Jump to content
masterbarber

Olympic Project/ Brown Thermal (Part 2)

Recommended Posts

bipedalist

 

The subject in the picture was approx 122' from camera man.  The second photo is a human layover.  The human in the layover is 6' 2" David Ellis.  It's not 100% accurate but it is very close..within a couple inches.  The bright line to the left is a cow approx 35' from camera man.  The film was shot by property owners.  This investigation is new and there is huge amounts of audio we're obtaining as well.  The people are doing the foot work and filming.  We are simply putting the equipment in their hands and working closely with them on a audio and filming basis.  The figure is crouched behind a small ridge in a squatting position looking at the camera man.  Tracks were found where it was standing.

 

I'm not going to debate this picture with people here.  We are simply sharing what we're getting...not claiming this is definitely a Sasquatch.  We are pretty sure it is, but yes, it's only a picture.  We are very excited about the possibilities of this research site and are working hard as we speak to get more.  We feel it's better to share what we're getting, as opposed to sitting on it and keeping it secret.  It's exciting and we are excited.  We will be posting new developments as they happen.

 

DR 

Attached Thumbnails
  • IMG_0860.JPG
  •  
  • IMG_0869.JPG
  • rep_up.png
  •  
  • 6
  •  

 

  • Well I for one would appreciate any additional soundfile or investigation updates since it is not an attempt to prove anything.  Appreciate all the input in the other threads from those analyzing the thermals and post-thermal ground-truthing and photogrammetry.  I am still interested in what the movements in the thermal were that were seen near the outline that looks like the head. 
Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No problem with anyone believing its a BF. Seems I'm the only one who's put his money where his mouth is, so I'll tell you what believers, time to anti-up. I'm offering a challenge for everyone here. I'll give all you BF believers till the year 2020 to come up with 100% proof of BF, at this specific geographic coordinate and for the specific time stamp of the thermal video. All you've got to do is get 100% undeniable proof of BF, within six years. You've got researchers, supporters, thermal video, modern technology, measurements and on site investigators, so it should be an easy job to prove before the six year deadline. I've done my thermal field work and presented it as a cow, time to do yours. If 100% proven by you folks, you'll be able to cash in on all the monetary rewards, plus, you'll have the majority of the world believing in BF. All you stand to lose is your pride and credibility. I stand to gain or lose only credibility and pride. I think that's fair enough? All the best to you!

Shame, shame  :nono: you haven't put up any more than any others analysing this video. Do you mean the gas money it cost you to take a few pictures of cows?

Let's get this straight, you go to a different cow pasture, with a different thermal camera, with different settings at a different time of day and take this thermal image:

post-337-0-45566900-1391795371.png

Then Redbone removes its head and reshapes the silhouette then overlays some foliage from the original thermal image until he gets this image:

post-337-0-00762600-1391795870.jpg

Then Cervelo blurs the image until it finally looks like this:

post-337-0-36542800-1391796139.png

Then you post that blurry monster and take sole credit for solving the case to a 95% certainty and you are the only one who has put his money where his mouth is. If that's about right, then IMHO, you have more jam than Smuckers! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

Ditto!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"I feel the challenge is extremely reasonable, John. All I've got to do do is show a thermal image likeness of a cow, which I did. The evidence gleaned from the site thus far points to the subject being a cow. The ball is in the proponents court now, to prove otherwise. You've got close to 2200 days to work on the BF aspect."

 

You have not provided an image that is even in the ball park as a comparison to state the case its  a cow. You have not taken the evidence into consideration,such as lack of tracks or disturbance where you claim this cow is. You dismiss the back story....all you really have done is say, cows give off heat and where in the area so it must have been a cow. 

I think my request of you coming up with a proper comparable clip, of the same motionless ear less, no track leaving levitating cow is more reasonable than yours.....put your money where your mouth is....demonstrate your expertise instead of just giving us opinion, or simply state your opinion and leave it at that. In my opinion, considering no tracks, no movement, no ears, no tail flick, no chewing, no ground disturbance, and no thermal clip or image that is a reasonable match= no cow. Don't ask me to prove Bigfoot, that is not the point here.....You prove a cow, the burden is on you to prove your case, my case is, its not cow. The circumstance and evidence already prove my case.....prove yours, and repeating over and over again is not proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
  • Well I for one would appreciate any additional soundfile or investigation updates since it is not an attempt to prove anything.  Appreciate all the input in the other threads from those analyzing the thermals and post-thermal ground-truthing and photogrammetry.  I am still interested in what the movements in the thermal were that were seen near the outline that looks like the head. 

One thing I would like to know, which seems to be giving the skeptics fits, is where would an 8 foot tall BF be standing to be peering over the ridge like that? If someone stood at the base of the embankment with a 10' pole ruler and someone else took a photo from the exact same position as the thermal video, then we would know where it was standing or crouching. This is just a hypothetical so skeptics shouldn't get their knickers in a knot over this. But then we would know if it was possible for an 8 foot tall BF to be standing at the bottom of the embankment and able to see over the branch, or whether it had to be actually standing on the embankment. Am I the only one that would like to know where this animal stood? We are already 95% certain this was not a cow, so where was it standing? With accurate site measurements, this question is resolvable.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I respect everyone opinion on this and any other subject of discussion. I also respect my own on this discussion, I am confident that the image is where I think it is in relation to its surrounding. I am confident and agree with Gigantofootecus that a recreation of this recording with the camera in the exact same place same level with attendent accessories, like scale poles etc. can and will locate and size the image to within inches, would be even closer except the edges of the blurred image gives a margin of error of its own. While there may be a way for a cow, or combination of cattle, to exhibit the outline or profile of the heat signature, that reasoning to me is precluded by Derekfoots direct observation. I can either believe Derek, or not believe him of course. In my case I believe him, and trust his interpretation of sign and spoor. So, in my reasoning so far, whether right or wrong, is this: the image is at or below the ridge line. The image is not a cow or cattle as there are no tracks. From there I have to speculate as the image is too blurry and unrevealing to tell anything much for sure. Although there are differences in the heat signature, to me it seems to be heated in some fashion in a fairly even manner. This leads me to think it may be a living thing. I have shot at heated night targets through thermals and the heating wires or easily stood out in the plywood or plastic target even though the entire target was being heated some and was more apparent than most of the surrounding cooler natural objects and ground. So I think it is probably a living thing. If it is a living thing, then it appears to be a large massive living thing. If it's not a cow, then it is some other large living thing. If I consider the circumstances of the videoing, then the possibility is entered that it may be an unknown creature which the landowners and videoers think inhabit the area. To me that is a reasonable assumption, if I can allow that there may be an unknown creature that could exist. Other large living things other than cow would still be possibilities, if they could physically fit the general profile of the image and size of the image. But I am stuck at this point as I cannot fit an animal into the slot there. I think if I could not allow for the possibility of an unknown creature, I would still personally believe the image was at the ridge line or below, but be still trying to think of what animal it could be other than a cow. To me, this is why this video remains very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Shame, shame  :nono: you haven't put up any more than any others analysing this video. Do you mean the gas money it cost you to take a few pictures of cows?

Let's get this straight, you go to a different cow pasture, with a different thermal camera, with different settings at a different time of day and take this thermal image:

attachicon.giftmcow.png

Then Redbone removes its head and reshapes the silhouette then overlays some foliage from the original thermal image until he gets this image:

attachicon.gifthermal cow BF comparison 2.jpg

Then Cervelo blurs the image until it finally looks like this:

attachicon.gifbull.png

Then you post that blurry monster and take sole credit for solving the case to a 95% certainty and you are the only one who has put his money where his mouth is. If that's about right, then IMHO, you have more jam than Smuckers! :D

^^^Concur.

 

By the way.

 

The initial, clear thermal LOOKS LIKE A COW.  The blurred-up, doctored up thermal to show how the Oly Project doctored up the video that they didn't doctor up, not so much.

 

See how this works?

 

Don't ask me to prove Bigfoot, that is not the point here.....You prove a cow, the burden is on you to prove your case, my case is, its not cow. The circumstance and evidence already prove my case.....prove yours, and repeating over and over again is not proof.

^^^How.  Science.  WORKS, people.

 

I too get sick and tired of hearing "no, I can toss any crap at the wall I want.  You, on the other hand, have to prove Bigfoot."

 

NOT.  How.  Science.  WORKS, people.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Don't ask me to prove Bigfoot, that is not the point here.....You prove a cow, the burden is on you to prove your case, my case is, its not cow. The circumstance and evidence already prove my case.....prove yours, and repeating over and over again is not proof.

This is the essence of the entire discussion. We don't have to prove it's a cow. No one can ever prove what this object is, although. it's a forgone conclusion it IS an animate object..a *live creature* given the heat signature. SO, we can only ask...what is it MOST LIKELY to be? I say COW and that seems to be the most LOGICAL conclusion, *looking like a BF* notwithstanding. That's IT folks...all other debate is really just that>>>SPECULATION..and so it will remain. Saying this is a *BF* is more a leap of faith than saying it's a COW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

This is the essence of the entire discussion. We don't have to prove it's a cow. No one can ever prove what this object is, although. it's a forgone conclusion it IS an animate object..a *live creature* given the heat signature. SO, we can only ask...what is it MOST LIKELY to be? I say COW and that seems to be the most LOGICAL conclusion, *looking like a BF* notwithstanding. That's IT folks...all other debate is really just that>>>SPECULATION..and so it will remain. Saying this is a *BF* is more a leap of faith than saying it's a COW.

Highlighted in red how this is a statement of personal position rather than actual fact. Derekfoot already explained why it can't be a cow.

 

Its not like 'We can only ask', either. We can also ask what it isn't. Cow is on that list too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Given the evidence...cow is NOT a logical conclusion.

 

Until we start getting clear-headed reasoning like this, sasquatch research doesn't advance.

 

It CANNOT be, as the first resort, what NONE of the evidence says it is.


It is NEVER a "leap of faith" to take the alternative backed by the most evidence.

 

Granted, we can't prove what it is.

 

Which is why they need to follow up...and document that ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is the essence of the entire discussion. We don't have to prove it's a cow. No one can ever prove what this object is, although. it's a forgone conclusion it IS an animate object..a *live creature* given the heat signature. SO, we can only ask...what is it MOST LIKELY to be?

 

No, we can only ask..."could this be a cow?" If/when we determine it was not likely a cow, then we can speculate to our hearts content. And the evidence currently does not suggest that this was a cow. A lot of it is based on the inability of you skeptics to prove your null hypothesis by matching the Olympic thermal with another cow. Where's your rebuttal? All I hear is this was a cow until proven otherwise. Sorry, but that is not how critical thinking works. There is no default position in science.

 

To disprove the "this was not a cow" null hypothesis, all you have to do is reproduce the thermal image of a cow with the same camera, at the same location, under the same conditions. Then game over. Until then, the null hypothesis will remain alive and well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^Right.

 

I have actually had people claiming a scientific background argue that the Patterson film is a man in a suit until proven otherwise.

 

No it isn't.  It is unknown what that film depicts (even though all available evidence indicates Patty's a sasquatch).

 

Same here.  We don't know what this thermal depicts (even thought all available evidence indicates it's a sasquatch).

 

No default position exists until something is proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thermalman

Just checking in. Nope, nothing here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thats right, nothing but non scientific baseless opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...