Where Are The Pictures?

[Guest]

^We crossed posts, I added to my previous post...see response there.

[ShadowBorn]

Most BF are highly intelligent and have most of the same capability's as we do, one of these is the ability to read and that helps them avoid humans as much as possible, campers and woods men sometimes not knowingly may leave some trash behind and the BF pick this up study it on there off time and teach it too there little ones and spread the word to other family's thus enhancing there chances of human contact,

i suggest a theory that somehow the BF population has gotten hold of a trail cam manual and learned of it's secrets thus spreading the information through out the community helping them to avoid being photographed.

RSS

I think you are on to it ,That they can read and that way know all about us and have been here to study us , yea thats what they are about cool no need to search for them no more .

[Guest alex]

Right, the 1875 Daily Mining Gazette did not have enough readership to get the legend rolling.

That is my point Mulder.

The Late 1960's to Early 1970's with Wallace, Patterson, Green, and others promoting Bigfoot non-stop in the PNW, was the impetus for the Bigfoot legend taking off. Once the story went national, the sightings started to increase all over the country.

Drew, why do you ignore the reports that predate 1958? Perhaps man has moved into this creature's habitat during the 50-60's?

[Guest alex]

The PNW is where the legend got rolling.

Before the Satellite news wires, it was local papers, stories from one region weren't picked up across the country unless they were really big.

I think Bigfoot really picked up steam nationally around the time IN SEARCH OF... came out.

So, how many usernames do you have on here so far alex? I think I've counted somewhere between 5 and 11. Just be honest, maybe they won't roll you out of here if you come clean.

Drew, I ought to report you, you are so obsessed with this myth that I have 5,000 screenames, you can track my Ipp address and theres, and you will clearly see no connection, i have nothing to hide

[Guest Hud]

I feel a lengthy post coming on and like most other posts, it will not sway anyone, but it's just something to do before I croak. I hate reading the long ones myself.

I'll preface this by saying I hope conclusive proof that the monstrous boogeyman is forthcoming soon after a half century of becoming popular in the minds of society and that laws are passed to acknowledge and protect and everyone will (continue to) leave them alone 'cept fer benevolent scientists attempting to find and study the said incredulous elusive furry bipeds from afar, but I stopped holding my breath.

This isn't about "the vast wilderness in which to hide" or "the superintelligent stealth", but rather actual sightings vs the increase in the number of humans and percentage of camera toters.

It's all shades of debatable grays and murkiness and clouds, but to dig up a dead horse and beat it some more, all alleged sightings are either

A ) explainable as lies, misperceptions of the known, or in a rare case or four, hallucinations, or

B ) it is a real creature and some of the reports are of them being seen.

Here is the dilemma. Ignoring possibility "A" (bite your tongue for a moment, septic skeptics) and assuming they are there and have been seen, we need to collate all reports from newspapers, Green's devoted efforts, BFRO, and all the other uncountable resources from which to assemble, then somehow guesstimate how many further unreported sightings did not make it to websites, print or to the general public. Many believers feel most sightings are unreported to any authority because of reputation repercussions or the witness doesn't have enough interest to warrant sharing it with anyone besides those trusted, if them even. If a crusty old timer dispensing hay on a ranch saw one at the edge of woods across a field, I doubt he's thinking "Better call the sheriff" or "I gotta go inside and get MM out here", even if he knew there were organizations to report such an event.

Even were it possible to collect the number of known individuals claiming to have seen a bigfoot, then add a conservative agreed-upon estimate of what the unreported encounters would likely tally, the task of estimating who is lying or mistaken comes into play. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe even the most devout believer will not claim that no one has lied or was mistaken about seeing a bigfoot, just as no sane skeptic would say the only ones reported are the only ones seen, if they proved to be real beings. The big question is, again, on the assumption that they are real and there, what's the bogus report percentage of the total number of reports? It can't be deduced, but on this assumption that they're being seen, let's take a hypothetical number to work with.

BFRO investigates reports as well as humanly reasonable, to my understanding, and this is something I wish I could research quickly right now, but I believe they receive a couple hundred reports a year alone that appear credible and fit to share. The few that are bogus would be more than made up for by the number of unreporteds and the legitimate sightings from other sources. For the sake of argument, let's say a bigfoot is seen in N America once per day, and if it exists, I believe that is a conservative estimate. Multiply this by however many years and we are soon into many thousands of introductions to bigfoot by yet another person, extremely rare as the alleged encounters are.

Post #40 in this thread from Drew is one I appreciated by him adding not just camera captures, but trigger happy slob hunter types (they exist) that will shoot anything hair-covered moving in the woods, appointments with vehicles while dashing across a road, crippled creatures that can't quite make it to that prearranged, preagreed upon secret hidden bigfoot proverbial graveyard or at least that place where they completely disintegrate all 400-800 lbs within a week...bones, fur and all, etc, to the equation.

How many times can one roll a die and not have a "3" come up without getting suspicious? Should come up within six tries on avg, but it might not. Nothing suspicious there. Where would a reasonable person begin getting suspicious that something is wrong? 12? 20? It's possible to roll it 1000 times and not get a "3" in theory and I feel that's what we are dealing with in this image-capture/unfortunate-mishap-where-body-is-discovered business,

I understand the majority of sightings are brief. I understand the majority of witnesses do not have a camera. I understand even if they do, they are often, but not always, dumbstruck and not even thinking of the camera until the thing has disappeared. HOWEVER, many are NOT brief, especially when viewed from a distance where the creature seems unaware or unconcerned of the person. The tally from these sightings lasting over 20-30 seconds begins to add up over many years. People from every state, every day, enjoy not only hunting, but photographing or camming nature while hiking or out and about on their rural 'stead, remote camps, nat forests and other habitat where encounters take place. There must be a minimum of 1000 folks (maybe 5000+ in the US and Canada where 350,000,000 happen to reside) per day WITH a camera at the ready in such habitat, but I guess bigfoot 1-detects the tiny camera, 2-knows what it is, and 3-has figured that his image captured will lead to his discovery and demise by the evil humans and avoids these particular individuals. This is instructed from the elders to the kids in their schools.

It's funny, but I recall one author I wish I could cite but it was probably '80-'85 when I read it, that proposed bigfoot could smell gun barrels, insinuating they know that steel scent will kill them and they have conveyed this to each other.

With all this crap said, I must say I have trouble dismissing Patt/Gimlin. I find that footage compelling today even tho not ideally focused, believable, standing the test of time to open-minded persons, and I believe Bob Gimlin. Half will say it's a Rorschach thang, but in addition to the graceful athletic walk and build, it at least doesn't appear to have the Breck girl, glossy, groomed, clean, long flowing hair, as one recreation attempt and other fakes have provided, but rather, scruffy looking fur. Everyone knows Roger said on his deathbed he believed he saw and filmed a bigfoot. If Bob was being had by an unbelievably realistic stunt, he had a loaded rifle in his hands. I have yet to see it recreated in any remotely nonlaughable fashion, no one credible or convincing to me has stepped forward to collect a few bucks for the scoop, and it looks like what is reported to me. Planet of The Apes' well funded, well groomed hair on neoprene/latex efforts of the same era was second rate to this "hoax from a few yahoos". To me, that does not look like a costumed man, but I could be wrong.

The image(s) that should be being captured would not prove anything of course, particularly in this age where one can produce a convincing vid of Sinatra singing alongside Marilyn Manson or a baboon fielding a grounder and throwing to first, but the sightings by only those out there with no cam bugs the heck out of me more and more as the years pass by. To me, they either don't exist or there are very few left and not this hyped 1000+, and will soon not be there at all...if they are now.

Bottom line: It will not prove anything, but there should be not one, but several images or vids taken periodically, based on sightings and odds, not the area they can hide in. Proponents cannot argue that they are there because they are frequently seen, yet claim their image cannot be captured because they "hide in the vast wilderness and each disappears too quickly". Sword cuts both ways, ...cake and eat it too and all that. Harumph!

Edited September 26, 2010 by Hud

[Guest alex]

Hunter's are not out in the PNW 24/7, one per square mile, they are out there at a much LOWER rate, depending on the season's

[Guest]

Another refutation of the "where's the picture" assertion would be this:

Lets say (for the sake of easy calculation, I'm using round numbers) that 1,000,000 man/hours are spent in a year with people in a position where they may encounter a bigfoot. Let's say 5000 of them (representing the 5000 cameras mentioned above) are spent by people with cameras. That's 0.0002% of the total time in field. Put another way, a 1 in 200 chance of any given witness even having a camera to begin with.

How many sightings are there in a year? I don't have a census on published reports, but lets say 1000 (include non-published accounts if you wish) 1,000,000 man hours with 1000 sightings is a 1/1000 chance of having a sighting.

To determine a net probability of getting a picture, multiply the probabilities

1/200 x 1/1000 = 1/200000 or a 0.000005% chance of obtaining a photo at all. The real odds would be even LONGER, given that there are well more than just 1000000 man/hours spent in the potential environs by man.

Statistical chance tells us (at the inflated probability of 1000000 man hours, we should theoretically get 5 pictures/videos at any given year.

I know I've seen at least that rate of pictures presented over the years.

Of course the debunkers just toss them in the trash and call them "hoaxes" and "blobsquatches".

[Guest Kerchak]

2) You know as well as I do that a "better quality" photo would be even MORE derided as "suit", "Photoshop hoax", etc by the "skeptics".

I share that opinion even though I am not positively sure that would be the case. Based on the thought process of some (that bigfoot doesn't exist without a carcass or body part) any photo would likely be relegated into the "it must be a hoax because there is no such thing as bigfoot" realm even if it was pin sharp and in 3D. Ergo it wouldn't matter how good and clear the picture was. It's still not a body.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Kerchak

[BobbyO]

This doesn't mean anythign one way or the other, but is pretty interesting nonetheless..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105782.html?hpid=artslot

===========

Wildlife filmmaker Chris Palmer shows that animals are often set up to succeed

Not long after Chris Palmer broke into environmental filmmaking in the early 1980s, he brought home a newly completed film to show his wife, Gail.

She loved it -- especially the close-up of the grizzly bear splashing in a stream. She asked Palmer how the crew had captured the sound of water dripping from the bear's paws. He confessed: The sound guy had miked up a water basin and recorded splashing sounds made by his own hands.

She turned to him and said, "You're a big fake."

===========

More on the link..

[Guest BCCryptid]

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.

Incorrect. The proliferation of CHEAP cameras has increased by orders of magnitude, yes. A cheap Canon cybershot digital is worthless beyond a few feet at capturing anything other than your classic blobsquatch. We have hundreds if not thousands of blobsquatches available now to view because of all these cheap cameras.

You still need a very good quality camera and a skookum zoom lens to get anything decent out in the bush, not to mention your stealthy National Geographic wildlife photographer skills better be top-notch.

The primitive camcorder Bob Gimlin was holding at Bluff Creek in 1967 is still of higher resolution and better quality than the average cheap-o camcorder you would slap 200 on at your neighborhood FutureShop, which is what most people wandering in the woods with cameras are packing. You need to go up to the 2000-5000 range camcorders people are using to film home movies with to have something comparable.

Digital zoom is WORTHLESS. It has to have a high camera lens zoom on it before the digital kicks in, or it's not worth carrying. Some of the higher end spotting scopes with the ability to take digital images might be of better use.

[Guest]

Another refutation of the "where's the picture" assertion would be this:

Lets say (for the sake of easy calculation, I'm using round numbers) that 1,000,000 man/hours are spent in a year with people in a position where they may encounter a bigfoot. Let's say 5000 of them (representing the 5000 cameras mentioned above) are spent by people with cameras. That's 0.0002% of the total time in field. Put another way, a 1 in 200 chance of any given witness even having a camera to begin with.

How many sightings are there in a year? I don't have a census on published reports, but lets say 1000 (include non-published accounts if you wish) 1,000,000 man hours with 1000 sightings is a 1/1000 chance of having a sighting.

To determine a net probability of getting a picture, multiply the probabilities

1/200 x 1/1000 = 1/200000 or a 0.000005% chance of obtaining a photo at all. The real odds would be even LONGER, given that there are well more than just 1000000 man/hours spent in the potential environs by man.

Statistical chance tells us (at the inflated probability of 1000000 man hours, we should theoretically get 5 pictures/videos at any given year.

I know I've seen at least that rate of pictures presented over the years.

Of course the debunkers just toss them in the trash and call them "hoaxes" and "blobsquatches".

Another thing would be how many per year or what percentage of photos are taken and not shared?

I believe many of the photos taken are only shared with a few people and certainly not posted on a message board.

[Guest]

Another thing would be how many per year or what percentage of photos are taken and not shared?

I believe many of the photos taken are only shared with a few people and certainly not posted on a message board.

You're absolutely right, but I was trying to keep the example simple. Depending on whose estimate of reporting rate you use, the number could be 1/10 of what I calculated (which was already a way high number).

[Guest]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Guest tracker]

I tried getting some good pictures myself of grizzlies and wolves in Yellowstone as well as in the rockies. It's just as futile as trying to get off a lucky snap shot or video of a Sasquatch. Its either pitch black out or you have less than 5 seconds with a daytime sighting. Not to mention all the ground cover they use to hide behind and your caught off guard and maybe scared too?

For those nay sayers out there maybe try ground stalking a large preditor first with just a camera in hand. Then come back to this site and post why you came up empty handed. Then we can talk about taking a quality picture of a bigfoot. After all there's must be thousand of preds like cougars, wolves and brown bear in North America it should be easy. Oh yea, no tree stands, bait stations, or jacking and black bears don't count.

good luck, tracker.

[MagniAesir]

Bear in general bumble about not caring who or what they run into... They are the preverbial "Bull in a China shop' type of creature... Now it is complete non-sense to compare a bear to a BF, lets just get that out in the open as fact...

Also when is the last time you ran into a bear in the woods... I can remember my self as having 4 Black Bear encounters in Black Bear country in the last 30 years of constantly being in the woods... They tend to stay to them selves but make no effort to hide, you have to seek them out or trip upon them looking for something else...

Saw a black bear last Saturday, they are all over BC and quite easy to find.