Backdoc Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago The Bigfoot Video world seems to have a bookend: PGF -------------------> normal video world of a few years ago Thats A-Z Now with high tech and AI they can make a video where it looks convincing of about anything. We no longer can believe our eyes when it comes to video. Some tech guys could tell answer this: If a great new video was filmed and smart people had access to it, could they tell if it was faked or manipulated?
norseman Posted 5 hours ago Admin Posted 5 hours ago 15 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Great videos! I would say some are better offered here are better than others. These are really good but don't attain the Home Run level for my example. Still, some are excellent. I don't know what I am looking at when that thing is yanking on the bark. WOW Hoax? Real? Thanks for posting these. Your welcome. Your home run examples were a domesticated Deer fawn and a Gorilla in a zoo. Obviously if Sasquatch was domesticated or in a zoo? We would not need a home run video. So we are stuck with amateur photographers in wilderness settings. And yet, the videos too ambiguous are claimed as a misidentification. And the videos like the PGF are a hoax. And now we have a complete gut of AI generated nonsense. All I can say is good luck.
Backdoc Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: Your home run examples were a domesticated Deer fawn and a Gorilla in a zoo. Unfortunately, if we don't use Hyperbole and extremes in our examples on the BFF someone will pretend to not know what we mean. Worse yet, they may actually not know what we mean. I wish it wasn't so. I'd say whatever standard one will accept... imagine a video so compelling it would be pretty convincing. As you know, that's all I am getting at. Edited 3 hours ago by Backdoc
Huntster Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 3 hours ago, Backdoc said: .........He fully documents the encounter. This would be a Home Run video. Once the video went international on social media there would be no way to put that genie back in the bottle. A HOME RUN video would move the needle dramatically. More would believe in Bigfoot as a result than do now. More skeptics would soften their position toward either belief or "it might be possible" I do not agree with those who think it would have little to no effect. I think it would be an earthquake. You are describing PGF 2.0. Yes, many more would believe in sasquatchery as a result than do now. No, no skeptics would soften their position because they're skeptics. It's an ideology. They will not budge. No, it would not be a "home run". You are not the umpire. You do not have the authority to call the play. Science does, and they will rule the video as an infield double or triple, at best, regardless of the crowd applause or booing. But I agree that it will have an effect. It will please some, anger others, and be of no matter to many more. Edited 3 hours ago by Huntster
norseman Posted 3 hours ago Admin Posted 3 hours ago 30 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Unfortunately, if we don't use Hyperbole and extremes in our examples on the BFF someone will pretend to not know what we mean. Worse yet, they may actually not know what we mean. I wish it wasn't so. I'd say whatever standard one will accept... imagine a video so compelling it would be pretty convincing. As you know, that's all I am getting at. I know what you’re getting at, but unfortunately it’s just wrong. ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome’ This isn't a personal attack, this is an evaluation of our entire community. The only way to get science involved is to give them what they want. They don't want videos, Survivorman or otherwise. They want physical evidence. Where do most pastey white gray haired professors start their search for new species? The bush meat trade and apothecary shops. Bones, teeth, skulls, hides, etc. They see grainy photos of cryptid animals as slimey and dubious.
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 2 minutes ago, norseman said: I know what you’re getting at, but unfortunately it’s just wrong. ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome’ This isn't a personal attack, this is an evaluation of our entire community. The only way to get science involved is to give them what they want. They don't want videos, Survivorman or otherwise. They want physical evidence. Where do most pastey white gray haired professors start their search for new species? The bush meat trade and apothecary shops. Bones, teeth, skulls, hides, etc. They see grainy photos of cryptid animals as slimey and dubious. I agree. I am talking about the world we live in which is pre-body (on a slab). Until that happens, we have to use the non-body things at our disposal. Moving the needle is helpful. The bigfoot issue is better with those things than without them. I don't think the public's general requirement is the same as the absolute requirement of the 'science community'
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: You are describing PGF 2.0. Yes, many more would believe in sasquatchery as a result than do now. Until I get a body, that is enough for me. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: No, no skeptics would soften their position because they're skeptics. It's an ideology. They will not budge. Hardliners won't change. Maybe just maybe there are some skeptics who are soft skeptics. They might be willing to move from the hardline position based on having a better video to lean on. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: No, it would not be a "home run". You are not the umpire. You do not have the authority to call the play. Science does, and they will rule the video as an infield double or triple, at best, regardless of the crowd applause or booing. Well today in our society we have the DEATH OF TRUTH where podcasters can throw out conspiracy theories and so on. Some Podcasters are paid to promote positions of their pay masters. In such a world we now have the DEATH OF TRUTH. Because of this, your statement is truer today than it would have been 10 or 20 years ago. The internet has become the enemy of truth and fact. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: But I agree that it will have an effect. It will please some, anger others, and be of no matter to many more. True 1
norseman Posted 2 hours ago Admin Posted 2 hours ago 10 minutes ago, Backdoc said: I agree. I am talking about the world we live in which is pre-body (on a slab). Until that happens, we have to use the non-body things at our disposal. Moving the needle is helpful. The bigfoot issue is better with those things than without them. I don't think the public's general requirement is the same as the absolute requirement of the 'science community' Why is “moving the needle” of public perception helpful? Bigfoot is everywhere. From Jerky commercials to mattress commercials to monster trucks to TV shows. Bigfoot does not lack popularity…. It lacks credibility. And now we are full circle back to the pastey old gray haired men in lab coats.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 53 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Until I get a body, that is enough for me......... Yeah, I personally appreciate all good videos and mere witness testimony. As a "believer", I enjoy them all........if they pass my own test of believability. Quote ..........In such a world we now have the DEATH OF TRUTH. Because of this, your statement is truer today than it would have been 10 or 20 years ago. The internet has become the enemy of truth and fact. Thanks for that excellent testimony. I personally call it The Age of the Lie. I also see the internet as a tool of the Liars, but it balances out for me as an incredible tool for my own use in every way. It's like guns, cars, chainsaws, etc; they're tools that reflect the morals of the user.
Backdoc Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: Why is “moving the needle” of public perception helpful? 1) Funding. 2) Academics who are afraid to come out. "Jeff Meldrum is brave to take on this subject" Dr. Began on one of these Bigfoot shows. -Jane Goodall died today. She was able to safely talk about the possibility of Bigfoot because she was famous by then. -As Grover Kranz said a while back: "My University supports my research in that they haven't fired me" 3) Many more Edited 1 hour ago by Backdoc 1
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago 3 minutes ago, Backdoc said: 1) Funding. 2) Academics who are afraid to come out. "Jeff Meldrum is brave to take on this subject" Dr. Began on one of these Bigfoot shows. -Jane Goodall died today. She was able to safely talk about the possibility of Bigfoot because she was famous by then. -As Grover Kranz said a while back: "My University supports my research in that they haven't fired me" 3) Many more Funding? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. Academics? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. Jane Goodall is a scientist…..not the public. Did not hear she had died. RIP.🙏🏻 Grover Krantz was a scientist and his offhand comment tells you everything you need to know about it. If Les Stroud videotapes Bigfoot? Good for him. Good for his show. Good for the public. In the eyes of academia? He will become a charlatan if he isn’t already because he did a show with Todd Standing. Guess what? Todd Standing has many clear videos of alleged Sasquatch. He even sued the Canadian government based on his “evidence.” HE LOST. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45414641
Recommended Posts