Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Guest]

. . . Sad because there have been so very few (or none) photos that hold promise put forth. While a clear, unaltered photo of a unknown upright hominid will not provide proof positive, it would certainly stir the pot and increase public interest.

It seems disingenuous (not referring to you, Norseman) to proclaim film or video evidence won't provide proof, so why bother at all.

That's exactly it, Incorrigible. We've got people who claim to have photographed bigfoot. That means it's possible to photograph them. We've got people who claim to "experience" bigfoot but they don't seem to be at all interested in attempting to photograph them because "only a body will do" for those evil skeptics who feel the need to demand the same evidence for bigfoot that has been needed for the description of every other species. I come here as a bigfoot skeptic who's examined lots of alleged bigfoot photos and video, and as someone from within the scientific mainstream, and express my opinion that quality photography would, in fact, have an enormous impact, and photography as bigfoot evidence is still dismissed as ineffectual.

It's kind of like a hot girl telling a guy that she'll go out with him if he gets a different car, but he won't do it. He keeps pursuing her with his old car - even passing on the opportunity to get the car she described because he doesn't believe she was serious about the car thing. But she really was. She'll really go out with him if he gets that car! (I like that analogy because I get to pretend I'm a shallow hot girl.)

[southernyahoo]

But she really was. She'll really go out with him if he gets that car! (I like that analogy because I get to pretend I'm a shallow hot girl.)

If she's shallow and wants to play games, she's not my kind of girl anyways. She can date shallow Hal, and he can be stuck with the car payment.

[masterbarber]

Let's refrain from "fixing" a member's post in the original quote box and then posting that as representative of what that member stated. Humor is one thing, blatant tampering with an original post in this manner is dishonest and disrespectful to the original poster.

Additionally, if a member finds their content has been tampered with in such a manner, please report the post and a mod will handle it.

The post in question and accompanying comments have been removed.

Your prompt attention is appreciated.

Please continue with the discussion.

[norseman]

Sad to say, I must disagree. Sad because there have been so very few (or none) photos that hold promise put forth. While a clear, unaltered photo of a unknown upright hominid will not provide proof positive, it would certainly stir the pot and increase public interest.

We have already been over this but has the Patterson film ever been proven a hoax? No. Is it a clear unaltered film of a unknown upright hominid? Yes. What exactly has it stirred in the pot? Well it has stirred a lot of ugly accusations from both sides, without redrawing any battle lines.

It seems disingenuous (not referring to you, Norseman) to proclaim film or video evidence won't provide proof, so why bother at all.

You are referring to me........and that's perfectly OK. To me Bigfooters are stuck in a closed loop mindset that excludes any real attempt at a type specimen. You find fresh tracks, so you come to a screeching halt and you document the tracks, and make casts. In their mind the cast is the prize. The mystery is never going to be solved with this type of mindset. The resolve should be tracking down what is making the tracks, and attempt to collect it. That should be the prize. But surprisingly in many circles this sort of mindset is akin to heresy. And to voice this opinion is akin to saying "Hi! My name is so and so and I am a NAZI. How are you?"

[Incorrigible1]

We have already been over this but has the Patterson film ever been proven a hoax? No. Is it a clear unaltered film of a unknown upright hominid? Yes. What exactly has it stirred in the pot? Well it has stirred a lot of ugly accusations from both sides, without redrawing any battle lines.

I'm active in the PGF threads on the proponent side. But the film caught a biological creature over 40 years ago. 40! It's high time (long past high time) for some additional clear, unaltered photos to surface.

It's my point that those with the opportunity (and the intestinal fortitude for the ensuing melee) to snap such a photo should, and not to make the excuse "the world won't believe me."

[norseman]

That's exactly it, Incorrigible. We've got people who claim to have photographed bigfoot. That means it's possible to photograph them. We've got people who claim to "experience" bigfoot but they don't seem to be at all interested in attempting to photograph them because "only a body will do" for those evil skeptics who feel the need to demand the same evidence for bigfoot that has been needed for the description of every other species. I come here as a bigfoot skeptic who's examined lots of alleged bigfoot photos and video, and as someone from within the scientific mainstream, and express my opinion that quality photography would, in fact, have an enormous impact, and photography as bigfoot evidence is still dismissed as ineffectual.

But look at the track record of film and photography.......it's abysmal. I'm not here to say that nobody should attempt to photograph it. But what I am saying is that during the encounter if you reach for the rifle over the camera? You have a much higher probability of ending the mystery than if you release another "blogsquatch" or "hoax" to the general public. Even if the photograph convinces you as a scientist? Chances are it's not going to convince your colleagues.

It's kind of like a hot girl telling a guy that she'll go out with him if he gets a different car, but he won't do it. He keeps pursuing her with his old car - even passing on the opportunity to get the car she described because he doesn't believe she was serious about the car thing. But she really was. She'll really go out with him if he gets that car! (I like that analogy because I get to pretend I'm a shallow hot girl.)

I think your talking about a type specimen here? Because nobody has any control over the quality of film or photos they get, and that's especially true with a camera trap.

I think the type specimen requirement is rejected because Bigfooters have some sort of strange fantasy that they can habituate a Bigfoot not unlike the movie Harry and the Hendersons.

Again I cannot stress enough that the target species of a camera trap resembles humans or bears much to closely to ever conclusively rule out a hoax or misidentification from a photo. With that said there could be that "million dollar" shot that shows the species defecating or fornicating or something that convinces many skeptics, but I don't hold out much hope.

[southernyahoo]

You are referring to me........and that's perfectly OK. To me Bigfooters are stuck in a closed loop mindset that excludes any real attempt at a type specimen. You find fresh tracks, so you come to a screeching halt and you document the tracks, and make casts. In their mind the cast is the prize. The mystery is never going to be solved with this type of mindset. The resolve should be tracking down what is making the tracks, and attempt to collect it. That should be the prize. But surprisingly in many circles this sort of mindset is akin to heresy. And to voice this opinion is akin to saying "Hi! My name is so and so and I am a NAZI. How are you?"

There are other considerations Norseman. You might be presuming that someone has the time and access to properties where the tracks lead. You don't have to go very far here in Texas to find yourself trespassing.

[Guest]

We have already been over this but has the Patterson film ever been proven a hoax? No.

Well there's proven and proven you've got to remember. For the former proven, yes it has. To my personal evidenciary standard, the film is a proven hoax. It looks like a guy in a suit, it was filmed by a guy with a known history of bigfoot-related chicanery, and a close associate of that guy has claimed to be the guy in the aforementioned suit. My personal opinion of the PGF is shared by the thousands of people who've seen it and dismissed it. Just because we've dismissed it doesn't mean we haven't carefully considered it. The latter proven, however, is far more difficult to establish. What would it take for me to prove to someone else that the film was hoaxed? What would it take to prove to any rational adult that the film was hoaxed? Would it take a confession from Bob Gimlin? A tattered gorilla costume from a trunk in Roger's attic? A sequence of film from Bluff Creek showing Bob H. suiting up right before his walk? I doubt we'd ever find/get such things even though I'm convinced personally that the film is a fake.

The PGF is only an "enduring mystery" to a small community of folks who are convinced of its authenticity. To the rest of the world, it's just a film of a guy in a bigfoot costume walking across a sandbar 40+ years ago.

To me Bigfooters are stuck in a closed loop mindset that excludes any real attempt at a type specimen.

Spot-on, norseman. Now take the fervor and eloquence with which you've expressed the need for a type specimen and expand it beyond a carcass intentionally brought down by a skilled marksman. A hair sample from a barbed wire fence could do it. A tooth extracted from a riverbank could do it. . . . And I think the right kind of photo just might be able to do it, too. The latter should be much easier to obtain than the former.

[norseman]

I'm active in the PGF threads on the proponent side. But the film caught a biological creature over 40 years ago. 40! It's high time (long past high time) for some additional clear, unaltered photos to surface.

But it's not right to observe that NOTHING has been produced in that 40 years. It's just that nothing during that 40 years was any more convincing than the PGF and was met with equal skeptisism.

It's my point that those with the opportunity (and the intestinal fortitude for the ensuing melee) to snap such a photo should, and not to make the excuse "the world won't believe me."

But I can certainly understand their cynicism, or in the case of Fred Eichler to simply not want to get involved at all. The odds are not at all in your favor, and in some cases can be damaging to your character.

I personally can say this, I would never release anything that I didn't myself find conclusive. It doesn't matter that I saw it walk across the road 20 feet in front of me, snap a sapling in half and walk up into a clear cut where I took a picture of it that shows a blurry brown spot. My testimony is not going to save the photo. There is a reason that hunting photos only show men and women holding a head up with their rifle in the other hand. For one you cannot be bothered with taking photos while your hunting and for two? Most of the photos would only show blobs and branches most of the time anyhow. Unless of course you have a professional camera crew following you around and your hunting show has a very nice production budget.

If grabbing that camera makes you feel good? Who am I to say otherwise? Go for it. I'd reach for the rifle first and if I connected, I think people would be VERY interested in my photos.

[norseman]

Well there's proven and proven you've got to remember. For the former proven, yes it has. To my personal evidenciary standard, the film is a proven hoax. It looks like a guy in a suit,

What Sasquatch doesn't?

it was filmed by a guy with a known history of bigfoot-related chicanery, and a close associate of that guy has claimed to be the guy in the aforementioned suit.

It may be a hoax....but three cowboys and a horse hide covered gorilla suit with a football helmet perpetrating the hoax doesn't really make any sense.

My personal opinion of the PGF is shared by the thousands of people who've seen it and dismissed it. Just because we've dismissed it doesn't mean we haven't carefully considered it. The latter proven, however, is far more difficult to establish.

And that's my point. You may believe it to be a hoax, but you nor anyone else has truly proven it to be a hoax.

What would it take for me to prove to someone else that the film was hoaxed? What would it take to prove to any rational adult that the film was hoaxed? Would it take a confession from Bob Gimlin? A tattered gorilla costume from a trunk in Roger's attic? A sequence of film from Bluff Creek showing Bob H. suiting up right before his walk? I doubt we'd ever find/get such things even though I'm convinced personally that the film is a fake.

I think any of the three scenarios are pretty much the nail in the coffin. A fourth and most likely scenario (because of the ridiculous idea that three cowboys pulled this off) is some sort of Hollywood effects company coming forward.

The PGF is only an "enduring mystery" to a small community of folks who are convinced of its authenticity. To the rest of the world, it's just a film of a guy in a bigfoot costume walking across a sandbar 40+ years ago.

And this is what boggles my mind that you think a 199.99 Wal Mart trail camera is going to do any better at convincing anyone.

Spot-on, norseman. Now take the fervor and eloquence with which you've expressed the need for a type specimen and expand it beyond a carcass intentionally brought down by a skilled marksman. A hair sample from a barbed wire fence could do it. A tooth extracted from a riverbank could do it. . . .

I disagree, because they are distractions from a purely hunter point of view. One heck of a lot more people are collecting hair samples than they are set up to hunt this animal. And that's fine as well, if that is your capacity. But how many hair samples end up proven as already existing species? So unless that is your field? In which you can positively ID classes of hairs in the field? And separate the chaff from the wheat? I think your time is better spent in pursuit.

Hypothetical situation for you:

Your in your pickup on a logging road in the forest and you come upon a fresh set of tracks crossing the road. You get out of your pickup and you notice some hair that may or may not be associated with the tracks on the ground. In your pickup you have a high powered rifle, evidence kit, dental resin, camera and a trail camera.

What do you do? Almost all people are going to set up shop right there and spend their time collecting hair samples and casts. The hair sample is akin to buying a lottery ticket and the casts will be identified as a hoax by the skeptics. But the track way headed off into the woods is the only clear choice in quickly ending the mystery. Most Bigfooters may half heartedly follow the tracks for abit, fearful of what they may find, and they have no conviction of doing the animal any harm anyhow. So the track way is a mental dead end before we even get started.

This is not to say that someone should ignore trace evidence, that is not what I am saying. But you do not effectively catch a bank robber by letting the perp run off down the street with his bag of money because you are too busy pulling a fingerprint off of the glass door that may or may not be his. It is the emphasis placed on trace evidence within the community that is upside down.

[Guest gershake]

I personally can say this, I would never release anything that I didn't myself find conclusive. It doesn't matter that I saw it walk across the road 20 feet in front of me, snap a sapling in half and walk up into a clear cut where I took a picture of it that shows a blurry brown spot.

Would you mind sharing that via PM though?

[norseman]

Would you mind sharing that via PM though?

Sorry, I should have been more clear that that story was strictly hypothetical. I've seen tracks but I have never seen one.

[Guest gershake]

Sorry, I'm a rather naïve person.

- Shake

[Guest]

What Sasquatch doesn't?

That proves my point that the only things we've seen thusfar offered as photographic evidence of bigfoot are blobsquatches or people in hairy suits. Gorillas, chimps, and orangs don't look like people in furry suits, they look like real biological entities.

And that's my point. You may believe it to be a hoax, but you nor anyone else has truly proven it to be a hoax.

Right, that's what I wrote. By definition then, it's not quality photographic evidence because it's ambiguous. Seriously, do you think the quality of the photographic evidence for bigfoot provided by the PGF is on par with that I provided in the thread several days ago from trailcam photos of known wildlife species?

And this is what boggles my mind that you think a 199.99 Wal Mart trail camera is going to do any better at convincing anyone.

If you think the PGF is as good and clear as some of the awesome trailcam photos that have been released in recent years then I agree with your self diagnosis!

I disagree, because they are distractions from a purely hunter point of view.

And I get that point of view and agree that it would tremendous if some hunter bagged a real, whole bigfoot and hauled it into the village square for the world to see. (I hope this happens one day and I hope you are the guy.) But a whole body is not by any means the minimum required standard for describing and naming bigfoot, in other words, "proving it exists." For that, all we need is a single bone (many species have been described with such a meager type specimen), or a tissue sample just big enough to allow DNA analysis that could establish a truly unique signature, or (and this is a longshot I admit) a single, truly definitive and diagnostic photograph.

Your in your pickup on a logging road in the forest and you come upon a fresh set of tracks crossing the road. You get out of your pickup and you notice some hair that may or may not be associated with the tracks on the ground. In your pickup you have a high powered rifle, evidence kit, dental resin, camera and a trail camera.

What do you do?

First I take a GPS location of the spot. Then I grab the hair and spend a few minutes looking for more. Then I bag it, toss it in the truck, grab my rifle, and follow the track. Later, when I've failed to find and kill the bigfoot like every human in history who's claimed to have had a similar experience, I return to my truck. Now that plan A has failed, I need to settle in for plan B. We'll assume I have reason to believe the bigfoot is local in that area, that I would have access to doing longer term work in that area, that I have a few grand to invest in equipment, and that I've got time to invest in the effort. I would set up a grid of passive sampling arrays using hair catchers, track plates, and trailcams - like 20 of 'em. Then I'd wait . . .

[norseman]

That proves my point that the only things we've seen thusfar offered as photographic evidence of bigfoot are blobsquatches or people in hairy suits. Gorillas, chimps, and orangs don't look like people in furry suits, they look like real biological entities.

They don't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOvQ6pbHphs

Screw the photo, most people cannot tell the difference when they encounter it for real at 5 feet. Look at their faces......they are scared shitless.

Right, that's what I wrote. By definition then, it's not quality photographic evidence because it's ambiguous. Seriously, do you think the quality of the photographic evidence for bigfoot provided by the PGF is on par with that I provided in the thread several days ago from trailcam photos of known wildlife species?

It's better, because the creature is moving. Which is infinitely harder to hoax than a static photo.

And I get that point of view and agree that it would tremendous if some hunter bagged a real, whole bigfoot and hauled it into the village square for the world to see. (I hope this happens one day and I hope you are the guy.) But a whole body is not by any means the minimum required standard for describing and naming bigfoot, in other words, "proving it exists." For that, all we need is a single bone (many species have been described with such a meager type specimen), or a tissue sample just big enough to allow DNA analysis that could establish a truly unique signature, or (and this is a longshot I admit) a single, truly definitive and diagnostic photograph.

I started another thread in Gen. BF Discussion about Josh Gate's Yeti hair sample, maybe we can explore this further there.

First I take a GPS location of the spot. Then I grab the hair and spend a few minutes looking for more. Then I bag it, toss it in the truck, grab my rifle, and follow the track.

For me, following the track should always come first. That ten to twenty minutes you spent messing with the hair sample could be the ten minutes that allows too much distance to be placed between you and your target. Take the sample when you get back.

Later, when I've failed to find and kill the bigfoot like every human in history who's claimed to have had a similar experience, I return to my truck.

Kinda like hair samples......

Now that plan A has failed, I need to settle in for plan B. We'll assume I have reason to believe the bigfoot is local in that area, that I would have access to doing longer term work in that area, that I have a few grand to invest in equipment, and that I've got time to invest in the effort. I would set up a grid of passive sampling arrays using hair catchers, track plates, and trailcams - like 20 of 'em. Then I'd wait . . .

I like it!

(But hopefully with a rifle in hand.)

Take the Skookum cast for example, the goal was to lure in a Squatch to make a track way through good casting substrate. If a Squatch did lay down in that substrate that night(which is debatable, but let's say he did) most find this some sort of huge success. While I see it as failure, not that I am trying to be mean to those on the expedition. But if our mindset was different, and you had put a blind or tree stand up that was manned with a person capable of bagging the animal at night? This issue would no longer be a mystery.

Sas you and I are basically on the same page.......I just think it's important that I shake it up abit, because I think our emphasis is misplaced.