Terry Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Asking for money for doing nothing but producing Youtube vids and mooching on your buddies habituation area pretty much says it all.......it's Miller time! Currently he's made just over $1700 out of a hoped for $50,000. Now he's on vacation in the States and of course he found bf tracks right away. Do you suppose the $1700 is being spent on holiday costs? Naw, Mikey would never do that. t.
MarkGlasgow Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Reading some of the comments here it's clear why BF is a breeding ground for so many hoaxers. SO's 'evidence' is possibly the flimsiest and frankly laughable I've come across. But still the hard-core hab set not only think it is viable, but will defend it vigorously. 'Fringe' subjects attract all sorts of strange people. It goes with the territory. Indeed everytime I attend a BF or UFO conference I need to fight the urge to flee when I first arrive! Being open minded is great. Being intensely gullible is much less so. Habsters - try thinking for yourself. This 'hive-mind' you guys seem to have isn't healthy. Believers can and should be as much of a 'Critical Thinker' as your common garden variety skeptic. Let's clean BF up. 2
MIB Posted July 5, 2015 Moderator Posted July 5, 2015 "Habster" .. sounds kind of derogatory. So is hive-mind. Points to the problem. When people are under siege, and the habituators ARE under siege including by you when you use faux words like that ... they tend to circle the wagons. You are not OWED anything, so if you want anything besides your walking papers, earn it by cleaning up your own house ... starting with the choice of words you use towards people you want cooperation from. Y' know? This is simple psychology. Show disrespect, get disrespect. Your words ARE words of disrespect. MIB 3
Guest Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 ^^^ Good post and I couldn’t agree more MIB, I wish that was said more often by others here too. Something is afoot and there are too many instances of going on to dismiss it so casually. MG, I like you brother but words are powerful and when you paint everybody with such a wide brush it cuts like a knife and old wounds are slow to heal. – Just Saying :-)
roguefooter Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 A mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer's location You're talking apples and oranges. Mirages involve light being moved by air temp over distances, like the Paulding Light in Michigan. Whereas cloaking is bending light around an object, like a Predator. Any living creature would require some sort of technology to pull this off. A Sasquatch would need to have a light bending property in it's hair that it would be able to control on and off.
ShadowBorn Posted July 6, 2015 Moderator Posted July 6, 2015 Reading some of the comments here it's clear why BF is a breeding ground for so many hoaxers. SO's 'evidence' is possibly the flimsiest and frankly laughable I've come across. But still the hard-core hab set not only think it is viable, but will defend it vigorously. 'Fringe' subjects attract all sorts of strange people. It goes with the territory. Indeed everytime I attend a BF or UFO conference I need to fight the urge to flee when I first arrive! Being open minded is great. Being intensely gullible is much less so. Habsters - try thinking for yourself. This 'hive-mind' you guys seem to have isn't healthy. Believers can and should be as much of a 'Critical Thinker' as your common garden variety skeptic. Let's clean BF up. Come on, let's not jump on a band wagon and rip on Mark on his chosen words. There is nothing wrong, There is nothing wrong@@@@@@@ I am trying to mind speak this. So receive and transmit.
Jumpin Johnathon Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 You're talking apples and oranges. Mirages involve light being moved by air temp over distances, like the Paulding Light in Michigan. Whereas cloaking is bending light around an object, like a Predator. Any living creature would require some sort of technology to pull this off. A Sasquatch would need to have a light bending property in it's hair that it would be able to control on and off. I must admit that I may have chosen my words better when I said 'cloaking'. Would the word "camouflaging itself" set in a little easier for the discussion? From several different sources where hair/fur has been obtained, there appears to be a myriad of different strand types and colors (even structural differences). We know that a number of animals like the Winter Fox can change their fur/hair color to match the seasons. According to the Optical Society, the Polar Bear has a dark body yet it's fur is white due to it's Light Scattering properties: "The light scattering properties of animals’ coats can also have dual purposes, Simonis notes. With the right structure, fur and feathers can generate efficient thermal insulation in the far infrared range while also scattering visible light to produce a white appearance in the visible wavelength range." So maybe they (what were calling an Sasquatch) can't 'bend the light' (as mentioned earlier for invisibility) but maybe they can use different angles of light with their fur/hair for better stealthiness? Then you've got 'structural coloration' thrown into the mix and wasn't it Bragg's Law that deals with the scattering of light (can't remember right now)? Is this all theory and conjecture? Yes but what else do we have to go on till more data is obtained? Does my theories hold any more weight than anyone else that has shared their thoughts? ABSOLUTELY NOT as I respect everyone's ideas. New ideas don't come to fruition without the known paradigm's being a tad bit shaken. AnyWho... My point still being, that I still don't have a problem with the concept that an entity (that we don't have much information on), couldn't have more going on then were willing to be open-minded to for evading capture. I'm not saying spiritual, dimensional or Hocus Pocus type stuff, but just an unverified form/event taking place. What was it Einstein said: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". At one time many things were claimed to be magic, before they became science fact.... BTW.. none of this has anything to do with the supposed Sasquatch in Ontario debacle/debate. I do not endorse what Mr. Mike P's claims are/were. I am not privy to any reports or any other (supposed) evidence except for what was uploaded on YouTube. I personally thought it was grand entertainment, but nothing more.
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I guess the cabin owners son & girlfriend have claimed the SO youtube account & Nephatia. Let the entertainment recommence! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVXFd1E6GTk
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 JJ, Nice add to the conversation. Does anyone else have experiences with noticing the perception of pressure changes in a closed room, either by oneself or with another in the vicinity but not directly adjacent to oneself? It's one of our normal senses.
Cotter Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I always try and keep an open mind when it comes to Sasquatch .. I just can't wrap my brain around the camo changing ability. I don't see a way fur/hair covered animals would have the ability to change color. More master/cunning woodsman Hi Adam! Well, mammals are indeed capable of changing colors (arctic hare, Caribou, collared lemming, ermine, arctic fox). Albeit these animals turns white, and the process takes a long time (approx 10 weeks). Not really the kind of color changing that's being discussed with BF (more instantaneous), but none-the-less I wanted to point out this bit. :-)
Guest Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 If a furry creature gained control of their arrector pili muscles, it could create different effects. Hypothetical thought I had.
LeafTalker Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Does anyone else have experiences with noticing the perception of pressure changes in a closed room, either by oneself or with another in the vicinity but not directly adjacent to oneself? It's one of our normal senses. Yes. A couple of times, I've felt a fluttering in my eardrums, like there's been a change in air pressure right near me. I think it's happened three times, actually. I don't remember where I was the first time it happened (if it did happen three times); I'd have to look at my notes. But the two times I remember it happening, I was inside a building. There was nobody with me either time (or nobody visible, anyway).
LeafTalker Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Forgot to ask, Diana: So you've had that experience, too? How did you know to connect it to the hairy guys? (I had to ask somebody more experienced what was going on.)
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I know this is a big leap, being brand new to this forum and posting in such an emotionally hot thread as Sasquatch Ontario. I wanted to add a few notes that I do not see covered. First, I am not an apologist for MikeP. I find Mike's work to be intriguing and bit difficult to explain away as a sequence of hoaxes. An objective view shows the experiences at that site are not common elsewhere for the simple reason most other field researchers have absolutely no idea how to confront BF on his/her terms. Many researchers do not establish a personal relationship with a BF. It seems so outlandish to so many people that the reaction was that it must be a hoax. To my knowledge that level of closeness has never been captured on tape prior to Mike . The main achievement I see with MikeP is he progressively learned how to gain their trust to the point of actual communication. If this was a hoax then why would it take 3 years to get anywhere with them? Hoaxers move much quicker and use much more straightforward tactics. I see a lot of ad hoc interaction and other areas that make it hard to fake. If it was fake then that is an awful lot of time spent at the editing board for little gain. You can recreate sounds in a controlled setting (as one forum member has done very well) but mixing that down into a synchronized situation in the wild is not so simple. It can be done but we are talking about very skilled audio techniques to get the right depth and range. If you know about audio then you know that recording int he outdoors takes a level of skill, beyond a simple video cam mic or even a dual mic setup. Based on what I see of the property owner's technical skills in all regards, he and his family are pretty unsophisticated folks. I don't see or hear the polish of a professional studio touch and I do not hear anything that betrays a poor editing job either. I think the audio and video feeds are pretty natural sounding to the environment. In my estimation, after studying the vids while they were posted, there is a strong likelihood the vocalizations are authentic (like it or not and I presume many will not). If you compare the limelight seeking hoaxers like Todd Standing and Dyer, there was always money involved. They also hid things and avoided answering the tough questions. The only thing Mike kept secret was the location because it was not his property. When things were moving along well for Mike at the site, there was no mention of money for the research. If that is a hoaxer in action then it is a remarkably patient operation. That said, I think Mike ultimately let his emotions get the better of him and he mishandled his own PR. It was all downhill for him with his squabbling online. His credibility is pretty much shot now. He also is apparently at fault for abandoning the site. He was not dismissed (according to the property owner's latest videos). He made the decision to leave. There is a mention of Sonya in the latest SO video. Mike was alleged to have taken off with Sonya who once worked with Todd Standing. If so, that is Sonya Zohar who is a species medium of some variety. So this would mean there was no Mike girlfriend on the property. The copyright claims were made by the girlfriend of the property owner or his son. I am not sure if this is made clear in this thread. If Mike took off for a woman then it would not be the first time Internet "love" went that way. One last point of clarification to add to the conversation: The "eye" photo is not a fish nor was the claim ever made that was a photo of BF's eye. If you have followed the sequence of videos, the camera was left outside to see if the BF would do anything with it. It was not set up as a trail cam (that trick always fails). One of the BFs showed curiosity with handling it so they left it for him/her use it overnight . The result was some curious shots, all with interesting light patterns - except the eye shot. The eye is likely of an owl. I also interpret that photo to be a gesture by the BF to show that he/she is capable of properly using the camera. It is a clue they are fully aware of how to do something like that. The rest of the photos are very curious. See attached. They show up in sequential order on one of the videos. The last one that looks like cloud or mist almost looks like a BF face. I took a screen cap of that part of the video. If this was a hoax then it is very clever. I am not sure where all of this will go next but I do not support Mike's antagonistic stance towards the property owner. Now there is very little chance of closing some interesting plot lines.
LeafTalker Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Great post, Wingman. I agree with 99% of it. I would add, though, that Mike made it clear it was his decision to leave. He said on his YouTube channel that he had announced to the property owner that he intended to start researching at another location, and that that announcement caused upset. He never said he was dismissed. I do agree that he mishandled his own PR. I think he is quicker to anger than we might like our 'explorers' to be (although he has acknowledged this publicly and is never given credit for that, nor is he given credit for expressing that he recognizes a need for change, and for the steps he's taken toward making such changes). This quickness to anger, however, is an issue very separate from credibility. Many people who have ongoing interactions with BF have experienced many of the same things Mike has -- and more! -- and therefore see no reason to question the authenticity of his recordings or any of his other findings. It would be nice if we could learn to separate a researcher's/experiencer's/enthusiast's personality from the substance of his or her work. The two are not related. And I totally agree about the photos and what they tell us. I agree that a BF is fully capable of using a camera and did so, in this case. There is no hoaxing going on here, I agree. It's great that your experience with audio -- and your balanced, thoughtful approach to the entire subject -- lead you to that conclusion. I would also say that the chances for more information coming out of all this might be greater than you think. BF don't seem to have difficulty communicating over vast distances. If we don't hear anything more about this relationship in the future, it may be because Mike has decided not to share any of his post-cottage-era adventures, and not because there were no adventures to share. Thanks for your great post, and your bravery in making it.
Recommended Posts