Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Giordano]

Sure, if you had the Bigfoot creatures confined in an area without an exit, more people would make the search go faster.

Photoshop negates any value of photographic evidence collected.


They certainly exist, though finding them is the issue.



I'm certain all the methods you mention are currently being used and then some.

Some of us don't care whether you believe Bigfoot exists or not. It's a complete non-issue. Chris B.

Your concept is that the more people look this less likely they will be to find one. I strongly suspect the chances are the same if a few people look, a lot of people look, or if no one looks.

As The Strike stated, there are many available ways to detect Photoshopping, ranging from extraordinarily easy to more sophisticated means. There even have been recent examples of this type of trickery being almost immediately found out. So a real Bigfoot picture would stand out from the fakes.

If you don't care if I don't believe, why do you continue to try to argue otherwise?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Footer logic: "I'm not going to bother trying to obtain what might be the most valuable photograph of all time because skeptics will simply accuse me of Photoshopping it."

You leave me in a tough spot, Chris. Is it possible that you are unaware that Photoshop and similar photo-editing approaches can be detected? Nah, it's 2015 and you can't be that clueless. But wait, that means that if you do realize that Photoshopping is detectable then you must have made a disingenuous comment as yet another lame-o excuse for the lack of any scrap of bigfoot evidence. So what shall I put you down for, BLAARGer or bumpkin?

Does your eagerness to insult outweigh your ability for critical thought? Without biological evidence to back up your photograph you would have nothing valuable.

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers I will not go into detail how photos are verified or debunked. I will say one photo I personally investigated turned out to be a pic of an image that was displayed on an HD monitor. So, the details of the camera/pic that captured the image were good with no indication of Photoshop signature. Think about that one. Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

Does your eagerness to insult outweigh your ability for critical thought? Without biological evidence to back up your photograph you would have nothing valuable.

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers I will not go into detail how photos are verified or debunked. I will say one photo I personally investigated turned out to be a pic of an image that was displayed on an HD monitor. So, the details of the camera/pic that captured the image were good with no indication of Photoshop signature. Think about that one. Chris B.

I shall think on it, just this once:

1. You claim photos will have no value in this "age of Photoshop."

2. Skeptics say they will have claims because Photoshop leaves electronic signatures.

3. You give an example that (a) does not involve Photoshop and (b) you managed to demonstrate as not legitimate anyway.

4. You have debunked yourself by demonstrating that even fakes not relying on Photoshop can be revealed as fakes through investigation.


NOTE: The above was for my own benefit and for that of any lurkers. I'm looking for a distraction and the moment, and lurkers might fall for the silliness without a rebuttal, easy as it is. I probably won't play the "Refute THIS point! game anymore, but who knows if I may need more distractions.

 

[Tolls]

Does your eagerness to insult outweigh your ability for critical thought? Without biological evidence to back up your photograph you would have nothing valuable.

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers I will not go into detail how photos are verified or debunked. I will say one photo I personally investigated turned out to be a pic of an image that was displayed on an HD monitor. So, the details of the camera/pic that captured the image were good with no indication of Photoshop signature. Think about that one. Chris B.

Do you seriously think that a photo of a monitor would not be as obvious (more obvious, in fact) than a Photoshopped image when analysed?

 

[Resume]

Does your eagerness to insult outweigh your ability for critical thought? Without biological evidence to back up your photograph you would have nothing valuable.

See, the thing is that a bona fide footie picture would be shortly followed up by biological evidence. Much in the same way as in a habitution scenario, or frequent footie flyers like the NAWACers. One would be hard pressed not to find biological footie evidence in actual footie habitat.

 

[carlitos]

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers I will not go into detail how photos are verified or debunked.

Yeah, Chris. Your super-secret photo analysis skills would really "feed the hoaxers." Keep that info private.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes, I've been joking. It should come as no surprise that I have years of pictures from trekking in the Golden Triangle.

The joke is that Roger Patterson pretended to be on an expedition but probably never made it out of Bangkok. I was in Bangkok overnight twice - in the hospital both times.

Truth is, I'd much rather go back to Northern Laos, where I failed to find jungle tigers on my expedition there. Thailand is way too crowded.

It's a pretty good anti-bigfoot example because even with the protected habitat in Laos, the value of the pelts and body parts for poachers is so extraordinary that they can't stop the illegal wildlife trade. But there is no protected bigfoot habitat in your area nor laws against hunting them.

They told me in Laos that a tiger skin was ten thousand dollars, but it was teeth, claws, bones, meat,and internal organs for Chinese medicines too - in all enough to change one of these mountain people's lives forever. What would a bigfoot hide go for? A million dollars I would think, and you would be breaking no laws.

Mae Charim is about the only place in Thailand I'd like to look, there and on into Laos through the mountains. Though I do speak and understand Royal and Southern Thai dialects, unfortunately I cannot speak the North East language Isaan. If you speak Isaan, It'd be a pleasure to go there with you on an expedition.

I have family in Southern Thailand (by marriage). But they're on Koh Phangan which is very far and away from where I'd like to trek. The North East would likely be the only spot anything similar to a Bigfoot would be. However, I would not feel comfortable going there as I do not speak or understand the language there.

Perhaps you are correct in that if there were any Bigfoot types there the locals would have skinned one out by now for the money. Even though the population is mostly Buddhist there are obviously some who hunt for a living as evidenced with the Tiger decline. But I'd still like to look around at least once before I cash in. The legends and stories of a man-like hairy beasts persist from this area. So even if one was to accidentally stumble onto a colony of Gorillas, it would still be a very big deal. Chris B.

 

[tsig]

See, the thing is that a bona fide footie picture would be shortly followed up by biological evidence. Much in the same way as in a habitution scenario, or frequent footie flyers like the NAWACers. One would be hard pressed not to find biological footie evidence in actual footie habitat.

I'd think you would be stepping in it.

 

[dmaker]

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers.

Then how do you eat?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I shall think on it, just this once:

1. You claim photos will have no value in this "age of Photoshop."

2. Skeptics say they will have claims because Photoshop leaves electronic signatures.

3. You give an example that (a) does not involve Photoshop and (b) you managed to demonstrate as not legitimate anyway.

4. You have debunked yourself by demonstrating that even fakes not relying on Photoshop can be revealed as fakes through investigation.


NOTE: The above was for my own benefit and for that of any lurkers. I'm looking for a distraction and the moment, and lurkers might fall for the silliness without a rebuttal, easy as it is. I probably won't play the "Refute THIS point! game anymore, but who knows if I may need more distractions.

You've absolutely derailed your train of thought and taken my example somewhere else.
If you can grasp the fact that a picture is worthless without biological evidence backing it, you'll be on the right track. Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

Does your eagerness to insult outweigh your ability for critical thought? Without biological evidence to back up your photograph you would have nothing valuable.

In keeping with the effort to not feed the hoaxers I will not go into detail how photos are verified or debunked. I will say one photo I personally investigated turned out to be a pic of an image that was displayed on an HD monitor. So, the details of the camera/pic that captured the image were good with no indication of Photoshop signature. Think about that one. Chris B.

Yes. think about that one: you can even detect a non-Photoshopped fake!
I don't think that strengthens your argument that it is possible to fake a photo in an undetectable manner. By the way, photos of HD monitors are particularly easy to demonstrate as photos of monitors (assuming that was what you were saying was the nature of the photo we debunked). Photos of printed photos are also easy to detect.

But let's assume that somehow, someone can create a faked photo that is very difficult or impossible to demonstrate convincingly is a fake (I believe that it would have to be a photo of a very carefully created 3-D object the full size expected of a Bigfoot in a truly naturally setting with no anatomical or costume flaws). Do you actually propose that a detailed photo of a real Bigfoot would therefore be useless and just ignored by scientists? It might be judged as somewhat less that 100% absolute proof, but it would be considered as much more promising than the current "evidence" and would spark a great deal of additional interest that would lead to better funding and equipping of expeditions to obtain absolute proof.

A video, as I already mentioned, would be even better than a still photo because it would be still more difficult to fake. These are important steps in a 100% convincing proof. even if none alone would be 100% proof. They are important evidence even alone, and would generate a lot of resources toward obtaining the remaining 100% proof.

What alone would be virtually 100% proof would be a sample of DNA that has sequences from a previously unknown hominid existing in North America, or even having once existed in North America. Any sample, regardless of the details of how it was obtained. If only someone had material that might be like that...

 

[Garrette]

You've absolutely derailed your train of thought and taken my example somewhere else.
If you can grasp the fact that a picture is worthless without biological evidence backing it, you'll be on the right track. Chris B.

Sure, sure.

 

[dmaker]

You've absolutely derailed your train of thought and taken my example somewhere else.
If you can grasp the fact that a picture is worthless without biological evidence backing it, you'll be on the right track. Chris B.

Is the PGF worthless in your opinion?

 

[Correa Neto]

STOP THE PRESSES- photographic evidence is useless because of photoshop.

QUICK! Someone warn those folks from Springer, Elsevier and Wiley (don't forget to tell his sons too!). Oh, and those HST folks... They are so screwed now...

Oh, we also need someone to go warn lawyers, judges, cops, the intelligence agencies...

 

[Giordano]

You've absolutely derailed your train of thought and taken my example somewhere else.
If you can grasp the fact that a picture is worthless without biological evidence backing it, you'll be on the right track. Chris B.

Highlighted the part that is the most wrong in your post. Something can be an important component of the overall absolute proof even if it itself is not absolute proof. As noted above, a high resolution, clear photo of Bigfoot (why again don't these exist already?) would go a long way, and would encourage people to find yet other elements of proof (why again don't these exist?) that together with the photo would be very convincing.

And why do you fail to grasp that revealing a non-Photoshopped image to be a fake is not an argument for why images can be successfully faked (by Photoshop or other means)?

Perhaps you can provide the opposite: a high resolution, detailed image of Bigfoot that, to your knowledge, cannot be shown to be a fake. That would help support your argument that clear photos of Bigfoot are useless because we would never be able to distinguish them from a fake.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Is the PGF worthless in your opinion?

Exactly what I was thinking. Surely all of the supposed "evidence" for Bigfoot is worth nothing as far as actual proof goes. Here we have Chris admitting as much, himself. I imagine he'll bend his argument now, though, or say that the quality of the footage is enough to determine its authenticity.

At any rate, Chris will snuff it at some point and be nothing more than a memory on this earth, meanwhile Bigfoot will still evade the most tech-savvy of beer-drinkers in the eternal forests of the human mind.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Is the PGF worthless in your opinion?

The PGF is not a pic, it's a video but yes it is worthless as scientific evidence as it proves nothing. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

I realize it is a video, but it would logically follow that if pics can be faked, ergo they are useless, then the same must follow for video. Since it can be faked as well. You will concede that the PGF is worthless as scientific evidence. Ok. Fine.

But you believe Patty is real, do you not? Yes or no please.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Exactly what I was thinking. Surely all of the supposed "evidence" for Bigfoot is worth nothing as far as actual proof goes. Here we have Chris admitting as much, himself. I imagine he'll bend his argument now, though, or say that the quality of the footage is enough to determine its authenticity.

At any rate, Chris will snuff it at some point and be nothing more than a memory on this earth, meanwhile Bigfoot will still evade the most tech-savvy of beer-drinkers in the eternal forests of the human mind.

Nope, without biological evidence to back up the claim you have nothing.
Chris B.

 

[Correa Neto]

PGF is a video?
Hey, Chris, do you know what the "F" stands for?