Sunday, March 13, 2016

Analyzing Bigfoot

There are many out there in the world of Bigfooting that feel compelled to analyze, or nitpick if you will, every up and coming video and picture claiming to be the million dollar shot of the big man himself. Granted, most of these videos and still shots are nothing more than easily explainable phenomenon such as peradolia or simulacra, but more often than not, just an imagined shape caused by a combination of shadows, lighting and blurriness fueled by an aggressive imagination.

Truth be told, I've probably taken hundreds of these shots, and thought they were pretty good ones. At least until I was able to get them home and run them through my software to see what it really was that I was looking at. But I do have some good ones, though not definitive in their quality and thus useless as providing truth of this creatures existence. This is where the difference lies with many of us out there. Some of us will examine what we have before we present our evidence, rather than letting our exuberance rule the day and running home to post our work as soon as we can.

However, this post is not about those of us who post our own work, but about those people who post the work of others under the guise of such loosely bandied about terms as "breakdown", "review", "analysis" or other names. Usually these sites and posts, whether in video or other format, are designed to sensationalize the video itself, rather than to provide an in depth analysis of the work in question. The big question here is: is it right for these videos to be made?

The obvious response is that of course they should, its a good way to expose hoaxers and scammers. But then, are they really exposing hoaxers? Or are these analysts really just taking advantage of someones exuberance?  Granted, the bulk of these videos do expose poor examples of proof, as well as outright scams, but they also provide a reason for those who may have some viable work to present from coming forward out of fear of ridicule.

Friday, March 11, 2016

the State of Bigfoot Hunting Today

It's been over a yeat since I've written anything here on my blog, but I have been busy reasearching and trying to learn all I can about this subject. Bigfoot Tales is what I am all about, but I though I would climb back into the blogging saddle by taking a quick look at some of the trends occuring in this "genre" of interest, if you want to call it that.

One of the most, if not the most popular thing going is the much touted, as well as maligned TV show, Finding Bigfoot. They begin their next season this month by presenting a new show called "Supernatural Bigfoot. " I'm not sure as I would take the show in that direction, but as I've said before, it,s not my party.

Is Bigfoot a supernatural being? In my opinion, no. for one thing, things that are supernatural are not of this world, and as such cannot leave physical evidence. But we do have physical evidence. However, many insist that things that are supernatural can also be physical and thus there will be viewers and followers that will embrace whatever is presented as valid content.

This brings me to a second, and as I see it, dangerous trend to insist that Bigfoot is descended from the Nephilim. This also is a false theory with no basis in fact. Everything I have read concerning this theory is based upon mere supposition and cobbling together loosely connected tales and suggestions.

I have covered this aspect briefly in some of my writing and video work. Misinterpreted ancient writings are generally the foundation of the Nephilim claims. Sometime in the future I intend to go more in depth with this particular angle.

Thus far, in spite of the video and photographic presentations to accompany the claims put forth, we still have no proof of Bigfoots existence. We need to fix that, but this will not happen until we learn to take the time to analyze what is presented and filter out the false data.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

A Kokomo Bigfoot

This video was published on December 14th of last year. A Kokomo Bigfoot is a study of two newspaper articles relating the captures of two “wild men of the woods.” The first piece, “A Wisconsin Wild Man” tells of the capture of a wild man said to be about 60 years old. What strikes me about this piece is the description of his strength and the way he gets around by leaping on all four limbs, much like a kangaroo, as the article’s writer puts it.

He was nearly able to escape, but the sheer numbers of men present at his capture defeated his efforts, and he was finally subdued and brought into the jail for keeping. Ostensibly a story of just a man gone wild, demented in his own right, but there are several questions that arise that give one pause to wonder if this might not really have been an odd encounter with the Sasquatch.

The second story, from Indiana tells of a similar wild man capture, again of an older man. He was said to have a herculean physique and strength, and was found moving about on all fours, and also was unclothed. Both of these men uttered unintelligible sounds, with the only word coming from either of them being what sounded like the word or name Jacobson coming from the Kokomo specimen.

Probably just a couple of tales of strange men, but what if these were really stories of Sasquatch, or Bigfoot people encounters. They were of similar mien, and were found less than 500 miles apart, and in the same year. These two articles pose lots of questions. Maybe someone from those areas can take the research further and find some answers.

Sorry about the audio in this video, by the way, but I do need to invest in some new equipment which will have to wait. Also, the images at the end of the video are cuts of just a few of the headlines I have found dealing with the wild man of the woods enigma. Hope you enjoy, and don’t forget to subscribe, like and share if you do. And don't forget to visit Bigfoot Tales on Facebook!

Sunday, February 8, 2015

The Yellowstone Bigfoot

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything, but I'm going to try to remedy these lapses as best i can, especially in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch arena. In addition to having to work seven days a week at multiple jobs, I've also had to endure a fatal crash of my computer, resulting in the loss of most of my work. Backup will restore most of it, but it will take time to restore programming and drivers. But for now....

By now most of you have heard about and seen the many versions of the video coming from out of Yellowstone Park. It's a nice (b-roll) video, but does it really show what is purported to be a Bigfoot? In my opinion no. For one thing, if that was a real Bigfoot in the background behind the bison, the bison wouldn't be casually grazing as they strolled around.

From all accounts I have read about or seen on the tube, animals flee in terror when the Sasquatch people are in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the figures in the background appear to be more human in stature. They seem too thin, and don't appear to be overly tall in comparison to many height reports. They seem to me to fit within the parameters one would expect an average human adult to fit within.

I say "they" because it has been claimed that this is a family unit of Sasquatch. To me, it looks more like two adult couples out for a snowshoe hike in the snow.There are only a few seconds of the figures shown, bit it looks to me like the last one on line as a lighter colored jacket on, and as soon as this fact becomes apparent, the videographer zooms back out to a panoramic or wide view of the scene and we loose sight of them, whatever they are.

The usual breakdown kings and queens have all issued their proclamations as to the veracity and usefulness of this video to we Sasquatch researchers and fans,but I merely find it to be just another distraction in my search for the truth.

I've attached a YouTube video here so that you can take a quick look if you want to, but again, I find it useless as evidence, and shiws nothing Squatchy at all about the figures in the trees. Feel free to come to your own conclusions, and remember, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, bit we're not always in a place where sharing that opinion is allowed, and as always, facts are facts.