Where Are The Pictures?

[Guest dozy]

Because bigfoot is a better wood ninja than we are?

RayG

But doesn't it feel sometimes as if Sasquatch's wood-ninja skills have arbitrarily improved in direct correlation with the proliferation of cameras and the ability to detect and analyze hoaxs? There are more cameras in the woods now than ever before, yet the quality, detail and provenance of whichever pictures do turn up seems to have declined.

I remember hearing of an FBI agent's unfavourable views regarding the Bush government's planned 'Total Information Awareness' initiative (storing all web transactions in a central database for crime-fighting purposes). He said, "What we do is look for a needle in a haystack; this will only give us more hay".

It certainly feels that way with regard to Sasquatch. The hay tally has dramatically increased (as you would expect), but the needle count has stayed constant (which you wouldn't -- unless either Sasquatch isn't real or its population has declined at a rate very roughly proportionate with imaging proliferation).

On the flip side of that question, when I first saw the title to this thread, I thought it might be addressing something else: where have all the pictures (good, bad and indifferent) gone?

A couple of years ago, it seemed as if there was a new photograph (usually a rubbish one) roughly once a week, and everyone would get their red pens out, with cries of "Yes, it is!" from one contingent, and shouts of "No it isn't / Pareidolia!" from the other. Even that has declined. These days, the frequency of even terrible pictures is much lower than it was just eighteen months ago ... which, again, isn't necessarily what you'd expect given the proliferation of cameras -- but arguably is what you'd expect from a cultural phenomenon in the wake of the Georgia boys' mess.

[Guest TooRisky]

But doesn't it feel sometimes as if Sasquatch's wood-ninja skills have arbitrarily improved in direct correlation with the proliferation of cameras and the ability to detect and analyze hoaxs? There are more cameras in the woods now than ever before, yet the quality, detail and provenance of whichever pictures do turn up seems to have declined.

I remember hearing of an FBI agent's unfavourable views regarding the Bush government's planned 'Total Information Awareness' initiative (storing all web transactions in a central database for crime-fighting purposes). He said, "What we do is look for a needle in a haystack; this will only give us more hay".

It certainly feels that way with regard to Sasquatch. The hay tally has dramatically increased (as you would expect), but the needle count has stayed constant (which you wouldn't -- unless either Sasquatch isn't real or its population has declined at a rate very roughly proportionate with imaging proliferation).

On the flip side of that question, when I first saw the title to this thread, I thought it might be addressing something else: where have all the pictures (good, bad and indifferent) gone?

A couple of years ago, it seemed as if there was a new photograph (usually a rubbish one) roughly once a week, and everyone would get their red pens out, with cries of "Yes, it is!" from one contingent, and shouts of "No it isn't / Pareidolia!" from the other. Even that has declined. These days, the frequency of even terrible pictures is much lower than it was just eighteen months ago ... which, again, isn't necessarily what you'd expect given the proliferation of cameras -- but arguably is what you'd expect from a cultural phenomenon in the wake of the Georgia boys' mess.

There is no direct correlation to cameras in the woods and the pictures of BF... You are talking apples and rocks... The amount of cameras are limited to the corridors and camp sites in the lowest of the forested lands... When I go back into the woods I can spend days and not see another soul less for my research party.

Why are we talking about Bush here, I mean now the Democrats are blaming Bush for not finding Sasquatch...???

All the pictures are out there, ya just have to put forth the effort to find them...

I will not and most others will not put pictures up on a public forum because we get tired of all the pin heads who have no clue or idea of what, where, when and how this picture was taken and just follow the herd of skeptics in tearing it up... We don't need to fuel the desire of the skeptic... We do this for our selves and no one else...

It was the old guard here of the BFF that chased a lot of researchers away from here never to return, never to post any thing because of the way they were treated... I was one of them, and still will not post anything serious on here because I just don't wanna read about some guy telling me I did not see what I saw, heard what I heard or experience what I experienced... Plain and simple

Edited September 16, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest dozy]

There is no direct correlation to cameras in the woods and the pictures of BF... You are talking apples and rocks... The amount of cameras are limited to the corridors and camp sites in the lowest of the forested lands... When I go back into the woods I can spend days and not see another soul less for my research party.

The fact that there is no correlation between cameras in woods and pictures of Bigfoot is exactly what I was addressing. There probably ought to be one, but there isn't.

The amount of cameras is categorically not "limited to the corridors and camp sites in the lowest of the forested lands". There are hundreds of game cameras up on trails that simply were not there 25 years ago, not including the vastly improved imaging capabilities of mobile phones and consumer grade cameras. There are also more people carrying these devices than there ever have been. This is of as much bearing to random encounters as it is to squatch researchers. Are you seriously denying that imaging quality and proliferation has not dramatically improved in the last 20 years?

No one's debating that there's a vast area not covered; that goes without saying. The point is that more of it is covered than previously. In the example you gave of not seeing anybody, there was somebody there: you.

Why are we talking about Bush here, I mean now the Democrats are blaming Bush for not finding Sasquatch...???

The mention of the Bush government was of precisely zero relevance except to provide (necessary) context for the quote about needles and hay. Most sensible people would have read it as such. Why you felt the need to be so sensitive about it is your business, and something I can't help you with.

[Guest]

Hold on there, saying most sensible people would have picked up on it is suggesting something of TooRisky. Maybe all parties involved should go to their corners for a cool down.

[Guest]

Well it could be as simple as "The pictures haven't increased because the big guy's not really out there."

Or, he could be but so far in the last ten years he's been lucky. But I agree with dozy...I get irritated when Bigfoot apologists claim Bigfoot can sense or smell the cameras. That's patently ridiculous. It actually does more harm than good for the notion of Bigfoot. As someone pointed out in so many words...So Bigfoot can stumble upon humans and be startled himself, he's been found scavenging in dumpsters, almost hit my cars ect...but somehow has some sixthBIGFOOTsense that makes him impervious to game cameras?

It's just silly.

[Guest dozy]

Hold on there, saying most sensible people would have picked up on it is suggesting something of TooRisky. Maybe all parties involved should go to their corners for a cool down.

I'm quite happy to defend the points I do attempt to make, Colossus. Forgive me for not wanting to waste either the board's time or mine by debating the minutiae of perceived political slights which were, fairly obviously, never intended as such in the first place.

Talking of which, seeing as you brought it up ...

"Most sensible people" does not necessarily imply anything of TooRisky, as it leaves plenty of room for the possibility that he exists within the set of sensible people, just not the subset comprising the 'most' in question. I phrased it that way intentionally, precisely to take into account that it could easily be an honest difference in perception. If I'd said, "All sensible people ...", that would have been rude (as well as committing a 'No true American ...' fallacy), but I did not phrase it that way, as that was not my intent.

Edited September 16, 2010 by dozy

[Guest]

Take the size of the Field of View of the average game camera (maybe what? 50 square feet?), multiply that by, say, 5,000 (for the number of cameras up at any one time) Compare that to the millions of square miles of wilderness. Throw in the fact that most game cameras are indeed set up along certain narrow areas of land on the basis of access and the potential presence of a desired target.

The fallacy lies in a series of false assumptions about how many cameras there are and where they are.

Then on top of all that, when someone DOES get an interesting pic, the "skeptics" jump in and tear it to shreds, no matter how good it is.

[Guest dozy]

Take the size of the Field of View of the average game camera (maybe what? 50 square feet?), multiply that by, say, 5,000 (for the number of cameras up at any one time) Compare that to the millions of square miles of wilderness. Throw in the fact that most game cameras are indeed set up along certain narrow areas of land on the basis of access and the potential presence of a desired target.

I agree that coverage isn't anywhere near what could be considered 'good', let alone 'great'; in fact, it probably barely gets into the 'very poor' category. But that isn't the point. The point is the difference in coverage and the pictures produced relative to that when cameras were nowhere near as common or at such a relatively high quality.

As I said in my reply to TooRisky, nobody's denying that there isn't a vast area of unscrutinized wilderness, but that point would only be relevant if the only encounters that were taken seriously happened in the remote wilderness, but they aren't. People see them: on farms; in city limits; in the low lying forests; crossing roads; by rivers; in the easily-accessible areas; just as often (perhaps moreso) as they do deep in the deep backwoods. Can't you see that there's a circular logic to that?

A: People see them all the time.

B: But where are the pictures?

A: They're very elusive.

B: Not elusive enough to evade several prominent photographs / films.

A: Those were lucky.

B: But there are far more cameras now. Someone else should have been 'as lucky'.

A: There's plenty of vast wilderness to hide in.

B: Then why do you take the lowland / easily accessible / farm / near road / encounters seriously?

A: Because they're credible, and people see them all the time.

B: Then where are the pictures?

Do you see the point? It's like pushing an air bubble in a piece of freshly-laid wallpaper; you just end up moving the bubble around. You can't use the existence of a vast wilderness as a get-out from the imaging proliferation issue if many of the encounters -- which themselves are used as evidence for a 'weight of numbers' argument -- are not occurring deep in the vast wilderness. It's logically inconsistent.

The fallacy lies in a series of false assumptions about how many cameras there are and where they are.

No: the fallacy is in thinking that a vast increase in imaging proliferation (albeit from 'nearly non-existent' to 'very poor') shouldn't also have had at least some effect on the rate of quality image capture.

As I mentioned, there are a few good rebuttals to the problem. One, which I have some time for, actually, is Crowlogic's argument that Sasquatch did exist but is now extinct. Whatever you think of its merits, it is at least consistent with the observed patterns of imaging. Another is that Sasquatch numbers have declined -- or that they have retreated from previous proximity with 'civilization' -- at a rate which would nullify imaging proliferation. This is certainly possible, although its probability and the reasons for it occurring would also be somewhat debatable.

Then on top of all that, when someone DOES get an interesting pic, the "skeptics" jump in and tear it to shreds, no matter how good it is.

A bum picture is a bum picture, whether you believe in Sasquatch or not. As mentioned before, I'm actually somewhat agnostic on the 'existence' issue, not an outright skeptic, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a poor argument or image when I see one. In fact, whether you believe in Sasquatch or not, it ought to be your duty to maintain high standards of evidence and critical thinking in order to prevent the field from being deluged in nonsense. A deluge of poor evidence being offered as 'the truth' hurts Sasquatch research far more than skepticism ever will.

Edited September 16, 2010 by dozy

[Guest]

But the odds seem to be that with the increasing amount of cameras there should have been, or soon should be, a very clear picture of Bigfoots face.

As for the skeptics, they have their place. They're good for Bigfootery. As mad as a believer can get at them/us, would only make it that much sweeter if the big fella turns out to be real.

And let's face it, almost every single picture IS scoff-worthy or blobsquatchy. The best that can be hoped for is real proof. Nothing will shut up a skeptic quicker - scientific verification.

Imagine what would happen to the jref if that happened. The servers would crash under a thousand 'I told ya so' threads.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Well it could be as simple as "The pictures haven't increased because the big guy's not really out there."

Or, he could be but so far in the last ten years he's been lucky. But I agree with dozy...I get irritated when Bigfoot apologists claim Bigfoot can sense or smell the cameras. That's patently ridiculous. It actually does more harm than good for the notion of Bigfoot. As someone pointed out in so many words...So Bigfoot can stumble upon humans and be startled himself, he's been found scavenging in dumpsters, almost hit my cars ect...but somehow has some sixthBIGFOOTsense that makes him impervious to game cameras?

It's just silly.

I would notice it if someone put up a game cam in my living room, wouldn't you? Chris B.

[Guest RayG]

Not sure I follow. I'd be willing to guess your living room is a tad smaller than bigfoot's stomping grounds.

RayG

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Not sure I follow. I'd be willing to guess your living room is a tad smaller than bigfoot's stomping grounds.

RayG

RayG, my point is the creatures know their habitat as well as anyone knows their own living room. If you identify their home range area, place a trail cam there, I personally beleive they know it's there and they avoid it. How do they know? Who can say. I don't think they have such a great sence of smell. I do think they have a keen eyesight and super hearing. Chris B.

[Guest Sonny]

But they have to first see it to know it's there, and - bingo - photo taken. Or are they psychic about cameras?

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sonny

[Guest]

I have never bought the "they know the cameras are there and what the cameras are for" bit.

I happen to think that sas is an animal in every sense of the word. As far as Chris's living

room, look at deer, you can stick a feeder in their living room and those idiots will

keep coming at 730am even as you fill your freezer with thier friends. (thank goodness)

I would think the only time a sas would notice a camo'd camera is when it went off

and possibly flashed them, then they would get ps'd and smash the camera, but I dont

think it would deter them from the area. Now you showing up regularly to check said

camera would indeed deter them. If they do "know" the camera is there, it must be their

sense of smell, the same way bears find cameras and try to eat the plastic off em.

I think most sightings are young that have been kicked out of the family group by the

dominant male, what do I base this on? Nothing other than thats what I think. However,

that leads to the question, "Where are these family groups?"

if I knew I would tell yall.

dav

[Guest]

If you identify their home range area, place a trail cam there, I personally beleive they know it's there and they avoid it.

Allowing for the ability to know it's there, why would a bigfoot avoid it?