Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on Apr 10, 2012 10:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 10, 2012 12:21:28 GMT -5
Unfortunately this field has that kind of 'everything is sasquatch' research mentality going on. For instance, I am very concerned what the 'Finding Bigfoot' crew is doing to how the level of research is in this field is measured. See below an image from an episode where a man and his kid claimed to see a hair covered creature moving between the trees.  Here is the same image and a quick evaluation to it being a man or something else. The first thing I noticde is the head being well above the shoulders and forward. The second thing that stands out is the color line from dark to a lighter tone like one would expect to see of someone wearing a coat and pants. (see below)  Now here is the kicker ... I feel that the man and the kid who had a good view of the subject must have seen this and for what ever reason they claimed that it was hair covered. The kid's one line answer seemed rehearsed in my opinion. The whole think smelled like a set-up. Now getting back to the footprint mentioned earlier as to whether it was a man's or not ... where was the details as to how they reached their conclusion? Boot and shoe prints leave a semi-rounded arch design with the middle of the toe line being at its highest point. And unless I am forgetting it, I do not recall there being anything said as to whether the ground should have shown signs of another print either coming to that spot or moving away from it. Other signs not mentioned were - 1) What did the walls of the track look like? 2) Was there any signs of pad flattening? 3) Which side of the track sank in the deepest - the inside or outside? 4) Were there any signs of foot flexation in the print as a real foot should bend at some point, thus leaving the mojority of the weight on a limited area such as the forefoot, which in turn causes the print to be deeper into the ground at the ball and toes than in the middle of the foot. In total there are seven things to look for and none were even mentioned that I recall. The same sort of thing happened on a 'Finding Bigfoot' episode when Moneymaker proclaimed that a heel print was from a Sasquatch over the protest of the more skeptical Ranae. Moneymaker went on to say that if Ranae couldn't tell that she was looking at a Sasquatch track, then he had doubts about her abilty to ever be able to tell the difference. Shame on Moneymaker and hats off to Ranae for standing firm for she showed herself to be the more responsible researcher of the bunch in that instance. One more example was when I was with Darcy of the BFRO one day in the Ruby Creek area and we came upon a set of tracks in loose dirt going down a hill to a stream. Because of the way the tracks were pressed into the ground in a few places they appeared to have some of the characteristics of what could be a Sasquatch track. But then Darcy went on to examine others a bit further down the slope, then there was no doubt from what he saw that the foot was made by a human. The point being that we could have stopped upon seeing the first signs of the tracks and called them to be real Bigfoot tracks, but Darcy did the right thing by evaluating them all as a whole. I wish everyone would attempt to be as thorough as Darcy was that day before reaching their opinions. |
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on Apr 10, 2012 13:52:26 GMT -5
I know that there were several instances on FindingBigfoot where they were hoaxed ... after all it is great TV no? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 10, 2012 20:55:16 GMT -5
I know that there were several instances on FindingBigfoot where they were hoaxed ... after all it is great TV no? ;D For entertainment - 'Yes'. If wanting the outside world to think Bigfoot researchers are a bunch of screwballs that think that every bump in the night is Bigfoot, then 'No'. I have heard Bobo being referred to as 'Bo-bo da'Clown'. What's next ... a grand march at the end of each episode! (sigh) |
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Apr 11, 2012 1:52:27 GMT -5
If wanting the outside world to think Bigfoot researchers are a bunch of screwballs that think that every bump in the night is Bigfoot, then 'No'. I can sense your frustration Bill. I believe, that no matter how the show was structured, believers and researchers would still be thought of as a bunch of idiots. I really don't think we can escape that. I was watching an old episode of CBC TV's The Fifth Estate with Rene Dahinden and nothing has changed. Rene, was considered by most of the population to be a crack-pot. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 11, 2012 4:33:04 GMT -5
I can sense your frustration Bill. I believe, that no matter how the show was structured, believers and researchers would still be thought of as a bunch of idiots. I really don't think we can escape that. We were starting to be seen as serious investigators after 'Bigfoot's Reflection' came out. The best we can hope for is to separate ourselves from certain factions of the community. Being over eager is one thing, but the show 'Finding Bigfoot' puts a bad light on all those involved when they can alleged a sasquatch may be just ahead of them in a dark field only to then cut away as the head starts to swing around exposing it as a horse, but yet they withheld showing it walk away as though we are supposed to be left pondering if it was a sasquatch. That kind of editing borders hoaxing to a lot of us. The viewing public that caught the edit must think that we are certainly willing to do less than honorable things so to make it appear that we know more than we do and that's unfortunate. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Apr 15, 2012 7:52:40 GMT -5
We were starting to be seen as serious investigators after 'Bigfoot's Reflection' came out. Pardon me, for being a bit off topic... My copy of "Bigfoot Reflections" arrived on Friday. I had to order from the publisher, because Amazon was out. It was extremely well done. I enjoyed hearing your MN story... I would have crapped myself. And I mean that. Nothing is more terrifying than hearing large saplings snapping, as something runs through the bush. My wife and I, were chased by a black bear a few years ago, here in Abbotsford (Sumas Mountain). So I know what that sounds like -- no foot thumping, just the snap of undergrowth and trees. But to hear definite bipedalism? That would be both frightening and cool at the same time. I envy the fact that you KNOW it exists. I wish I had that experience. Aloha, Jason |
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Apr 15, 2012 8:03:01 GMT -5
It appears that Bill's fears of the "Finding Bigfoot" sensationalism mentality are spreading... Documentary "squatchin" |
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Apr 20, 2012 13:51:37 GMT -5
i agree.
how on earth from that video, can they determine that it's covered in hair?
and the whole finding one track, that's a common theme throughout many bf sightings.
and it's bs in my opinion.
nothing that large and heavy is leaving only one print.
it's not just these ridiculous hoaxes that hurt all credibility.
to people who don't believe, or even those who are open to the idea, the absolute lack of any substantial proof after basically the dawn of time doesn't help.
and now, with all the technology we have and the increased amount of searchers, we are still no closer than when nobody was ever looking.
until it's proven once and for all, there will always be doubt.
|
|
