Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[smartcooky]

Because it's an example, not an actual thermal image. It's only to provide an example of the changes in the image. In an actual thermal image, only the warm body "glows" white. The cold ground and trees are dark.

For example, Bigfoot?

And....

Bigfoot?

...and

Bigfoot?

...and

Bigfoot? (OK sorry, I couldn't resist this one )

 

[dafydd]

Every single bigfoot thermal is an illusion of some type. I hope she's not asking folks examine each and every one.

We know that Bigfoot does not exist so what would be the point? I thought that Jodie was Bigfooter who had embraced reality. Did I get the wrong end of the stick?

 

[rockinkt]

I'm not savy on these phones, see if I can provide a link. Next question, if you folks don't mind. I just started paying attention on this forum again recently. What is in this link below? A person naked, in clothes or a monkey suit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPR2n6C5Ftk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Appears to be using grey-scale on the imager therefore it most likely is a suit because it is giving off very little or no heat signature.
However, without confirmation of the settings I'm just guessing.

 

[smartcooky]

Appears to be using grey-scale on the imager therefore it most likely is a suit because it is giving off very little or no heat signature.
However, without confirmation of the settings I'm just guessing.

Or it could be set to "black hot" as opposed to "white hot"...

 

[tsig]

Jodie

The subject in the photo is wearing light pants and a dark shirt, so I had to push the exposure high enough to overcome the difference in contrast between them, resulting in the overbrightening you speak of.

A thermal image can be manipulated in much more sophisticated and subtle ways across the full range of the IR camera's dynamic range, i,e,, it can be set to be more sensitive to heat in the approximate range of human body temperature, in much the same way that a coloured filter over the lens of the camera can limit the spectral range of an image,

This was just a simple demonstration of what can be done with a "flat", monochromatic image by applying a blanket increase in exposure. I just used an existing photo that wasn't taken in order to fake figboot. Shame you found this too difficult to understand.

The one that I used had a software program that let you also manipulate the images.

 

[tsig]

I'm not misunderstanding what is being said, I'm saying not all of the thermal images match what is being demonstrated.

We can provide the data but not the understanding.

 

[Rincewind]

I caught part of a program about Bigfoot recently, on one of the cable channels (sorry - should have noted which/what).

Bigfoot "experts" visit all over the USA, often being invited by locals. There's a meeting in the local town where experiences are recounted. Then the "expert" team spend time out where the events happened, trying to spot BF - one of them banging a stick against a tree, or often howling "just like a bigfoot". Apparently there's sometimes a reply to either of these, sometimes with rustling in nearby undergrowth. However, I've rarely heard anything on the TV that these guys claim.

Now I've started to produce some guidelines regarding bigfooting... not that they'll be of any use personally, as I live in the UK.... sorry, Ankh-Morpork....

1) Everyone who claims to have seen Bigfoot is by definition honest.
2) None of these people want to be seen on TV, or are taking the p.....
2) Whatever they claim to have seen is obviously Bigfoot.
3) Even though locals know where the "experts" will be, so could also be in the vicinity to bang sticks against trees and howl back, nobody would ever do this.
4) Even if nothing is seen or heard, Bigfoot is somehow proven to be in the area the team was researching anyway.

That's as far as I've got so far.... Maybe the next program will produce some clear evidence...

Who am I kidding!

 

[smartcooky]

We can provide the data but not the understanding.

Nice paraphrase!

"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
- Samuel Johnson

 

[jerrywayne]

I'm not savy on these phones, see if I can provide a link. Next question, if you folks don't mind. I just started paying attention on this forum again recently. What is in this link below? A person naked, in clothes or a monkey suit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPR2n6C5Ftk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Looks like a new form of ape: BigHands.

 

[smartcooky]

Looks like a new form of ape: BigHands.

Aaaahh! an obvious evolutionary trait that allows Bighands to throw bigger rocks at Figbooters!!

 

[Jodie]

Do you have an example? Do it right. Otherwise, you're just half-assing it.

Oh hush Resume, you don't know either.

I'm just saying that the previous example didn't fit, I see where someone above adjusted the surrounding areas, so how do you tell if that has been done?

 

[Jodie]

The one that I used had a software program that let you also manipulate the images.

Ahhh I see, so how do you tell if someone messed with the settings?

 

[Jodie]

An example would help. I can't follow Jodie's train of thought.

I would think you would get everything whited out but I see that you can adjust the surrounding areas, so my train of thought is headed into my next question. How do you tell if this has been done on a thermal?

 

[Jodie]

Every single bigfoot thermal is an illusion of some type. I hope she's not asking folks examine each and every one.

I hope you aren't asking me to examine each and everyone, I'm just looking for basic information.

 

[Resume]

Oh hush Resume,

No.

you don't know either.

I know that folks (like paranormal enthusiasts) have been using flir technology to serve up ambiguious images for a while now. I know one can mess with the sensitivity of these things. I know there is no bigfoot. What else do I need to know?

 

[GT/CS]

<snip>

Jodie,
If you post an example of a bigfoot heat signature you find interesting we'll be happy to critique it.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Quoted post removed as it was moved to AAH

 

[LTC8K6]

FLIR is a bigfoot fad. It doesn't help their cause much if any, so they will abandon it. Only believers are interested in FLIR images of "bigfoot".

Never mind that with "bigfoot" holding position 117' away, a spotlight and a regular camera could have provided some interesting video...

Never mind that FLIR can't tell the difference between a man, a man in a bigfoot suit, and a tall bipedal ape. And cows taking a nap...

The IR image fad with bigfoot has come and gone before.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/saga1973.htm

 

[rockinkt]

Or it could be set to "black hot" as opposed to "white hot"...

Well yes - if you're looking for the easiest and most probable explanation.

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't know Correa, but I'm not going to accept the explanation as 100% if it doesn't match what I see on IR.

OK, its your right. However, you will be making the same error footers and UFOlogists make when an explanation for their pet top pic is presented. It just has to be good enough; no 100% match needed. Why bother if this or that shadow or fur hue is not an exact match for what you see at PGF when the overall product is very similar? Not to mention 100% match would require 100% reproduction of the original situation, something usually impossible.

You asked how to know the treatment a thermal image received… Well, it can be nearly impossible to know – bottomline is you all you have is what whoever presented it says. Digital images may have attached files (ex.: EXIF files) which may tell part of their history (picture date, settings, camera model, post-processed or not with some software). However, “Prnt Scr” or “Ctrl C” plus “Ctrl V” can give you a new file without all that data. Not to mention EXIF files can be tampered with quite easily.

That's what it sounds like to me, are there other possiilities?

Of course there are and some were presented. For whatever reason, you failed to notice them. One of them would be a fully-clothed person who’s been warmed by a bonfire, another would be something misidentified. Oh, note also post 1397 from Robrob.

I think I'm irritating people simply because I pointed out that what was described doesn't match what you always see in the thermals. If you are going to do it right, do it right, don't half ass it like footers.

You are not going to like what I will say… Sometimes, however, there’s no other way.

No. If you are irritating some people (I have no actual evidence you are or not) one of the reasons is because you are presenting poorly constructed arguments. As recent examples, I would point the first two quotes of yours in this post and the Nephelin-were-Neanderthals claim you made somewhere else.

It seems to me the actual reason is that you are being a bit grumpy lately, maybe because of a personal grudge with one or two posters and maybe because people have disagreed with your views, presenting arguments against them.

 

[Drewbot]

You'd think the discovery of a new species of Tapir by Zoologists would be a dose of reality for Bigfooters. You'd think they'd see that a creature smaller than Bigfoot, in a comparitively unexplored area, would be difficult to classify.

Well, reality is, that it was just a matter of going to a museum and measuring skulls, and asking hunters for pieces of them, and going in the field and obtaining tissue samples.

"Skull samples and measures were obtained from
specimens in museum collections, those collected in the field,
or animals provided by indigenous hunters"

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1644/12-MAMM-A-169.1

Check this out:

Amazingly, this new species of tapir was actually hunted by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 with a specimen from his exploits still resting in the American Museum of Natural History in New York to this day. At the time of his hunt, Roosevelt wrote that the local hunters called the tapir a "distinct kind."
Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1216-hance-new-tapir-kabomani.html#SudThti0BmDOZeRb.99