Guest krakatoa Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Personally, I sometimes long for a chance at face to face rebuttal, as do me strappin younger brothers. Really? You went there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Hyperbole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Honestly I couldnt give a rats arse if the footage proved the existence of bigfoot or not. I am convinced they are real, even though I have never seen one. The only reason I would want anybody to release "excellent" footage is to show people who are less fortunate and have not had a sighting what they look like. I guess for right now I can only imagine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I am just trying to explain why evidence holders dont' evidence-share. It's not really personal to me. Yeah, it makes ya mad, but the best thing is just ignore the windbags. I would probably share mine little snippets despite the guff except I am short on time until summer rolls around again, and permanently short of technological savvy it seems like. You're not missing much, really. I have not bragged about it. I just mentioned it in a conversational way. The whole thing is kind of embarrassing. And I am hoping to get better stuff so I can be at least a little less embarrassed, too. I am just a noob, so I expect to learn and improve. It would be nice to have something unequivocal. I hope that happens to somebody someday. Edited January 25, 2012 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There are pictures, commonly, openly and freely available, of every other animal on the planet. It's so common, you can google image search any other animal and pick up clear pictures of animals. But there are 0 clear images of bigfoot. Extinct animals? Sure! Pictures of their pelts, stuffed examples, old photographs pre-extinction, mammoth bones, saber tooth tiger bones, you name it. Bigfoot? 0 clear images. 0 pelts. 0 old photos. Fuzzy? Sure. Shadows people claim are bigfoot? Sure. Photos of what surely is a man in a suit? Sure. Gorilla? more than 12,000,000 images, the first of which are so good you can count eye lashes. No question those are real animals. Pictures from tens of thousands of different photographers over every continent, and on the order of millions of photos of wild ones. Heck there's thousands of pictures of the mountain gorilla, of which there are only 786 animals. Bigfoot? Patty, Patty, Georgia Hoax, Patty photoshopped into some other setting, Patty, drawing, drawing, man in suit, man in suit, shadow, wishful thinking, Patty... Every other animal on the planet has readily accessible photos available to anyone with an internet connection. A photographer can develop a method, approach the wilderness and grab photos and have been doing that for as long as cameras have been around. Bigfoot? Nothing. Zero successful photographers. So when people want photographs, what they really want is someone to have repeated success photographing the beast. They want the whole background behind it, successful methods for tracking, setting up blinds, capturing photos, and then to have multiple people repeat that process. They want someone to be able to follow this process, and have success also. They want someone from Wild Kingdom to get some, then someone from Nat Geo to get some, then from Nature or Max Plank. So they don't really want JUST the photos, they want the experimental methods to successfully capture the photos at will. All IMO of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There could be film or pics out there that would be interesting to see. For instance there was that film shown on "Swamp People" that the family had for years. Now it wasn't conclusive but it didn't scream fake to me. As for blockbuster film or pics it's possible that some people simply dont want the attention. Personally if I had a clear film or pic I'd cash in. There is a thread on this already... Honey Island Its an interesting film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There are pictures, commonly, openly and freely available, of every other animal on the planet. Well........let's be a little circumspect. I'll have a little bet with you that this very year at least 10 new species of animal will be discovered, and that will mean photos of them for the first time. One animal that we know very well to exist, the Okapi, was photographed in the wild for the first time in over 50 years just 3 or 4 years ago. I believe one of the Indonesian rhinos was the same. The snow leopard has only been photographed quite recently. Clearly, there are thousands and thousands of types of sea creatures that have never been photographed, as well as probably millions of species of insect that remain un-catalogued by science and not knowingly photographed. Deep in a cave un-entered by man in the middle of the Amazon there is almost bound to be a series of animals which have never been photographed, or on top of an unexplored mountain in New Guinea. So, I would take lack of good photographs as just that......... a lack of a good photograph. I would not take it as evidence of absence of any animal. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) There are pictures, commonly, openly and freely available, of every other animal on the planet. It's so common, you can google image search any other animal and pick up clear pictures of animals. But there are 0 clear images of bigfoot. Extinct animals? Sure! Pictures of their pelts, stuffed examples, old photographs pre-extinction, mammoth bones, saber tooth tiger bones, you name it. Bigfoot? 0 clear images. 0 pelts. 0 old photos. Fuzzy? Sure. Shadows people claim are bigfoot? Sure. Photos of what surely is a man in a suit? Sure. Gorilla? more than 12,000,000 images, the first of which are so good you can count eye lashes. No question those are real animals. Pictures from tens of thousands of different photographers over every continent, and on the order of millions of photos of wild ones. Heck there's thousands of pictures of the mountain gorilla, of which there are only 786 animals. Bigfoot? Patty, Patty, Georgia Hoax, Patty photoshopped into some other setting, Patty, drawing, drawing, man in suit, man in suit, shadow, wishful thinking, Patty... Every other animal on the planet has readily accessible photos available to anyone with an internet connection. A photographer can develop a method, approach the wilderness and grab photos and have been doing that for as long as cameras have been around. Bigfoot? Nothing. Zero successful photographers. So when people want photographs, what they really want is someone to have repeated success photographing the beast. They want the whole background behind it, successful methods for tracking, setting up blinds, capturing photos, and then to have multiple people repeat that process. They want someone to be able to follow this process, and have success also. They want someone from Wild Kingdom to get some, then someone from Nat Geo to get some, then from Nature or Max Plank. So they don't really want JUST the photos, they want the experimental methods to successfully capture the photos at will. All IMO of course... So let's stop focusing on convincing the world. Simply convince the paparazzi that there's money in bigfoot photos. A few mauled paparazzi should be considered reproducible results. Edited January 25, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 So when people want photographs, what they really want is someone to have repeated success photographing the beast. They want the whole background behind it, successful methods for tracking, setting up blinds, capturing photos, and then to have multiple people repeat that process. They want someone to be able to follow this process, and have success also. They want someone from Wild Kingdom to get some, then someone from Nat Geo to get some, then from Nature or Max Plank. So they don't really want JUST the photos, they want the experimental methods to successfully capture the photos at will. All IMO of course... Dead right. In scientific research, results have to be reproducible... Right now, I could show the world pictures of bigfoot but they can't see it. And can't go out and take a picture themselves. Now I can make out a bf if one is in a picture, but most people don't have the knack. And you shouldn't need a knack, eh? Because I seem to have the knack, I now can't NOT see them, and when I posted some pics to try to gauge the threshold of where OTHERs could see the bigfoot and asking for help to do that, all I got was whines of "there is no bigfoot in that picture, you're nuts" and assorted rude comments. People don't even read posts, they just eyeball the picture and start complaining. I was trying to find ones where others could see them, because I can't tell if YOU can see it. So I stopped doing that. It's my opinion their hair has some kind of special optical properties.....I have been trying this and that to get pictures. I have used some different colored lenses, that kind of thing. There must be some way to see these little ....darlings. And you do have to look at the pics minutely because, Jack, they are HIDING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted January 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted January 25, 2012 It's my opinion their hair has some kind of special optical properties..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ...Because I seem to have the knack, I now can't NOT see them, and when I posted some pics to try to gauge the threshold of where OTHERs could see the bigfoot and asking for help to do that, all I got was whines of "there is no bigfoot in that picture, you're nuts" and assorted rude comments. People don't even read posts, they just eyeball the picture and start complaining. I can assure you that I read every word. I think you overestimate the value of the accompanying text to the pictures you posted, and underestimate the air of superiority you convey when responding towards others who simply say they don't see it. In doing so, you set the stage for your own discontent. Lots of people have the knack for seeing or hearing things nobody else does that when properly investigated, obviously do not exist, except in the mind of the proponent who cannot accept that he/she is not truly uniquely gifted. This leads to all sorts of rationalizations about the properties of this wondrous thing that only reveals itself to those with special qualities of their own. It is a dangerous road to go down, and I'd recommend some serious and objective reflection to any who consider to start walking it. The fact is, every story I've read of yours where you claim to have witnessed a bigfoot, you have never had an unobstructed view to confirm your supposition. If I have missed a story where you did, I apologize in advance. I agree that you shouldn't show any more pictures that you accept are no better than what you've already shown. This forum is generally interested in finding good evidence, with the understanding that good evidence advances the goals of all on either side of the "belief" fence. I strongly suggest you advance the next time you think you see a bigfoot in a tree, taking photos all the while. When you close on that position, and if you find nothing there, you should then reverse your steps and see if what you were seeing was simply your own mind creating patterns out of chaos. Many understandably have short patience with the endless stream of proponents making incredible claims yet presenting bad or no evidence and then, as the topic of this thread explores, refusing to share their "better" evidence. Some create exclusive pacts with each other, supposedly sharing these pictures privately, then publicly patting each other on the back and telling the wider excluded group things like "I've got a picture so-and-so sent me and it is clearly a bigfoot. Too bad the rest of you blew your chance to see it." I appreciate that you don't care to share more evidence that you admit is bad. I can even appreciate if you are too scared to try to get clear evidence. How about joining the call for others to submit evidence that they maintain is definitive? I submit the following suggestion to the BFF admins: Create a gallery where members can post their evidence anonymously. Then, if their evidence is found wanting, they need never suffer the indignity of public "defamation". If their evidence gets a positive review, they can claim it proudly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BDK Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 If/When a solid acceptance is had by society I would imagine there will be an out pouring of old photos/videos/recordings that families had and then tucked away to avoid the ridiqule and labels that go along so often with someone that comes forward with evidence. I mean, think of it this way, before they were scientifically known, how many people that saw a platypus actually talked about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I mean, think of it this way, before they were scientifically known, how many people that saw a platypus actually talked about it? Thousands, I imagine. Before it was scientifically described it was known only to aborigines, because they were the only ones who had ever seen it. As they eat everything else, I'm sure that it was probably a dietry item for them. I can't see why they wouldn't have talked about it. It was described only a very few years after the first Europeans arrived in Australia. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 If data could be evaluated in a mature, dispassionate way then I am convinced more would be presented for the group. The problem as I see it revolves around the issue of proof. Every bent branch turns into a debate about the existence of Bigfoot or the life history of the person who found it. I have two years worth of photos that I've shown to two other people. Whether they are "good evidence" I guess would depend on your expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So they don't really want JUST the photos, they want the experimental methods to successfully capture the photos at will. All IMO of course... That covers the other evidence also, particularly the biological evidence like hairs, but who"s following? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts