• 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?

Correa Neto said:
Note that the report you mentioned contained a description of glowing red eyes. Following Krantz's criteria...
Click to expand...

Again, I was paraphrasing Herriott since the story (with them "running") seemed to have suffered in the shortening. Scott said that he remembered such reports and said that was when he thought they might be looking at a sasquatch, referring to the reclining something he saw.

That is probably the last time I spend hours watching interviews on DVDs just to try to straighten something out on a message board.

I could have just left that part out.
 
LAL said:
...I meant higher primates, EHocking. I should have said so. There was a discussion on Bush Babies and the like on BFF a few years ago.
Click to expand...
In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight.

I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye.
 
LAL said:
..If such a color did occur possibly the light was such the color of the blood vessels was visible as the pupils dilated.

Anyone for how he could see dilating pupils from 35-40' away?..
Click to expand...
Why follow that line of thought when it could be red eye shine?

... oh, Google notes that this has been discussed by footers, who obviously have ruled out real animals such as opossum, cottontails, bullfrogs and some owls that have red eye shine for an unknown animal....
 
EHocking said:
In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight.

I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye.
Click to expand...

Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night.

I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM.

Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular.

img_5832rev.jpg


The pupil is like a horse's pupil.
 
Drewbot said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4499463&postcount=265

I found it.

Sanguine offered to front the cost of the DNA test.
Click to expand...

Sorry; I was away for a while or I would have answered your post where you asked about this. I was actually offering to /do/ the test, by the way. Since I'm a biologist and all. I just think the primers and material would be pocket change.

That said, I'd realistically want anyone who was involved to pick just a handful of "best" samples, so that I wouldn't be deluged with every random hair that someone didn't bother to identify themselves. That seems tedious. "Ooh, another cow hair. And a bear. And raccoon..."

I imagine my skepticism could give an out, though ("You made it fail on purpose!"). Perhaps a sounder method would be to hand any samples off to a professional pathology lab to do the evaluation. PCR is really cheap -- cheaper than all the camera equipment these folks truck around, certainly.
 
kitakaze said:
Uhhhh... does it matter? I've already mentioned you post on youtube as "librarylu". I simply wrote "LAL" as a reference that the quote is you.
Click to expand...

It matters because someone might want to check out my anti-creationist gobbledy-gook on YouTube and it will be easier to find with the correct handle.

The Easterville vid does resemble Patty, moreso on my desktop than my laptop. On the laptop it looks more like a person in a long, black coat, but either way, there are no jeans visible. I try to look a little deeper than first glance impressions. Hopefully someone can get my captures. I couldn't find them this morning in the desktop or the external harddrive. I haven't checked the laptop yet. I really don't want to do them again. I'd have to reinstall software or use PrintKey. They were rather hard to catch the first time and I don't want to have to do it again.

Yowie's trail cam pictures resemble Patty too, at least until Virtual Magnifying Glass reveals she's shadow and leaves.

Easterville is at least an object of some kind. Despite my best efforts to keep the thread on MABRC going there were only 5 authors and 11 posts. (I can get that much information on a Google search although I can't login and I don't do sock puppets.) There've been several times I've taken a position I have no strong opinion about just to keep a debate going. I still wish cooldude had joined in. We'd have been easy on him.

Is there even Adsense on cooldude's channel? Posting a video on YouTube is a strange way to try to make money with it.

Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.

You know, you still haven't addressed the crazy logic of this guy recording and talking loudly to the oh-so-elusive Bigfoot that just stands there.
Click to expand...

That was explained. The wind was blowing; it (or he) didn't hear them. He wasn't talking to it, he was talking to one of the other people there.

Yes, can we see some of that?
Click to expand...

You can Google as well as I can.

That would be artifacts. As in at least three when the phones dip a bit.
Click to expand...

I think I did captures on two. It's too bad Morgoth's pictures are gone. He was very thorough in pointing out the numerous artifacts elsewhere in the video.
I can't believe you thought this was a ringer for Patty.
Click to expand...

I didn't say ringer. There's a resemblance, especially in the buttocks when whatever-it-is leans forward. I have a faux fur coat that resembles her neck and shoulders with the hood up.

The jacket is glaringly obvious at the end of he video. You simply may not have very good eyesight.
Click to expand...

I wear contacts and have HD screens on both computers.

Here's a selection from the comments (I'll avoid the majority which declare guy in jacket):
Click to expand...

I said I read them at the time. I'm sure if they didn't know how mean YouTubers can get they learned quickly.

Why did coolguy311 copypasta uncledeucedeuce? I think anyone who seriously is considering the glaringly obvious video of a guy in a jacket most likely taking a leak as being a Bigfoot and a ringer for Patty as serious confirmation bias issues.
Click to expand...

If it's a jacket why aren't the pants visible when the figure leans forward? Hooded long bear coat makes more sense than that, IMO.

I don't have time to try to reconstruct the other post now, but I don't have statistics on what the majority of people (including the ones in Somalia) think and I didn't appeal to any majority. You do understand sarcasm, don't you?
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.


Doesn't he count as a skeptic?
Click to expand...

>>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator

>>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic

That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
>>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator
Click to expand...

I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

>>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic

That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations
Click to expand...

I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me.
 
Last edited:
Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.
Click to expand...
Thus the title of the thread ...

"....Why no unambiguous photos/videos? "

I'm sure you understand what " unambiguous " means..
Why the continued diatribes about ' interpretation ?

An unambiguous photo or video would not need any interpretation ...
 
LAL said:
Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.
Click to expand...

I'll address the rest of your post very quickly but as you're here right now, I once again have to take issue with this. Please, please, please go look at the videos in the OP. There are no varying interpretations to what the images show. Each video has no debate as to what the images show. They aren't a big collection of staged shoots. Your pessimism is pointless and creates the false impression that science has thus far been unreasonable towards Bigfoot evidence. Garbage in, garbage out. There is no reason why Bigfoot shouldn't appear in videos like the one in the OP. What is the precedent for a massive land mammal across two major industrialized nations eluding modern science?
 
LAL said:
Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes?

I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand daylight savings? We don't do that in Japan. That was one of the first things I had a hard time with being from Victoria, BC.

Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular.

[qimg]http://i1.treknature.com/photos/9364/img_5832rev.jpg [/qimg]

The pupil is like a horse's pupil.
Click to expand...

So depending on the season and temperature, elks might poke around in the dark a bit:

http://www.trmichels.com/ElkActivityGraphs.htm

Elk eyes:

Elk Eyes: I Spy Danger Nearby

What do we know about how elk see? Most vision studies on ungulates have been carried out on white-tailed deer and domestic animals. But biologists believe that what they know for deer is probably true for elk, too.

Elk and deer vision is adapted first and foremost to detect predators. Studies and field experience suggest they rely on vision most of all to pick up movement and “out of place” shapes. Ungulates have a large number of nerve connections in their eyes that help them detect the slightest motion. Both carnivores and ungulates also have many rod cells to help them see in low light and can pick up contrasts between light and dark. Being able to see in color seems to be less important.

Ungulates’ eyes are spaced wide apart on either side of their heads, and this gives them a huge field of view—the area you can see from side to side. Elk can see 310 degrees around them—basically everything except a small cone almost directly behind them—the better to catch a wolf or human hunter sneaking up on them. This eye placement has one disadvantage, though. To the sides, elk see with only one eye. That is, they have monocular vision. It’s hard to judge distance with just one eye. Animals need two eyes looking at the same thing to figure out how far away something is: binocular vision. Elk have good depth perception only when they look straight ahead, where the vision of both eyes overlaps. So when an elk first spots something interesting to the side, it may turn toward it to get a better fix on how far away it is.
Click to expand...

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PubsTV/Bugle/2006/JulAug/Departments/Habits.htm

Are you suggesting elk eyes are like Bigfoot eyes? Notice an attempt to make something fit that does not fit?
 
LAL said:
I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.



I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me.
Click to expand...

>>>I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

That much is obvious- You really have little to no demonstrated abilities in any kind of science.

>>>I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

I see little to do that for- you, on the other hand, are another story. I find most of your arguments intellectually insulting.

>>>If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me

Thats as good an exit strategy as any. Deflect all comments about you to others in an attempt to divide and conquer. I know your arguments are that weak and I see you know it as well. Thats not a bad thing.
 
kitakaze said:
Wait, I thought
Click to expand...

Don't hurt yourself.
I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study.

I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/

Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).
 
manofthesea said:
Don't hurt yourself.
I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study.
Click to expand...

:dl:

You have forgotten much.

I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/
Click to expand...

Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot?

Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).
Click to expand...

Face meet palm.

I guess by that logic these are Bigfoots also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=vGmhmx1KFAU&feature=related

Rawr...
 
kitakaze said:
:dl:

You have forgotten much.
Click to expand...

No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten.

Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot?
Click to expand...

Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known. It's also theorized that neanderthals were possibly cannibalistic, fitting a common prehistoric description of bigfoots.
As to bigfoot's tendency to steal salmon, being neanderthal would conveniently explain this. Limited with the fishing technique of yelling at and beating the water, stealing someone's drying fish strips would prove efficient.
 
Last edited:
manofthesea said:
No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten.
Click to expand...

Ugh... Is it that time again? Are we going to kick Kennewick around again? Dude, the species was not ambiguous. Homo sapiens. Done. *BZZT* FAIL. Next.

Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known.
Click to expand...

I could get into a stupid discussion with you about how suggesting Homo neanderthalensis as Bigfoot is just fall-down stupid. I could give you all manner of links showing you that neanderthals were not hirsute as well as what we now know concerning their vocal abilities. I can honestly say I just don't care. What's the point? I have little worry that anyone else is too far gone to think this anywhere near here and I know the information is just wasted on you. Factual information that goes against what you'd like to think is spraying bullets at the Hulk. They only irritate him and he shrugs them off.

I have about as much desire to try and relieve you of wishful thinking as eating a sandpaper sandwich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom