule by stating what they see in the photo.

At this point I’d like Autumn to post 2 pics that I sent to her of a juvenile. The first 2 I sent you Autumn the numbers ending in 274 and 275. It’s definitely a blobsquatch, difference being I saw him in person at 530pm in the afternoon from 50 yds away or less. You can see the barbwire fence he’s near. You can also see he moved over several feet from one photo to the next by the bushes he’s near. Call it a bear, pig, skunk or……….crow……whatever you’d like. I know what I saw on 2 feet that dropped to hands and knees by that fence. It took me a good 30 seconds to remember I had that camera to take the pics with I was so amazed at how brazen he was.

[Editor's note: Thomas: Will post those tonight in a separate blog post, along with your comments. I've been picking elderberries and have to help Mom process them into juice first. *grin*]

The dark “figure” appearing behind Mr. Rosick is on the south wall of the gorge. No less than 4 elevation lines (demarcated at 20 feet per line) overlap at this location– which indicates an 80+ foot vertical cliff.

Unless Autumn hears otherwise from the photographer, it makes the most sense to continue referring to this as the Rosick photograph.

Just please don’t refer to the figure as “Rosie.”

(The practical point here is that now I’m totally confused as to whether to mention the man’s name in my analysis, particularly the copyright notice included with each photo.)

JRP