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

[Guest]

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

Some species/situations are more difficult than others, obviously. I have many photos of Wild Turkeys, but I never saw the hen sitting on the nest that I nearly stepped on one day in a Pennsylvania oak forest. (BTW, Google "Ruffed Grouse in Flight" and you'll find that, yes, people can and do obtain photos of such things. It doesn't matter if I miss that shot, the point is that somebody somewhere probably got it.)

[Guest spurfoot]

Instead of disputing what constitutes evidence, lets take the positive approach of specifying what would increase the chances of obtaining good photographic type evidence. This is not to say other types of evidence should not also be sought.

A 360 degree azimuthal coverage with multiple long lenses would help a lot in view of BF's stealthy nature. For example, no fewer than 18 lenses of 20 degree coverage each. A rotating buffer, that is FIFO queue, of video memory would be invaluable. The queue should be capable of being saved to permanent memory upon user command. The queue should be long enough to allow the user to evaluate whether recent events warrant permanent storage. I suggest no less than a 5 minutes length queue. In most cases the lenses should mounted on the user's head so as to provide a view unobscured by the user's body. Alternatively, the lenses toward the rear could be mounted on the user's back, with the forward facing lenses being of longer focal length (lesser coverage) mounted on the users head so as to provide focused attention. All these desiderata are mostly beyond the state of the art as practiced, but are not beyond technology limits, and are obviously helpful for BF photography. Quite simply, manufacturers of imaging systems have not engineered their systems to BF surveillance requirements. Little wonder we have few good images.

Edited September 6, 2012 by spurfoot

[Cotter]

Some species/situations are more difficult than others, obviously. I have many photos of Wild Turkeys, but I never saw the hen sitting on the nest that I nearly stepped on one day in a Pennsylvania oak forest. (BTW, Google "Ruffed Grouse in Flight" and you'll find that, yes, people can and do obtain photos of such things. It doesn't matter if I miss that shot, the point is that somebody somewhere probably got it.)

OK, I think now what the issue may be is that we don't agree on how difficult it is to photograph a BF and the types of scenarios one finds themselves in when encountering a photographable BF. I also think that we may agree that the number of grouse vs the number of alleged BF is exponentially greater as is the number of bird photographers vs active bf researchers that employ bird photographing techniques and equipment.

So, based on the above portion I think we will agree on, and adding the portion that we may not agree on (though I would assume a higher primate of this caliber is a bit more wiley than a turkey, dove, or grouse - but who knows, we know very little about BF), the probablility that someone else 'gets the shot' if you miss it is very very minute.

[Guest]

OK, I think now what the issue may be is that we don't agree on how difficult it is to photograph a BF and the types of scenarios one finds themselves in when encountering a photographable BF.

I don't think we disagree about that. I assume that it would be very challenging for someone to obtain a good, clear image of a bigfoot, and I've never indicated otherwise.

Remember, it's bigfoot proponents who think it's possible for two guys on horseback to surprise a bigfoot out in the open in broad daylight and to capture that bigfoot on film using 1960's technology.

[Guest MikeG]

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

They can either be auto-focus or manual,as per fixed focal-length lenses. All very easy and instinctive.

Mike

[Guest BFSleuth]

The trouble with a lot of amateur bigfoot research videographers is not only the inadequate cameras they use, but they continue to use autofocus in wooded environments. I hate look at crisp images of leaves four feet from the lens, when the purported bigfoot is out of focus well in the background. Please manually select infinity for your focal point and leave it there unless you have to get a close up shot of something.

[Guest MikeG]

Correct! Lesson number 1 in wildlife photography!

[BobbyO]

The sheer majority of alleged reports are from people on foot.

In % terms, how many ?

[Guest]

Remember, it's bigfoot proponents who think it's possible for two guys on horseback to surprise a bigfoot out in the open in broad daylight and to capture that bigfoot on film using 1960's technology.

True I reckon. But it should also be noted that their doing so has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny and Bill Munns is doing some pretty awesome work in analyzing the PGF.

He has his own forum in the Premium area and has posted some really cool scenarios/experiments for PMP members to engage in.

I know his integrity is without question and that he has promised to go wherever the evidence leads.

Been waiting for years upon years for the PGF to be proven a fake/hoax since some have claimed to have the evidence.

You skeptics just can't do so it seems. Talk is really cheap and does not mitigate the continuing eyewitness reports from credible people.

Lot's of promises by skeptics to do so but there is never anything substantive in their claims. Just posts upon posts that deny evidence of BF when there is plenty of evidence to support the theory. Is this critical thinking? If so then leave me out.

Seems some minds are already made up and if a BF bit one of you guys on your rear that you would deny it.

Can you de-bunk the PGF?

If so then go for it.

And, if the PGF is proven a hoax today, how do you account for the continuing sightings by rational and upstanding members?

Me thinks some folks minds are made up and nothing would change it.

Oh, it sounds good to say you would love for BF to be proven true. That's sort of mitigated when you guys then go on to poo-poo sightings and supportive evidence.

Note I said evidence and not proof.

There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of BF. Unfortunately there is no documented proof.

But when one looks at the plurality of the posts by our skeptical friends one begins to realize that some of our skeptical friends are so jaded and set in their skepticism that nothing short of a body would suffice.

I'm not really opposed to that as I think that is the shortest route to document the species and protect its habitat.

But I have to wonder if even after such proof was brought forth if some of you skeptics would get it.

Good and upstanding folks are seeing/witnessing something.

To not acknowledge or give any credit to their sightings would come off as demeaning to me were I one of those witnesses.

Heck, I'm not a witness and I still find such dismissal demeaning.

[slabdog]

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

Just so I am clear:

You liken the ability to capture a Sasquatch (a creature that allegedly can grow to 8 ft in height) on tape to that of a a flushing grouse?

man...I can't wait until the grooming footage comes out (read: hope it comes out some day).

We are in dire need of some new fresh clear footage other than the PFG.

[Guest]

But I have to wonder if even after such proof was brought forth if some of you skeptics would get it.

Good and upstanding folks are seeing/witnessing something.

To not acknowledge or give any credit to their sightings would come off as demeaning to me were I one of those witnesses.

Heck, I'm not a witness and I still find such dismissal demeaning.

1) I've ALWAYS said that it will take a physical specimen to convince me that there's a real bigfoot, as it would to convince me of the reality of any species.

2) I see nothing demeaning in stating that an anecdotal account cannot be reliably evaluated. That's also been my position since my very first post on the BFF 1.0.

3) If I'm no longer welcome here at the BFF because of these opinions then that's your prerogative to decree so.

[indiefoot]

Sas, I remember you including quality video recently, no?

[Guest]

Where in the world would you get the notion that you may no longer be welcome here on The BFF Saskeptic?

Heck dude, you played an important role in building this place IMO.

Just last week you said you did not want any special treatment when I afforded yourself and RayG some.

So, here is a dose of unspecial treatment....

This is the BFF 2.0 and not the BFF 1.0.

I think some of the skeptics forget that.

I do expect you to honor and abide by the rules here and they state the following...

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

This is a Bigfoot forum. It isn't an anti-Bigfoot forum.

Cool to have dissenting opinions so long as you respect and abide by the above quoted rule.

I just don't want folks to be confused and really want people to know that this is the BFF 2.0 and not the BFF 1.0.

Skeptical opinions are cool and welcomed so long as the above quoted rule is adhered with.

We are The Bigfoot Forum. We are not The anti-Bigfoot Forum.

You are most welcome to post here so long as you recognize the above.

[Cotter]

Just so I am clear:

You liken the ability to capture a Sasquatch (a creature that allegedly can grow to 8 ft in height) on tape to that of a a flushing grouse?

As far as duration of sighting (handfull of seconds) and type of environment (wooded, outdoor), yes.

[Guest BFSleuth]

HRP, you make a good point regarding the difference between BFF 1.0 and BFF 2.0. Made me go back and check to see when I joined, and it was in early 2011. That kind of surprised me. I know I lurked the forums since probably early 2009, but never felt like joining in the discussions because the BFF at that time seemed to be all about skeptics shooting down witnesses or proponents. It seemed to be impossible to actually discuss BF, sightings, or theories without constant interruption with posts like, "Why are we even talking about a figment of your imagination" or some such ilk.

BFF 2.0 launched in September 2010, so it took me some time to realize the improvement and I joined about six months later.

That being said, I strongly agree that Saskeptic has been a valuable and informative member. His point of view and reasoning has been clear and I've learned quite a lot from his posts, and it has helped me inform my own opinion and improved my own thinking and reasoning about how I approach this topic.