Michael Greene releases new Bigfoot thermal video

[Neognosis]

It's funny. No evidence will ever be good enough. Someone could shoot the creature and display the body and people would still insist it is fake.

What a load of crap... Thoughtful, intelligent people will accept actual evidence. But there is none. ANY actual physical evidence, or even an ecological footprint, would suffice.

I say none of you who write on here really exist. You are all imaginary. There is no proof that any of you exist anywhere.

Well, you can't prove that I am not a computer, but I do have proof that I exist and I do leave actual physical evidence. I am also a real live being, not imaginary. Therefore, I leave physical evidence adn I also make a mark on my environment.

There is a point in time that overwelming evidence in photos, sightings, and physical evidence should just be accepted.

Yes, like when people thought the earth was flat, that bleeding someone was a good cure for a fever, and that the mentally ill were posessed by demons.

People accepted Einstein as right after two labs tested his theory during the eclipse in 1919 even though one lab said they couldn't confirm his theory. To date Nasa says there have been thousands of experiments to prove his theory. Only thousands? That's 11,000+ times LESS than the amount of evidence for UFOs.

Nonsense. Eeinstein's theories (of which, I am not sure what you speak) are, to an extent, verifiable. A "sighting" does not count as evidence. There is NO evidence for UFO's (personally, I think they are possible. But bigfoot is nearly certainly NOT possible.)

It's funny that a few courts have placed bigfoot on the endangered species lists if there is no evidence that it exists. It appears there is enough evidence for a judge to make it law.

Yes, tourism is a wonderful thing for a local economy. Biologists know the approximate numbers of real species members. But they have NO data on bigfoot's population. Why? Because he is imaginary.

[T D Morris]

Well i've seen it all now this really takes the biscuit CRACKERS i think 2 white blobs in a forest whats next?

[Astute One]

Proof would be acceptable, if it wasn't a gorilla suit stuffed with possum guts, or a blurry picture.

You're comparing physical existence with theories. Just not the same at all.

More funny. Show me the physical existence that was observed during the 1919 eclipse. It's the same as the video in this thread. A human with telescope with a camera was used for Einstein. A human with a video camera was used in this bigfoot case. They both produce a physical observable image. I would say the extra piece of equipment (telescope) in Einstien's case presents more chance for error than just using a video camera. Nice try Eqgumby. Back to the drawing board.

[silentsinger]

More funny. Show me the physical existence that was observed during the 1919 eclipse. It's the same as the video in this thread. A human with telescope with a camera was used for Einstein. A human with a video camera was used in this bigfoot case. They both produce a physical observable image. I would say the extra piece of equipment (telescope) in Einstien's case presents more chance for error than just using a video camera. Nice try Eqgumby. Back to the drawing board.

But what does the 1919 experiment have to do with this? No matter what the result had been, or how badly they did the experiment back then, it still doesnt change the fact that this new "bigfoot" movie is just 2 white blobs, that could easily just be 2 people. What happened in 1919 does not make the value of this movie any higher or lower.

[Davedini]

Yep i thought it was a bear

[Astute One]

What a load of crap... Thoughtful, intelligent people will accept actual evidence. But there is none. ANY actual physical evidence, or even an ecological footprint, would suffice.

I've seen cast and photographs of footprints. I've seen photos. I've seen the videos, and I have heard the audio.

Well, you can't prove that I am not a computer, but I do have proof that I exist and I do leave actual physical evidence. I am also a real live being, not imaginary. Therefore, I leave physical evidence adn I also make a mark on my environment.

Not from my point of view. You are just as imaginary as bigfoot to me. Of course you think you are real. You consciousness is real to you. Your body is real to you, but to me, you are just electrons producing an image on my computer monitor. So, you don't exist. Can you prove you exist to me. Let's see you try. You can't.

Yes, like when people thought the earth was flat, that bleeding someone was a good cure for a fever, and that the mentally ill were posessed by demons.

Are you sure the world is not flat? Have you been in space an observed the Earth. All you know is what you see and hear from eyewitnesses and other people, on video, TV, and read in a book. Yet, you refuse to acknowlege all the other video, TV, books that show the same type of evidence for bigfoot and UFOs.

Nonsense. Eeinstein's theories (of which, I am not sure what you speak) are, to an extent, verifiable. A "sighting" does not count as evidence. There is NO evidence for UFO's (personally, I think they are possible. But bigfoot is nearly certainly NOT possible.)

Ok, how are Einsteins theories verifiable. Well, we can take pictures during an eclipse, then we can take a picture during another eclipse. Isn't this similar to taking a picture of bigfoot and then someone else taking a video of bigfoot. The bigfoot scenario is harder to collect evidence than the eclipse because we know where the sun rises each day but we don't know where bigfoot is. It's a chance observation.

Yes, tourism is a wonderful thing for a local economy. Biologists know the approximate numbers of real species members. But they have NO data on bigfoot's population. Why? Because he is imaginary.

LMAO. There are new species being discovered almost on a daily basis. So, tell me, how do biologist today know the approximate numbers of the species they are going to discover tomorrow. If I discovered a new species today and didn't harvest a specimen, you and others would say that I imagined it. Then when someone tomorrow grabs finds its tracks, you will say it's not a new species. It's something else. Then, when a guy collects a specimen, it becomes more believable. Now, what about the new species that have been recently videoed in the abyss. It's just one photo from a camera, and its a new discovery. Well, I seen a dozen photos of what is claimed to be bigfoot.

What's the difference?

Edited June 9, 2010 by Astute One

[Belial]

This video is no more proof than the Patterson film, both full of questions with no real answers to be had.

It shows a form moving in and out of the trees..........at best

[eqgumby]

I've seen cast and photographs of footprints. I've seen photos. I've seen the videos, and I have heard the audio.

Not from my point of view. You are just as imaginary as bigfoot to me. Of course you think you are real. You consciousness is real to you. Your body is real to you, but to me, you are just electrons producing an image on my computer monitor. So, you don't exist. Can you prove you exist to me. Let's see you try. You can't.

Are you sure the world is not flat? Have you been in space an observed the Earth. All you know is what you see and hear from eyewitnesses and other people, on video, TV, and read in a book. Yet, you refuse to acknowlege all the other video, TV, books that show the same type of evidence for bigfoot and UFOs.

Ok, how are Einsteins theories verifiable. Well, we can take pictures during an eclipse, then we can take a picture during another eclipse. Isn't this similar to taking a picture of bigfoot and then someone else taking a video of bigfoot. The bigfoot scenario is harder to collect evidence than the eclipse because we know where the sun rises each day but we don't know where bigfoot is. It's a chance observation.

LMAO. There are new species being discovered almost on a daily basis. So, tell me, how do biologist today know the approximate numbers of the species they are going to discover tomorrow. If I discovered a new species today and didn't harvest a specimen, you and others would say that I imagined it. Then when someone tomorrow grabs finds its tracks, you will say it's not a new species. It's something else. Then, when a guy collects a specimen, it becomes more believable. Now, what about the new species that have been recently videoed in the abyss. It's just one photo from a camera, and its a new discovery. Well, I seen a dozen photos of what is claimed to be bigfoot.

What's the difference?

There have been many arguments on scientific verification etc. Your on a path that leads to nowhere, you're logically and scientifically wrong, and the whole "prove your real, prove big-foot isn't" is absurd. As well as off-topic.

[Astute One]

But what does the 1919 experiment have to do with this? No matter what the result had been, or how badly they did the experiment back then, it still doesnt change the fact that this new "bigfoot" movie is just 2 white blobs, that could easily just be 2 people. What happened in 1919 does not make the value of this movie any higher or lower.

I see, you have an untrained eye. You see two white blobs. I see a small ape like figure with an ape shaped head with long ape shaped arms squatting near a bush. Then I see a much bigger creature move in on the squatting one. The big creature is shaped like the drawings of a bigfoot, Big head, long arms, very tall, and behaves very illusively by hiding behind the tree as if he notices the red dot on the night vision camera where the infrared light shines from. The creature appears to stare right at the camera for an instant and then steps behind the tree and investigates further through the trees. And look at the big ones head. It isn't shaped like an apes head. But hey, to you, it's just a white blob.

If this was a night vision photo of your relative on the ground and his murderer standing over your dead relative, would it still be a white blob or would you notice recognizable features as clues to the persons identity?

[supervike]

I've got to say that I know in my mind that Bigfoot is real because I've seen em'.

Odie

This reason alone is what compels me to think there is something to the bigfoot story. Normal people claim they see it. (sorry, not insinuating that you are just 'normal'.. )

But, there are so many very similar and very credible BF sightings. I know logically it makes no sense, by why would so many people be mistaken, or lie, or hallucinate.

If just ONE of the multitudes of sightings is real, there is something there.

Care to share your story?

Edited June 9, 2010 by supervike

[Astute One]

There have been many arguments on scientific verification etc. Your on a path that leads to nowhere, you're logically and scientifically wrong, and the whole "prove your real, prove big-foot isn't" is absurd. As well as off-topic.

this comment is ABSURD.

This thread is about bigfoot and proof of. So how is this off topic?

Some people remain blind even after they get the best eye care in the world. Some have tunnel vision and don't see anything around them but what is right in front of their nose and sometimes their nose gets in the way. Others just have their eyes closed and sleep, but then there are those who are wide awake and observe the world outside the tunnel and all around. Not sure where you fit.

[Stardrive]

I've got to say that I know in my mind that Bigfoot is real because I've seen em'. But this video IMO doesn't prove anything. I don't know how they can say it's the most important video since the PG film. It could be a couple people dressd up in ape suits or another thought, maybe someone was in a zoo after dark with thermal imageing cameras and filmed the apes in their encloser. Even if they come up with more proof with this film there will still be skeptical people including me in regards to this film.

Odie

I'll have to agree with you odie. For any kind of video to become "proof" per sa, it would have to be one heck of a vid, which this is not. And to claim this to be as important as the patterson film is just a marketing ploy to get people to purchase the complete vid for "only" $2. (plus shipping and handling).

[The Silver Thong]

this comment is ABSURD.

This thread is about bigfoot and proof of. So how is this off topic?

Some people remain blind even after they get the best eye care in the world. Some have tunnel vision and don't see anything around them but what is right in front of their nose and sometimes their nose gets in the way. Others just have their eyes closed and sleep, but then there are those who are wide awake and observe the world outside the tunnel and all around. Not sure where you fit.

So, when was the last time you went to the eye doctor's?

[Abramelin]

This video is another disappointment. You open a thread because 'Hey, is this it??' , and then you see a white blur what's supposed to be a BigFoot.

Why in god's name do those fat, trigger-happy hunters in North America not shoot it as soon as they see it? Oh, right, it's a protected animal.

Yeah...

Another 3 pages wasting my time.

[Astute One]

This video is no more proof than the Patterson film, both full of questions with no real answers to be had.

It shows a form moving in and out of the trees..........at best

If this was a night vision picture from a blackhawk showing human figures being blown apart by a 50 cal., would you say all it shows is a form or white blob running on the ground and exploding or would you say the picture is evidence a person being shot? Just curious.

[Abramelin]

If this was a night vision picture from a blackhawk showing human figures being blown apart by a 50 cal., would you say all it shows is a form or white blob running on the ground and exploding or would you say the picture is evidence a person being shot? Just curious.

This a night vision picture of a guy wearing a hood.

Maybe a trapper, who knows.

If you want to believe it's BigFoot, then I say it's a trapper wearing a hood.

Prove me wrong, please.

Ah, you will say the hood would not appear clear white in that pic, being cold and all that.

Well, if that trapper (or hoaxer) was roaming the forest long enough, sweating like a pig, his hood would get hot too, and show up white.

You people can find ****ing Saddam in a hole, but you can't find an 8 feet tall creature.

.

[eqgumby]

this comment is ABSURD.

This thread is about bigfoot and proof of. So how is this off topic?

Some people remain blind even after they get the best eye care in the world. Some have tunnel vision and don't see anything around them but what is right in front of their nose and sometimes their nose gets in the way. Others just have their eyes closed and sleep, but then there are those who are wide awake and observe the world outside the tunnel and all around. Not sure where you fit.

Because it's not about the topic, which is the thermal video.

You're talking about belief, not proof.

This video, which this topic is ABOUT, shows what appears to be two "primates" in a wooded area. Compelling. But proof? No.

As I said previously, it appears to be REAL, or an intentional fraud. I hope it's not a fraud...but I hoped the monkey suit full of possum guts wasn't a fraud too.

[Astute One]

This a night vision picture of a guy wearing a hood.

Maybe a trapper, who knows.

If you want to believe it's BigFoot, then I say it's a trapper wearing a hood.

Prove me wrong, please.

Ah, you will say the hood would not appear clear white in that pic, being cold and all that.

Well, if that trapper (or hoaxer) was roaming the forest long enough, sweating like a pig, his hood would get hot too, and show up white.

You people can find fcking Sadam in a hole, but you can't find an 8 feet tall creature.

The creatures arms hang down to his knees. The arm of the little one is very long also. I haven't see a human with long arms that hand down past the knees.

I can't prove you are wrong just as I cannot prove you exist. I can't prove the vid is real and you can't prove it is fake.

The amount of evidence doesn't seem to matter either as I have shown above with the UFOs. It is the perception of evidence that counts. Your perception creates your reality and my perception creates my reality. My perception of all the evidence tells me bigfoot exists. Your perception of evidence tells you bigfoot does not exist.

The question is can bigfoot exist and not exist at the same time?

Yes bigfoot can exist and not exist at the same time just like Schroeder's cat can be dead and alive at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

[silentsinger]

I see, you have an untrained eye. You see two white blobs. I see a small ape like figure with an ape shaped head with long ape shaped arms squatting near a bush. Then I see a much bigger creature move in on the squatting one. The big creature is shaped like the drawings of a bigfoot, Big head, long arms, very tall, and behaves very illusively by hiding behind the tree as if he notices the red dot on the night vision camera where the infrared light shines from. The creature appears to stare right at the camera for an instant and then steps behind the tree and investigates further through the trees. And look at the big ones head. It isn't shaped like an apes head. But hey, to you, it's just a white blob.

If this was a night vision photo of your relative on the ground and his murderer standing over your dead relative, would it still be a white blob or would you notice recognizable features as clues to the persons identity?

Or maybe you are just seeing what you want to see, and not what's really there.

[Oberon Delta]

How do they know that wasn't a person in the background.

[odiesbsc]

This reason alone is what compels me to think there is something to the bigfoot story. Normal people claim they see it. (sorry, not insinuating that you are just 'normal'.. )

But, there are so many very similar and very credible BF sightings. I know logically it makes no sense, by why would so many people be mistaken, or lie, or hallucinate.

If just ONE of the multitudes of sightings is real, there is something there.

Care to share your story?

Sure, I can do that.

It was 30 some odd years ago near Astoria Oregon. A friend and myself got up early to go elk hunting. We got lucky because there was about six inches of fresh snow on the ground. Knowing that if we seen tracks they would be very fresh. We drove up a logging road for several miles we were the first people to go up that road that day. Then up ahead we saw where something had come down off the upper bank and we figured it might have been an elk. We got up to that spot and got out of the truck and looked. It wasn't elk tracks, it was a pair of approximately 18-inch prints and a set of smaller prints maybe 8 or 9 inches long. The bigger prints were something that was very heavy. The snow was really crunched like hard ice. After the tracks came down off the bank they were making about a 2 to 3 foot stride up the road for about 100 or so feet. Then the smaller tracks disappeared and the bigger ones were taking about a 6 or 7-foot stride. We got back in the truck and followed them up the road for maybe 100 yards or more. Then the tracks headed down the bank into the woods. There was a wide spot in the road there so I pulled over and told my buddy, let's go follow the tracks. He hemmed and hawed and didn't want to follow em'. I grabbed my gun and went after them myself. I told my buddy this is a chance of a lifetime, but he still didn't want to go with me. I figured the Bigfoot (Bigfeet) had to be close and that when they heard the truck coming up the road mama probably picked up the little one and started running. I took off and followed the tracks for close to two hours. I figured it was at least 2 or 3 miles. I came to a small clearing with just some low brush in it and there they were about 100 or so feet from me. It was a mama and a young one. The mama was about 7 or 8 feet tall and the young one was maybe half her size. I raise my rifle and had her in my scope but I couldn't bring myself to shoot. I have to admit I was scared. I know I had enough firepower to kill anything in the world but still I was scared and shaking. I started thinking, what if there is more of em' and if I shot, some big rock or boulder could come crashing through the brush at me. This all happened in just a few seconds. She picked up the little one and quickly walked away. I headed back to the truck. Maybe, if Bob (my buddy) would have come with me I might have shot, it's hard to say. Hindsight is 20/20.

I've got to say up until that time I was a diehard skeptic. Before this happened, some of the guys at work would ask me sometimes if I wanted to Bigfoot hunting with them. I'd just chuckle and say no thanks, you're not gonna find anything cause they don't exist but that day changed my whole attitude.

Odie

[psyche101]

This reason alone is what compels me to think there is something to the bigfoot story. Normal people claim they see it. (sorry, not insinuating that you are just 'normal'.. )

But, there are so many very similar and very credible BF sightings. I know logically it makes no sense, by why would so many people be mistaken, or lie, or hallucinate.

If just ONE of the multitudes of sightings is real, there is something there.

Care to share your story?

Ohh man, did you have to? There is a search function.

[The Unseen]

Rats! another video of bigfoot and Cant seem to tell who or what it is.Rats and double rats!

[psyche101]

this comment is ABSURD.

This thread is about bigfoot and proof of. So how is this off topic?

Some people remain blind even after they get the best eye care in the world. Some have tunnel vision and don't see anything around them but what is right in front of their nose and sometimes their nose gets in the way. Others just have their eyes closed and sleep, but then there are those who are wide awake and observe the world outside the tunnel and all around. Not sure where you fit.

You have your knickers in a twist because you want everyone to believe any story told without question as long as it is exciting. Not going to happen. Einstein HAS been validated to an extent - have you heard of the Atomic Bomb? (His paper on mass-energy equivalence as expressed in the equation, E=mc2, suggested that minimal amounts of mass can be converted into massive amounts of energy. This idea provided the theoretical framework for the development of the nuclear bomb) Try this link to bring yourself up to speed on the works of this great man (jealous some there or what!! One of them dern book-smarrt types eh!) See also Relativity: Proving Einstein Right and LISA he was right, get over it. FTL lives only in your dreams and sci fi.

Tunnel vision is what you are proposing, i.e. this man says he saw a Biff, so he did! Anyone who does not believe him is a heretic!

As you find this such groundbreaking material, ready to reveal to the world how this creature can exist, could you go so far as to explain the claim in the OP? This is touted as the most important film since Patterson/Gimlin. Why? What does this offer as definitive evidence? In what way does it trump Bob Heironimus' effort? How does it offer superior clarity? What has been gained form this short clip?

And the thread is not so broad as to be about Bigfoot and proof of, it is about another blobsquatch that someone is claiming it to be more than it is. Just more rubbish to add to the pile, and another bullet in the minimal remaining credibility this subject has.

[xanthurion]

that could be anything that walks on two feet