Cotter Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Honestly my optimism of the the existence of such a creature is teetering. I have had serious personal reflections myself, but I cannot get past some issues I have to say that they don't exist. Between thermal technology and the quality of cell phone camera technology, there should be something of better substance eventually. Supposedly there is, but hasn't been shared. 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". This is my situation exactly, only I have 2 good friends that have had this happen. Both daylight, both less than 50 ft unobstructed. I mean think about it....They all are as ellusive all across the country? How can they be so coordinated? Intelligence, tight group bond (think elephants), cover up? There are some 'explanations', and yes, they are 'out there'. 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? See above, but there are reports of them getting hit by vehicles, and occassionally showing up under bridges in Chicago (not that I believe that per se). C'mon.... Edited September 29, 2014 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) The 1000 fold increase in person image capture devices is delivering many expected images of previously rarely captured events. Thing's like car accidents and plane crashes. Let's use plane crashes as an example. They are infrequent but in this day and age they get filmed. Case in point also 911 is an excellent example of a spontaneous singular event that has been captured in great detail from many different sources. The Kennedy assassination is a good example of not a lot of video/photo evidence. Of the thousands there only one film surfaced. Had it happened today there would have been countless. Sure Bigfoot is hard to get but easier than ever before yet the evidence hasn't lived up to the level of say 911 documentation. We don't even need to be sitting in the woods we can hang game cameras and many many game cameras are getting great wildlife footage like never before. Yet when BF enters the scene its all reduced to blobs and blurs. This is a telling absence of evidence. I chose UFO's in the OP because it is the other major mystery of note. Prior to the image capture age photos were rare and film rarer. Also the skies are not laced with UFO's. The skies are laced with planes and birds and the rare UFO. The forests are laced with wildlife, we capture the images actively and passively of that wildlife yet BF is vacant. It should be there and better answers are needed to explain it's absence. A final perspective. We have one Patterson Gimlin Film taken at a time when film capture was cumbersome and expensive to operate. Today we have 10,000 times the capture at our fingertips and not a single new PGF. A conservative estimate of capturing a real creature in the same detail as the PGF should have produced a few, perhaps 3 to be cautious. As I said earlier the math does not add up. Edited September 29, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 considering the crap storm PGF discussion turns into at times *cough-face melting suit-poof-cough* maybe the next PGF( or better) has been kept under wraps. time and again we hear 'only a body" will be accepted as BF proof... so I can see not bothering to make a vid public, its not a body. and considering the more popular and socially accepted possibility of UFOs by the general public compared to BF I can see where more people would be willing to come forward with ET than BF. how many top notch productions of alien movies are there? star wars, ET , Alien, close encounters, men in black ......and how many BF movies has Spielberg done? yep, john Q public loves aliens, BF not so much. fwiw, both are getting harder to sell as time goes on with no definitive proof or answers after all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The 1000 fold increase in person image capture devices is delivering many expected images of previously rarely captured events. Thing's like car accidents and plane crashes. Let's use plane crashes as an example. They are infrequent but in this day and age they get filmed. Case in point also 911 is an excellent example of a spontaneous singular event that has been captured in great detail from many different sources. The Kennedy assassination is a good example of not a lot of video/photo evidence. Of the thousands there only one film surfaced. Had it happened today there would have been countless. Sure Bigfoot is hard to get but easier than ever before yet the evidence hasn't lived up to the level of say 911 documentation. We don't even need to be sitting in the woods we can hang game cameras and many many game cameras are getting great wildlife footage like never before. Yet when BF enters the scene its all reduced to blobs and blurs. This is a telling absence of evidence. I chose UFO's in the OP because it is the other major mystery of note. Prior to the image capture age photos were rare and film rarer. Also the skies are not laced with UFO's. The skies are laced with planes and birds and the rare UFO. The forests are laced with wildlife, we capture the images actively and passively of that wildlife yet BF is vacant. It should be there and better answers are needed to explain it's absence. A final perspective. We have one Patterson Gimlin Film taken at a time when film capture was cumbersome and expensive to operate. Today we have 10,000 times the capture at our fingertips and not a single new PGF. A conservative estimate of capturing a real creature in the same detail as the PGF should have produced a few, perhaps 3 to be cautious. As I said earlier the math does not add up. Okay-dokey, using the pic that I posted above. Tell me how many people and how many cameras it would take to cover that little tid-bit of realestate? -> Seriously, LOL! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Good point, Painthorse. It looks like your 1 camera did cover the sky pretty well (in case there were any UFO's out there) and that it would take 100's of cameras to adequately cover those woods seen in the same image. hmmmm... Crow makes a very good point too though, IMO. It seems that with there being exponentially more cameras out there (although cell phone cameras have been typically lousy and slower to get 'ready' compared to old-school film cameras); more good BF images should be coming forward. That is however, if the number of BF available to capture in pictures is comparable to what it was say 47 years ago. I think I'm in agreement with the OP in thinking that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 30, 2014 Crowlogic - I think your reasoning would be valid if we were dealing with just a dumb animal. We are not. Whether you realize it or not, you are presenting a straw man argument. MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 And, again, supposedly there are such films in existence, just not shared. Perhaps a better question would be "why, since several videos have been taken of BF since 1967, have the videos not been made public?" ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 @ Cotter, possibly if on private property the desire not to have they're area invaded by others. Possibly "if" there is a continuation of activity, the time to study behavior. Possibly someone with no desire to prove the existence just wanting to avoid the killing of the subject. People react and think differently, but I have heard also that there are several vids "out there" not made public and only seen by a select few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I think comparing UFO's to bigfoot sightings is akin to comparing the results one would get if you were comparing whale watching with bird watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 And, again, supposedly there are such films in existence, just not shared. Not directed at you, personally, Cotter, but "put up or shut up." I've got clear, distinct mermaid film footage, too, but don't trust anyone and so won't share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Bigfoots are seen less and run from cameras. Bigfoots are dieing out due to being shot during hunting season, getting sprayed by herbacides, and habitat disruption that causes havoc with day to day living. Bigfoot is becoming more wary an only comes out at night and is seen less. UFO s are being seen more and more for what ever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 1, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2014 Crowlogic - I think your reasoning would be valid if we were dealing with just a dumb animal. We are not. Whether you realize it or not, you are presenting a straw man argument. MIB CrowlogicI agree with MIB That these creatures are not a species that are dumb, but are indeed very intelligent. A creature that does not want to have no involvement with us unless it intends too. When they do intend to come into contact with us they want nothing to with photography. The second you place those camera traps or even try to photograph them they leave and may never return , but there is no reasoning why or how they know. You cannot work these numbers out when you do not have actual data to work with like you do with the number of sightings of ufos photographed. Now what would be interesting to know would be the # of UFO's compared to the # of BigFoot sightings and see if there is a relationship there. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 A species such as that still must have a physical silhouette. They don't live as canaries, flitting about without leaving marks of their existence. Or maybe they do. There are those posting here that evidently feel bigfoot are akin to fairies, leaving not a mark upon their territory. Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Not directed at you, personally, Cotter, but "put up or shut up." I've got clear, distinct mermaid film footage, too, but don't trust anyone and so won't share. Well if you share it the MIB will come to your house and say "You didn't see anything" and then leave. You're better off forgetting about it. Edited October 1, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I understand your point and agree with you on some level. Both subjects are mostly misdentifications anyway. What is a UFO to one person most of the time is IFO to another . A lot just depends on ones background and knowledge. As for the Bigfoot subject, it would be easier to accept if there were definitive proof . There is none therefore capturing them on film or in photograph is a difficult task. The hoaxers and the liars make it even more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts