xspider1 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 No evidence?? There are actually thousands of shreds of evidence and plenty of evidence that is much more than a shred. What the general public does not have is definitive proof.
southernyahoo Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 So are you saying that due to human error that there hasn't been any good recording since the PG movie? I would say that people have been making home videos for over (fill in the correct number to get a cookie) years now and that cameras have gotten better every year. Thus, increasing the chance of actually shooting or capturing a real bigfoot on camera. I don't agree that cameras got better after 16mm film. VHS tape and 8mm tape media was worse than film. How would you know the bigfoot is real in any video? How would a clear video be proof? How could you rule out hoaxing with super fantastic suits and makeup? After all, you must believe Patterson did it somehow, and suits have gotten better with spandex materials. I would say it's also very likely that there hasn't been anything to actually record on video. Maybe that's the case in this example. Or you can't tell it is real, even if very clear. If the PGF were of any other animal besides an upright walking hirsut biped it would be very solid evidence with sufficient clarity to establish what it is. The problem is that we can place a human form within it's physical form, and most can't distinguish it's biomechanics from human.
Guest Navuri Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't agree that cameras got better after 16mm film. VHS tape and 8mm tape media was worse than film. How would you know the bigfoot is real in any video? How would a clear video be proof? How could you rule out hoaxing with super fantastic suits and makeup? After all, you must believe Patterson did it somehow, and suits have gotten better with spandex materials. So if Patterson would have had for example an iPhone 4s with him that day in October 1967 and shot the same footage with 1080p image quality, we would still be having this discussion? And just for the record, I would absolutely love it if the PG film was real. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around all the improbabilities that surround the whole encounter (including it's aftermath).
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Kodachrome film can be increased in size much better than digital photography can. Even a HD camera with 1080p with a normal lens (not a telephoto lens) would mean that if you increase the size of the figure to really look at it, then you still end up with very large pixels and a blobsquatch. If you really want to take National Geographic quality video of wildlife you need a very good telephoto lens (NOT digital zoom), a tripod, and a lot of patience. Earlier you noted that Roger Patterson just happened to go out and get the lucky shot. That is really far from the truth. He spent years and probably hundreds if not thousands of hours in expeditions in various locations. Good luck usually happens to those that are making a concerted effort. Most sightings of BF last only a few seconds. You can try an experiment yourself, see how quickly you can deploy your cell phone, turn on video and start recording. If I have a friend suddenly out of the blue say, "Start taking a video of that dog walking away!" it usually takes me 7-10 seconds to deploy and start the video going... and without a tripod it is shaky footage at best.
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Yeah but even if it was in iPhone 4s with crystal clear HD you would still encounter the same "improbabilities" that you can't get past right now... namely, the idea that the thing exists at all. The video resolution is actually not that bad anyway... as someone else mentioned if it was a bear at that resolution it would be absolutely no question as to what it was, and it would be excellent video footage of that bear. In reality, the PGF is excellent footage; the quality of the footage is not what is in question here. It's whether the subject is a real animal or a person in a suit. It MUST be one of those two things. There is no way to prove 100% that it was an animal, but there IS a way to prove 100% that it was a man in a suit- by replicating it. So far that has not been possible; even with today's technology! In my opinion, the PGF is 100% footage of a living, breathing non-human bipedal primate. It's fantastic footage and it's a shame that it is not heralded and celebrated for what it is. My guess is that if we ever do get definitive proof of the existence of these animals, people will wonder how we ever questioned it in the first place.
Guest Navuri Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Are there hi-res pictures of every frame of the Patterson Gimlin movie like the one you have linked? Or is this the only one? Thanks for the link by the way, very interesting. I'm really hoping somebody can answer this question for me actually.
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Most sightings of BF last only a few seconds. You can try an experiment yourself, see how quickly you can deploy your cell phone, turn on video and start recording. If I have a friend suddenly out of the blue say, "Start taking a video of that dog walking away!" it usually takes me 7-10 seconds to deploy and start the video going... and without a tripod it is shaky footage at best. Great point! Once or twice a day, my cats like to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight. Don't ask me why. They get along great overall, but sometimes they just like to wrestle. I once had the idea that I was going to film a couple of sparring sessions to have a little fun and make a fake National Geographic video complete with voiceover. Well, I soon discovered that even though there is no question that my cats exist, I know where they live, and I know where they both are at this very second, I just could not manage to get my phone out and start taping them in time! The whole thing would be over in a few seconds, and I would always just get the aftermath. Then the one time I did get some footage- wouldn't you know!- I was zoomed all the way in and it was shaky as hell! I consider myself above-average intelligence and an expert with my phone. However, this stupid, funny little experience I had trying to make a stupid, funny little video of my cats really put the difficulty in filming Bigfoot in perspective. You have to get lucky three times- one, you have to get lucky enough to be near one at all; two, you have to get lucky and actually see it; and three, you have to get lucky and already be filming when it comes into view. The problem with that is then people say it's fake because it's too "convenient" that you were already filming...
Guest poignant Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Hi Navuri, welcome to the forums. I personally have not seen a bf live, but there is sufficient testimony and accounts for me to be inclined towards the idea that they are a real, flesh and blood, reclusive, surviving, relic great ape. Here are some reasons why: PGF. Withstood harsh scutiny, mathematical analyses. (Munns, Glickman) Eyewitnesses from all walks and professions (not just one suspect demographic e.g. pranksters or vagrants). The absence of photographic evidence does not negate the combined weight of their accounts. Footprints, sometimes in the remotest places, showing sliding, gripping, dermal ridges, non-human primate features. Follows a normal gaussian distribution, indicating a natural healthy population. Prof David Swindler - primate anatomist, former opponent turned proponent. Having considered all this, I cannot say with a clear conscience that this is all just a bunch of misidentification and hogwash.
southernyahoo Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) So if Patterson would have had for example an iPhone 4s with him that day in October 1967 and shot the same footage with 1080p image quality, we would still be having this discussion? I think more clarity would only force most people into deeper acusations of clever hoaxing as long as one can geometricly fit human proportions to the subject. This is not to say it wouldn't be more convincing, and more behavior exibited would help, but proof is tall order for video and photo's anymore when you consider the overlap of physical form BF is suppose to have with humans. Maybe if it ran faster than say 30 mph. or was established to be taller than 7.5 ft , leaped 30 ft, or stepped over a 4ft tall fence we would not be able to explain that. And just for the record, I would absolutely love it if the PG film was real. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around all the improbabilities that surround the whole encounter (including it's aftermath). Trying to get all facts and order of events straight is mind numbing. Regardless of those things, If hoaxed it is well done and seemingly done in one shot. No practice runs were ever claimed with the suit, zero waste of film. So he filmed it at just the right distance that flaps or zippers aren't obvious yet muscles, upward flexed toes, and good correspondence with the bottom of the foot and the track cast at the scene is evident. Edited July 11, 2012 by southernyahoo
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I think having a skeptical PoV to respond to on the forum is very healthy, so welcome Navuri. For me, I am minded to believe based on the many hundreds of Class A sightings. Not the blurry ones, but those where there can be no doubt, other than the reporter lying. To me, there are simply too many of those to disregard. That's far from empirical evidence I know, it's just my opinion. I am skeptical enough though, to not see BF in every blurry video. I actually pay less attention to PGF than I do to the Freeman footage, MK Davis' Whitey, and the Woodpile thermal video. To me, those and others provide aggregate evidence to bolster the eye witness evidence. Not conclusive evidence, but probably just enough to have me believe. As a skeptical person by nature though, I am always minded to side with the skeptics here as they often bring balance to the debate. Just my 0.02 USD
southernyahoo Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I consider myself above-average intelligence and an expert with my phone. However, this stupid, funny little experience I had trying to make a stupid, funny little video of my cats really put the difficulty in filming Bigfoot in perspective. You have to get lucky three times- one, you have to get lucky enough to be near one at all; two, you have to get lucky and actually see it; and three, you have to get lucky and already be filming when it comes into view. The problem with that is then people say it's fake because it's too "convenient" that you were already filming... Nailed it right there. 1
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I do not believe in the strength of the evidence for sasquatch so far, therefore I do not believe in the existence of sasquatch. On the other hand, what is the statistical significance of everyone having the same hallucination, lying, or identifying some other animal, person, or stump as sasquatch? Why sasquatch? We have plenty of other "social constructs" to fill in those blanks. Psychology has very little quantitative data to back up theories for how thought processes work, however, neuroscience does have valid evidence for how the mind process's what the eyes really see. Which theory would you choose to make your argument against someone's claims? If you really want to be unbiased, look at the strength of the evidence for the alternative explanation for the individual sighting. I can't do that over the internet, can you?
southernyahoo Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I do not believe in the strength of the evidence for sasquatch so far, therefore I do not believe in the existence of sasquatch. On the other hand, what is the statistical significance of everyone having the same hallucination, lying, or identifying some other animal, person, or stump as sasquatch? Why sasquatch? We have plenty of other "social constructs" to fill in those blanks. Right, so I think there is a significant percentage of witnesses that believe they are telling the truth. Psychology has very little quantitative data to back up theories for how thought processes work, however, neuroscience does have valid evidence for how the mind process's what the eyes really see. Which theory would you choose to make your argument against someone's claims? I don't think you could take either one and disprove a sighting with it. A jedi might be able to "through mind tricks" persuade one that they were mistaken. If you really want to be unbiased, look at the strength of the evidence for the alternative explanation for the individual sighting. I can't do that over the internet, can you? Nope, thats why some of us would rather seek some evidence in the field and meet witnesses in person, it's a shorter path to personal resolution and proof.
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Great point! Once or twice a day, my cats like to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight. Don't ask me why. They get along great overall, but sometimes they just like to wrestle. I once had the idea that I was going to film a couple of sparring sessions to have a little fun and make a fake National Geographic video complete with voiceover. Well, I soon discovered that even though there is no question that my cats exist, I know where they live, and I know where they both are at this very second, I just could not manage to get my phone out and start taping them in time! The whole thing would be over in a few seconds, and I would always just get the aftermath. Then the one time I did get some footage- wouldn't you know!- I was zoomed all the way in and it was shaky as hell! Perhaps you would care to share your BlobCat video? We could then argue whether you are hoaxing or simply misidentifying some larger carnivores.....
Recommended Posts