Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[Spektator]

Actually, Vort, I believe most authorities agree that Spiny Norman was searching for Dinsdale. Don't know if he got any photos, though.

[Vortigern99]

[Off-Topic]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

[SpinyNorman]Dinsdale? Dinsdale??[/SpinyNorman]

Fixed.

Incidentally, Dinsdale never nailed my head to the floor, but one time he did screw my pelvis to a cake stand.

[/Off-Topic]

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

LAL, bigfeet with cat-like eyes are more plausible than bigfeet with glowing eyes, be the glow red or green. Note that the report is not about the criter's eyes reflecting light.

I see no reason to take such reports seriously.

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?

I did not say NatGeo. I said NatGeo quality. To my knowledge this photographer has no connection to bigfootery:

"there are no images of captive animals (other than of my dog!) on this website.

NONE of the wild animals or birds you'll see in my galleries are "rental" animals. A great many "wildlife" photographers make a career out of shooting tame critters at impoundments that cater to these photographers. Some of these places will even haul animals hundreds of miles and set up staged shots.

Wildlife photography, in my opinion, besides producing beautiful images, serves vital purposes. It portrays animals in their natural setting performing natural behaviors, which educates the public. And by extension, showing these creatures in the places they live doing the things they naturally do, real wildlife photography encourages conservation of the habitats in which they thrive.

There is no guarantee that rental animals are behaving in a natural manner, even when placed in a natural setting. While a stunning photo of a rent-a-wolf or some other animal may encourage the viewer to support conservation, there is also the risk that by making these photos so common (there are literally tens of thousands of images out there of wolves, mountain lions, and other animals whose habitat has shrunk) people may assume that because the images are numerous, the animals and their habitats are numerous and secure. Nothing is further from the truth.

If you are about to purchase a photo for your wall, or for your magazine, you owe it to yourself to find out if the animal was captive and the scene staged. I believe the portrayal of captive animals as wild animals is no different than passing off a work of fiction as non-fiction."

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/photos.htm

The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?

Greg, I'm not a member of MABRC and I don't read their board. I'm a member of several groups that have nothing to do with bigfoot. The one I referred to is sending me half a dozen e-mails a day and the site is almost nothing but documents. I doubt you've even heard of it. The list is by nomination and invitation only.

I just got over a dozen e-mails from a group I was approved for yesterday. The kind of ridicule that goes on here is not permitted there. The posts are informative and to the point.

Vortigern, you don't know me. I have over 3,000 posts on this board and many of them are about hard questions.

When I caught myself about to do a capture of Dr. Bunnell's report (he's a biologist - the California Academy of Sciences is one of the 10 largest natural history museums in the world, Wikipedia, citation needed) for Drew and contemplated uploading a section of the DVD (which has some glaring errors, BTW) to YouTube I realized I was getting too involved in this again. I have other interests and I prefer to spend time pursuing them. My habit of getting online and getting my morning coffee can continue without the BF boards or anything related to them.

I didn't have the camcorder when I was doing the driveway experiment. Given the condition of my driveway (not unlike a Forest Service road) any images produced by leaving it running on the dash would most likely be blurry, bouncy sequences of the windshield wipers. The point of the experiment was to see how easy it would be to get a shot of something popping out of the woods in front of me. I got the idea from Rick Noll. He mentioned somewhere that even though he keeps a camera on the dash he wouldn't have time to grab it and get a good shot. I'm rather sure that if I drove along with my arm and camera hanging out the window, my rabbit would chose that day to not run across the driveway.

The incident that got my interest in the first place was on Washington HWY 14 1/2 mile east of Beacon Rock. It occurred at about 3:00 AM. It was investigated by local law enforcement and they found track evidence that backed up the driver's story. I don't see how he could have taken a picture if he did have a camera with him.

I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?

[clayflingythingy]

LAL,

Wild animals that are running will often run a ways and stop and look back. So, the bunny that runs across the road may stop on the far bank and sit there allowing you to stop and take a photo.

But, since you can't take photos of wildlife then no one can, right?

Since you can't find bones in the woods then no one can, right?

Maybe I should read Krantz?

Or is it Meldrum today?

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Quote:

The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?

That's the deal, Lu! You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

Who is the burden of proof on?

What is the most likely reason why there are no unambiguous photos of bigfoot?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.

You were spouting Footer BS ..

You do know what causes the red-eye, cameras catch -- don't you ?

Or, do you ...

[xblade]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

That's an appropriate response only if engaging in suspension of disbelief is one of your favorite things to do. Except for a few on the fringe, "we" know exactly why. It's the same reason we don't have unambiguous photos of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, mermaids, or any other make-believe creature. The only ones who don't know why aren't interested in knowing why, they're only interested in believing.

[SweatyYeti]

xblade wrote:

Quote:

"we" know exactly why.

Yes, xblade....you know Bigfoot doesn't exist....but I don't know that you truly know that.

Some people say they know that Bigfoot exists, because they've seen one....but I don't know that they truly have.


This situation is what as known as a "Mexican stand-off".


Perhaps you and the boys can win this battle by out-shouting and out-numbering the "believers".

But, regardless, you should enjoy your own beliefs.

[Vortigern99]

LAL, it's true I don't know you. Allow me to apologize if I was brusque or dismissive of you in a previous post. My only point is that kitakaze has asked you many questions that you've chosen to ignore, or at best declined to answer.

I understand you have other facets of your life, other pursuits, interests, loves, hobbies, etc. that will keep you from spending an egregious amount of time here, responding to the impolite jabberings of a bunch of suspicious, cynical hard-noses. But I find it telling that what I consider to be THE most probing and essential questions are the ones you've declined to answer the last few pages, namely:

• We have unambiguous photos of every species of mammal ever seen or reported in North America,including incredibly rare animals such as the Californian wolverine, except bigfoot. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?
• Gorillas and black bears, which are of comparable mass to the reported bigfoot (500-lbs.+) require about 8-10000 calories a day. Gorillas are mostly sedentary foliovores, with huge guts built to process all that foliage. Black bears are omnivores; this behavior necessitates far roaming that results in frequent human sighting, pictures, videos, dead bodies, etc. Bigfoot, though reportedly omnivorous, has none of these features. What could account for this, unless bigfoot does not exist?
  
• How do bigfoot obtain 8-10000 calories a day in the winter months, which are lengthy in the Pacific Northwest, and strip the land of nutrition? If bigfoot hibernate or become torpid during these months, how is that biologists, hikers, birdwatchers, park rangers, and the general public never come across a hibernating or torpid bigfoot?

I don't want to overwhelm you, so if you would, if you have fifteen minutes or so, will you please address these questions? They constitute the turning point for me in terms of coming to grips with the illogic of bigfoot's supposed existence.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.

Here is another simple question for a fanatical believer who is afraid of them. Is it a legitimate line of inquiry to try and discern the reason there are no unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot? Yes or no. We can answer that question in the affirmative because we are not cornerhuddling chicken believers.

Quote:

The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

The question is one that you want dismiss because addressing it highlights the weaknesses of your goofy ideas about Bigfoot. Intellectually honest people don't fear questions like this and indeed take them head on. You just keep on running.

[Vortigern99]

Exactly. And for the record, as you can read right here in the pages of this thread, I met the questions about bigfoot head-on, tried to explain/answer/counter/rebut them, and was met instead with the realization that the whole idea is pretty darn absurd after all.

In all frankness I haven't seen anyone else try to answer the most salient and pointed questions about the lack of evidence with any attempt at intellectual honesty and/or scientific plausibility, for the simple reason that if you do, you will be disabused of your fanciful belief system, precisely as I have been.

[kitakaze]

Darth Vortigern is the most intellectually honest person I have ever seen here who posted in initially wrote in support of the PGF. Bar none, hands down. People like Sweaty, can't even begin to comprehend the kind of intellectual growth that represents.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

When I caught myself about to do a capture of Dr. Bunnell's report (he's a biologist - the California Academy of Sciences is one of the 10 largest natural history museums in the world, Wikipedia, citation needed) for Drew and contemplated uploading a section of the DVD (which has some glaring errors, BTW) to YouTube I realized I was getting too involved in this again. I have other interests and I prefer to spend time pursuing them. My habit of getting online and getting my morning coffee can continue without the BF boards or anything related to them.

I'm sorry, Lu. You're no dummy but I interpret this as a smart lady who doesn't want to admit and abandon an irrational belief. It's always in your interest to get rid of poor arguments.

Quote:

I didn't have the camcorder when I was doing the driveway experiment. Given the condition of my driveway (not unlike a Forest Service road) any images produced by leaving it running on the dash would most likely be blurry, bouncy sequences of the windshield wipers. The point of the experiment was to see how easy it would be to get a shot of something popping out of the woods in front of me. I got the idea from Rick Noll. He mentioned somewhere that even though he keeps a camera on the dash he wouldn't have time to grab it and get a good shot. I'm rather sure that if I drove along with my arm and camera hanging out the window, my rabbit would chose that day to not run across the driveway.

Would you agree that the experiment isn't very meaningful to the question of why there are no unambiguous images of Bigfoot? We have photos and type specimens of every large mammal in NorthAmerica. Why can't we get that for a large, relatively slow upright ape?

Quote:

The incident that got my interest in the first place was on Washington HWY 14 1/2 mile east of Beacon Rock. It occurred at about 3:00 AM. It was investigated by local law enforcement and they found track evidence that backed up the driver's story. I don't see how he could have taken a picture if he did have a camera with him.

I know Bigfoot is an intriguing concept when one is first introduced to it with what seems the promise of good evidence. Would you agree that mundane cause can account for much of what constitutes Bigfoot evidence?

Quote:

I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?

Got a link?

In one of my cell phones I have a picture of the most freakish giant bug that landed on my bag on the way to an izakaya. The thing was just huge and crazyass. It wasn't a semi (Japanese for cicada) and I couldn't even place the species.

ETA: About Easterville, nevermind. A cell phone video of a native guy in a black jacket and jeans taking a leak in the bush is about the worst thing you could bring up in a discussion about unambiguous images of Bigfoot. I totally think you know there is no Bigfoot, Lu. I think when you try to visualize Bigfoot truly being caught on camera you're mind starts to recognize how absurd it is.

Here's the video and it is very typical of the garbage that footers waste there time with (kill your sound before playing it. It has the most irritating static noise):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQ4txNehzE

Just as the video starts the camera goes down a bit and shwing! there's the jeans. Facepalm. Facepalm big.

[kitakaze]

Well, I blew it. I just got myself suspended over at Melissa Hovey's searchforbigfoot forum. I joined the board a couple years ago to offer some skeptical view points and discuss research. I haven't posted there until a few days ago. I was enjoying the discussion but I realized my presence was making things a bit tense. I don't argue the suspension. I made fun of a "Bigfoot" video that I found completely ridiculous. It was regarding a video that is almost certainly a porcupine. I commented on it in my usual acerbic manner complete with a Picard facepalm. The video is a perfect example of footers mistaking a known animal for something else and the good ol' search-and-flee element we've been discussing. I just got the two week timeout and the post is still fresh in memory. It's relevant to this discussion so I will repost it here and try to match it as close as I can remember it.

First, here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqKcN3nA3wo

And here's a link to the thread at SFB:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.ph...=0&#entry12682

That is a very silly video entitled Bigfoot Expedition "Found Creature Resembling a Primate". Not so much for the video itself but for the way it is presented. Melissa is right, it very well could be a porcupine. When I first looked at it I got the impression of a sleeping raccoon with it's head hidden. It moves at 00:53. What it's certainly not is Bigfoot.

Check out the description (bolding mine):

Quote:

Clip#2 On this clip you can see the right hand and the small face looking at me once in a while. You can see its fur blowing in the wind. I turned the camera off so I could move around behind it. That's when it leaped off the branch to another tree and then to another tree. There was a long dark tail and when it jumped. I got scared and took off the other direction. Iv never seen something like this leap from tree to tree. In any case, whatever this is. It make's a great video and a great find. Primate characteristics, this is a mystery and a great find.

Facepalm. Facepalm big.



This is a perfect example of when a Bigfoot enthusiast mistakes a known animal for Bigfoot. And we can see he continued the fine footer tradition of search-and-flee.

Here is a video of a porcupine in a tree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwuRQAvsHs

Looks very similar.

So that's the post as close as I can remember it. I can see what ticked her off about that. I think it was probably the search-and-flee comment that did it. I would say that lightening up is in order and that two weeks is maybe a bit much but hey, it's her sand box and she can do as she likes. I've been trying to make it clear that I'm not looking for an adversarial situation. I actually just stopped into say hi to ol' Creekfreak but got into discussion particularly about the Northern California wolverine find and the animal detection array, Henner Fahrenbach (that didn't go over well), and a few other things. I'll have to remember not to be so me when and if they have me back.

Feel free to stop by if you like, Melissa.

[kitakaze]

Hmmm... I just noticed the thread on the "Bigfoot" porcupine video has been entirely removed, positive comments, Melissa's saying it looks like a porcupine, mine, everything. That's very strange. I thought maybe it was just related to my suspension but then I noticed in the General Conversation section the entire four page thread I had entitled "Thinking Hard About Bigfoot" which started with a look at the California wolverine find, had some discussion regarding Henner's views, and had some support from some members.

One thing I was really looking forward to was further discussion with Melissa regarding assisting with some contribution of ideas on her research. She made an issue of never having a skeptic there do such a thing so I made a point of trying to help. There was some information regarding things happening in her state I was trying to get from her but the only reply I got was that she wouldn't tell any specifics about her location. At one point I asked if she might be able to tell me what county though I fully understood the reason not to divulge the exact location. I think when I asked even what quadrant of the state she felt that was too specific.

I hope the reason I can't see those those threads is simply because of my suspension and not because she decided to just go and zap them out of existence. Mikeyx is an admin there so Mike, do you have any idea what's up? Melissa, if/when I come back, I would like to assist your efforts in whatever way I can but as I mentioned it is not just a oneway street. I will need to have some information about the situation you're dealing with if you really want me to help. You were quite clear about your opinion that skeptics weren't offering anything positive so I really wanted to address the issue.

ETA: My mistake. I apologize. The thread was gone but now it is back. It could have been gone for some reason I don't know at all. The porcupine thread, however, is still gone. Maybe it's just that I can't see it as that was the thread in which my post got me suspended.

[kitakaze]

Aaaaaahh, you guys have to check this out. The Bigfoot enthusiast who posted that Bigfoot porcupine video is Ed Runninghorse, a Bigfoot Field Research investigator who calls himself "thefirstbillyjack". He has a homepage at youtube with reams of squatching videos. Check this introduction to his page (bolding mine... oh wait, nevermind. The whole thing is comedy gold):

Originally Posted by thefirstbillyjack

I just returned from a Bigfoot Expedition to Banning State Park on 04-07-09). Found awesome Stick Structures and formations. While on this expedition I discovered a strange creature near the gorge. I video taped this creature and still find myself in awe. This creature resembled something that should not be in this forest. It looked like a small primate, about the size of a monkey. It had the physical appearance of a small primate. Could this have been a young Bigfoot and maybe the parents were nearby. I was tree knocking before I got to the area of the creature. It was sitting high up in a tree on a branch. It did not move as I approached and video taped it. I was so shaky while video taping. I then set the tripod up and put the video camera on it for stability. It was still sitting there not moving, I could see the face and it seemed cold and motionless. I actually got this on tape. I tried to start another clip from the other side of the tree. As I set the camera up again, it jumped to another tree and kept hoping from tree to tree as it moved away from me and could see some kind of tail that was brownish black. I did not have the camera on while it took off. I did not run after it because I was worrying about being attacked. This was so bizarre to see, I have it on tape. I should start the downloads today, I tried to start the downloads last night but my hard drive needs space and I'm working on that so I can make room on the computer for the video's. This is so awesome, I can't wait until you see this creature. I posted this same info on my page for all to see. I believe I found a primate and there are two explanations. One, its an exotic pet that someone had and it escaped. Or it's a very young Bigfoot that I spooked up into the tree when I was tree knocking earlier. I will send this same info to everyone, either way. I found some kind of primate. ED AKA Billy Jack

http://www.youtube.com/user/thefirstbillyjack

Bigfoot enthusiasts have to know this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people shake there heads at them in disbelief. The top video featured on his page has him poking about the winter woods and every broken windblown tree he comes a cross is a sasquatch stick structure. It's just so damn silly. Bigfoot proponents really serious about the strive for legitimacy please pay attention. You have more of a legitimate reason to address search-and-flee footers like this than I do.

Here's some funny comments by thefirstbillyjack on that "stick structure" video:

Quote:

thefirstbillyjack
You could see the rubbing marks on the tree next to it, if it was bent over by a Bigfoot. These would be the marks left behind.

stormpusztay (8 hours ago)
its just spooky at times when its quiet the absence of life its like that in the area I research.

thefirstbillyjack (8 hours ago)
It really is noticeable when that happens

When you look at where he is, the idea that a huge mammal would be getting 12,000 kcal/day without being identified is just fall-down stupid.

[kitakaze]

I just saw that Melissa has the porcupine video thread back:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.ph...=0&#entry12683

Also my suspension was changed from two weeks to three days. That's not too bad. Seems like Melissa realizes it is in fact a porcupine. I think my sarcastic exasperation with the silliness of certain aspects of Bigfoot can be pretty grating on people like that. It's understandable to be sensitive to criticism when much of your free time is devoted to something most people consider to be a joke.

Melissa, as you know the PM function is down at your board so I'll say it here. I would have thought that other people there would understand the obvious silliness of that video being presented as Bigfoot. I'll keep in mind the way my acerbic observations come across when I return.

[kitakaze]

Right, on closer review of the porcupine thread I realized after writing all that that Melissa sent me an email since the PM's are down. She gave permission in the mail to post it here as she has forgotten her password here. Of course I will post it here to allow Melissa to clarify the issue:

Originally Posted by Melissa Hovey to kitakaze

I read your comments on the JREF. At the present time the PM functions are not working on the board, or I would have sent you one. .

You said:

"Well, I blew it. I just got myself suspended over at Melissa Hovey's searchforbigfoot forum. I joined the board a couple years ago to offer some skeptical view points and discuss research. I haven't posted there until a few days ago. I was enjoying the discussion but I realized my presence was making things a bit tense. I don't argue the suspension. I made fun of a "Bigfoot" video that I found completely ridiculous. It was regarding a video that is almost certainly a porcupine. I commented on it in my usual acerbic manner complete with a Picard facepalm. The video is a perfect example of footers mistaking a known animal for something else and the good ol' search-and-flee element we've been discussing. I just got the two week timeout and the post is still fresh in memory."

Yes, you did. I understand you have an "online image" to protect. But, I have a forum to think about. People like my forum because issues can be discussed, without the usual insults and bashing that happens. When I posted about that video, it was for multiple reasons. Do I think that is a baby bigfoot? No. It has a tail. It's as clear as day. I am not truly as stupid as you might think.

Some times it does some good to have new researchers look at items posted, to discuss them. I posted the photos with the questions, to spark an educated conversation. Instead, I received you, making fun of the video and creating a general sense of nastyness. So, now you know why I went back in, and posted a link along with more conversation. In the hopes of restarting the conversation.

How do you, as a skeptic, think new researchers learn new methods and learn critical thinking, if questions like these are not posed, and they are not asked to evaluate items? Do you think I woke up one day, and just figured out on my own how to handle investigations? NO, I was taught. If you as a skeptic are tired of critical thinking not being used by researchers, then do not get in the way of those who want to learn, and those who are willing to teach. I am not afraid of being wrong, if it means people learn from the discussion. BUT, no one will get involved and have the discussion, if there are comments like yours being thrown around.

I have asked you over and over, to stop with the insults. I have in fact given you more chances than I have others. You have refused to do so. While I have you on a 2 week suspension, I will drop that to 3 days. I was angry at the time, and I apologize. But, when you are allowed back, I will expect you to abide by the rules of the forum, or do not post. I do enjoy our discussions, and I do appreciate your point of view on issues, but I must ask that you abide by the very easy rules created. Everyone else does, I can not make an exception for you, just because you are a skeptic.

By the way, I found nothing wrong with your critique of the report posted by Creekfreak. So, that answers the question you left on that thread.

Your account will be re-instated on Monday.

You may post this if you want on the JREF. I planned to post it anyway, but I couldnt remember my password.

Melissa M. Hovey
Searchforbigfoot.org

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Melissa to kitakaze

Yes, you did. I understand you have an "online image" to protect. But, I have a forum to think about. People like my forum because issues can be discussed, without the usual insults and bashing that happens. When I posted about that video, it was for multiple reasons. Do I think that is a baby bigfoot? No. It has a tail. It's as clear as day. I am not truly as stupid as you might think.

I fully understand how my post came across. As I said, I had thought some might share my exasperation. If thefirstbillyjack was the one who posted the video, I might not have made the facepalm comments and reworded the search-and-flee comment. I understand that you want to ensure your board is insults and bashing. I don't necessarily think that my comments are so offensive or going to be detrimental to Bigfoot researchers but that is just my opinion. I really would hope that Bigfoot searchers such as yourself would take the same stance in addressing such silliness as me but I understand you have a different philosophy based on your experiences. Mikeyx is an admin at your board and I note that he often very readily points out ridiculous behaviour by some of the weirder elements of Bigfootery. Obviously you must have some appreciation for sentiments like mine.

A note about the last sentence I bolded there. It is my opinion that you are sometimes overly defensive when addressing me. I have never said or implied you are stupid. You may be tempted to operate from the belief that it is my sole purpose to make anyone who even remotely considers the existence of Bigfoot look like utter buffoons. Please understand this is not the case. I think my discussions with Vortigern99 here are a good example of the support and good rapport I can have with people that have argued for Bigfoot's existence. This is my natural reaction towards people who demonstrate intellectual honesty and a desire to put a pursuit of the truth ahead of fondness for what is a very cool concept (Bigfoot existing).

Quote:

Some times it does some good to have new researchers look at items posted, to discuss them. I posted the photos with the questions, to spark an educated conversation. Instead, I received you, making fun of the video and creating a general sense of nastyness. So, now you know why I went back in, and posted a link along with more conversation. In the hopes of restarting the conversation.

OK, I think I understand better now. You may think I interpreted your posts as supporting the idea that maybe the video depicted a baby Bigfoot. Actually, the way I interpreted your post is that you seemed to realize it was a porcupine from the beginning. If you check what I wrote here that will become self-evident.

Quote:

How do you, as a skeptic, think new researchers learn new methods and learn critical thinking, if questions like these are not posed, and they are not asked to evaluate items? Do you think I woke up one day, and just figured out on my own how to handle investigations? NO, I was taught. If you as a skeptic are tired of critical thinking not being used by researchers, then do not get in the way of those who want to learn, and those who are willing to teach. I am not afraid of being wrong, if it means people learn from the discussion. BUT, no one will get involved and have the discussion, if there are comments like yours being thrown around.

We both agree that critical thinking needs to be encouraged more. I think it takes very little critical thinking to come to the conclusion that the video shows a porcupine. You stated that the video depicted what looked to you like brow ridges but you also considered it might be only light and shadow. I think the latter would be correct. Personally I haven't been able to make out the brow ridge feature you spoke of. I think it would be helpful detail exactly how I examined this alleged piece of sasquatch evidence.

Within the first ten seconds of watching the videos I observed a few things. I immediately knew I was looking at a known animal. I first thought that the blur was very strange and wondered if it was intentional but realized it was just a result of the camera being zoomed. I wondered at first if I might be looking at a raccoon with its head obscured while sleeping due to the lack of prominent quills. Then, when it moved at 00:53, I realized I was looking at a large, tree dwelling rodent. Furthermore, it didn't seem right to me as it would be strange for a nocturnal raccoon to be sleeping out in the open sun on a branch like that in the middle of the day.

I decided the first thing to do was check out porcupine images in trees on youtube. The first video I found looked exactly like the "baby Bigfoot" video. Then I knew I was definitely looking at a porcupine. After further research I discovered that porcupines were indeed in Banning State Park in Minnesota where the video was shot and that not only do they have the long tails mentioned but also in the winter there fur can grow to obscure the quills. Case closed. Hello porcupine. The fact that anyone might think it was a baby Bigfoot is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying you were giving the idea any serious thought. Personally, if it was my board, I would present the video asking people to discuss why anyone would ever think the easily determined porcupine was a baby Bigfoot. I think we both agree that it was a good opportunity to excercise critical thinking.

Quote:

I have asked you over and over, to stop with the insults. I have in fact given you more chances than I have others. You have refused to do so. While I have you on a 2 week suspension, I will drop that to 3 days. I was angry at the time, and I apologize. But, when you are allowed back, I will expect you to abide by the rules of the forum, or do not post. I do enjoy our discussions, and I do appreciate your point of view on issues, but I must ask that you abide by the very easy rules created. Everyone else does, I can not make an exception for you, just because you are a skeptic.

I also enjoy posting at your board. I'm sorry if I come off as overly acerbic. I have no intention of making fun of you. I appreciate the apology and the leniency you referred to. Obviously, I deserve no special treatment and will restrain the acerbicness when I return.

Quote:

By the way, I found nothing wrong with your critique of the report posted by Creekfreak. So, that answers the question you left on that thread.

Your account will be re-instated on Monday.

Here is a link to the thread where Creekfreak posted the Bigfoot enthusiast report:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1266

And here is wiki's entry on porcupines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcupine

[kitakaze]

Melissa reposted her email to me over at SFB and said:

Originally Posted by Melissa at SFB

Since you do not read your email Kitakazee, and instead prefer to post your comments on the JREF forum, I will post the email I sent you in regards to this issue.

Sorry about that. I get far too many emails everyday so I have the email alert turned off so as not to distract me when I'm engaged in something. Also, when it comes to any Bigfoot related issues, it is very rare for me to respond or communicate by email if I can get around it.

BTW, I understand you removed the description of the video by thefirstbillyjack as I put a lot of emphasis on him stating he fled from what he thought to be a baby Bigfoot. However, just for clarity, that removal resulted in this misunderstanding by one of your admins, Billy Willard.

Billy writes:

Originally Posted by BillyWillard @ SFB

You know, I find it funny how some folks come along and feel that they are adding a skeptical view to something. Why do people think that just because something is posted on a forum that everyone automatically thinks it's Bigfoot? Aren't forums made to discuss things? I like how he said he made fun of a "Bigfoot video". I never saw anyone here call it a Bigfoot! That's called assumption. People "assume" that because something is posted for discussion on a "Bigfoot forum" that everyone MUST believe its Bigfoot. Man...
Heck, I'm my own biggest skeptic!

Billy thinks I am assuming that SFB people consider it Bigfoot. He thinks this because the description by the guy who made the video and attributes it to Bigfoot himself has been removed from my post. Knowing that, one can easily understand how such misinterpretations and miscommunications can happen. Maybe the description by thefirstbillyjack suggesting a baby Bigfoot can be returned to my post or posted again. When I return I will make it clear to Billy Willard that I was in no way assuming everyone automatically thought it was Bigfoot. In fact, I have made repeated mentions that Melissa initially suggested a porcupine, which it is.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Is it a legitimate line of inquiry to try and discern the reason there are no unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot?

Yes or no.

Yes, it's "legitimate" to ask the question....since there's no moral or legal offense in it.......but asking that particular question is pointless....since there is simply no way to know what the correct answer to it is.

There are only 2 possible answers to the question...

1) Bigfoot doesn't exist, and...

2) It does exist, and it's damn hard to get undeniable proof of it's existence. (obviously due to it's small population numbers, it's near-human intelligence, and remoteness.)


So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.


The general public is never going to completely "write-off" the probabilities, or chances, of Bigfoot's existence simply because "The Great Kaze" dictates that it's existence is "preposterous".


Put another way.....you're proposing that ALL of the bits of evidence for Bigfoot's existence be 'painted with a broad brush', and considered weightless.....simply because you think Bigfoot's existence is preposterous.


In my opinion, since the various types of evidence can be analysed and weighed separately, on their own merits....I think that's the best way to determine the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence.....analysing the evidence 'bit by bit', one step at a time.

[Vortigern99]

The Easterville video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQ4txNehzE -- is so obviously a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie standing in front of some bushes that even the youtube crowd, which is full of BF proponents and patently credulous persons, is rejecting it as a possible BF video.

That LAL has offered this as an example of "unambiguous video" is a testament to either her zoological incompetence, her unconscious self-delusion or her willful deceit. Take your pick.

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze, thank you for posting the links, videos and messages from what can only be called Porcupinegate. For the record, I like your acerbic wit and I hope you continue to employ it here without censoring yourself.

One of the things I've come to appreciate about the JREF forums is that we're allowed to speak our minds about the topic at hand. If our minds happen to think another member is full of baloney, we can state as much without having to tiptoe around.

Politeness and respect are earned. If someone is so credulous as to believe a common everyday NA mammal is a "baby bigfoot" (maybe their tails drop off when they reach puberty??), they deserve to be ridiculed within an inch of their life, IMHO.

[Vortigern99]

Baby Bigfoot? "thefirstbillyjack" says "You bet!"

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Yes, it's "legitimate" to ask the question....since there's no moral or legal offense in it.......but asking that particular question is pointless....since there is simply no way to know what the correct answer to it is.

Simple question - Is it pointless to discuss why it is so damn hard to get undeniable proof of Bigfoot? Yes or no.

Quote:

There are only 2 possible answers to the question...

1) Bigfoot doesn't exist, and...

2) It does exist, and it's damn hard to get undeniable proof of it's existence. (obviously due to it's small population numbers, it's near-human intelligence, and remoteness.)

You're making three assumptions, two of which are not consistent with Bigfoot as reported. An animal that is encountered hundreds of times all across the US, Canada, and Mexico every year is not going to have a population number small enough to be a factor in not producing reliable evidence. Kermode bears are very rare, elusive, and remote yet there is unambiguous images of them:



But I guess because most wildlife shots are staged, these likely are also.

Remoteness obviously is a fallacy also. Joyce allegedly saw her Bigfoot at the corner of Rt 203 and State Farm Rd in Valatie, New York. Driveroperator has them coming into the back of his truck in the parking lot of Chickasaw campgrounds right by town in Honobia, Oklahoma. These are not animal that stick to very hard to access, remote areas such as those lovely, white bears I've just shown you.

Now, intelligence, that's a hard one. Intelligence does not prevent other great apes from being discovered. But you've decided to give Bigfoot near-human intelligence. I can't argue with that with all the reports of Bigfoot talking. Just ask the boys at MABRC.

Quote:

So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.

What a very interesting point you raise there, Sweaty. You know, I can't help but notice some glaring cognitive dissonance happening there. That inspires me to ask you another simple question using a bit of cut and paste with your above sentence. (BTW, thank you for answering the last one).

Simple question - Logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question of the PGF is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'. Is this true? Yes or no.

Please keep in mind, as you know full well, scribbles on improperly scaled images of Bob Heironimus and Patty are not any kind of proof. First of all, you have to deal with the truly direct Poser 7 skeletal overlay and prove that mangler did in fact hoax us as you imply. You have failed so far to achieve this goal you clearly make an effort to achieve as a Patty believer.

Quote:

The general public is never going to completely "write-off" the probabilities, or chances, of Bigfoot's existence simply because "The Great Kaze" dictates that it's existence is "preposterous".

You're quite right. The general public thinks Bigfoot is preposterous without any help from me.

Quote:

Put another way.....you're proposing that ALL of the bits of evidence for Bigfoot's existence be 'painted with a broad brush', and considered weightless.....simply because you think Bigfoot's existence is preposterous.

In my opinion, since the various types of evidence can be analysed and weighed separately, on their own merits....I think that's the best way to determine the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence.....analysing the evidence 'bit by bit', one step at a time.

Well, I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased. You operate under the behaviour that many cups of weak coffee can combine to make strong. They can not.

PGF - weak coffee.

MDF - weak coffee.

Freeman footage - weak coffee.

Joyce - weak coffee.

You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn;t very poor.

[xblade]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

xblade wrote:



Yes, xblade....you know Bigfoot doesn't exist....but I don't know that you truly know that.

Here's the beauty of that: you don't have to know. It doesn't make bigfoot any more real either way.

Quote:

Some people say they know that Bigfoot exists, because they've seen one....but I don't know that they truly have.


This situation is what as known as a "Mexican stand-off".

Some people say they've seen Elvis. I guess we're having a Mexican stand-off there too.

Quote:

Perhaps you and the boys can win this battle by out-shouting and out-numbering the "believers".

Perhaps you can win this "battle" by producing a bigfoot.....or a mermaid, or a unicorn, or a fire breathing dragon, or Elvis.

Sadly, the battle is only in your mind, and it's not skeptics you're battling with, it's reality.

[xblade]

Quote:

So, logically, if proof...in either the 'positive' or the 'negative'...is required to know what the correct answer to the question is, then the answer is not going to be resolved until we find hard proof...either 'for' or 'against'.

Well alrighty then....until we have hard proof either way, it's still up in the air whether or not bigfoot, mermaids, fire breathing dragons, ghosts, unicorns, fairies, etc truly exist. Until someone provides hard proof either way, there actually MAY be a monster hiding under the bed or in the closet. Not finding them isn't proof...they may be invisible..or out on a date. Anything is possible in footerland....except what actually is.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Well, I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased.

You operate under the behaviour that many cups of weak coffee can combine to make strong. They can not.

PGF - weak coffee.


MDF - weak coffee.


Freeman footage - weak coffee.


Joyce - weak coffee.


You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn;t very poor.

EXACTLY as I had stated earlier......"The Great Kaze" has made his judgement against the Footer:


"I have proven that as a believer your opinion is often poorly informed and heavily biased."



and.....right on schedule...."The Great Kaze" has indeed sounded......

the dreaded 'nasty buzzer'....






"PGF - weak coffee."


"MDF - weak coffee."


"Freeman footage - weak coffee."


"Joyce - weak coffee."



And, for good measure.......a parting judgement......


"You have never introduced a single piece of evidence that wasn't very poor."




But........oh Great and Powerful Kaaz....I didn't say anything about these pieces of evidence, in my post.
I only gave my opinion concerning whether we can truly know what the true answer to your most excellent question....truly is.







"It doesn't matter.....lowly Footer....the Great and Powerful Kaaz has a 'nasty buzzer' in his hand.....and dang, I'm gonna use it!!!


NOW GO!!

[kitakaze]

That's a very expressive post, Sweaty. I like it and I know it took you some time. Very tellingly it ignores the entire post except for a very small part at the end including two simple questions and some counter arguments completely important to the discussion we're having.

Typical Sweaty believer dodging cornerhuddlers.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

[WGBH]

Kitakaze,

This is J.C. I just wanted to let you know I hope you will return and continue
the discussion on the search for bigfoot forum. You are more then welcome.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by WGBH

Kitakaze,

This is J.C. I just wanted to let you know I hope you will return and continue
the discussion on the search for bigfoot forum. You are more then welcome.

Hi, John! Thank you very much. I appreciate your delurking here to say that. I look forward to returning to the discussions and also giving your encounter story as best an examination as I can and without the unnecessary incivility you've received from some other Bigfoot proponents.

[kitakaze]

BTW, John, I noticed the porcupine video thread at SFB has disappeared into the ether again. Did the conversation go south after my timeout? I noticed over at the BFF lots of people seem resistent to accepting the video as a porcupine:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25943

[Skeptical Greg]

I say Bigfoot ... The camera refused to focus on the subject ..

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

BTW, John, I noticed the porcupine video thread at SFB has disappeared into the ether again. Did the conversation go south after my timeout? I noticed over at the BFF lots of people seem resistent to accepting the video as a porcupine:

I have no idea what happened to it, the thread did not interest me. I was not paying attention to it. No, it's definitely a porcupine from what I glanced at.

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Hi, John! Thank you very much. I appreciate your delurking here to say that. I look forward to returning to the discussions and also giving your encounter story as best an examination as I can and without the unnecessary incivility you've received from some other Bigfoot proponents.

Sure, I will answer your questions. Just remember that there are other possible witnesses who may be watching. I don't care if you are rough on me, I will answer you. I do worry about the others though. So try not to scare them away.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by WGBH

I have no idea what happened to it, the thread did not interest me. I was not paying attention to it. No, it's definitely a porcupine from what I glanced at.

As far as I can tell, Melissa removed it for whatever reason. Last I saw, HarryH was arguing in favour of my criticism of the way thefreebillyjack presented his porcupine video. Maybe he took the same tone of exasperation as I did further and Melissa decided to blast the thread into outer space.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by WGBH

Sure, I will answer your questions. Just remember that there are other possible witnesses who may be watching. I don't care if you are rough on me, I will answer you. I do worry about the others though. So try not to scare them away.

I won't be rough. I'll be frank and respectful. Most of all, as it is a Bigfooter's forum with possible witnesses, I will be mindful of that and ask exactly the types of questions they can expect to be asked by a person who doesn't believe in Bigfoot, has a lot of knowledge on the subject, and won't assume they are crazy. I think it will hopefully be a good example of how these things are ideally discussed.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by LAL

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.

But the interpretation you are presenting is not compatible with what was described.

A glow, not a reflection, was described. Not to mention that red-eye reflection happen at a very specific set of light incidence.

Still no reason to take seriously that account. Bigfeet with glowing eyes are less plausible than bigfeet with cat-like eyes.