Guest Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I think it was speculated to be an owl? Cliffs analysis rules thst out. Did you read his analysis? How does that look anything like a bird? What is it then a thunderbird? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) I would not trust Cliffs analysis to rule out anything if the level of objectivity displayed on Finding Bigfoot is any indication. @Dmaker - Would you think that if BF exists, the gov't would know about it? There are lots of reasons why the gov't would want to cover it up. Financial, political, historical, and religious reasons. An active cover up today is not necessary. The population as a whole doesn't believe it exists, and with the circus around the study of these alleged creatures, it's easy to see why no one would believe. Same as UFO's. A large portion of the population simply won't accept UFOs/Aliens either. It's easy to keep something in the dark when the mainstream shouts you down at every turn. Oh, another question Dmaker - do you think that the gov't has ever investigated BF reports/sightings? To support your theory an active cover-up would be necessary. What would the gubmint do if one of the folks on any one of dozens ( possibly hundreds) of BF expeditions that occur monthly or even weekly were to bring in the goods? What then? To truly keep BF secret the gubmint would be suppressing BF research groups and televised BF hunting shows. Otherwise they are going to have to deal with containing a discovery. Something that in todays technological age would probably be pretty hard to do. If BF exists, then no I do not think the government would necessarily know about it. Edited January 6, 2014 by dmaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) blurry flying animals captured on trail cams are quite commonly misidentified, it's been seen numerous times, I feel that this photo is no different. It is very blurry compared to everything else, which to me indicates some velocity, and a lot of the shapes and the way lines come together kind of look like features IMO. And yeah Cliff's analysis isn't worth anything to me. I have heard him say more times than I can count on FB, and it seems to me his end all to anything questionable. "What else could it be other than bigfoot?" ^.... seriously? Edited January 6, 2014 by bigbear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 ^Why is that no matter the subject (bigfoot, nessie, giants, chupacabra) the lack of evidense is always blamed on a conspiricy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 It keeps the fantasy alive. Same reason for all the other excuses and fanboy explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ive never heard of lack of nessie evidence being blamed on conspiracys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/vermont-trail-camera-photo-analysis/ check it out dmaker Owl in flight seen from behind, captured as it swooped down in front of the trail camera, blurred from speed. From the look of the back, I'd say a barred owl or great gray owl. The owl was likely perched in the same tree as the trail camera. Notice the yellow street sign in the upper part of this photo of the scene (trail cam is on the right)... Same street sign as seen in this screenshot from a news report... And this screenshot from street level on Google Maps.. So according to the Bigfoot enthusiast who lives there it is a Bigfoot mother picking up a baby in his front yard. Yet here it is obvious how close to the trail camera the owl was... Finding Bigfoot's Cliff Barackman writes... While this photograph is in no way proof that bigfoots are real, it is evidence thereof. I strongly suspect that this is a real picture of a sasquatch living somewhere near the Vermont a New York border. Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I dont see it kit . Bear with me, whats the relevance of the street sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ive never heard of lack of nessie evidence being blamed on conspiracys. It's a Fortean thing. Empty pockets, blame conspiracy... Monster-hunter Jan Sundberg, who left the loch after reports of a "disappointing expedition" claims he has proof of a cover-up. Sundberg says the Loch Ness Monster riddle could have been solved 34 years ago, but a "business mafia" in nearby Drumnadrochit stopped the search in case it killed off the tourist trade. The businessmen denied the allegation. http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa010702b.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well, who do you trust, the brave monster hunter or the evil businessmen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nonsense. I believe that is, indeed, an owl. Could you remind me what this has to do with the Cascades Carnivore Project? I've lost track of the twists, turns, and misdirection that brought this into the discussion. Thanks! MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Someone posted it as an example of a Bigfoot caught on a trail cam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Since this has morphed into an owl thread and we have the "Owlfoot" photo, I have a question. It could apply equally to trailcam photos of mangy bears that might be misidentified as bigfoot or, let's say, a single photo of bigfoot's back as it walks past a trailcam (I believe a M. Hovey had one of these). As I understand trailcams, they are motion activated and will take several photos in a row if whatever is moving is within the range/viewing angle of the trigger. On wildlife sights w/known animals, its not uncommon to see several pictures - maybe 5 or 6 - of one animal walking across the front of the trail cam or toward the trailcam or away from the trailcam. One could almost then make the animal move by flipping through the pictures rapidly, like that grand old kinetoscope of my youth. So why does it seem like trailcam photos of bigfoot only ever have one single photo? If in fact a bigfoot went apple picking in front of a trailcam, would there not be four or five photos, with date stamps on them so that they could be layed out in proper order and analyzed with the full amount of information available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) We have gobs of footage concerning squatch some of it is garbage, some of it is so so and some of it is compelling. Add to that the footage showing tracks? I'd say the skeptic crowd has there work cut out for them......... It sure beats sitting back and whining about "no good photos"! Is Munns wrong? Debate him line by line in a public forum. Is Standing a fraud? Expose him. Heck pass the hat around, I'll throw in, it makes my job that much easier. Btw Kit gets a pass in my book because he has done sweat equity on the subject. I may not agree but I respect that. Also we have been looking for the zipper on the PGF for 50 years. I don't think being a biologist looking at a photo is going to make that search any easier. Edited January 7, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I believe that is, indeed, an owl. Could you remind me what this has to do with the Cascades Carnivore Project? I've lost track of the twists, turns, and misdirection that brought this into the discussion. Thanks! MIB Also going with an owl - I believe I found a detailed analysis on the Skeptical Inquirer or a website for a group CSI. But once you see the owl, it's never a bigfoot again. And, yeah, the "completely innocent homeowner" who was shocked to have captured Owlfoot on his trailcam shows up for his FB cameo in a bigfoot t-shirt. It would seem to call into question his impartiality Edited January 7, 2014 by Trogluddite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts