Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest]

And nobody will ever prove it's a myth, so you will never get the satisfaction of me having to admit I was wrong.

To the world at large, it' is a myth, until proven real

sorry

edit for my crappy spelling

Edited November 12, 2010 by wickie

[Sunflower]

Wow, that "myth" sure gets around!

[Guest Spazmo]

Does anyone know if newer digital cameras have the ability to store location data within a picture?

Yes, in fact.

A new compact HD camcorder was just released a few weeks ago that has this very feature.

It's called the "Contour GPS", and is small and light (around 4 oz.) and can be mounted to a helmet or goggle strap.

It has an internal GPS receiver (as do some new digital cameras) that places a position stamp on each frame of video. It will tell you exactly where the footage was taken, at what elevation, and what speed the camera was moving.

Also, some of the new smart phones have the ability to add this information to images because most smart phones also have GPS receivers built into them.

[Guest]

Wow, that "myth" sure gets around!

Myths are approximately as mobile as the people who perpetuate them, so yes.

[Guest UPs]

What else would be sufficient to establish the existence of a bigfoot and determine what it is?

Evidence does not necessarily mean proof, but when discussing evidence, the pseudoskeptic seems to dismiss it unless it equals proof (of existence). For example, a footprint is found and caste. Something made that footprint and although there is no evidence it was a left by a human, the pseudoskeptic will come to this conclusion even without proof. The correct answer would be we do not know what left the print (inconclusive). I see the same thing with witness sighting reports. Are you implying that a skeptic cannot take the subject seriously?

A true skeptic can contribute much to analysis of evidence when they take an objective viewpoint when analyzing that evidence. If they have already determined that bf does not exist, they cannot analyze it objectively and will come to preconceived conclusions even before looking at evidence. This point would become obvious if absolute proof is obtained and scientists review prior evidence that they had previously discarded. Absolute proof (bones or body) could be analyzed by any competent scientist as it would answer the question of existence and not require critical thought.

The opinions above are my own and formed from reading many posts here. UP

edited for screwing up the quote/answer format.

Edited November 12, 2010 by UPs

[Guest]

we do not know

That's something I've written many times. To properly evaluate bigfoot evidence you develop hypotheses and see which ones can be ruled out. If you end up with competing hypotheses that can't be ruled out, the most prudent position is "we don't know."

[Woodslore]

I am thoroughly impressed with the depth of this thread. I am also amazed by conversation this has started and intrigued by the evidence put forward. when I look at the picture I don't see much, though in the area of the red circle I did notice a set of darker shadows. I would like to personally thank Sasfooty for the evidence she has presented.

[Incorrigible1]

I would like to personally thank Sasfooty for the evidence she has presented.

I thank her, too. Although I would truly appreciate something a little more compelling.

[Sunflower]

Oy Vay!

She did and I did. Maybe it would be a good time to make that annual eye doctor appointment?

[Incorrigible1]

Oy Vay!

She did and I did. Maybe it would be a good time to make that annual eye doctor appointment?

Maybe so. I can't really make hides nor tails from anything within the red circles. If you can then you truly see better than me. But I think you exaggerate a little.

[Sunflower]

Well, that's your problem right there. It's not hides or tails, it's heads or tails....

[Guest River]

Well, that's your problem right there. It's not hides or tails, it's heads or tails....

There is absolutely nothing within the outlines you put on the image. Look at this lightened version.

Do you see anything within the outlines other than trees and ground?

[Sasfooty]

Maybe so. I can't really make hides nor tails from anything within the red circles. If you can then you truly see better than me. But I think you exaggerate a little.

Well, that's your problem right there. It's not hides or tails, it's heads or tails....

Hehehe!! Now look what you two have gone & done! I was just going to fade quietly away, so as to stop exasperating & annoying so many people. Then you go & do something like this & my fingers just wouldn't leave me alone until I let them comment.

I would like to personally thank Sasfooty for the evidence she has presented.

You are welcome Woodslore, & I would like to thank you for starting the thread. Maybe I should have stayed out of it, but I don't have many regrets, & it has been fun. I do, however, have a life to live & I need to stop sitting here arguing all day & get back to it.

I would also like to thank all you skeptics that caused me to keep my mouth shut about stuff that didn't need to be talked about. If not for you, there's no telling what I might have said, & what pictures I might have posted. If I had a hat, I'd tip it to you.

[Sunflower]

Sasfooty,

Good post and I agree. I have a lot more fun in the woods than I do here trying to convince others. It's funny, I have not heard one tree crash or tapping noises since I started actively participating here. I think I'll take a walk today and see who is up and about.

Incorrigible1,

The other saying that you are trying to remember is: "Hide nor hair." As in when someone disappears from your life or view. (example)

Edited November 12, 2010 by Sunflower

[Incorrigible1]

......there's no telling what I might have said, & what pictures I might have posted.

I'm smelling an old, familiar odor. I simply don't believe you. A favorite old album is from Graham Nash. It's called Wild Tales.