Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

There's lots of evidence, I'm trying to find a way to turn some of the better evidence into proof. I think it will be profitable enough to take on some partners that can help me along the way.

[Guest thermalman]

^Your ignorance of what real biologists do all the time does not help your case in the least.

About as much as your empathetic values towards credible and honest witnesses, who struggle with the notion of whether to publically reveal their experience. And after a revelatory decision, find out that some people, who have no concept of the event, will ruthlessly oppress their accounts. They're d.....d if they do and they're d.....d if they don't.

Edited September 6, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

I have a couple good ones in mind but need some equipment that will take some small investments. All equipment costs of coarse I won't make money off my partners. I'm considering renting kind of like a throw back to the famous filmmaker Roger Patterson.

[Guest]

Sas said, "Yes. We birders do things like that every day. I see no reason why bigfoot researchers couldn't do likewise if there are real bigfoots out there to photograph. It's so odd that so many bigfoot proponents put stock in the PGF but don't seem to make a good, clear bigfoot photo a priority of their field work."

Here's an idea Sas:

Next time you're driving down the road, with your camera beside you of course, and an unseen known animal charges out of the ditch in front of you, causing you to slam the brakes on; all the while cranking your steering wheel to avoid a collision with the animal and any oncoming traffic,.........still maintaining control of your vehicle to avoid a rollover or hitting either a tree or pole,..........pick up your camera off the vehicle floor, taking the lens cover off and snap us a clear picture of the animal just before your near miss, before he darts off into the distance. That my friend, is SHOCK AND AWE! But, just remember, there are many skeptics out there who will not buy your story with or without the picture and further proof.

Just a tiny bit different than capturing a picture of tweety singing in the tree...

How tiny a percentage of total BF reports actually involve eyewitnesses in a moving vehicle? Now let's re-evaluate those tens of thousands of unmanned sentinels that are on duty 24-7 ready to snap an image of anything that moves. And still, we have no photographs of a Sasquatch. Not even a million dollar bounty issued by Bushnell for a BF photo was enough of an incentive.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

People are having difficulty documenting them through photos and videos, but that doesn't mean they aren't there . BTW, what do you think of the PGF?

[Guest thermalman]

How tiny a percentage of total BF reports actually involve eyewitnesses in a moving vehicle? Now let's re-evaluate those tens of thousands of unmanned sentinels that are on duty 24-7 ready to snap an image of anything that moves. And still, we have no photographs of a Sasquatch. Not even a million dollar bounty issued by Bushnell for a BF photo was enough of an incentive.

I can think of two teen girls, two weeks ago who never saw the man they ran over in a guillie suit pretending to be BF. There are many who have reported BF while driving. There aren't any photos "we know of" from the unmanned sentinels, yet. My point about the camera and pictures shows how difficult it is to be "ready" all the time to capture that illusive picture of BF. Many a time I have missed opportunities of good photos just because the event transpired in seconds as we watched it, only to realize after, we should have been taking pictures. Throw in an unknown shocking subject and you can see why people miss the opportunity. I know of the Bushnell contest and was hoping for results, like everyone else.

[Guest]

And after a revelatory decision, find out that some people, who have no concept of the event, will ruthlessly oppress their accounts.

What are you talking about? I've stated emphatically in this thread that the problem with anecdotes is not that they are untrue but that their truth can't be reliably evaluated. Anyone who can't stand up to a "ruthless" indictment like that should go back to the sandbox.

[Cotter]

^Yes. We birders do things like that every day. I see no reason why bigfoot researchers couldn't do likewise if there are real bigfoots out there to photograph. It's so odd that so many bigfoot proponents put stock in the PGF but don't seem to make a good, clear bigfoot photo a priority of their field work.

I don't want to get hung up on this, but I find this extraordinary. Can you explain a bit of the technique? Is there a special type lens that shoots wide angle, but can be zoomed in to smaller objects without losing clarity? I bird hunt semi-regularly (can you do something semi-regularly?) and there's about a 3 second window to get the firearm up, aimed, and fired.

And I think there's a difference in proponent vs. researcher as most proponents aren't actively doing field research. But I do agree with the premise of your comment on priority of photo evidence. But, as our friend Meldrum put it (paraphrasing here) something about how most researchers are driven by enthusiasm and not science.

[Guest]

I don't want to get hung up on this, but I find this extraordinary.

I guess I find it extraordinary that people think it's extraordinary that biologists routinely photograph their subjects. Obviously, one can invest a great deal in photographic equipment or techniques. I carry with me a Fuji Finepix point-n-shoot that I bought several years ago for about 200 bucks. I have it set on the automatic setting that "reduces camera shake" to help accommodate my unsteady hands. Sometimes when I see something that would require photo-documentation I'm able to obtain it, sometimes I'm not.

Potential photographic documentation of bigfoot (by a human holding a camera which is just one way to do it) differs only in the likelihood that any one person is able to obtain a photo (which is a very low probability), but the principle is the same: You see something, you try to get a photo, you just might get one. If you don't, maybe the next witness will. Now if only 10 people had ever had the chance to photograph a bigfoot, then I'd be surprised if we had a decent photo from one of those encounters. If 100 people had that chance, I'd start asking where the photos are. At 1000 people with the chance to photograph a bigfoot - and no photo resulting - things start to look pretty fishy.

[Guest MikeG]

Cotter,

zoom lenses do exactly as you describe. Some of the more standard lower-end zooms are 28 to 70mm, 50 to 210mm and 70 to 300mm. The longer the focal length, the less light they let in, so if you are using a 70 to 300 lens on the full zoom (300) you will need good light conditions unless you have spent thousands on the glass, but they all do exactly as you describe.

Mike

[indiefoot]

Would it be fair to say that 1000 professional photographers have sought Grizzly Bears in the wild and come back with some amazing results? How many professional wildlife photographers have invested any time or effort into getting a photo of a BF?

Once it becomes evident that they are out there, you'll get your pictures.

[Guest thermalman]

What are you talking about? I've stated emphatically in this thread that the problem with anecdotes is not that they are untrue but that their truth can't be reliably evaluated. Anyone who can't stand up to a "ruthless" indictment like that should go back to the sandbox.

Real empathetic! You've proven my point. All done here!

Edited September 6, 2012 by thermalman

[Sunflower]

All professional photographers know that you could predictably shoot rolls and rolls of film (before digital) and get one or two spectacular shots. It's a fact......

[Cotter]

Now Sas, I didn't mean I find it extraordinary you take photos of your subjects, but rather than you can capture photos of a fleeting/flushing bird consistenly.

In your opinion, do you think you could take a clear, ID'able photo of this bird flushing? (Move foreward to the 46 second mark, might take you a couple times to see it, but it's center of screen moving left - look for the dog to break point).

I liken a BF encounter for the average hiker to be something like this.

Fast moving, in cover. Now add surprise to this and you've got a challenge.

But I do agree with you, if 1000's of folks claim to have clear line of sight of a BF, camera on hand, and can't produce a pic, it is indeed fishy. How many examples of this are there?

@MikeG - what kind of focusing is required on those zoom lenses or does it require a some-what stationary subject to maintain focus?

[Guest]

I can think of two teen girls, two weeks ago who never saw the man they ran over in a guillie suit pretending to be BF. There are many who have reported BF while driving. There aren't any photos "we know of" from the unmanned sentinels, yet. My point about the camera and pictures shows how difficult it is to be "ready" all the time to capture that illusive picture of BF. Many a time I have missed opportunities of good photos just because the event transpired in seconds as we watched it, only to realize after, we should have been taking pictures. Throw in an unknown shocking subject and you can see why people miss the opportunity. I know of the Bushnell contest and was hoping for results, like everyone else.

Point I was attempting to make was that you can't blame the lack of BF photos on the fact that it's difficult to operate a camera while operating a motor vehicle. The sheer majority of alleged reports are from people on foot. Which brings us to the next excuse proponents use to explain the absense of BF photos. People are in shock when they claim to see a bigfoot and for one reason or another, it takes them forever to prepare their camera for a shot. And like always, BF has made his exit into the bushes.