Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Apple pushing music labels to kill free Spotify streaming ahead of Beats relaunch||
|Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao on NES Punch Out!||
|Microsoft adds ability to remove your content from Cortana in Windows 10||
|Universal Apps -- How Do They Work?||
|Zero-Day Malvertising Attack Went Undetected For Two Months||
Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:46
Posted 05 November 2012 - 13:14
Sure seemed like a human-like creature standing up, and an arm.
I would have followed it.
Posted 05 November 2012 - 13:21
Posted 05 November 2012 - 21:28
I agree 100%. It does seem to have human characteristics, the problems I see with this kind of videos is this:
1. They are never clear
2. The cameras always seem to be shaking
3. People run away
Personally, I would have stayed there and I would have tried to get closer. Those creatures are not stupid.
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:43
Unless the animal acted very aggressive, I would have tried tracking it and get close, communicate.
Posted 06 November 2012 - 18:23
To date, the only Big Foot footage that seems to have any validity is the Patterson film, which has been analyzed and re-analyzed over the years with different technologies and it has been determined that it has a 50-50 chance of being real because they cannot detect any anomalies on the film that may indicate its fake and the fact that back then when that happened, there were no fancy HD cameras or CGI technology to fake such a creature.
Posted 06 November 2012 - 18:28
You have to be careful, though. A situation can turn in an instant. It's not like on a TV show.
Posted 06 November 2012 - 18:52
Before CGI they had things called costumes. Just take star trek for example, they could easily have made a video that clearly showed an alien which would look extremely realistic and no amount of "analysis" would be able to prove it wrong.
Posted 06 November 2012 - 19:21
^ Just because something can be faked, is no proof that it was.