Night Walker Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Comparison for clarity: The word "clear" is defined as easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. Surely, the term "ambiguous" (i.e. open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning) would be more accurate given that even the provenance of that Bigfoot video is unknown... The issue is that there are no "clear" examples of Bigfoot evidence. Even the PGF and its provenance have sufficient ambiguities to question its authenticity. There are, however, many clear examples which demonstrate a culture of fabricating Bigfoot exists. Reviewing the comments sections under this particular Bigfoot video shows that there are just as many (perhaps even more) who clearly see it as fake - CGI or costume... If seeing is believing and one see clarity where there is actually great ambiguity then perhaps it would be more fruitful to question the reliability of one's own perception and beliefs... proponents and skeptics alike... 1
norseman Posted April 25, 2017 Admin Posted April 25, 2017 What are you talking about? That bigfoot footage is going to be at the same level of clarity as any trail camera in the country. That was the bar Kitikaze set.....trail camera quality. Check. But you swoop in with Nat Geo quality photos for comparison....ok, you got me there!!!?? I think this life changing "clear" video or picture for the skeptic is hogwash. No matter what they will pick it apart. And the but, but, but youtubers think its a hoax or we do not know who shot the video is immaterial in this debate. We dont have any clear clear clearest of clear video of Bigfoot.......Because you guys play the nutshell game with yourselves. Which is WHY Im right and dmaker is dead wrong. Only a body will do.......
dmaker Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 9 hours ago, norseman said: How much more clear do you want it? A lot
norseman Posted April 25, 2017 Admin Posted April 25, 2017 Then this thread is a moot point. A trail camera is not a Nat Geo film crew...... 1
dmaker Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Do you believe HD photos or HD footage would make a difference? I am confident that you do not. So why are you nit picking that difference in this thread?
Drew Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 13 hours ago, dmaker said: Do you think anyone doubts the photos presented in these studies. I get so tired of the whole photos and video won't matter lament. It's hogwash. Let's see some clear photos or video of a Bigfoot and see what happens. The game would change quickly. Sad that is not very likely to happen. Exactly. A video by a hunter where the Bigfoot meanders into range, smells something it doesn't like, and heads off into the grass. Instead we have the classic Bigfoot videos of the guy walking left to right, and making a look-back, and the arms swinging, then it disappears behind a tree. A legit video would be similar to the Florida panther video above. No tells of a set-up, just a surprised hunter catching an unaware GIANT HAIRY HOMINID on video. Even if the video can't establish scientifically that the creature is a living species, a decent video would allow hair catchers, and scat surveys to pick up DNA within days of the video. Did you see the wolverine study? did you see the large number of DNA samples they gathered AFTER the game cam photo? A Bigfoot will not look like a bear on a game cam video. It will look like a massive friggin gorilla with hair, and teeth, and we will know it. 1
FarArcher Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 I don't think I've ever seen such misinformed, mistaken assumptions and criteria for the existence of these things. I don't understand the time spent arguing in circles, simply because those who are skeptical - and then go so far as to determine their own personal standards of what constitutes "proof" - on the existence of something they discount. Wolverines. Bears. Cougars. Possums. Raccoons. Wolves. All caught on camera, all have something in common. One, big, commonality. A shared characteristic. And this shared characteristic or commonality is what you base the "what constitutes proof" argument on? That's pretty simple-minded. That's lazy. More to the point - that's just stupid. 2
dmaker Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, FarArcher said: Wolverines. Bears. Cougars. Possums. Raccoons. Wolves. All caught on camera, all have something in common. One, big, commonality. A shared characteristic. They are real? 1
norseman Posted April 25, 2017 Admin Posted April 25, 2017 1 hour ago, dmaker said: Do you believe HD photos or HD footage would make a difference? I am confident that you do not. So why are you nit picking that difference in this thread? Because TRAIL CAMERAS that the CCP employs are not on par with Nat Geo camera team photos that Night Walker compared to. Drew said we don't have clear footage of Bigfoot in this thread. Which I took to mean as clear as what any trail camera could provide. Because this is the medium by which the CCP employs. But we do have that from other sources..... So I view his statement as incorrect. If we are simply talking about trail camera clarity, we have a lot of photos and video to discuss.
Drew Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 * Photos or videos that clearly show a real Bigfoot i.e. similar to the cougar footage posted earlier
FarArcher Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 1 hour ago, dmaker said: They are real? Oh, that was clever. Which goes directly to my point. You're trying to point a kerosene lantern.
norseman Posted April 25, 2017 Admin Posted April 25, 2017 17 minutes ago, Drew said: * Photos or videos that clearly show a real Bigfoot i.e. similar to the cougar footage posted earlier Prove to me the Sasquatch with baby video is NOT real...... Its certainly clear enough that we are not dealing with mistaken identity.
dmaker Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 But it's not clear enough to rule out costume or video editing.
SWWASAS Posted April 25, 2017 BFF Patron Posted April 25, 2017 Since that video was aimed by a human, it shows a lot more than a trail camera would have in the same situation. The purported BF would have walked past the trail camera and that would have been it. I have issues with the video but they are more related to the photographer than the image quality. A National Geographic photographer would not have made the mistakes and stabilized the camera better resulting in a better video. But then skeptics and main stream science for that matter, would just declare it a man in a good suit. We have crossed that technology bridge in costuming. There is no putting the cork back in that bottle now. I suspect in a few years, CGI technology is going to be impossible to detect. We already have talking long dead people selling commercial products in commercials. So Norseman is right. A body or a skeleton is the only thing that is going to change science.
Recommended Posts