Jump to content

Non-PGF Films and Photographs of Sasquatches


Recommended Posts

MODERATOR
14 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

You think that the large one was aware of you?

 

Absolutely. 

 

12 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

How tall would you estimate the big male to have been?

 

Uh ... good question.   I don't like my answer because it doesn't fit neatly in the box-o-expectations, but based on what I know of the water depth there (from being in it myself a number of times) and where it hit on the BF's anatomy relative to mine, 10 to 11 feet.   I'll go with 10-1/2, nice average.    I suspect, because such height is seemingly unusual, that it was the same individual who left the line of 24-1/2" tracks with a 6-1/2 foot step length that I found 2 years earlier.    I've tried for years to somehow find a more acceptable answer that still fit the measurements available to me and .. there's no way, I can't make that guy 9 feet tall or even 9-1/2 feet tall, it just doesn't work.

 

Remember up-thread I mentioned Bergmann's rule in the context of sizes varying regionally?    Call that exhibit 1.   Then consider track shape ... the Canadian researchers had a bit of a head start on those from the US it seems.   The were initially very skeptical of the validity of the northern California tracks because they were relatively broader across the ball of the foot than those they were used to.    The tracks I found were comparatively narrow for their length, 8-1/2" across the ball of the foot, 6" approximately across the heel, and they had just the slightest hint of curve.    I didn't know it at the time, but I gather that's what the Canadians were use to.   Call that exhibit 2.    My guess, then, is what I saw, and found tracks from, was a wanderer from farther north.

 

It's all speculative of course but the pieces do fit.

 

MIB

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MODERATOR
12 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Also a very vivid example of why there are not more close up photographs out there.

 

Right!   Back in the 70s my mom had an old 126 camera.   It was truly see-point-shoot ... pretty fast.   With my digital cameras today it is see-turn the power on-wait for the beep-point-wait for focus-shoot.    So while there are many many more cameras out there today, because they are slower to go from "see" to "photo" by several seconds, most sightings will be over before there's a chance to get anything.   If you try to rush them, you just get a blur.   Those old film point and shoot cameras did not require time to focus, they were fixed focus.  They had a mechanical, always ready, shutter, rather than taking time to power up.    People who assume modern technology gives an advantage really doesn't understand the playing field.   The only possible advantage to the modern stuff is that more people have it .. not because it is more effective.

 

MIB

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Right!   Back in the 70s my mom had an old 126 camera.   It was truly see-point-shoot ... pretty fast.   With my digital cameras today it is see-turn the power on-wait for the beep-point-wait for focus-shoot.    So while there are many many more cameras out there today, because they are slower to go from "see" to "photo" by several seconds, most sightings will be over before there's a chance to get anything.   If you try to rush them, you just get a blur.   Those old film point and shoot cameras did not require time to focus, they were fixed focus.  They had a mechanical, always ready, shutter, rather than taking time to power up.    People who assume modern technology gives an advantage really doesn't understand the playing field.   The only possible advantage to the modern stuff is that more people have it .. not because it is more effective.

 

MIB

No matter how hard they try, and handful of people cannot continuously film in all directions.  We try to keep at least an audio recorder going non-stop while we are out, but you need to change batteries in cameras.  Even then, human reaction time has to he factored in...even expecting to see something like a Sasquatch, there's a delay between seeing it, processing it, and reacting to it.  

 

The old cliche of "why aren't there more clear photographs?  Everyone has cameras." ranks right up with the argument that people who are unfamiliar with firearms always make when a person is shot by the police.  "Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?"

 

These comments are made by people who are unfamiliar with the mechanics of trying to work certain equipment in certain environments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
45 minutes ago, Moonface said:

I must admit, I've been guilty of thinking "why can't someone just get a decent photo?!?" :blush:

 

4B27C82E-C1AE-4D3F-AA54-80358CBB2A2C.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

The problem isn’t decent photos. We have plenty of photo and video that shows a upright walking fur covered creature that is not a Bear or a Moose or some other known species. The million dollar question? Is it a hoax?

 

If we were hunting a 8 tentacle forest octopus? Or some cryptid in which there was no way a man in a suit could replicate it? It would be a slam dunk. But instead we are hunting something with 2 arms and 2 legs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have these conversations with a friend out here, it's damned if you do damned if you don't. People ask why more researchers don't snap more photos but when they do it's a quick event and it can be blurry, and they still say it's a hoax. I can sympathize with the sentiment of those skeptics, cus they want clear photos, we all do, but what are you supposed to do about an intelligent species that is also extremely cautious?

Edited by Marty
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
46 minutes ago, Marty said:

Yeah, I have these conversations with a friend out here, it's damned if you do damned if you don't. People ask why more researchers don't snap more photos but when they do it's a quick event and it can be blurry, and they still say it's a hoax. I can sympathize with the sentiment of those skeptics, cus they want clear photos, we all do, but what are you supposed to do about an intelligent species that is also extremely cautious?


We have to set ourselves up for success and stop working in mediums that are a perpetual loop.

 

Science demands physical evidence. Full stop.

 

photos

videos

audios

plaster casts


Get us nowhere.

 

A body

A bone

A tooth

A chunk of flesh

 

Thats gonna get us somewhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, norseman said:

We have to set ourselves up for success and stop working in mediums that are a perpetual loop.

 

I did, but the snow is gone now. What's in the photo is before everything was sterilized, sealed, labeled, and ready to go. All I needed was an undisputed, identifiable trackway. And I was in the field looking for it in an area that has had recent reports. It could've happened...but it didn't:

 

1078325143_DNAStuff001.thumb.jpg.f0207fd349bd9e5d170ee8cf262eb3a7.jpg

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, norseman said:

The problem isn’t decent photos. We have plenty of photo and video that shows a upright walking fur covered creature that is not a Bear or a Moose or some other known species. The million dollar question? Is it a hoax?

 

If we were hunting a 8 tentacle forest octopus? Or some cryptid in which there was no way a man in a suit could replicate it? It would be a slam dunk. But instead we are hunting something with 2 arms and 2 legs. 

 

mqdefault.jpg

Octopus.jpg

tree-octopub.jpg

octopus04.jpg

Please join me over on the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus forums.

 

Bigfoot is so 2020.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor
20 minutes ago, Moonface said:

 

How was that photo obtained? What's the story behind it?

It's one of Todd Standing's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
36 minutes ago, Moonface said:

 

How was that photo obtained? What's the story behind it?

Here is the story behind it... https://squatchdetective.weebly.com/todd-standing--sylvanic.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norseman said:


We have to set ourselves up for success and stop working in mediums that are a perpetual loop.

 

Science demands physical evidence. Full stop.

 

photos

videos

audios

plaster casts


Get us nowhere.

 

A body

A bone

A tooth

A chunk of flesh

 

Thats gonna get us somewhere.

 

I agree with you that ultimately, in order to prove Bigfoot's existence, we are going to need a physical specimen (living or otherwise) of some part thereof such as a bone.  However, I think a pragmatic approach is necessary regarding other forms of evidence.  While the animal's existence is not going to ever be proven satisfactorily to the scientific community through film, photographs, audio, or plaster casts these forms of evidence still have at least some practical use and I would argue that they are worth pursuing, if only tangentially to the acquiring of a type specimen.  My reasoning for this is because these forms of evidence, though not conclusive, are useful for the purpose of attracting enough interest in the subject so that the search for the species continues.  Although history does not suggest that most or even many scientists will be persuaded of the species potential existence, there are certainly SOME scientists who have been thoroughly persuaded through this very type of evidence.  Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum for instance, both physical anthropologists, were skeptical of the species existence until the examined plaster casts themselves.  The Bossberg Cripple Foot track for instance, was instrumental in convincing Grover Krantz that Sasquatch exists.  

 

So yes, while a physical specimen is absolutely vital in proving the species existence, the lesser evidence does have its place.  Especially in generating enough public and professional interest to keep the search moving.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...