• 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?

Actually, Vort, I believe most authorities agree that Spiny Norman was searching for Dinsdale. Don't know if he got any photos, though.
 
Correa Neto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.
 
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...

I did not say NatGeo. I said NatGeo quality. To my knowledge this photographer has no connection to bigfootery:

"there are no images of captive animals (other than of my dog!) on this website.

NONE of the wild animals or birds you'll see in my galleries are "rental" animals. A great many "wildlife" photographers make a career out of shooting tame critters at impoundments that cater to these photographers. Some of these places will even haul animals hundreds of miles and set up staged shots.

Wildlife photography, in my opinion, besides producing beautiful images, serves vital purposes. It portrays animals in their natural setting performing natural behaviors, which educates the public. And by extension, showing these creatures in the places they live doing the things they naturally do, real wildlife photography encourages conservation of the habitats in which they thrive.

There is no guarantee that rental animals are behaving in a natural manner, even when placed in a natural setting. While a stunning photo of a rent-a-wolf or some other animal may encourage the viewer to support conservation, there is also the risk that by making these photos so common (there are literally tens of thousands of images out there of wolves, mountain lions, and other animals whose habitat has shrunk) people may assume that because the images are numerous, the animals and their habitats are numerous and secure. Nothing is further from the truth.

If you are about to purchase a photo for your wall, or for your magazine, you owe it to yourself to find out if the animal was captive and the scene staged. I believe the portrayal of captive animals as wild animals is no different than passing off a work of fiction as non-fiction."

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/photos.htm

The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?

Greg, I'm not a member of MABRC and I don't read their board. I'm a member of several groups that have nothing to do with bigfoot. The one I referred to is sending me half a dozen e-mails a day and the site is almost nothing but documents. I doubt you've even heard of it. The list is by nomination and invitation only.

I just got over a dozen e-mails from a group I was approved for yesterday. The kind of ridicule that goes on here is not permitted there. The posts are informative and to the point.

Vortigern, you don't know me. I have over 3,000 posts on this board and many of them are about hard questions.

When I caught myself about to do a capture of Dr. Bunnell's report (he's a biologist - the California Academy of Sciences is one of the 10 largest natural history museums in the world, Wikipedia, citation needed) for Drew and contemplated uploading a section of the DVD (which has some glaring errors, BTW) to YouTube I realized I was getting too involved in this again. I have other interests and I prefer to spend time pursuing them. My habit of getting online and getting my morning coffee can continue without the BF boards or anything related to them.

I didn't have the camcorder when I was doing the driveway experiment. Given the condition of my driveway (not unlike a Forest Service road) any images produced by leaving it running on the dash would most likely be blurry, bouncy sequences of the windshield wipers. The point of the experiment was to see how easy it would be to get a shot of something popping out of the woods in front of me. I got the idea from Rick Noll. He mentioned somewhere that even though he keeps a camera on the dash he wouldn't have time to grab it and get a good shot. I'm rather sure that if I drove along with my arm and camera hanging out the window, my rabbit would chose that day to not run across the driveway.

The incident that got my interest in the first place was on Washington HWY 14 1/2 mile east of Beacon Rock. It occurred at about 3:00 AM. It was investigated by local law enforcement and they found track evidence that backed up the driver's story. I don't see how he could have taken a picture if he did have a camera with him.

I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?
 
Last edited:
LAL,

Wild animals that are running will often run a ways and stop and look back. So, the bunny that runs across the road may stop on the far bank and sit there allowing you to stop and take a photo.

But, since you can't take photos of wildlife then no one can, right?

Since you can't find bones in the woods then no one can, right?

Maybe I should read Krantz?

Or is it Meldrum today?
 
LAL wrote:
The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?
Click to expand...


That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)
 
SweatyYeti said:
LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)
Click to expand...


Who is the burden of proof on?

What is the most likely reason why there are no unambiguous photos of bigfoot?
 
SweatyYeti said:
LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)
Click to expand...

That's an appropriate response only if engaging in suspension of disbelief is one of your favorite things to do. Except for a few on the fringe, "we" know exactly why. It's the same reason we don't have unambiguous photos of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, mermaids, or any other make-believe creature. The only ones who don't know why aren't interested in knowing why, they're only interested in believing.
 
xblade wrote:
"we" know exactly why.
Click to expand...


Yes, xblade....you know Bigfoot doesn't exist....but I don't know that you truly know that.

Some people say they know that Bigfoot exists, because they've seen one....but I don't know that they truly have.


This situation is what as known as a "Mexican stand-off". :)


Perhaps you and the boys can win this battle by out-shouting and out-numbering the "believers".

But, regardless, you should enjoy your own beliefs.
 
LAL, it's true I don't know you. Allow me to apologize if I was brusque or dismissive of you in a previous post. My only point is that kitakaze has asked you many questions that you've chosen to ignore, or at best declined to answer.

I understand you have other facets of your life, other pursuits, interests, loves, hobbies, etc. that will keep you from spending an egregious amount of time here, responding to the impolite jabberings of a bunch of suspicious, cynical hard-noses. But I find it telling that what I consider to be THE most probing and essential questions are the ones you've declined to answer the last few pages, namely:

  • We have unambiguous photos of every species of mammal ever seen or reported in North America,including incredibly rare animals such as the Californian wolverine, except bigfoot. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?
    [*]
  • Gorillas and black bears, which are of comparable mass to the reported bigfoot (500-lbs.+) require about 8-10000 calories a day. Gorillas are mostly sedentary foliovores, with huge guts built to process all that foliage. Black bears are omnivores; this behavior necessitates far roaming that results in frequent human sighting, pictures, videos, dead bodies, etc. Bigfoot, though reportedly omnivorous, has none of these features. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?
  • How do bigfoot obtain 8-10000 calories a day in the winter months, which are lengthy in the Pacific Northwest, and strip the land of nutrition? If bigfoot hibernate or become torpid during these months, how is that biologists, hikers, birdwatchers, park rangers, and the general public never come across a hibernating or torpid bigfoot?

I don't want to overwhelm you, so if you would, if you have fifteen minutes or so, will you please address these questions? They constitute the turning point for me in terms of coming to grips with the illogic of bigfoot's supposed existence.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.
Click to expand...

Here is another simple question for a fanatical believer who is afraid of them. Is it a legitimate line of inquiry to try and discern the reason there are no unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot? Yes or no. We can answer that question in the affirmative because we are not cornerhuddling chicken believers.

The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)
Click to expand...

The question is one that you want dismiss because addressing it highlights the weaknesses of your goofy ideas about Bigfoot. Intellectually honest people don't fear questions like this and indeed take them head on. You just keep on running.
 
Exactly. And for the record, as you can read right here in the pages of this thread, I met the questions about bigfoot head-on, tried to explain/answer/counter/rebut them, and was met instead with the realization that the whole idea is pretty darn absurd after all.

In all frankness I haven't seen anyone else try to answer the most salient and pointed questions about the lack of evidence with any attempt at intellectual honesty and/or scientific plausibility, for the simple reason that if you do, you will be disabused of your fanciful belief system, precisely as I have been.
 
Darth Vortigern is the most intellectually honest person I have ever seen here who posted in initially wrote in support of the PGF. Bar none, hands down. People like Sweaty, can't even begin to comprehend the kind of intellectual growth that represents.
 
LAL said:
When I caught myself about to do a capture of Dr. Bunnell's report (he's a biologist - the California Academy of Sciences is one of the 10 largest natural history museums in the world, Wikipedia, citation needed) for Drew and contemplated uploading a section of the DVD (which has some glaring errors, BTW) to YouTube I realized I was getting too involved in this again. I have other interests and I prefer to spend time pursuing them. My habit of getting online and getting my morning coffee can continue without the BF boards or anything related to them.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Lu. You're no dummy but I interpret this as a smart lady who doesn't want to admit and abandon an irrational belief. It's always in your interest to get rid of poor arguments.

I didn't have the camcorder when I was doing the driveway experiment. Given the condition of my driveway (not unlike a Forest Service road) any images produced by leaving it running on the dash would most likely be blurry, bouncy sequences of the windshield wipers. The point of the experiment was to see how easy it would be to get a shot of something popping out of the woods in front of me. I got the idea from Rick Noll. He mentioned somewhere that even though he keeps a camera on the dash he wouldn't have time to grab it and get a good shot. I'm rather sure that if I drove along with my arm and camera hanging out the window, my rabbit would chose that day to not run across the driveway.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that the experiment isn't very meaningful to the question of why there are no unambiguous images of Bigfoot? We have photos and type specimens of every large mammal in NorthAmerica. Why can't we get that for a large, relatively slow upright ape?

The incident that got my interest in the first place was on Washington HWY 14 1/2 mile east of Beacon Rock. It occurred at about 3:00 AM. It was investigated by local law enforcement and they found track evidence that backed up the driver's story. I don't see how he could have taken a picture if he did have a camera with him.
Click to expand...

I know Bigfoot is an intriguing concept when one is first introduced to it with what seems the promise of good evidence. Would you agree that mundane cause can account for much of what constitutes Bigfoot evidence?

I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?
Click to expand...

Got a link?

In one of my cell phones I have a picture of the most freakish giant bug that landed on my bag on the way to an izakaya. The thing was just huge and crazyass. It wasn't a semi (Japanese for cicada) and I couldn't even place the species.

ETA: About Easterville, nevermind. A cell phone video of a native guy in a black jacket and jeans taking a leak in the bush is about the worst thing you could bring up in a discussion about unambiguous images of Bigfoot. I totally think you know there is no Bigfoot, Lu. I think when you try to visualize Bigfoot truly being caught on camera you're mind starts to recognize how absurd it is.

Here's the video and it is very typical of the garbage that footers waste there time with (kill your sound before playing it. It has the most irritating static noise):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQ4txNehzE

Just as the video starts the camera goes down a bit and shwing! there's the jeans. Facepalm. Facepalm big.
 
Last edited:
Well, I blew it. I just got myself suspended over at Melissa Hovey's searchforbigfoot forum. I joined the board a couple years ago to offer some skeptical view points and discuss research. I haven't posted there until a few days ago. I was enjoying the discussion but I realized my presence was making things a bit tense. I don't argue the suspension. I made fun of a "Bigfoot" video that I found completely ridiculous. It was regarding a video that is almost certainly a porcupine. I commented on it in my usual acerbic manner complete with a Picard facepalm. The video is a perfect example of footers mistaking a known animal for something else and the good ol' search-and-flee element we've been discussing. I just got the two week timeout and the post is still fresh in memory. It's relevant to this discussion so I will repost it here and try to match it as close as I can remember it.

First, here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqKcN3nA3wo

And here's a link to the thread at SFB:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1271&pid=12682&st=0&#entry12682

That is a very silly video entitled Bigfoot Expedition "Found Creature Resembling a Primate". Not so much for the video itself but for the way it is presented. Melissa is right, it very well could be a porcupine. When I first looked at it I got the impression of a sleeping raccoon with it's head hidden. It moves at 00:53. What it's certainly not is Bigfoot.

Check out the description (bolding mine):

Clip#2 On this clip you can see the right hand and the small face looking at me once in a while. You can see its fur blowing in the wind. I turned the camera off so I could move around behind it. That's when it leaped off the branch to another tree and then to another tree. There was a long dark tail and when it jumped. I got scared and took off the other direction. Iv never seen something like this leap from tree to tree. In any case, whatever this is. It make's a great video and a great find. Primate characteristics, this is a mystery and a great find.
Click to expand...

Facepalm. Facepalm big.

16448%20-%20facepalm%20picard%20star_trek.jpg


This is a perfect example of when a Bigfoot enthusiast mistakes a known animal for Bigfoot. And we can see he continued the fine footer tradition of search-and-flee.

Here is a video of a porcupine in a tree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwuRQAvsHs

Looks very similar.

So that's the post as close as I can remember it. I can see what ticked her off about that. I think it was probably the search-and-flee comment that did it. I would say that lightening up is in order and that two weeks is maybe a bit much but hey, it's her sand box and she can do as she likes. I've been trying to make it clear that I'm not looking for an adversarial situation. I actually just stopped into say hi to ol' Creekfreak but got into discussion particularly about the Northern California wolverine find and the animal detection array, Henner Fahrenbach (that didn't go over well), and a few other things. I'll have to remember not to be so me when and if they have me back.

Feel free to stop by if you like, Melissa.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... I just noticed the thread on the "Bigfoot" porcupine video has been entirely removed, positive comments, Melissa's saying it looks like a porcupine, mine, everything. That's very strange. I thought maybe it was just related to my suspension but then I noticed in the General Conversation section the entire four page thread I had entitled "Thinking Hard About Bigfoot" which started with a look at the California wolverine find, had some discussion regarding Henner's views, and had some support from some members.

One thing I was really looking forward to was further discussion with Melissa regarding assisting with some contribution of ideas on her research. She made an issue of never having a skeptic there do such a thing so I made a point of trying to help. There was some information regarding things happening in her state I was trying to get from her but the only reply I got was that she wouldn't tell any specifics about her location. At one point I asked if she might be able to tell me what county though I fully understood the reason not to divulge the exact location. I think when I asked even what quadrant of the state she felt that was too specific.

I hope the reason I can't see those those threads is simply because of my suspension and not because she decided to just go and zap them out of existence. Mikeyx is an admin there so Mike, do you have any idea what's up? Melissa, if/when I come back, I would like to assist your efforts in whatever way I can but as I mentioned it is not just a oneway street. I will need to have some information about the situation you're dealing with if you really want me to help. You were quite clear about your opinion that skeptics weren't offering anything positive so I really wanted to address the issue.

ETA: My mistake. I apologize. The thread was gone but now it is back. It could have been gone for some reason I don't know at all. The porcupine thread, however, is still gone. Maybe it's just that I can't see it as that was the thread in which my post got me suspended.
 
Last edited:
Aaaaaahh, you guys have to check this out. The Bigfoot enthusiast who posted that Bigfoot porcupine video is Ed Runninghorse, a Bigfoot Field Research investigator who calls himself "thefirstbillyjack". He has a homepage at youtube with reams of squatching videos. Check this introduction to his page (bolding mine... oh wait, nevermind. The whole thing is comedy gold):

thefirstbillyjack said:
I just returned from a Bigfoot Expedition to Banning State Park on 04-07-09). Found awesome Stick Structures and formations. While on this expedition I discovered a strange creature near the gorge. I video taped this creature and still find myself in awe. This creature resembled something that should not be in this forest. It looked like a small primate, about the size of a monkey. It had the physical appearance of a small primate. Could this have been a young Bigfoot and maybe the parents were nearby. I was tree knocking before I got to the area of the creature. It was sitting high up in a tree on a branch. It did not move as I approached and video taped it. I was so shaky while video taping. I then set the tripod up and put the video camera on it for stability. It was still sitting there not moving, I could see the face and it seemed cold and motionless. I actually got this on tape. I tried to start another clip from the other side of the tree. As I set the camera up again, it jumped to another tree and kept hoping from tree to tree as it moved away from me and could see some kind of tail that was brownish black. I did not have the camera on while it took off. I did not run after it because I was worrying about being attacked. This was so bizarre to see, I have it on tape. I should start the downloads today, I tried to start the downloads last night but my hard drive needs space and I'm working on that so I can make room on the computer for the video's. This is so awesome, I can't wait until you see this creature. I posted this same info on my page for all to see. I believe I found a primate and there are two explanations. One, its an exotic pet that someone had and it escaped. Or it's a very young Bigfoot that I spooked up into the tree when I was tree knocking earlier. I will send this same info to everyone, either way. I found some kind of primate. ED AKA Billy Jack
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/user/thefirstbillyjack

Bigfoot enthusiasts have to know this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people shake there heads at them in disbelief. The top video featured on his page has him poking about the winter woods and every broken windblown tree he comes a cross is a sasquatch stick structure. It's just so damn silly. Bigfoot proponents really serious about the strive for legitimacy please pay attention. You have more of a legitimate reason to address search-and-flee footers like this than I do.

