Guest DWA Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 ^^^That says "kick dirt over it. Pronto." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Yeah. I'm just sayin'. There comes a point in the life of all threads when there are not likely to be any new points raised on any position. It is not up to me or anyone else not a moderator, but I would be of the opinion this topic is "cooked", as interesting as it has been nonetheless, and unpinning it might make room for fresher content. (I'm also not seeing any clamor to the contrary, just sayin' that too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Yessir kick dirt over anything that goes against the grain of bigfoot mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) ^^ Exactly. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the two threads WSA felt a burning need to declare finished have that theme in common. Just sayin' Edited October 21, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Yeah. I'm just sayin'. There comes a point in the life of all threads when there are not likely to be any new points raised on any position. It is not up to me or anyone else not a moderator, but I would be of the opinion this topic is "cooked", as interesting as it has been nonetheless, and unpinning it might make room for fresher content. (I'm also not seeing any clamor to the contrary, just sayin' that too) If a skeptic (it's not skepticism!) made a significant point of any kind, ever, now, that would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Copy and pasted from the provided source: "They also occur in small numbers in Snowdonia and mid-Wales. The species can be very mobile, easily travelling 20 km in a day. They are also highly territorial, which means they are naturally quite dispersive. It seems likely the Shropshire individual could have come from Wales." For myself, this is detrimental to your case. To me this shows that they have NOT not been un-noticed, but recently introduced to the area. What this actually shows is that one relatively small mammal in an area is prone to show up on a trail cam. Makes me wonder why a large bipedal ape could not show up on one cam given the amount of cams out there. We have a lot of "reports" that state these things are walking up to campsites, campers, dumpsters, and even houses to investigate without fear, yet in the woods, they fear a small minuscule camera. There is more to be said and inferred by this but I leave it up to a different topic to discuss that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 But this line of reasoning ignores several factors: 1) We do have strange creatures showing up on camera traps. But they are proclaimed a mangy bear, an owl or somebody in a ghillie suit. What body of skeptics goes out to these sights and does a proper investigation? You can say what you want but the Bigfoot community for the most part polices itself. From John Greene and Rene Dahinden busting Ivan Marx to the Sasquatch Detective and others busting Todd Standing. So this medium of evidence is for the most part simply dismissed off hand. You click on it, you proclaim it to be a mangy Bear or hoax, you LULZ, and you go brush your teeth. 2) We have clear footage of a Bigfoot walking up a creek bed. I own many camera traps and im confident after reviewing video I have of Bears, Deer and Chipmunks that the PGF is as good as it gets for the modern 200 dollar camera trap amatuer. And if I posted up Bigfoot footage taken from my stealth camera TOMMOROW, by the time the sun went down the Skeptics would have either dismissed it as X.....or they would have proclaimed it a hoax. So what are we talking about here? We get new Bigfoot footage in DAILY, everything from them chasing cars in the rear veiw mirror to tiny dark specks walking a glacier a mile away, and everything in between. We are all waiting for the Nat Geo quality money shot.......but unfortunately no one is running around the woods with hundreds of thousands of dollars of camera gear with the exception of a couple of Bigfoot shows. That are guaranteed not to see anything in the woods because of the massive group of clanky, noisy, camera crew running amok. So I find it odd that a skeptic would post up this thread proclaiming that we have no pictures of Sasquatch when in fact he spends most of his time adding red lines and circles to BIgfoot PICTURES and proclaims them all a hoax on this same forum!! So which is it? We have no photos or we just like to pick apart the plethora we already have? And add insult to injury? If we did score the winning lottery number and that giant gaggle of ultra hi def camera crew was able to stumble upon a bona fide Bigfoot frolicking in a meadow for an hour? The scientists would still be looking for the zipper........ Apes dont live in north America.......apes dont walk on two legs, apes dont have full time breasts, blah blah blah. The PGF was not dismissed on quality of the film! On the contrary! The film was dismissed as a hoax because of all the attributes that Patty exhibited that they could see very clearly! Now we say the quality of the film sucks because its been copied a gazillion times in 48 years. No one said it sucked 48 years ago. But none the less it was off handedly dismissed as a hoax. No Smithsonian scientific team was ever dispatched to measure or study one log or tree at that film site. Nor the trackway, nor the substate, nothing. What gives? This is why I do not put one iota of trust in this medium ever moving us one yard closer to the goal posts. If the CCP under grads ever record a strange creature on one of their camera traps? It would probably be wisest to erase it and forget about. No upside but plenty of side ways glances and murmurs of a hoax with the downside...