Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

If I ever see a copy around cheap or free I'll be sure to do so. But for now, I'm afraid, bigfoot is just not worth the price of admission. When a real one is really found for sure, I'll read it in the paper.

Try the library. I've been able to read books by Krantz, Bindernagle, Napier, Green, Sanderson, Bryne, Hunter and even sceptics Long and Daegling without spending a cent. I'm now starting to build a collection of books and DVDs, while still using the library.

What does it cost to Google? Some of Krantz' papers are online.

If you don't choose to research this, why bother to debate?


I meant no footage of the event is missing. I didn't state that well.

It doesn't look like Patterson lost the reel:

"Patterson had loaned the “original master” copy of the film to a company called “American National Enterprises.” Patterson had previously been employed by American National to attempt to take another film of a Bigfoot or Sasquatch. This was to belong to American National. They were eventually unsuccessful at taking a second film, and American National decided to use the footage that Patterson and Gimlin had taken on October 20, 1967. They never returned the reel of film to Patterson. It was this reel of film that contained the footprints in the periphery of the frames."

http://www.monsterhunter.us/newsletter/MonsterHunter Newsletter 2nd Addition.htm

 

[LAL]

You've never met anyone who hunts, have you?

Please back up these statements of yours. Hunting seasons are open for at least half the year, and this doesn't include any poachers that may be out (day or night). Not to mention fishermen and other outdoorsmen (hiking, camping, and other activities are very common in the PNW). And if you think hunters don't carry cameras, you're severely deluded. Every hunter I know either carries acamera, or can't afford one. How else are you going to get a shot of the 8-point buck you just shot? (or turkey, bear, whatever). And don't go far from roads? That statement alone is enough to tell me you have no clue what hunters due, and are making things up on the fly just to support your preconcieved ideas. Most hunters look for places as far away from people as possible, because, you know, that's where the most animals are (and animals that are more likely to have less fear of people).

Sorry, but this statement of yours is just pure BS. You have no evidence, no backing, and no clue. I stand by that statement.

I not only knew hunters, I ran them off my property in the Columbia Gorge. I had a truck towed on a pair when they refused to turn back. There were separate seasons for elk, grouse, deer, bow hunting......I even knew a poacher. None of them carried cameras. They were after meat. The trophy buck's head rode home on the front of the truck. And all were out in daylight, with the exception of coon hunters. They didn't get far from the roads either. Did you miss my posts about Skamania County, which encompases Mt. St. Helens but only has two traffic lights and a population of about 10,000, mostly along the river. It has, or had, until it lost its lead by one (BFRO figures) the highest number of sightings in Washington. Of course, there are some I know about that haven't made it to the database.

I'm afraid your post revealed your ignorance, not mine.

 

[LAL]

Planet of the Apes, didn't use ' suits '.. Only head pieces and hands..


Ever hear of ' 2001 A Space Odyssey '..

Check out the apes.. I heard a rumor, they weren't nominated for a costume Oscar, because it wasn't generally known that they were costumes ...

To suggest that a fake patty was some kind of technological impossibility at the time is absurd..

I saw it when it came out on the big screen. I liked Mel Brooke's send-up better. The figures were clearly people in costumes.

Why aren't you paying any attention to the proportions? The weight? Patterson evidently was good at weight estimates. He was exactly right on Krantz' 210 lbs. (The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, Moscow: University Press of Idaho, 1977, with anthropologist Roderick Sprague)

It would have taken prostheses to get the arms right. Planet of the Apes was the best "ape" costuming at the time. John Landis started a rumor Chambers was responsible for the figure in the Patterson film. Chambers not only denied it, he said he wished he'd been that good. He was working on Planet of the Apes in the same time frame, but didn't deny the rumors at first because they were "good for business".

So if the best guy in the business in 1967 couldn't do it, who could?

 

[LAL]

Here's the source of the rumor concerning MM, Ray. Did you not see this?

answer the question regarding the rumor right now. I was on the WV expedition.

The source of the rumor is a Mr. G, a resident of West Virginia. I won’t use his real name, but it’s not hard to discover. Mr. G was the contact for a report submitted to the BFRO. He claimed to have sasquatch activity on his property.

Prior to the start of the expedition, Mr. G’s property was visited and a handful of people extensively walked throughout the property. There was no sign of activity.

Mr. G drove quite a distance that evening to the expedition base camp and spent that evening around the campfire with the BFRO members and expedition members who were already present (still before the official start). He proceeded to share the rest of his experiences, and they were very….colorful, shall we say.

Matt decided that it would not be worth our time to expend any more energy on Mr. G (not a hard decision), and we would focus elsewhere. However, Mr. G returned a few nights later wondering why we had not returned to his property (actually his mother’s property). He had a firearm.

We humored him while Matt called the local sheriff. Mr. G shared more tall tales, and there was not one expedition participant or BFRO member present who would lend credence to any of his claims. I can easily call a half-dozen participants and members who heard every bit of it, and another half-dozen who heard parts here and there—before they got up and walked away in either disgust or fear.

Mr. G departed before law enforcement arrived. Apparently, most local residents are familiar with Mr. G. He is quite the character, but mostly harmless. However, Mr. G found out about Matt contacting the sheriff.

As payback, Mr. G attempted to spread this rumor of a BF suit. He contacted Wag TV and ESPN to try to prevent their arrival. The reporter from ESPN heard the rumor from Mr. G before arriving for the second week of the expedition. Without telling Matt, the reporter looked into it independently and discreetly. He found no substance to the claim. After Matt found out about the rumor, the reporter confessed to knowing about the claim and investigating it. His opinion of Mr. G was the same as Matt’s opinion.

I found out about the rumor a few weeks after the expedition. After learning its source, I was not concerned. Matt laughs about it. I’m sorry that William Dranginis has seen fit to continue disseminating it. It really isn’t worth investigating, but to each his own.

I could go into great detail regarding Mr. G’s claims, but see no reason to shame this man for his misplaced attempt at vengeance. I ask other BFRO members to not post any further on the subject.

 

[LAL]

Thank you for the quick education LAL, certainly food for thought in there. I'll have to install RealPlayer in order to check out the footage in the website mentioned a few posts above, and to see your good self in action too, I notice.

I've been filmed? Oh, you mean my posts on BFF? Or what?

I do my utmost to keep an open mind and only go on the facts, the real evidence, and information such as you have provided helps to clear certain things up but also raises several more questions. There's no doubt pretty much every one of us here would dearly love to see Bigfoot proven to be real, but I dont want that to get in the way of my impartiality, and lord knows there's a real lack of that in todays society in general and the internet in particular.

Good. Welcome back. I thought I detected some open-mindedness earlier. Too many of the posters here seem to think ridicule is the way to win a debate. I'd much rather discuss this in a rational sort of way.

 

[LAL]

Yes. It's degenerated into a debate over whether it is a deliberate hoax or an accident..

Did you read enough of the thread to notice some of the posters really did some digging?

 

[LAL]

Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?

Something wrong here.

The wrong thing is your statement they hit pay dirt right away. They were in the area for three weeks prior to the filming.

If they "blew" 3/4 of their film stock on scenery, they must not have thought they had much of a chance of filming a Sasquatch, I guess. They were trying to make a documentary.

Have you figured out how a guy who had to borrow money from his brother-in-law managed to finance a suit Disney Studios said would cost $300,000 to build? And how no one seemed to notice he was doing this, if he was "modifying" a stock item?

Did anyone see the pictures of actual Morris suits from the era I posted? Or are you just choosing to ignore those and post rave reviews of 2001 instead?

Still waiting for those names.

I'll take the opinions of anthropologists, specialists in anatomy, experts in biomechanics, primatologists and even orthopedists over costume designers any day.

 

[Z]

Well, I'm done debating this troll. He's not taking anyone's evidence, unless it might possibly support Bigfoot's existence. He's now demonstrated this repeatedly. There's no arguing with someone who will dismiss one set of experts who say it's a man in a suit, while accepting another set who says it's a large primate, on pretty much personal bias.

I will say I have found the issue of the intermembral index to be interesting, though I also have found it interesting that the only people to have tackled the issue are established Bigfoot supporters. I hardly regard the index as proof that it is not a man in a suit; after all, in theory, the fur-covered buttocks and breasts are enough to qualify this as not being an ape or primate. It is a weird situation - Bigfoot detractors seem to refuse to tackle the IM index, and Bigfoot supporters seem to refuse to tackle the fur-covered bits problem.

At least he's not still insisting that Bigfoot's walk was inhuman.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wrong. There's an excellent photo of the Skookum (2/3 body imprint) Cast in Murphy's book. Coyote tracks are visible, but there are clearly no elk tracks on that imprint.

There are definitely elk tracks in the skookum cast. This has already been documented in this thread with several links.

 

[LTC8K6]

Matt Moneymaker had been searching for Bigfoot for years. In the woods of eastern Ohio, he claims he finally came eye to eye with the elusive primate.

"It was 2 o'clock in the morning and the moon was a quarter full," recalled Moneymaker. "Suddenly, there he was, an eight-foot-tall creature, standing 15 feet away, growling at me. He wanted to let me know I was in the wrong place."

They just can't seem to get any good evidence at all, even though they apparently often get within hours or even within feet of live ones......

That quote is from Nat'l Geographic News October 2003.

 

[LTC8K6]

Some interesting tidbits about the Skookum cast and expedition from emails by Noll.

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/track.php?id=5

Why digitize the
cast:
1. Eliminates all unwanted artifacts on the cast (i.e. elk and coyote prints, dirt clods, etc.) without harming the original, i.e. a duplicate cast may lift parts of the original surface, breaking away important details.

Unwanted artifacts, indeed! That pesky elk evidence has got to go!

6. Yes, there were elk, deer, coyote and bear prints in the muddy area as well. When I cast, I cast the entire scene. It preserves the context in which the imprint in question was
found. This aids with any photographs as well.
There is no bear print in the body cast or it's context.

Again, it's clear that elk and coyote tracks are in the cast, since they needed to eliminate them from the digitized cast image, and that all sorts of animal tracks were in the muddy area, as one would expect.

Except for the magical 800 pound fellow who managed not to leave any of his own tracks.....

Not casted were two finger like groves, raking towards the main body, near the fruit that was placed in the center of the wet area. Only photographs of these were taken. They were approximately 3.5' from the left forearm impression.

Or the grooves from a hoofed animal dragging a foot as it got up..... or dragging a foot while trying to bring an apple closer......

Almost forgot (but mind you, I have not made up my mind as to what I would do given the chance)...
I was carrying a 92F Baretta 9mm and a 45-70 TC. I always carry them when in the field... and one around town sometimes.

Derrick Randles was carrying a 44Mag and a 308, I believe. There were other weapons in camp, but I am strongly telling everyone right now... the BFRO has no official policy or statement concerning the usage of weapons during Sasquatch research.

Well, clearly they need have had no fear, so why not follow this live sasquatch that sat right near them only hours ago? Why suddenly abandon the chase the very next morning?

 

[LAL]

Well, I'm done debating this troll. He's not taking anyone's evidence, unless it might possibly support Bigfoot's existence. He's now demonstrated this repeatedly. There's no arguing with someone who will dismiss one set of experts who say it's a man in a suit, while accepting another set who says it's a large primate, on pretty much personal bias.

I will say I have found the issue of the intermembral index to be interesting, though I also have found it interesting that the only people to have tackled the issue are established Bigfoot supporters. I hardly regard the index as proof that it is not a man in a suit; after all, in theory, the fur-covered buttocks and breasts are enough to qualify this as not being an ape or primate. It is a weird situation - Bigfoot detractors seem to refuse to tackle the IM index, and Bigfoot supporters seem to refuse to tackle the fur-covered bits problem.

At least he's not still insisting that Bigfoot's walk was inhuman.

