Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[tsig]

No, no, no.
See, them bigfoots are damn smart. Them know when ppl have cams, can see and smell cams. Them can even hear the electronics workin'.
Bigfoots don't WANT to be "discovered" by you.
Bigfoots avoid you folks with cameras.

And when an encounter is unavoidable, their infrasound blast or the pherormones will stop you. You will be shocked and forget you have that damn cam hangin' down your neck.

All special pleading when it's obvious that bigfoot has the power to cloud mens' minds.

 

[mustbeso]

To add to what Correa said, there is a special orifice that some bigfoots have. They can shoot a special type of petroleum jelly with a slightly reduced viscosity that always lands on the lenses of cameras trying to photograph them. This, by and large, is what causes most of the blurry pictures.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah right only the seasoned bigfoot "researchers" can get the good stuff like trees, stumps, shrubberies in their rush to get out of the woods before dark...safety first....ahhhh stump squatch run run fir your life!!

It's worth mentioning that many Bigfoot hunters are wearing GoPro cameras, which are mounted and on constantly. Apparently, their batteries or focus fail when Bigfeets are near.

 

[John Nowak]

It's worth mentioning that many Bigfoot hunters are wearing GoPro cameras, which are mounted and on constantly. Apparently, their batteries or focus fail when Bigfeets are near.

I haven't used GoPros myself - do they autofocus, or do they have an extremely deep depth of focus like an Instamatic camera?

If it's the former, I'd be dubious about using them in a forest. There's every chance they'd focus on a tree or something instead of what the user intended to capture.

And I should probably say that in my opinion, a photograph would be the last step in making a case about Bigfoot. If Bigfoot were real, we'd have his DNA long before authentic photographs.

 

[carlitos]

I'm no expert, but it looks like a high depth of focus to me. If you go to YouTube and search for Bigfoot GoPro you will see a handful. Also the TV shows use GoPro cameras.

After you see a few, then change the search term and see how people film real things with GoPro.

 

[The Shrike]

"tiny, fast-moving birds behind veils of complex vegetation that make auto-focus a total crap-shoot":

Thanks for the kind words on these photos. I take decent ones too; the point here is to show how even lousy tech and lousy technique can provide photos suitable for records documentation, even of tiny birds that seldom sit still and refuse to expose themselves.

For those wondering on the species, they were:

Winter Wren
White-eyed Vireo
Fox Sparrow
Swainson's Thrush
Sedge Wren

 

[John Nowak]

I'm no expert, but it looks like a high depth of focus to me. If you go to YouTube and search for Bigfoot GoPro you will see a handful. Also the TV shows use GoPro cameras.

After you see a few, then change the search term and see how people film real things with GoPro.

Thanks!

Is it wrong of me to think how easy it would be to hoax a Bigfoot encounter with a ife-sized stop-motion dummy and an EXIF editor?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.)

Nope, you have me confused with ABP. I never went where you are now. The only thing I related is that the Yeti goes back to at least 326 BC and Alexander the Great had "requested" or "demanded" to see one making him the first Westerner to want to see a Yeti, according to the National Geographic site info. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

Now you're lying. I've never made that claim.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Now you're lying. I've never made that claim.
Chris B.

Well, what was your 15' claim exactly? You know, in the interest of honesty. Do you even remember or do you want someone else to do the work for you? If this is a lie, rather than a memory error (as to which we all are subject) defend yourself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nope, you have me confused with ABP. I never went where you are now. The only thing I related is that the Yeti goes back to at least 326 BC and Alexander the Great had "requested" or "demanded" to see one making him the first Westerner to want to see a Yeti, according to the National Geographic site info. Chris B.

No, it does not.

Iskander's expedition is said to have fought a tribe of hairy men, or hairy natives. It is, in fact, you who are conflating those reports with the myths of "yeti meh-meh" originating in the 1930s.

Iskander could not have asked to have seen a "yeti", no matter what Nat. Geo. claims; the word was not coined until the 1930s.

 

[Giordano]

I believe the claim was having a high resolution photo from about 15 feet of Bigfoot; I don't remember how many Bigfeet were supposed to be in the photo, or their deduced association with one another. I may be incorrect, because I do not feel inclined to look all the way back through the thread for all discussions of this topic, especially when Chris can simply post the exact details of what his claim entailed or didn't..

Why do I suddenly have this memory of Bill Clinton and his famous denial of what he did or didn't do with Monica?

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks!

Is it wrong of me to think how easy it would be to hoax a Bigfoot encounter with a ife-sized stop-motion dummy and an EXIF editor?

Use a miniature and forced perspective. Much easier.

 

[Giordano]

Thanks!

Is it wrong of me to think how easy it would be to hoax a Bigfoot encounter with a ife-sized stop-motion dummy and an EXIF editor?

Easy to fake adequately for someone wanting to believe it. Really quite difficult to fake for an expert looking at it skeptically. There are a lot of details, biological, optical, and electronic, that would need to match up closely to even begin to fool an expert.

Yes, things have come a long way from the original "King Kong" movie, but look at that movie to get an immediate feel for the difficulty of doing stop motion realistically, if only for a general audience and even when done by a highly talented individual.

 

[Resume]

I believe the claim was having a high resolution photo from about 15 feet of Bigfoot; I don't remember how many Bigfeet were supposed to be in the photo, or their deduced association with one another.

So is this correct Chris? In the interest of honesty. Well, as honest as anything related to this subject can be.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"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?

No, it's a working theory. Meaning I don't have it all figured out as of yet. I'm working on it. I don't know "where" they're going or "where" they're coming from. I'm trying to find that stuff out. Any ideas at this point are only theories and are unproven. I think the "why" is food related but again that's just a theory.

The only way I could gather the "where to where from" info would be to catch one, put a tracker on it and study/observe its movements over time. I'm not at the point at which I could do that yet.

You really need to come up with some better insults for Bigfooters. The "BLAARGER" label is laughable and the "You don't believe in Bigfoot" doesn't even apply to eyewitnesses as they don't "believe" Bigfoot exists, they "know" Bigfoot exists. So with someone as well read as you obviously are I expected better. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Chris, are you trained in biology? It seems to me that someone trained in relevant disciplines might be able to come up more than one method to try to determine the where and why of an alleged "migration" path. Perhaps scat analysis? Maybe some clues could be found in what the animals are eating or have eaten?

It seems that footers want to, ironically, place the bar so high that it seems unreasonable for us to ask for results. Examples from Chris would be:

Photos and video are useless without biological evidence.
Only a body would prove bigfoot.
I must catch and tag one in order to flesh out movement patterns.

And so on....

 

[Giordano]

No, it's a working theory. Meaning I don't have it all figured out as of yet. I'm working on it. I don't know "where" they're going or "where" they're coming from. I'm trying to find that stuff out. Any ideas at this point are only theories and are unproven. I think the "why" is food related but again that's just a theory.

The only way I could gather the "where to where from" info would be to catch one, put a tracker on it and study/observe its movements over time. I'm not at the point at which I could do that yet.

Could you refresh our knowledge of your claim of high-resolution, close up photos of Bigfoot again, given that issue has come up again? Do you indeed have these types of photos, and if so, what exactly are they of?

Second, I believe the point was that "ranging" is "migration" when it is stated, as you have, that they reduce their population one area part of the year and increase it in another. We understood that you don't have proof of this and that it is only a model that you are proposing to explain the changes in the frequency of Bigfoot encounters that you have reported here.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, it does not.

Iskander's expedition is said to have fought a tribe of hairy men, or hairy natives. It is, in fact, you who are conflating those reports with the myths of "yeti meh-meh" originating in the 1930s.

Iskander could not have asked to have seen a "yeti", no matter what Nat. Geo. claims; the word was not coined until the 1930s.

I've never thought that battle applies to Yetis as I have previously pointed out a good link to an article by Loren Coleman that discusses why Alexander the Great did NOT fight Yetis.

So, now the Yeti originated in the 1930's? ABP claims it originates from the 1950's so which is it? Nat Geo never claims when the Yeti originated but says it dates back to 326 BC and Alexander the Great.

Which claim do I believe? Are any of them accurate? Not that I think you or ABP would try to falsely inject skeptical biased info about the Yeti, but I'm kinda siding with National Geographic until I've seen proof of something different. Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

Chris,

That's 2 posts so far, and no mention of the high-resolution photo claim. I realize it can be hard to keep up with the other posts on this site, but several posters have asked for clarification given you recent post on this claim. To make it easy, the questions are:

1. Do you claim to have a high-resolution photo of a Bigfoot?

2. If so, about how far away was it?

3. If so, is there anything obscuring the Bigfoot in the photo?

4. If so, how many Bigfeet are in the photo?