Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Resume said:
Funny how they can get thermals, but no clear photos, or biologicals, or shoot one maybe. Or do anything that a real researcher might do.

Funny that they're taking their latest cue from the ghosthunting fakers; do these folks imagine no one will notice?
Click to expand...


The target market won't. Those who believe that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary! :D
 
Resume said:
Funny how they can get thermals, but no clear photos, or biologicals, or shoot one maybe. Or do anything that a real researcher might do.

Funny that they're taking their latest cue from the ghosthunting fakers; do these folks imagine no one will notice?
Click to expand...
Yep, their one repetitive bit of "evidence" is also the most subjective of all possible images.
 
Thermal images: The newest bestest evar way to make a new bigfoot movie. It will never be distinct, or sharp or clear, it will of course be in a tiny resolution of a blob too. You won't even know if it was filmed at night or during the day. You'll just eat your white blob, and like it!

:D
Now, sit back down Waldo and open your bigfoot handbook to chapter 1. Anything that possibly could or would not be provable not to be a bigfoot, IS A BIGFOOT!

The end. :)
 
Last edited:
River said:
...Now, sit back down Waldo and open your bigfoot handbook to chapter 1. Anything that possibly could or would not be provable not to be a bigfoot, IS A BIGFOOT!
The end. :)
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and that's all a bigfoot beginner player needs to know, all the rest is flourish....Great handbook! :D
 
Why don't they simply go back during daylight hours where they filmed the critter and look for hair snagged on the bushes, or prints, anything? Do any of these people ever do that?
 
Bigfoot hair doesn't snag, pull or fall out. This is proven to be true because we would have already proven Bigfoot if the hairs came off. Even their sleeping nests have no hair. It would be possible to cut the hair but there ain't nobody going up to one with scissors.
 
Question for those FLIF experts. Sorry if it's been discussed.

Would a suit give a full "white" thermal? What would? A naked person?
 
Jodie said:
Why don't they simply go back during daylight hours where they filmed the critter and look for hair snagged on the bushes, or prints, anything? Do any of these people ever do that?
Click to expand...

Yes! Only never to be heard from again!
 
COGrizzly said:
Question for those FLIF experts. Sorry if it's been discussed.

Would a suit give a full "white" thermal? What would? A naked person?
Click to expand...

Far too many variables - but the main thing is that to be honest - the color chart should be posted by every photo along with the base temperature setting.
 
Last edited:
What he said.

If the imager allows you to change sensibility and/or display settings (color levels tied to each given IR-emmision/reflectivity intensity intervals), certain settings could turn a relatively cold object in to a white blob.

Come to think of it, someone trying to get more detail from a dark and cold area could easilly have the tendency to boost sensibility beyond a reasonable level, thus searing white blobs are to be expected.
 
rockinkt said:
Far too many variables - but the main thing is that to be honest - the color chart should be posted by every photo along with the base temperature setting.
Click to expand...


And of course the Figbooters are never going to do that as it will limit their ability to post misleading and bogus evidence.
 
Correa Neto said:
What he said.

If the imager allows you to change sensibility and/or display settings (color levels tied to each given IR-emmision/reflectivity intensity intervals), certain settings could turn a relatively cold object in to a white blob.

Come to think of it, someone trying to get more detail from a dark and cold area could easilly have the tendency to boost sensibility beyond a reasonable level, thus searing white blobs are to be expected.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't everything look like a white blob if that were the case?
 
But you would have the person posing as bigfoot being a big white blob, then everything else ought to have white out without anyway to differentiate what was the faux foot from the general surroundings
 
Jodie said:
But you would have the person posing as bigfoot being a big white blob, then everything else ought to have white out without anyway to differentiate what was the faux foot from the general surroundings
Click to expand...

Who said that there was a person impersonating an imaginary animal? Surely one of the Bigfoot photographers would have been competent enough to capture a clear image? But all we ever get are blobs and vague lumps that could be anything, or bears. I thought that you had given up believing in Bigfoot. Did I get the wrong impression?
 
Last edited:
True enough, but if it isn't a bear it would have to be a person, nothing else stands up on two legs.
 
Drewbot said:
They are willing dupes. Many of them are anyway. Many pro-wrestling fans know it to be fake, they know the tricks, they know when the wrestler is talking to the other wrestler right before a move, they know that a wrestler is really hurt, when the other wrestler goes after someone in the crowd, (he is buying time for the hurt wrestler to catch his breath), they know that when a wrestler is hurt, the referee will get down low and pretend to be checking for a pin, but he is really asking the wrestler if he can continue, or if they should call for a stretcher.

Footers know that a Bigfoot report is made up, they know the tells, 'oooh it swayed back and forth!, ooh it's eyes glowed Red? it must have been a male then, it was too scary to shoot wasn't it!? I know right?!? ' It is the same thing, and both the wrestling fans, and the Footers will pay top dollar to continue being willing dupes. For both, it is a suspension of reality.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a paranormal show, 30 Odd Minutes, which is carried on some cable channels.

The subtitle is "The truth is out there...WE will find it, but only by sheer accident."

The hosts seem to half-believe. Everything they say is tongue-in-cheek; they never call BS on a story, but they never swallow it whole, either. It seems like the whole exercise is carried out "on the edge" of belief/disbelief, and spreading semi- or mis-information is part of the exercise. What's the harm? Everyone knows it isn't true! Go with the flow!

I wish someone could tell me the psychology behind this. It bothers me a lot.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
But you would have the person posing as bigfoot being a big white blob, then everything else ought to have white out without anyway to differentiate what was the faux foot from the general surroundings
Click to expand...

Humans are warmer than vegetation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom