With AI Image Gen we now have the ability to make "real" cryptid photos.The question becomes: What does the perfect cryptid photo look like?What photo, if you showed it to anyone before 2005, would serve as indistiputable confirmation of a cryptid or Ayy? What would it take?I think making these sorts of photos is fun. I have two bigfoot ones I would appreciate critiques on. Ideally pretend you are a cryptozoology researcher in 1991 who stumbles upon these photos purpored to be from 1985. Say why it is or isn't convincing. I tried to make Greys as well but it didn't work out because the models can't do it right. Tends to look way too fake or way to much like what we think a "Grey" should look like. But imo a real Grey would have minute details tied to its biology. Bigfoot on the other hand is more doable. I think these photos also raise an interesting question. If we believe any of the photographic evidence from that period, are we sure it is proof of what it claims at all? Perhaps it's just evidence of time travel?
>>41232633For that first image I got some reviews that it's not convincing because sasquatch is too still. It's easy to imagine this is some sort of well done roadside sideshow prop. This one he's a bit more active. Has bear like paws rather than apelike hands which makes the case both better and worse. Better because fits more Bigfoot prints, worse because it has elements of two different animal lineages which wouldn't happen irl.
>>41232633In my view no photographic evidence on its own would be enough. You'd have to bring a captive specimen for lab analysis to get the skeptics on board.Which raises the question, why were people even trying to take photos of these guys in the first place?
>>41232633>>41232644Neither of these look real. They both look like roadside attractions or statues. Just because the second one is in an active pose, it dose'nt feel like it's moving. It still feels stiff and fake like a statue. The alien arm in the first one also looks fake. Like the scales are painted on a mannequin.
>>41233951Also want to add for the second one what makes it look even more like a statue is the way it's not engaging the girl. Like it's not facing her or even looking at her.
>>41232633Gigantopithicus. China found remains albeit only a few pieces. But it's enough to verify a human-like failed species that fits the overall descriptions of yeti/bigfoot/wendigo/sasquatch
druggy sasquatch
>>41232633Dude, Bigfoot was some damn Eskimo in his snow suit. Faggot white rednecks got spooked.
>>41234685>drug-using, aids spreading homosexuals think rednecks can't tell the difference between a furry and sasquatch
>lets use the antichrist plagiarism false-reality overlay machine to further obfuscate and obscure things>let’s make it so everything is fake and you won’t know actual reality when you see it
>>41235318Well the question is more "Can photos even prove reality"Like if you showed a perfect bigfoot photo to people in 1985 I think types like >>41233951would still say "roadside attaction or statue" or "not acting perfectly how I want in the photo"Photos could never prove anything, even before AI, and that's the issue. Photo and Video are not and have never been good proof of anything.
