Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

That LAL has offered this as an example of "unambiguous video" is a testament to either her zoological incompetence, her unconscious self-delusion or her willful deceit. Take your pick.

Just where did I offer it as unambiguous? It's a video taken with a camera phone of a purported bigfoot - the only one I know of.

(My exact words: "I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?")

I did a step-though on it and the figure doesn't seem to be wearing pants. It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz.

I've shown in captures the "jeans" is actually an artifact. Morgoth on BFF did too.

I see I got four thumbs down on my comment on YouTube. That must be a record for me. I PMd the poster and his nephew right after that inviting them to join in a discussion on MABRC but never got answers. They were getting a licking on YouTube worthy of the JREF and I felt sorry for them. I was hoping my comment would encourage them to join in.

Some people rejected it just because it was on YouTube but someone from the First Nations in Canada might not have known what kind of reputation YouTube had a the time. He posted it on another site too - it seemed to be a little clearer there.

Since these animals can't possibly exist any film or video must be of guys in suits or hoodies or, in the case of Easterville, a bear coat. See how that works?

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

As far as I can tell, Melissa removed it for whatever reason. Last I saw, HarryH was arguing in favour of my criticism of the way thefreebillyjack presented his porcupine video. Maybe he took the same tone of exasperation as I did further and Melissa decided to blast the thread into outer space.

Not sure, HarryH and Mel get along fine, so I doubt it was anything major.Harry is a skeptic but he's a heck of a nice guy.

[Drewbot]

Last week or two weeks ago, someone here at JREF offered to Cover the $60 for Bigfoot DNA tests. I have promised this link to BulletMaker, and am wondering if anyone remembers where that post is, if so, please give me the information.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by LAL

Just where did I offer it as unambiguous? It's a video taken with a camera phone of a purported bigfoot - the only one I know of.

(My exact words: "I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?")

Maybe 'cause it's in a thread with "Why no unambiguous photos/videos?" in the thread title.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

LAL, it's true I don't know you. Allow me to apologize if I was brusque or dismissive of you in a previous post. My only point is that kitakaze has asked you many questions that you've chosen to ignore, or at best declined to answer.

Apology accepted. I guess if you guys have to keep talking to me and about me when I'm gone I have to come back from time to time to see what you've said.

Quote:

I understand you have other facets of your life, other pursuits, interests, loves, hobbies, etc. that will keep you from spending an egregious amount of time here, responding to the impolite jabberings of a bunch of suspicious, cynical hard-noses.

I did that single-handedly here for about nine months. There was one of me and at least six of them - sometimes on six different threads. I once spent four hours on a reply to Correa and lost the dang post. It was about that time I decided I needed another hobby.

Quote:

But I find it telling that what I consider to be THE most probing and essential questions are the ones you've declined to answer the last few pages, namely:

We have unambiguous photos of every species of mammal ever seen or reported in North America,including incredibly rare animals such as the Californian wolverine, except bigfoot. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?

No problem there. A typical sighting in daytime (according to Glickman) is by a hunter who's just discharged a weapon. I've never met a hunter who was armed with a camera. A typical nighttime sighting is from a vehicle, often with several passengers, where the animal crosses in front of or behind a vehicle. Even with a camera on board there's insufficient time and light for a good shot.

One method for getting good shots used by a wildlife photographer (according to Rick Noll) is to position three cameras - they fire from different angles. They cost $1200 each so that's a deterrent for amateur "researchers". Given sufficient time and funding something like that might work if a sasquatch happened to walk within range of the three cameras.

Along with good equipment, good luck helps. A cyber friend's game cam just failed to catch what may have been a grizzly at a cache. Evidently it was aimed too high.

If sasquatches had well-established feeding areas and migration routes the task would be a lot easier.

Quote:

Gorillas and black bears, which are of comparable mass to the reported bigfoot (500-lbs.+) require about 8-10000 calories a day. Gorillas are mostly sedentary foliovores, with huge guts built to process all that foliage. Black bears are omnivores; this behavior necessitates far roaming that results in frequent human sighting, pictures, videos, dead bodies, etc. Bigfoot, though reportedly omnivorous, has none of these features. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?

Rarity and an avoidance of humans. Dying animals tend to hole up. In an area like the PNW, there are innumerable places for concealment. Early species of Homo evidently concealed their dead, probably because the corpses draw predators. Possibly there's behavior like that, but I don't think it would be necessary. The scavenger system takes care of dead animals in short order.

There are a lot of sightings, many quite credible, a few pictures and videos and many photos and casts of footprints. Jeff Meldrum has about 200 casts in his collection.

Peter Byrne thought these animals can cover 25 miles in a night. With a huge range they could do quite a bit of foraging without leaving much sign. I've seen several areas that were clearly inhabited by deer from the tracks but there was no damage to vegetation that I could see.

We're omnivores and not all of us have enormous guts even if we eat a lot of vegetables. A hominid primate wouldn't necessarily have a lot in common with gorillas and bears.

Quote:

How do bigfoot obtain 8-10000 calories a day in the winter months, which are lengthy in the Pacific Northwest, and strip the land of nutrition? If bigfoot hibernate or become torpid during these months, how is that biologists, hikers, birdwatchers, park rangers, and the general public never come across a hibernating or torpid bigfoot?

Because they're not there? (I'm referring to the people.) Rangers I've known seldom got out of the car. When I lived in Skamania County the tourists were on the other side of the river or in town. Hunting seasons were over by the end of October or early November, as I recall. Rockworks shut down for the winter. Birdwatchers stayed near Blue Lake. The only biologists I met were calling Spotted Owls from the road. They weren't there long.

Even mature second growth forest is so dense you could walk within 15' of a living BF and never see it. A dead one would probably have to be located by stench.

There is an abundance of winter food in the PNW. Club moss grows on everything. It is very nutritious if a little coarse. There are fish in the rivers and lakes, hibernating ground squirrels and pikas, amphibians and the inner bark of hardwoods. There are a number of evergreen plants, not all coniferous. Much of the PNW is very mild in the winter. I survived quite well in sweaters as long as I stayed out of the Rocky Mountain Wind along the river.

I don't think the calorie requirement would have to be that high and with protein in the diet it's not that hard to meet.

Deer and elk usually do quite well in winter. They don't hibernate.

Quote:

I don't want to overwhelm you, so if you would, if you have fifteen minutes or so, will you please address these questions? They constitute the turning point for me in terms of coming to grips with the illogic of bigfoot's supposed existence.

That was a bit longer than fifteen minutes, but there you go. We've been over these points many, many times in the past so what may be fresh ground for you is old hat for me and I'm borderline bored with it. No avoidance intended.

I haven't seen a skeptical argument yet that hasn't been countered - nor a skeptic that seems to be aware of that.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LAL

I haven't seen a skeptical argument yet that hasn't been countered - nor a skeptic that seems to be aware of that.

You havent looked very hard then.

I havent seen one footer claim that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

As far as Meldrum,Fahrenbach, Krantz and Bindernagle- they have been effectively shown to be ( at best) fraught with error and inconsistency regarding their ability- who else is left and I'll finish them off too.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

LAL,

Wild animals that are running will often run a ways and stop and look back. So, the bunny that runs across the road may stop on the far bank and sit there allowing you to stop and take a photo.

It hasn't yet. It heads straight down and into the brush.

Quote:

But, since you can't take photos of wildlife then no one can, right?

Since you can't find bones in the woods then no one can, right?

I never said that.

It's difficult. How difficult doesn't seem to occur to people who apparently have never been in deep forest. Due to distance and lighting the best I could have hoped for on my avian quarry would have been a birdblob.

I've convinced myself I'm not agile enough to stop the car and grab a camera in time to get a good shot of anything crossing the road ahead of me. Experiment over.

Quote:

Maybe I should read Krantz?

It wouldn't hurt. You could see how many errors you can find.

Quote:

Or is it Meldrum today?

It's Murphy. I got the Bigfoot Film Journal. He covers a lot of those "stumper" arguments I've seen here on PGF threads.

Maybe he was lurking.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.

Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh....................

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.

Lu, come now. This is no type of realistic assessment of the situation. The PGF is unambiguous to Bigfoot enthusiasts. Their first viewing of the film is almost always in a footer presentation.

The simple fact is that for the overwhelming majority of people, the PGF is a goofy pop culture icon of a guy an a monkey suit. Patty fans are a very rare breed.

Quote:

Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh....................

This is a realistic assessment of the situation.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

You havent looked very hard then.

I havent seen one footer claim that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

As far as Meldrum,Fahrenbach, Krantz and Bindernagle- they have been effectively shown to be ( at best) fraught with error and inconsistency regarding their ability- who else is left and I'll finish them off too.

Okay. How about Dennett, Daegling and Long?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Lu, come now. This is no type of realistic assessment of the situation. The PGF is unambiguous to Bigfoot enthusiasts. Their first viewing of the film is almost always in a footer presentation.

Yeah, it kind of didn't make the 6 o'clock news - in L.A., anyway.

You have new evidence that a Wah Chang mask was actually used?

Quote:

The simple fact is that for the overwhelming majority of people, the PGF is a goofy pop culture icon of a guy an a monkey suit. Patty fans are a very rare breed.

Is that the overwhelming majority of people in Japan?

I haven't done any actual polls, but in my experience most people have never heard of it or have only heard some guy confessed on his deathbed.

Quote:

This is a realistic assessment of the situation.

Yep. Kind of a double standard, isn't it?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LAL

Okay. How about Dennett, Daegling and Long?

Some of them have problems as well

I make a good portion of my career refuting other experts.

I dont play favorites with footers or skeptics and I dont take prisoners.

Just the facts- thats all I deal with

The problem is that those listed above have the high ground, air superiority, naval superiority and a larger more heavily armed force than the footer side.

Its like a bass boat attacking an aircraft carrier- its possible but not a fight I would bet on.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Some of them have problems as well

I make a good portion of my career refuting other experts.

I dont play favorites with footers or skeptics and I dont take prisoners.

Just the facts- thats all I deal with

The problem is that those listed above have the high ground, air superiority, naval superiority and a larger more heavily armed force than the footer side.

Its like a bass boat attacking an aircraft carrier- its possible but not a fight I would bet on.

You could start with Daegling taking Cliff Crook's word on the Skookum Cast even though neither had seen it. Or how about his error on German Army chest measurements?

Greg Long on the various suits? Dennett on the "Left, left" comment?

Shouldn't be hard, unless you're so committed to the skeptics' side you can't take a look at skeptical arguments with any degree of skepticism.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

Yeah, it kind of didn't make the 6 o'clock news - in L.A., anyway.

You have new evidence that a Wah Chang mask was actually used?

