Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Mudcat]

Of what?

Without a clearer picture? My best guess is a bear, plenty enough of those here in Kentucky.

 

[Drewbot]

I just watched the video. I see nothing that indicates any conclusion other than 'stump'

 

[Resume]

I just watched the video. I see nothing that indicates any conclusion other than 'stump'

Well, if a 12-ft pile of dirt in the middle of a road can become a footie, I guess a stump can too.

 

[Drewbot]

I know for a fact, that there are instances of videos with a stationary object, that the Footers will say that the creature is moving. Swaying back and forth if you will. However. The Footers do not take into account that the motion of the branches and trees in front of the stationary object are moving in the wind, creating the illusion that the stationary object is in fact, moving.

I clearly debunked one of the MABRC Bigfoots with this solution.

 

[carlitos]

I don't have audio where I'm at. Is it explained why there is no pursuit? No video of the search for tracks, scat or hair?

I don't hear any audio. Seems like a blur of the same few seconds of video in/out of focus, swaying back and forth with no commentary.

 

[tsig]

Well, if a 12-ft pile of dirt in the middle of a road can become a footie, I guess a stump can too.

Footies are masters of disguise and can imitate any sound in the woods from tree knocks to bird song so anything you see or hear is potentially a footie.

 

[comncents]

RE: the hillside video, that was one of the two videos shot during that encounter. It was a multiple witness encounter with one of the witnesses being my friend's young son. With the young boy with us we decided to back away from the family group as we did not know the outcome of approaching them.

If I could go back in time and do it all again, I guess I could have sent my friend and his son back down the trail and approached the family group alone. However, that would mean approaching a group of wild animals similar to great apes without having any idea of how they might react. Possibly a death wish. It would have made for a more interesting video at any rate. Chris B.

They would;
- blurr your camera
- drain your batteries
- make the record button stop working

Its been almost 50 years since PGF and you have a perfect chance to confirm for world that footie exists...and you find a reason to leave. I'll try to be respectful, but the best case is that it is a bear (or bears) and IMO you know that.

 

[The Shrike]

I just watched the video. I see nothing that indicates any conclusion other than 'stump'

Concur, though I'd broaden my conclusion to "rock", "branches", etc. Anyone who thinks there is movement demonstrated in that video is having pipe dreams, as my mom used to say. I see no reason to suspect that there is a live animal or animals depicted by that blob.

 

[Paul Holland]

Here's an answer:

It's a collection of shadows, foliage, and forest detritus that looks amazing like the profile of a hunching ape-like creature staring ahead motionlessly.

Why should the game be played any differently than it is with clouds?

 

[snoop_doxie]

That's a good question. What is that in that frame from the hillside video? If you say nothing, that's incorrect as there's something obvious there. But what is that black blobby thing shown? Film artifacts? Trees? Rocks? Bears? Cows? Does it move? Is it stationary? Any other movements noted behind the big black thing whatever it is? All good questions. Chris B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2gYk7StLfg

Chris,

Why did you wait over a year to put this up on youtube? Or, is it on your page, and I did not see it.

You had a Jazz pocket camcorder? It was at its limit? That makes me wonder
why you would have a camera that, at best, takes some shadows
and makes them seem alive after several viewings. I see shadows being
distorted with a pocket camcorder.

"The video seems to indicate to me, primates doing primate type things.
You decide for yourself what is shown."

See, this is just beyond belief to me. Primates (plural) doing primate type things?
What does that mean? Is that what a researcher would say? A primatologist?
Please explain one primate type thing that black blob is doing. One.

Why would two grown men, who have no idea how this "creature" will react,
take a "youth" out to the dangerous woods with them?
(You have said yourself that you do not know what they will do, cause they are
wild animals.)
What weapon were you packin' on that day?
Handgun? Shotgun? Rifle? or the one that some say they need for hunting,
an automatic weapon?

I have not bought or been interested in any kind of weapon for over twenty
years, but I am betting they are expensive.
If you are a no-kill proponent, how about selling one of your collection (if
you have one, it has been my experience that most hunters have more
than one) and get a decent camera.

A camera that would show beyond any doubt what that blob contains.
I am sure there are many people here who can lead you to a decently priced
camera that will take clear pictures at a distance.
Since you believe they are out there, I believe you need better tools.

 

[bruto]

I live in farm country, where fields are bounded by treelines and hedgerows, and I can look out my front or back door and see these at various distances. So perhaps some things are more obvious to me than they seem to be to a few wishful thinkers here. I often look out the front door down at the distant treelines and think I see something interesting. There's a light object in there, there's a dark object in there, something is moving, something is perched. I don't remember seeing that there yesterday.

Every once in a while there really is an eagle or an owl or a lynx, so I get out the spotting scope and dig in, and most of the time, it's nothing. That dark spot in the video is something a diligent looker at tree lines sees all the time. Dark spaces blur and spaces line up in odd ways. Light spaces do the same thing at a distance. Randomness is full of holes and surprises.

 

[River]

Concur, though I'd broaden my conclusion to "rock", "branches", etc. Anyone who thinks there is movement demonstrated in that video is having pipe dreams, as my mom used to say. I see no reason to suspect that there is a live animal or animals depicted by that blob.

Very much this, in fact it could even be the same thing as in the video I pasted earlier.

It explains a lot

 

[carlitos]

There is no "researcher" just like there is no "creature." Simple.

 

[Resume]

Very much this, in fact it could even be the same thing as in the video I pasted earlier.

It explains a lot

Proponents complain that skeptics discard sightings as poor evidence. Well, duh.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Interesting that the breaks are in the exact same location on both legs. I think that that means something and isn't a simple coincidence.

It's the lazy man's field dressing short cut.

You need a hatchet or saw to field dress. This guy had a hatchet. You whack the blunt end of the hatchet right there to break the bone and then use a knife to skin from there on up. (To take he hams). You can whack the bone with the skin still on, or off - either way.

You skip skinning the very ends of the feet and dealing with the hocks that way. I've never done it but hunted where the limit was five deer, so some of the guys I hunted with did it that way.

I ground the hocks. You have to. A lot of tendons and not much meat.

The other thing you need the hatchet for is to break through the pelvic bone. You'll see that too in this bone pile. You have to pull the lower intestine out without getting poop all over your meat. It goes through the pelvic bone. You have to smash the pelvic bone in order to skin that lower intestine out.

There's two cuts. One at the anus. One at the esophagus. To the entire digestive tract. You reach up through the chest cavity to cut the top end. You smash the pelvic bone (or cut it) to pull out the bottom end. Then you have all the guts in one single pile. Heart, liver, kidneys, intestines - the works.

Go ahead and smash bone with the blunt end of a hatchet. These are the breaks you'll get.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You actually took the time to count? Yikes. Yet, I think you must have missed it. What I was actually saying is if you intend to dismiss a sighting based on the story details, you need to take the time to investigate those details at the source to get the facts. A secondhand account may unintentionally differ from the original. Without all the facts known from the original account we have a campfire story. I think we both agree on that point. Chris B.

It started with the made-up story about a hunter in a Ghilie suit "misidentified" as a bigfoot - for a whole second or whatever.

Then you said he was poaching, to excuse the date being made up wrong.

Now you say the story is different. Well sure - it never happened. A poster made up what he thought would pass as a real story. A hunter in a ghillie suit. And it taught us a lot about how people will just make up stories.

To support their belief in bigfoot. To support their belief that bigfoot belief is caused by misidentifications.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I can tell you what it isn't. It's not a bigfoot.

ETA.

These were entertaining, thank you for sharing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjFe4thujok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJ4_abPKNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkns_6wXyvw

It explains a lot...

How do you know it's not a Bigfoot? By investigation of the clip or just denial?
Thanks for posting the links. I suppose you deserve the credit for sharing them here.

People wearing plastic bags
misdirecting attention
some kind of fashion
shattered, shattered

ETA: After watching the video . . . I don't know what to say other than this has to be a put on.

Not very reasonable guesses.

It's the only out of focus video I've seen from you. All the others are in focus. Curious.

Ah, if you mean the difference in quality between videos, the SquatchD TV in the field shorts were shot with a new HD camera. Unfortunately the HD camera was not in play when the earlier videos were made.

This is a correct answer to "what is that black blobby thing?"

Not much investigation of the clip.

Without a clearer picture? My best guess is a bear, plenty enough of those here in Kentucky.

In the Eastern part of KY there are bears. The video was taken from South Central KY were no bears tend to reside.

I just watched the video. I see nothing that indicates any conclusion other than 'stump'

The stump is getting a back rub.

Well, if a 12-ft pile of dirt in the middle of a road can become a footie, I guess a stump can too.

Another stump opinion. Final thought?

I know for a fact, that there are instances of videos with a stationary object, that the Footers will say that the creature is moving. Swaying back and forth if you will. However. The Footers do not take into account that the motion of the branches and trees in front of the stationary object are moving in the wind, creating the illusion that the stationary object is in fact, moving.

I clearly debunked one of the MABRC Bigfoots with this solution.

Please debunk this one. Pay particular attention to the back of the large "Stump" that looks like an ape.

I don't hear any audio. Seems like a blur of the same few seconds of video in/out of focus, swaying back and forth with no commentary.

In the slow motion vid there is not audio. If you view the real time footage there is a comment made during the filming. My friend Scott noticed I was filming so he looked where I was filming and said. "Somethin' tells me I need to have a camera on and film going." Then he took over the video with his HD cam.

They would;
- blurr your camera
- drain your batteries
- make the record button stop working

Its been almost 50 years since PGF and you have a perfect chance to confirm for world that footie exists...and you find a reason to leave. I'll try to be respectful, but the best case is that it is a bear (or bears) and IMO you know that.

A bear getting a back rub from the other bears behind him?

Concur, though I'd broaden my conclusion to "rock", "branches", etc. Anyone who thinks there is movement demonstrated in that video is having pipe dreams, as my mom used to say. I see no reason to suspect that there is a live animal or animals depicted by that blob.

Another claim of "it's not moving" but it is.

Here's an answer:

It's a collection of shadows, foliage, and forest detritus that looks amazing like the profile of a hunching ape-like creature staring ahead motionlessly.

Why should the game be played any differently than it is with clouds?

The hunching ape like creatures is moving though. And so is the hairy arm behind him.

Chris,

Why did you wait over a year to put this up on youtube? Or, is it on your page, and I did not see it.

You had a Jazz pocket camcorder? It was at its limit? That makes me wonder
why you would have a camera that, at best, takes some shadows
and makes them seem alive after several viewings. I see shadows being
distorted with a pocket camcorder.

"The video seems to indicate to me, primates doing primate type things.
You decide for yourself what is shown."

See, this is just beyond belief to me. Primates (plural) doing primate type things?
What does that mean? Is that what a researcher would say? A primatologist?
Please explain one primate type thing that black blob is doing. One.

Why would two grown men, who have no idea how this "creature" will react,
take a "youth" out to the dangerous woods with them?
(You have said yourself that you do not know what they will do, cause they are
wild animals.)
What weapon were you packin' on that day?
Handgun? Shotgun? Rifle? or the one that some say they need for hunting,
an automatic weapon?

I have not bought or been interested in any kind of weapon for over twenty
years, but I am betting they are expensive.
If you are a no-kill proponent, how about selling one of your collection (if
you have one, it has been my experience that most hunters have more
than one) and get a decent camera.

A camera that would show beyond any doubt what that blob contains.
I am sure there are many people here who can lead you to a decently priced
camera that will take clear pictures at a distance.
Since you believe they are out there, I believe you need better tools.

Some of the behaviors shown: The creatures demonstrate touching the back of the large one, either meant as grooming or a perhaps a calming action. Another finding is that since the creatures are grouped together during what I assume is a resting period, this would seem to suggest they actually live in family groups such as other great apes and are not "loners" as has been suggested.

There is no "researcher" just like there is no "creature." Simple.

Thank you. I do the best I can to solve the mystery. What have you done lately?

It started with the made-up story about a hunter in a Ghilie suit "misidentified" as a bigfoot - for a whole second or whatever.

Then you said he was poaching, to excuse the date being made up wrong.

Now you say the story is different. Well sure - it never happened. A poster made up what he thought would pass as a real story. A hunter in a ghillie suit. And it taught us a lot about how people will just make up stories.

To support their belief in bigfoot. To support their belief that bigfoot belief is caused by misidentifications.

Well, the pile on didn't start until after I proposed a Cougar may have been responsible for the deer kill other than Bigfoot.

The suggestion I made about the "story" was that it should not be dismissed based solely on that the guy would have been poaching. He may well have been. I think we have a similar opinion that many "stories" are found to be bunk. We only differ on the method for determining how we get to that conclusion. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Not very reasonable guesses.

Far more likely than bigfoot.

Another stump opinion. Final thought?

My final thought is that this is so much not a footie that you must be putting us on.

Thank you. I do the best I can to solve the mystery.

No, not really.

 

[River]

How do you know it's not a Bigfoot? By investigation of the clip or just denial?
Thanks for posting the links. I suppose you deserve the credit for sharing them here.

Because bigfoot does not exist. How do you know it's not a camera person moving the camera around to make a static dark spot as their subject? Did the "bigfoot bed" move? lol.

Seriously Chris, the jig is up with bigfoot. Unless you have a hell of a suit and some footage showing it do inhuman feats, or gasp, an actual bigfoot present, no one will pay much attention to it. (as far as it's authenticity is concerned. it's freakin bigfoot man!) All claims of this matter fit into one of three categories. #1) Someone is lying/fabricating/hoaxing. #2) The person making the claims may be mentally unable to decipher fiction from reality due to illness or intoxicants. #3) Mistaken identity.

The simple fact is; No claimed bigfoot evidence has ever been proven to be such. That's right, each time the claim has been made, it's been false. In fact, each time the claim has been made, it fits neatly into one of those three categories I just mentioned. Feel free to prove otherwise.


This is your bigfoot.

#1) Someone is lying/fabricating/hoaxing. #2) The person making the claims may be mentally unable to decipher fiction from reality due to illness or intoxicants. #3) Mistaken identity.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Because bigfoot does not exist. How do you know it's not a camera person moving the camera around to make a static dark spot as their subject? Did the "bigfoot bed" move? lol.

Seriously Chris, the jig is up with bigfoot. Unless you have a hell of a suit and some footage showing it do inhuman feats, or gasp, an actual bigfoot present, no one will pay much attention to it. (as far as it's authenticity is concerned. it's freakin bigfoot man!) All claims of this matter fit into one of three categories. #1) Someone is lying/fabricating/hoaxing. #2) The person making the claims may be mentally unable to decipher fiction from reality due to illness or intoxicants. #3) Mistaken identity.

The simple fact is; No claimed bigfoot evidence has ever been proven to be such. That's right, each time the claim has been made, it's been false. In fact, each time the claim has been made, it fits neatly into one of those three categories I just mentioned. Feel free to prove otherwise.


This is your bigfoot.

Ah, so your opinion is that the object does not move, only the camera/cameraman? You see, that's the problem. Some see movement and say it's bears, some see no movement and say it's a stump. So who's right? I mean if you know for certain it cannot be Bigfoot because you say they do not exist, then what is it? Stump? Rocks? Bears? Bushes? Leaves?
Chris B.