Bigfoot Photo From 2008 Probably Captured By One Of These Game Cameras [Melissa Hovey]
New details are emerging from the conversations between Melissa Hovey and the person who sent her the game cam photo of Bigfoot in 2008.
Back then, digital game cameras were on the rise, replacing older 35mm film type cameras. According to Melissa's conversation with the person, she learned that there "was a multiple camera set up designed specifically to photograph this alleged animal." This recent statement is consistent with previous blog entries where Melissa mentioned that this person may have "a series of photos." Supposedly, the photo recently released by Melissa on Thursday was captured using "a 35mm camera with zoom."
Considering that the photo was captured on 35mm film, perhaps even more detail of the creature can be extracted from the negative (when it becomes available). Technically, a scan from a quality 35mm camera is equivalent to a shot produced by a 5300 x 4000 digital camera. Unlike images from a digital camera (especially back in 2008), you could blow up the 35mm shot a little bit more and see a little bit more, but at the cost of producing a grainy image.
Here's an update Melissa wrote on her blog yesterday:
Photo Update and Information.
This is just an article to update everyone on some important information – so PLEASE read the entire article.
First of all to those who are emailing me privately and sending messages of support and thanks for showing this photo I want to say – Thank you!! This decision was not an easy one. I will work hard in the next few days to respond to each one of you personally. I feel I owe you that much.
There is a very good side to this community. I wish I seen it more.
Now onto information that many people are asking about.
Let me say first, I am not the kind of person who understands, “technology”. 99.9% of the time when conversations start over equipment, and their operation, I shut down and am not even listening. Just ask Wayne he is the tech guy in this household.
We all have things we are good at and things we are not so good at.
After I posted this photo on my blog, I didn’t expect to hear from this witness ever again. Then last night he did in fact email me. While I am not going to get into the bulk of the conversation I will disclose this, because I think it’s important.
He apologized for any confusion and told me this was not the typical game cam set up we are all accustomed to. He said this was a 35mm camera with zoom. He is not sure how the miscommunication happened, but I think he wanted to clarify this piece of information. He said this was a multiple camera set up designed specifically to photograph this alleged animal.
Most likely the miscommunication was on my part due to a lack of understanding when it comes to some of the technical equipment we use in the field. I remember early conversations after the photo was initially analyzed and I was told something about 35mm film. Which, of course, didn't mean much to me. I told this to Wayne and he thought I was confused and this must have been a game cam. So, there was much confusion on this point, stretching back 4 years.
He did not tell me I could or couldn't post this information. I think he emailed me with the information so there could be some clarification. So, I am giving you all this information.
Hopefully, when he contacts me again (as he said he would) we can discuss more. I have no reason to doubt that he will.
But, I will not disclose anything he does not want discussed in public. All I can do is hope everyone understands.
 |
| Game Cam Bigfoot Photo Capture 2008 |
Photoshop and modern costuming materials have made Bigfoot hoaxing quite easy for the ordinary BF Researcher. Actually even if you submitted a full frontal still shot of a Squatch in 1080 dpi at 15 ft away you would probably get the same 50/50 outcome on it's believability.Closeup HD video is still the only true way to cull the hoaxers out of the picture. CGI video is expensive and it takes serious expensive software and computers to accomplish the art. Who do you know has the money to produce hoaxes in that realm ?
ReplyDelete"So what is it Mellisa, I am starting to believe you are full of it!
ReplyDeletefirst you say "He did not tell me I could or couldn't post this information" and then later you state "But, I will not disclose anything he does not want discussed in public."
WOW she is feeding us bull, she is trying to cover her tracks on this fiasco, Shawn plase stop writing about this lady and promoting her page and her stupid picture, lets talk about something worthy.
I like that Bravo guy, he always writes interesting articles that make senses and makes you think. Lets have more stuff like that instead of this womans crazy story that changes everyday.
How could she not know what he used to take the photo, if she has maintained a 4 year conversation with this guy. I am starting to think she is making this all up just to get publicity.
OH! one more thing, she stated she does not understand technology, she is a research that goes into the woods, so she does not carry a camera or any kind of tech incase of an encounter with bigfoot. Come on! This lady is not telling the truth.
Do you just hate Bigfoot Shawn? Two days of this stupid photo that even if real has no meaning, no information. Or do you just hate Bigfooters Shawn?
ReplyDeleteYou are killing interest here, something new please!
No communication in years. So she releases the photo then presto an instant e-mail response. lol!