This thing?:



No new evidence whatsoever. Dfoot's and others arguments that this was the mask used is not at all reliable evidence. You know, of course, that this is not a problem. I don't have any expectations realistically of ever getting a good look at the suit used in the PGF. Any moron should be able to understand the point of destroying or hiding the proof of your hoax. Indeed, all I have to do is show that a human, any human, is more likely than a real Bigfoot. I and other skeptics have done that a thousand times over.

Here is proof that Patty's proportions are not only completely human but in fact match the only person ever to claim to be her:



I very much welcome you to disprove that. Sweaty and log have tried to imply mangler hoaxed us with different skeletons as failed.

Quote:

Is that the overwhelming majority of people in Japan?

Every single non-Bigfoot enthusiast person I have ever discussed the PGF in person in Japan, Canada, and the United States, as well as people from countries all over the world on the internet either thought the PGF was a fake or had never heard of it. Such people when shown the PGF have unfailingly said it is a man in a suit.

Quote:

I haven't done any actual polls, but in my experience most people have never heard of it or have only heard some guy confessed on his deathbed.

And I bet every single person you discussed the PGF who had seen it and was not a footer needed your proponent speech to even begin to take it seriously.

Quote:

Yep. Kind of a double standard, isn't it?

Actually, not at all. I know and readily admit when specific arguments of mine are conjectural or speculative. You said...

"Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh.................... "

Yeah, that's absolutely right. You can't use stories, subjective experiences, and the wishful thinking of Bigfoot enthusiasts in place of reliable evidence. It's a matter of science and there's no double standard at all. Either you have the reliable evidence of a massive upright ape wandering about all over North America or you don't. If Bigfoot enthusiasts don't have this, they should stop wasting their time trying to push garbage old films and silly videos on rational thinking people and do whatever they can to support the efforts to actually produce reliable evidence.

Everything so far has failed. The PGF and all of its mini-me's will never be accepted as reliable evidence of Bigfoot until a creature matching those images is found. When you see all the animals with unambiguous images in this thread you can understand, there is absolutely no good reason we've heard yet as to why a massive upright primate hasn't yet appeared in a unambiguous photo or video. Every other large North American mammal does from people to Florida panthers. Why not Bigfoot?

[Correa Neto]

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

I don't think that would work for reasons already stated. I'm quite certain someone would suspect it of being a hoax.

Okay, I'll bite. Why would eyes with slits be likely at all?

(Krantz rejected reports of glowing eyes out of hand, BTW. The red in red-eye is the color of blood vessels.)

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

I did a step-though on it and the figure doesn't seem to be wearing pants. It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz.

I've shown in captures the "jeans" is actually an artifact. Morgoth on BFF did too.

Ack! Ack! Creduloid behaviour... hurting the brain... further making footers look ridiculous...

Why, oh why, oh why do you fall for this silliness, Lu? What is the process where normally intelligent people go ga-ga over Bigfoot?

OK, turn your sound off on your computer and watch this video again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQ4txNehzE

At 00:01, 00:10, and 00:28 you can see the guy's jeans. Your step-through apparently decided to step over that. The jeans are an artifact? A blue artifact that is right where pants should be every time the camera goes low enough to see?? Facepalm. Facepalm big. Let's see the evidence showing these jeans an artifact. As Sweaty would say, oh, how very lucky. The thing that looks just like jeans where jeans would be is an artifact. He's wearing a hooded jacket. You can see that with little effort.

You said, "It appears to be foraging, which is unusual behavior for a guy in a hoodie taking a whiz." Come ooooon, seriously. Acerbic exasperation. That is the name of the reaction that inspires. Foraging? The guy is in all likelihood taking a leak and his buddies are joking around recording him with their cell phone. They look at it after and say, "hahaha Dude! You look like a Bigfoot!" Ding! Hey, let's upload it to youtube and call it that.

Then along comes the credulous:

Originally Posted by LAL @ youtube

I believe you. The similarity to the animal in the PGF is striking.

Don't let the turkeys get you down.

We "bleevers" are used to ridicule, but there's a lot of evidence for an unidentified North American hominid primate species living in the PNW and Easterville has a history of sightings

You know what is bizarre behaviour? Bizarre behaviour is a bigass elusive ape that has never been captured just standing there and enjoying the bushes while a person is speaking loudly at it. Did you ever wonder why there is such hideous noise on that video? Did you notice that the effect is to make you turn your sound off and interfering with any attempt to listen to what they're saying?

Quote:

I see I got four thumbs down on my comment on YouTube. That must be a record for me. I PMd the poster and his nephew right after that inviting them to join in a discussion on MABRC but never got answers. They were getting a licking on YouTube worthy of the JREF and I felt sorry for them. I was hoping my comment would encourage them to join in.

Yes, they never answered the Bigfoot enthusiast who contacted them and said she believed them and invited them to discuss their video. OMG, Lu, they were probably laughing their asses of at you. You can work that out, right?

Quote:

Some people rejected it just because it was on YouTube but someone from the First Nations in Canada might not have known what kind of reputation YouTube had a the time. He posted it on another site too - it seemed to be a little clearer there.

Yeah, maybe these Canadian First Nations guys didn't know about youtube.

Yeah, or maybe these guys have cell phones with cameras, use computers as much as any other person, and have an account at youtube where they load up family videos, etc, just like every other person. Facepalm. Facepalm big.

His handle is cooldude311 and here is his dad's birthday party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zWJ-wPNCeA

And here is his bear sighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJZZwh8nh9g

You can't make out a bear but he does turn the camera around to show his face. BTW, did you note that this video was made 3 years after the crappy Manitoba video that made a lot of money for another Canadian native guy?

Quote:

Since these animals can't possibly exist any film or video must be of guys in suits or hoodies or, in the case of Easterville, a bear coat. See how that works?

That is a straw man. Nobody is saying can't possibly exist. Why is it you guys always feel the need to do that? Why do you constantly invent phantom positions for skeptics? Obviously you can't deal with the real arguments. It is called a guy in a hoody because we see his jeans three times, as well as his hoody, and the guy recording is talking to him. Pretty simple.

Really, Lu, you are a smart person when it comes to other things but when it comes to Bigfoot, you are waaaaay to credulous. It's like the subject makes you abandon your wits temporarily. I'm not trying to insult you but it's pretty obvious to me.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Well, it actually doesn't take a body. Good imagery of a Patty-like creature, not suspected of being a hoax, could do wonders...

Got some?

Very, very correct. I forgot to put that at the end of my post and I had it in mind. Footers can complain all they want, good imagery of Bigfoot of any kind, even that suspected of being a hoax, would be a huuuge advance. They don't even have that so let them cross that bridge when they come to it.

Here's a question. What is the best alleged Bigfoot video ever, regardless of ambiguity or suspicion of being a hoax or even being a proven hoax?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LAL

You could start with Daegling taking Cliff Crook's word on the Skookum Cast even though neither had seen it. Or how about his error on German Army chest measurements?

Greg Long on the various suits? Dennett on the "Left, left" comment?

Shouldn't be hard, unless you're so committed to the skeptics' side you can't take a look at skeptical arguments with any degree of skepticism.

Actually Lu, I'm a BELIEVER and not a skeptic ( ask anyone here or at the BFF or BFD) I have never bent from that perspective and unless evidence surfaces to factually refute my premise, I wont.

I base my "belief" on personal experience ( which I can neither qualify or quantify for the masses so I dont try)

However, I base my science,logic, reason and conclusions on cold hard reality.

I am uncompromising on legitimate science, testing,validation, facts, data and reality. I have no preconceptions nor do I give a damn which way the pendulum of proof swings.

BF is factually true or false and I dont care which.

I also have the PhD, experience and CV to make my words stick.

I have already factually refuted the "fatal 4" of BF dom and if you want a repeat, I'll do it here.

If you want me to examine the so called "skeptics"- I'll do that too and if they are wrong, I'll have no hesitation whatsoever in taking them to the mat too. Its what I do.

So, if you believe you or anyone you think you know has a legitimate point, let me know and I'll either confirm it as legitimate, confirm it as unable to be discerned for whatever reason or destroy it. I will give you the facts,data and reality check to back it up and it will be bulletproof.

This aint rocket science.

There you go girl, I wrote you a blank check- now cash it

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

This thing?:

No new evidence whatsoever. Dfoot's and others arguments that this was the mask used is not at all reliable evidence. You know, of course, that this is not a problem. I don't have any expectations realistically of ever getting a good look at the suit used in the PGF. Any moron should be able to understand the point of destroying or hiding the proof of your hoax. Indeed, all I have to do is show that a human, any human, is more likely than a real Bigfoot. I and other skeptics have done that a thousand times over.

I seem to remember you were quite adamant about the Wah Chang mask at one point.

Quote:

Here is proof that Patty's proportions are not only completely human but in fact match the only person ever to claim to be her:

I very much welcome you to disprove that. Sweaty and log have tried to imply mangler hoaxed us with different skeletons as failed.

I don't buy the skeleton any more than you guys bought Steindorf's done with reverse kinematics. It's certainly not broad enough. I guess "innacurate" is okay for IM ratios if they fit within human range.

Quote:

Every single non-Bigfoot enthusiast person I have ever discussed the PGF in person in Japan, Canada, and the United States, as well as people from countries all over the world on the internet either thought the PGF was a fake or had never heard of it. Such people when shown the PGF have unfailingly said it is a man in a suit.

Appeal to majority? The Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think it's a man in a suit then? How many of these people were aware of the proportions?

As an astute poster once remarked any hairy upright hominoid would look like a man in a suit to us.

I actually don't go around discussing this much. My boss remarked the other day that the "original' film certainly looked real. Maybe he caught something on TV. I didn't ask.

Quote:

And I bet every single person you discussed the PGF who had seen it and was not a footer needed your proponent speech to even begin to take it seriously.

See above. I did lend LMS to a couple of people.

Quote:

Actually, not at all. I know and readily admit when specific arguments of mine are conjectural or speculative. You said...

"Remember, we can't use anecdotes, personal experience, or anything written or said by "footers". We can use.........uh.................... "

Yeah, that's absolutely right. You can't use stories, subjective experiences, and the wishful thinking of Bigfoot enthusiasts in place of reliable evidence. It's a matter of science and there's no double standard at all. Either you have the reliable evidence of a massive upright ape wandering about all over North America or you don't. If Bigfoot enthusiasts don't have this, they should stop wasting their time trying to push garbage old films and silly videos on rational thinking people and do whatever they can to support the efforts to actually produce reliable evidence.

I'm contributing by quietly hoping for death by Mack truck.

I got in trouble on MABRC by saying science has very strict standards and bigfootery hasn't come up with anything good enough yet, remember? I dasted to mention peer review in the same topic with Ed Smith and the rest is history.

The double standard seems to be that we aren't really allowed to say anything while you're free to use terms like "garbage" and "silly". I wasn't aware those are scientific terms.