Of course I am. No experts or anyone else that I know of have produced anything convincing in the way of argument or evidence for the "man-in-a-suit" conjecture.

I recently decided to take zaayrdragon off filter to see if the tone had improved any since he or she called me a racist. So now I'm a troll. If presenting evidence on the pro side and refusing to join the scofftics just because that seems to be the popular stance around here makes me a troll, so be it, but I'm certainly not a man.

A collegue of Krantz' who claimed the animal could not be real because of the hair on the breasts had just written a paper on hair covering human breasts (it's very light). The hair could be an adaptation for cold.

 

[LAL]

Some interesting tidbits about the Skookum cast and expedition from emails by Noll.

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/track.php?id=5

Unwanted artifacts, indeed! That pesky elk evidence has got to go!

Again, it's clear that elk and coyote tracks are in the cast, since they needed to eliminate them from the digitized cast image, and that all sorts of animal tracks were in the muddy area, as one would expect.

You need to see the photo. It's not digitalized. It's a photo. It's much clearer than anything I've been able to find online. There are elk and faint coyote tracks as noted, but not in the long imprint. The imprint of long hair on the forearm is quite visible. The testicle print is clear as well. This was no elk. For the first time I'm seeing what Drs. Krantz, Meldrum, Swindler and Sarmiento saw. By no stretch of the imagination is this the imprint of an elk.

There are plans to put copies on public display. Perhaps Cliff Crook will finally get a chance to see it along with the rest of the public. I would love to see him try to explain his POV.

Except for the magical 800 pound fellow who managed not to leave any of his own tracks.....

It left heel strikes. With dermal ridges.

Or the grooves from a hoofed animal dragging a foot as it got up..... or dragging a foot while trying to bring an apple closer......

Have you ever observed elk feeding?

If, as you claim, the long imprint is of an elk's chest (which it clearly is not) there would have to be evidence of forelegs and hooves as it got up. Do you have any qualms at all about throwing out these fanciful explanations with nothing whatsoever to back them up?

The grooves were probably not cast because they were out of casting material. They sound a lot more like grooves from fingers than from hooves. Have you figured out how there could be three knee prints in a row but no marks of the foreleg or hooves? I'm anxiously awaiting your drawing of this contortionist elk.

Well, clearly they need have had no fear, so why not follow this live sasquatch that sat right near them only hours ago? Why suddenly abandon the chase the very next morning?

Because the cast was the priority. Noll devised the luring method because efforts at tracking them, and there have been many, have proved to be a waste of time. They did try luring again, but the animal was evidently no longer in the area. Noll is an experienced investigator. The rest weren't Cub Scouts.

 

[LAL]

In my opinion the animal's habitat is within the head of the people who believe it exists...

You and Daegling. That ignores the physical evidence, doesn't it?

In the opinion of these people, sighting reports are reliable (a supposition I find nor satisfactory) evidence, thus providing means to access its geographic range. The sighting database (you posted a link hundreds of posts ago) has reports virtually from every USA continental state and a large part of Canada. So, assuming it exists, and that sightings are reliable, assumptions that I think are questionable, this area is the creature's geographic range, taking in to account the date of the first sighting in the database to the last one (a report from say, 1715, may be from an area where the animal -assuming it exists or existed- no longer lives). And this is what´s supposed to be the present-day range and not includes other crypto-hominids. Including other legends of wildmen and baseless suppositions on where and how the creatures (assuming they exist or existed) evolved increases dramatically the area by including Europe and tropical Asia, for example. The density of evidence also decreases dramatically.

I asked about habitat, not distribution. There's no evidence all these reported hominids are the same species.

You said I posted a link to a picture, while I have just pointed out that the Jersey Devil description I was most familiar with resembled a gray-type alien walking on all fours... Others (the oldest ones) are from chymerical flying creatures. Which one is the hoax? And do you think a story on a flying creature can be distorted, I mean, interpreted and used as reliable evidence for an ape-like creature?

There's a discussion of the Jersey Devil, hominid variety, in The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, pg. 134.

The Devilish thing is from folklore and a real estate hoax. The author of the article (Strasenburgh) states that south out the Pine Barrens there's a nearly unbroken system of swamps and salt marshes extending into Florida, where the Skunk Ape is found. I'm rapidly losing my impression that the East Coast is an extended New York.

Wait, new statistical studies? You said the 2000 figure was a guess... Now it became a statistical study? Based on what?
Nothing of the above serves as excuse for the absence of reliable evidence. Smaller animals with much smaller populations are being constantly tracked, filmed, etc. And at areas much more remote, that are logistical nightmares.

Kratz said he was guessing at 2000. There's an estimate based on reports of 2000-6000. I didn't say it was new.

Thus, its just another unreliable tale that can not be verified. Not good evidence, again.

They all are, to you.

And we are supposed to belive that someone destroyed such a valuable iten? Its just another unreliable evidence with a great shadow of hoax over it.

Bryne thinks it may be in a drawer in the British Museum. People examining the hand, which has since been stolen, noted it was a construction, without knowing how the construction happened.

So, you trust in information you take from what you label as a wacko site? Why? Because it supports your beliefs?

No, because it was the only place we could find some of Heuvelman's writings in French.
The site came up during a debate on the Minnesota Iceman on BFF. Since Heuvelman's book on it has not been translated into English, a poster found the site, which has a photo and article by Heuvelmans. I noted the Aquatic Ape stuff and the apparent acceptance of Heuvelmans species designation. Weird.

According to a wacko site, you forgot to add at the start of the paragraph.

You wanted a report of a "wildman" corpse. I gave you one. I've come across a couple of references to a man shooting a Sasquatch in 1970. I'm trying to find out more.

LAL, I´ll write once again- any biologist or paleontologist who manages to find a bigfoot skull will get instant fame. And yes, he/she will have to prove its the real Mccoy - we are talking about science, that is based on data, and not on faith, that is based on beliefs.

Do you know of any that are out looking? Dr. Bindernagle, possibly, but why should he count when he's already a "believer"?

Immagine a report back from the 60s. Do you consider it can be adequately traced back and tested?

Didn't I mention I was in the area after events in Skamania County in 1969? They were followed up. Krantz examined tracks in Washington as well as casts. The PGF was thoroughly studied, beginning with primatologists at Yerkes. Do you think no one looked into these happenings at the time?

Hehe. You felt in to the trap. Roadkills and nice pictures of fossil animals? Can´t you do better than this?

You haven't. What trap? I only used your arguments.

And forgot that the purpose was to demonstrate that using what is nowdays know of bigfoot (assuming it exists) is only about EXTERNAL anatomy. Compare the reconstructions of Smilodon with Thylacosmilus. There are not enough data to make any suppositions on bigfoot´s real link with great apes, hominids, squirrels or marupials, with tha valiable data!
Look at the pictures in
http://www.avph.hpg.ig.com.br/thylacosmilus.htm
Would you be able, only by looking at the pictures, to say Thylacosmilus is not a feline?

I'll take the opinion of Dr. Daris Swindler, Professor Emeritus, UW, leading primate anatomist in the country, on them being a hominid primate. If he noticed any resemblence to a squirrel or an opposum, he might have said so.

Interesting though this is, you're really too far out on a limb for me.

So, how can someone based on artistic renders of sighting reports and blurry pictures identify a creature as a giant hominid based just in the external anatomy?

Ask Swindler.

Flawed argument. See the above explanation.



Suuuure. Bigfeet select the people they are going to appear to.

No one said that. They're noctural and evidently very wary. Many of the encounters seem to have come about because they were checking out the humans. Curiousity, perhaps.

They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...

No one's saying that either.

How do you know she was not saying the truth? This was just to show the caliber of some people who are involved in the business.