ReplyDeleteShes reading these posts and trying to cover-up.
yup. This has got MH fingerprints all over it.
DeleteSigh.
ReplyDeleteIt's incredible how these things spin so amazingly out of control.
Please hit the back button and scroll down to the blog post titled "Extremely Boring Video By Henry May Shows Bigfoot Costume Similar To One Released By Melissa Hovey".
Then scroll down to the comments.
Case closed.
The Clawed costume doesn't match idiot, are you blind or just stupid?
DeleteCover up. She just implicated herself as the mastermind behind the hoax, I expect a photo person can easily tell it is not a scan of 35mm.
ReplyDeleteCan she explain why the trail cam is pointed up, it dosen't even capture the ground.
It's not a trail cam. Reading is fundamental.
DeleteAgreed it's not even the same color as the one in the photo.
Delete35mm camera with zoom
ReplyDeleteDo old game-cameras using 35mm units allow for automatic zooming? like in the picture posted above in this article.
Or, is this a tactic to shift from the exif information?
I have looked at the image closely in Photoshop. I see nothing that screams haox to me, but then I'm not a pro image analyst. My concern and largest hoax suspicions center around the circumstances and lack of information more than the image itself.
ReplyDeleteHere's where I stand. If you want to release a photo these days and you don't provide all of the details, expect for the majority of people to cry "hoax", and the rest to say "maybe" at best. If you don't include ANY of the below details as in this case, expect your image to be suspect AT BEST, no matter how good it appears to be.
If you think you have a real photo of a real being, then you had better include as much as possible of the following details, and be prepared to back up any information you provide:
-When the photo was taken, who if anyone was involved for setup and camera retrieval. Weather, time of day, date. Moon phase, compass direction the camera was pointed, etc.
-Where specifically the photo was taken. Describe the terrain, flora and fauna in the immediate and general area. GPS coodinates would be best. A video tour of the site would be helpful. The ability to take critics or investigators to the exact spot is invaluable, and shouldn't pose a bigfoot conservation issue 4 years later. If the site is still active, then GET MORE PHOTOS or video. If it is private land, say so and provide a point of contact for anyone wishing to visit the site.
-The equipment the photo was taken with. In this case, access to the negatives would help, as pro photo processors can create higher resolution images using better processes and paper than the stock stuff.
-The settings used when the photo was taken are critical pieces of the puzzle. Every stinking one you can set should be recorded and confirmed. This information would be very important to any analysis. If you get photos unexpectedly, and didn't log this information, SAY SO...don't guess, as an analysis might uncover a discrepency and cast a shadow on the integrity of the situation. The height above the ground the camera was set, angle, zoom level, ALL OF THE CAMERA SETTINGS THAT CAN BE SET. Best to take notes as you set out cameras.
-If there are other photos on this roll of film, release them with the image, as the more detail and the more complete the story, the better it will be received. Even a test photo taken showing only the background has a great deal of value in any photo analysis. A photo taken of a yardstick after setup would be helpful, though admittedly problematic to accomplish with film type cameras. Short of that, revisiting the site with the same equipment, settings, film type and mounting location and taking a test/ control photo would be useful.
-Release all of the original images and if you wish to do your own enhancements, that is fine, but most importantly the unretouched originals/ negatives should be released.
In summary, this photo is suspect more for the circumstances and the information NOT provided, than for its content. The negative feedback the photo owner/ releaser has garnered should come as no great surprise, given the history of suspicion and hoaxes surrounding this subject. If the photo owner is involved in bigfoot research, then he/ she MUST know the nature of releasing such photos. This makes one wonder why the available information wasn't released with the photo. Which brings me back to my original assessment.
My 2 cents,
Grant in Iowa
Grant--ditto. Very well said.
DeleteI'll ditto Autumn's ditto!
DeleteJust put any and all other photos that he has up for everyone to see. We are all sick and tired of the "we have photos and won't release them right now" that everyone that purports to have good photos or videos is pulling. We all want to see them and see them right now. With the looming DNA we have all lost our patience with this type of withholding.
ReplyDeleteChad
You can want in one hand, poop in the other and see which one fills up faster.
DeleteLet me say, 5 1/2 years ago I was a hunting Pro Staff member of Academy Sports & Outdoors, a 140 store sporting goods chain in Texas and the southeast. Academy sold a vast number of trail cameras, and quickly understood what type cameras worked best in the field. That undertanding was based primarily upon the number of returned 35mm cameras and customer complaints about them. So,I have first hand knowledge of most of the trail cameras that were in use 4 or 5 years ago.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, in 2006-2007 most technologically savy people were using the newer trail cameras which at that time had already evolved from 35mm cameras to the self-contained flash cameras, and many were also already evolving to the newest IR cameras. What most people had found was that most of the "zoom" type 35mm film cameras were not of a high quality, although those film cameras could be retrofitted with a better grade 35mm camera with not too much difficulty. The major problem with the 35mm cameras was that they simply did not take very good pictures! The shutter speeds were too slow as well as the activation devices were also very slow. Invariably and quite often the subject that tripped the camera, had already walked out of frame. Another inherent problem, was that the subject was out of range of the flash by the time the camera was activated and went off. If the subject was moving, the picture was extremely blurred. Usually, the only pictures with any clarity occured when the subject walked in front the the camera, then remained perfectly still!
Even if using a set up that included "mulitple cameras" as procalimed, they would each retain the consistent problems of 35mm trail cameras. With Sasquatch natural aversion to a single trail camera, it would be hard to coprehend how one would walk into a trap area of "multiple cameras". Consequently, even with the newest explanation that was reportedly given to Melissa Hovey, I find it very difficult to understand how the subject in the picture had remained perfectly still, in a "zoom" camera flash setting, and still retain the clarity that is presented. As much as I would like to, I cannot accept that explanation as being valid.
John Dickey
I dont trust this individual at all. Now she is trying to educate us on available technology available 4 years ago. Personally its offensive to those with sound, rational judgement. But may be it explains why half the country pays no taxes and the other half works. She might be able to squeeze out of this with some semblance of credibility left. However with me, she is tettering on being placed on the list of those to avoid.
ReplyDeleteThe sound you hear is MH's teeter totter landing on that list.
DeleteIf anyone read my comment on the original article, remember after listing 7 points I said the lack of info was probably part of deal? Put out a good looking picture and see the response. After people make great arguments against it, come back and say "Oh wait here is the info that invalidates your arguments". Well BOOM BABY...it just happened.
ReplyDeleteSome great points were that the picture didn't look right. So guy counters saying the trail cam is actually 35mm version. Well he is an idiot because those photos are a TON worse than the high end ones now. I have NEVER seen (even a Reconyx trail cam, top of the line in digital today) produce this kind of picture. The reason the industry moved away from 35mm was because the pictures were horrible. Especially since the flash came from within the outer box (often but not always), it would blur out any picture...like trying to take a picture with flash on through a window....flash is about all that's seen.
Another great point made by many was that the height of the camera picture is off becuase most people are photographing deer or smaller animals...not 7-10ft tall BFs. Well now the dude says "I specifically set it up for BF"....really people? I mean REALLY? How dumb do these people think we are.
The person said that this was a camera trap specifically set up for capturing BF. If that is the case, why not release all of the pictures from every angle for comparison. I would imagine that more may be to come later....we just have to give them time to start faking them (cropping, blacking out areas, etc).
Also the original owner has been silent forever, but immediately after the photo is released he is going to allow "more info" to come out to prove the photo's validity?
None of this makes sense, unless you really look at my first comment on the original article (along with others) where it was said it was released to get arguments so then they could come out with "new info" that supposeidly explains why peoples arguments aren't valid.
I think you are 100% accurate. I truly enjoy watching them run around trying to explain why things are as they are. I think those members of those various organizations within the bigfeet community need to start voicing there concerns and elect some new leaders. As of now even the decent/honorable researchers are being forced through the washboard rollers by the actions of there leaders. Damn shame, as I think there are some good people involved in this matter but they need to get out while they can or cull out the buffons at the top.
ReplyDeleteStill Photos prove nothing today....Nothing !
ReplyDeleteCase Closed !
please stop shooting the messenger, go spam Mellisa's blog with your angry comments about this photo, that might be a productive use of the information Bigfoot Evidence has made available to you. She deserves your wrath Anon. not this blog! she'll never read the communities criticism or know your disappointment!
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8055855&postcount=4436
ReplyDeleteSome good info here.
Well, that caps it for me. Confirmation that the picture is bogus and that pretty much everything I read into it is spot on. Everybody needs to read it!
DeleteOh yes, it also explains why the provider of the photo had cold feet about its release for so long. MH finally took it upon herself to release it anyway maybe thinking that any publicity is good publicity, like so many politicians.
DeleteAny idea where this photo might have been taken?
ReplyDelete