Guest Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) (Some UFO guy once said): The Absence of Evidence is NOT The Evidence of Absence This seems to fit with Bigfoot as well... Edited September 28, 2014 by Mythos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 "Math", in this case, describes a facet of the evidence. Not really. It's kind of an "on/off" proposition for Crowlogic, it seems. It seems he (or she) doesn't believe BF exist at all. ("If there is anything to the case for Bigfoot...." "People are out there but is BF?") So if the number 1 equals "on", and the number 0 equals "off", then yes, I guess you could say that math describes a facet of the evidence here (for Crowlogic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Excuses don't answer the original question. And a caution to the excusers: attacking the questioner doesn't bolster your opinion. Edited September 29, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 A person can sit on the deck of their home and take pictures or movies of UFOs if they're patient enough. To try and capture pictures of bigfoot, it requires people to get off their backside and go into the woods, Sometimes, deeply into the woods. I think the opportuity for capturing pictures is almost infinitely easier with UFOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Amateur astronomer that I am, have never witnessed anything not explainable. Living in a middle-western state devoid of bigfoot habitat, no chance at an encounter. The original poster postulates a reasonable question, and I've not heard more than excuses for his question. "UFOs are easy, but bigfoot are tough", is all I've heard. Does anyone have anything better to offer? Edited September 29, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teegunn Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I have seen one time something in the sky I could not explain. Long story short, I was driving home for xmas from college (3 hr drive) and 15 minutes from my parents place (around dusk) something shot straight up into the sky so fast it could not have been human made. It was hard to determine how far off it was, but I saw it clearly and have no explanation. Looked like something metallic, but moved so fast at a sever upward angle from the earth that no details beyond that could be seen by eye. I still never have been able to say what that could have been. One other time while driving across eastern Montana - in some true no-mans-land late at night on a cloudless, windless, starry night, I was "buzzed" by something so fast that I at first had now idea what it was. Then immediately after another craft followed. Ended up they were US fighter jets from either the south Dakota base or a somewhere near great falls MT. I was closer to the SD airforce base at the time - maybe 80 miles away as the crow flies. Anyway, they were SUPER low and it took me several seconds to realize what I was seeing. The flew around like that for several minutes while I drove - at one point I actually decided to pull over and watch. It was like they were mock-fighting. After I stopped to watch they didn't stick around much longer - they were gone so fast it was amazing. I say this because up close like that the speed and power of these jets was really amazing. But I also say this because what I saw in the paragraph above was FAR faster and moved in a way that I don't think human technology allows. Two different, but impressive sights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 A trip around you tube seems to bear out something I've been saying for a long time. For well over a dozen years the general public has had a remarkably good set of technologies to capture photos and videos. A result of this is the plethora of UFO documentation on image capturing devices. Even with hoaxing aside there is a huge collection of data that defies easy explanation. We see today far more UFO shots than ever before which coincides well with the development of camera availability. The Bigfoot phenomenon hasn't given the expected surge in pictorial data. True there are more than ever but none of them are dramatic enough to attach much weight to. If there is anything to the case for Bigfoot we should be getting at least a half dozen PGF quality videos a year. There is something about the numbers that doesn't add up. If bigfoot and extraterrestrial UFOs are real they could have very real differences for not having the same uptick in quality photos and videos, assuming there any. If bigfoot is real, then it has a habitat or set of habitats in which it lives. Most real animals have discrete habitats and ranges. Reports of bigfoot do not follow any apparent habitat or range limitations. Bigfoot is literally reported everywhere. I wish I could find those Hawaiian reports I posted a couple years ago. For some reason I can't work my advanced search correctly. At least nothing comes up. I suspect a real bigfoot would have more limited range and so far fewer people would actually get photos or footage of them regardless of quality. Most of the really good-looking UFO videos I've seen are often found to be fakes. Most UFO videos are as bad as most bigfoot videos. Shaky camera action and blurred object. Considering how much longer the average UFO video is, compared to bigfoot footage, one would think the photographer would finally get it in focus and line up his aim more tightly. Almost never happens. Most videos and photos of UFOs are devoid of any truly informative content. They are little more than blurry dots in the sky with no reference points to gauge size, speed and trajectory. Many of these videos and photos can literally be read as anything. Often the best photos and videos come from much earlier. The fifties and sixties produced some of the best material for both UFOs and bigfoot. UFOs always had more hype from what I can see. Science fiction stories in books, magazines, and movies and television shows firmly entrenched the UFO meme in the minds of everyone of all ages. Bigfoot had much less publicity but still got quite a bit overall. Bigfoot is especially popular today in advertising where UFOs seem less common (this is an off the cuff estimation from my readings of both genres) and still has some presence in movies and television programs but is nothing compared to UFOs. In my estimation UFOs have better press and so are more in the minds of the average person and especially so if that person is not urban or suburban. Rural folks have to go into those woods from time to time and might be a bit more curious and perhaps apprehensive about what is in those woods. But even city-dwellers know about bigfoot. Bigfoot is often seen as a ridiculous idea to most people compared with UFOs. I have friends who mock my interest in bigfoot (I know shocking right?) but tell me UFOs have to be real because they believe we can't be the only ones in this whole universe (as if one supports the other). I slightly believe in bigfoot because I want bigfoot to be real but because I consider bigfoot more plausible than aliens coming to Earth and probing people. Not that that's impossible but I think aliens would not do that. Bigfoot has evolutionary precedence. Animals on this planet that look like what is reported and could be related species. Humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, Neandertals, erectines, etc. We know there were many more ape species in the past than we have today. A surviving relative is not ridiculous. So bigfoot gets a bad wrap from people who do not know the science involved but UFOs get all the prestige because of people who don't know the science involved. Go figure. But that is my small synopsis of the dichotomy of photographic evidence for the two subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 29, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted September 29, 2014 The math should be producing more and better evidence. "Should" but isn't. You shouldn't blame the subject for human inadequacies, yet you do by questioning it's existence. We "think" we are wonderful, we "think" we are the greatest and we simply can not get our head around that in a forested environment, these things are head and shoulders ( excuse the pun ) ahead of us in nearly every aspect and your assumptions are proof of that. What we do have though in abundance is arrogance, arrogance that makes us think all of those things I mentioned above. No serious funding into research, no serious , professional research ( in real small quantities if any ) ever done on the subject so on that basis, I don't see why we "should" have anything regarding lots of decent evidence of an animal that has lived quite easily in a forested environment for an eternity, right under the noses of hundreds of millions of people. It's not a Bear, it's not a Deer. Whatever this thing is is real smart and giving humans the run around, no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) There are many reasons for this in my opinion. There are a plethora of people who could see something in the sky, especially at altitude, while one would have to be pretty much on top of a bigfoot to see anything, much less film it. Even the lights in the sky that are captured on video do not give any good data, but obviously something is there. And then there is the fact that it is much easier to misidentify something in the sky, especially at night, because there are multiple things that people could be seeing, from airplanes, stars, planets, lights caused by tectonic activity, lights we probably don't even understand yet caused by atmospheric phenomena, ball lighting, etc...While with bigfoot you pretty much have a bear- and since bears are so different from sasquatch, even IF they are walking upright (which they don't do the majority of the time) one would only think it a bigfoot in quite unusual circumstances. If you get a view of the ears and snout it is easy to see that it is a bear. I used to watch planes coming and going when I was in the air force, and at night the actual angle of the plane, its flight path, etc, can sometimes change the way it looks, when all you can see are the lights. And jets actually doing maneuvers can look quite strange as well, if you don't know they're jets, because you just see lights behaving strangely, ie not moving in a linear fashion. Lights can appear to blink or cut in and out periodically simply because of the angle you are facing the aircraft. I think some of what people see are simply aircraft. This is similar to a lot of the videos from space that people claim are UFO's, when obviously they are tumbling objects in space, which appear to be flashing lights, while the rest of them are ice crystals set into motion by the thrusters on the spacecraft. Every single video I've seen of UFO's in space has a natural explanation in my opinion, from the tether video to the supposed craft getting shot at by a ground-based weapon. And then there is the possibility that a number of UFO reports are experimental or even operational military aircraft that are still classified. If the government ever did figure out a way to use extremely advanced propulsion systems, which is not out of the realm of possibility considering the black budget resources and brilliant minds at their disposal, of course they wouldn't tell the public. It would be highly illegal for anyone involved to do so, because such an advantage cannot be given up. The use of more conventional craft would not simply be discontinued either, as that would sort of give away the secret. I am leaving out other possibilities for the sake of brevity, but my main point is that it is difficult to compare sasquatch and UFO sightings, simply because there are so many potential explanations for lights in the sky. So while one would be correct to state that the vast majority of UFO reports have a natural explanation, or are explained by government and not alien craft, I think that it would be a huge mistake to expect that same percentage of error with sasquatch. There are just not enough things that can be mistaken for a bigfoot. You have bears and hoaxes, and that is pretty much it for the majority of eyewitnesses. Another thing to consider is the length of UFO sightings when compared with sasquatch sightings. It would make perfect sense for there to be more videos of a phenomenon that was viewed for a longer period of time as opposed to a shorter period of time. And lights in the sky can be viewed until they get far enough away to not be seen, as they cannot really hide behind anything. Throw in the increased number of eyewitnesses where UFO sightings are concerned and one should expect there to be more sightings of UFO's than bigfoot. And it is not as if there were not a large amount of bigfoot videos out there. If the evidence was very limited then that would be one thing, but it is not. Of course we don't which videos are authentic, but videos exist nonetheless. Something else I just considered is the number of supposed eyewitnesses to UFO events who did not capture any video evidence, when it would have been much easier to do when compared with capturing footage of a bigfoot, again due to the sighting constraints. I am quite positive that most UFO witnesses are seeing something, as I do not believe so many people simply make stuff up, but considering the number of things they could have seen I believe it is correct to assume that there is usually a natural explanation. This idea is reinforced by the simple fact that the majority of individuals are not accustomed to making determinations about objects in flight, especially at night. Such speeds are difficult to judge, especially when you have no idea as to the altitude. I would be lying if I said that ALL UFO reports could be explained away in this manner, but the truth is that there exists a number of reports that cannot be explained by anything other than a large craft. Such reports are those where the witness is within yards of the vehicle and can clearly make it out, sometimes during daylight hours. There are more than a handful of reports, and because of that I do not dismiss the idea altogether. I still believe however that some of these sightings could be attributed to US military aircraft, especially where black triangles are concerned, and such craft have been seen numerous times. There have also been reports of aircraft seen near known testing grounds in places like Nevada where the witnesses were quite sure that it was some sort of military craft, yet these craft made no noise whatsoever. Given that these craft were at a low enough altitude to be seen relatively clearly, yet they still could not be heard, leads me to believe that I am correct to assume that some novel propulsion system is being utilized. Such propulsion need not break the laws of physics as we currently know them, but I do know for a fact that the government, including NASA, showed interest in propulsion systems that most would think a bit "wacky." I don't know if they ever worked however. Such ideas make more sense to me than aliens, although if it is aliens they seem incredibly brazen, flying around our skies without giving us confirmation of their presence...Which personally makes me a bit nervous as to their intentions, lol. I will also say that, given the nature of many supposed abduction experiences, I do not think they are here to help us by any means. They all seem very clinical. But all this is waaaay off topic I suppose. As for bigfoot I do not view him in the same way I would aliens, both because I know one exists and not the other, but also because I believe bigfoot to be just an animal of slightly above average intelligence, for a non-human primate. Even if I didn't know sasquatch existed, I think the idea of bigfoot is still more palatable simply because one wouldn't have to worry about some diabolical plot to take over the world. The only non-human animals that I worry might one day take over the world, and make humans subservient, are aliens and cats. The former because they would have to posses far superior technology to even be here, the latter because they always look like they're plotting something. They sleep 1/2 the day, do other stuff for a 1/4 of the day, and plot for the remaining 1/4 of the day, although much of the time they appear to be asleep they're probably still plotting. And I just had a terrifying thought...what if they're communicating with their alien masters? And wouldn't you know, my cat is sitting in my doorway staring at me with that all-knowing look. At least we don't have to worry about bigfoot taking over the world, because they appear to be too bashful. Unless they're aliens too. I shouldn't say anymore, as I don't know how deep this goes. It is no longer clear which animals can be trusted. Edited September 29, 2014 by JiggyPotamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 A person can sit on the deck of their home and take pictures or movies of UFOs if they're patient enough. To try and capture pictures of bigfoot, it requires people to get off their backside and go into the woods, Sometimes, deeply into the woods. I think the opportuity for capturing pictures is almost infinitely easier with UFOs. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41572-urban-bigfoot-seriously/ Show of hands who wants to tell the forum member witnesses they were making up their encounters, were hoaxed, saw a bear, or were hallucinating. Bigfoots do what aliens do... Read all about it... Welcome to Bigfootery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Meh, apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 It is a good point though. Honestly my optimism of the the existence of such a creature is teetering. Between thermal technology and the quality of cell phone camera technology, there should be something of better substance eventually. Were it not for a trusted friend having his own sighting, I would likely be in the "non-believer" camp at this point as opposed to "skeptically hopeful". I mean think about it.... They all are as ellusive all across the country? How can they be so coordinated? Not one of them has been afflicted with a medical condition that makes it delirious and staggering into public or in front of a big rig? C'mon.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Seems we has 1000 times more UFO capture now which dovetails nicely with the surge in capture devices yet the BF ratio is scarcely higher than it was 30 years ago. Source? The ratio of human activity is the same as it's always been. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Well, I see that kit chimed in and cherry picked the outrageous to bolster his claim. (One has to be careful as to not make the exception the rule, it skews future inferences) Bigfoot is purportedly a rural creature. only 20% of our population live in rural areas. So, off the bat, we should see at LEAST 5x as many UFO sighting pics as UFO's are commonly seen over urban areas as well. Now, one can see skyward at least 5x as far as you can see through woods or over hills and terrain, so there's ANOTHER magnitude toward the photos of UFO's being greater than BF. Now, we also have proof of ACTIVE military programs developing new aircraft. So there are indeed UFO's PROVEN to exist already as there are many companies and entities actively making them. Not to mention, the thousands of candle lanterns that get let loose annually by ordinary folks. So...another magnitude increase in UFO pics than BF pics. I can go on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Unobstructed sky "vs" forest. Pic taken from my front yard facing Rich Mountain, Mena Arkansas. Just an iota of the Ouachita National Forest. Now seriously, how many in the population can view this sky vs what's in the woods at any given time? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts