Guest Cervelo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 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?A little motion blur due to movement and it would be a perfect match IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 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 Sure, the Cascades Carnivore Project is one of a number of conservational groups that for years now have had hundreds of remote game cameras over huge swathes of the most remote areas which happen to be in the heart of Bigfoot country placed in such a manner as to be able to record all the small to large mammals that inhabit the area, including ones they had no expectation of being there, such as a single wolverine. The thread is about why don't these groups obtain evidence of Bigfoot when they get everything else that is there, with believers offering standard excuses of government cover-ups and fantastical abilities by the Bigfoots to avoid being captured on camera. The trail cam shot of the owl swooping down was offered as being that of Bigfoot... ^^ Sure, WSA, please provide some trail cam photos of Bigfoot and we can all discuss them. In the meantime, it is perfectly on topic for this thread to discuss the lack of such. But if you are done tsk-tsking us all, maybe you can provide some decent evidence for study? Otherwise, your moral high ground ( as usual) comments are duly noted. http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/vermont-trail-camera-photo-analysis/ check it out dmaker So I addressed it as being a claim of Bigfoot caught on a trail cam. It is not. It's an owl. This is not the first time Bigfoot on a game cam has gone to the birds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 More trail cam primates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm not going to say what exactly that trailcam shot is. But if you think it's an owl you'd think I'm bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Its an owl. You can see feathers on the bottom left. Edited January 7, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author 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? I think this is not only mistaken identity, but hoaxing as well. Not hoaxed as a man in a suit, but a hoax in knowingly presenting something mundane as that being from Bigfoot. In various interviews including the Finding Bigfoot episode, Frank Siecienski presents his trail cam photos of a coyote and then the main subject saying that the Bigfoot scared off the coyote... The man, who has been tracking Bigfoot for 15 years, said he was delighted to discover the 'mysterious animal' approach and scare off a coyote and points to the stills from the video as proof that the creature does in fact exist. http://www.capitalbay.com/uk/271329-is-this-picture-proof-that-bigfoot-exists-vermont-man-claims-the-mysterious-monster-is-the-ape-like-creature-but-wildlife-officials-say-it-s-just-an-owl.html Watch as his trail cam photos are presented in a sequence to suggest that the coyote was eating apples, then scared away, and then there is a female Bigfoot protecting its young from the 00:40 mark... But the following is the actual sequence as recorded by the trail cam... I got the time stamps by doing screenshots. All the shots showing the coyote on the Internet I found had the markers removed. What he says is the coyote being scared of by Bigfoot is actually the first photo in the sequence at 11:17 pm on August 31, 2010. The one where it appears to be feeding on apples is the same night at 11:46 pm. The owl which we are told is a Bigfoot scaring off that coyote is not until two nights later on September 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm. The coyote trail cam images are completely unrelated to the alleged Bigfoot image yet are being falsely presented as one event by the Bigfoot enthusiast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Thanks. It seems to me there's an unspoken assumption that needs to be examined. The line of reasoning that if BF exists out there that there must be pictures assumes that BF either does not recognize technology or does not have the cognitive capacity to, via deliberate planning, choose to avoid it. I see that assumption as leakier than a rusted out sieve. It's also a double-edged sword that can be turned back on its wielder: I have seen a bigfoot, unambiguous, unmistakeable. That is all the proof I need of their existence. That being the case, and accepting for a moment that there are no photographs, that same logic then says to me that BF absolutely cannot be a mere dumb animal. The only other conclusion I can draw is that there is indeed a conspiracy to suppress the pictures. Those are my only alternatives. YMMV of course. Edit to add .. agree, hoax. I think some people put too much ego on the line with their claims and at some point cross the line to create the evidence they believe in but cannot produce. MIB Edited January 7, 2014 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm not going to say what exactly that trailcam shot is. But if you think it's an owl you'd think I'm bigfoot. Jerrymanderer is correct, the feathers are visible. It is in my estimation most likely Vermont's most common owl, the barred owl, as reported by Rutland County Audubon Society. The owl is in a similar position yet in flight as this owl... This comparison is to what I think is the wrong owl, the snowy owl, a rare visitor to Vermont, but we can see the flight feathers in the downward dark streaks on the right wing and we can even see the distinctive banding in them and particularly in the left wing where the feathers are caught in mid-flap. The white splotching is blurred because of the movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Is Standing a fraud? Expose him. 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? I wouldn't even say monkey suit or monkey anything. More like bizarre puppets with a splash of CG Do you seriously believe any of this to look real? I mean, granted, at least there is an effort to improve design to be more cohesive with PGF-influenced conceptions of Bigfoot going from this... To this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 BTW, norseman, concerning Standing's Video 4 Expedition muppet. Although just a clear look at it debunks itself, there is also Standing's story in relation to the footage. In the following search and rescue show which featured Standing, he says that he got the footage by approaching a Bigfoot domicile and getting footage from a single position of a "Day Watcher" and then his cover was blown by a chickadee that landed next to where he lay hidden and began chirping, alerting that Bigfoot to him. However, if one pays close attention to Standing's Video 4 stills, we can see they are all of the same subject shot in the same exact spot as shown by the thick fir tree branch in front of it which in two shots shows the same snow-clumped smaller branch, only from at least three very different angles. So according to him he was in one position shooting, yet somehow he gets these three different angles and in every case the "Bigfoot" is placidly looking away from him.The images debunk themselves, but his story does as well. See here from 07:30... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 7, 2014 Admin Share Posted January 7, 2014 Kit, Most people cannot see the "zipper" at five feet of a known animal suit like a gorilla. As for standing? I would agree with your assessment that the last photo that blinks looks real as opposed to the earlier ones. And interestingly enough that was the main critiques of the earlier pictures, unblinking shark eyes. But still, these photos are not a bear or a tree stump or a owl. And we vet them based solely on their appearance.......and yet we don't really know what a Sasquatch looks like. But if you ask any skeptic? When they see a real photo? They will know.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks. It seems to me there's an unspoken assumption that needs to be examined. The line of reasoning that if BF exists out there that there must be pictures assumes that BF either does not recognize technology or does not have the cognitive capacity to, via deliberate planning, choose to avoid it. Well, I don't think it's necessary for the animal to either recognize technology or deliberately plan to avoid it. I think that simple societal denial of the animal's existence is enough. The reports don't lead me to believe it's any more elusive than the animals we know about. If the land weren't positively swimming with deer you'd never see one. But you could pass a deer six feet away in fall or winter woods and not notice it. Figure that many encouters go unreported, and people may be encountering sasquatch more often than they do wolves or wolverines or cougars, and about as often as people do bears. And people are just as prepared to photographically record it as I have been to record practically every animal I have ever seen, which is to say non-. And of course we all know that animals habituated to humans - as many deer and bear have become - don't count. (What to say about bigfoot habituators? Well, I can't simply believe them if they offer no evidence. But I have no evidence that they're lying or deluded, either.) The problem here is another assumption that most of us unthinkingly make: that many people seeing it = confirmed by science, which is not the case at all. Scientific recognition is much more complicated than that. And denial is a handy tool for short-circuiting the most sophisticated confirmation machinery. And this thread shows denial clearly at work here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Read this: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2008/02/27_bigfoot.shtml Roush not only has a mature scientific understanding but gives an excellent example of something scientists believed, with nothing but the evidence of their eyes - and something they denied, which was a physically present truth on the ground. As she puts it: "the one they recognized was not the one we had physical evidence for." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Jerrymanderer is correct, the feathers are visible. It is in my estimation most likely Vermont's most common owl, the barred owl, as reported by Rutland County Audubon Society. The owl is in a similar position yet in flight as this owl... This comparison is to what I think is the wrong owl, the snowy owl, a rare visitor to Vermont, but we can see the flight feathers in the downward dark streaks on the right wing and we can even see the distinctive banding in them and particularly in the left wing where the feathers are caught in mid-flap. The white splotching is blurred because of the movement. This^^^ "analysis" is roughly equivalent to showing how a cow photo is a horse. (Or an ape thermal a cow. ) But haven't we seen that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well, I don't think it's necessary for the animal to either recognize technology or deliberately plan to avoid it. I think that simple societal denial of the animal's existence is enough. Well, that's a head scratcher. How does societal denial of an animals existence lead to the failure to capture it on a trail cam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts