OK, Bigfoot enthusiasts...new footage...

[Teemu]

How fast can you whip out a camera and get a shot of a wild animal that is trying to evade you because it considers you a predator? How fast can you do it in rough terrain/in the wild? I'm not talking about the local alley cat, stray dogs or squirrels that hang around because they know people = discarded food sources. Are you a professional wildlife photographer, LOL? People from NatGeo magazine try to do it all the time with only varying degrees of success.

If you really don't think it's a real animal then fine. Maybe you should also stay out of these threads and stop upsetting people who have seen it. Just like when there was a rule that if you hated the show Smallville people were asked to stay out of those threads and stop defecating on the people who enjoyed talking about it.

So over-sensitive over NOTHING arn't you? I never said anything to upset anyone...I am pointing out some simple FACTS.What about those who are hunting BIGFOOT?? Who have camera's on hand and all the photo's and video that have come out?? All basically BLURRY photo's/video and hard to make out anything.

What about those camoflauge hunting suits they sell at Cabela's (easily mistaken for a Bigfoot) and simple professional Bigfoot costumes (like mine in the photo's I posted).....I can easily go out in the woods and FOOL tons of people but I don't want to get shot..

I think you need to take a CHILL PILL or learn to read...because I said nothing about BIGFOOT not being REAL..

[Teemu]

Here is the costume sold by the horror dome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00DaZRcPCU

[mazinz]

Just wanted to add my two cents with photography/filming--- Back in 1990 (and to keep it short) a UFO was outside my neighborhood and for lack of a better term it just decided to “park” in the sky. I ran to grab my video camera. I started filming and then realized I could not pick up the object. My camera had a LUX rating of 13 which is terrible (that is light sensitivity). My camera also had manual and lever controlled focus, as well as having a black and white viewfinder. So on the video you hear me curse and once I lower the camera (because I stopped filming a second after that)- that is when I got one of the lights the object had.

This is how it relates to Blurry or otherwise “we dropped the ball” Bigfoot photography. I was relatively calm but still slightly excited to see this object in the sky. However I did NOT realize that I was zoomed in with the focus and that is why I could not see the object in the view finder. It had nothing to do with the bad light sensitivity. It had to do with trying to stay calm and not really going over anything I would usually check for when filming because in the blink of an eye the “whatever’ you are trying to capture can go away. In my case this damn thing was out for like 20 mins and I still dropped the ball. It was just such a simple thing to make sure and the thought of checking the zoom lens did not even occur. Now that was 20 mins, can you picture if you see an ape like thing walking across the road and trying to scramble to get it on film? Your bodies levels will not be fully calm (though mentally you might be thinking otherwise), you will be a bit heightened and a known tense factor due to speeding up heart rate will occur (MMA fighters train themselves to over ride this). The same factor that when you try to do things in hurry and your body fumbles, same principal and goes why so many photos and films are half screwed up because you are thinking that you are in control and everything is fine but really your body is screwing things and you are not thinking normally, so something like making sure the focus is correct will not occur to you at that precise moment in time

Now I know it does not account for everything but this does plays a role in the “blurry” photo syndrome and from my experience I now understand on how filming something "rare or unknown" can go so badly wrong.

[enyawd72]

Here is the costume sold by the horror dome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00DaZRcPCU

That costume is eerily similar to what I saw...problem is, my sighting was 30 years ago.
So, what we have here is a costume design based on people's descriptions...which will inevitably lead to sightings with descriptions based on a costume.
I wish costumes like this weren't made because they will lead to false reports...then again, maybe a real Bigfoot will take an interest in one.

[Brazoo]

If you really don't think it's a real animal then fine. Maybe you should also stay out of these threads and stop upsetting people who have seen it. Just like when there was a rule that if you hated the show Smallville people were asked to stay out of those threads and stop defecating on the people who enjoyed talking about it.

The only time I step into these threads now is after people misrepresent the skeptical arguments. I'm not here to upset people or make fun of people's beliefs in any way, BUT when believers claim that's all that skeptics do I think it's more than reasonable that I should be allowed to clarify my views. I'm tired of hearing dismissive arguments like "skeptics are just close minded" or any of the other contentious fallacious descriptions I routinely come across that wildly misrepresent my views, but I try not to get emotional and try to explain my arguments with clarity and respect.

Why shouldn't I be able to defend and clarify my views? I think there are TONS of other online venues where like-minded Bigfoot believers can discuss these things without skeptics. This happens to not be one of those boards, as far as I know. And I'm not "defecating" on anyone, that's just silly.

--

As for your last argument - I don't disagree that people would possibly be mocked for reporting those animals if they were the first ones to encounter them, but it doesn't add credence to Bigfoot because none of those animals were confirmed with eye-witness testimony alone. On the other side there are eye-witness accounts of all sorts of strange things, leprechauns, unicorns, sea-monsters, dragons, fairies, mermaids - are they all equally as plausible as a seal, or penguin, or a gorilla? I think it's safe to assume that you don't believe ALL cryptological claims warrant the same credence as Bigfoot, but I guess maybe you do.

In any case, people are susceptible to all kinds of errors based on illusions, misperceptions, faulty reasoning - ME, YOU, EVERYONE. If that offends you then I'm sorry, but that's the fact of it.

[piecemaker]

There are more things in Heaven and Earth,Brazoo.
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[johnmiic]

...Now that was 20 mins, can you picture if you see an ape like thing walking across the road and trying to scramble to get it on film? Your bodies levels will not be fully calm (though mentally you might be thinking otherwise), you will be a bit heightened and a known tense factor due to speeding up heart rate will occur (MMA fighters train themselves to over ride this). The same factor that when you try to do things in hurry and your body fumbles, same principal and goes why so many photos and films are half screwed up because you are thinking that you are in control and everything is fine but really your body is screwing things and you are not thinking normally, so something like making sure the focus is correct will not occur to you at that precise moment in time

Now I know it does not account for everything but this does plays a role in the “blurry” photo syndrome and from my experience I now understand on how filming something "rare or unknown" can go so badly wrong.

I shortened the quote but your point is valid. It's very well articulated.

So over-sensitive over NOTHING arn't you? I never said anything to upset anyone...I think you need to take a CHILL PILL or learn to read...because I said nothing about BIGFOOT not being REAL..

Dude, I don't understand your reaction. I never mentioned you by name in the post or singled you out. Plus there was a well place LOL in the comment to show it was good-natured.

[scoth70]

wow teemu that is awesome..this picture is no laughing matter!!! you got me looking out my window now ..CRAPPING MY PANTS !!

and another---HA! HA! best photo of Bigfoot you'll ever see [ATTACH=CONFIG]8391[/ATTACH]

[Brazoo]

There are more things in Heaven and Earth,Brazoo.
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Seems to me you're just trying to call me close minded without actually making a point.

You're also dead wrong about me. There's nothing in my viewpoint that limits the possibility of ANYTHING.

For example, I believe it's possible for Bigfoot to exist. I just think the evidence for Bigfoot isn't compelling enough to believe Bigfoot does exist. If great evidence shows up to challenge my view I would accept it. To me that's what being open minded means. Clinging to a belief no matter what the evidence shows seems close minded to me.

What you seem to be implying is that to be open minded you have to believe in every claim anyone makes. To me that's not being open minded, that's just being naive. I don't believe there's anyone on this board who is naive enough to live life like that, and the question is why do you make the choices to believe one claim and not another? In many cases you're most likely already using the tools of reason to make decisions all the time. But in some cases, you, me and every other person in this world, is going to have biases that make it hard for us to question ourselves when the evidence doesn't fit our beliefs. That's what we need these tools for.

I don't think faith is a bad thing, but the usefulness of faith is highly limited when you're trying to make measured observations about the physical universe.

[piecemaker]

Seems to me you're just trying to call me close minded without actually making a point.

You're also dead wrong about me. There's nothing in my viewpoint that limits the possibility of ANYTHING.

For example, I believe it's possible for Bigfoot to exist. I just think the evidence for Bigfoot isn't compelling enough to believe Bigfoot does exist. If great evidence shows up to challenge my view I would accept it. To me that's what being open minded means. Clinging to a belief no matter what the evidence shows seems close minded to me.

What you seem to be implying is that to be open minded you have to believe in every claim anyone makes. To me that's not being open minded, that's just being naive. I don't believe there's anyone on this board who is naive enough to live life like that, and the question is why do you make the choices to believe one claim and not another? In many cases you're most likely already using the tools of reason to make decisions all the time. But in some cases, you, me and every other person in this world, is going to have biases that make it hard for us to question ourselves when the evidence doesn't fit our beliefs. That's what we need these tools for.

I don't think faith is a bad thing, but the usefulness of faith is highly limited when you're trying to make measured observations about the physical universe.

No,i dont think you are close minded.I just think your "evidence standards" are alot higher than mine.
I've seen and heard over the years,what i feel is very compelling evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of Bigfoot.

Any evidence can be explained away and of there are alot of hoaxers,but when you put the snippets together of what i consider totally credible evidence.
I think it makes a very compelling case for the existence of Bigfoot.

Again my evidence standards are different than yours,what i consider evidence,you dont.
So in the end,i wont change your views and you wont change mine.

Is anyone being close minded or naive? No,just different beliefs and ways of looking at things.

The hard core skeptic needs "scientific proof" beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I dont need that level of evidence to believe.

[Chris]

Cool...

This is just a sore subject with me right now. There was a local sighting here last week, and I was invited to speak on the local radio station as a guest and they made a total joke out of it and me.

Nobody fraks with ENYAWD. He is the greatest artist of our generation.

[domino]

Everyone has a right to believe what they believe and not be chastised for it. Enyawd, for a radio show to invite you on and then make fun of you was very unprofessional and I don't blame you for being upset about that. I believe that Bigfoot is out there somewhere. There is so much unexplored territory that it is very possible for a creature like this to remain mostly hidden, even in this day and age. Who knows what we might find in the jungles of South America, or the ocean depths one day.

As far as the photography goes, it is incredibly hard to get good pictures when rushed to do so. My parents live in an area where coyotes, bobcats and all types of local wildlife come into their back yard. Many times they are no more than 20 feet away. By the time they grab a camera, which in some cases is only seconds and take a picture, the animal is already running away, which makes for a pretty poor picture. Add in the sun, possible reflections etc, you would think the picture was taken on a Poloroid in the 70's and not 2013. I can understand why a "high def" picture hasn't been taken. Most wild, scared creatures don't stand there smiling for a picture.

This isn't directed to anyone here, so please don't read it that way. I have had some experience with narrow minded people, even when evidence does exist. When I was a kid I was really into dinosaurs. One day I was talking about them with my best friend when his mother overheard me. She told me that fossils were not real. They were made up by scientists to disprove her beliefs. (a subject we shouldn't discuss here) She said that scientists put those in the ground so others could dig them up and act like they found something. I was left speechless. I didn't say anything else to her. It was at that point I realized that people had different beliefs, regardless of what proof may exist.

[enyawd72]

Nobody fraks with ENYAWD. He is the greatest artist of our generation.

LOL...thanks Chris. Speaking of which, you got a package coming from me this week. Wait til you see Luke.

[Hector]

Everyone has a right to believe what they believe and not be chastised for it. Enyawd, for a radio show to invite you on and then make fun of you was very unprofessional and I don't blame you for being upset about that. I believe that Bigfoot is out there somewhere. There is so much unexplored territory that it is very possible for a creature like this to remain mostly hidden, even in this day and age. Who knows what we might find in the jungles of South America, or the ocean depths one day.

As far as the photography goes, it is incredibly hard to get good pictures when rushed to do so. My parents live in an area where coyotes, bobcats and all types of local wildlife come into their back yard. Many times they are no more than 20 feet away. By the time they grab a camera, which in some cases is only seconds and take a picture, the animal is already running away, which makes for a pretty poor picture. Add in the sun, possible reflections etc, you would think the picture was taken on a Poloroid in the 70's and not 2013. I can understand why a "high def" picture hasn't been taken. Most wild, scared creatures don't stand there smiling for a picture.

This isn't directed to anyone here, so please don't read it that way. I have had some experience with narrow minded people, even when evidence does exist. When I was a kid I was really into dinosaurs. One day I was talking about them with my best friend when his mother overheard me. She told me that fossils were not real. They were made up by scientists to disprove her beliefs. (a subject we shouldn't discuss here) She said that scientists put those in the ground so others could dig them up and act like they found something. I was left speechless. I didn't say anything else to her. It was at that point I realized that people had different beliefs, regardless of what proof may exist.

Even the Bible mentions of great beasts that lived long ago.

[Brazoo]

No,i dont think you are close minded.I just think your "evidence standards" are alot higher than mine.
I've seen and heard over the years,what i feel is very compelling evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of Bigfoot.

Any evidence can be explained away and of there are alot of hoaxers,but when you put the snippets together of what i consider totally credible evidence.
I think it makes a very compelling case for the existence of Bigfoot.

Again my evidence standards are different than yours,what i consider evidence,you dont.
So in the end,i wont change your views and you wont change mine.

Is anyone being close minded or naive? No,just different beliefs and ways of looking at things
The hard core skeptic needs "scientific proof" beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I dont need that level of evidence to believe.

Thanks for clarifying piecemaker I appreciate it! Sorry for taking what you had written in a different way than what you had intended.

All I can say in response is that if you're curious about how the lines of Bigfoot evidence could be questioned and you like science, check out something like Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". I love Sagan's outlook, because he shows that being skeptical about things doesn't mean you have to be cynical.

Cheers!

--

ADDED LATER: I should add one bit of clarification here, 'proof beyond a shadow of doubt' is not required to start building a credible scientific theory. Lots of our most powerful theories don't have that kind of proof. It's much more important for a good scientific theory to have features like predictive abilities and falsifiability.

When a scientist shows off evidence and makes a hypothesis they're basically setting up a target to let everyone else try and shoot it down. If it keeps standing it can become a theory. If it is shot down science advances in another direction.

Unfortunately that doesn't happen much in the Bigfoot realm, which is what often gives this research the scent of pseudoscience. When Bigfoot evidence/hypothesis gets shot down Bigfoot believers often claim there is a bias, or dismiss the objections all together. There's not a lot of internal Bigfoot science trying to falsify the lines of evidence they use, which is one of the main reasons I believe Bigfoot research is so stagnant. Off hand I can't think of one line of evidence that has have ever been widely dismissed in Bigfoot research history, which is not what happens in other branches of science research. (I'd like to know if I'm wrong about that.)

--

Here's my take on all this: it's counter-intuitive, but I think Bigfoot believers need to start scrutinizing their own lines of evidence harder to advance their theories. It's going to be difficult, but I think they have to start educating themselves to get less excited about eye-witness accounts, photos and Bigfoot corpses that aren't scrutinized scientifically BEFORE these claims are released to the press. Ideally, that's how science is suppose to work.

"I don't get excited about new evidence before it's studied carefully" should be the mantra ALL serious Bigfoot believers give in interviews. Frankly, they should try to make themselves a lot more boring for these so-called journalist media clowns. They should try to bore the hoaxers into retirement too.