No, sorry, I see patterns on tree trunks, and no movement whatsoever. Zooming in out of focus is pretty ridiculous, and why on earth would anyone who’s that close to 2 cryptids then turn around and walk away?
No one, of course. You would sit there and film until they left, or dusk fell. Personal danger is simply not your first priority in a situation like that.
The idea that the filmer didn’t see them is out of the question–if you can see something on film, it would have been MUCH easier to see it in person. The human eye is far more acute, and attuned to picking up living things, than a camera is.
Another reason it’s silly to think he didn’t see them is…
Why was he filming there at all? If there’s nothing there, you don’t start shooting footage of the underbrush, that’s just silly.
if you want to compete withthe patterson film, you are going to have to do a lot better than camou patterns in a bunch of bush.
i remember babysitting some friends of mine who were tripping on acid in the med 1980’s and on the cliff wall, they saw a rasta mans head, maybe 9 feet tall. of course i couldnt see it, but after thier taunting me i actually did see what looked like a chisled out of the cliff, monument style face of a black man with dreadlocks and a beanie.
as did they all.
the next day it wasnt there, we couldnt see the face anymore. just rocks on a cliff wall.sorry, but the patterson film is sky high above any of these recent-‘bush patterns’. i am not discounting the event, or the person involved or veiwers who see it, but just this; it does not compare with the patterson film.
omg i have seen better, there are a couple of researchers that just arent releasing them to the public yet. this is good tho
No, sorry, I see patterns on tree trunks, and no movement whatsoever. Zooming in out of focus is pretty ridiculous, and why on earth would anyone who’s that close to 2 cryptids then turn around and walk away?
No one, of course. You would sit there and film until they left, or dusk fell. Personal danger is simply not your first priority in a situation like that.
The idea that the filmer didn’t see them is out of the question–if you can see something on film, it would have been MUCH easier to see it in person. The human eye is far more acute, and attuned to picking up living things, than a camera is.
Another reason it’s silly to think he didn’t see them is…
Why was he filming there at all? If there’s nothing there, you don’t start shooting footage of the underbrush, that’s just silly.
if you want to compete withthe patterson film, you are going to have to do a lot better than camou patterns in a bunch of bush.
i remember babysitting some friends of mine who were tripping on acid in the med 1980’s and on the cliff wall, they saw a rasta mans head, maybe 9 feet tall. of course i couldnt see it, but after thier taunting me i actually did see what looked like a chisled out of the cliff, monument style face of a black man with dreadlocks and a beanie.
as did they all.
the next day it wasnt there, we couldnt see the face anymore. just rocks on a cliff wall.sorry, but the patterson film is sky high above any of these recent-‘bush patterns’. i am not discounting the event, or the person involved or veiwers who see it, but just this; it does not compare with the patterson film.