• 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.

Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

LAL said:
...
Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.
Click to expand...
Cite? Or are you trying to poison the well by inferring that NG photographers can't get a wildlife photo, just as you attempted with the Caddy anecdote?
...In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers.
Click to expand...
As has been noted by others, your lack of success is not indicative of other wildlife photographers, professional and amateur.
I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.
Click to expand...
Whereas *I've* taken photos of Roan Antelope (rare/endangered) on a one day trip to a park. It was the first time that the warden/guide had seen one - and he'd been there 15years+.

This proves what?
Given the kind of funding L.S.B Leakey's women got there might be some results, but read Gorillas In the Mist for how easy a time Fosse had finding them even with an expert tracker.
Click to expand...
Yet Caddy couldn't supply a sighting of chimpanzees that he and his team had tracked for months - even at night.....
Why are you so hard on Caddy? The man has his credentials.
Click to expand...
Because his anecdote smacks of biased retelling and exaggeration in order to support his claims of bf being difficult to photograph.
 
They have been photographing Chimps, in the wilds of africa for a hundred years. And the thing is, it doesn't matter how elusive they were. They were much easier to photograph after one of these tools was used.

470 Nitro Express
 
Originally Posted by LAL View Post
My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else.
Click to expand...

And yet these same kind of people get pictures of animals, people, etc every day that they didn't set out to photograph. It's a bogus argument.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Maybe Lu hasn't gotten the news about video cameras...
Click to expand...

Do you mean camcorders? I have one. It wouldn't be any quicker off the dashboard than the digital but it might blur things better.
 
This has been fun, folks, but I'd rather read lists where people say things like:

"While I respect your point of view, I have an idea I think better fits the circumstances. I'm presenting it in a paper I'm writing. I'd like to get your input on it when I'm finished."

I think even proponents agree there are there are hoaxes, misinterpretations and even misrepresentations, but even they don't agree on which are which.

If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.
 
LAL said:
This has been fun, folks, but I'd rather read lists where people say things like:

"While I respect your point of view, I have an idea I think better fits the circumstances. I'm presenting it in a paper I'm writing. I'd like to get your input on it when I'm finished."
Click to expand...
What lists would those be ? MABRC ?

Why should anyone here, respect your point of view ?

What do you think has changed since you gave up the last time ?


I think even proponents agree there are there are hoaxes, misinterpretations and even misrepresentations, but even they don't agree on which are which.
Click to expand...
Could it be because there have been no reasonable alternatives offered ?
Like -- real evidence for a non-human North American primate ..

If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance.
Click to expand...
But, they haven't ..

Why's that ?

They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.
Click to expand...

That would make it :

" It Is Real ! "

And they would need actual evidence to make such a statement.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind are NatGeo up to the task, or do they "stage all their quality wildlife photographs"?
Originally Posted by LAL
...
Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.
Click to expand...

Cite? Or are you trying to poison the well by inferring that NG photographers can't get a wildlife photo, just as you attempted with the Caddy anecdote?
Click to expand...
I guess you can't back up this libel then...

Again, a typical footer ploy, continue spreading disinformation where the facts are too uncomfortable to face.
 
I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home.
Click to expand...

So, why wouldn't you have the video camera running on the dash when you come home then? Nearly every time means you will certainly catch the rabbit with a video camera, and a good video camera will give you good stills.

Same thing for a spot that bigfoot frequently crosses. Why try to time it? Why try to pick up the camera? Why not have a camera running already if the event happens nearly every time?

In fact, most digital still cameras can also be set to record quite a bit of 640X480 video with a large enough memory card. My cheapest camera can do this.

Your experiment seems odd to me. This is a regularly occuring event at a set area, which is very easy to catch on a camera, and is nothing like a typical bigfoot encounter.

In many bigfoot encounters, bigfoot doesn't run away at all. It either stays there and observes, or is unaware it is being watched, or it moseys away slowly, allowing anyone plenty of time to photograph it. Many encounters last plenty long enough to get out your camera and fire away.

Can this rabbit avoid a game cam?
 
kitakaze said:
The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.
Click to expand...



Of course, there's always the possiblity that BF's reproduce asexually and use a mammalian form of photosynthesis to minimize the need of feeding. I'm surprised the esteemed Dr. Fahrenbach hasn't thought of this.
 
LAL said:
If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.
Click to expand...

If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
...snip...They saw eyes and watched it watch them for about ten minutes. Scott said it didn't blink. Then the pupils apparently dilated and he saw a red glow. He remembered reports about red, glowing eyes. ...snip...
Click to expand...

LAL, bigfeet with cat-like eyes are more plausible than bigfeet with glowing eyes, be the glow red or green. Note that the report is not about the criter's eyes reflecting light.

I see no reason to take such reports seriously.
 
kitakaze said:
If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?
Click to expand...
Here's National Geographic Magazine's Editor in Chief's picks for 2008, with links to the photographer's story behind the shot.

Knock yourself out Lu
 
I live in the foothills of the southern Appalachians, in an area that is not very wild at all--not quite suburban, but far from "open country." I regularly walk for exercise along a five-mile cleared path through woods (it crosses two highways in that distance) and don't carry a camera, but I do have a cell phone with camera. Over the years I've taken unambiguous photos of a whole bunch of wildlife: beavers, deer, a fox, rabbits, four or five snakes, a coyote, and what I thought was a humongous hawk--it turned out to be a Golden Eagle, one of several that were imported and released in the area some years back. One of the college biologists had no trouble at all in identifying it. And, oh, yes, a young bear once broke out of the underbrush in front of me and stopped to peer at me before crossing the trail and running away, and I got a good enough photo of it so that people had no trouble recognizing it.
 
Spektator said:
And, oh, yes, a young bear once broke out of the underbrush in front of me and stopped to peer at me before crossing the trail and running away, and I got a good enough photo of it so that people had no trouble recognizing it.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that Nobody, noone, saw your photo of the bear, and concluded it was a Giant Hairy, Unclassified Biped with a Jacked-up Flight Response?
 
Drewbot said:
Do you mean to say that Nobody, noone, saw your photo of the bear, and concluded it was a Giant Hairy, Unclassified Biped with a Jacked-up Flight Response?
Click to expand...
Nope not a one. I had lots of "My God, weren't you scared?" questions, but the bear wasn't very big--not a cub but not grown--and I wasn't all that close. By good luck I took the photo as he was turning his head and caught it in profile, otherwise it might have looked like an overweight dog. I wish I'd saved those--I didn't have any way to download them or print them, so I'd just show them around on my phone in the faculty dining room, then erase them.
 
RayG said:
How can you be certain it wasn't a giant hedgehog?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/23249de6b102db7d.jpg[/qimg]

RayG
Click to expand...

[montypython]Dimsdale? Dimsdale??[/montypython]

I find it revealing when a bigfoot proponent will take personal or second-hand anecdotes about the difficulty of photographing wildlife, and extrapolate that to bigfoot reserach -- "I had a hard time getting pics of a bald eagle" or "My friend couldn't get a single pic of a chimpanzee in chimpanzee country" -- while conveniently ignoring the fact that we have millions of photos already on-file in wildlife registries, many of them available for viewing on the Internet and elsewhere, attesting to those species' existence.

Bigfoot? Not so much. A few dozen photos, at most, of some unidentifiable shape in the woods, and/or a video or three of a guy in a suit.

This is a good example of the kind of unconscious self-deception I mentioned in the "incompetent researcher" thread. People such as LAL may not even realize they are deluding themselves, but the illogic of their arguments (and their inability to answer hard questions of the kind kitakaze keeps asking, over and over) exposes their baloney.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom