kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Somebody does that about once a month around here. I know Hedburg did it but I could have sworn it was originally George Carlin or someone way, way before.
Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?
Somebody does that about once a month around here. I know Hedburg did it but I could have sworn it was originally George Carlin or someone way, way before.
The problem is where would you have them looking for these decent photos? If you say the woods, what is stopping a photographer (or trail cam) out photographing a wolverine from photographing the bigfoot passing by?
Does bigfoot have his own little niche away from all other woodland creatures? If there a lots of people out photographing wildlife, doesn't bigfoot qualify?
Anywhere bf has been spotted so have other wildlife. It isn't like the two are mutually exclusive. And again I ask:Where would you have them look specifically. Even the researchers listening to bf talking in the bush can't get photographs. Does bf render photographic equipment useless?
ap
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Bigfoot inhabits the blurry areas of the wilderness.
I knew there was a reason.
And for sake of argument, if you want to offer that those photographing bf should be whooping, banging on trees, and offering fruit, take a look at all of the sighting reports the bf community so adores and loves to site. How many of the witnesses were "calling in" their subjects?
And the researches that do "call them in"? Have NO clear photos!
So besides that all should be equal between nonbf photographer and bf photographer. In fact, ask a few nonbf photographers if they've ever gone out to photograph one creature in particular and ended up taking advantage of a photo op of another creature.
Imo it isn’t the skeptics that turn people off to bf, it is the supernatural treatment of this creature by the bf proponents. The mystique that so heavily surrounds bf (to keep it popular probably, marketing is a wonderful thing ) turns searches into jokes and half-baked “evidence” as somehow expected, after all bf is SOOOOOOOOOOOO smart, elusive, and scaaaaaaaaaaaaaary.
If bf were approached with the seriousness and rationale of any other animal study then maybe, just maybe, the bells would finally go off for a few proponents: "What they heck am i doing?"
okay, I'm done spewing. I've just had it up to my 7'3 frame (oops did I give myself away) with excuses where none belong.
ap
If bf were approached with the seriousness and rationale of any other animal study then maybe, just maybe, the bells would finally go off for a few proponents: "What they heck am i doing?"
okay, I'm done spewing. I've just had it up to my 7'3 frame (oops did I give myself away) with excuses where none belong.
ap
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Extreme poor quality and unreliability. Unambiguous imagery of a massive, relatively slow-moving upright land mammal breeding across the North American continent and everywhere in between should be a no-brainer. It apparently isn't for a sub-culture of people who believe in Bigfoot.
Let's breakdown your reasons why:
This is silly. People are in Bigfoot territory everyday with digital cameras and plenty of other types of cameras. A huge subculture far bigger than Bigfootery devoted to photographing birds is constantly out in Bigfoot land. To argue that pantswetting fear is consistently ruining people's chances to get images of Bigfoot while they fumble with the camera and thus no pictures is just wrong. Check this thread for a wealth of excellent quality wildlife images taken by members here.
1) Same argument as above applies. To listen to the footers, Bigfoot goes in people's backyards and habitually hits chicken coops and dumpsters. All these Bigfoot across the two of the most industrialized nations and auto-focus is the problem? Check this threa.
2) Give me some good examples of some Bigfoot videos that have a good chance of being real and dagnabit! the auto-focus is to blame again.
1) Why? Plenty of people are in the woods doing all sorts of things. We don't need one footer to address the situation. Naturalists, wildlife biologists, and countless others have spent hundreds of years cataloguing and studing every mammal (and other animals) in North America. What precedent do we have for a huge creature like Bigfoot living across to highly developed nations in sufficient numbers to ensure the continuation of the species and yet have no reliable evidence for it? No, really - what is the precedent?
2) There are more than enough Bigfooters out looking for Bigfoot. Give me a state in North America and I'll give you a Bigfoot organization. Here's Don Keating and friends in Salt Fork State Park who are out in the park every weekend at least till 4am with the gear out looking for Bigfoot:
That place is supposed to be a major hot spot. There's people like this all over. What's the problem? Why can't these people and groups who apparently understand Bigfoot so well not get one unambiguous picture. I mean just one.
You've got it mixed up...
1) I constantly am telling footers that we would seriously consider one unambiguous image.
2) They can be more than motivated to shut us up with decent images of Bigfoot. You know, something like these:
Black bear in yard:
Black bear in neighbour's yard:
Grizzly bear takes baby moose, pandemonium ensues:
Brown bear attacks moose in front yard, eats heart out.
Go ahead and tell me something about the bear to sasquatch ratio so I can bring out the wolverine videos not shot by people out looking for wolverines.
Violently hostile?
1) Show me the violently hostile Bigfoot skeptics. I have some quotes of Bigfoot enthusiasts threatening actual physical violence just for you.
2) Mere possibility? Dude, we have a thread here where we argue for the possibility of a creature like Bigfoot.
Gobbledy-gook. You don't know what would happen because it's never happened. No, the PGF doesn't qualify. If you don't understand why and won't learn from reading what's already been written in this thread, then I'm uninterested in helping you. Scientists would be tripping over each other to get a good look at Bigfoot and the chance to study it. When Biscardi was promising a body he had major international coverage on CNN. You're just making excuses for empy pockets.
A North American ape? No.
A giant North American ape that lives all across the continent in breeding numbers with no type specimen, reliable evidence, or unambiguous images and often appoaches humans and their habitations? Oh yes. Very extraordinary.
Talking Bigfoots? Yes.
Infrasound fear blasts by a big ape? Yes.
Reflective or glowing eyes in a big ape? Yes.
You really don't want to get me started.
Ray Wallace. You're talking silly talk again. Ray Wallace's hoaxing wasn't identified until just a few years ago. Bigfoot evidence other than that attributed to him has been sucking for decades.
Disclaimer: I purposely said “What the heck am I doing?” not “Why am I searching?” (go for it)
What about these beliefs about bf I hold so dearly that I got off the internet? What about these research techniques I insist on using? What about ____________________and _________________and_________________.
ap
kitakaze, I wholeheartedly agree!
What about these beliefs about bf I hold so dearly that I got off the internet? What about these research techniques I insist on using? What about ____________________and _________________and_________________.
ap
kitakaze, I wholeheartedly agree!
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
It does have a proper scientific name...bullis shiticus.
If it wasn't for this jerk, who I assume is Ray Wallace, no one would have even heard of bigfoot, and there'd be as much interest in this creature as there is in the little people of the woods, or Babe the blue ox. The only reason it has the following it does is because of Wallace and Patterson. If it weren't for these guys, scientists wouldn't have to ignore it....they wouldn't even know about bigfoot.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
i was rather surprised by the difficulty of locating and collating reports from that site. A contrast to an UK crop circle database website, for instance, that noted ALL reports received and then rated/analysed each report. Although such rating was biased, you were at least able to see their logic on their rating, and of course download the entire data set to rate it with different criteria to theirs in order to discuss.
It's not an approach I've seen with any "evidence" on the subject of BF
Extreme poor quality and unreliability. Unambiguous imagery of a massive, relatively slow-moving upright land mammal breeding across the North American continent and everywhere in between should be a no-brainer. It apparently isn't for a sub-culture of people who believe in Bigfoot.
Let's breakdown your reasons why:
This is silly. People are in Bigfoot territory everyday with digital cameras and plenty of other types of cameras. A huge subculture far bigger than Bigfootery devoted to photographing birds is constantly out in Bigfoot land. To argue that pantswetting fear is consistently ruining people's chances to get images of Bigfoot while they fumble with the camera and thus no pictures is just wrong. Check this thread for a wealth of excellent quality wildlife images taken by members here.
1) Same argument as above applies. To listen to the footers, Bigfoot goes in people's backyards and habitually hits chicken coops and dumpsters. All these Bigfoot across the two of the most industrialized nations and auto-focus is the problem? Check this threa.
2) Give me some good examples of some Bigfoot videos that have a good chance of being real and dagnabit! the auto-focus is to blame again.
1) Why? Plenty of people are in the woods doing all sorts of things. We don't need one footer to address the situation. Naturalists, wildlife biologists, and countless others have spent hundreds of years cataloguing and studing every mammal (and other animals) in North America. What precedent do we have for a huge creature like Bigfoot living across to highly developed nations in sufficient numbers to ensure the continuation of the species and yet have no reliable evidence for it? No, really - what is the precedent?
2) There are more than enough Bigfooters out looking for Bigfoot. Give me a state in North America and I'll give you a Bigfoot organization. Here's Don Keating and friends in Salt Fork State Park who are out in the park every weekend at least till 4am with the gear out looking for Bigfoot:
That place is supposed to be a major hot spot. There's people like this all over. What's the problem? Why can't these people and groups who apparently understand Bigfoot so well not get one unambiguous picture. I mean just one.
You've got it mixed up...
1) I constantly am telling footers that we would seriously consider one unambiguous image.
2) They can be more than motivated to shut us up with decent images of Bigfoot. You know, something like these:
Black bear in yard:
Black bear in neighbour's yard:
Grizzly bear takes baby moose, pandemonium ensues:
Brown bear attacks moose in front yard, eats heart out.
Go ahead and tell me something about the bear to sasquatch ratio so I can bring out the wolverine videos not shot by people out looking for wolverines.
Violently hostile?
1) Show me the violently hostile Bigfoot skeptics. I have some quotes of Bigfoot enthusiasts threatening actual physical violence just for you.
2) Mere possibility? Dude, we have a thread here where we argue for the possibility of a creature like Bigfoot.
Gobbledy-gook. You don't know what would happen because it's never happened. No, the PGF doesn't qualify. If you don't understand why and won't learn from reading what's already been written in this thread, then I'm uninterested in helping you. Scientists would be tripping over each other to get a good look at Bigfoot and the chance to study it. When Biscardi was promising a body he had major international coverage on CNN. You're just making excuses for empy pockets.
A North American ape? No.
A giant North American ape that lives all across the continent in breeding numbers with no type specimen, reliable evidence, or unambiguous images and often appoaches humans and their habitations? Oh yes. Very extraordinary.
Talking Bigfoots? Yes.
Infrasound fear blasts by a big ape? Yes.
Reflective or glowing eyes in a big ape? Yes.
You really don't want to get me started.
Ray Wallace. You're talking silly talk again. Ray Wallace's hoaxing wasn't identified until just a few years ago. Bigfoot evidence other than that attributed to him has been sucking for decades.
Kitz, Every second, not everyday, is spent by 10000's of loggers, rangers, etc. combing the wilderness, checking under every leaf, every rock, etc. and yet there is not one reliable sighting from a high ranking source. That really sealed the nail in the coffin for me. I still consider foreign hominids more likely.
mythusmage
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 56
Tell me, do you really think you're encouraging people to take bigfoot photos with an attitude like that?
mythusmage
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 56
Call me sensitive, but you come across as hostile. You give me no confidence that you would consider any evidence I provided due consideration, even if it consisted of an adult male sasquatch hugging you and squeezing you and grunting happily at you. The impression you give me is that you are not about to consider the question calmly, and I suspect talking with you in person would only reinforce that. You want me to consider your questions you need to calm down.
And no sarcasm, you stink at sarcasm.
How does he come across as hostile? Why should'nt there be sarcasm about a popular myth? You need to lighten up
Sorry, but I am honestly completely lost on your question.
I never realized encouraging people to take bigfoot photos was my job. And you must remember your question is like asking me if I think I am really encouraging people to trek north and find Santa's workshop with an attitude like mine.
I am interested in your answering the comments and questions brought up above, though.
ap
Last edited:
mythusmage
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 56
People knew about Wallace for decades. His pranks and frauds were exposed from the beginning, and he took delight in having them exposed. The man was a skeptic, hated the very idea of bigfoot, and did his best to destroy any credibiity the idea ever had. It is thanks to him and those he inspired that all possible evidence is dismissed out of hand, regardless of origin.
I have no idea why we don't have good photographs of bigfoots, but I suspect things are not as you would have them. Any professional nature photographer will tell you that good photo ops aint that common. They'll also tell you that for every photo of a moose or elk you see in Nat Geo, there are a lot of photos that didn't make the grade. And you're talking about animals people are actively looking to take pictures of.
You're also making a bunch of bad assumptions about people and the wilderness. We're not everywhere, we tend to congregate in a few popular locations. Our knowledge of our world is incomplete and often incorrect; and even when originally correct, at times out of date. The next time somebody tells you there isn't a square foot of land that isn't known, ask him how he knows this.
You place too much faith in what other people of like mind tell you.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Dude! Mega-quoting! Why?
Now, let's not exaggerate an argument. That only allows people to quibble with you. The argument is that there doesn't need to be a single Bigfoot enthusiast ever. A massive, relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that stands up to 9 feet tall and has maintained breeding numbers in North America for the hundreds of years of western inhabitance is going to be known to science.
Almasty, yeren, yeti, yowie, yahoo, whatever; all these things have way less weak coffee than Bigfoot and that's not helping. I would be not completely surprised of a population of Homo floresiensis was found in some remote corner of an island of Indonesia but I'd still be wildly stoked.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Basically, I did. I used one of these
. It means I think you were being a drama queen talking about me being violently hostile. Particularly when there are Bigfoot enthusiasts out there who literally threaten violent hostility.I'm serene. I think you are overly dramatic. We will survive and maybe tomorrow Bigfoot will be real. I don't think so. Fair enough?
You don't need to worry about me considering your evidence. That's the great thing about the world of reality. You can take your reliable evidence of Bigfoot, stick your tongue out at the computer with the internet that has the JREF, and skip on into your nearest university or broadcast media outlet, bypassing all the internet Bigfoot skeptics in one fell swoop.
Normally, I don't like to actually brag but...
The evidence says otherwise:
Short Month, Short Posts - February Pith Poll
Yet not about bigfoot and people. Bigfoot seems to be everywhere and seen on a regular basis. That is the problem. Where these creatures get the giganto-sized hazmat suits is baffling to me.
The fact is bigfoot and people ARE in constant contact in the woods and everywhere else.
"people and the wilderness" isn't the issue According to the "experts" I don't have to go to some remote undiscovered spot to see a bigfoot.
Or, are you a bit more skeptical than the rest and dismiss the sightings database and field research findings outright?
ap
Sadly, there is no Bigfoot Paparazzi. Thusly, there is no photographic evidence.
Run, Researcher, Run the eagerly anticipated sequel to the best-seller Sleep, Researcher, SleepLimited fur-cloth edition (Makes for an unusually large tome. Or not, depending your predilection)
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,471
You talk like Wallace intended to destroy the credibility of Bigfootery. The story goes that he started making big fake tracks at a contruction site to scare off thieves. That won't even work unless the thieves see them and instantly conclude that they were made by a living wild giant biped. Then it has to scare them enough that they leave without taking anything.
The history of Wallace as a hoaxer is paced by the history of Bigfooter gullibility. But Wallace was faking tracks in places that came to be regarded as "genuine" Bigfoot territory. Tracks that are regarded as the real thing come from those regions. So from a Bigfooter's perspective, Wallace never fooled anyone into thinking that Bigfoot lives in a place where Bigfoot does not actually live.
Green and Noll still seem to believe that the Onion Mtn tracks (Wallace fakes) are authentic and not made by those wooden feet. They go through strange mental gyrations trying to explain their position. It's both comical and sad.
Your line that I bolded is just dramatic exaggeration. Bigfoot skepticism would still be the same if he never even existed.
Last edited:
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
I have a pretty good idea why, but you won't like the answer.
Noooo, of course not. This is bigfoot we're talking about. The simplest, most logical explanations have no place here. Excuse making rules the day when it comes to bigfoot....the more ridiculous, the better. Such as:
Last time I checked, bigfoot sightings were allegedly occuring on known land.
Pot, meet kettle....it's black, tall, hairy and smelly.