I'd say walk away from that clip without bothering anyone further. There's really nothing there. It's too far away, too distorted, and too problematic.
I have no strong objections to the bigfoot research hobby when it's taken to the field--at least it's fresh air and exercise. The key to having a good time is probably not to take oneself too seriously.
In the very least, try to have a good time.
Well, the clip has never had anyone with good video skills work with it to clear up the footage, if possible. I do not have the video knowledge or software to take it further so I'm hoping it will receive one good effort.
It's in Nelson county, way outside the known population area. But the Wave 3 (the local news outlet) still has the story archived on their website should you desire a cite.
I believe it's completely possible that bears have been sighted outside of their normal range in Ky. Especially bear cubs. It makes me wonder how they get that far on their own? I could understand an adult moving outside their normal range from time to time, but I think a cub may possibly have a human factor present in their relocation.
Chris, when you later returned to the spot with the dark patch shown on the video, was it there?
If youvwant to establish that the blob represents a living animal, the answer is not "You can see it move all primatey-like on the video." The answer should be something like "Here is my video of the site taken when I returned the next day and walked right up to the spot where the blob was. There are no trees, stumps, rocks, etc. That could have accounted for the blob. Whatever was in this spot yesterday is not in this spot today."
So tells about the immediate follow-up visit you must have done to at least demonstrate that the blob was animal.
Yes the follow up revealed there was nothing there the next day. A 4" diameter cedar tree had been freshly broken off, turned upside down and leaned against another tree in the area. There was also alot of flattened leaves in the area where the black things were sitting and many small flying insects like gnats flying around the ground where the black things had been seated and laying. Over the course of the next year this spot became the site of a brush pile type structure with many additions added weekly. Some additions were tree limbs and brush while others were dead logs approx 14' long. None of the new additions showed any tool marks ie chainsaw cuts etc.
So anyway, we have a prime example of what people see and claim to be bigfoot. Plus, a good example of "researchers" following up on a sighting.
ETA: It's also a good example of the pretend, role-playing aspect of this enthusiasm.
I don't really know much about role playing but I did play D&D a few times in 1985.
You indeed know the answers to these questions. Between First Nations people and the European settlers, in the billions of man-hours spent hunting for food, clothing, remuneration, not a single footie was ever produced. Not rarely . . never.
Yes, and we've seen the quality of proponent reports
Nope, I don't know if a Bigfoot has been shot and or killed. I'd have to see it with my own eyes to know.
The Daniel Boone report was not really meant as an addition to the BFRO database. There is an article about it in the sightings section of my site if you would like further documentation or discussion of that one.
If you don't know the difference between a foot and an inch, I doubt that you're sizing your bigfeets properly. This seems basic. You posted a photo of the "big boy" - was he 12 feet tall or 12"? Maybe Kentucky has a colony of leprechauns?
Bigfoot was looking for bourbon. Sounds like a Mojo Nixon song.
Well babe, if the worst you have against me is my tendency to forget to push the shift button when I type, that leaves me in pretty good shape.
You get the Resume Irony award for this one.
Congrats. That and five bucks gets you a cup off coffee.
lol, irony was my only intent. Thanks.
There's a problem right there. If you cannot acknowledge even the possibility that the video is of nothing, the woods will always be full of vague and unidentifiable somethings.
The video obviously shows "something" even if that "something" is unidentifiable. My question has been: What is it? Can one honestly say "It's definitely NOT a bigfoot" ?
Alllllllrighty then...
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/6Sby9N.jpg[/qimg]
That's funny. Why hasn't one been shot? Good question. I wonder if we apply that same question to the abominable bear in Tibet, does it still apply?
Supposedly, Sykes has found ancient polar bear DNA, why haven't the locals shot one? The answer is we don't know why.
Chris,
A few years ago a friend took a photo of a bull elk in a field in Franklin County, KY. Franklin County is way outside the elk restoration zone but my friend had a CELL PHONE pic that CLEARLY showed a bull elk. (I recognized the field the elk was in BTW since it was an area where I grew up.)
Since I saw the CLEAR photo I can saw it was an elk. I can also speculate this bull elk wandered out of the elk restoration zone and made his way to the bluegrass.
My friend took a pic of what was likely the ONLY damn elk wandering in the wild in central KY.
Where is the CLEAR photo of just ONE BF?
I am beginning to think you know good and well there are no BF and this is all a game to you.
A good clear photo of Bigfoot will not provide anything. Only a body or body part will work.
"A bear getting a back rub from the other bears behind him?"
"The hunching ape like creatures is moving though. And so is the hairy arm behind him."
"By viewing it on a 32' screen I have been able to single out a few movements that happen behind the "large black thing" and a few that happen on the lower left of the "large black thing" but nothing can be discerned at a glance"
Chris,
Is it a large hairy arm giving a back rub or nothing that can be discerned on a 32" screen?
On a different subject, when asked about investigating the hog-slapping bigfoot story, you said you don't waste your time investigating stories that are obviously made up (indicating that you feel it fits that category) My question is: How do you decide? What part of that story takes it off your list? What is your opinion of NL's good-n-plenty incident - do you think it was BF?
The movements are there. Verified by independent observers.
As to how I determine the wheat from the chaff, that's based on my own personal research and findings. Dr Eugenie Scott classifies Bigfooters into 2 groups, I'd be listed in the group that thinks Bigfoot is a biological living animal and does not possess any sort of magical or mystical powers. To me it's just another great ape. Chris B.
If
Chris doesn't believe the leap/leap/slap story...
*sniff sniff*
I like that one so darn much...
I'm all for the belief that these creatures can run faster and jump higher and further than humans based on their proportions. 45 feet in one jump though,,,,ugh no, possibly less than half that, maybe.
I am somehow not offended one bit by that Chris. May the foot be with you. haha.
Just a little irony.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/si_zueffle97.htm
Boone likely got his "bigfoot" from Gulliver's Travels.
Had he actually shot a bigfoot, there's very little chance it would be so poorly documented, imo.
Well, that's a whole topic in itself. One could argue that since this happened before the media age and there was not much news carried other than by word of mouth, it's not surprising for it not to be printed in a newspaper.
Another argument is that since Boone had no reference as to what the creature actually was, he may have drawn a reference from Gulliver's travels as for the reason he called it a yayhoo or yeohoh.
I knew a guy who heard a story that someone saw a photo of a tree that said:
C. Boone cilled a bogfoot at this tree.
Now that's funny. Thanks Chris B.
