Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights said:
I've been on lots of these BFRO expeditions and can shed a little bit of clarity on the fees. The organizer has the discretion to set the charges, and it can be up to $500 for first timers. The fee can be waived entirely even for a first timer if they bring something extraordinary to the event, like recording thermals. Those who have been on expeditions before can be charged up to $150.

Half the money goes to the organizer and the other half to Matt.

For my first time, I was charged $300 and I knew what I was getting when I signed up. I enjoyed myself and didn't have an issue paying the fee.
Click to expand...

Did you see the monkey?
 
Northern Lights said:
I've been on lots of these BFRO expeditions and can shed a little bit of clarity on the fees. The organizer has the discretion to set the charges, and it can be up to $500 for first timers. The fee can be waived entirely even for a first timer if they bring something extraordinary to the event, like recording thermals. Those who have been on expeditions before can be charged up to $150.

Half the money goes to the organizer and the other half to Matt.

For my first time, I was charged $300 and I knew what I was getting when I signed up. I enjoyed myself and didn't have an issue paying the fee.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, great! I would love to know where you went, what time of year, and what you did while there.

Seems to me they can't stop anyone from showing up and shadowing them. These are public parks/recreation areas.
 
GT/CS said:
Well, it's certainly convenient that you saw it at night. You don't think that was planned?
Click to expand...

Big Foot learns from its mistakes. The one time one of them ventured out in daylight, some red neck cowboy type caught it on film.
 
Drewbot said:
The Bigfoot 'experts', are the actual 'knowers', they know that bigfoot is not real, but pretend to be knowers in so far as they can make money off of the dupes.
Click to expand...

On Bigfoot searches I must go.
I say that I don't fear them.
But, if I thought that they were real
I never would go near them.


They wan't to be a true knower, but have not realized that Bigfoot in reality is not real, and only carry on their knowing, because they are duped by the actual knowers (those carrying out the duping)
Click to expand...

To waste your life in vain pursuit
Would seem more than a pity.
Who understands the Bigfoot man?
"I do," says Walter Mitty.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Oh hey, great! I would love to know where you went, what time of year, and what you did while there.

Seems to me they can't stop anyone from showing up and shadowing them. These are public parks/recreation areas.
Click to expand...

I reckon that if you were absolutely sure that the expedition didn't allow guns, you could have quite a bit of fun while tailing a Bigfoot expedition.
 
tsig said:
EHocking said:
Buy a flash for it ...:cool:
Click to expand...

Not allowed, it would scare the BF away.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a cheesy excuse. So, you'd have some actual photographic evidence, but BF might lie low for a couple of days. Seems like an extremely worthwhile tradeoff if you're actually trying to find evidence of the monkey. If you're just trying to perpetuate the hoax, though, then it makes perfect sense.
 
Flash range is going to be limited, even with a very good flash. Bigfoot would have to be relatively close for the flash to be effective. Probably within 100 feet.

For a cheap point and shoot, flash range might be 30 feet.

For a nice SLR setup, maybe 200-250 feet.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Flash range is going to be limited, even with a very good flash. Bigfoot would have to be relatively close for the flash to be effective. Probably within 100 feet.

For a cheap point and shoot, flash range might be 30 feet.

For a nice SLR setup, maybe 200-250 feet.
Click to expand...
And modern video work even better in low light.

If you were serious about catching a clear image of a never before documented primate....:cool:
 
LTC8K6 said:
Flash range is going to be limited, even with a very good flash. Bigfoot would have to be relatively close for the flash to be effective. Probably within 100 feet.

For a cheap point and shoot, flash range might be 30 feet.

For a nice SLR setup, maybe 200-250 feet.
Click to expand...

If there's enough light to see by shouldn't there be enough light to take a picture?
 
tsig said:
If there's enough light to see by shouldn't there be enough light to take a picture?
Click to expand...

Good point. If he can see it well enough at night to be sure it's bigfoot, then most likely he can get a picture of it.

Also, once the flash fires at the poor critter, it will be blind for 5 minutes, allowing an easy capture.
 
EHocking said:
Yes, despite attending lots of BFRO expeditions, he hasn't taken a camera with a flash on any, preferring blurry thermal imaging instead.
Click to expand...

If you knew where an expedition was being arranged then you could just do some research on the area beforehand. Having everyone be completely clueless about where they are, what kinds of wildlife are there, and what kind of human traffic there is seems to be a key aspect of the whole thing.

You have people roasting weenies, playing frisbee, riding their bikes/canoes/kayaks etc. every day of the week in these places... farmers fields and towns adjacent to the parks. And you have a "guide" saying there are animals as big as moose living there all year without anyone knowing.

I still would like to hear about the itinerary.
 
Vortigern99 said:
This is because you have no background in, or understanding of, primate physiology. Subtle, millimetric differences in facial and somatic features can and do determine which species a given animal belongs to. All that's required is 1) knowledge and 2) close analysis of existing data.



There are exactly zero pictures of bigfoot, or of any animal purported to be bigfoot, that are as clear and evidential as the 1906 picture under discussion.

You haven't seen the photo, have you?



The standard of proof does not differ. You're mistaken.

You're also missing the larger point, which is that the Cross River gorilla was already known to exist. It was observed and studied by western science as early as 1904. It simply was not given its own subspecies until behavioral differences led some researchers to speculate, "Hmmm, I wonder if maybe this is a distinct subspecies?"

Equating the ascription of a new taxonomic classification to an animal already known and studied is not the same as "discovering" an entirely new, never-before-studied animal. I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is, but it's a huge one.
Click to expand...

Was there a question in there somewhere I missed? Did you want me to respond to this part?: "This is because you have no background in, or understanding of, primate physiology."


I read thru your post of course. If you would like to talk more about the Cross River Gorillas, I'm fine with that but you'll probably need to start a new thread.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought your post was meant to be educational aside from a little snarky remark in the beginning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom