vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Mar 2, 2010 15:32:54 GMT -5
In my second to last picture the lower, smaller footprint was partly covered by a vehicle track, that is why it is so short. But the ball and toes of the foot are very clear. There was a small black bear I did encounter in the vicinity but it had smaller tracks. It was a half grown cub. Something scared it very badly, it came tearing across the path right in front of me! In other words whatever scared it was scarier to it than a person (me). In the sandy location there was also a bear, but it had very different tracks with long claws and a narrower, shorter back of the foot. The toes were all in a line like peas, not staggered in height. It was very apparent that the bear tracks were different than the other tracks I found. There were also cougar, beaver, raccoon and a river otter in the area leaving tracks. Very nice environment for lots of animals, which means there was lots of food present for them there.
Bill, yes, to me no evidence will prove conclusive until there is a body. Pictures and footprints can of course be fabricated, so can stick weaves etc. But no one knew I was going to the areas I went, I picked these areas randomly (within a selection of areas I search in) and went alone with my camera and eyes open. I didn't fabricate them myself. So unless there is someone randomly fabricating large humanoid footprints all over the place, or very large people going swimming barefoot in November and December in our frigid lakes and creeks, I think sasquatch may be the answer.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 2, 2010 23:42:46 GMT -5
I didn't fabricate them myself. So unless there is someone randomly fabricating large humanoid footprints all over the place, or very large people going swimming barefoot in November and December in our frigid lakes and creeks, I think sasquatch may be the answer. Not sure why if someone saw footprints on the ground that they would think that means someone would be swimming, but ok. I never once thought you fabricated what you called tracks. My experience has been that people who fake footprints do so by leaving impressions that actually look like a footprint. I just couldn't make out the detail that you believe that you see. Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by Igor Burtsev on Mar 3, 2010 2:19:29 GMT -5
So unless there is someone randomly fabricating large humanoid footprints all over the place, or very large people going swimming barefoot in November and December in our frigid lakes and creeks, I think sasquatch may be the answer. I should add: Agressive skepticism is also a kind of fanatizm. Vilnoori, please look at the messages
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 3, 2010 4:07:10 GMT -5
Agressive skepticism is also a kind of fanatizm. Occams Razor: is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation that explains all the data or strategy tends to be the best one. There is nothing wrong in considering other possibilities through careful and rational deduction. It is however reckless in my view to blindly accept every broken tree branch and every 'blob dent' in the ground to be Sasquatch related. As the saying now goes ... One man's fanaticism is another man's caution. Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by Igor Burtsev on Mar 3, 2010 8:58:12 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong in considering other possibilities through careful and rational deduction. It is however reckless in my view to blindly accept every broken tree branch and every 'blob dent' in the ground to be a Sasquatch track. I'll just repeat the words by one our famous singer-actor Visotski (late): "I've quite proved all to myself". And I don't have more time to waste it to a senceless discussion. Let your approach help you to acheave real resultes... Igor
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 3, 2010 10:47:49 GMT -5
I'll just repeat the words by one our famous singer-actor Visotski (late): "I've quite proved all to myself". And I don't have more time to waste it to a senceless discussion. Let your approach help you to acheave real resultes... Igor Here are the words of one of our famous researchers - actor Dahinden (late) .......... "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value." - Rene Dahinden, August 1999 I am trying to better understand the thinking process of someone who would look at broken sticks and unrecognizable dents on the ground being caused by a Sasquatch as 'sensible discussion' while any mention that they are no different than the countless natural appearances we find on any given trip into the bush that are not Sasquatch related as being viewed as 'senseless discussion'. In this regards your responses have been most helpful. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 3, 2010 11:32:36 GMT -5
Getting back to the Russian article that Brisson lied to them about ... as mentioned before, Brisson staged his Sasquatch encounter in Maple Ridge at Golden Ear's Park and not in the vast wilderness around Pitt Lake like he told the reporter who wrote the Russian article. Here is a re-enactment shot of Thomas Steenburg. There are several noticeable differences between Steenburg's appearance and the alleged Brisson Sasquatch. The color of Steenburg's features are consistent with the rest of the image whereas Brisson's alleged Sasquatch head is not. Brisson appears to have taken a darker contrasted image and pasted it into a darkened photo of the stump and surrounding foliage. (The photo below is seen as it was emailed to Thomas Steenburg by Brisson) In the enlargement of the alleged Brisson Sasquatch head there appears to be some retouching done just under and around the left side of the lower jaw as far as to the area of the ear. I will demonstrate this in an upcoming post. Parts of a gray brushiung appearance seems to have cut into the shape of the head. Green tinges of color around the cheeks and mouth are present in the Brisson image while not being seen in the untouched Steenburg image. Steenburg's right shoulder area is in plain view whereas the article pointed out - the Brisson alleged Sasquatch head has no body. One common attribute to the Sasquatch is how its head sits down into its shoulders ... it's certainly a feature that I saw. Steenburg stands 5'9" tall and his head is larger than the head of the alleged Brisson Sasquatch counting its overall size including the thickness of the hair. This can be visually determined by comparing it to the width of the large crevasse in the stump just under where Steenburg's left shoulder would be. Anyone care to guess how small the alleged Sasquatch head would be if it was shaved to the skin like Steenburg's face is? That would mean that the alleged Sasquatch was as tall as Thomas, but much smaller in stature. When this is weighed against Brisson lying to the Russians out of the gate as to the location of the alleged encounter, the lighting problem between the alleged Sasquatch head against the rest of the image, the absence of a lower body that the head should be sitting on, the fact that there was nowhere for an animal to hide at this location if it should have wanted to flee the area without being seen in full view, the fact that Brisson was caught by several people hoaxing 'rock throwing' ... when should the Brisson claim be considered senseless discussion from a standpoint of it being a legit encounter? Further post will be made so to show that there was more that could be investigated about this alleged encounter of Brisson's before accepting it as credible. It is the information that derives from such an examination that may hopefully be utilized in future investigations. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Mar 4, 2010 1:47:47 GMT -5
I agree that healthy skepticism is necessary and I have to admit that I am not yet 100% convinced these creatures are out there. I need more personal evidence. I am maybe 75% and would welcome more evidence. Igor I don't denigrate your work at all, but would just warn that Randy has not presented evidence of a high quality in spite of great claims. I am all for giving people the best chance possible but faking and hoaxing are not at all helpful and actually hurt this research. Unfortunately the pictures he has given are simply not good enough to even consider, and people who have worked closely with him have been let down by him. I'm sad to say this because he works in an excellent area and perhaps has access to some great material if he is willing to wait and watch, submitting only the best rather than settling for a fabrication to get people interested.
And I would encourage us all, Bill, Igor and company here on this forum to set aside differences and try to work together for this research rather than tearing apart and fighting. Sharing information is very valuable, particularly across continents. If someone has something, give an honest opinion, and that's it. Don't get upset, ok? We all recognize that the effort we make must become better, much better. Let us keep going, keep communicating and if this creature is out there the evidence will someday be there for us and we all will have a party in the end.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Mar 4, 2010 2:06:19 GMT -5
Also I should learn to take plaster casts, unfortunately I missed the Harrison tutorial with the rest of you guys. Tracks don't photograph easily. I also realize each bit of evidence or data is useless on its own. But taken together in one location and time it becomes significant.
It is hard to describe the voice I heard, it was like nothing I have ever heard. I can describe it only as a child singing or humming inside a large metal barrel. But this was in the middle of a forest! And it was occurring just downstream of those piled up little rocks, in the middle of the stream, near the footprints, near the strangely bent branch. That branch made me think of the way apes swing on a branch when they play, they grab it and use it as a swing. As I say it wasn't any one thing on its own, it was all of them together. It is very difficult to describe and indeed was difficult to photograph. I did find another person on another forum (BFF) who has experienced the same sound of an oddly loud and sonorous childlike humming in the middle of a swamp where other sasquatch related things were occurring.
|
|
|
Post by Igor Burtsev on Mar 4, 2010 8:01:38 GMT -5
Vilnoory, listen to your heart more, not only your head!
|
|
|
Post by Igor Burtsev on Mar 4, 2010 8:12:42 GMT -5
bigfoothunter, nice you to recall Rene: I communicated to him for many years, and we had a nice time for 5 weeks here in Moscow in December 1971 - January 1972... Some days he even had a shelter in our home... We visited many skeptical scientific institutes ensuring their staff in reality of BF... and identity of the PG film... We had some contradictions but we stayed friends... As to photo of Tomas behind the stump - I also thank for it. But I have some objections, shall write them later, now I'm in lack of time...
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Mar 4, 2010 10:57:16 GMT -5
Igor Burstev wrote on facebook:
Igor Burtsev: I officialy confirm: that was me who initiated those publications based on the West Coast Sasquatch open w-site. But the media distorted my info as usual they do due to their interests to connect with he Olimpic games. 4 hours ago
All I can say is that Gerry will thank you so much for the internet traffic here.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Mar 4, 2010 11:00:14 GMT -5
" listen to your heart more, not only your head! "
Proper scientific research is based on observable data, not judgmental decisions.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Mar 4, 2010 15:34:03 GMT -5
LOL heart vs. head! If my heart was not involved in this research I wouldn't be much interested in it. And if my head was not involved the work done would be useless. It takes both and I think I have plenty of both, please and thank you! Now back on topic... edit to add, I forgot to say, great work Bill and Thomas on finding that location and getting those comparison pictures done!
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 4, 2010 19:50:05 GMT -5
I forgot to say, great work Bill and Thomas on finding that location and getting those comparison pictures done! You are welcome and more on the Brisson hoax will be posted once I can get on my own system again. The credit for Thomas and I finding the location so easily goes to a colleague from the BFRO who Brisson had told about the Golden Ears location long before speaking to the Russians. We can only speculate that Brisson never thought that word of his alleged encounter to the Russians would get back to us and is why I felt that Igor should be made aware of the facts before embracing Brisson's story so easily and regretting it later on. While some of us have tried to establish a certain level of respect for the credibility of the research being done in this field, there seems to be some folks hell-bent on making the Bigfoot community look like nothing but a bunch of idiots and hoaxers. We have MK Davis taking a Dahinden film and mistaking it for parts of the Patterson film and making a scenario up born from a gross incompetence whereas he chose poor dark over-contrasted images to support his asinine claims. This is the same Davis who wrote an article called 'An Important Paper' where he tells of the shortfalls of such sloppy practices. Davis said it was "VITAL" when interpreting images to use the original film or a first generation copy made from the original because multi-generational copies are of such poor quality that they be deemed unreliable. We have someone like Bobbie Short telling people that the man seen in the BCM film is Bob Titmus despite being told that Titmus was a short man of 5' 6" tall ... much shorter than the man in the BCM film who can be seen against the 6'4" Green in several film sequences. On another front we have Brisson hoaxing evidence and causing people to spend their hard earned time and money for what ... so to catch some joker throwing rocks and now hoaxing pictures??? And if these things aren't psychotic enough ... there have been those who support that nonsense without bothering to get the facts first. In the case with Davis and his cult followers ... not a one of them screwballs have bothered to go look at the unedited Dahinden film in its entirety. How whacked is it to complain to be looking at an edited copy of a film and not bother to go see the entire original film? Bobbie Short claims to have info on a forensic study on the face of Bob Titmus, and yet not even her fellow Davis supporters knew anything about the alleged study. The Georgia hoax - the Brisson hoax - the moronic claims of MK Davis ... one could not intentionally try to make the Sasquatch community appear to be full of crazies than what a small band of incompetent researchers and hoaxers have done in recent times. Before all this garbage it was two guys who took a photo of a large rock seen on Lake Harrison when seen in silhouette against the sky it could look like a sitting Sasquatch. Thomas and I sat out one day to walk through their story and I'll be damned if we didn't see what they had done. Their photo was said to have been sold to the German's interested in the Sasquatch and so far we have not seen the photo turn up anywhere. When and if it does, we will then notify the media of it being a hoax as well. It is those kinds of people who have caused the intolerance level to be running so high throughout the Bigfoot community in my view. It is up to the rest of us to insist that the bar must be raised up off the ground where it seems to be lying a lot of the time these days. It should be treated like a cancer for one doesn't risk living with cancer ... they wisely choose to eliminate it altogether. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|