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

[LAL]

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.

Just where did I offer it as unambiguous? It's a video taken with a camera phone of a purported bigfoot - the only one I know of.

(My exact words: "I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?")

I did a step-though on it and the figure doesn't seem to be wearing pants. It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz.

I've shown in captures the "jeans" is actually an artifact. Morgoth on BFF did too.

I see I got four thumbs down on my comment on YouTube. That must be a record for me. I PMd the poster and his nephew right after that inviting them to join in a discussion on MABRC but never got answers. They were getting a licking on YouTube worthy of the JREF and I felt sorry for them. I was hoping my comment would encourage them to join in.

Some people rejected it just because it was on YouTube but someone from the First Nations in Canada might not have known what kind of reputation YouTube had a the time. He posted it on another site too - it seemed to be a little clearer there.

Since these animals can't possibly exist any film or video must be of guys in suits or hoodies or, in the case of Easterville, a bear coat. See how that works?

 

[WGBH]

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.

Not sure, HarryH and Mel get along fine, so I doubt it was anything major.Harry is a skeptic but he's a heck of a nice guy.

 

[Drewbot]

Last week or two weeks ago, someone here at JREF offered to Cover the $60 for Bigfoot DNA tests. I have promised this link to BulletMaker, and am wondering if anyone remembers where that post is, if so, please give me the information.

 

[RayG]

Just where did I offer it as unambiguous? It's a video taken with a camera phone of a purported bigfoot - the only one I know of.

(My exact words: "I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?")

Maybe 'cause it's in a thread with "Why no unambiguous photos/videos?" in the thread title.

RayG

 

[LAL]

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.

Apology accepted. I guess if you guys have to keep talking to me and about me when I'm gone I have to come back from time to time to see what you've said.

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.

I did that single-handedly here for about nine months. There was one of me and at least six of them - sometimes on six different threads. I once spent four hours on a reply to Correa and lost the dang post. It was about that time I decided I needed another hobby.

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?

No problem there. A typical sighting in daytime (according to Glickman) is by a hunter who's just discharged a weapon. I've never met a hunter who was armed with a camera. A typical nighttime sighting is from a vehicle, often with several passengers, where the animal crosses in front of or behind a vehicle. Even with a camera on board there's insufficient time and light for a good shot.

One method for getting good shots used by a wildlife photographer (according to Rick Noll) is to position three cameras - they fire from different angles. They cost $1200 each so that's a deterrent for amateur "researchers". Given sufficient time and funding something like that might work if a sasquatch happened to walk within range of the three cameras.

Along with good equipment, good luck helps. A cyber friend's game cam just failed to catch what may have been a grizzly at a cache. Evidently it was aimed too high.

If sasquatches had well-established feeding areas and migration routes the task would be a lot easier.

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?

Rarity and an avoidance of humans. Dying animals tend to hole up. In an area like the PNW, there are innumerable places for concealment. Early species of Homo evidently concealed their dead, probably because the corpses draw predators. Possibly there's behavior like that, but I don't think it would be necessary. The scavenger system takes care of dead animals in short order.

There are a lot of sightings, many quite credible, a few pictures and videos and many photos and casts of footprints. Jeff Meldrum has about 200 casts in his collection.

Peter Byrne thought these animals can cover 25 miles in a night. With a huge range they could do quite a bit of foraging without leaving much sign. I've seen several areas that were clearly inhabited by deer from the tracks but there was no damage to vegetation that I could see.

We're omnivores and not all of us have enormous guts even if we eat a lot of vegetables. A hominid primate wouldn't necessarily have a lot in common with gorillas and bears.

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?

Because they're not there? (I'm referring to the people.) Rangers I've known seldom got out of the car. When I lived in Skamania County the tourists were on the other side of the river or in town. Hunting seasons were over by the end of October or early November, as I recall. Rockworks shut down for the winter. Birdwatchers stayed near Blue Lake. The only biologists I met were calling Spotted Owls from the road. They weren't there long.

Even mature second growth forest is so dense you could walk within 15' of a living BF and never see it. A dead one would probably have to be located by stench.

There is an abundance of winter food in the PNW. Club moss grows on everything. It is very nutritious if a little coarse. There are fish in the rivers and lakes, hibernating ground squirrels and pikas, amphibians and the inner bark of hardwoods. There are a number of evergreen plants, not all coniferous. Much of the PNW is very mild in the winter. I survived quite well in sweaters as long as I stayed out of the Rocky Mountain Wind along the river.

I don't think the calorie requirement would have to be that high and with protein in the diet it's not that hard to meet.

Deer and elk usually do quite well in winter. They don't hibernate.

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.

That was a bit longer than fifteen minutes, but there you go. We've been over these points many, many times in the past so what may be fresh ground for you is old hat for me and I'm borderline bored with it. No avoidance intended.

I haven't seen a skeptical argument yet that hasn't been countered - nor a skeptic that seems to be aware of that.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I haven't seen a skeptical argument yet that hasn't been countered - nor a skeptic that seems to be aware of that.

You havent looked very hard then.

I havent seen one footer claim that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

As far as Meldrum,Fahrenbach, Krantz and Bindernagle- they have been effectively shown to be ( at best) fraught with error and inconsistency regarding their ability- who else is left and I'll finish them off too.

 

[LAL]

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.

It hasn't yet. It heads straight down and into the brush.

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?

I never said that.

It's difficult. How difficult doesn't seem to occur to people who apparently have never been in deep forest. Due to distance and lighting the best I could have hoped for on my avian quarry would have been a birdblob.

I've convinced myself I'm not agile enough to stop the car and grab a camera in time to get a good shot of anything crossing the road ahead of me. Experiment over.

Maybe I should read Krantz?

It wouldn't hurt. You could see how many errors you can find.

Or is it Meldrum today?

It's Murphy. I got the Bigfoot Film Journal. He covers a lot of those "stumper" arguments I've seen here on PGF threads.

Maybe he was lurking.

 

[LAL]

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.)

The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.

Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh....................

 

[kitakaze]

The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.

Lu, come now. This is no type of realistic assessment of the situation. The PGF is unambiguous to Bigfoot enthusiasts. Their first viewing of the film is almost always in a footer presentation.

The simple fact is that for the overwhelming majority of people, the PGF is a goofy pop culture icon of a guy an a monkey suit. Patty fans are a very rare breed.

Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh....................

This is a realistic assessment of the situation.

 

[LAL]

You havent looked very hard then.

I havent seen one footer claim that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

As far as Meldrum,Fahrenbach, Krantz and Bindernagle- they have been effectively shown to be ( at best) fraught with error and inconsistency regarding their ability- who else is left and I'll finish them off too.

Okay. How about Dennett, Daegling and Long?

 

[LAL]

Lu, come now. This is no type of realistic assessment of the situation. The PGF is unambiguous to Bigfoot enthusiasts. Their first viewing of the film is almost always in a footer presentation.

Yeah, it kind of didn't make the 6 o'clock news - in L.A., anyway.

You have new evidence that a Wah Chang mask was actually used?

The simple fact is that for the overwhelming majority of people, the PGF is a goofy pop culture icon of a guy an a monkey suit. Patty fans are a very rare breed.

Is that the overwhelming majority of people in Japan?

I haven't done any actual polls, but in my experience most people have never heard of it or have only heard some guy confessed on his deathbed.

This is a realistic assessment of the situation.

Yep. Kind of a double standard, isn't it?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Okay. How about Dennett, Daegling and Long?

Some of them have problems as well

I make a good portion of my career refuting other experts.

I dont play favorites with footers or skeptics and I dont take prisoners.

Just the facts- thats all I deal with

The problem is that those listed above have the high ground, air superiority, naval superiority and a larger more heavily armed force than the footer side.

Its like a bass boat attacking an aircraft carrier- its possible but not a fight I would bet on.

 

[LAL]

Some of them have problems as well

I make a good portion of my career refuting other experts.

I dont play favorites with footers or skeptics and I dont take prisoners.

Just the facts- thats all I deal with

The problem is that those listed above have the high ground, air superiority, naval superiority and a larger more heavily armed force than the footer side.

Its like a bass boat attacking an aircraft carrier- its possible but not a fight I would bet on.

You could start with Daegling taking Cliff Crook's word on the Skookum Cast even though neither had seen it. Or how about his error on German Army chest measurements?

Greg Long on the various suits? Dennett on the "Left, left" comment?

Shouldn't be hard, unless you're so committed to the skeptics' side you can't take a look at skeptical arguments with any degree of skepticism.

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah, it kind of didn't make the 6 o'clock news - in L.A., anyway.

You have new evidence that a Wah Chang mask was actually used?

This thing?:



No new evidence whatsoever. Dfoot's and others arguments that this was the mask used is not at all reliable evidence. You know, of course, that this is not a problem. I don't have any expectations realistically of ever getting a good look at the suit used in the PGF. Any moron should be able to understand the point of destroying or hiding the proof of your hoax. Indeed, all I have to do is show that a human, any human, is more likely than a real Bigfoot. I and other skeptics have done that a thousand times over.

Here is proof that Patty's proportions are not only completely human but in fact match the only person ever to claim to be her:



I very much welcome you to disprove that. Sweaty and log have tried to imply mangler hoaxed us with different skeletons as failed.

Is that the overwhelming majority of people in Japan?

Every single non-Bigfoot enthusiast person I have ever discussed the PGF in person in Japan, Canada, and the United States, as well as people from countries all over the world on the internet either thought the PGF was a fake or had never heard of it. Such people when shown the PGF have unfailingly said it is a man in a suit.

I haven't done any actual polls, but in my experience most people have never heard of it or have only heard some guy confessed on his deathbed.

And I bet every single person you discussed the PGF who had seen it and was not a footer needed your proponent speech to even begin to take it seriously.

Yep. Kind of a double standard, isn't it?

Actually, not at all. I know and readily admit when specific arguments of mine are conjectural or speculative. You said...

"Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh.................... "

Yeah, that's absolutely right. You can't use stories, subjective experiences, and the wishful thinking of Bigfoot enthusiasts in place of reliable evidence. It's a matter of science and there's no double standard at all. Either you have the reliable evidence of a massive upright ape wandering about all over North America or you don't. If Bigfoot enthusiasts don't have this, they should stop wasting their time trying to push garbage old films and silly videos on rational thinking people and do whatever they can to support the efforts to actually produce reliable evidence.

Everything so far has failed. The PGF and all of its mini-me's will never be accepted as reliable evidence of Bigfoot until a creature matching those images is found. When you see all the animals with unambiguous images in this thread you can understand, there is absolutely no good reason we've heard yet as to why a massive upright primate hasn't yet appeared in a unambiguous photo or video. Every other large North American mammal does from people to Florida panthers. Why not Bigfoot?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

 

[LAL]

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

I don't think that would work for reasons already stated. I'm quite certain someone would suspect it of being a hoax.

Okay, I'll bite. Why would eyes with slits be likely at all?

(Krantz rejected reports of glowing eyes out of hand, BTW. The red in red-eye is the color of blood vessels.)

 

[kitakaze]

I did a step-though on it and the figure doesn't seem to be wearing pants. It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz.

I've shown in captures the "jeans" is actually an artifact. Morgoth on BFF did too.

Ack! Ack! Creduloid behaviour... hurting the brain... further making footers look ridiculous...

Why, oh why, oh why do you fall for this silliness, Lu? What is the process where normally intelligent people go ga-ga over Bigfoot?

OK, turn your sound off on your computer and watch this video again:

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

At 00:01, 00:10, and 00:28 you can see the guy's jeans. Your step-through apparently decided to step over that. The jeans are an artifact? A blue artifact that is right where pants should be every time the camera goes low enough to see?? Facepalm. Facepalm big. Let's see the evidence showing these jeans an artifact. As Sweaty would say, oh, how very lucky. The thing that looks just like jeans where jeans would be is an artifact. He's wearing a hooded jacket. You can see that with little effort.

You said, "It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz." Come ooooon, seriously. Acerbic exasperation. That is the name of the reaction that inspires. Foraging? The guy is in all likelihood taking a leak and his buddies are joking around recording him with their cell phone. They look at it after and say, "hahaha Dude! You look like a Bigfoot!" Ding! Hey, let's upload it to youtube and call it that.

Then along comes the credulous:

I believe you. The similarity to the animal in the PGF is striking.

Don't let the turkeys get you down.

We "bleevers" are used to ridicule, but there's a lot of evidence for an unidentified North American hominid primate species living in the PNW and Easterville has a history of sightings

You know what is bizarre behaviour? Bizarre behaviour is a bigass elusive ape that has never been captured just standing there and enjoying the bushes while a person is speaking loudly at it. Did you ever wonder why there is such hideous noise on that video? Did you notice that the effect is to make you turn your sound off and interfering with any attempt to listen to what they're saying?

I see I got four thumbs down on my comment on YouTube. That must be a record for me. I PMd the poster and his nephew right after that inviting them to join in a discussion on MABRC but never got answers. They were getting a licking on YouTube worthy of the JREF and I felt sorry for them. I was hoping my comment would encourage them to join in.

Yes, they never answered the Bigfoot enthusiast who contacted them and said she believed them and invited them to discuss their video. OMG, Lu, they were probably laughing their asses of at you. You can work that out, right?

Some people rejected it just because it was on YouTube but someone from the First Nations in Canada might not have known what kind of reputation YouTube had a the time. He posted it on another site too - it seemed to be a little clearer there.

Yeah, maybe these Canadian First Nations guys didn't know about youtube.

Yeah, or maybe these guys have cell phones with cameras, use computers as much as any other person, and have an account at youtube where they load up family videos, etc, just like every other person. Facepalm. Facepalm big.

His handle is cooldude311 and here is his dad's birthday party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zWJ-wPNCeA

And here is his bear sighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJZZwh8nh9g

You can't make out a bear but he does turn the camera around to show his face. BTW, did you note that this video was made 3 years after the crappy Manitoba video that made a lot of money for another Canadian native guy?

Since these animals can't possibly exist any film or video must be of guys in suits or hoodies or, in the case of Easterville, a bear coat. See how that works?

That is a straw man. Nobody is saying can't possibly exist. Why is it you guys always feel the need to do that? Why do you constantly invent phantom positions for skeptics? Obviously you can't deal with the real arguments. It is called a guy in a hoody because we see his jeans three times, as well as his hoody, and the guy recording is talking to him. Pretty simple.

Really, Lu, you are a smart person when it comes to other things but when it comes to Bigfoot, you are waaaaay to credulous. It's like the subject makes you abandon your wits temporarily. I'm not trying to insult you but it's pretty obvious to me.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

Very, very correct. I forgot to put that at the end of my post and I had it in mind. Footers can complain all they want, good imagery of Bigfoot of any kind, even that suspected of being a hoax, would be a huuuge advance. They don't even have that so let them cross that bridge when they come to it.

Here's a question. What is the best alleged Bigfoot video ever, regardless of ambiguity or suspicion of being a hoax or even being a proven hoax?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

You could start with Daegling taking Cliff Crook's word on the Skookum Cast even though neither had seen it. Or how about his error on German Army chest measurements?

Greg Long on the various suits? Dennett on the "Left, left" comment?

Shouldn't be hard, unless you're so committed to the skeptics' side you can't take a look at skeptical arguments with any degree of skepticism.

Actually Lu, I'm a BELIEVER and not a skeptic ( ask anyone here or at the BFF or BFD) I have never bent from that perspective and unless evidence surfaces to factually refute my premise, I wont.

I base my "belief" on personal experience ( which I can neither qualify or quantify for the masses so I dont try)

However, I base my science,logic, reason and conclusions on cold hard reality.

I am uncompromising on legitimate science, testing,validation, facts, data and reality. I have no preconceptions nor do I give a damn which way the pendulum of proof swings.

BF is factually true or false and I dont care which.

I also have the PhD, experience and CV to make my words stick.

I have already factually refuted the "fatal 4" of BF dom and if you want a repeat, I'll do it here.

If you want me to examine the so called "skeptics"- I'll do that too and if they are wrong, I'll have no hesitation whatsoever in taking them to the mat too. Its what I do.

So, if you believe you or anyone you think you know has a legitimate point, let me know and I'll either confirm it as legitimate, confirm it as unable to be discerned for whatever reason or destroy it. I will give you the facts,data and reality check to back it up and it will be bulletproof.

This aint rocket science.

There you go girl, I wrote you a blank check- now cash it

 

[LAL]

This thing?:

No new evidence whatsoever. Dfoot's and others arguments that this was the mask used is not at all reliable evidence. You know, of course, that this is not a problem. I don't have any expectations realistically of ever getting a good look at the suit used in the PGF. Any moron should be able to understand the point of destroying or hiding the proof of your hoax. Indeed, all I have to do is show that a human, any human, is more likely than a real Bigfoot. I and other skeptics have done that a thousand times over.

I seem to remember you were quite adamant about the Wah Chang mask at one point.

Here is proof that Patty's proportions are not only completely human but in fact match the only person ever to claim to be her:

I very much welcome you to disprove that. Sweaty and log have tried to imply mangler hoaxed us with different skeletons as failed.

I don't buy the skeleton any more than you guys bought Steindorf's done with reverse kinematics. It's certainly not broad enough. I guess "innacurate" is okay for IM ratios if they fit within human range.

Every single non-Bigfoot enthusiast person I have ever discussed the PGF in person in Japan, Canada, and the United States, as well as people from countries all over the world on the internet either thought the PGF was a fake or had never heard of it. Such people when shown the PGF have unfailingly said it is a man in a suit.

Appeal to majority? The Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think it's a man in a suit then? How many of these people were aware of the proportions?

As an astute poster once remarked any hairy upright hominoid would look like a man in a suit to us.

I actually don't go around discussing this much. My boss remarked the other day that the "original' film certainly looked real. Maybe he caught something on TV. I didn't ask.

And I bet every single person you discussed the PGF who had seen it and was not a footer needed your proponent speech to even begin to take it seriously.

See above. I did lend LMS to a couple of people.

Actually, not at all. I know and readily admit when specific arguments of mine are conjectural or speculative. You said...

"Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh.................... "

Yeah, that's absolutely right. You can't use stories, subjective experiences, and the wishful thinking of Bigfoot enthusiasts in place of reliable evidence. It's a matter of science and there's no double standard at all. Either you have the reliable evidence of a massive upright ape wandering about all over North America or you don't. If Bigfoot enthusiasts don't have this, they should stop wasting their time trying to push garbage old films and silly videos on rational thinking people and do whatever they can to support the efforts to actually produce reliable evidence.

I'm contributing by quietly hoping for death by Mack truck.

I got in trouble on MABRC by saying science has very strict standards and bigfootery hasn't come up with anything good enough yet, remember? I dasted to mention peer review in the same topic with Ed Smith and the rest is history.

The double standard seems to be that we aren't really allowed to say anything while you're free to use terms like "garbage" and "silly". I wasn't aware those are scientific terms.

Everything so far has failed. The PGF and all of its mini-me's will never be accepted as reliable evidence of Bigfoot until a creature matching those images is found. When you see all the animals with unambiguous images in this thread you can understand, there is absolutely no good reason we've heard yet as to why a massive upright primate hasn't yet appeared in a unambiguous photo or video. Every other large North American mammal does from people to Florida panthers. Why not Bigfoot?

What would you consider unambiguous? A sasquatch that doesn't look like a sasquatch, perhaps? It's unfortunate Patty didn't pose and Roger didn't get good, clear shots, but that's the best so far. Your conviction it was a hoax doesn't make it one. I could name quite a few people who've really studied it who found it convincing, but so could you.

If a dead female is found and she's thinner than Patty what would that mean?

A couple of thousand Orangutans were just "discovered". Not as impressive as the 150,000 Lowland Gorillas, maybe, but large animals can and do escape detection.

I suppose it would be an appeal to authority to mention Daris Swindler, Jane Goodall and Russ Mittermeier? I sort of thought they were rational people.

It may be possible to get good footage, but a shot to the temple and no others around to rend you limb from limb would be better.

Do you honestly think Northern California is covered in trail cams? <refrains from using the word "silly">