Alternative Ways Of Proving Bigfoot's Existence?

[Guest]

Yes, Cliff Barackman did. http://cliffbarackma...-brown-footage/

Amazing!

[Guest]

For those who subscribe to the no-kill policy, what are some other ways of getting proof that will satisfy the science community and the public?

A dead body or skeleton?

DNA?

HD video?

Find a BF willing to come in and be interviewed on camera?

[Guest]

Thanks to everyone saying they like the Brown thermal footage. I'm part of the sasquatch hunters(Stacy's group) and I agree it's very cool footage. The first time I saw it I had a hard time wrapping my head around it because I knew it was not fake and it just blew my mind. A friend, who is very skeptical was with me the first time I watched it and he was blown away too. I showed it to some other skeptic friends and they told me I was crazy and that it was just a hiker. There is no way it was a hiker due to the measurements, ability to walk through pitch dark snake infested woods with no lights, and there were no other people in the area, etc. Unfortunately, even though I know it's real it doesn't really prove anything to most skeptics. Most skeptics, even my friends, don't care enough to even read or listen to Cliff's breakdown of it.

I have been to the site and researched the area, and Stacy is in that area researching about 3 nights a week. The group had a small public "expedition" this past weekend, but I couldn't make it. They got some howls and one person said they thought they saw one. They didn't capture too much, but they at least got some howls recorded.

[Guest]

Good points. Ask your skeptics this: How do they explain the incredibly long arms on the subject?

Last time I checked, current production model Homo Sapiens Sapiens didn't come with the option of extra long arms.

[Guest]

MikeU, I hear ya, but most of them just aren't wiling to listen at all. Some of them won't stop laughing at me long enough to listen or even look closely at the video. I just don't even try that hard when they do that and I just laugh it off.

Just think, that's with me showing them what I think is some of the best footage available and they trust me enough to know it's not fake, but they still won't give it a chance. That's unfortunately the reality of how most people think of bigfoot.

Some of my friends definitely do like it and believe it, but a lot don't. This is why we need more than just thermal footage for proof because most people aren't familiar with thermal footage so it doesn't mean much to them. If you had HD video and could prove it's not a costume with a thermal camera it would mean a lot more to skeptics.

[BobbyO]

Good points. Ask your skeptics this: How do they explain the incredibly long arms on the subject?

Last time I checked, current production model Homo Sapiens Sapiens didn't come with the option of extra long arms.

They don't need to answer it Mike, their minds are made up already and as far as they're concerned, it will always be a person.

This is why certainly no thermal will ever be good enough to convince the masses, now way, i'm barely convinced that HD footage for more than 10 seconds would completely convince a lot of people due to the capabilities of technology these days.

It's why even the DNA stuff won't necessarily convince everyone if it is does one day get accepted by Science and published or whatever.

People in general are very simple creatures, the majority anyway.

The majority don't understand enough about DNA to be convinced, the majority can always dismiss video of whatever type, the only thing that will sit up and make people pay attention is a body or a rather large piece of one.

I believe Krantz was wrong when he said that just a finger would be enough, it may be enough to convince science but science is in the minority of smart people, not the majority of the general public that are generally not so smart and won't necessarily believe, understand or even look at a University style Paper release..

[Guest]

Good points. Ask your skeptics this: How do they explain the incredibly long arms on the subject?

Last time I checked, current production model Homo Sapiens Sapiens didn't come with the option of extra long arms.

You can barely tell its proportions.

the majority can always dismiss video of whatever type.....

So because we don't accept blurry images we won't accept any image?

[Guest]

The majority don't understand enough about DNA to be convinced..

Which I don't understand because they are "convinced" enough by DNA to sentence people to death by it. To demand parents pay child support on the basis of it. It is considered one of the most unassailable proofs of guilt or innocence in any court of law barring any showing of bad lab proceedure.

Yet in the case of BF, you are correct. Many (including most Skeptics) will not accept it.

Which, IMO says more about the human capacity for cognitive dissonance than it does anything else.

[Guest]

Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

[Martin]

Good points. Ask your skeptics this: How do they explain the incredibly long arms on the subject?

Last time I checked, current production model Homo Sapiens Sapiens didn't come with the option of extra long arms.

I don't know if i qualify to answer but I see what may be the best thermal footage of an alleged bigfoot to date.

The shape appears to fit the proportions attributed to bigfoot.

Movement seems to be bigfootish.

That makes it a cool video of what could be a bigfoot or it could be something or someone else.

I don't see how it proves bigfoot in anyway.

What am I missing?

Edited February 7, 2013 by Martin

[Guest]

Actually, Martin, any video will come up short of actually proving BF exists. Even as good as this thermal vid is. This is just another piece of suspect evidence to John Q. Public.

People who've actually had an up close and personal experience with a real BF will probably say, "hey, that looks like the real deal to me". But, that's not good enough for most people.

The one and only thing to definitely prove BF's existence, will be a real BF body, on a coroner's slab.

It will need to be broadcast on primetime tv, with a bevy of scientist's of appropriate disciplines, nodding in affirmation, around the body.

With follow up test results made freely open to the public.

That will good enough for most. However, there will always be those who refuse to consider any and all evidence.

I think it would mess with their deeply established world view too much.

[Explorer]

Below is an an organization that is keeping track of rare carnivores in Montana using a combination of methods (tracks, hair samples for DNA, photos, etc.).

This organization (Wild Things Unlimited) is trying to increase the effectiveness of wildlife and habitat management in the Rocky Mountains.

It conducts Rare Carnivore Surveys and has a special project called Wildlife Corridor Project.

http://www.wildthingsultd.org/about-wtu/

The recent report on the WCP (titled "Wildlife of the Gallatin Mountains, Southcentral Montana " by Steven Gehman, Bozeman, Montana, December 2010 (Grizzly Bear section updated May 2012) is available on the link below.

The study should be of interest since Grizzly, black bear, and cougars (which are present in this area) share similar habitat with BF (according to previous discussions in other BFF posts).

http://www.wildthingsultd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Gallatin-Range_fullreport_with_photos.pdf

I found the map of Grizzly bear habitat in the Gallatin Mountains of interest (p.17). Gallatin Mountains are directly north of Yellowstone NP.

Don't know if BF is known to be seen in these areas (I did not check BFRO database), but will love to know if Mr. Gehman and the Wild Things Unlimited Organization found any BF tracks since they began their in 2001.

Their report, of course, does not even mention BF. But, their methods are the correct, conventional, and proven ones to track wildlife.

[BobZenor]

I saw something recently about a new sensor for use on UAV's. They added many chips from cellphones and combined it into one array that has the resolution of over a billion pixels. Here is an article about it.

http://www.theverge....camera-revealed

The point isn't that it would be proof by itself. You would need near proof like convincing DNA and a credible sighting before anything like that would likely be deployed. There are also infrared detectors that could be deployed. There are many activities or scenarios recorded from a sasquatch by that level of technology that would prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That wouldn't be proof to the conspiracy theorists but new technology could certainly prove it to the satisfaction of most rational people assuming they are real. That is what I would expect to eventually happen if it were largely proven by DNA. It sounds like the DNA might be too close to modern human to rise to level of proving it beyond reasonable doubt by itself. We will have to wait and see if anything meaningful comes from that. Drones could theoretically follow one undetected for hours or even days.

Someone might get a high definition video that would prove it enough to get the extra resources involved that should prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Edited February 10, 2013 by BobZenor

[Guest njjohn]

The problem with drones is that they don't see through heavy tree cover. And where do they primarily move about? Heavy tree cover. You might get a small glimpse here and there when they cross a road or blip across a field, but it wouldn't allow you to track them continuously. And although the detail is pretty good, strictly overhead might be mixed up by bears, since when they're moving rapidly, they've been known to travel on all fours.

[Guest]

Scientific proof comes not so much from the quality of the images (particularly these days when the better it looks the more suspicious it becomes) but from the ability of the techniques employed to achieve similar results when conducted by objective third parties. This is particularly hard to do in the case of BF since it is presumed that if you are aware of them, they are aware of you and know something of what you are up to, and take measures to defeat anyones attempts to get close enough to gather visual records. With even the most elusive and behaviorally/intellectually gifted non-human animals such as wovlerines, lynx, mountain lions, wolves and coyotes, a human can do things to observe them directly, or even trap them intentionally, deliberately and dependably, but such is not the case with humans (and presumably with relic humans such as BF might be) who are adept at moving stealthily in their own environments. Any sighting or imagery collected will be the result of chance occurrences and scenarios unlikely to play out again.

I think there's a way around this paradox but it requires conditions that are met in some select habitats where large expanses of wild habitat measuring in the square miles can be observed from a point beyond which even the most alert quarry might not suspect it's being observed using advanced and powerful optics. A team of researchers within the study area could be connected by cell phone to the observation point and that point could then direct its attention and focus to the area where the research team is detecting the presence, or thinks its detecting the presence of BF. cheers