Quote:

Everything so far has failed. The PGF and all of its mini-me's will never be accepted as reliable evidence of Bigfoot until a creature matching those images is found. When you see all the animals with unambiguous images in this thread you can understand, there is absolutely no good reason we've heard yet as to why a massive upright primate hasn't yet appeared in a unambiguous photo or video. Every other large North American mammal does from people to Florida panthers. Why not Bigfoot?

What would you consider unambiguous? A sasquatch that doesn't look like a sasquatch, perhaps? It's unfortunate Patty didn't pose and Roger didn't get good, clear shots, but that's the best so far. Your conviction it was a hoax doesn't make it one. I could name quite a few people who've really studied it who found it convincing, but so could you.

If a dead female is found and she's thinner than Patty what would that mean?

A couple of thousand Orangutans were just "discovered". Not as impressive as the 150,000 Lowland Gorillas, maybe, but large animals can and do escape detection.

I suppose it would be an appeal to authority to mention Daris Swindler, Jane Goodall and Russ Mittermeier? I sort of thought they were rational people.

It may be possible to get good footage, but a shot to the temple and no others around to rend you limb from limb would be better.

Do you honestly think Northern California is covered in trail cams? <refrains from using the word "silly">

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Ack! Ack! Creduloid behaviour... hurting the brain... further making footers look ridiculous....

Oh, knock it off. I've read it was drunks messing around. Some YouTuber claimed he checked it out. Is that an acceptable skeptical anecdote?

This is the BFF thread, but it looks like Morgoth's .gifs are gone:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...95&mode=linear

DTK's huge .gif shows a deep buttocks cleft and that arm Apeman mentions. I'm not sure if I have my captures. They're on MABRC if someone can get them.

The light area goes across the bottom of the frames, twice, way beyond where jeans would be. I'm not sure if I used the video on YouTube or the other one, wherever that was.

Someone somewhere brought up camera phones as though everyone carries one and there "should be" good clear sasquatch shots from them.

This is an example of how well that would work.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

I have already factually refuted the "fatal 4" of BF dom and if you want a repeat, I'll do it here.

If you want me to examine the so called "skeptics"- I'll do that too and if they are wrong, I'll have no hesitation whatsoever in taking them to the mat too. Its what I do.

Go for it.

I have naturally missed a lot of posts since I gave up on the boards and buried myself in YouTube debates. I'm more up on Dever and Dawkins than Dennett or Davis.

I never thought I'd get burned out on this, but I have. Maybe you can help get my adrenaline flowing again.

I'd appreciate it.

[jnelso99]

My problem with that Easterville video is that it seemed like the person with the camera was making a concerted effort to keep the subject of the video at the edge of the frame instead of the center of the frame.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LAL

Go for it.

I have naturally missed a lot of posts since I gave up on the boards and buried myself in YouTube debates. I'm more up on Dever and Dawkins than Dennett or Davis.

I never thought I'd get burned out on this, but I have. Maybe you can help get my adrenaline flowing again.

I'd appreciate it.

not a prob, give me one. I'm not doing your work for you. Just remember, it works both ways but its logical to work on the skeptics now because the "pro" side has been all but devastated and has nothing of any legitimate relevance to bring to the table so theres really nothing of any value from the pro side to even begin discussing.

Thats just reality and the way it is

[LAL]

Originally Posted by jnelso99

My problem with that Easterville video is that it seemed like the person with the camera was making a concerted effort to keep the subject of the video at the edge of the frame instead of the center of the frame.

It was a cell phone, not a camera. They're not that easy to aim.

Kitakaze, my handle on YouTube is librarylu. Why did you post it as LAL?

I already said I PMd the guy and invited him, and his nephew (who seemed very upset by the comments), to join in the discussion on MABRC. I believed cooldude believed his nephew and his "buds". Of course I saw his other vids. What about them? Hard to miss when you're PMing on YouTube.

The area does have a history and I pointed that out. It would have been interesting to have them on the thread even if it was a hoax. I'm sorry I didn't get a reply. Cooldude logged on 12 minutes before I wrote to him.

Bobby Clarke didn't make money off the Manitoba vid - the tribe did. I've read Bobby lost his job.

There's no way to judge the size and the resolution isn't good enough to determine just what it is, but the artifact isn't jeans.

I found the other link.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/EB5AD...sterville.aspx

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

not a prob, give me one. I'm not doing your work for you. Just remember, it works both ways but its logical to work on the skeptics now because the "pro" side has been all but devastated and has nothing of any legitimate relevance to bring to the table so theres really nothing of any value from the pro side to even begin discussing.

Thats just reality and the way it is

I've done my work already, thanks. I've even read Long.

How about Kitakaze?

What are the fatal 4 you mentioned?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

I seem to remember you were quite adamant about the Wah Chang mask at one point.

Feeling that there may be something to an argument and being frank and forthright about its reliability are two different things. What you see is me taking care to note that.

Quote:

I don't buy the skeleton any more than you guys bought Steindorf's done with reverse kinematics. It's certainly not broad enough. I guess "innacurate" is okay for IM ratios if they fit within human range.

You understand the difference between making up skeletons as an artisitic and speculative endeavour and applying a known skeleton which happens to match both Bob Heironimus and Patty, can't you?

Please feel free to demonstrate any inaccuracies with the Poser 7 overlay. As I have demonstrated with many images as well as others, the perceived broadness of a subject can easily be altered by the costume worn.

Quote:

Appeal to majority?

Uh... no, Lu. I am not trying to support the PGF as a suit by what most people think of it. Please try to keep up. This exchange started with you making the appeal to the majority:

Originally Posted by LAL

The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.

You are saying that the PGF is easily recognizable as a Bigfoot except to those who think it's BH or some other guy in a suit. Not only is it an appeal to the majority but it is also a poorly thought one which in actuality is portraying the minority view as predominant.

Quote:

The Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think it's a man in a suit then? How many of these people were aware of the proportions?

From the very beginning scientists have recognized that Patty has human proportions and moves like a human. Views to the contrary are a recent footer invention. Patty's proportions being human and on top of that a good match for BH has been proven here. I welcome you to counter the proof.

Quote:

As an astute poster once remarked any hairy upright hominoid would look like a man in a suit to us.

That is a copout. Like trying to pass off the crappy nature of all Bigfoot images as a result of the fact that Bigfoots look like men in suits. We have joked about that so it's that much funnier that someone might seriously suggest it. Try applying that statement to the various images of orangutans and Biliapes I've referenced.

Quote:

The double standard seems to be that we aren't really allowed to say anything while you're free to use terms like "garbage" and "silly". I wasn't aware those are scientific terms.

Again this fails. How do I counter the assertion that you aren't really allowed to say anything? There is a right way to be a Bigfoot believer. It comes from being intellectually honest about problems with the evidence submitted thus far. If words like "garbage" and "silly" bother you in reference to the Bigfoot images submitted as evidence thus far, you are free to post them on a different site for discussion of science and critical thinking and see what you get. I can use "insufficient" and "human-looking" if you like.

Quote:

What would you consider unambiguous? A sasquatch that doesn't look like a sasquatch, perhaps?

I really feel like you're not engaging this discussion in a sincere way. If you are really uncertain as to what qualifies as unambiguous, try looking at the OP as I have requested you do many times and look at any of the videos I posted there. The videos of the kermode bears on Princess Royal Island showing wildlife photographers discussing their efforts and experiences to film an animal so elusive and so rare (only a few hundred individuals) are an excellent start. While watching those videos please keep in mind your assertion that most wildlife photography is staged.

Quote:

If a dead female is found and she's thinner than Patty what would that mean?

When a dead female sasquatch is found and it is thinner than Patty, I'll be happy to think about it. Until then I would suggest you worry more about the finding of one.

Quote:

A couple of thousand Orangutans were just "discovered". Not as impressive as the 150,000 Lowland Gorillas, maybe, but large animals can and do escape detection.

I particularly enjoy when proponents try using flawed arguments such as this. I get to then set out on a search that takes only minutes in which I am always confident I will find the information from the example the Bigfoot enthusiast used is easily used against them. Like this (bolding mine):

Quote:

A large population of orangutans has been documented by conservationists conducting a survey in a remote part of Indonesia Borneo.

A team of researchers led by Erik Meijaard, a senior ecologist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), counted 219 orangutan nests, suggesting a population of 1000 or more of the critically endangered species of red ape in the heart of a 2-million-acre forest area in Sangkulirang limestone mountains in East Kalimantan Province. The newly discovered population is a rare subspecies known as the black Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio). Overall 50,000 to 60,000 orangutans survive in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra, but these are increasingly threatened by habitat loss from logging, fires, and expansion of industrial tree plantations and oil palm estates.

How do you think this story realistically applies to a massive land mammal that allegedly lives across two major industrialized nations at least? That story comes complete with a video that even with some foliage between camera and subject is absolutely unambiguous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKnIA2x2RAQ

Quote:

I suppose it would be an appeal to authority to mention Daris Swindler, Jane Goodall and Russ Mittermeier? I sort of thought they were rational people.

Smart people aren't immune to wishful thinking. Neither am I.

Swindler: Looking at the knee impression of an elk lay and breathlessly exclaiming "My god, it's Giganto" referring to a pleistocene ape for which there is no post-cranial material.

Goodall: Openly refers to herself as a romantic who wants to believe they exist and says that maybe they don't.

Mittermeier:

Quote:

“I’m not one to pooh-pooh the potential that these large apes may exist,” Mittermeier said. “I guess you could say I’m mildly skeptical but guardedly optimistic. Whoever does find it will have the discovery of the century.”

http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.ph...foot-believers

So what's the big deal there?

Quote:

Do you honestly think Northern California is covered in trail cams? <refrains from using the word "silly">

I'm not talking about littered with trail cams. Nevertheless, Northern California has extensive animal detection arrays. If you doubt me and want to know the extent, look at the links and see for your self. The marten and fisher study catalogues the locations in the 90's in exhaustive detail.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LAL

I've done my work already, thanks. I've even read Long.

How about Kitakaze?

What are the fatal 4 you mentioned?

I've seen the quality of your work- thats why its obvious you need someone qualified to help you.

What about KK?

>>>What are the fatal 4 you mentioned

Not "what" but who- they are Meldrum, Krantz,Fahrenbach and Bindernagle.

Those 4 combined dont have a salient fact or even a positive hit between them regarding anything BF

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

Kitakaze, my handle on YouTube is librarylu. Why did you post it as LAL?

Uhhhh... does it matter? I've already mentioned you post on youtube as "librarylu". I simply wrote "LAL" as a reference that the quote is you.

Quote:

I already said I PMd the guy and invited him, and his nephew (who seemed very upset by the comments), to join in the discussion on MABRC. I believed cooldude believed his nephew and his "buds". Of course I saw his other vids. What about them? Hard to miss when you're PMing on YouTube.

You know, you still haven't addressed the crazy logic of this guy recording and talking loudly to the oh-so-elusive Bigfoot that just stands there.

Quote:

The area does have a history and I pointed that out.

Yes, can we see some of that?

Quote:

There's no way to judge the size and the resolution isn't good enough to determine just what it is, but the artifact isn't jeans.

That would be artifacts. As in at least three when the phones dip a bit.

I can't believe you thought this was a ringer for Patty.

Quote:

I found the other link.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/EB5AD...sterville.aspx

The jacket is glaringly obvious at the end of he video. You simply may not have very good eyesight.

Here's a selection from the comments (I'll avoid the majority which declare guy in jacket):

Originally Posted by Cldfsn0200

I believe its real. Its right there and now you know why they never find their remains cause it seems to be fading into another demension. The native americans weren't kidding this is the best proof I've ever seen. Notice how it seems to modulate in and out. Its a fluctuation state of somekind- probably between universes. Heavy stuff if you ask me but probably too deep for the average person's whose mind is normally closed. GREAT FOOTAGE!

Originally Posted by xONativeBabyyOx

i was there thats is my uncle from chimawawin cree nation and thats true because i was thre

Originally Posted by gdubsgirl

could it be faked?
Pattersons couldnt. But this one could easily be faked! He disent even seem nervous around "The Beast"

Originally Posted by C172Pilotdude

Patterson's film is most likely real. Especially because when you zoom in on the creature's chest, you can make out a baby "bigfoot" hanging from it's chest.

Originally Posted by awrvb

There are two Bigfoots
One Bigfoot between the two trees left and behind the right tree another one.

The two on the right side of the screen are people.

Bert RvB.

Originally Posted by uncledueceduece

"There's someone standing here boy ... It looks big ... Can you see it boy? ... It's kinda far away."

lmfao!!!! boooy!!! aye boy u see that boy? its just standing there boy!! aye boy! how come boy!! aye booooy!! aye belcourt boy!! boy!! boy!! lmao its funy how them indains by the canada border say boy! almost after ever sentence lol im native american to im CREE/Sioux i live in ND tho lol this **** is funy!!

Originally Posted by cooldude311

These young men are speaking in cree..."There's someone standing here boy"...(another speaking)"it looks big"...."can you see it boy?"..."it's kinda far away"

Why did coolguy311 copypasta uncledeucedeuce? I think anyone who seriously is considering the glaringly obvious video of a guy in a jacket most likely taking a leak as being a Bigfoot and a ringer for Patty as serious confirmation bias issues.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

Oh, knock it off. I've read it was drunks messing around. Some YouTuber claimed he checked it out. Is that an acceptable skeptical anecdote?

Here is cooldude's description from the livevideo link:

Originally Posted by cooldude311

My nephew & his buds went out boating in Cedar Lake...they got close to this bigfoot without being detected by it...some might be skeptical...but its more...their right....the guys are talking cree in this video..."there's someone standing over there"..."can you see it boy?"..."this thing looks big & scary boy"..."seems to be standing far away"...this thing was up on a cliff near a cave...maybe we can go catch it...heard screams coming from the cave.....enjoy...

Native Manitoban Cree kids fooling around in the bush and trying to make another Manitoban Bigfoot video and maybe hit the jackpot.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by LAL

It was a cell phone, not a camera. They're not that easy to aim.

Are you kidding me ? Right now I want to use one of those rule 8 word. The first seconds (maybe 4 , 5 at most) when you want to pinpoint with a cell phone, you have slight problem. but once you found what you target, even if it is moving, it is relatively easy to continue following the target , admittedly if it moves too quick with correction which make look the video shaky. It is QUITE CLEAR to anybody using cell phone on regular basis that the TARGETING was above the figure and this was intentional.

Good grief, you are really going very far to protect your belief.

PS: and it also explain why you adamantly refuse to admit why having an animal having to eat so many calorie is a point against big foot's existence.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by LAL

I don't think that would work for reasons already stated. I'm quite certain someone would suspect it of being a hoax.

I'm having that deja vu feeling...
Most people, and I dare saying most skeptics (this humble one included) would find good, sharp, imagery not suspected of being a hoax (for example, obtained by someone whose reputation would be ruinded if caught somehow involved in a hoax) as reliable evidence and eventually even reaching the status of proof.

Got some?

Originally Posted by LAL

Okay, I'll bite. Why would eyes with slits be likely at all?

(Krantz rejected reports of glowing eyes out of hand, BTW. The red in red-eye is the color of blood vessels.)

Oh, please LAL...

You once said you had a similar opinion to mine's regarding sighting reports bigfeet with cat-like eyes... Now, do you kow of a real single mammal with glowing eyes? But we do know about mammals with slanted vertical pupils, don't we? Which one is more plausible?

Yeah, I'll go with Krantz and dump out of hand reports of bigfeet with red glowing eyes... I am more distant from the paranormal field than from the real-flesh field.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

I'm having that deja vu feeling...
Most people, and I dare saying most skeptics (this humble one included) would find good, sharp, imagery not suspected of being a hoax (for example, obtained by someone whose reputation would be ruinded if caught somehow involved in a hoax) as reliable evidence and eventually even reaching the status of proof.

Got some?

I know that's your opinion, but I don't agree. Such imagery might be enough to get funding for further research, but it's going to take a specimen, living or dead, to convince science, IMO.

Quote:

Oh, please LAL...

You once said you had a similar opinion to mine's regarding sighting reports bigfeet with cat-like eyes... Now, do you kow of a real single mammal with glowing eyes? But we do know about mammals with slanted vertical pupils, don't we? Which one is more plausible?

Yeah, I'll go with Krantz and dump out of hand reports of bigfeet with red glowing eyes... I am more distant from the paranormal field than from the real-flesh field.

Sometimes we have a communications problem. So you're saying neither glowing (would that include reflective?) nor cat-like eyes are likely in a primate. I agree.

I was expecting something along the lines of nocturnal eye adaptations.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

I know that's your opinion, but I don't agree. Such imagery might be enough to get funding for further research, but it's going to take a specimen, living or dead, to convince science, IMO.

It's a non-issue, really, since you have neither a body, any part of one, or unambiguous imagery.

Quote:

Sometimes we have a communications problem. So you're saying neither glowing (would that include reflective?) nor cat-like eyes are likely in a primate. I agree.

I was expecting something along the lines of nocturnal eye adaptations.

Apes do not have a tapetum lucidum, the reflective layer on the back of the retina. They do not have this as the result of evolving colour vision. They have not had this for millions of years. Are you seriously suggesting Gigantopithecus, a pleistocene ape that fed mostly on bamboo with a bit of jackfruit and durians here and there for some reason was able to evolve this feature at some time in the last 300,000 years when they disappeared from the fossil record?

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Last week or two weeks ago, someone here at JREF offered to Cover the $60 for Bigfoot DNA tests. I have promised this link to BulletMaker, and am wondering if anyone remembers where that post is, if so, please give me the information.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=265

I found it.

Sanguine offered to front the cost of the DNA test.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by LAL

I know that's your opinion, but I don't agree. Such imagery might be enough to get funding for further research, but it's going to take a specimen, living or dead, to convince science, IMO.



Sometimes we have a communications problem. So you're saying neither glowing (would that include reflective?) nor cat-like eyes are likely in a primate. I agree.

You'd be wrong. Felines, canines and primates all have examples of species with both round and slit pupils. Two nocturnal primates have different pupil shapes, Galagos have slit pupils, whereas Bushbabies have round/oval pupils. "Cats eyes" is not true for the European Lynx for instance. And "eye shine" is not the same as "red eye".

Quote:

I was expecting something along the lines of nocturnal eye adaptations.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by LAL

I know that's your opinion, but I don't agree. Such imagery might be enough to get funding for further research, but it's going to take a specimen, living or dead, to convince science, IMO.

LAL, if imagery such as I am talking about triggers funding, then, depending on the funding source, one might say somehing like "science was convinced" it was worthwhile of research.

Specimens are required for formal description of a species. But I bet that high-quality footage say, from NG team would "convince" everybody for all practical reasons. Especially if it can be repeated (more imagery acquired under the same set of circunstances). The complete formal description would come later.

Originally Posted by LAL

Sometimes we have a communications problem. So you're saying neither glowing (would that include reflective?) nor cat-like eyes are likely in a primate. I agree.

I was expecting something along the lines of nocturnal eye adaptations.

I am not talking about reflecting but generating light. Glowing eyes are unknown in mammals. I would dare saying vertebrates but one might say that some deep-sea fishes may have light-emmiting organs around the eyes. Note that the report you mentioned contained a description of glowing red eyes. Following Krantz's criteria...

IF bigfeet exist and IF they are great apes, then cat-like eyes are unlikely. Not impossible, just highly unlikely. Glowing eyes, on the other hand, are impossible for all practical purposes.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Apes do not have a tapetum lucidum, the reflective layer on the back of the retina. They do not have this as the result of evolving colour vision. They have not had this for millions of years. Are you seriously suggesting Gigantopithecus, a pleistocene ape that fed mostly on bamboo with a bit of jackfruit and durians here and there for some reason was able to evolve this feature at some time in the last 300,000 years when they disappeared from the fossil record?

Of course not.

I was paraphrasing SCOTT HERRIOTT. The .gif Parcher posted looked like it was made from Eyes in the Dark and those shots are a kind of reenactment of what Scott said he saw. In one DVD he says it was dullish, in another, bright. If such a color did occur possibly the light was such the color of the blood vessels was visible as the pupils dilated.

Anyone for how he could see dilating pupils from 35-40' away?

Gigantopithecus had a tooth wear pattern most like chimpanzees. Daegling was in on that study.

I just lost a lengthy reply to a post of yours due to a login glitch and I'm not a happy camper right now. I have to leave for class, but yes, you're right, I'm not very serious.

Maybe if a group of sasquatches can be found on an island NatGeo would be happy to send a crew.

I meant higher primates, EHocking. I should have said so. There was a discussion on Bush Babies and the like on BFF a few years ago.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

I've seen the quality of your work- thats why its obvious you need someone qualified to help you.

Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Quote:

What about KK?

Doesn't he count as a skeptic?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

LAL, if imagery such as I am talking about triggers funding, then, depending on the funding source, one might say somehing like "science was convinced" it was worthwhile of research.

Specimens are required for formal description of a species. But I bet that high-quality footage say, from NG team would "convince" everybody for all practical reasons. Especially if it can be repeated (more imagery acquired under the same set of circunstances). The complete formal description would come later.

Ah, but don't forget that the Feds are squashing all known evidence of bigfoot and/or the footers are hiding the information because they are protecting bigfoot from extermination. Just imagine the carnage when thousands of big game hunters descend upon the forests of the PNW!!!