Bigfoot!

[gearhunter Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

I just re-read it. Now what ???

[leadvilleclimber Profile 14er Peak List (17) 14ers Skied (4)13er Peak List (8)Trip Reports]

My biggest concern is when you look at my profile that my most discussed post is Bigfoot. I also would like to see this one hit a few hundred comments.

[gearhunter Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

Chicks dig Bigfoot man. Don't fear the Squatch !!

[jdorje Profile 14er Peak List (5) 13er Peak List (7)Trip Reports]

Don't be naive. These are profit based companies. Time is money.

Didn't I mock your use of the "don't be naive" debate tool enough already?

Few people understand the difficulty of getting good nature photography.

And can't you stop using the "few people [verb]" tool also? When you follow it up with something flat wrong, it becomes exponentially more annoying with each use.

High-quality wildlife photos are taken all the time in the wild, as has been demonstrated on this thread repeatedly. Claiming otherwise is more than naive: it's incorrect.

[gearhunter Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

Didn't I mock your use of the "don't be naive" debate tool enough already?

If it helps your argument by all means have at it mate.

And can't you stop using the "few people [verb]" tool also? When you follow it up with something flat wrong, it becomes exponentially more annoying with each use.
High-quality wildlife photos are taken all the time in the wild, as has been demonstrated on this thread repeatedly.

I use the verbiage "few" because I am reasonable sure that the number of people who understand a bit about this topic is probably more than zero but far less than many, so my choice of the word "few" seemed to be quite appropriate.

High-quality photographs are taken in the wild but I disagree with your nomenclature that it is indicative of a common practice. Another poster here talked about the Frozen Planet documentary and how extremely difficult it was getting the shots they wanted. This is why an entire industry exists to allow photographers to more easily get those shots that "seem" to be taken in the wild.

Here are some excellent articles and a book about how this industry is utilized to easily obtain those natural looking money shots that appear oh just so wild.

Phony Wildlife Photography Gives a Warped View of Nature
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/nature/phony-wildlife-photography-gives-warped-view-nature

Frozen Planet scandal: Sir David Attenborough defends fake polar bear footage
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/frozen-planet-scandal-sir-david-96593

Rent-a-Wolf: Filmmakers Fake Wildlife 'Documentaries'
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wildlife-filmmaker-reveals-nature-fakery/story?id=11744728

Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom
http://www.amazon.com/Shooting-Wild-Insiders-Account-Kingdom/dp/1578051487/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265232408&sr=8-1

Now back to my original point...

If an entire industry exists and evolves around just getting these films and photos what do you really think the chances are for the average person with an iPhone are in getting a high quality picture of a highly elusive apex predator ???

If the same effort was put forth by the wildlife photography industry in actually getting high-quality film/photo of Sasquatches I am betting they might succeed. I am willing to take this bet because it in fact has succeeded in the past. I am hopeful that this documentary might actually be released sometime in the near future. I talked to someone who saw it and they claimed it was nothing short of amazing.

www.sasquatchthequest.com

[Jim Davies Profile 14er Peak List (57) 14ers in Winter (1)13er Peak List (58)Trip Reports]

If an entire industry exists and evolves around just getting these films and photos what do you really think the chances are for the average person with an iPhone are in getting a high quality picture of a highly elusive apex predator ???

Just as a guess, I'd say close to 100%, if they actually existed. You need to explain why there aren't any good pictures of this large, noisy, widespread animal. I've seen plenty of pictures of bears, mountain lions, the one wolverine in Colorado, wolves even. Why not squatches?

[leadvilleclimber Profile 14er Peak List (17) 14ers Skied (4)13er Peak List (8)Trip Reports]

As I discussed earlier, there is a very high chance that there are multiple wolverines in Colorado. Someone just happened to get a picture of the only known tagged one in Colorado. I grew up in Kansas where it was pretty common to have horses attacked by mountain lions and multiple people would see them. As mentioned earlier, they weren't acknowledged to exist in the state until several hunters dropped bodies by the KDWP and hundreds of game cam images were given to them. Now it is admitted that there are several hundreds in Kansas. I would say the chances of someone having a photo on an iPhone of something that is only visible for a few seconds is slim to none, not 100%. As I mentioned earlier, I carry a camera while bobcat calling. It takes my about 10 seconds to turn it on and focus for a shot. The longest I have seen a bobcat was about 3 or 4 seconds and took a shotgun shot. I have seen 2 of them longer than this and didn't have a camera. I also wasn't hunting and happened to catch them running across an open field.

Look at the mountain gorilla. They were thought to be a myth for years because nobody could get a photo. There is a big difference between something that lurks in the trees and something that chases rabbits in an open field. There are dozens of such large species that have only recently become reality due to small numbers, remote habitat, and reclusive nature. I grew up where 100% of the wild population of whooping cranes flew over my house 2 times each year. I have been lucky enough to see 4 of them. Those times were with the help of wildlife biologists who knew exactly where the birds were and I was able to look up at the right moment as they came over.

I am not trying to defend the existence of bigfoot but it is impossible to say he isn't real because of lack of photographic evidence.

[gearhunter Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

As Leadville pointed out there are very good reasons why something as elusive as a Sasquatch would be quite difficult to get on film but it has happened.

The Patterson Gimlim film has been criticized as being a guy in the suit but to this day nobody has shown how it was done using the technology of the time. The most in depth study ever done on the film (http://www.themunnsreport.com/) by a Hollywood FX expert has determined thus far in the ongoing studies of the film that it depicts a real living animal.



The Jacobs Photo's (showing what appears to be a Juvenile primate in Pennsylvania) were analyzed by the Trailcam maker (Bushnell) and determined to be authentic.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/3_creature_med.jpg
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/2_creature_med.jpg

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

Which brings up another point. There may be many pictures of Bigfoot but due to the constant hoaxing efforts of many people it becomes difficult to determine what is real. While many can be discounted as obvious hoaxes, some are more difficult. If people were hoaxing pictures of Wolverines I would imagine pictures of Wolverines would be called into question as well.

A perfect example is that a well-known Castle Rock news personalty was involved in a Bigfoot hoax.

[highpilgrim Profile 14er Peak List (55) 13er Peak List (33)Trip Reports]

I am not trying to defend the existence of bigfoot but it is impossible to say he isn't real because of lack of photographic evidence.

Here is all the evidence you need. I met this guy in southern New Mexico where he was on a religious pilgrimage to the petroglyphs created by his ancestors. He swears he met and partied with Bigfoot, who he described as a "Stand-up Guy". He also said he was very fast on his feet. For a really big guy that is.

Friend of Bigfoots.jpg (286.48 KiB) Viewed 295 times

[gearhunter Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

Speaking of Pictographs. Sasquatches have been depicted in rock art.

Hairy Man Pictographs (approx 500 - 1200 A.D.)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VsauqnNsdUQ/T-82XxNSw7I/AAAAAAAABLo/H5hwZdvbnq8/s1600/Hairy+Man-2.jpeg.jpg

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Mayak%20Datat%20Hairy%20Man%20Pictographs-1.pdf

[madbuck Profile Website 14er Peak List Not Entered Trip Reports]

I love the subculture and meta-"science" behind it, and the large body of "literature," where knowledge of the literature is more important currency than utility. Some people have spent years analyzing grainy hoax videos frame-by-frame. I love the "Research Articles" with lots of citations regarding tangential facts that aim to add credibility, or argumentative analogies that deflect from the actual primary argument. I love any subculture where it's cool to be "in the know" and everyone else is an idiot -- it reminds me partly of internet arguments about fad diets and barefoot running, for example. There's interesting psychology and sociology in the whole thing.

Although I'm partially mocking and highly skeptical, other than the lack of rigor in the use of the scientific method, it's ultimately harmless, and it does please me that people get an enjoyment and sense of wonder about the whole thing.

Thanks everyone for the thread, keep it coming!

[leadvilleclimber Profile 14er Peak List (17) 14ers Skied (4)13er Peak List (8)Trip Reports]

This is off topic, but I have a friend that owns 8 miles of Pinon Canyon east of Trinidad and there is extensive cave drawings in it. One in particular is of a person with extremely long extremities. Is it proof of ancient aliens or of bigfeet? There are deer in the area of the drawing. "Proof" or good reasoning of your arguement will be helpful.