|
Post by Gerry on Mar 4, 2010 22:51:37 GMT -5
I could not agree more. And I have spent many years expounding such in numerous forums.And in person to any who would be open enough to listen to reason, instead of romanticizing what they consider to be actual facts. The facts available in this field are few and far between. The rest are just thoughts invented to fill the vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by Igor Burtsev on Mar 6, 2010 14:13:41 GMT -5
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. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research 1. As I was saying many times I didn't know Brisson before just met some his photos of stick structures (I'm especially interested in this phenomenon) between of others' and occasiontly was surprised with that face photos and initiated those publications. 2. I don't feel any regret; oppositely I'm happy to be ensured after investigation of the case and making aquaintance with you people and after - with him (Randy), that he has shot with not a nice camera a real sasquatch. That is all, and I'll not continue to waste time in senseless discussion, as I told before. Good luck to all of you, Igor Burtsev
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 6, 2010 19:27:15 GMT -5
2. I don't feel any regret; oppositely I'm happy to be ensured after investigation of the case and making aquaintance with you people and after - with him (Randy), that he has shot with not a nice camera a real sasquatch. That is all, and I'll not continue to waste time in senseless discussion, as I told before. Good luck to all of you, Igor Burtsev Maybe its a language barrier or something, so someone please tell me ... Is Igor, despite what has been shown here, still saying that Brisson took a photo of a real Sasquatch? If so, based on what?? It would have been nice if he had addressed or at least acknowledged that there doesn't seem to be a body under the alleged head. In fact, I thought Igor said words to the effect that he was going to address some issues he had with the Steenburg test pics. The other Brisson pic line of sight ... same body problems as before in my view. Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by princeton12 on Mar 9, 2010 15:30:28 GMT -5
geez, I've been watching this thread for awhile and as an observer, I'd just leave it as "let folks believe what they want to", and move on. Personally, I don't see any sensible reason to fake. What possible gain could there be? Put up a booth and charge a dollar to see the big stump? Photographic evidence of the big guy is scanty as we all know, though I assume we all have at least a little faith that we will someday glimpse the confirmation that our beliefs were well-founded. This doesn't move me any closer to that point.
Like most of us, I saw the Patterson film as a kid and believed it to be real. I still do, because if it is in fact a fake, at least it is a superb example of such. Enough so that it's still being discussed decades later.
In my opinion as one with considerable experience in movie special effects, graphic arts and photo-manipulation, that not only are the photos fake, they're extremely shoddy fakes at that.
Maybe I'm not making any friends by saying that and maybe I am, but that's my opinion. I'm just talking about the photo, not rock-throwing or whatever other issues that are being discussed, as I wasn't there. I would add that if I ever have such things to report that I would hope I'd be believed, as we all would....but trust is earned.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 9, 2010 22:02:52 GMT -5
This caption taken from a video shows Thomas Steenburg standing between the stump and the tree directly behind it. This is the location where the alleged Brisson Sasquatch would have been. Steenburg is just 1" - 2" taller than Brisson and we shot the video at around 64,65" off the ground. When compared to the Randy Brisson photo, I noticed that our camera was higher off the ground than Brisson's. I reached this conclusion when I saw that I was looking downward at the hole near the base of the stump and Brisson was more on an even plane to that hole than I was. It also appears that we were looking at more of the top of the stump than what Brisson was. One accounting of the alleged encounter was that Brisson heard a sound and saw the alleged Sasquatch looking over the stump. Brisson took a photo ... then changed location and took another photograph. A third photo was sent to Steenburg from Brisson showing just the stump with nothing seen above the stump. Brisson said the lone stump photo was taken after the alleged Sasquatch had just ducked down behind it. Supposedly then a growl came from behind the stump causing Brisson to make a fast retreat (presumably a couple of hundred feet back into the parking lot at Golden Ears Park and not anywhere near the vast wilderness of Pitt Lake as the Russian article claimed). Another comparison was done in relation to the size of each individuals head (Steenburg Vs the alleged Sasquatch). It looked to me that Tom's head was 25 to 30 percent larger than the alleged Brisson Sasquatch even despite the Brisson figure looking to be covered in thick hair. I tried to imagine just how much smaller the Brisson figure's head would appear if it was shaved off to the skin like Steenburg's head? I had to wonder if the lower location of the camera in the Brisson picture was purposely done to make the stump look taller than it really was?? I also had to wonder why Brisson would get scared of something that was obviously smaller than he was ... especially in light of him standing so close and taking three prior photos before the alleged growl??? Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 10, 2010 12:57:53 GMT -5
In the stump photos that Brisson emailed to Thomas ... this photo was included in the group. When Thomas pressed for information about this photo - Brisson quickly passed it off as belonging to a good woman friend he knew in Oregon. Brisson never produced her name or any information about the photo. I have placed a white arrow on the photo to show the figure of someone standing beyond the tree branches. Two things came to mind when I saw this image ... one is that Brisson had claimed prior to the stump photos that he had seen a 14' - 15' tall Sasquatch in Golden Ears Park and the other thing that stuck in my mind was that he also claimed that he didn't know anyone who knew how to PhotoShop a photo when being asked about the head on the stump photos. Obviously the good unnamed friend in Oregon knows how to PhotoShop a photo for I don't believe for a moment that someone was just a few feet away from a 15' tall Sasquatch while someone else took just one photo ... if you know what I mean. (sigh~) The other thing is that the figure seems to be standing erect like a man in a cheap costume. This means the image was enlarged and placed into the photo in my view. Others can draw their own conclusions. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 11, 2010 3:15:20 GMT -5
It has been said that the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he was wrong. Brisson seems to be trying to salvage an already sunken ship and is opening himself up to being caught in more lies in the process. In a recent Facebook post Brisson writes: "I see Miller is at it again on West Coast, What a nut, He now just understands that I took the pics from my waist area, I had the camera all ready on taking pics of the tracks there, and heard a hissing sound I turned around and saw the juvinile, and clicked the camera from my waist area, Thats why my pics show the stump a little taller than his pics, If he is so good a photography why didnt he notice this right away like the others who have studied the pics, Here is me behind the stump, I am 5. 7 and cant even see over the stump, The juviniles head was a foot higher than me about 6.7, he also pulled those branches down to look at me, He was also bent over, he left low and into the bush behind this stump, What miller and steenburg dont know is I have 2 video,s of this juvinile, so they can keep on talking all they want, They also have this called Rock throwing encounter on that site, Thats trailridders video, nothing to do with this at all. They also keep telling one of my areas, over and over again, Everyone knows you dont do that." Here is the photo that Brisson shows of him being shorter than the stump ... Having read Brisson's crap to Thomas Steenburg, I hardly know where to start with exposing this fraud! To start with ... Steenburg is only two inches taller than Brisson. Here is a photo of Brisson (far left) with Steenburg (far right) ... What Brisson has done in his photo showing the stump to be taller than he was is to be more to the parking lot side of the stump and not between the stump and the tree directly behind it. In the alleged Sasquatch photo of Brisson's, the tree behind the stump cuts through the alleged Sasquatch head, thus the alleged Sasquatch is standing where Steenburg was standing in the recreation test film we took. Anyone looking at the Brisson photo of the stump can see that it is much lower on the tree side and much taller on the parking lot side. Brisson must be stupid or think we were to try and pass off his standing behind the tallest part of the stump in his Facebook photo and not where the alleged Sasquatch head was seen. Again this can be viewed as more deception on Brisson's part for if his story was legit, then why the little slight of hand representations? And what about his updated story ... Brisson mentions that he was in the process of taking photos of the tracks when he heard a hiss that caused him to turn around and see the alleged Sasquatch, thus he says he took his well centered photo of the stump from the waist area. But Brisson took two photos of the alleged Sasquatch and changed locations ... so is he sure he wants to stick with that 'I was looking at the tracks and took my photos from the waist' story?? And what about the tracks ... In checking with Steenburg ... there was never no mention of tracks in his past discussion with Steenburg. In fact, there was no mention of tracks on Westcoast Sasquatch when Brisson posted on the subject there. There was also no mention of two films of the creature. With Igor being taken in by the Brisson image ... I am certainly looking forward to his commenting on these two films. Seeing how Igor never mentioned them so far, can we assume he has yet to hear about them either??? Below is a statement said to have been written by Igor Burtsev ... is it me or has Igor's use of the English langauge all of a sudden improved. Here is what Igor is alleged to have said about this alleged Brisson encounter: "Esteemed M-r Brisson, We, Russian hominologists, were the first to study the Patterson film in depth, and found it real and genuine back in the 1970s, twenty years ahead of the U.S. investigators. We are also the first who found Janice Carter's evidence to be real and declared this world-wide. Now we see that your photos of the sasquatch face are the best photo evidence since and after the Patterson-Gimlin footage. We heartily congratulate you on this most important achievement!!!... See More Good luck in your affairs! Igor Burtsev, PhD in Hist., Cryptosphere Fund, President Director of the International Center of Hominology (I.C.H.)" So Brisson wants to play more games ... no problem here! I look forward to going back to Golden Ears Park not 75 yeards from the parking lot and have Steenburg stand where the alleged head was once again and without moving I will shoot a still image of Thomas from the same view Brisson showed himself to be far too short to see over the stump. I mean Brisson must be whacked in the head to try and decieve people with his being shorter than the stump crap because nothing at that location has changed and can be checked. Brisson moving from between the tree and the stump and to the side of the stump at its highest point was a lame attempt of trying to decieve people into thinking that his shrunken headed Sasquatch was 6' 7" tall. And as far as giving away his hunting grounds ... Brisson had told the BFRO where his photo was taken long before I or Steenburg had ever heard about it. In fact, it was the BFRO who first showed us the Brisson photo. But so to honor Brisson's request to stay out of his prime Bigfoot hunting location ... people visiting Golden Ear's Park should not enter the trail on the far side of the West Canyon parking lot. (sigh~) Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research PS: An additional observation underlined:Brisson said, "I see Miller is at it again on West Coast, What a nut, He now just understands that I took the pics from my waist area, I had the camera all ready on taking pics of the tracks there, and heard a hissing sound I turned around and saw the juvinile, and clicked the camera from my waist area, Thats why my pics show the stump a little taller than his pics, If he is so good a photography why didnt he notice this right away like the others who have studied the pics," I would like to know how anyone could have looked at Brisson's pics and known the height of his camera off the ground without first seeing the location where Brisson was standing. In Brisson's stump pics he gives no data as to the height of the stump, the distance he was from the stump, nor the elevation of where he was standing in relation to the stump. It wasn't until Thomas and myself had actually gone there and seen the location for ourselves that we were able to assess the differences. For Brisson to say that others had merely looked at his photos and were able to discern his camera height in relation to the stump is something that just isn't believable in my view. If someone else can explain to me how these so-called 'others' could make observations without the particulars being known, then I'd like to hear it so I can learn something from it. So far ... what Brisson said seems to be based on emotion and not fact.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Mar 11, 2010 11:33:00 GMT -5
From one of the BFRO people that Brisson first told his alleged encounter to ....
"Something else I don't understand is how he knew what direction it was going when it left the stump. He told us that after he took the pics it hissed at him again and that scared him enough that he left the area immediately. He never once mentioned seeing it leave the stump. He's making this nuts up as he goes along."
Brisson has told several untruths concerning his alleged encounter. When Patterson and Gimlin filmed their Sasquatch, Roger got on the phone in Willow Creek and called for tracking dogs to come down so to find the animal again. They didn't say they filmed the creature at Pitt Lake or some other made up location.
The original story I heard right after Steenburg had spoken to Brisson was that the creature ducked down behind the stump and hissed at him which caused Randy to immediately leave the area. His current story has changed that scenario.
Brisson has now up'd the anty and said that he has shot two films of this creature which was never mentioned before. Think about it ... what individual would waste time showing the still images which are suspicious out of the gate and not want to show his two films of the animal in motion? The answer seems pretty obvious to me and it will be a cold day in Hell before anyone will ever see a real Sasquatch on any film that Brisson has been alleged to have taken.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2010 12:24:41 GMT -5
Long time lurker here. Seems like alot of energy being put to debunking what are questionable images to begin with. Whether or not these images are faked I wanted to clear up one point. It is entirely possible for some objects to change size from one shot to the next while one object remains the same size. Even a step or two change in distance with a slight change in focal length (zoom)will do this. Sending 2 photos I use when teaching photography. Don't know how to upload 2 at once so will send next photo in another post. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2010 12:25:39 GMT -5
second photo. These shots are exaggerated for emphasis. I moved more than a step or two obviously. Are the photos in question faked? I don't care because there is not enough detail to be definitive. I must disagree that digital photos cannot be of great importance to resolving the 'mystery of sasquatch'. Both Canon and Nikon offer image authentication software that is used in legal matters to prove that no alterations have been done to the original. Any Squatch hunter who is wanting to catch one with a camera would be well advised to spend some money on some good gear with decent resolution output. The gear is available that can do the job. Nikon's D3s is capable of ISO sensitivity of 102,400. Given a little moonlight, a good flash and a fast lens shooting at night is not a problem. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on May 7, 2010 14:49:14 GMT -5
second photo. These shots are exaggerated for emphasis. I moved more than a step or two obviously. Are the photos in question faked? Your example is not what we are talking about concerning Brisson's images. In Brisson's case the foreground (the stump) and background (the forest) increased in size, while the head did not and focal length cannot account for this. However, pasting an image onto a photo(s) and not increasing its size does account for it. Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on May 7, 2010 14:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thomassteenburg on Aug 28, 2010 6:19:24 GMT -5
Well it looks as though Ole Randy and Bruce McDonald are at it again. McDonald has just posted on You Tube, (Dated August 22 2010) A short video of he and another fellow, (Sounds like Randy but he is not shown) again going to that stump which Randy claims he photographed a Sasquatch a few years ago. Well that's not what got my dander up. It was the write up Bruce has posted with the video claiming the only reason myself and Bill went and declared his photos a hoax was due to the fact we are both jealous that randy was asked to appear on some documentary about Sasquatch being made by one Adrian Erickson? McDonald claims that both Bill and myself asked to on the program but were turned down well Randy was asked to appear?? just to clarify for those whom might have seen this video or who really care. Never in the 30 years of research have I ever approached or asked any film maker to appear on any documentary. I have been in quite a number of them but at all times they asked me. I have never heard of Adrian Erickson and have no idea who he is, or what projects if any he is producing. So I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that Bruce McDonald is again as usual barking up the wrong tree. I did try to respond in the comments section of the video only to find that I have been blocked by video owner. I'm sure Bill is likely blocked to. So ti looks as though the soap opera with Randy and Bruce is continuing. How sad. It is possible that some day Randy with all the time he spends in the back woods of Golden ears Park, he may indeed get a real video of a Sasquatch some day. I can assure him I would look at any evidence with out pre judgment. But I will never keep quite when I catch any one attempting to hoax evidence. Randy you need to cut the B.S. if you wish to continue in Sasquatch research or else you will end up being another Ivan Marks or Paul Freeman. Nobody will take any future claim seriously for the boy who cry ed wolf syndrome will be first and for thought on every body's mind. Bruce you need to open your eyes and stick to the facts, and never mind the wishful thinking.
Thomas Steenburg
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 29, 2010 13:22:30 GMT -5
Adrian Erickson ... who in the hell is this??? I looked on Google to see who this person is and I still have not a clue. I did see this persons name affiliated with the BFRO, thus I will use my contacts there to see if this is the person that is being referred to. If so, I will have A.Erickson to state publicly when it was that we have ever spoken. If it is the right person and I get the reply that I expect, then I will post it so to show that Bruce is once again showing that he is willing to tell a lie to help cover-up a lie.
To re-cap: I am supposed to be jealous of Brisson because he got caught ruining his credibility by hoaxing folks with his attempted rock throwing and varying alleged Sasquatch photo. It seems to me that if I wanted to top his antics, then I'd hoax a photo that was taken more than seventy yards off a parking lot and 65 feet off the road while telling everyone that it was taken deep into the forest near Pitt Lake.
By the way, isn't Bruce the guy Steenburg and Seb caught pretending to be someone else so to add support to his own video or something like that? And isn't that the same Bruce that posted that he incorporated Gabe to do an interview where lies were told to try and get back at Tom for exposing Randy's hoaxing attempts ... I think it is!
What a bunch of crackpots they are.
Bill Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 29, 2010 16:13:01 GMT -5
Below is a response posted to McDonalds Youtube foolishness. Let's see how forthcoming he will be in providing information as to just who this person is that is supposed to have been solicited by Tom or myself to be in a Bigfoot project. I personally would like to hear McDonalds allegation repeated by this Ericsson person ... or Ericson ... McDonald spelled it two different ways in the same post.
Bill Bigfoot Field Research
"Who is Adrian Ericsson ... some relation to that Gabe fellow that you (Bruce) apologized on the Bigfoot forum for knowingly getting to lie about Steenburg in retaliation for catching Brisson fabricating Sasquatch evidence?
I would like to see a statement from this person who you claim was solicited by Miller and Steenburg to be in a project on the Sasquatch. I hope that it isn't discovered that you have offered another falsehood in an attempt to downplay what Randy Brisson did."
|
|