So you think the wife of an attendee typifies the calibur of some people who are "in the business"? Richard Noll is more typical, IMO, of people "in the business", as though he and Crowe are making any money at this. Roy Crowe has collected a lot of stuff and goes into the field, but I don't think he's considered a serious researcher, at least compared to Krantz, Meldrum and Noll, and not according to Noll. Your attempt to stereotype people who are interested in the phenomenon is not well received.

Its your money, so its your problem. I would not put my money in any one of them. And why wouldn´t all the skilled proffessionals that work with wildlife in North America not be able to obtain a nice footage or picture from bigfoot?

You mean the ones studying wolves in daylight in the South Cascades where wolves are thought to be extinct but Sasquatch sightings seem to be the most frequent?

Noll has some intriguing pictures, but we'll have to wait to see what else he has...............

Oh, and regarding your claim on how hard it wold be to even today, without CGI make a realistic monkey suit, have you seen "Congo"? Yeah, the film is a bomb. But still, no CGI was used. Oh, I know people have already wrote about it, but have you seen the hominid suits from 2001? You claim is an overstatement, at least.

The killer apes in Congo clearly had human proportions. So did the whatever-they-weres in 2001. If they had an IM index and mass like the creature in the PGF, we'd only have to figure out where Patterson could possibly have been able to duplicate such suits with little talent and less money.

What does this have to do with 1967 when the only synthetic hair available was Dynel?

 

[LAL]

Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..

The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..

Out of curiousity, where did you get the stabilized version? It's hard to see the left knee in that frame, but it looks slightly bent to me. There are 12 stills in Murphy's book of the clearest frames. All except the ones where the legs are hidden by dead brush show the legs bent at the knees.

The knees are non-locking. The wobble has nothing to do with the camera. And what makes you think your opinion is worth more than that of the people, with proper credentials, who have done the actual analysis?

 

[LAL]

There's always a possibility they exist...no skeptic would argue that. The evidence doesn't support your view, but there's a possibility...

...and Goodall only stated that they probably don't exist, but she would like them to.

Wrong again.

"In early November, 2003, Richard Noll interviewed Dr. Jane Goodall. The full interview is to be included in the DVD of the Willow Creek Bigfoot Symposium.

In the interview Dr. Goodall explains why she is convinced that bigfoot/sasquatches do exist, and the importance for science and academia to appreciate the best existing evidence and the need to obtain more. She states that a body will not be necessary to prove their existance if there is good enough photographic/video evidence."

http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp

The NPR interview has already been posted a couple of times. You're misquoting her.

(Friday, September 27, 2002, National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow)

"Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch.

Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about?

Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ...

Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here?

Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ...

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right?

Caller: Pretty much.

Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead.

Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.

Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright?

Caller: Thank you.

Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

 

[LAL]

There are definitely elk tracks in the skookum cast. This has already been documented in this thread with several links.

They are not on the imprint of the buttock and thigh, the heel strikes or the forearm print. Try your library for a copy of the book and see for yourself. The photo is so clear even you may be able to see what Meldrum, et al, are talking about. Nothing is circled.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...



No one's saying that either.

Uhhh, someone just said it.. ( pointed out the obvious ) Any evidence to the contrary ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Out of curiousity, where did you get the stabilized version? It's hard to see the left knee in that frame, but it looks slightly bent to me. There are 12 stills in Murphy's book of the clearest frames. All except the ones where the legs are hidden by dead brush show the legs bent at the knees.

And this proves what? That he picked out frames where the knee was bent ?

I have provided several links to the stabilized version.
Anyone can step through it frame by frame, and see that the load bearing leg, locks throughout the film..

Since you have the LMS DVD, you should have no problem observing this.

I agree there are some steps where ii doesn't ( lock ), but bent knees throughout, are not typical of the subject..

 

[LAL]

Uhhh, someone just said it.. ( pointed out the obvious ) Any evidence to the contrary ?

The implication seems to be that they're purposely avoiding wildlife photographers. That really doesn't merit a response.

I don't suppose you had much chance to get to the mountains, busy as you must have been at Fort Lewis, but if you did, how many of the common animals did you see? Photograph any? How about the nocturnal ones? See any wildlife photographers?