• 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?

Well if they have , they never admitted to it. The only hair I've ever heard of being retrieved was either in a hair trap or near where a sighting supposedly occured. That's why your statement from past experience intrigued me, why has no one claimed this before?
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
No point to it, really. They're all over on the ground everywhere we go. Especially the rivers. The sand bars, muddy places. Sometimes the animal that made them is still standing in them.
Click to expand...

translation: the ones that are found are either pareidolia or hoaxed :)

that leaves few options for good proof remaining. incredibly stunning footage, published DNA or a recovered body.
 
OS - I have question for a proponent, or anyone that can answer. Why do you think no one from the scientific community took the PGF serious and descended on the site to look for this creature?

Do you think if we had crystal clear pics or video evidence today that it would garner more serious attention than it did back in the 60's? Would any photo or video ever be enough even if such existed?
 
Jodie,

Its a common mistake to think pictures and/or footage would be of no help. IMHO, its just another footer excuse for not having reliable evidence.

The use of images is a routine in science. In doubt? Google for Hubble Space Telescope. What's the difference between the images used by science and those used by footers? Sharpness? No. The first Hubble images were quite blurry but scientists studied them. So, where lies the difference?

Provenance, reliability, reproductibility.

No bigfoot image presented to date can be trusted, due to the image quality itself (ex. blobsquatches) and/or to issues related to provenance (ex. PGF, Melissa's picture, etc). The images sold by footers do not pass basic QA/QC tests, so they are useless when it comes down even to trigger any serious investigation effort.

Note that the people who claim multiple encounters ("habituation") with bigfoots should be able to provide multiple images, pictures and footage taken at different days. Where they are? Hey, you've got bigfoots at your backyard! Why the professional photographers from National Geographic can not capture them on digital media, video tapes or film?
 
Couldn't agree more Correa. I have many times on the BFF explained that a single decent photograph could potentially get me from 0% "bigfoot acceptance" to something close to 100%. Each time, I've been met with a chorus of "you skeptics will just move the goalposts" and other such nonsense.

Please footers - TRY ME! Actually produce a decent photograph of one of these bigfoots you're always yammering on about. Give us clarity, provenance, etc., just like we have for so many difficult-to-photograph rare species in the world that 1) occur in far more isolated wilderness areas and war-torn countries than do your bigfoots and 2) are far more rare and secretive than your bigfoots must be.
 
snowy egret, photographed by me yesterday (used a circular polarizer). One of the more entertaining birds. Unlike some predators, they don't rely on stealth. They stomp around, stirring up the prey, then nabbing it. Hunted to dangerously low numbers by man for their plumage, they are now common.

I pretty much ruled out a hoaxer in a snowy egret suit. I am less certain about an image of a purported California ground squirrel and another of some pelicans, so I am not posting them until a costume designer can review them.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
OS - I have question for a proponent, or anyone that can answer. Why do you think no one from the scientific community took the PGF serious and descended on the site to look for this creature?
Click to expand...

Most scientists wouldn't trust something like the pgf. The most logical explanation would of course be a man in a suit.

But is it the right explanation? I really think if it was hoaxed we wouldn't even be discussing it 45 years later like this. The film would at best be around the level of what Ivan Marx made



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovL1mT6443M
 
People interested in the BF phenomenon are discussing it. Not too many others methinks.
 
Correa Neto said:
Jodie,

Its a common mistake to think pictures and/or footage would be of no help. IMHO, its just another footer excuse for not having reliable evidence.

The use of images is a routine in science. In doubt? Google for Hubble Space Telescope. What's the difference between the images used by science and those used by footers? Sharpness? No. The first Hubble images were quite blurry but scientists studied them. So, where lies the difference?

Provenance, reliability, reproductibility.

No bigfoot image presented to date can be trusted, due to the image quality itself (ex. blobsquatches) and/or to issues related to provenance (ex. PGF, Melissa's picture, etc). The images sold by footers do not pass basic QA/QC tests, so they are useless when it comes down even to trigger any serious investigation effort.

Note that the people who claim multiple encounters ("habituation") with bigfoots should be able to provide multiple images, pictures and footage taken at different days. Where they are? Hey, you've got bigfoots at your backyard! Why the professional photographers from National Geographic can not capture them on digital media, video tapes or film?
Click to expand...

Exactly Correa....so for the time of the PGF, was that quality of video the best available? Did the technology exist then to alter it? Did the scientific community back then just assume that it was a suit or is there a record for analysis in trying to establish the provenance? I'm just wondering why no one took it seriously back then since that is the best footage( bad pun intended) to date.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Most scientists wouldn't trust something like the pgf. The most logical explanation would of course be a man in a suit.

But is it the right explanation? I really think if it was hoaxed we wouldn't even be discussing it 45 years later like this. The film would at best be around the level of what Ivan Marx made



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovL1mT6443M
Click to expand...

Why not? I'm sure there was a means to rule out a real creature even back then but I'm not familiar with photography enough to know how that might be done. Was it the walk that lead to the conclusion it was a man in a suit? I know it is today, just curious about decades ago when computer analysis wasn't available. See my above questions to Correa about that.
 
Jodie said:
Why not? I'm sure there was a means to rule out a real creature even back then but I'm not familiar with photography enough to know how that might be done. Was it the walk that lead to the conclusion it was a man in a suit? I know it is today, just curious about decades ago when computer analysis wasn't available. See my above questions to Correa about that.
Click to expand...

Jodie, it's more a a Ruling-In thing that hasn't happened yet. No need to rule out a real animal, if the real animal hasn't been ruled in.

In other words, the conclusion of man in suit, is the standard conclusion, unless there is something matching that creature that is shown to exist in the No-Cal wilderness.
 
OK, and I remember reading the thread a while back on the BFF about the sudden jump in claims after the PGF, so obviously there was no anecdotal stories, or very little, to back this film up and no historical evidence that anything like a bigfoot existed in modern times.

I can see that being reasonable for a simple witness report, I'm not sure about having actual footage of something. They did eventually find the gorilla in Africa but there were bones to back up the claims by natives for it's existence.

Then as Shrike says, the habituation claims. I found a you tube video of habituated gorillas in the wild and how they responded to the guy in the video. He looked like he was thrilled beyond words, evidently it's rare for the gorillas to do this, but it is possible for primates to come in close and get video, unlike bigfoot habituation claims.


http://youtu.be/1eXS0o6r-Wk
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Most scientists wouldn't trust something like the pgf. The most logical explanation would of course be a man in a suit.

But is it the right explanation? I really think if it was hoaxed we wouldn't even be discussing it 45 years later like this. The film would at best be around the level of what Ivan Marx made



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovL1mT6443M
Click to expand...

A tiny percentage of one percent of the population of the world are discussing it.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
translation: the ones that are found are either pareidolia or hoaxed :)

that leaves few options for good proof remaining. incredibly stunning footage, published DNA or a recovered body.
Click to expand...

That's right. There is an abundance of such evidence for animals that actually exist. Photgraphic/video evidence could be problematic, given the ease of faking it in the digital age, but a clear photograph or video with no evidence of tampering would have to be taken as strong, if not conclusive evidence.

ETA: DNA is a bit difficult too, as we don't have anything to compare it to. The best we could say with any DNA evidence is "This is from an animal we can't identify. But if Bigfoots really exist, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a dead one. If one is to believe the eyewitness accounts that footers attach so much significance to, Bigfoots are all over the place, even in densely populated places like Ohio. Where are the dead ones? To the list I would also add, capturing a live one. This might be tricky for an animal that large, but it's certainly doable.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Jodie, it's more a a Ruling-In thing that hasn't happened yet. No need to rule out a real animal, if the real animal hasn't been ruled in.

In other words, the conclusion of man in suit, is the standard conclusion, unless there is something matching that creature that is shown to exist in the No-Cal wilderness.
Click to expand...

400 years of Bignothing.
 
This, from Robert Lindsay (and BFRO?) is supposedly a frame from a thermal video, made by the prior owners of the Kentucky property that Adrian Erickson bought. It supposedly shows a woman standing on a table, and a juvenile bigfoot taking pancakes from the table.
picture.php

If this is a thermal image, explain why half of the woman's body is hot and the other half is cold.
Here is another image, sans woman on table.
picture.php

If these are the dynamite images that will prove bigfoot exists, well, I can see why they have been sitting around for 7 years. Oh, and I assume this bigfoot is not one of the "elusive" kind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom