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

The game camera shot of a raccoon riding a pig, posted many moons ago in this thread, demonstrated to me how silly all the bigfooter claims are.

Saying that no one could get a good phone shot of BF is just as silly. Many of these people go into the woods specifically to search for BF and claim to have seen them before. Why would their hands be shaking too much to get a decent photo?

Last night on NBC news, there were shaky phone videos from people in a demonstration that could have come under fire at any time. The thousands of people in those shots were easily recognizable as humans.
 
I think the situation is different, it's easy to pick out the human form in a crowd, not so easy when it's a bear blending in with the bushes ( which would make my hand shake if I walked up on a bear). Plus, these things are supposed to be quiet large.

As for what bigfoot hunters capture on camera, I don't think it's any better or worse than the average person's attempt. No matter the intent, I think the imagination plays a big part in perception, fear or excitement, it will get the best of a person.
 
Jodie-
You are taking steps here to try and rationalize belief in Bigfoot.

It is no different when it is a bear, bears are easily recognizable, and often get captured on cameras clearly, or popped while crossing roads. This one gets hit by a car AND captured clearly on camera at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5po57MnE6eM
 
No photos, no spoors, no scat, no roadkill, no bodies, no signs, no Bigfoots.
 
Jodie,
I still think you want bigfoot to be real so you explain away the blurry photos and videos, and anything else that proves your belief to be false, which is fine, but if you are a fence-sitter and want to end up one one side or the other you'll need to ignore your dreams and feelings and look at the evidence in an objective manner.
 
Drewbot said:
Jodie-
You are taking steps here to try and rationalize belief in Bigfoot.

It is no different when it is a bear, bears are easily recognizable, and often get captured on cameras clearly, or popped while crossing roads. This one gets hit by a car AND captured clearly on camera at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5po57MnE6eM
Click to expand...

How did you get that out of what I said?

Bears are easily recognizable if they aren't behind brush or out in the middle of the day. Imagination does play a big role in how you interpret shadow and what you expect to see. Excitement/fear will also affect how diligent you perform whether it's noticing details or operating a camera.

I think that answers GT too. HOw do you work the multiquote here?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Jodie,

What would be your thoughts on why Roger and friends never made any serious effort
to track down the Bigfoot he caught on film?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the characters involved, or the circumstances, other than what I've reluctantly read as a moderator on the BFF, to speculate about their motivations.
 
Jodie said:
How did you get that out of what I said?

Bears are easily recognizable if they aren't behind brush or out in the middle of the day. Imagination does play a big role in how you interpret shadow and what you expect to see. Excitement/fear will also affect how diligent you perform whether it's noticing details or operating a camera.

I think that answers GT too. HOw do you work the multiquote here?
Click to expand...

Why aren't bigfoots easily recognizable?
 
dafydd said:
Why aren't bigfoots easily recognizable?
Click to expand...

Most reports I've read include fleeting glimpses as you pass them in a car or seeing them from a distance, not always during the day. When sightings do happen during the day it seems that it is usually early morning or evening which is not the best light for seeing something clearly. There are always exceptions, that is why you have to go through these stories or reports bit by bit to look at all of the variables that might contribute to misidentification.
 
Jodie said:
Most reports I've read include fleeting glimpses as you pass them in a car or seeing them from a distance, not always during the day. When sightings do happen during the day it seems that it is usually early morning or evening which is not the best light for seeing something clearly. There are always exceptions, that is why you have to go through these stories or reports bit by bit to look at all of the variables that might contribute to misidentification.
Click to expand...

So every bigfoot sighting is always a fleeting glimpse? Yet we have photos of all the other large mammals in North America. What does that suggest to you?
 
That they are more than likely regular animals.

This is the way I look at it, if the person is interested in the topic, whether they are skeptical or not, and they report seeing something strange on the side of the road at dusk, the potential for bigfoot as an option is going to cross their minds.

These people have bias, and I include myself in that. I would tend to discount their interpretation of what happened. I might be more interested in the person's story who claims to see one that has no interest in the topic. These aren't the only things to consider, but it is one of them that I think about when I read sighting reports. Anything that is a sighting lasting 2-3 seconds is basically worthless no matter what stance you take on the topic or what you might think you saw.

This is what happens when you start pulling the stories apart and asking the right questions. It leaves very little to consider as unexplainable. The only circumstantial evidence I might wonder about are tracks in places where it would be difficult/impossible for a human to accomplish making them, such as going up a steep incline with a large stride, and those are very rare.

If I were a hoaxer, I would always chose the most difficult areas to place my prints to better pull off the joke. I never understood where the hoaxers prints were in relation to some of these more impressive track ways. I would wonder if he/she walked back to the vehicle with their bigfoot shoes on? If not, where are his/her tracks? They should double back upon the bigfoot trackway or at least be ahead. Leaving tracks may depend on the substrate, but then the weight of the individual would be a factor, and how would you explain that? It goes on and on, there are lots of different things that you have to look at on a case by case basis. When you read these reports it doesn't seem like anyone ever asks enough questions.
 
Last edited:
People ask the right questions, the person answering is giving misinformation in most cases.

If you say: Is it possible it was just a person in a black coat?

They say: Noooo what do you think I am stupid?

you say: Is it possible you just misinterpreted what you saw?

They say: NOOO I SAW WHAT I SAW ARE YOU CALLING ME CRAZY?
 
Jodie said:
I don't know enough about the characters involved, or the circumstances, other than what I've reluctantly read as a moderator on the BFF, to speculate about their motivations.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a somewhat dismissive attitude, for someone claiming to be seriously looking for answers ...


All the major players at the time; Green, Dahinden, Byrne, Titmus, not to mention Patterson himself made no concerted effort to locate the bigfoot, supposedly one of a family, that Patterson captured on film.
Instead, Patterson uses income from the film to finance a trip to China.

I think one could reasonably speculate that none of the people involved gave serious consideration to the idea that there was really a family of Bigfeets in the area.
 
Jodie said:
That they are more than likely regular animals.

This is the way I look at it, if the person is interested in the topic, whether they are skeptical or not, and they report seeing something strange on the side of the road at dusk, the potential for bigfoot as an option is going to cross their minds.
Click to expand...

I often see bigfoot teams trying to document their case on discovery channel. Bigfoot has been around for many many years. While it's plausible that some large primate could be living in forests and areas where people live, the complete lack of bonafide physical evidence or fossil evidence would suggest their existence in primarily in the minds of bigfoot enthusiasts. Even the one good film clip was exposed as a hoax. I can draw no other conclusion.
 
Jodie said:
Y'all don't have much of a sense of humor do you? I thought the disco ball imagery was kind of humorous.
Click to expand...

Err, look, I've been in comedy theater. I do funny voices for my friends and wife, and IRL I go out of my way to make people laugh. I'm also ready to guffaw and/or giggle at the drop of a hat/pin/dime.

But this topic isn't particularly funny to me. Nor (sorry) is your disco-ball imagery. So let's move on without further ad hom sidebars, shall we?

Jodie said:
But I will go back to page 4 and read what you have to say, I probably won't disagree with too much. I think I would discount Longtabber's POV and just stick with Kit's.
Click to expand...

Despite Longtabber having since been proven as a fraud, his posts on record in this forum are goldmines of scientific thought and analytical skepticism. Disregard his posts at the peril of maintaining a magical belief system that allows for a giant primate to move, eat, defecate and die undetected through the millions of acres of carefully monitored forests of this continent.

Jodie said:
Ok I read your list. My only criticism is we assume we know what it needs. If it exists we are missing some critical piece of the puzzle, the other alternative is it simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

We "assume we know what it needs" based on advanced, detailed knowledge of mammal and primate biology. Since you are not willing to postulate what those "missing critical" data might be, and in the absence of so much as a molecule of physical evidence for this giant uncatalogued primate, it is safe to conclude that it does not exist.

Jodie said:
So these so called researchers, which is the wrong term to use in my opinion, have no facts to base their research on. Even if they were all using identical investigative techniques, I'm not sure they could build a case for bigfoot just based on what they supposedly have collected in the way of prints, hair, and the like.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Jodie said:
My biggest issue is not leaving any trace of passage, something that big has got to trip at some point, if nothing else. I have never been to the PNW but my brother lived there and he says the forest floors are clean.

Here in the south, it would be impossible to leave no trace because of the dense vines, weeds, and grasses we have. You can't avoid stepping on them because they are everywhere, even in the winter, and they leave obvious sign.
Click to expand...

And yet you still profess to believe in the possibility of the mythic beast's existence. Why?
 
Longtabber maintained that he thought it possible that Bigfoot existed. He even went into a couple of 'sightings' that he had. One was right before he was outed, he claimed at an army base he saw a creature's torso and head over the top of an M113 Armored Personnel carrier. That led to me questioning his honesty with this drawing.


 
Yes, his sighting report and his fraudulent claim to be elite military are all quite absurd. Yet the logic of his posts on the impossibility of bigfoot's existence remains sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom