where is just one good picture of a real BF

[onlookerofmayhem]

[Habitat]

Don't worry about, when the bigfoot fakers get to "heaven" they become the pet of a real bigfoot, I have no idea what that entails, probably best not to think about it.

[the13bats]

32 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Don't worry about, when the bigfoot fakers get to "heaven" they become the pet of a real bigfoot, I have no idea what that entails, probably best not to think about it.

Oh boy, just the other day i was reading where loren coleman back around 2001 suggested did bigfoot stats follow humans and were a percentage of bigfoot gay?

He got hate mail but it was a legit question, which puts a different twist on being bigfoots "pet"

[Agishe]

The best bigfoot yell ever

[Minimalists]

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

Back in the 70s bigfoot hunters looked like peter byrne, some cool eccentric adventurers,

But i almost spewed cola out my nose two night ago reading comments on some thread,

 

I thought dammmmmn, ( in my best will smith voice )

 

Some how thats not surprising.....

[Piney]

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

I thought dammmmmn, ( in my best will smith voice )

I met him once. I couldn't stand him. 

[Trelane]

I know I've have posted in several other BF related threads but I would like to provide my opinion here as well. The answer is simple, unfortunately it doesn't exist. As a kid growing up I was fascinated with the stories and idea of the possibility of animal like Bigfoot existing. So, as I got older I wanted to go out and see for myself.

I have gone on several trips throughout the U.S and Canada for 20 plus years venturing out into the wilderness. This has been on my own, with my brother and also during duty related "camping" trips for the Army. I have ventured into some of the most remote and beautiful places in North America. last year I was privileged to spend over a week camping and exploring near Sullivan mountain and the Salmo-Priest wilderness in Washington State. However, not once in any of these trips did I encounter anything related to the creature. No sightings, footprints, rocks thrown, growls, howls, screams, hair, scat. Nothing. At. All.

I have another trip planned this spring-summer and I will continue to be open minded while I'm out there. However, as time passes and the lack of anything mounts, I personally think the animal simply does not exist.

[DodgyDaoist]

On 13/02/2019 at 1:12 PM, esoteric_toad said:

With the proliferation of multi-million pixel cameras and the fact that virtually everyone has one, world wide no less, you would think there would be scads of decent images of all sorts of cryptids, alien spaceships, ghosts, otherworldly creatures and 'entities'. It has been disappointing that this hasn't seemed to happen (but not surprising to me). 

The problem lies in the fact that more pixels dont necessarily make for better images. The sensor and its ability to capture light coupled with a good quality lens is what makes for a decent image. Unfortunately while mobile phones might sound great with fancy megapixel cameras, if the sensor and lens are not able to capture light correctly any image or video other than basic scenery or those of peoples germ infested rug rats will be at most mediocre. Thus so many blurred or out of focus pictures of possible sightings.

While there are some amazing amateur photos taken of wildlife in general, i can guarantee that for every excellent image there are hundreds of the same image out of focus and blurry.

The likelihood of capturing a really decent image of a cryptid on the fly,  from a distance with a hand held camera is in the same range as winning the lotto if not higher on odds.

In all honesty, If you were the one to do it, would you actually put it out there considering the ridicule and hounding you are liable to receive ?  I certainly wouldnt. Just knowing that what i saw was real and i can revisit it whenever i wanted would be enough, who really cares what others may or may not think. So while nothing has appeared on the web, there may very well be images that exist that people simply have no desire to share for whatever reasons.

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, Piney said:

I met him once. I couldn't stand him. 

He might not have liked you either, i dont know the man but like some of his work, at my club i booked more major  bands than i can recall, some of the artists i didnt like but i love their music.

[Gaden]

No, it is not a picture, but it does explain why there are no good pictures, and, honestly is very much like what many of us have argued before; 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

I know I've have posted in several other BF related threads but I would like to provide my opinion here as well. The answer is simple, unfortunately it doesn't exist. As a kid growing up I was fascinated with the stories and idea of the possibility of animal like Bigfoot existing. So, as I got older I wanted to go out and see for myself.

I have gone on several trips throughout the U.S and Canada for 20 plus years venturing out into the wilderness. This has been on my own, with my brother and also during duty related "camping" trips for the Army. I have ventured into some of the most remote and beautiful places in North America. last year I was privileged to spend over a week camping and exploring near Sullivan mountain and the Salmo-Priest wilderness in Washington State. However, not once in any of these trips did I encounter anything related to the creature. No sightings, footprints, rocks thrown, growls, howls, screams, hair, scat. Nothing. At. All.

I have another trip planned this spring-summer and I will continue to be open minded while I'm out there. However, as time passes and the lack of anything mounts, I personally think the animal simply does not exist.

I understand your points, but lets face it if bf were real one guy out camping once in a while, odds are not that you would see it,

Im not buying the no pix blurry pic excuses, people get good one the fly pics of just about everything else thats known out there , something has to be there to get any pic.

[oldrover]

11 minutes ago, Gaden said:

No, it is not a picture, but it does explain why there are no good pictures, and, honestly is very much like what many of us have argued before; 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

For those who like the link. Tjere's a whole episode the Tetzoo podcast dealing with bigfoot. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

@Gaden

From your link : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

Quote

"Bigfoot tracks would be easy to find by people who know what they’re doing. If Bigfoot is super-rare (as some, though not all, proponents argue that it is), it might follow that its tracks would be rarely encountered and hard to find. That seems reasonable. But the fact is that people who actually track known animal species in a professional or technical capacity are near-universally of the opinion that Bigfoot is not a real animal: (1) they, and their colleagues, don’t find evidence for it themselves, and (2) the evidence they have seen is fraudulent or unconvincing. Note that even some of Bigfoot’s most noted investigators – I’m thinking of the late René Dahinden – never found tracks.

For a large, ground-dwelling mammal that leaves conspicuous tracks and supposedly occurs continent-wide, Bigfoot is unrealistically cryptic; if it were real, biologists would be at least occasionally finding and reporting its tracks, at at least the same frequency as they do the tracks of such mammals as wolverines, jaguars, pumas and ocelots, all of which are extremely rare and even of controversial status within certain parts of the USA. The fact that Bigfoot tracks are not found by people trained and with the expertise to do so is a red flag. I’m sorry if this sounds elitist; even if it does, that doesn’t stop it from being true."

This aspect always bothered me the most. If bigfoot was out there leaving tracks all over the country, how could it possibly be this difficult to find it?

There are thousands of qualified trackers all over the world.

Look at the extreme measures Planet Earth and other wildlife shows go to get the incredible footage they produce.

I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible, that if a real bigfoot was stomping around, that it's habitat couldn't be narrowed down. It can only cover so much ground in a day. It has to eat, sleep, defecate and reproduce somewhere.

The fact that nothing of value regarding this supposed creature has cropped up by now leads me to believe there in no bigfoot.

[esoteric_toad]

12 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

The problem lies in the fact that more pixels dont necessarily make for better images. The sensor and its ability to capture light coupled with a good quality lens is what makes for a decent image. Unfortunately while mobile phones might sound great with fancy megapixel cameras, if the sensor and lens are not able to capture light correctly any image or video other than basic scenery or those of peoples germ infested rug rats will be at most mediocre. Thus so many blurred or out of focus pictures of possible sightings.

While there are some amazing amateur photos taken of wildlife in general, i can guarantee that for every excellent image there are hundreds of the same image out of focus and blurry.

The likelihood of capturing a really decent image of a cryptid on the fly,  from a distance with a hand held camera is in the same range as winning the lotto if not higher on odds.

In all honesty, If you were the one to do it, would you actually put it out there considering the ridicule and hounding you are liable to receive ?  I certainly wouldnt. Just knowing that what i saw was real and i can revisit it whenever i wanted would be enough, who really cares what others may or may not think. So while nothing has appeared on the web, there may very well be images that exist that people simply have no desire to share for whatever reasons.

I can see your point on image quality to some degree however not completely. Even my cheepo cell phone can shoot pretty clear HD video and unless I am being careless the video is very sharp. 

Also the range of BF seems to be all over the place including close to populated areas. It would seem extremely odd that no clear video has made an appearance.

Like UFO's, it seems to me that there were many more sharp images BEFORE cameras and video because so common place. While it's my belief 99 percent of supposed pictures and video of the unexplained are simply mundane things, outright hoaxes or at the best, just unknown or unknowable. The last type provide no useful information either way.

I think if someone actually got clear images or video they'd put it it there if for no other reason than the attention social media would give it. I also believe that skeptics wouldn't quickly dismiss something that wasn't a blurry mess. 

None of this matters because there is so much more that is wrong with the idea of a giant hominid hiding out and setting leaving zero traces of it's existence.

[the13bats]

Yeah, i see that too before digital fewer but better pics with actually is a contradiction,

Last week tina snapped these walking out to her car at the college, she just pointed at shot,

Its the newest android phone,

Pretty darn sharp and clear, but bf pix are always a blurry mess back away from the camera, same with video, its a phenomenon in itself and opens the door for escentric true believers to roll out the really wild bf theories

I cant shake it especially with all the shows and bf hunters i expect a good video to pop up and it doesnt and that tells me something

[Night Walker]

[Habitat]

A Polyester Ape ?

['Walt' E. Kurtz]

There is even an australian version called the yowie funny enough The bf been spotted in Sweden, dont worry it wasn't me.

[Davros of Skaro]

15 hours ago, Trelane said:

I know I've have posted in several other BF related threads but I would like to provide my opinion here as well. The answer is simple, unfortunately it doesn't exist. As a kid growing up I was fascinated with the stories and idea of the possibility of animal like Bigfoot existing. So, as I got older I wanted to go out and see for myself.

I have gone on several trips throughout the U.S and Canada for 20 plus years venturing out into the wilderness. This has been on my own, with my brother and also during duty related "camping" trips for the Army. I have ventured into some of the most remote and beautiful places in North America. last year I was privileged to spend over a week camping and exploring near Sullivan mountain and the Salmo-Priest wilderness in Washington State. However, not once in any of these trips did I encounter anything related to the creature. No sightings, footprints, rocks thrown, growls, howls, screams, hair, scat. Nothing. At. All.

I have another trip planned this spring-summer and I will continue to be open minded while I'm out there. However, as time passes and the lack of anything mounts, I personally think the animal simply does not exist.

Though I have not been to your extreme locals camping. I have been to places where there has been reported BF for several months at a time. Few times that what seemed strange turned out to be mundane. 

I used to believe, but no longer.

[the13bats]

On 2/13/2019 at 1:34 AM, papageorge1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

This, you see an unknown creature i see a man in a crap suit.

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, the13bats said:

This, you see an unknown creature i see a man in a crap suit.

I don't know how you could possibly determine that it's a man in a crap suit. I am more influenced by professionals I have heard that evaluated the film.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't know how you could possibly determine that it's a man in a crap suit. I am more influenced by professionals I have heard that evaluated the film.

Professional bigfoot experts ?  Poor devils are starved for data, but they soldier on !  

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Professional bigfoot experts ?  Poor devils are starved for data, but they soldier on !  

These were more anatomical biology experts (not specifically bigfoot).

[Habitat]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

These were more anatomical biology experts (not specifically bigfoot).

I guessed that, but I just had to make a lame joke, didn't I ! 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I guessed that, but I just had to make a lame joke, didn't I ! 

Ya, it's hard on the internet without inflection and tone. I'm actually well known myself for telling corny jokes like when I'm at the bar.