What are your thoughts on this news?

[Catmandoo]

14 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Film?

In 2024?

 

Yes, lots of film. Film never went away. Kodak is working 24/7. Kodak stumbled and fell and the remnants are making products. The purchase of used  film cameras is popular with persons who don't want a 'digital' look. Polaroid, the original selfie, went away and has returned.

Why use film? Simply because film use avoids the accusations of images created / modified by artificial intelligence. In camera image capture locks the image into the film via 'chemical memory'. Done deal. The film has to be scanned into a digital format. Accusations of AI will fly regarding the digital scanning but the film is the master record and will trump the whiners.

There are a lot of comments about electronic devices and the sensitivities of animals & humans. Mechanical cameras eliminate the 'electronic' factor. Worked for a couple cowboys in 1967.

There is very little red light under the forest canopy. Use black & white film stocks. Easier archival preservation and one must play grey scales like stops on an organ. Yes, the size of the organ is everything.

Film is truth at 24 frames per second.

Edited August 22 by Catmandoo
text

[Huntster]

45 minutes ago, idlehour30 said:

Ahhhh - come on guys. A little cup of positivi-tea needed? ..........

That flavor is just too sweet. I'd prefer the unsweetened flavors and add my own sweeteners to taste, thanks.

 

Quote

.........Even with the Boy Who Cried Wolf - that last version of the story he told did actually have a real wolf in it. We're well overdue another Patty moment.  

I'm not claiming that wolves don't exist. I'm simply ignoring the silly little boy. I've had numerous encounters with wolves, and I treasure each one. I'm not afraid of them, even though I want my sidearm at hand when encountering them.

 

The Patty moment I want is a personal one, but I'll take a good video from somebody else. I'll pass on the promises, though. Been there, done that too many times to fall for that game again.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, idlehour30 said:

Ahhhh - come on guys. A little cup of positivi-tea needed? 

 

Even with the Boy Who Cried Wolf - that last version of the story he told did actually have a real wolf in it. We're well overdue another Patty moment.  

We are getting cynical…..👍

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

We are getting cynical…..👍

Cynical:

 

Quote

........believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity..........

We have infinite reasons to be this way.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I find this very interesting and amusing. Hopefully it will have a positive outcome. 

[Ronnie Bass]

Looks like LeBlanc deleted his Facebook post. So either those on the investigation told him to take it down until they were ready to reveal (unlikely) or it was all total BS (most likely). Either way, what a tool. 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Ronnie Bass said:

Looks like LeBlanc deleted his Facebook post. So either those on the investigation told him to take it down until they were ready to reveal (unlikely) or it was all total BS (most likely). Either way, what a tool. 

Video doesn’t mean anything anyway.

[Huntster]

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

Video doesn’t mean anything anyway.

I agree that video will never prove anything, but if coupled with multiple witnesses to the event, good footprint casts, and prior or subsequent area reports, I think that video can "mean" something.

[norseman]

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I agree that video will never prove anything, but if coupled with multiple witnesses to the event, good footprint casts, and prior or subsequent area reports, I think that video can "mean" something.

Which is subjective. What does it mean to a believer vs what does it mean to a skeptic? Will science care? 
 

They will always look for the zipper. IMO.

[MIB]

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

Which is subjective. What does it mean to a believer vs what does it mean to a skeptic? Will science care? 

 

Yes.  

 

I think adequately detailed video CAN matter to science.  It will never be accepted as proof but it might draw attention / resources.   So if a person will only consider something valuable if it provides the final proof, then no.   If moving the ball forward, even if not itself providing the final acceptance, is thought to be useful, then we should be looking at video as a tool in the toolbox.  

 

That said .. there is plenty of junk video already.   Blurry.   Short or choppy.   Ambiguous.   We need to expect a pretty brutal assessment of what we present.   We need to be realistic about where the goalpost lies and not try to claim conclusive proof when all we're presenting is more blur.   

 

There is another aspect to video.   Video that is useless so far as proof may still be useful to an investigator for learning things about bigfoot we don't know yet.  It's not about getting skeptics to accept existence but rather to provide those who already accept existence with more detail.   That doesn't require near the level of detail.

 

IMHO ..

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes.  

 

I think adequately detailed video CAN matter to science.  It will never be accepted as proof but it might draw attention / resources.   So if a person will only consider something valuable if it provides the final proof, then no.   If moving the ball forward, even if not itself providing the final acceptance, is thought to be useful, then we should be looking at video as a tool in the toolbox.  

 

That said .. there is plenty of junk video already.   Blurry.   Short or choppy.   Ambiguous.   We need to expect a pretty brutal assessment of what we present.   We need to be realistic about where the goalpost lies and not try to claim conclusive proof when all we're presenting is more blur.   

 

There is another aspect to video.   Video that is useless so far as proof may still be useful to an investigator for learning things about bigfoot we don't know yet.  It's not about getting skeptics to accept existence but rather to provide those who already accept existence with more detail.   That doesn't require near the level of detail.

 

IMHO ..

Expedition Bigfoot has video, thermal, foot tracks, hand prints, DNA of a chimp, witnesses, audio, etc. And they have a primatologist on the team. Of which the person in question with new video was also a member of the same team. Ronny LeBlanc.

 

I would say it’s a fair assessment that most Bigfoot enthusiasts do not like the show and think it’s all a hoax. Let’s not even start with skeptics.

 

So I really question this “holy grail” of a video that is going to crack this mystery wide open. I don’t think it exists. The better the video? The more elaborate the hoax.

[MIB]

34 minutes ago, norseman said:

So I really question this “holy grail” of a video that is going to crack this mystery wide open. I don’t think it exists. The better the video? The more elaborate the hoax.

 

I didn't say it exists NOW.   I think it may be possible for someone to stumble into much as Roger and Bob stumbled into Patty.    Giving up without making the attempt?   Just stay home, stay out of the conversation, stay out of the effort.  

 

Regarding the last .. no.   There is a point of detail beyond which the longer the video goes, the more detailed/elaborate the activity, the less possible it is to pull off as a hoax.    If I'd owned my current cell phone, never mind a real video camera, back in '76 this would be over.    What I saw takes the necessary complexity of the purported Bluff Creek suit up at least one "order of magnitude" in complexity and a failed attempt would have been fatal, not merely debunked.  

[norseman]

59 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

I didn't say it exists NOW.   I think it may be possible for someone to stumble into much as Roger and Bob stumbled into Patty.    Giving up without making the attempt?   Just stay home, stay out of the conversation, stay out of the effort.  

 

Regarding the last .. no.   There is a point of detail beyond which the longer the video goes, the more detailed/elaborate the activity, the less possible it is to pull off as a hoax.    If I'd owned my current cell phone, never mind a real video camera, back in '76 this would be over.    What I saw takes the necessary complexity of the purported Bluff Creek suit up at least one "order of magnitude" in complexity and a failed attempt would have been fatal, not merely debunked.  

I meant in the future obviously. As nothing has moved the ball one inch until now.
 

Bill Munns has laid it out brilliantly. Bluff creek. And the response from academia? Crickets.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My point is? Ronnie’s video as promised wouldn’t have done a single thing in science if it had been delivered.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

........What does it mean to a believer vs what does it mean to a skeptic?.........

Who cares what the skeptic thinks? I'm talking about "meaning" to me.

 

Quote

..........Will science care?........

Of course not. Unless you deliver a carcass to them, then pay them to look at it, they'll never care.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

I can imagine a scenario that even a body would be buried (no pun intended) if they believed it could be.    All things track back to the almighty dollar.    When in doubt, trace the money backwards and see who could be impacted….the bigger the “victim” (pun intended) the bigger the cover up.   

Edited August 28 by Twist