• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm of the opinion that HD photographs won't convince anyone because some really life-like models of Bigfoot can be created in this day and age. No costume required.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pardon the derail and reverting to a post from a week and several pages ago, but it may be that the Yeti speaks Issan, but the residents of the province (Nan) are mostly Thai speaking with a smattering of Kh'mer and T'in.

So that ought to remove one obstacle for you. Good luck on your trip. ;)
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I'm of the opinion that HD photographs won't convince anyone because some really life-like models of Bigfoot can be created in this day and age. No costume required.
Click to expand...

Anything along these lines would be a good starting point...with follow up repeatability and study of a live specimen BINGO new species verified, happens quite often actually.
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
Anything along these lines would be a good starting point...with follow up repeatable and study of a live specimen BINGO new species verified, happens quite often actually.
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/EE02AC86-2043-4D53-8B5B-9121305038DC.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Those were all nice pictures. We have to ignore the conscious acts of thread sabotage. I am using the ignore function because it is the best way to deal with committed saboteurs.

With all of the above, pictures were taken in the context of a tremendous amount of other confirming evidence. Fossils for the coelacanth. All the living cousins of the mountain gorilla. Squid that washed up onshore, and it is just a much larger version of something we already know exists.

But they know this.
 
Since the topic may be derailed I have a sort of Big Foot question. Do you think if a person was to attend a costume party and showed up in regular clothes but had one huge shoe, if people would say you are "Big Foot"?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I'm of the opinion that HD photographs won't convince anyone because some really life-like models of Bigfoot can be created in this day and age. No costume required.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try us by showing us one? Why doesn't any Bigfoot supporter show us one? See if you are right.

Yes a single HD photo of Bigfoot would alone not represent absolute proof, but it would be a significant start. It would result in a lot of interest and provide many more resources to obtain additional pieces of evidence that, together with the HD photo, would be convincing indeed: scar, hair, etc.

You do realize that evidence for the existence of some deep sea creatures is restricted to a few photos, and people generally assume that these creatures exist, although more study will be required for a full understanding. These are not typically accused of being frauds. Perhaps Bigfoot fans shoud try to understand why.
 
It appears to me to me to be obvious that some Bigfoot advocates here are serious in their beliefs and some are just engaging in a long standing joke. I leave it to each member to figure out who is who, but I have my own opinion.
 
Following a tremendous number of reports, this thread has been placed on Moderated status. It will remain so until the Mod Team has time to review the thread and determine an appropriate course of action.

Please do not personalize your arguments or speculate on the mental health or motivations of other members. Doing so in this thread or any other Big Foot thread will lead to further Mod action.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
The Shrike said:
I love this stuff:

Skeptic: "What's a bigfoot?"
'Footer: "Oh, it's this magnificent boss of the woods - 8, 9 and sometimes 10' tall - weighing hundreds of pounds!"

Skeptic: "Wow, that sounds pretty cool! What do they eat?"
'Footer: "Well they run down elk and kill them with a swipe of their massive forearm! They leap to grab wild hogs and then smash them against tree trunks! But when they're really hungry they eat . . . half an apple."
Click to expand...

That was my first run in with Sasfooty, she posted a pic of an apple that was nibbled on by Bigfoot according to her.
I responded with that's an apple that a horse has snacked on......it looked very similar to pic below just less bites. Anyone who's ever feed a horse an apple would immediately recognize it.

Needless to say our relationship was never the same :(
 
^There was also that dude in Canada who claimed that the bigfoots were leaving presents for him so he returned the favor or something. He posted photos of apples with what looked like mouse or flying squirrel bites taken out of them.

Don't forget the Skookum hokum including half-eaten fruit too.
 
Giordano said:
Yes a single HD photo of Bigfoot would alone not represent absolute proof, but it would be a significant start. It would result in a lot of interest and provide many more resources to obtain additional pieces of evidence that, together with the HD photo, would be convincing indeed: scar, hair, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not a biologist, but I agree with you. In my opinion an HD photo alone is no more credible than the photographer. Trick photography has a long history.

However, it would be extraordinarily valuable, if only because once the location is identified, you have a place to find real, compelling evidence.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
What would count as evidence for Bigfoot?
Click to expand...
If I might suggest stepping back a bit, perhaps you should ask what would count as evidence worth looking at in order to determine if it is evidence for Bigfoot.

The current state of Bigfoot evidence -- from the outside looking in -- is that a variety of people, very few of whom have any relevant expertise, employ a slew of non-rigorous methods in order to collect dubious evidence, avoid taking steps that serious researchers would take in order to collect serious evidence, and repeatedly withholding what is claimed to be convincing evidence. Even if someone in that group is holding legitimate, convincing evidence, it should come as no surprise that few will take the time to view it.

It is not incumbent upon the non-believers to look at and investigate in-depth every piece of evidence thrown at them, anymore than it is incumbent upon me to research every claim from every alleged psychic. Rather, if the psychic wishes to convince the scientific community, then the psychic must find and present its own irrefutable evidence; likewise, it is on the Bigfoot researcher to find and present its own evidence.

And for Bigfoot, it wouldn't have to be irrefutable to at least garner some respect, but it would have to be demonstrated that the person or people presenting the evidence have done their own due diligence. That means trying to disprove your own hypothesis before foisting it on someone else. It means actually setting our hair traps and actually recording track lines that are a mile and a half long. It means submitting saliva alleged to be in possession. It means stop running around like scouts at the campfire and calling it an expedition. It means stop running your research as a tourist trap and charging people to hear spooky stories in the woods. It also means admitting it when apparent pictures of bigfoot are shown to be simple cases of pareidolia.

Demonstrate that there is legitimate effort being put forth both in collecting evidence and in verifying it before presenting it. If you do that, the evidence won't even have to be perfect for the effort to be taken seriously.

So stop worrying about the actual evidence we will accept. Work on the method and the sincerity.

Until then, it's simply fish stories but with added indignation at not being believed.
 
John Nowak said:
In my opinion an HD photo alone is no more credible than the photographer.
Click to expand...
Of course, but for something as important as accepting the veracity of an HD photo to demonstrate the existence of a new species, we can track the provenance. When bigfooters raise this issue ("a photo wouldn't do it, so why bother taking one?") they're focusing too heavily on the image itself and ignoring the provenance entirely.

examples:

1) Roger Patterson could've produced an extraordinary film that did not look like a guy in a lumpy suit sauntering across a sandbar and it still would not have garnered much attention from biologists who knew anything about Roger Patterson.

2) The "Myakka Ape" photos looked really cool at first. It took some discussion and analysis to demonstrate that it was a static figure. The real nail in its coffin, however, was the murky circumstance of its provenance - followed by the demonstration that it had been on exhibit in some museum I think in Wisconsin.

So analysis of putative photographic evidence is about a lot more than just "was this Photoshopped?"
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Harry, at what point did you decide to join the Bigfooter Basher cult here? I remember a time when you were almost a pleasant poster. For some time now I've noticed you have this deep seated resentment of Bigfooters. Did something drive you to this or were you always this way and just acting before?

At one point I thought you may even be an enlightened individual. But now I think you'd probably disagree that the Sun rises in the East. The Sun always rises in the East Harry.

Sure, I've returned insult and I shouldn't have. Sometimes weakness gets the best of me. I've turned the other cheek until both are red though. I'll try to do better.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
My bashing days go back to the BFF¹. And it's usually just bashing the bashers of common sense. The common sense in this case being not your supposed "belief in Bigfoot", but your seeming belief that we would somehow buy your inane arguments. Virtually all of them so absurd that even you couldn't possibly believe in them. And that's how we know. You're playing a fully uniformed position, literally throwing us every junk pitch you've got in your arsenal, yet denying there's any game at all.

Ultimately it's honesty that's the matter. Or dishonesty. We don't BS you at all that I'm aware of, why exactly did you come here and attempt to do it to us? Grudge? Our enlightenment? To score points in a game? Duper's delight? Be honest.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I'm of the opinion that HD photographs won't convince anyone because some really life-like models of Bigfoot can be created in this day and age. No costume required.
Click to expand...


If there are photos of an alleged bigfoot that are clear, or good video footage it wouldn't take very long to either collect a specimen or DNA evidence of its existence from the area the photo came from. The excuse trail ran out long ago for bigfooters. Technology caught up with the myth.

We can today "prove it doesnt exist" because all of the reports lead to one thing, and its not a bigfoot. Also, if it were to exist we would be able to find sign of it. Especially a creature depicted to be 8-10 feet tall. That would require quite the caloric intake. The problem is; real animals leave real DNA and real skeletons, and real images on trail cams. Real animals get shot and collected.

Ghosts, vampires, angels, faeries and bigfoots don't have that problem now do they?

Social constructs do not leave any evidence other than misidentified stuff, or fabricated evidence left by humans. (which is what we see with bigfoot! all of the "evidence" leads to that one specific thing! not a new primate)

Now here is the funny part. A lot of these guys are here to promote the bigfoot thing. They may work in the bigfoot business in some way or another (oh, i wouldnt be guessing right?) So their posts may or may not reflect their interests directly.

wink wink

So, we see avoidance, and other nice tactics used to misdirect and ignore selectively. This is not new to bigfooting either. Whenever it comes time to "show the goods" or "put up or shut up".... we know what happens right?

Yep.

So, that moment is avoided at all costs.

After a slight pause, all of that will be ignored and we will be talking about stick structures in NYC that had hairs on them, or some dents in the ground in KY where millions of people go hiking. All of this claimed evidence and long winded defending of the mythical beast comes down to?

*crickets*

Like always. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom