Robert Dodson Films Clear Sasquatch Head

[TrevorPeters]

I would like to see some further stabilisation and enhancement on this one, but a first look seems a lot clearer than most other accidental captures (I should say dark blobs) people with very good imagination point to as a Squatch in the brush.

Robert Dodson Films Clear Sasquatch Head

[Yowie bait]

Hey Trevor. Glad u linked that clip. I was looking at the full video the other night but thats a better one. That is the juvenile that he was feeding. He lowers the food cage for the little guy in the full video. Robert Dodson is good value and worth keeping up with his videos.

[paulmcleod67]

Clear is a big call.
I have no problem seeing the face, the problem is that I can map it as foliage and branch stem as well.

If I can Sceptics and trolls will most certainly.

But it COULD be a face.

Cheers

[TrevorPeters]

I think this might be the original video with the capture between 2:38 and 2:41.

Bigfoot hunter so you call your self a researcher

He is certainly an 'ornery character.

[Yowie bait]

Hes got another godamn video up now to prove theres only one lil critter in the video as them bigfooters all picken more critrers out of the trees. Now thats dedication for you!

[TrevorPeters]

Yes it's a real problem I have noticed and it's why I don't often pay much attention to "faces in the shadows" type of claims.

People tend to look at this stuff with all manner of software, good and bad, and with varying levels of skill (or lack thereof) in photographic and video enhancement.
Consequently they often interpret things as bigfoot/yowie that are no more than just leaves, stick, branches that are poorly defined due to poor resolution or enhancement issues.

In this one I only see a single face that is defined more than most and shows dappling from light filtering through the leaves above it, but even then I would prefer to see movement (eye blink or twitch) just to be sure.

Also it must be said that in most cases, real follow-up is lacking. Go back to the site and replicate the encounter in similar conditions.
For example in this specific case, what Robert should do is go back at the same time of day and attempt to recreate the shot (after examining the bush closely) to show that the "face" is no longer visible. As far as I know he has not done that, so the doubt about it just being leaf patterning will remain.

[TrevorPeters]

As far as I know he has not done that, so the doubt about it just being leaf patterning will remain.

I should have watched that video first YB. It seems he does go into exactly that and while he doesn't recreate the shot he talks about sunlight conditions and times of day.

[Yowie bait]

As far as I know he has not done that, so the doubt about it just being leaf patterning will remain.

I should have watched that video first YB. It seems he does go into exactly that and while he doesn't recreate the shot he talks about sunlight conditions and times of day.

Yeah he has a good scout of the area. Its a very convincing bit of footage.
I think Bob does great with his shoestring budget bigfoot hunting and unorthodox approach.

[ChrisV]

I think this might be the original video with the capture between 2:38 and 2:41.

Bigfoot hunter so you call your self a researcher

He is certainly an 'ornery character.

If your going to put a video in the public forum, you have to expect both positive,constructive and negative feedback.
Ok, I watched this video and listened to some bloke who seemed more intent on verbally bashing viewers/researchers whatever you want to call them. Absolutely no content worth recommending to anyone - nothing of interest and to be honest a complete waste of time. Hows that for feedback.
Its like that other guy from the mountains who has a youtube channel and talks about communicating with Yowies but then in his next video goes on a verbal spray accusing certain people of being .... well the language is colourful. After watching that I just gave his stuff a miss. I would not bother even posting a link to his stuff....dont waste your time.

Thats the problem - you give someone a video phone and off they go posting rubbish and getting hits and they think they are doing really well so they post more....and its self perpetuating.

People who have interests in subjects - you can call them researchers if you want, don't always sit in armchairs and criticize people who do the hard yards.... respect and learning is what its all about .

[TrevorPeters]

Yep he certainly doesn't win any favours with his invective and critical rhetoric that's for sure. Just see some of the comments below his video.

But I have to disagree about the nothing to see comment. Compared to the amorphous blobs posted in other threads in the forum, I think this is a mite more interesting when viewing the magnified version.
I was persisting with this thread more from morbid curiosity and from a desire to see the how detailed his research might or might not be. For example, does he go back to the area and check if the "purported" face was still there, meaning it was likely leaf patterning or if the area was now clear and visible beneath. He does attempt to do this but I think it was more out of annoyance at people imagining two or three faces instead of the single one, rather than as part of sound research technique. The original link was posted for context. I tried to look past the opinionated diatribe and compare the wider context of the area captured.

But hey keep the burn coming ChrisV, I reckon he deserves a bit of a roasting for language if nothing else.

[Yowie bait]

Yeah someone has fired ol Bob up. Thats a real tirade on the supernatural bigfooters. He should have gone off on those hippie hoaxers with the sasquatch sings videos instead. At least we here at ayr have open minds to the more supernatural theories of course.

Im more interested in the possible baby bigfoot face. Would love to hear any opinions on the face from other forum members.

[Yowie bait]

Yep he certainly doesn't win any favours with his invective and critical rhetoric that's for sure. Just see some of the comments below his video.

But I have to disagree about the nothing to see comment. Compared to the amorphous blobs posted in other threads in the forum, I think this is a mite more interesting when viewing the magnified version.
I was persisting with this thread more from morbid curiosity and from a desire to see the how detailed his research might or might not be. For example, does he go back to the area and check if the "purported" face was still there, meaning it was likely leaf patterning or if the area was now clear and visible beneath. He does attempt to do this but I think it was more out of annoyance at people imagining two or three faces instead of the single one, rather than as part of sound research technique. The original link was posted for context. I tried to look past the opinionated diatribe and compare the wider context of the area captured.

But hey keep the burn coming ChrisV, I reckon he deserves a bit of a roasting for language if nothing else.

Good on you for having an opinion on this footage Trevor and Paul. . I reckon hes got a pic of a baby bigfoot. Could be proven wrong but thats all good if someone can prove otherwise. I guess no one else wants to risk their stellar reputations as armchair researchers...?

[Tuckeroo]

Yep he certainly doesn't win any favours with his invective and critical rhetoric that's for sure. Just see some of the comments below his video.

But I have to disagree about the nothing to see comment. Compared to the amorphous blobs posted in other threads in the forum, I think this is a mite more interesting when viewing the magnified version.
I was persisting with this thread more from morbid curiosity and from a desire to see the how detailed his research might or might not be. For example, does he go back to the area and check if the "purported" face was still there, meaning it was likely leaf patterning or if the area was now clear and visible beneath. He does attempt to do this but I think it was more out of annoyance at people imagining two or three faces instead of the single one, rather than as part of sound research technique. The original link was posted for context. I tried to look past the opinionated diatribe and compare the wider context of the area captured.

But hey keep the burn coming ChrisV, I reckon he deserves a bit of a roasting for language if nothing else.

Good on you for having an opinion on this footage Trevor and Paul. . I reckon hes got a pic of a baby bigfoot. Could be proven wrong but thats all good if someone can prove otherwise. I guess no one else wants to risk their stellar reputations as armchair researchers...?

Thought of my two-bobs, thus you ask Yb. like TP stated, I persisted out of curiosity, generally avoiding like ChrisV and then giving into the fuss,
as you and others were interested.

In the world of foliage faces this is the best I’ve seen; don’t know about it being a baby though, apologies if I’m not looking where your looking.
The blobs do morph into a face. The morph is what I don’t trust. His bloody camera just doesn’t stop moving long enough.

If the cameras moving, things are morphing and I can also see lizards, stick insects and green jelly fish.
If the camera panned, then stopped and there was a face and as the camera moved back the face stayed there,
for me it would be a lot more clearer.

Although that mysterious primal face staring quietly out of the undergrowth looks pretty dam convincing. You can also see the face at about 1.23

As for old Rob's brusque repartee, he sounds like he needs a hug or another swig from his moonshine.


T.

[Yowie bait]

Hi Tuckeroo. I always find Bobs videos very confusing. What confuses me about this one is the difference in the colour of the face from the original Bob Dodson video (which has a still photo) and the linked video.

The linked "impossible visits" version has a green tinge to the face (more like greenery) while the original has the still photo which is more brown. Strangely it also looks similar to another baby bigfoot pareidolia pic ive seen somewhere?

Not knowing the story behind it is even more confusing. They're lowering the food cage as they have seen or think they've seen a juvenile thats fending for itself.

I have no idea why he is ranting like that in the other video. Is he saying he can avoid tree cams and tripwires??

I dont have the tools or know how to disect this footage which is why im keen to hear others thoughts.

Like the other convincing bigfoot footage,i guess its best to put it in the too hard basket. At least the wife got a good laugh out of it!

[Tuckeroo]

Hi Tuckeroo. I always find Bobs videos very confusing. What confuses me about this one is the difference in the colour of the face from the original Bob Dodson video (which has a still photo) and the linked video.

The linked "impossible visits" version has a green tinge to the face (more like greenery) while the original has the still photo which is more brown. Strangely it also looks similar to another baby bigfoot pareidolia pic ive seen somewhere?

Not knowing the story behind it is even more confusing. They're lowering the food cage as they have seen or think they've seen a juvenile thats fending for itself.

I have no idea why he is ranting like that in the other video. Is he saying he can avoid tree cams and tripwires??

I dont have the tools or know how to disect this footage which is why im keen to hear others thoughts.

Like the other convincing bigfoot footage,i guess its best to put it in the too hard basket. At least the wife got a good laugh out of it!

Hi Yb, You mentioned different colours in different vids, makes me realise all the different computer screens
giving all those different eyes across the world their own colour version of the same subject.

In TV land there was PAL in the pacific and NTSC in North America. I wonder if there is a slight difference between
colour representation in different countries via the internet. This could be seen in primary colours especially.
As far as primary colours go, people forget what pure primary colours look like.

There was another thread with a gentlemen claiming to see faces in many countries and everyone balked,
but I find Rob’s little ditties more interesting for some reason.
I’m fascinated that this face foliage thingy has popped up recently.

Another thought was, the forest he is in seems to have one kind of tree, so there is one kind of leaf litter colour
and one kind of green colour with different shades. This colour/shade environment could make the young BF’s etc.
easier to spot, compared to the variations found in say, a rainforest.


T.

[Yowie bait]

Hey Tuckeroo good point on the pal/ntsc. Im a video collector from way back so am familar with the difference between the two signals/colour types.

I noticed with bobs babyface that the left eye is not formed properly which is weird.

Strangely enough he also has a bigfoot face photo from texas on his site which looks a lot like adult version of the babyface we are discussing.

Unfortunately in the world of bigfoot we have to take any evidence with a grain of salt and suspicion. To be honest,if i didnt know better,i wouldnt believe in any of this stuff at all.

Yeah bushyankee and his faces was kind of ridiculed off the forum . You see it a lot on youtube but some "researchers" have their whole youtube accounts filled with pareidolia and gain legions of followers who congratulate them on their finds and "evidence".

Im sure some of these guys have just given up and are posting any old c**p as they know someone will find something in there!

[Yowie bait]

The description for this video on impossible visits does mention the greening effect. He calls it "colour bleeding".

[Yowie bait]

Bob has another face on his latest video. Man i would laugh if it turns out to be the real deal.

[ChrisV]

Bob has another face on his latest video. Man i would laugh if it turns out to be the real deal.

Actually I agree - imagine if he actually hits the jackpot - i'd feel pretty stupid.

[Yowie bait]

Who knows Chris? No one seems too fussed on the poor little guy. Maybe he's just leaves after all?

On the bright side,i have been looking at some promising skunk ape faces and peekers that a Florida research group has taken. Mostly juveniles of course.

Apparently these "skunk apes" sit around in thick brush near the water and leave the young ones there in the cool during the day. The little guys cant resist having a look and these ape hunters get some convincing shots.

I couldnt find them tonight on youtube but will post the name here when i do.

[ChrisV]

There is room for acceptance that maybe - just maybe there are faces in some of those pics. But with all the pixelation and distorted images etc - its hard to just say "Yeah mate - thats definitely a face" Healthy skepticism is always required to make an accurate assessment.

I agree about the parents leaving the younger ones in a covered area. Makes sense.

[Yowie bait]

Ive looked at s few different pics and the one thing I've noticed is how similar these "juvenile faces"are in different pics. I think thats the most convincing thing about it but no,there's nothing you would say is a definite baby bigfoot. Also the guy in the video i watched said that i would be living in a "false reality" if i didnt see the faces.

[Yowie bait]

Theres some good breakdowns and more images popping up on youtube of Bob's baby bigfoot face. Worth having a look but too hard to call. They're not giving up on the little guy!

[bushyankee]

There is something vaguely "face-like" there but I don't see any sign of life, eye movement or other facial articulation. In my book its a "possible" and a weak one at that.

[macquariedave]

There is something vaguely "face-like" there but I don't see any sign of life, eye movement or other facial articulation. In my book its a "possible" and a weak one at that.

Looks like a ridiculous "drama mask" with a very long nose.

[bushyankee]

Well for me it looked more like some infantile image of an alien a teenager would conjure (shrug).