MarkGlasgow Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Is this good enough for the old Crow? This certainly is not 'evidence' in any sense of the word. Please check the source and circumstances of the picture a bit more closely. It stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Well, I am not gonna argue that wanting to argue implies "some semblance of sense." Some of us just get off our bash urge here. Urge gotten off. I'm always telling people that your opinion doesn't matter and mine doesn't either. The opinion of science does, however, and we already have that opinion. As always at the frontiers of science, most scientists just don't know that yet. The "scientific method" is where the value lies for me when followed... as for trust in man to be proper stewards of said method ..well that is where the issues arrise from my perspective...and they have arrisen on so many occations it is a concern in any genre. What is going on in here is a conversation...there may be some observation and method here and there, but for the most part what takes place here is think tank type debate and one against the other argumentation, at the end of the day no one is moved in any signifigant manner. The knowers know ,debunkers debunk ,the skoffers skoff and those on the fringes generally stay on the fringes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I considered the eyes too. However photo manipulation allows for cutting an pasting details as desired. Isn't that the way, though? No matter what "evidence" is proffered, it will be summarily dismissed by those who don't believe that bigfoot could exist. It's a fait accompli. There's no such creature, so all evidence must be debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Isn't that the way, though? No matter what "evidence" is proffered, it will be summarily dismissed by those who don't believe that bigfoot could exist. It's a fait accompli. There's no such creature, so all evidence must be debunked. In the case of that photo it is on the ragged edge of blobsquatch. When I posted examples of clear concise wildlife photos as examples of what non dubious wildlife photos looks like I was met with a chorus of "It's too hard to take bigfoot photos, it requires too much money and expensive cameras, etc etc it didn't surprising that nothing of consequence has showed up. I promise you if something of the quality of the photo below made the rounds the world would sit up and take notice. Edited June 17, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I equate some of the evidence debunking we see with bigfoot to using a ouija board. Not really scientific and extremely subject to user persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 In the case of that photo it is on the ragged edge of blobsquatch. When I posted examples of clear concise wildlife photos as examples of what non dubious wildlife photos looks like I was met with a chorus of "It's too hard to take bigfoot photos, it requires too much money and expensive cameras, etc etc it didn't surprising that nothing of consequence has showed up. I promise you if something of the quality of the photo below made the rounds the world would sit up and take notice. I'm sure that bear was photographed by a professional who was fully prepared for the opportunity. The flip-side of that coin is me, not a professional photog who two days ago attempted to get a picture of a doe about 30 yards away using my phone's camera (the ubiquity of which, we are assured by denialists, should result in many clear picures of bigfoot, if they actully existed). It resulted in a reddish-brown blobdeer that lacked any detail whatsoever. Now imagine having a surprise encounter with a a giant, hairy, bipedal monster. I can't see that going much better than my attempt with the deer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Send 50 million people into the backcountry every day; cellphone, in hand, on and in camera mode, all day. For a year. Presume a population of 200,000 bigfoot. Number of pictures at the end of that year, I predict: zero. The most I would hold out an outside opp for is three, none of which anyone would accept as evidence. Disagree with me? Great. Let me list the topics you don't know squat about: - animals - the outdoors - people - cameras That's just the start of the list. Others feel free to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm sure that bear was photographed by a professional who was fully prepared for the opportunity. The flip-side of that coin is me, not a professional photog who two days ago attempted to get a picture of a doe about 30 yards away using my phone's camera (the ubiquity of which, we are assured by denialists, should result in many clear picures of bigfoot, if they actully existed). It resulted in a reddish-brown blobdeer that lacked any detail whatsoever. Now imagine having a surprise encounter with a a giant, hairy, bipedal monster. I can't see that going much better than my attempt with the deer. For the average Joe Blow snapping a cell phone bigfoot pic on the fly is a normal expectation. I'm not talking about average Joe Blow. I'm talking about bigfoot researchers who claim to be doing the hard stuff, the field work tramping the trails and forests and collecting subscriptions and selling DVD's etc. They are the ones who have the cameras and seriously what nimrod would set themselves up as a "researcher" with a website and you tube channel and not have a decent camera? The one's I follow sure have some beauties. So there is not as much excuse for crap photography as some believe. If you've got a territory that you have confidence in, if you've done your homework, taken the notes learned the patterns you will get whatever you're after. That's the way real animal documentation works. So when I see a certain researcher putting out quality landscape shots with super zoom at hundreds of yards away I know the skill and equipment is there. A person can buy a decent 16 megapixel digital camera for under $100.00 nowadays. A 16 megapixel camera is better than what Patterson used to shoot the PGF. Researching bigfoot with a cellphone camera is like hunting bear with a BB gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes. Only problem: you're wrong. I'm starting to see that's the best response. Show Your Best Evidence If You Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Send 50 million people into the backcountry every day; cellphone, in hand, on and in camera mode, all day. For a year. Presume a population of 200,000 bigfoot. Number of pictures at the end of that year, I predict: zero. The most I would hold out an outside opp for is three, none of which anyone would accept as evidence. Disagree with me? Great. Let me list the topics you don't know squat about: - animals - the outdoors - people - cameras That's just the start of the list. Others feel free to add. Sad. Edited June 17, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) For the average Joe Blow snapping a cell phone bigfoot pic on the fly is a normal expectation. I'm not talking about average Joe Blow. I'm talking about bigfoot researchers who claim to be doing the hard stuff, the field work tramping the trails and forests and collecting subscriptions and selling DVD's etc. They are the ones who have the cameras and seriously what nimrod would set themselves up as a "researcher" with a website and you tube channel and not have a decent camera? The one's I follow sure have some beauties. So there is not as much excuse for crap photography as some believe. If you've got a territory that you have confidence in, if you've done your homework, taken the notes learned the patterns you will get whatever you're after. That's the way real animal documentation works. So when I see a certain researcher putting out quality landscape shots with super zoom at hundreds of yards away I know the skill and equipment is there. A person can buy a decent 16 megapixel digital camera for under $100.00 nowadays. A 16 megapixel camera is better than what Patterson used to shoot the PGF. Researching bigfoot with a cellphone camera is like hunting bear with a BB gun. I wasn't addressing the active, "professional" bigfoot researchers with 16MP cameras, though (and how many of those do you suppose there really are, anyhow?). I was refuting the old saw that with the proliferation of cellphone and small point-and-shoot digital cameras there should be a corresponding increase in the number of good bigfoot images captured. My point is that quality, off-the-cuff pictures are difficult to get. Edited June 17, 2015 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 If you are photographing an animal that has not been habituated to humans...you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I wasn't addressing the active, "professional" bigfoot researchers with 16MP cameras, though (and how many of those do you suppose there really are, anyhow?). I was refuting the old saw that with the proliferation of cellphone and small point-and-shoot digital cameras there should be a corresponding increase in the number of good bigfoot images captured. My point is that quality, off-the-cuff pictures are difficult to get. Off the cuff anything is always a crapshoot. If my 91 year old aunt Sadie snapped bigfoot ducking behind the dumpster coming out of church bingo well it's liable to be a bit of a blobsquatch. The onus rest with the established researchers who give interviews, host podcasts lecture seminars etc . It is those on whom the weight of quality evidence rests. I listen to the interviews and watch them video their expeditions explaining how they have gotten to know their quarry and then speak with some authority about that quarry. When I travel or go anywhere I am interested in documenting I always trust my camera and never my cellphone. Edited June 17, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Sooo... you're agreeing with me then, yes? Edited June 17, 2015 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Sooo... you're agreeing with me then, yes? I agree that serious people in serious pursuit of a genuine animal have provided very little in serious evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts