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

[kitakaze]

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.

I fully understand how my post came across. As I said, I had thought some might share my exasperation. If thefirstbillyjack was the one who posted the video, I might not have made the facepalm comments and reworded the search-and-flee comment. I understand that you want to ensure your board is insults and bashing. I don't necessarily think that my comments are so offensive or going to be detrimental to Bigfoot researchers but that is just my opinion. I really would hope that Bigfoot searchers such as yourself would take the same stance in addressing such silliness as me but I understand you have a different philosophy based on your experiences. Mikeyx is an admin at your board and I note that he often very readily points out ridiculous behaviour by some of the weirder elements of Bigfootery. Obviously you must have some appreciation for sentiments like mine.

A note about the last sentence I bolded there. It is my opinion that you are sometimes overly defensive when addressing me. I have never said or implied you are stupid. You may be tempted to operate from the belief that it is my sole purpose to make anyone who even remotely considers the existence of Bigfoot look like utter buffoons. Please understand this is not the case. I think my discussions with Vortigern99 here are a good example of the support and good rapport I can have with people that have argued for Bigfoot's existence. This is my natural reaction towards people who demonstrate intellectual honesty and a desire to put a pursuit of the truth ahead of fondness for what is a very cool concept (Bigfoot existing).

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.

OK, I think I understand better now. You may think I interpreted your posts as supporting the idea that maybe the video depicted a baby Bigfoot. Actually, the way I interpreted your post is that you seemed to realize it was a porcupine from the beginning. If you check what I wrote here that will become self-evident.

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.

We both agree that critical thinking needs to be encouraged more. I think it takes very little critical thinking to come to the conclusion that the video shows a porcupine. You stated that the video depicted what looked to you like brow ridges but you also considered it might be only light and shadow. I think the latter would be correct. Personally I haven't been able to make out the brow ridge feature you spoke of. I think it would be helpful detail exactly how I examined this alleged piece of sasquatch evidence.

Within the first ten seconds of watching the videos I observed a few things. I immediately knew I was looking at a known animal. I first thought that the blur was very strange and wondered if it was intentional but realized it was just a result of the camera being zoomed. I wondered at first if I might be looking at a raccoon with its head obscured while sleeping due to the lack of prominent quills. Then, when it moved at 00:53, I realized I was looking at a large, tree dwelling rodent. Furthermore, it didn't seem right to me as it would be strange for a nocturnal raccoon to be sleeping out in the open sun on a branch like that in the middle of the day.

I decided the first thing to do was check out porcupine images in trees on youtube. The first video I found looked exactly like the "baby Bigfoot" video. Then I knew I was definitely looking at a porcupine. After further research I discovered that porcupines were indeed in Banning State Park in Minnesota where the video was shot and that not only do they have the long tails mentioned but also in the winter there fur can grow to obscure the quills. Case closed. Hello porcupine. The fact that anyone might think it was a baby Bigfoot is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying you were giving the idea any serious thought. Personally, if it was my board, I would present the video asking people to discuss why anyone would ever think the easily determined porcupine was a baby Bigfoot. I think we both agree that it was a good opportunity to excercise critical thinking.

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.

I also enjoy posting at your board. I'm sorry if I come off as overly acerbic. I have no intention of making fun of you. I appreciate the apology and the leniency you referred to. Obviously, I deserve no special treatment and will restrain the acerbicness when I return.

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.

Here is a link to the thread where Creekfreak posted the Bigfoot enthusiast report:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1266

And here is wiki's entry on porcupines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcupine

 

[kitakaze]

Melissa reposted her email to me over at SFB and said:

Since you do not read your email Kitakazee, and instead prefer to post your comments on the JREF forum, I will post the email I sent you in regards to this issue.

Sorry about that. I get far too many emails everyday so I have the email alert turned off so as not to distract me when I'm engaged in something. Also, when it comes to any Bigfoot related issues, it is very rare for me to respond or communicate by email if I can get around it.

BTW, I understand you removed the description of the video by thefirstbillyjack as I put a lot of emphasis on him stating he fled from what he thought to be a baby Bigfoot. However, just for clarity, that removal resulted in this misunderstanding by one of your admins, Billy Willard.

Billy writes:

You know, I find it funny how some folks come along and feel that they are adding a skeptical view to something. Why do people think that just because something is posted on a forum that everyone automatically thinks it's Bigfoot? Aren't forums made to discuss things? I like how he said he made fun of a "Bigfoot video". I never saw anyone here call it a Bigfoot! That's called assumption. People "assume" that because something is posted for discussion on a "Bigfoot forum" that everyone MUST believe its Bigfoot. Man...
Heck, I'm my own biggest skeptic!

Billy thinks I am assuming that SFB people consider it Bigfoot. He thinks this because the description by the guy who made the video and attributes it to Bigfoot himself has been removed from my post. Knowing that, one can easily understand how such misinterpretations and miscommunications can happen. Maybe the description by thefirstbillyjack suggesting a baby Bigfoot can be returned to my post or posted again. When I return I will make it clear to Billy Willard that I was in no way assuming everyone automatically thought it was Bigfoot. In fact, I have made repeated mentions that Melissa initially suggested a porcupine, which it is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

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.

Yes, it's "legitimate" to ask the question....since there's no moral or legal offense in it.......but asking that particular question is pointless....since there is simply no way to know what the correct answer to it is.

There are only 2 possible answers to the question...

1) Bigfoot doesn't exist, and...

2) It does exist, and it's damn hard to get undeniable proof of it's existence. (obviously due to it's small population numbers, it's near-human intelligence, and remoteness.)


So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.


The general public is never going to completely "write-off" the probabilities, or chances, of Bigfoot's existence simply because "The Great Kaze" dictates that it's existence is "preposterous".


Put another way.....you're proposing that ALL of the bits of evidence for Bigfoot's existence be 'painted with a broad brush', and considered weightless.....simply because you think Bigfoot's existence is preposterous.


In my opinion, since the various types of evidence can be analysed and weighed separately, on their own merits....I think that's the best way to determine the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence.....analysing the evidence 'bit by bit', one step at a time.

 

[Vortigern99]

The Easterville video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQ4txNehzE -- is so obviously a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie standing in front of some bushes that even the youtube crowd, which is full of BF proponents and patently credulous persons, is rejecting it as a possible BF video.

That LAL has offered this as an example of "unambiguous video" is a testament to either her zoological incompetence, her unconscious self-delusion or her willful deceit. Take your pick.

 

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze, thank you for posting the links, videos and messages from what can only be called Porcupinegate. For the record, I like your acerbic wit and I hope you continue to employ it here without censoring yourself.

One of the things I've come to appreciate about the JREF forums is that we're allowed to speak our minds about the topic at hand. If our minds happen to think another member is full of baloney, we can state as much without having to tiptoe around.

Politeness and respect are earned. If someone is so credulous as to believe a common everyday NA mammal is a "baby bigfoot" (maybe their tails drop off when they reach puberty??), they deserve to be ridiculed within an inch of their life, IMHO.

 

[Vortigern99]

Baby Bigfoot? "thefirstbillyjack" says "You bet!"

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, it's "legitimate" to ask the question....since there's no moral or legal offense in it.......but asking that particular question is pointless....since there is simply no way to know what the correct answer to it is.

Simple question - Is it pointless to discuss why it is so damn hard to get undeniable proof of Bigfoot? Yes or no.

There are only 2 possible answers to the question...

1) Bigfoot doesn't exist, and...

2) It does exist, and it's damn hard to get undeniable proof of it's existence. (obviously due to it's small population numbers, it's near-human intelligence, and remoteness.)

You're making three assumptions, two of which are not consistent with Bigfoot as reported. An animal that is encountered hundreds of times all across the US, Canada, and Mexico every year is not going to have a population number small enough to be a factor in not producing reliable evidence. Kermode bears are very rare, elusive, and remote yet there is unambiguous images of them:



But I guess because most wildlife shots are staged, these likely are also.

Remoteness obviously is a fallacy also. Joyce allegedly saw her Bigfoot at the corner of Rt 203 and State Farm Rd in Valatie, New York. Driveroperator has them coming into the back of his truck in the parking lot of Chickasaw campgrounds right by town in Honobia, Oklahoma. These are not animal that stick to very hard to access, remote areas such as those lovely, white bears I've just shown you.

Now, intelligence, that's a hard one. Intelligence does not prevent other great apes from being discovered. But you've decided to give Bigfoot near-human intelligence. I can't argue with that with all the reports of Bigfoot talking. Just ask the boys at MABRC.

So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.

What a very interesting point you raise there, Sweaty. You know, I can't help but notice some glaring cognitive dissonance happening there. That inspires me to ask you another simple question using a bit of cut and paste with your above sentence. (BTW, thank you for answering the last one).

Simple question - Logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question of the PGF is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'. Is this true? Yes or no.

Please keep in mind, as you know full well, scribbles on improperly scaled images of Bob Heironimus and Patty are not any kind of proof. First of all, you have to deal with the truly direct Poser 7 skeletal overlay and prove that mangler did in fact hoax us as you imply. You have failed so far to achieve this goal you clearly make an effort to achieve as a Patty believer.

The general public is never going to completely "write-off" the probabilities, or chances, of Bigfoot's existence simply because "The Great Kaze" dictates that it's existence is "preposterous".

You're quite right. The general public thinks Bigfoot is preposterous without any help from me.

Put another way.....you're proposing that ALL of the bits of evidence for Bigfoot's existence be 'painted with a broad brush', and considered weightless.....simply because you think Bigfoot's existence is preposterous.

In my opinion, since the various types of evidence can be analysed and weighed separately, on their own merits....I think that's the best way to determine the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence.....analysing the evidence 'bit by bit', one step at a time.

Well, I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased. You operate under the behaviour that many cups of weak coffee can combine to make strong. They can not.

PGF - weak coffee.

MDF - weak coffee.

Freeman footage - weak coffee.

Joyce - weak coffee.

You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn;t very poor.

 

[xblade]

xblade wrote:



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

Here's the beauty of that: you don't have to know. It doesn't make bigfoot any more real either way.

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".

Some people say they've seen Elvis. I guess we're having a Mexican stand-off there too.

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

Perhaps you can win this "battle" by producing a bigfoot.....or a mermaid, or a unicorn, or a fire breathing dragon, or Elvis.

Sadly, the battle is only in your mind, and it's not skeptics you're battling with, it's reality.

 

[xblade]

So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.

Well alrighty then....until we have hard proof either way, it's still up in the air whether or not bigfoot, mermaids, fire breathing dragons, ghosts, unicorns, fairies, etc truly exist. Until someone provides hard proof either way, there actually MAY be a monster hiding under the bed or in the closet. Not finding them isn't proof...they may be invisible..or out on a date. Anything is possible in footerland....except what actually is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Well, I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased.

You operate under the behaviour that many cups of weak coffee can combine to make strong. They can not.

PGF - weak coffee.


MDF - weak coffee.


Freeman footage - weak coffee.


Joyce - weak coffee.


You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn;t very poor.

EXACTLY as I had stated earlier......"The Great Kaze" has made his judgement against the Footer:


"I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased."



and.....right on schedule...."The Great Kaze" has indeed sounded......

the dreaded 'nasty buzzer'....

"PGF - weak coffee."


"MDF - weak coffee."


"Freeman footage - weak coffee."


"Joyce - weak coffee."



And, for good measure.......a parting judgement......


"You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn't very poor."




But........oh Great and Powerful Kaaz....I didn't say anything about these pieces of evidence, in my post.
I only gave my opinion concerning whether we can truly know what the true answer to your most excellent question....truly is.

"It doesn't matter.....lowly Footer....the Great and Powerful Kaaz has a 'nasty buzzer' in his hand.....and dang, I'm gonna use it!!!


NOW GO!!

 

[kitakaze]

That's a very expressive post, Sweaty. I like it and I know it took you some time. Very tellingly it ignores the entire post except for a very small part at the end including two simple questions and some counter arguments completely important to the discussion we're having.

Typical Sweaty believer dodging cornerhuddlers.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

 

[WGBH]

Kitakaze,

This is J.C. I just wanted to let you know I hope you will return and continue
the discussion on the search for bigfoot forum. You are more then welcome.

 

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze,

This is J.C. I just wanted to let you know I hope you will return and continue
the discussion on the search for bigfoot forum. You are more then welcome.

Hi, John! Thank you very much. I appreciate your delurking here to say that. I look forward to returning to the discussions and also giving your encounter story as best an examination as I can and without the unnecessary incivility you've received from some other Bigfoot proponents.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, John, I noticed the porcupine video thread at SFB has disappeared into the ether again. Did the conversation go south after my timeout? I noticed over at the BFF lots of people seem resistent to accepting the video as a porcupine:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25943

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I say Bigfoot ... The camera refused to focus on the subject ..

 

[WGBH]

BTW, John, I noticed the porcupine video thread at SFB has disappeared into the ether again. Did the conversation go south after my timeout? I noticed over at the BFF lots of people seem resistent to accepting the video as a porcupine:

I have no idea what happened to it, the thread did not interest me. I was not paying attention to it. No, it's definitely a porcupine from what I glanced at.

 

[WGBH]

Hi, John! Thank you very much. I appreciate your delurking here to say that. I look forward to returning to the discussions and also giving your encounter story as best an examination as I can and without the unnecessary incivility you've received from some other Bigfoot proponents.

Sure, I will answer your questions. Just remember that there are other possible witnesses who may be watching. I don't care if you are rough on me, I will answer you. I do worry about the others though. So try not to scare them away.

 

[kitakaze]

I have no idea what happened to it, the thread did not interest me. I was not paying attention to it. No, it's definitely a porcupine from what I glanced at.

As far as I can tell, Melissa removed it for whatever reason. Last I saw, HarryH was arguing in favour of my criticism of the way thefreebillyjack presented his porcupine video. Maybe he took the same tone of exasperation as I did further and Melissa decided to blast the thread into outer space.

 

[kitakaze]

Sure, I will answer your questions. Just remember that there are other possible witnesses who may be watching. I don't care if you are rough on me, I will answer you. I do worry about the others though. So try not to scare them away.

I won't be rough. I'll be frank and respectful. Most of all, as it is a Bigfooter's forum with possible witnesses, I will be mindful of that and ask exactly the types of questions they can expect to be asked by a person who doesn't believe in Bigfoot, has a lot of knowledge on the subject, and won't assume they are crazy. I think it will hopefully be a good example of how these things are ideally discussed.

 

[Correa Neto]

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

But the interpretation you are presenting is not compatible with what was described.

A glow, not a reflection, was described. Not to mention that red-eye reflection happen at a very specific set of light incidence.

Still no reason to take seriously that account. Bigfeet with glowing eyes are less plausible than bigfeet with cat-like eyes.