Guest Grifter9931 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Grifter9931, on 08 Jan 2014 - 12:58 PM, said: DWA, on 08 Jan 2014 - 12:46 PM, said: I find the explanation for that easy and substantiated by many reports: people in general are not ready to photograph elusive wild animals. Period. That is a perfectly reasonable answer that makes absolute sense. And since that is the case why aren't the folks who go out don't simply mount a GoProHD on their back or front or something similar and set it to record? Sure you can't focus it on faraway objects, but are they sure BF is always far away from them, and since they haven't been able to get focused photo's so why not try video? 1080 video will be better than the typical blob squatch photos and has a better chance to be enhanced. And not arguing. And I think that this idea is starting to build mass as more people start adopting technology and getting the feeling there might be something out there to use it on. The dashcam approach, the Velcro-camera-mount approach, the fore-aft approach are starting to get talked about be early adopters and picked up by other researchers. Tell the truth, if this started to be a truly widely adopted approach I think we'd see something sooner rather than later. All depends on how quick it takes off; and the more Bigfoot TV there is the faster it might take off. (Other aspects of the quality of Bigfoot TV notwithstanding.) P and G went in ready....and look what they got. Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film. You could look it up. I have read about the mind set about the P&G crew and it makes sense why they were able to get the footage they got. There is the NAWAC approach, sit and wait, which has worked with other primates. But staying mobile, and on an animal that can cover real ground, was the best choice for the gear and time P and G had. And they went to a place where folks had been seeing a LOT of tracks. Sounds fair and reasonable.... Thanks DWA
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 For example, wildlife officials suppress Bigfoot evidence. You say something about tantamount to proof, or common sense, etc, but offer zero evidence whatsoever. In light of the fact there have been retired Forest Rangers who have confirmed BF's existence. What would that lead you to believe about the possibility of the USFS suppressing evidence?
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) I should add, dmaker, that whether your third point is assessable given Mercator coordinates depends, greatly, on the artistic vs. technical definition of 'Rembrandt.' [Trying a new tack. We clearly need to move this off the dime/kronor/mark/yuan.] Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA
Cotter Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 ^LOL dmaker! I'd like to reiterate, what makes anyone think that BF behaves like deer? Like wolverines? Is a carnivore? Simply put, if it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Additionally, as has been mentioned just previously. Do coyotes and tigers (that have been shown to avoid cameras) know what they do? We have no idea of the clan/societal structure of BF. There are a TON of assumptions that are made to assume they would be regularly caught on camera, and when caught, regularly shared with the public.
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) In light of the fact there have been retired Forest Rangers who have confirmed BF's existence. What would that lead you to believe about the possibility of the USFS suppressing evidence? Retired park rangers too (you know, kinda legendary ones): http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12302 Um, and let's see, Government geologists (this report flat reeks of the cogency, precision and conciseness of the true scientific mind): http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1241 But you know, we must accept the possibility of the Bigfoot Skeptacular Broadloom Conspiracy To Suppress Suppression of ...um, Suppression of Suppression. Um, that. In the face of a mountain of evidence of which those reports don't even constitute a minor bump, the annoying absence of pictures - totally explainable - means less than nothing except to the credulous. Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 Well, everything's wrong about that, particularly the Parcher guy. But I've explained why, all over this site. Happy hunting. Anyone who thinks trail cams have just solved this whole problem for us deserves never to find out what's up about this. That Patterson claimed to only be at Bluff Creek one week with one camera is not wrong. That the Slick expedition spent far longer with a far more experienced tracker at Bluff Creek is not wrong. That Robert Morgan spent far longer at Mt. St. Helens is not wrong. That you cite 16 cameras capturing three clear images after only three months of an animal that wasn't being looked for and not thought to be there as a meaningful comparison to forty cameras and five years in a place where the animal is not only thought to be but regularly reported to be seen and encountered but offer only posturing as to the meaningfulness of that comparison is not wrong. You regularly are caught dropping complete nonsense and when you get called on it you go into this groan-inducing posturing about how you're right and don't need to really explain why. The networks of wildlife monitoring cameras out there in the heart Bigfoot country is far more vast than the average enthusiast has had any idea of. Why Bigfoots are not showing up is as relative a question as how can everyone be wrong about Bigfoot who thinks they've seen it. Social constructs exist. No, really... 1
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) MORE ...COLORS!??!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO WITH BIGFOOT IS VERY PROBLEMATICAL BUT HEY Sorry...this bigfoot-skeptical approach gets more appealing. WSA...I'm worried...I MAY BE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THESE GUYS.... I mean isn't this it? Confronted by pow-across-the-face jerk-awake compelling evidence....^^^they do this....? And in there where the words are, get the facts wrong too. And whine and throw invective and call names, that too. Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 If you shout nonsense you can avoid coming up with a reasonable explanation I guess.
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 You'd have more fun if you'd just try to figure out what's causing the evidence, and actually explain it, rather than just pleading with us to believe you. NOT THAT YOUR OPINION IS BEING SOLICITED OR ANYTHING, BUT IT CERTAINLY WON'T BE UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY START THINKING ABOUT THIS THE RIGHT WAY. jUST SAYIN'. And Until That Fine Day Arrives, I am taking those geologists and that ranger - just them alone - over anyone who thinks no pictures and lots of cyberpushpins constitute heavy lifting.
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 In light of the fact there have been retired Forest Rangers who have confirmed BF's existence. What would that lead you to believe about the possibility of the USFS suppressing evidence? But Larry, we can't trust those folks. They will hide and destroy evidence. DWA tells us so. So how can we trust them when they tell us they saw a Bigfoot? Conspiracies, I tells ya, conspiracies...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 And that too. But the Parliament Of Twelve. Never - NEVER! - do they ever mention the Parliament of Twelve.
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) MORE ...COLORS!??!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO WITH BIGFOOT IS VERY PROBLEMATICAL BUT HEY Sorry...this bigfoot-skeptical approach gets more appealing. WSA...I'm worried...I MAY BE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THESE GUYS.... I mean isn't this it? Confronted by pow-across-the-face jerk-awake compelling evidence....^^^they do this....? And in there where the words are, get the facts wrong too. And whine and throw invective and call names, that too. Seriously dude, maps come in colors. Get over it, and leave the rainbow font to the My Little Pony crowd please. You're starting to sound like this, DWA. *Removed video That was priceless!! Sadly, I am out of plusses! Thanks for the laugh out loud though. Edited January 8, 2014 by chelefoot Removed quoted video
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Not when the Kramer Ascendancy blew the lid off the footprint find, it didn't. Nosiree. (Do they never - ever - stop with this?)
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 But Larry, we can't trust those folks. They will hide and destroy evidence. DWA tells us so. So how can we trust them when they tell us they saw a Bigfoot? I'm sure you're aware that all you have to do is search the BFF to come up with multiple BF accounts from retired Rangers. So what's your point? Still waiting on you to provide proof of your positive claim regarding the Groundhog and "real" versus "fake" animals. Social constructs exist. No, really... They do? Please elaborate.
Recommended Posts