Here's some funny comments by thefirstbillyjack on that "stick structure" video:

thefirstbillyjack
You could see the rubbing marks on the tree next to it, if it was bent over by a Bigfoot. These would be the marks left behind.

stormpusztay (8 hours ago)
its just spooky at times when its quiet the absence of life its like that in the area I research.

thefirstbillyjack (8 hours ago)
It really is noticeable when that happens
Click to expand...

When you look at where he is, the idea that a huge mammal would be getting 12,000 kcal/day without being identified is just fall-down stupid.
 
I just saw that Melissa has the porcupine video thread back:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1273&pid=12683&st=0&#entry12683

Also my suspension was changed from two weeks to three days. That's not too bad. Seems like Melissa realizes it is in fact a porcupine. I think my sarcastic exasperation with the silliness of certain aspects of Bigfoot can be pretty grating on people like that. It's understandable to be sensitive to criticism when much of your free time is devoted to something most people consider to be a joke.

Melissa, as you know the PM function is down at your board so I'll say it here. I would have thought that other people there would understand the obvious silliness of that video being presented as Bigfoot. I'll keep in mind the way my acerbic observations come across when I return.
 
Right, on closer review of the porcupine thread I realized after writing all that that Melissa sent me an email since the PM's are down. She gave permission in the mail to post it here as she has forgotten her password here. Of course I will post it here to allow Melissa to clarify the issue:

Melissa Hovey to kitakaze said:
I read your comments on the JREF. At the present time the PM functions are not working on the board, or I would have sent you one. .

You said:

"Well, I blew it. I just got myself suspended over at Melissa Hovey's searchforbigfoot forum. I joined the board a couple years ago to offer some skeptical view points and discuss research. I haven't posted there until a few days ago. I was enjoying the discussion but I realized my presence was making things a bit tense. I don't argue the suspension. I made fun of a "Bigfoot" video that I found completely ridiculous. It was regarding a video that is almost certainly a porcupine. I commented on it in my usual acerbic manner complete with a Picard facepalm. The video is a perfect example of footers mistaking a known animal for something else and the good ol' search-and-flee element we've been discussing. I just got the two week timeout and the post is still fresh in memory."

Yes, you did. I understand you have an "online image" to protect. But, I have a forum to think about. People like my forum because issues can be discussed, without the usual insults and bashing that happens. When I posted about that video, it was for multiple reasons. Do I think that is a baby bigfoot? No. It has a tail. It's as clear as day. I am not truly as stupid as you might think.

Some times it does some good to have new researchers look at items posted, to discuss them. I posted the photos with the questions, to spark an educated conversation. Instead, I received you, making fun of the video and creating a general sense of nastyness. So, now you know why I went back in, and posted a link along with more conversation. In the hopes of restarting the conversation.

How do you, as a skeptic, think new researchers learn new methods and learn critical thinking, if questions like these are not posed, and they are not asked to evaluate items? Do you think I woke up one day, and just figured out on my own how to handle investigations? NO, I was taught. If you as a skeptic are tired of critical thinking not being used by researchers, then do not get in the way of those who want to learn, and those who are willing to teach. I am not afraid of being wrong, if it means people learn from the discussion. BUT, no one will get involved and have the discussion, if there are comments like yours being thrown around.

I have asked you over and over, to stop with the insults. I have in fact given you more chances than I have others. You have refused to do so. While I have you on a 2 week suspension, I will drop that to 3 days. I was angry at the time, and I apologize. But, when you are allowed back, I will expect you to abide by the rules of the forum, or do not post. I do enjoy our discussions, and I do appreciate your point of view on issues, but I must ask that you abide by the very easy rules created. Everyone else does, I can not make an exception for you, just because you are a skeptic.

By the way, I found nothing wrong with your critique of the report posted by Creekfreak. So, that answers the question you left on that thread.

Your account will be re-instated on Monday.

You may post this if you want on the JREF. I planned to post it anyway, but I couldnt remember my password.

Melissa M. Hovey
Searchforbigfoot.org
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom