Why Would Proponents Waste Their Time Believing?

[Guest Crowlogic]

A mitt, or other prosthetic attached to the hand would have a distinctly different temperature than the hand itself.  It would be a dead giveaway.

 

The squatch in the Woodpile thermal also had a large hand.  As did the one reaching into our tent in 1974.

What observable thermal imaging evidence is there to support the idea of hands giving off more heat than limbs and body?  We could use some thermals of naked humans to test it.  If  making a hoax make sure all the props are at a cohesive temperature.  Well I suppose the time then has come to toss all bigfoot videos and photos away that don't have huge hands.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

What observable thermal imaging evidence is there to support the idea of hands giving off more heat than limbs and body?  We could use some thermals of naked humans to test it.  If  making a hoax make sure all the props are at a cohesive temperature.  Well I suppose the time then has come to toss all bigfoot videos and photos away that don't have huge hands.

 

Once again, you are confusing conjecture with fact.

 

That JDL is trying to apply basic biologic fact to figure out if something makes sense is far more scientific than your knee-jerk rejection.

 

It's been known since the time of Hippocrates that increased blood flow due to exercise or inflammation results in the increased temperature exchange (body emitting heat). And medical thermal imaging has been used to diagnose sports injuries, cancers and other disorders because the affected body parts have inflammation which is caused by a biochemical cascade of which increased blood flow and increased heat emission are two of many results.

 

Moreover in the art world, there is a concept called "foreshortening". In short, objects that are closer to the viewer appear LARGER than objects that are further away. So in this photo:

 

 

The Washington Monument isn't  5 feet taller than these people, nor are these people 277 feet tall.

 

So applying FACT to the large sized BF hand, it looks "large" due to foreshortening.

[JDL]

What observable thermal imaging evidence is there to support the idea of hands giving off more heat than limbs and body?  We could use some thermals of naked humans to test it.  If  making a hoax make sure all the props are at a cohesive temperature.  Well I suppose the time then has come to toss all bigfoot videos and photos away that don't have huge hands.

 

Didn't say more heat than the body.  Usually hands aren't as warm as the body itself for a couple of reasons.  First, they are furthest away from the heart, second, they have a high surface area to volume ratio, meaning that they do not retain heat as efficiently as the body.  This is why hands, noses, ears and feet are most susceptible to frostbite.

 

I did say that a bigfoot's hands would be proportionally larger than a human's hands and have better circulation by comparison to a human's.  Again, this would be due to a better surface area to volume ratio.

 

If I saw a bigfoot video with small hands, I probably would discard it.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Once again, you are confusing conjecture with fact.

 

That JDL is trying to apply basic biologic fact to figure out if something makes sense is far more scientific than your knee-jerk rejection.

 

It's been known since the time of Hippocrates that increased blood flow due to exercise or inflammation results in the increased temperature exchange (body emitting heat). And medical thermal imaging has been used to diagnose sports injuries, cancers and other disorders because the affected body parts have inflammation which is caused by a biochemical cascade of which increased blood flow and increased heat emission are two of many results.

 

Moreover in the art world, there is a concept called "foreshortening". In short, objects that are closer to the viewer appear LARGER than objects that are further away. So in this photo:

 

 

The Washington Monument isn't  5 feet taller than these people, nor are these people 277 feet tall.

 

So applying FACT to the large sized BF hand, it looks "large" due to foreshortening.

The bigfoot community runs on conjecture.  There are precious few facts.  But while we're on the subject of foreshortening  a figure in front of a camera lens presenting itself in a horizontal plane is not subject to foreshortening.  The big handed thermal is about as horizontal as can be.

[salubrious]

Which big bigfoot events have not been hoaxes?

 

Maybe this has been asked before, but does it have to be a big event?? Otherwise its not real??  I'm sensing a logical disconnect here.

 

Not so fast!  Some folks do go barefoot in the wild and even some bigfooters do it!  Heck nobody in their right mind would go barefoot in the Maine wood............. Have a look at a bigfoot researcher doing the improbable.  You won't have to wait long  either 1:23 confirms my point!

 

 

OK- I've walked barefoot a lot in the woods too and I know what that is about. I did not outline the circumstances of my find, but it was on a friend's private land, well away from streets or trails, though a ton of underbrush, going through a bog. Having taken some tracking classes, I was able to determine two things from the one track that retained information in the substrate (most of the impressions were in club moss): whomever owned the foot had never worn shoes in their life and they were female. I know for a fact it was no-one that my friend knew. IOW circumstances play a huge role in things like this.

 

There was circumstantial evidence too- a family story about a 'bear' that apparently was over 7 feet tall, peering through a window (no bear tracks were found in the sand below the window) and I have often heard woodknocks in the area, but until I found this track I always assumed they were due to human activity, even when I heard them coming from directions where I know there were no roads or houses.

 

So while your example has general validity- people do walk barefoot in the woods- it just does not apply in this particular case.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Maybe this has been asked before, but does it have to be a big event?? Otherwise its not real??  I'm sensing a logical disconnect here.

 

 

 

For the national media to pick up on a bigfoot event it has to be something of a big event yes.  It is the big events that spread the word and it was the big events that launched the bigfoot culture as it exists now.  For instance I'm not one to pay attention to the weather in Texas but holy cow Texas is all over the news with it's flooding.  The flooding is a big event.  If it was just normal thunderstorms nobody would be on it.  Now Texas has floods and it'll get people's attention whereas the church picnic in Austin getting rained out two weeks ago isn't going to matter to anyone except in the congregation.  That's the way bigfoot news is.  If it's big and sensational it can get coverage.  If it's small it'll be in the community an perhaps a topic at a conference.

[Guest DWA]

Crow, this doesn't mean anything to anything.  It's an unscientific approach, and, as those tend to be, not fun and very painful to boot.

[chelefoot]

 

chelefoot, on 28 May 2015 - 8:41 PM, said:

 

So you measure the importance of Bigfoot events by how much media attention they receive?

No wonder you don't believe BF exists.

 

 

 

 

 

No.  I take into consideration that it takes a certain amount quality presentation/content to make it to the networks. It does? I disagree, I don't think they care about the quality. They seem to purposefully choose stories that are dramatic , outrageous, obvious hoaxes, so they can poke fun of it, laugh it off, and perpetuate the the Joke they think BF research is. They look for controversy, drama, and outrageous stories that I suspect they KNOW are hoaxes.  THey never feature good quality work done by serious researchers. Quality presentation/content you say. I would like ONE example of an instance where the Media has given air time to legitimate research (aside from the PGF as you said).

 

From there an assessment of how the material withstands the light of day helps to determine what the bigfoot world is coming up with to shore up it's case that bigfoot exists.  IMO it seems the Stacy Brown  thermal shows something with an insanely large had as it it were a human wearing a catcher's mitt.  But the video is  way too short for serious contention into the no doubt category.  Yes obviously I've decided to toss out the tripe that floats the bigfoot boat.  So do you think any animal can have such a disproportionately large hand?  Maybe rename bigfoot  "bigappendages"  perhaps?  The other thermal I listed is not even in the take a second look category. I have my own reasons for suspecting the Brown footage as suspect that I won't go into.  But I find your dismissal and your reasons for dismissal as an example  of poor excuses without proof for immediately labeling it a hoax. So you think it's a hoax.... Name legit reasons why,  I could name my reasons, but that's not the topic.

Crow, you said this:

That's the way bigfoot news is.  If it's big and sensational it can get coverage.  If it's small it'll be in the community an perhaps a topic at a conference.

 

Which contradicts what you said in the post I quoted above. Which is it? Do they cover the "sensational" (hoaxes) or the "quality presentation/content" as you said earlier?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow, you said this:

Which contradicts what you said in the post I quoted above. Which is it? Do they cover the "sensational" (hoaxes) or the "quality presentation/content" as you said earlier?

The major media covers the sensational claiming  to be true.  In other words Todd Standing got a spot on Canadian TV while claiming all he was doing was real.  Obviously no news is going to cover known fake.  But if a story has enough flash and can be covered with the possibility of being true it's media paydirt.  The fact that all big media stories turn out to be hoaxes after the fact has more to do with the lack of credible bigfoot evidence and the willingness of hoaxers to hoax than it does about the media's decision to cover them when first presented.  

[chelefoot]

Sorry, I disagree again. There was no possibility that Hank was real. Yet Media was all over it. They knew he was a hoaxer, but they covered it anyway. I believe they did it to make all of bigfooting look bad. Standing... another example.  Just look at the Muppetheads and tell me they thought there was a chance it was real. They KNEW it wasn't. But it was all over the media.

 

The stuff Media has picked up lately has had ZERO chance of being real.... and they knew it. You give them more credit than they deserve. I find it interesting that you believe the Media thinks those stories had a chance of being real, when very few in the BF community gave it a chance. I think... or I know they didn't think those strories were real. But, they covered them. I knew there would be a follow up story saying... it was fake. Another BF story... HOAX.

 

Why don't they cover interesting stories by people with nothing to gain and everything to lose, that has no other possible explanation.... can't be proven a hoax, and upon careful review, can't be rules a hoax? I think I know why. Do you?

[guyzonthropus]

Ouch!! Dang! Seems she's cleared up that point quite neatly. Next.......

[Guest]

Chelefoot is right. The media love a good hoax when it comes to bigfoot.

 

You can't throw that baby out with the bathwater because you don't agree with the Location.

 

 

Of course you can. Does a person who accepts something strange in Lake Okanagan automatically have to accept something strange in Loch Ness too? Or vice versa?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest Crowlogic]

Sorry, I disagree again. There was no possibility that Hank was real. Yet Media was all over it. They knew he was a hoaxer, but they covered it anyway. I believe they did it to make all of bigfooting look bad. Standing... another example.  Just look at the Muppetheads and tell me they thought there was a chance it was real. They KNEW it wasn't. But it was all over the media.

 

The stuff Media has picked up lately has had ZERO chance of being real.... and they knew it. You give them more credit than they deserve. I find it interesting that you believe the Media thinks those stories had a chance of being real, when very few in the BF community gave it a chance. I think... or I know they didn't think those strories were real. But, they covered them. I knew there would be a follow up story saying... it was fake. Another BF story... HOAX.

 

Why don't they cover interesting stories by people with nothing to gain and everything to lose, that has no other possible explanation.... can't be proven a hoax, and upon careful review, can't be rules a hoax? I think I know why. Do you?

Essentially you are doing a good job of confirming that there is no solid evidence for bigfoot.  What people are you referring to as having nothing to gain?  Are you suggesting John and Jane Doe who saw bigfoot on the way to the 711?  Any person that goes out to find evidence and has evidence is no longer detached with nothing to gain.  The days of mere bigfoot verbal reportage on intervied news are long gone.  Consider that if there was a great tissue sample that was properly analyzed  where the media could see the entire process happening they would jump on it.  But the cloak and dagger paranoid mentality of bigfoot researchers precludes it.  True they are willing to make the case but only after the fact and there is never a full transparency in any of it.  A perfect example is the Ketchum case.  There are no photos of the tissue samples that ever made it to light so that the observer s could get a good idea of how much material she was working with.  Furthermore what did come out in connection with it was the silly Matilda the sleeping rug.  So really what is there for the media to promote?  Standing had a good rap for a while too bad the special effect dept were not up to the task.  But it also demonstrated that showing too much makes it easier to spot fakery.  There's a reason they keep em short and nondescript.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I completely agree ,Plussed.

[Doc Holliday]

the news loves an obvious fake. it helps bolster the tongue and cheek treatment they usually give all things BF.

 

people that have nothing to gain could be anyone outside of BFery with no TV show to promote and a reputation to lose.

 

for example, I remember a local lady that reported seeing a BF years ago . what she saw scared her so she called the sheriffs office and gave a report to a deputy. he reported her to be a credible witness even though he could not vouch for what she saw.

 

anyways, local gossipers made great fun of it and the family got everything from prank calls to threats so eventually she retracted her statement and let it all blow over.

 

i'd wager anyone that witnessed that ( or similar elsewhere) would think twice before subjecting themselves to that  sort of attention.... I know I would.