Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[John Nowak]

It's interesting that you tend to label all Bigfooters that come here as "BLAARGERS" not just some, but all.

My understanding of the BLAARG hypothesis is that it is an explanation for the manifest incompetence shown by Bigfoot "researchers" in pursuit of their alleged aims. Personally, I consider it a touch generous.

Speaking of photos of rare and elusive animals, here's one I took after being in India for four or five days.

He or she (the guides disagreed) is a curious juvenile who trotted out to the edge of the forest to check out the tourists. That's what young animals do: check out new and curious things, get into trouble. Well, that's what animals do when they are real. And, in my opinion, they look dang nice in photographs.

Again, real animals.

 

[Giordano]

Initially I previously believed that the BLAARG hypothesis was very insulting to the Bigfoot advocates here. The more I read and thought about it, I am not so sure.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I wonder if you are aware of the extent to which this represent equivocation.

Which part?
Chris B.

 

[Drewbot]

During my last visit to Oklahoma, I did an artist's rendition of what my Bigfoot expedition contact actually looked like.

I didn't have time to change the batteries in my camera, so I sat there and sketched the interaction.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

My understanding of the BLAARG hypothesis is that it is an explanation for the manifest incompetence shown by Bigfoot "researchers" in pursuit of their alleged aims. Personally, I consider it a touch generous.

Speaking of photos of rare and elusive animals, here's one I took after being in India for four or five days.

[qimg]http://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By-Year/2009/i-vDXRb6f/2/L/20090122%20170743-L.jpg[/qimg]

He or she (the guides disagreed) is a curious juvenile who trotted out to the edge of the forest to check out the tourists. That's what young animals do: check out new and curious things, get into trouble. Well, that's what animals do when they are real. And, in my opinion, they look dang nice in photographs.

Again, real animals.

Beautiful pic. That Canon EOS 40D is certainly doing a nice job. I suppose if Bigfooters had guides to show them where the animals are similar pics could be had.
Chris B.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

As far as my opinion about living on a migration path, I had said that opinion has changed over time. I no longer believe in a North/South migration but rather some sort of ranging activities account for the seasonal activity.
.

"Ranging" is a deceptive way to re-package "migration" in order to absolve yourself of responsibility to say where they are coming from, going to, and why. That is exactly my point. This is gaming behavior, not belief in bigfoot.

I've been out every day in the woods, because I have a belief that trees are waiting for my chainsaw. You excused yourself on account of weather one of the days when asked, but it doesn't explain the other 99%.

Those are great pictures John Nowak. It is the same sort of thing I try to do, which is demonstrate how easy it is to do things 'footers present as impossible, and yours are better for not devolving into "prove you didn't get that photo from someone else". As if it mattered anyway. Tigers are real and amateurs can snap great shots with ease.

Why is it that "no-experience John" has a camera that works? Why are his pictures so clear? Why was it so EASY?

It isn't just that tigers are real, but your BELIEF in them is real. So I am confident that you checked to make sure your camera was in working order, you went with people who were competent at locating tigers, and they in turn proceeded in a way to maximize the probability of their clients seeing them...

You held the camera steady! I have tried to make this point before, and it doesn't go over well, but it is so wrong to accept the "mortal chaos" argument of 'footers in shaking cameras wildly and no ability to focus the camera.

This is an extremely rare animal that can kill you. Were you scaredy-pants keystone cop bungler? Or was it more like "oh, that's cool, let's snap some pictures" while focusing on making sure they'll come out well?

The reason I ask is because the characterizations these 'footers make scream out to me that they are making it up. You have a real experience and can share with others exactly how these real experiences feel. It isn't anything like what 'footers claim. Right?

 

[Giordano]

Beautiful pic. That Canon EOS 40D is certainly doing a nice job. I suppose if Bigfooters had guides to show them where the animals are similar pics could be had.
Chris B.

Good idea for a job: Bigfoot guide! Think how much money that might make, given the exotic reputation of Bigfoot, the interest of many people in seeing one, and the proximity to the major population centers in the USA (one would save a lot of money by not having to fly to India or Africa). I wonder why this isn't already done?

 

[Drewbot]

Good idea for a job: Bigfoot guide! Think how much money that might make, given the exotic reputation of Bigfoot, the interest of many people in seeing one, and the proximity to the major population centers in the USA (one would save a lot of money by not having to fly to India or Africa). I wonder why this isn't already done?

BigfootHunter Bill Miller already does it. You are late to the party.

Here are some testimonials.
http://www.sasquatchcountryadventures.com/Testimonials.html

I want to take this opportunity to thank you personally for providing what was an absolutely wonderful experience on a spectacular day with
an enormously knowledgeable individual in Tom on the subject of Sasquatch . . . . not to mention a hell of a driver in the wilderness. The
view from the destination point was spectacular, supplemented with exposure to sasquatch casts and Tom’s sharing of many stories, both
new and old. Again, an exceptional experience.

Bob Benwick
Surrey, BC

"Bill Miller and his guides were very knowledgeable about the science behind the Sasquatch, and the stories they shared had us all riveted.
Combined they have decades of experience as Sasquatch investigators and Authors, and they were involved in my favourite documentary
about the subject (Bigfoot's Reflection). They really know their stuff.

What I liked best was that they were able to explain the science behind the sightings, and interpret some of the evidence that's been
collected over the years. They even had casts of Sasquatch tracks to show us, plus photographic evidence.

The Polaris UTV gave us great access to areas that would otherwise have been inaccessible. The beautiful surroundings, expert guides and
fascinating stories combined to make this the highlight of our visit to the area. We enjoyed every minute of the tour, and hope to repeat the
experience some day soon."

- J. Brown, Calgary, WestJet up! Magazine writer

 

[Giordano]

BigfootHunter Bill Miller already does it. You are late to the party.

Here are some testimonials.
http://www.sasquatchcountryadventures.com/Testimonials.html

Good point- my apologies. If a tourist doesn't demand to actually see a Bigfoot, then Bigfoot guide is entirely economically feasible as a career.

I took a "ghost tour" in New Orleans and found the guide to be have very entertaining stories that, together with the locale itself, made the price worthwhile, even though I never saw a ghost.

 

[Giordano]

My understanding of the BLAARG hypothesis is that it is an explanation for the manifest incompetence shown by Bigfoot "researchers" in pursuit of their alleged aims. Personally, I consider it a touch generous.

Speaking of photos of rare and elusive animals, here's one I took after being in India for four or five days.

[qimg]http://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By-Year/2009/i-vDXRb6f/2/L/20090122%20170743-L.jpg[/qimg]

He or she (the guides disagreed) is a curious juvenile who trotted out to the edge of the forest to check out the tourists. That's what young animals do: check out new and curious things, get into trouble. Well, that's what animals do when they are real. And, in my opinion, they look dang nice in photographs.

Again, real animals.

Great photo!

 

[John Nowak]

Initially I previously believed that the BLAARG hypothesis was very insulting to the Bigfoot advocates here. The more I read and thought about it, I am not so sure.

It is a problem. Certainly nobody wants to be rude, but you've got people claiming to see nine-foot apes in public parks that have millions of visitors a year, which is ridiculous on the face of it. Or saying they have biological samples they won't have tested until they're "sure" of them. What?

I'm interested in ancient Egypt, and the occasional random Google search for archaeology sites yields some pretty weird stuff. I particularly remember a woman who claimed to have long visits from the god Anubis. But even there, I have to admit that if Anubis visited me and said, "Hi, I'm Anubis, no pictures, please," well, I wouldn't take pictures, because it would be rude. I can kind of see how that might conceivably be true. It's a delusion, but it is an internally consistent delusion. Her reason for not having pictures made sense. Still don't buy it, but that is neither here nor there.

But this Bigfoot stuff? It goes beyond that. This is stuff that makes no sense, even if you assume there really are nine-foot undiscovered hominids in North America.

It is, I think, something that goes beyond hoaxing, just because the hoax is so incredibly weak. BLAARGing? Maybe, but I don't believe it explains everything.

 

[Resume]

I suppose if Bigfooters had guides to show them where the animals are similar pics could be had.
Chris B.

Man, how did we ever find (real) animals before there were guides?

 

[abaddon]

Beautiful pic. That Canon EOS 40D is certainly doing a nice job. I suppose if Bigfooters had guides to show them where the animals are similar pics could be had.
Chris B.

Yet somehow, you cannot obtain a camera of equivalent quality, bring none such with you on your "expeditions", cannot take pics better than fuzzy blobs at a range of 15 feet, claim to have footage of a BF family group which you won't release, and wonder why everyone thinks you are full of it?

Now let's be straight. I am 3,000 to 4,000 miles away, and even from that distance, I can tell that this claim is utter baloney. Seriously, "I have evidence, but I just won't show you"? That is your claim? From this remove, it is plain to me that the interest is in perpetuating the mythology, not in findings of fact.

 

[dmaker]

Cue up Chris and his "I'm not here to prove bigfoot to you"

 

[John Nowak]

Beautiful pic. That Canon EOS 40D is certainly doing a nice job. I suppose if Bigfooters had guides to show them where the animals are similar pics could be had.
Chris B.

Thanks!

But as was pointed out, there are, in fact, guides who will take your money to show you Bigfoot (but oddly, no clear pictures). There are "researchers" who will fire a weapon at something they don't see clearly enough to photograph. And they're out camping in the car parks for weeks and months and entire man years.

I got lucky and saw several tigers in the week or so I spent there. I admit that was luck, and I had good guides.

But why aren't there Bigfoot tourists as lucky as me? Why aren't there Bigfoot guides as skilled as the ones I met in India?

And since you've looked at the EXIF information, the GPS data was added by me after the fact and approximated. I didn't have EXIFTOOL at the time. I point this out because yes, you will see suspiciously round numbers there, taken from Wikipedia, and probably resolve to the entry gate or something.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yet somehow, you cannot obtain a camera of equivalent quality, bring none such with you on your "expeditions", cannot take pics better than fuzzy blobs at a range of 15 feet, claim to have footage of a BF family group which you won't release, and wonder why everyone thinks you are full of it?

Now let's be straight. I am 3,000 to 4,000 miles away, and even from that distance, I can tell that this claim is utter baloney. Seriously, "I have evidence, but I just won't show you"? That is your claim? From this remove, it is plain to me that the interest is in perpetuating the mythology, not in findings of fact.

Just a reminder that Chris claims to have been close enough to bigfoot clearly see and describe details of bigfoot and what bigfoot was doing.

So his pics should clearly show us those details. Yet he has nothing but indistinct blobs for pics or video.

Chris is unable to explain this giant discrepancy in his bigfoot stories.

 

[John Nowak]

Those are great pictures John Nowak. ... Tigers are real and amateurs can snap great shots with ease.

Thank you, and yes, there is absolutely luck involved, but an amateur can go to another continent and get this sort of picture easily enough.

So I am confident that you checked to make sure your camera was in working order, you went with people who were competent at locating tigers, and they in turn proceeded in a way to maximize the probability of their clients seeing them...

Exactly. I wanted good pictures, the guides wanted to give me the opportunity, and they did.

Also, I shoot in drive mode, three to five frames a second, and I didn't keep the blobtigers. So I'm kind of uncomfortable when people poke fun at bad photography. I take a lot of bad pictures; I just don't show them.

You held the camera steady! I have tried to make this point before, and it doesn't go over well, but it is so wrong to accept the "mortal chaos" argument of 'footers in shaking cameras wildly and no ability to focus the camera.

This is an extremely rare animal that can kill you. Were you scaredy-pants keystone cop bungler? Or was it more like "oh, that's cool, let's snap some pictures" while focusing on making sure they'll come out well?

Hmm. That's an interesting question, I see the point and I'm just trying to come up with a good answer.

I went to Wolf Park and spent a week with their socialized wolves, learning how to behave around them. The big lesson was that you may be excited, thrilled, whatever - but the animals don't like that. They avoid people who look too interested. The thing is, I'm a crap actor.

So I try very hard to stay calm I was really thinking, Tiger. Big deal. because I didn't want the animal to see how thrilled I was. That, and do I need to swap my lens? Will it walk away if I do? So I can't say that I was anxious, let alone frightened.

Honestly, I didn't feel anything until that evening when I was looking through the pictures on my laptop and the guides came up behind me and asked me to go backwards and let them get a better look. That felt good.

Of course, I was doing something challenging; working a camera. An owl once scared the heck out of me. So I'm not sure how I'd feel if I unexpectedly came across a nine-foot monkey and I wasn't taking pictures.

The reason I ask is because the characterizations these 'footers make scream out to me that they are making it up. You have a real experience and can share with others exactly how these real experiences feel. It isn't anything like what 'footers claim. Right?

In general, I would say not a bit. Assuming I had a camera (or, I imagine, a rifle; I don't shoot) I would be far too busy taking pictures to feel much of anything at that time.

 

[abaddon]

Just a reminder that Chris claims to have been close enough to bigfoot clearly see and describe details of bigfoot and what bigfoot was doing.

So his pics should clearly show us those details. Yet he has nothing but indistinct blobs for pics or video.

Chris is unable to explain this giant discrepancy in his bigfoot stories.

So far, all chris has presented is a low resolution tree. He continues to claim to have Hi-res at a range of 15 ft no less, of a family figboot group. Please. I could take better photos of my shoe. My kids do better.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Which part?
Chris B.

Your conflation of the "hairy natives" with the modern "abominable snowman" yeti-oid.

("Yeti" and "meh-teh" are not Greek words, nor do the concepts appear in the myths of Alexander.)

 

[John Nowak]

Yet somehow, you cannot obtain a camera of equivalent quality, bring none such with you on your "expeditions", cannot take pics better than fuzzy blobs at a range of 15 feet...

Nice post - the only thing is it understates things a bit.

Why don't any one of the hundreds of bigfoot researchers have a better camera than I do? After all these years, why can't any of them get a picture of Bigfoot as clear as a tiger picture I took in a week?