Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well, ItsASquatch, welcome to the Bigfoot Skeptic Zone. In the absence of any rational take on the copious evidence, this is what you get. Over and over and.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Please, call me Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I definatley think that yes, lying or mistaken. Until proven otherwise. Proven as in slab monkey ? Or proven as in "super hi def.......ultra sonic, white tooth pose, hair slicked back, I feel lucky today" photograph???? I 'm going to the Congo with my chimp costume and cause hate and discontent......should be fun. Maybe that will shake up the spoon fed Nature channel types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 You know Bobby O, now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a groundhog in a trail cam shot either. Well, at least one that was incontrovertably a groundhog anyway. Co-inky-dink? Hmmmm..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) ^^ Well done. Though picture 5 is clearly a cat in a groundhog suit. I'm sure I will be pressed to produce a groundhog suit now using 2013 technology and materials. Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) 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. 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... <<took the last picture out - trying to save bandwidth>> But the following is the actual sequence as recorded by the trail cam... <<pictures deleted>> 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... << picture deleted>> Couldn't agree more. And while I'm cautiously accepting of bigfoot's existence at this time, I'm confident that the greater harm to getting others to accept the credible evidence that exists comes not from the charlatans with dead bigfeet in their coolers, but from proponents holding out evidence that is, at best, ambiguous as if it was unequivocal evidence of bigfoot. Sort of the argument that the fake (or poor) evidence I have may be no good but the story I'm claiming is still true logic. (Or, as one of the FB team members said, "Even the fact that you didn't SEE a bigfoot is evidence that you encountered a bigfoot.") Good catch on the time stamps as well - anyone can confirm them by pausing the U-tube clip as each photo is shown. I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find that the producers of FB may be packaging events in a less than clear manner. As I recall this episode, even Bobo was noncommital on what the trailcam showed. I may be mistaken; he may be a firm vote in the bigfoot camp. Edited January 8, 2014 by Trogluddite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 ^Very likely, such as the Temagemi photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 .....So far we don't really have any stellar explanations for why Bigfeets are not showing up on these trail cams... Far fewer bigfoot than other large animals, thus reducing the likelihood of them showing up on trailcams. I'm appreciating more and more the sheer numbers problem. For example (and this all of the top of my head w/o pulling up my spreadsheets), 14 encounters in 6 New York counties totaling 3,500 square miles between 1970 and 2013 (43 years). Of those 14, maybe only 10 were visual encounters. So I'm not a big math person, but take a very large square mile/year area, divide it by a very small number of animals and the absence of photographs becomes rationally explainable. Could also be that, do to a lack of serious research (not serious science, but serious research as discussed above), we don't know (or don't admit) that we don't really know a lot about when/where bigfoot is likely to be, daily/yearly movement patterns, etc. So the cams might be in the wrong places. You can put a lot of traffic cams up in Canada and you're never going to get a picture of a jingle truck because jingle trucks aren't native to Canada. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Couldn't agree more. And while I'm cautiously accepting of bigfoot's existence at this time, I'm confident that the greater harm to getting others to accept the credible evidence that exists comes not from the charlatans with dead bigfeet in their coolers, but from proponents holding out evidence that is, at best, ambiguous as if it was unequivocal evidence of bigfoot. ^^ You're asserting that photos of genuine Bigfeets have been taken, shared on the web, and dismissed as hoaxes? ^Very likely, such as the Temagemi photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hello dmaker, ^^ Well done. Though picture 5 is clearly a cat in a groundhog suit. I'm sure I will be pressed to produce a groundhog suit now using 2013 technology and materials. Pic 3 is DEFINITELY a squirrel either on steroids of pumped up from lifting the rock to it's left for a coupla months. No girlie-squirrel there, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Far fewer bigfoot than other large animals, thus reducing the likelihood of them showing up on trailcams. I'm appreciating more and more the sheer numbers problem. For example (and this all of the top of my head w/o pulling up my spreadsheets), 14 encounters in 6 New York counties totaling 3,500 square miles between 1970 and 2013 (43 years). Of those 14, maybe only 10 were visual encounters. So I'm not a big math person, but take a very large square mile/year area, divide it by a very small number of animals and the absence of photographs becomes rationally explainable. Could also be that, do to a lack of serious research (not serious science, but serious research as discussed above), we don't know (or don't admit) that we don't really know a lot about when/where bigfoot is likely to be, daily/yearly movement patterns, etc. So the cams might be in the wrong places. You can put a lot of traffic cams up in Canada and you're never going to get a picture of a jingle truck because jingle trucks aren't native to Canada. Yet we can get, what was it, a single wolverine in an entire state on a trail cam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hello dmaker, That's 'cause the Bigfoot ate the rest of' em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Why is that so impressive? Wolverines are a fur bearing animal, they get caught in traps all the time up north. I can go online and buy a wolverine trapping manual. I can go online and buy traps and scent lures and a whole host of cool gadgets to make me successful. Sasquatch? Bobo says to bang on trees and yell a certain way........ I'll tell you what....... I'll go into the cascades and then you come in and find me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grifter9931 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ^^ Well done. Though picture 5 is clearly a cat in a groundhog suit. I'm sure I will be pressed to produce a groundhog suit now using 2013 technology and materials. Don't forget to remember the conversation you had with the cat/groundhog... Maybe you could record some noises it makes etc.... And hopefully it follows you home that is 50 miles away... And the "tree crashing".... Never forget the tree crashing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Oh yah ? Show me the mask for Patty! If by your own comparison you think you can match a mask to a picture? The absence of a known mask to make a comparison means that it's a real animal right? Somehow I don't think your moved by the absence of a comparison. That's called having your cake and eating it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts