dmaker Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Actually, WSA, I disagree. If a stuffed animal was placed into a documentary that was supposed to be showing live animals, then yeah I would notice. Just like in dramatic attack recreations, it's pretty easy to tell when something fake is being used. I'm sorry, but fake animals are easy to spot and clear footage of real ones, particularly ones that adhere to common shapes or types, is never questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Yes dmaker, guess I have to concede that point. I would expect you to clearly discern when you are being shown a stuffed animal in a live action documentary. Good on you man! (Though I would expect the singularity to be especially problematic for even those of your considerable talents, so stay on your toes until next heard from!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) ^^ Uhm, thanks for the mocking tone, but you were the one that said: "But they could be stuffed, all that it would matter to most, and the only really hurdle the filmmaker must clear is to show you a form you recognize. " I chose to respond to you without the sarcasm, however absurd I found your comment. I thought civility was the preferred form here. Edited January 3, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Norse, that is because the PGF is ambiguous. No one questions genuine wildlife footage. I don't watch documentaries and wonder if they are real or hoaxed animals. Do you think biologists watching Frozen Planet stop and wonder if the penguins are real? No. That is because of the simple fact that real animals when filmed look real. Fake ones when filmed, look fake. That's because no one fakes Wolverine photos and it's a known animal. The Bigfoot phenomenon is not unique, we see the same plater casts and grainy photos concerning the Tasmanian Tiger...... The difference between the two is that one species is recently extinct and the other is considered ludicrous so therefore there is a stigma attached to it. I don't think there is a government wide conspiracy going on, but because of the stigma attached I think if a biologist got a photo of a Sasquatch on his film? His mind would immediately snap towards the thought that somebody was hoaxing his camera trap...... He isn't holding a press conference over a camera trap photo, because his default mindset is hoax. He is going to sweep the trouble under the rug.......that's my opinion. There is simply no way to determine a hoax from a real animal concerning film, when a man and a Sasquatch are basically the same body shape. Munns looks at the bounce of the boobs on a human versus silicone, etc, but that obviously convinces no one including you. So short of filming a squatch rolling over a car or tipping cows? This is a worthless medium, and you skeptics should stick to asking for physical evidence, another photo will solve nothing. I have a poster in my kill club thread asking about guns for self defense because he plans on sneaking in close to take photos.......and doesn't want to get mauled. Prudent......but photos ?really? I just want to smash my head against a brick wall. It's like a self perpetuating exercise in futility and people sign up every day. And I don't think this thread helps anything, basically it's challenging proponents to take a better photo. If I ever come to you with evidence dmaker? It ain't gonna be a photo...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Norse, I completely understand your position. And I agree with most of your points. I don't, however, dismiss photographic or video evidence as being completely worthless. I just think we have become so jaded towards it in this specific regard because all that really exists, to this point, are grainy photos, shaky footage and obvious hoaxes. If someone were to bring in the goods, so to speak, with crystal clear, unambiguous, high-definition video, I think it would get more mainstream ( including scientific) attention than you warrant. The right footage could go a long way to shifting my mindset about this and I think that the same would go for a lot of other entrenched skeptics. At the very least, it would raise the bar ( hopefully). The other I have to disagree with is your comment: He isn't holding a press conference over a camera trap photo, because his default mindset is hoax. He is going to sweep the trouble under the rug.......that's my opinion. I think a scientists default mindset would be what is that? If it, for whatever reasons, looked squatchy, then still, and unless it was obviously a hoax, the mindset would not be hoax, but would be okay, just what animal is this? Look to that thread a while back of the trail cam photo of a moose front quarter I think it was. Look how folks like Saskeptic handled it. There was no cry of "hoax" immediately. The picture was examined and determined to be a misidentification by most people viewing it. Hoax had nothing to do with it. Edited January 4, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Saskeptic did not have to take a photo of a Sasquatch and vouch for its veracity to a superior.......or the media, giant difference than giving a opinion with autonomy on a public forum in my view. With the stigma surrounding Sasquatch? We are talking about wrecked careers here ...... And I for one do not blame a person for not risking their necks over a silly camera trap photo. Also, I always trot out my favorite guy......Todd Standing when you guys talk about high definition detail. Standing has them in spades.......so what is the problem ? A close up of the face with facial movement? You guys should be doing back flips! But no one is .......because squatch cannot exist therefore it's a dude in a monkey suit. Right ? Don't blame you there either........I want a tangible piece of it to say it exists. Nothing else cuts the mustard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 No one is doing backflips about anything coming from Todd Standing because the man is a hoaxer. Bigfoot showing up on conservational remote cameras isn't going to ruin careers, it would make them. So far we've seen at least three different conservation groups employing hundreds of remote camera stations across huge expanses of territory right in the very heart of alleged Bigfoot country. The following is yet another example of how Bigfoot should have been found and wasn't. This is not a government group. Conservation Northwest has been employing remote camera stations across the North Cascades, the Columbia Highlands, the Selkirks of the Rockies for over 10 years. Their cameras are operating year round in addition to winter snow tracking. This group was responsible for documenting the first wild wolf pups born in Washington in over 80 years... http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/wildlife-monitoring These are images of the real animals they document and monitor in Washington State and British Columbia... http://www.flickr.com/photos/conservationnw This is what the BFRO tells us are authentic Bigfoot snow tracks. http://www.bfro.net/news/SnowTracks/index.asp Conservation Northwest cameras are not recording any Bigfoots and trackers are not finding Bigfoot tracks and sweeping them under the rug for fear of The Man and losing their jobs. We have had over four hundred years minus the last 55 years without something like a Bigfoot stigma to come up with the same evidence we have for every other large mammal in North America. These groups do not report Bigfoots in their survey areas not because of conspiracies and fear and extraordinary abilities on the part of Bigfoot. They do not find and report them because they are not there. They find single wolverines because they are there. They do not miss out on the Bigfoots because they are omnivores rather than carnivores. They quite successfully document all the large omnivores that are there, and the herbivores as well. Amazing finds are what they strive and hope for. Finding the animals thought not to be there is the highpoint of what they do. The reality of this world is that Bigfootery talks amongst itself about remote and rare and passes around Bigfoot sightings maps that look like an epidemic, an undocumented species ninja-ing itself from the books with absurd regularity. Bigfootery wants to blame everyone else and the world around it why we don't have proof or even reliable evidence of this Fortean dream. To believe in Bigfoot as presented to us by Bigfootery is to invest in a cavalcade of excuses. To believe in Bigfoot in 2014 either demands not being informed or being informed by the dogma of a strange subculture that is completely out of touch with reality. Bigfoot does not ninja-funk remote camera stations. Social constructs are something humans do and something that conservation work takes apart for the people that care to pay attention. No Bigfoots on conservation cameras is important evidence that it is not there and that we have a subculture of people looking for excuses as to why not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Kit, Do you have proof that Todd Standing is a hoaxer? What are you basing your judgement on? Because you feel his photos look like a dude in a monkey suit? And you either have completely ignored or forgot the third and most obvious choice as to why someone would believe in Bigfoot in 2014. It's because they have had a experience of their own. And finally, scientists do not build careers based on Bigfoot photos....... I'd like to add a personal observation here. I was apart of the cougar-hound hunting 5 year pilot program in Washington state. I sat and talked to a wsu biologist that told us with a straight face there were only four breeding pair of cougar in all of Ferry county. That's what the "data" supported, which included aerial survey and hair traps. Well flying around looking at dense forest for winter kills and randomly setting out hair traps that are easy to get to during winter? Is not sound methods of collecting data, nor does it represent a real picture. I have seen with my father, one set of Sasquatch tracks in my entire life. It's a rare rare occurrence. Kit you seem to be playing the laws of probability here. And I cannot give you the whys or how's of how squatch can remain elusive in this century. All I can tell you is that I've seen tracks in deep snow, something large and bipedal made them and it was no hoax. Edited January 4, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Thanks, WSA, for posting what I was pretty sure I was gonna have to. People react to the PGF, by and large, based on their a priori opinion of what it is, not me, now, but more on that in a minute, which is why we get all this "grainy" and "ambiguous" stuff from a film that is really not much of either. If that were a deer you'd hear nothing of the sort. If it were your cousin, you'd know which one. (And yeah it may be, but I meant that in a different way.) It's easy to see that that is - I'll let the voice of many skeptics finish the sentence - "if a hoax, a **** good one." And it is easy to see how good it would have to have been; faking a Rembrandt is, by comparison, pretty easy. Bill Munns does the numbers, if you need them. But the same ten-and-a-half-year-old me that saw the "Surgeon's Photo" and said, that is a toy dinosaur in a bathtub, saw PGF and thought, what is that? And I had, yes, at that time, only two possibilities of all the ones in the universe: guy in suit or unlisted animal. There we still are; and the only authorities who have pronounced clearly informed opinions pronounce it authentic. I had an edge - based only on what I read here, now - over most posters here: frame 352 and an unbiased summary of the evidence in a couldn't-be-more-mainstream magazine were my very first exposure to the topic. Most don't consider how their prior exposure disposes them toward evidence. Well, I am in a pretty unique position to tell you how it does. (As to Saskeptic: I always considered his science-takes-this-seriously! stance hollow, at best. As with most skeptics on this topic, he just seems to dismiss with a wave of the hand the absolutely overwhelming societal response, which scientists, needing to make a living as they do, act on as a magnifying glass does sunlight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I have seen with my father, one set of Sasquatch tracks in my entire life. It's a rare rare occurrence. Kit you seem to be playing the laws of probability here. And I cannot give you the whys or how's of how squatch can remain elusive in this century. All I can tell you is that I've seen tracks in deep snow, something large and bipedal made them and it was no hoax. You and somebody else (OK, I should say "only one somebody else out of many"): http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974 Anyone who thinks those were snowshoes either thinks this guy's a liar or doesn't know about snowshoes. And also has not idea one that would hold water what else could have made them. Kit: might be more accurate to say we have a subculture of scientists in denial as to what a scientist's job should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well Iam confused...... We have a scientist that specializes in bipedal locomotion and foot anatomy saying a real animal is out there based on cast and film analysis. But a Wolverine biologist with a camera trap snap shot is gonna blow the lid off of this thing! Riiiiight. Btw, has anyone called these organizations about strange photos? Or are we just assuming that they are just going to run to the press with a photo? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 If this is what denialists say it is - a biological Holy Grail that any scientist would want to reveal to the world - well, the evidence says that supposition is wrong, because something leaving the full range of evidence known species leave isn't getting tracked on a full-time basis by a single person on the planet. To presume there are no photos, tracks, hair or other anomalous evidence turning up on these studies because we personally haven't seen any is naïve, to say the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 All I can tell you is that I've seen tracks in deep snow, something large and bipedal made them and it was no hoax. Norse, how can you say that with such certainty? This is still just your subjective analysis shaped by your life experiences. I'm not saying that I think life experiences bring nothing to the table, but even the most experienced and rational people can error. They can be fooled. We have seen it with Meldrum and others even. Faced with the stark reality of zero tangible, verifiable evidence for Bigfoot--and precisely where that evidence, by all rational thought, should be--one has to conclude that Bigfoot simply does not exist. Despite your experience and all the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 ^^^^^More like faced with no bigfoot on a slab period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 "To presume there are no photos, tracks, hair or other anomalous evidence turning up on these studies because we personally haven't seen any is naïve, to say the very least." DWA So, it's what then? Conspiracy theories? (yawn) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts