Guest Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I don't know, I'm just speculating here, but you are assuming what makes logical sense to us would be the same for bigfoot. Maybe they see more danger in a game cam than they do when dealing with a semi truck. To someone or something used to dealing with other predators, I would choose a grizzly over a rattle snake because you can see the danger coming with a grizzly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 NOBODY is getting shot ???? answer 1: If no one will shoot a real bigfoot, why expect people to shoot a fake one? answer 2: When my buddies and I go a-hoaxing, we only do so on our own land where we know there's no one around to cause such trouble. Then when we upload our videos to YouTube we give a fake location name (e.g., a national forest) to make it seem more legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 answer 1: If no one will shoot a real bigfoot, why expect people to shoot a fake one? answer 2: When my buddies and I go a-hoaxing, we only do so on our own land where we know there's no one around to cause such trouble. Then when we upload our videos to YouTube we give a fake location name (e.g., a national forest) to make it seem more legit. answer 3: We don't do it during hunting season answer 4: We don't need to do a video, let's just make up a story. answer 5: People aren't going to go shooting a Bigfoot with a camera crew and other people around involved in production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) So, we're right back where we started from and I still don't have a solid answer... The above seems to be the feeble feedback most have regarding what we are talking about.. at least general public wise. I would think that we, at this stage of development, would be past the out of focus films, unknown recordings, unfollowed up tracks, and pointing fingers. But of course, we are not and.. it seems.. we are right back where we started from ... which does not make sense. Regardless of how many see it, how many cast footprints, how many record (vocally there are problems between linking sounds recorded to the origin) it, how many hairs we can get from it, it seems not to matter. It is like people have decided this is impossible so.. do not waste your time. THAT does not make sense to me. Edited January 21, 2011 by treeknocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 To be honest, I'm not going to follow a bigfoot track due to safety issues that might concern me, maybe not anyone else. I believe most people who see bigfoot, or think they see bigfoot, aren't as prepared as they think they are and are intimidated by the sheer size of the creature. As for blobs, they move fast, even humans look like blobs in most phone camera shots if they are not still, no mystery there for me. In my mind, I solved the game cam issue long ago and don't think it's any one thing, but multiple reasons as to why we don't have a lot of BF shots: they move faster than the game cam can capture the shot, they can hear it so avoid it, they can probably smell it too, and more than likely we aren't putting them in the right places or places that it easy for them to step around. We do have some possible BF game cam shots but they can't be positively identified which means, like humans, they make mistakes. I can't remember if it was in this thread or another but I have noticed that we tend to assume what makes logical sense to us should also make logical sense to bigfoot. Bad assumption. Whether they are more human or animalistic, other species just don't think like we do. My cat, for instance, would not step through my screen door when the screening got busted out and I had to remove it. It took a couple of days before I could get to Lowes to buy replacement screening. When I opened the regular door for her I still had to open the screen door too, even though there was nothing there, and she could see there was nothing there. I don't know what she was thinking and we really can only guess at how bigfoot thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 To be honest, I'm not going to follow a bigfoot track due to safety issues that might concern me, maybe not anyone else. I believe most people who see bigfoot, or think they see bigfoot, aren't as prepared as they think they are and are intimidated by the sheer size of the creature. As for blobs, they move fast, even humans look like blobs in most phone camera shots if they are not still, no mystery there for me. In my mind, I solved the game cam issue long ago and don't think it's any one thing, but multiple reasons as to why we don't have a lot of BF shots: they move faster than the game cam can capture the shot, they can hear it so avoid it, they can probably smell it too, and more than likely we aren't putting them in the right places or places that it easy for them to step around. We do have some possible BF game cam shots but they can't be positively identified which means, like humans, they make mistakes. I can't remember if it was in this thread or another but I have noticed that we tend to assume what makes logical sense to us should also make logical sense to bigfoot. Bad assumption. Whether they are more human or animalistic, other species just don't think like we do. My cat, for instance, would not step through my screen door when the screening got busted out and I had to remove it. It took a couple of days before I could get to Lowes to buy replacement screening. When I opened the regular door for her I still had to open the screen door too, even though there was nothing there, and she could see there was nothing there. I don't know what she was thinking and we really can only guess at how bigfoot thinks. All good points. Most people do not follow them through I would guess.. there is an intimmidation factor for most. If not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 3. David Paulides has found out that trail cameras, even of the highest quality, emit a high frequency sound that is above our range. It has been documented, however, to be well within the Forest Giants. This claim has been made out there all over the place. Now can you or someone actually POST this 'documentation'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) This claim has been made out there all over the place. Now can you or someone actually POST this 'documentation'? Yes that claim has been made all over the place, by people that appear to be honest and straight up, with no history of hoaxing or BS. If you are into field work, what people like that have to say is better than gold! You would be darned wise to listen to em, because whatever it is you are doing now probably ain't gonna work now is it?! Only way we can learn/teach. The fact of the matter is that the frequency of the sounds coming from those devices does fall into the range of some primates, and for some reason the Sasquatch have a uncanny ability to detect them that we are not sure of. They can also apparently communicate over vast distances, and very likely have far superior hearing in comparison to our own. It is a good start/assumption that they can pick up on these high frequency sounds, and the notion cannot be ignored by us field researchers. No we cannot post documentation, I doubt anyone can. Especially since it would cost money, which many of us do not have This does not prove anything obviously, I am starting to wonder if a body would either tbh. It is just a tip/heads up to everyone else in the field. When I said documented, I meant stated over and over, lots of written accounts concerning the cameras instantly and abruptly running them far far away. Sorry if I confused you Edited January 23, 2011 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Only way we can learn/teach. Well I hope you realize you are preaching to people that have been doing this since you were in kindergarten. I'm glad to see another enthusiastic student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Well I hope you realize you are preaching to people that have been doing this since you were in kindergarten. I'm glad to see another enthusiastic student. I am just talking I just talk weird I know! It is all much loved :3 Thank you all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 1. Exactly. Bears tend to run up trees long before people get near them around here. I know a guy who has hiked 14,000 miles in the smoky mountain's. He retired around age 50 and was in his late 70s, did free work for the park. If I remember right he was almost always alone because he, like most 50+ men, hiked the crap out of the younger people who simply cannot keep up. He had apparently never seen a black bear their, even though that is the densest area for them in the USA if I am not mistaken. They are also "People Friendly" compared to wilder ones. I have talked to many many thru hikers along the Appalachian trail, not one of them has ever seen one. Great Smoky Mountains black bear... 2. How many bear of any species are found dead at the side of the road despite hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them that more often than not encroach on human territory and tend to be slow of response and alertness? I have never heard of a bear being hit by a car personally, and in other areas where that has happened(It is extremely rare apparently) it simply ran off. More. Do not click if you do not want to see roadkill bears... http://cdn.forexfactory.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=550633&d=1285596709 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 3. Bigfoot evidence is far far greater now than it was before, science refuses to notice, and you have to dig to find it. Using laser imagery we have been able to approximate the height, stride, and measurements of "Patty" to be 7'6, a stride of over 40 inches(As the tracks at the site showed as well), and was proportioned in a way possibly no human is today. It is now easier/possible to copy and digitize plaster casts using laser technology as well. On the height thing, in my original thing with the 15mm lens, I never said 7'6" specifically, as much as I recall. I said a range of maybe 7'2" to 7'6" (2 inches plus or minus 7'4"). But no, for the record, I do not think that is correct, now. The new material I've been working on still doesn't finalize a height claim, but it at least identifies the variables and shows what is needed for the final analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Woodenbong Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I don't beleive that Bf avoid game cameras, they don't have any reason to fear them, they certainly don't know how or why they are there and the main reason for lack of picture is poor camera placement. Maybe bear activity in an area is being mistaken for Bf activity and the cameras are set, hence no pictures of BF. There is quite a lot of reports in the USA as opposed to Australia, but in saying that we don't have bears here that can walk on 2 legs in Oz, so there isn't any chance of misidentification. So my theory is that there aren't as many Bf in the USA as whats been discussed, the idea of numbers can only come back to reports and encounters and get the numbers from there. There is no doubt these guys are over in the USA but not as mant as discussed. We have litteraly millions and millions of kangaroos in Australia and since I;ve had my game cams out have only taken one photo of a kangaroo. Not good odds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/uploadsgallery/1230768000/gallery_2_17_641511.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HRiGgliTOzc/TNc_fPDyEbI/AAAAAAAADT8/duBOgW17frA/s400/mcclarin_comp.jpg It just looks real to me O.o http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/mk2c.jpg If anything it appears to me, in the second photo, that the filmer in the Mclarin footage is to close. The first one looks almost perfectly lined up, but the figure is hunched over a bit, but is still easily taller than Mclarin who is standing stock straight up. To me anyway. Supposedly we know that the feet of the subject were 14.5 inches long. What Dr.Krantz did not factor in, while looking at poor quality slide, was the fact that in the image he used to guesstimate Patty's heigh she is facing at a angle away from the camera and the foot is horribly overexposed. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/017.jpg This however, is not overexposed as bad This is the frame that everyone uses to size her up, horrible horrible mistakes they make doing so. Notice just how extreme a angle Patty is facing away from the camera! People will take the feet and stack them straight up, saying well she is only 6'6 or so. Well the knees are deeply bent and the head is held very low. I am not even going to get into how deep into the ground the feet sink, TBH I don't even know. I remember that the feet went deeper than the horses hooves. Now on me, the length of my foot is exactly half the distance from the bottom of my foot to my knee and half the length of my thigh bone, ending where it connects to my hip bone. My foot is 10 inches long Distance from bottom of foot to knee is 20 Distance from top of knee to end of thigh bone is 20 Distance from top of the rolled forward portion of my hip bone(The edge of it? lol) to my shoulder is 20 Distance from top of my shoulder to top of my head is about 11 inches This places me at 5'9, which is right on the money buddy! Based on this... Patty's footprint was 14.5 inches long. The bottom of the Sasquatch foot is estimated to have a 1.5 to 2 inch fat pad on it which appears to wrap around the toes as well, it does sort of deform the prints in a way. I will take away 2 inches from the prints to compensate for foot movement/sliding in the prints because when you are walking barefoot you can notices that pressure is displaced through 2 or 3 different areas of the foot during the movement causing your foot to push the front and back edges of the print outwards, especially if you are walking in a hurry >.< This places the actual foot length around 13 inches, obviously give or take. So proportioned like me.... Distance from bottom of foot to knee is 26 inches Knee to hip 26 inches Hip to shoulder 26 inches shoulder to top of head about 15 inches give take Got to remember, as i fail to note here someone else can try, that Patty has a sagital crest and looks like a cone head. This places the height at 7.7 feet tall. Almost exactly what was stated with undeniable methods by Meldrum and others. I did not mean for this to work out that way, but it did. And believe you me, I am surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Oh for the love of all that's holy, not another PGF thread, please. I can't stand them, they make my eyes roll up in my head with boredom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts