Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
What criteria did you use to establish these 13 reports as credible? Are there any photos with these reports?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
So... a report rate of 5 per year.
To get 400 sightings a year, this implies either that;
1. WVBIG is not a popular site for reporting BF sightings, or
2. There are 80 BF organisations tracking BF in N.Am....
I'm assuming they are credible because there is nothing about them that seems suspicious vs. two of the reports that weren't published & others I've read on other sites that sounded like campfire stories or actually pointed toward known animals such as bears, cougars, or bobcats, & because of follow up interviews
So... a report rate of 5 per year.
To get 400 sightings a year, this implies either that;
1. WVBIG is not a popular site for reporting BF sightings, or
2. There are 80 BF organisations tracking BF in N.Am....
The BFRO gets most of the reports
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
But they are only averaging 3 to 4 new reports a month (Class A & B, but their definition). Of the 21 they report "in" May 2009, there are only 3 from 2009 all the rest are rehashes - one going back to 1958 for dog's sake.
So where are the other 350+ / year coming from?
No wonder the sightings' numbers appear to be exaggerated - they are...
I said I got the figure here. I didn't say it was from one of us though. There are a bunch of sites to report sightings to. What do you mean the BFRO only averages 3-4/month? Everytime I check there are about 8/10 new ones & there are 10 new ones for May there right now. I just checked. We're talking about new reports, not necessarily recent sightings. Anything under 2 years from the alleged incident would be considered recent
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
According to who ?
Don't worry, your security blanket is just being washed .. It will be returned to you ..
According to everybody. Like when someone comes forth with the suit & can put it on & be filmed in it for comparison. Also, an analysis of the suit to determine age would be useful
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
You haven't backed up your crashed airplane claim yet...how many is it? Out of how many uncrashed?
You made it. Let's see the evidence for it...
We already know crashed airplanes exist, btw...
Last edited:
I've been to your site. Aren't all your reports from WV? And "some reports have been pointed toward known animals such as cougars"? In WV? Did you report this to anyone? And what evidence pointed to cougar? There are a lot of people who would be very interested in this. I hope any time you get cougar evidence it gets reported.
ap
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
21 actually
As I did before I posted.
1958 is hardly "new".
So, 21 "new" reports for May on the BFRO, but only 3 in 2009. As I said - an exaggerated number of actual sightings....
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,471
The BFRO sighting database is giving a misleading picture of what is going on in the world. They receive a steady flow of reports and then exclude those that they feel are obvious hoaxes or misidentifications. They only publish and account for those that they think are "proper". That would seem to be a good thing to do, but it deprives anyone of getting a handle on the popularity of Bigfoot hoaxing and the frequency of misIDs in which the witness thinks they saw a Bigfoot to the degree that they decided to report it.
I have always felt that data on hoaxes and ID errors is important in the big picture of studying this social phenomenon. People who have been on the inside of BFRO say that the vast majority of submitted reports are discarded because they don't meet their approval. You never hear about them on the BFRO site. When they show 4 reports from a state in a particular year... they may have actually received 40 reports.
If Bigfoot does not exist, then all reports are hoaxes or are simply incorrect. An organization like the BFRO can filter through the sum total of received reports and pick out only those that are most convincing or "good", "credible", etc. If there is no Bigfoot then "good" reports and hoaxes are identical in an important fundamental way... they are all false. This sets the stage for the BFRO to be something like a publisher of fictional novels. They publish and sell only the "best" of all novels submitted to them by authors. The greater the number of submitted books - the more material is available for selection.
A student wishing to do a thesis on Bigfoot as a Social Construct would be deprived of good data that would reveal the true extent to which North Americans are compelled to report seeing a creature that apparently does not exist outside of the social construct.
The BFRO has non-disclosure contracts with its insiders to prevent them from telling others about the levers, cables and Wizard behind the curtain.
You betcha! And I am willing to bet the number of "novels" and number of authors does not match up!
ap
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
The burden of proof is on those who claim the P-G subject is a real non-human animal, not on those who claim it is a man in a suit.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A blurry, far-away filmstrip of what could easily be a man wearing a hair suit (possibly with padded musculature underneath) is not extraordinary evidence; it isn't even reasonable evidence.
Even if the subject is over 7' tall, as Bill Munns contends, there existed hair suits at that time, designed for performers of that height. There also existed muscle suits, mechanical prosthetics, animatronics and elaborate masks and make-ups -- which elements have been put forward by "Patty" proponents as necessary for the subject to be a suited man.
Skeptics do not need to produce such a suit to "conclusively debunk" the film. Rather, proponents need to produce a body to conclusively show that the figure is a real non-human animal.
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
lol, until bigfoot is proven to exist, it's planes=many, bigfoot=zero. But you keep clinging to that life jacket, chief. Get back to us when you can prove the Patterson film legitimate. Or better yet, find bigfoot.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Let's check in with Steven's West Virginia Bigfoot Investigations Group and see how those guys are doing finding the talking primitive human Bigfoot's in that fair state.
Hey look! Did Bigfoot do this?:
http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/...tebuilderpictures/dsc00257.jpg&target=tlx_new
Heeeeey man! That looks like a footprint in the sand and pebbles:
http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/...tebuilderpictures/dsc00216.jpg&target=tlx_new
I see a bit of a boot up there in the right of the shot and the print doesn't look very big. Hey, Bigfoot researchers, here's an obscure new approach. Put down a ruler or something for scale.
More:
http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/...tebuilderpictures/dsc00224.jpg&target=tlx_new
I mean, there's a reason you don't put something down for scale, right? One that doesn't show incompetence, maybe?
mythusmage
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 56
Okay, I'm going to reply to this post without having a look at the rest of the thread. I'm going to start my reply with this question; what leads you to consider all available evidence for the existence of bigfoot invalid?
Where video and photography are concerned I largely agree with you. The great majority of the time the footage stinks. It's plain bad photography. Very often done using poor equipment that barely suffices for snapshots and group photos. Even the best footage taken -the PGF- was taken using a second rate 16mm camera. The footage you link to was taken by good photographers, many of whom used good equipment. And as a Canadian entomologist demonstrated, once you know the limitations of your equipment you can take some nice pictures using the worst 110 film camera in the world.
You want to take good video of any subject the first thing you need to remember is that helpful advice from a certain travel guide, "Don't panic." Keep your head and don't forget what you read in the instruction manual or learned from that photography class.
The second thing you need to remember is that auto-focus is an abomination and a crime against God and Humanity. Manual focus is your friend; learn it, love it, buy it chocolates and take it for long walks on the beach. I can see the inventor of auto-focus being perpetually ground down by Satan's anal sphincter.
That said, if you want to see decent footage of bigfoots you're gonna need more people out looking for the animal and taking pictures. To get that you need to do one thing, stop actively discouraging people. I empathize with those who get frustrated with pro bigfoot claims -I even sympathize, but getting violently hostile to the mere possibility of a large non-human ape native to North America hurts any serious attempt to conduct a proper investigation.
The above ties in with your plaint regarding the wealth of photographic and video records for other animals. Why do we have it? Because people were ready and willing to go and take lots of wolverine, and tibetan blue bear, and even solenodon footage. You simply don't have as many people willing to go and get bigfoot footage; because they know what they bring back, no matter how good or bad, will not get an honest evaluation from the scientific community. And considering the virulence of some of the anti-sasquatch remarks on these forums, can you honestly say they're wrong?
Is the claim truly that extraordinary? Is it as extraordinary as psychic abilities? As visits from extra-terrestrials? As poisonous primates (slow loris)? How extraordinary does the proof have to be?
The anti-sasquatch passion can be laid at the feet of one jerk, who's name I forget (a consequence of Asperger's and clinical depression) A damn fool who faked footprints and pulled other idiot stunts. If not for him and the scientific community's reaction to his ****, it is my considered opinion that the sasquatch would have a proper scientific name, be featured in zoos around the world, and be the subject of documentaries and Discovery Channel series. But he had to be a ****-off, and scientists had to have a bad reaction to his crap.
You want good pictures and video of bigfoot? Encourage people to go out and take lots of pictures and video of bigfoot. Even if it turns out to be something other than bigfoot. Maybe even the shunka warak'in (and aint that a tale of short-sighted greed?). You want evidence, get people to find physical evidence, or produce photographic. There's evidence to be found, it will be.
Bigfoot is Blurry
I've jumped to the end of the comments, so apologies if this has been covered...
I think that Mitch Hedberg got it right. Quote(ish):
I think that Bigfoot is blurry. That's the problem. It's not the photographers fault; Bigfoot is blurry. Which is even scarier to me... Run there is a large fuzzy monster roaming the countryside.
Writing does not do the delivery justice. If you want a laugh, search generally or in YouTube for Mitch Hedberg Bigfoot.
I've jumped to the end of the comments, so apologies if this has been covered...
I think that Mitch Hedberg got it right. Quote(ish):
I think that Bigfoot is blurry. That's the problem. It's not the photographers fault; Bigfoot is blurry. Which is even scarier to me... Run there is a large fuzzy monster roaming the countryside.
Writing does not do the delivery justice. If you want a laugh, search generally or in YouTube for Mitch Hedberg Bigfoot.