Yuchi1 Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 IMO, FB has both helped and hurt. A Giga explained it does drive traffic to BF outlets however as the episodes drag on with no real research effort (other than basically "one night stands") ongoing the "average" viewer is probably going to become disillusioned and no longer entertained thus decided the whole deal is a bunch of hooey.
Wolfjewel Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 Now that FB has raised people's interest in the subject, I dream of a show where people actually talk about science-in-the-woods -type research that is ongoing, and what kind of commitment in time and equipment is needed. Then show us where a trackway is being followed or cast. If a TV program could show what a lone or small band of researchers are up against -- then show them trying and succeeding in even small ways, kids and adults who value evidence-based science would gravitate to it. Then even if, as Yuchi said, "the "average" viewer is probably going to become disillusioned and no longer entertained thus decided the whole deal is a bunch of hooey," -- some will see the value of long term research and be intrigued. Can a program like that get funding?? We can hope..... 1
gigantor Posted July 7, 2017 Admin Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Wolfjewel said: Can a program like that get funding?? No, the TV networks go for the lowest common denominator.
Martin Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 Exactly how would another bigfoot show be different than Finding Bigfoot? As far as I can see the are working on S.O.P. for bigfooting. Maybe stay in one place for longer? As far as tech goes they had the entire FLIR truck thermo searching entire mountainsides in one swipe. I saw mice from 1/2 mile away. What do footers propose to do differently?
hiflier Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 FLIR isn't an x-ray type device. It will pick up the signature of anything exposed in its line of 'sight'. In other words it has a "wall mentality" in that it will pick up temperature differences as if looking at a flat wall. It can't see what's behind the wall but reads temperature differences caused by things like studs or pipes or things like water or air infiltration. If a FLIR is mounted on a drone and flies over the leaf canopy of a forest it cannot 'see' what's under the canopy. If a creature steps into an opening in the canopy the FLIR will see it though. Viewing a mountainside doesn't mean there are no deer, or bears, or coyotes, or anything else there. Those animals probably ARE there but they are behind the wall of foliage or far enough away that there are too many tree trunks blocking their heat signatures. Sure, sounds like an excuse, but that's how FLIR technology works- and doesn't work. Nothing hiding behind bushes or a tree will show up on the screen.
Martin Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 So what do you propose they do differently? The FLIR comment was simply meant to illustrate the technology they are able to summon. FLIR is better than cameras.... No? FLIR can detect residual signatures.
hiflier Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Martin said: So what do you propose they do differently? Do differently? I'd say just about anything they are not doing now Not really being sarcastic here but, boy, if after ten years they haven't figured out that whatever it is they are doing isn't working? Then one DOES have to wonder if it's only about the money- raising awareness of BF to the public also raises awareness that they are failing in 'finding' BF as well. Maybe they'll figure if folks believe that the team is the best thing out there with the best equipment but STILL can't find BF then most would-be amateur searchers wouldn't even bother- so fewer potential folks in the woods looking? IDK. But to do something different? I'd say use the profits to launch an all out expedition in a known high activity location. Or hire some lawyers to sue the F&W for the truth. Pretty harsh but if this thing exists then there are records kept......somewhere. Submit FOIA's to specific agencies? Now, THAT would be doing something different since normal efforts in the field for the last 60 years have produce something on the order of zero results. So I guess the question could be asked, "What should ANYONE do differently?", not just "(not)Finding Bigfoot". This is where I get that "I don't understand" thing going..........and then get pounded when I speak up about it. The usual course of action has produced nothing so I don't really know what anyone expects me or someone like me, to say, when today's efforts just keep going down the same old road while forever getting the same old results. I'm doing something different now, but danged if I'll tell anyone what it is. Edited July 8, 2017 by hiflier 2
7.62 Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Martin said: So what do you propose they do differently? The FLIR comment was simply meant to illustrate the technology they are able to summon. FLIR is better than cameras.... No? FLIR can detect residual signatures. Maybe stop running around like idiots every show and saying every branch and tree fall must be bigfoot activity . I follow an youtube channel researcher that does a better job than them.
gigantor Posted July 8, 2017 Admin Posted July 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Martin said: FLIR is better than cameras.... No? No.
Wolfjewel Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 23 hours ago, gigantor said: No, the TV networks go for the lowest common denominator. I'd never suggest the networks would present a series of science based Bigfoot shows, that was only my dream. But every once in a while a program such as Nat Geo will present a balanced and intriguing program on science. What I know best are the documentaries on wolves that I know are true, like their impact on Yellowstone. We could Hope for a documentary on how people go about searching for signs of Bigfoot and how reports of live sightings affect the experiencer. I personally would like the skeptics who say the phenomenon is "cultural" to speak on how that applies to those who saw one in broad daylight and "know what I saw."
Guest Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 21 hours ago, hiflier said: FLIR isn't an x-ray type device. It will pick up the signature of anything exposed in its line of 'sight'. In other words it has a "wall mentality" in that it will pick up temperature differences as if looking at a flat wall. It can't see what's behind the wall but reads temperature differences caused by things like studs or pipes or things like water or air infiltration. If a FLIR is mounted on a drone and flies over the leaf canopy of a forest it cannot 'see' what's under the canopy. If a creature steps into an opening in the canopy the FLIR will see it though. Viewing a mountainside doesn't mean there are no deer, or bears, or coyotes, or anything else there. Those animals probably ARE there but they are behind the wall of foliage or far enough away that there are too many tree trunks blocking their heat signatures. Sure, sounds like an excuse, but that's how FLIR technology works- and doesn't work. Nothing hiding behind bushes or a tree will show up on the screen. This study, which by the way was done in 1995 in Florida, would seem to reach a different conclusion on the use of thermal imaging. They apparently had quite a bit of success in identifying panthers, deer, boar, even squirrels in pretty mature cover. Sadly no giant monkey men reported. http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/pubs/thermal_imagery_color.pdf
Night Walker Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Wolfjewel said: I'd never suggest the networks would present a series of science based Bigfoot shows, that was only my dream. But every once in a while a program such as Nat Geo will present a balanced and intriguing program on science. What I know best are the documentaries on wolves that I know are true, like their impact on Yellowstone. We could Hope for a documentary on how people go about searching for signs of Bigfoot and how reports of live sightings affect the experiencer. I personally would like the skeptics who say the phenomenon is "cultural" to speak on how that applies to those who saw one in broad daylight and "know what I saw." That is a good point and it certainly needs to be addressed but it is difficult. People can usually understand it and/or can point out examples of when other people are mistaken, exhibit faulty memories, or confabulate details but often struggle to apply the same standards or rationale to themselves… When confronted online with these confounding but quite normal psycho-social factors “experiencers” tend to get angry and/or switch off which is not what TV producers want for their shows so is unlikely to get adequate air-time… Perhaps with Chris French explaining the workings of anomalistic psychology, Elizabeth Loftus detailing the ease at how false yet realistic memories are formed, David Hufford covering the experiential aspect, and/or Derren Brown conducting an actual demonstration it might be entertaining as well as educational…
7.62 Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Happy Camper said: This study, which by the way was done in 1995 in Florida, would seem to reach a different conclusion on the use of thermal imaging. They apparently had quite a bit of success in identifying panthers, deer, boar, even squirrels in pretty mature cover. Sadly no giant monkey men reported. http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/pubs/thermal_imagery_color.pdf Not really It was for detection and any photos you see in that study or any study for that matter where you are able to make out the difference between a deer or a hog is because there is no cover . Thermal is detection , night vision is for identification 1
LeafTalker Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Wolfjewel said: I'd never suggest the networks would present a series of science based Bigfoot shows, that was only my dream. But every once in a while a program such as Nat Geo will present a balanced and intriguing program on science. What I know best are the documentaries on wolves that I know are true, like their impact on Yellowstone. We could Hope for a documentary on how people go about searching for signs of Bigfoot and how reports of live sightings affect the experiencer. I personally would like the skeptics who say the phenomenon is "cultural" to speak on how that applies to those who saw one in broad daylight and "know what I saw." As we can see from this very thread, it just doesn't work that way. Waking up can be a slow process, and is very personal. About documentaries: There is a documentary like the one you describe. It's called Bigfoot's Reflection. I haven't seen the whole thing, just some trailers; but the trailers suggest that whoever made the film was trying, anyway, to do a serious investigation of this subject. I just saw a comment under one of the trailers that implies there's someone at the center of this film who tries to discredit all experiencers; but if you can screen that out somehow, I think the other interviews are good. (There's some woo-bashing, too, which, as you know, I find extremely annoying; but what can you do... People do the best they can...) Here's a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h6yce585K0 Here's another trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EJntLiFJoE And here's the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoCoEkH7Cw Edited July 9, 2017 by LeafTalker
Recommended Posts