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Specifically, the point was that the Cascades Carnivore project had no trail cam pics of Sasquatch. Not that there are no alleged pics of bigfeets anywhere, ever. You don't need to be a professional film crew to take high def footage. My phone does 720p fine, and my GoPro ( which is always attached to me or my Jeep, kayak, bike etc, when I'm outdoors) does 4k. Let's keep the strawmen to a minimum, shall we? "We have clear footage of a Bigfoot walking up a creek bed" Not a proven fact. Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) a) So if we have plenty of pictures of the beast then why is it imperative that we recieve some from the CCP? b ) The gopro has a fish eye feature. And cell phones are not very good quality as that is the bulk of the video and photo we recieve. They also lack a good zoom function. So Im not attempting to insert a strawman into the debate. Im simply addressing the fact that we have plenty of media which is being dismissed offhand because of quality evidently. Who is going around vetting these videos? Not a proven fact? Of course its not a proven fact.......because a video will never prove anything, which is the very point Im making! Edited October 22, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I said alleged pictures of the beast. It would be nice to get some pictures from CCP because, as a source, they would seem more objective and of better provenance than anonymous internet submissions. But it's the lack of pictures from CCP that is the point here. CCP managed to get trail cam pics of virtually everything larger than a house cat, but no bigfoot. That is the point. Cell phone videos are of great quality. Take any modern cell phone that can do at least 720p and tell me that the video quality is not great. You will be mistaken. You are clinging to an outdated trope. If it's not a proven fact, you should refrain from presenting it as a fact. For example, when you say things like: "We have clear footage of a Bigfoot walking up a creek bed" Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nYy2x0p6sn4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNfvMEfr5Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4jbSe-AlM All examples of the type of quality you are going to get from outdoorsmen with amatuer video equipment. Which proves what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I said alleged pictures of the beast. It would be nice to get some pictures from CCP because, as a source, they would seem more objective and of better provenance than anonymous internet submissions. But it's the lack of pictures from CCP that is the point here. CCP managed to get trail cam pics of virtually everything larger than a house cat, but no bigfoot. That is the point. Cell phone videos are of great quality. Take any modern cell phone that can do at least 720p and tell me that the video quality is not great. You will be mistaken. You are clinging to an outdated trope. If it's not a proven fact, you should refrain from presenting it as a fact. For example, when you say things like: "We have clear footage of a Bigfoot walking up a creek bed" Bigfoot is not proven, so no Im not going to type "alleged" in front of each Bigfoot statement. We here at the BFF should understand the context from which I speak. If I was addressing a middle school assembly I'd be more careful. But you of all people should know that I do not hold video in high regard. Every piece of it is alleged. But many of our submissions are not anonymous. Fred Eichler is a major celeb in his own field. And so again why does the CCP's lack of a picture or video hold more sway than run of the mill outdoorsmen producing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) If you don't hold video in high regard, then how can you believe Patty is real? "And so again why does the CCP's lack of a picture or video hold more sway than run of the mill outdoorsmen producing them? " Because we have every other creature large enough to be captured on a trail cam. We can tell what the creature is from the photo as well. No one is crying dog in a wolverine costume. You have a project smack dab in the middle of bigfoot country. Yet, nothing close to resembling a bigfoot on any of the projects trail cams. We also have email testimony that the project has never come across anything that could be interpreted as supporting evidence for bigfoot. I am hoping the significance of that is not lost on you. Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I can believe in all of them, but still hold them in low regard concerning proof of a species. And how many people hoax Wolverines? And if they did what would change concerning Wolverine evidence? Would you just look at a picture and assume it was a Wolverine or would you search for the zipper? And it goes both ways, people can be hoaxed while being in close proximity to the "suit". So how are we to expect people to find a zipper in a video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DuHO2KcX6bI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HvIgHb2npOQ Edited October 22, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Why don't you wait until CCP publishes blobsquatch photos before you argue about the value of said photos? Or perhaps you can start a thread dealing with the futility of photographic evidence? This is not that thread, however. This thread is specifically to discuss how a project like CCP failed to find evidence of bigfoot. You seem more interested in devaluing the missing evidence rather than discuss the conspicuous absence of that evidence. Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts