Most avid Bigfooter's are familiar with the story told by Theodore Roosevelt in his book "Wilderness Hunter'" but many haven't actually read the entire tale. Follow along with me as I share this intriguing story that some have come to consider as a Bigfoot attack on a trapper in the wild west. Was it a Bigfoot, or was it a bear? Come to your own conclusions with this story and a little bit of the backstory behind the tale.
Don't forget to comment, rate and share, as well as subscribe!
For more Bigfoot tales: http://bigfoottales.wordpress.com/
For more Maine Bigfoot discussion: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MaineBigfootResearch/
My bookstore at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/dlsoucy
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Photo of a Bigfoot Kill?
I thought I'd share what has become my most viewed video today. I won't say most popular because it has in fact attracted the most numbers of dislikes, and some of the most acerbic comments I have read on any of my videos. In fact, this video is the main reason I simply turned off the comments of all my videos.
With over 130,000 views to date I have some interesting stats to glean from its record, as well as the ability to quantify some of my opinions regarding the Bigfoot community at large. For instance, the video is nineteen minutes long, but the average minutes per view is only 2.9 minutes. that means a ton of people have clicked onto it, only to realize that while the photo analyzed in the video is not really a Bigfoot kill. Duh, you think maybe? Common sense says that if there were ever to be a legitimate Bigfoot killing, it would be plastered all over the front pages and the evening news.
So why do we keep going to these videos expecting to see a real dead Bigfoot? Well, that gets us embroiled into a sticky situation that will just piss people off because no one likes to be wrong. That would be like bringing up a study that was done a while back that showed that the majority of people that believed in things like UFO's, government conspiracies, alien abductions and yes, Bigfoot, were all people of what are commonly termed, lower ability.
But I guess that's neither here nor there. There is a lot of crap on the internet that isn't true, and yet we continue to get suckered into clicking onto link after link, only to be disappointed with the product offered us on the other side. So what does this video have to do with all that?
Well, it is an example of the classic situation of fooling some of the people some of the time paradigm. Yeah, it's a little bit on the mystical side here, so lets delve into a little backstory of the video here.
About a year ago I got a message from somebody regarding this picture, and wanted to know if I knew the story behind it. (And no, I'm not going to name names here, so stop wondering who.) I did not know the story behind it, but I had seen it before and already knew that while it looked historical, it was obviously a fake photo.
The advent of editing software has birthed a plethora of hoax minded individuals who seem to thing that changing reality around a tad is a fun thing to do. And I don't really have a problem with that, provided the hoax is presented on the right type of platform, and done in a way that people are not so easily taken in on the hoax.
A couple of publications here come to mind as examples. One of them is the Weekly World News. Interesting rag that it is, there is no real news about it. Well, almost none. Once an incredibly newsstand product, the WWN has become just another seedy online sideshow, still disseminating the same old hoaxes packaged as real news. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that buy into these faux articles hook line and sinker. These unfortunate souls really believe what comes out of WWN is true news.
Another site, which I personally find rather disgusting, is the Ringsider Report. But at least these clowns don't attempt to deceive people into believing the crap they post is real news. They publish their stories as though it were real news, but reading the stuff they sell is enough to convince all but the numbest among us that it is pure garbage. But still people read on.
But lets get back to the video. The picture of this Bigfoot kill has been around for quite a while, and every so often gets the joy of having some hack hoaxer latching onto it and presenting it as some kind of a new historical find. Yeah, right. Except that there are a few facts that really makes me ashamed that as a group of people, we allow these jokers to continue on with hoax after hoax. What's worse is that there are more and more of us that buy into the hoaxes, hoax after hoax.
This particular photo I look at was actually done as an entry to a photoshopping contest, and as such, and in the context presented, I do not consider the photograph itself as a hoax. It is actually a historical photograph of some hunters with a deer kill. The deer was expertly removed from the picture, and a composite of some other images were inserted in such a way as to present what the editor though a dead Bigfoot would look like.
A quick casual glance at the photo doesn't reveal that it is an edited photo. However, anything longer than a quick glance immediately begins to reveal flaw after flaw, showing itself to be the false image that was created in the eyes of the beholder. But enough of all that. Let's move on to the video...
With over 130,000 views to date I have some interesting stats to glean from its record, as well as the ability to quantify some of my opinions regarding the Bigfoot community at large. For instance, the video is nineteen minutes long, but the average minutes per view is only 2.9 minutes. that means a ton of people have clicked onto it, only to realize that while the photo analyzed in the video is not really a Bigfoot kill. Duh, you think maybe? Common sense says that if there were ever to be a legitimate Bigfoot killing, it would be plastered all over the front pages and the evening news.
So why do we keep going to these videos expecting to see a real dead Bigfoot? Well, that gets us embroiled into a sticky situation that will just piss people off because no one likes to be wrong. That would be like bringing up a study that was done a while back that showed that the majority of people that believed in things like UFO's, government conspiracies, alien abductions and yes, Bigfoot, were all people of what are commonly termed, lower ability.
But I guess that's neither here nor there. There is a lot of crap on the internet that isn't true, and yet we continue to get suckered into clicking onto link after link, only to be disappointed with the product offered us on the other side. So what does this video have to do with all that?
Well, it is an example of the classic situation of fooling some of the people some of the time paradigm. Yeah, it's a little bit on the mystical side here, so lets delve into a little backstory of the video here.
About a year ago I got a message from somebody regarding this picture, and wanted to know if I knew the story behind it. (And no, I'm not going to name names here, so stop wondering who.) I did not know the story behind it, but I had seen it before and already knew that while it looked historical, it was obviously a fake photo.
The advent of editing software has birthed a plethora of hoax minded individuals who seem to thing that changing reality around a tad is a fun thing to do. And I don't really have a problem with that, provided the hoax is presented on the right type of platform, and done in a way that people are not so easily taken in on the hoax.
A couple of publications here come to mind as examples. One of them is the Weekly World News. Interesting rag that it is, there is no real news about it. Well, almost none. Once an incredibly newsstand product, the WWN has become just another seedy online sideshow, still disseminating the same old hoaxes packaged as real news. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that buy into these faux articles hook line and sinker. These unfortunate souls really believe what comes out of WWN is true news.
Another site, which I personally find rather disgusting, is the Ringsider Report. But at least these clowns don't attempt to deceive people into believing the crap they post is real news. They publish their stories as though it were real news, but reading the stuff they sell is enough to convince all but the numbest among us that it is pure garbage. But still people read on.
But lets get back to the video. The picture of this Bigfoot kill has been around for quite a while, and every so often gets the joy of having some hack hoaxer latching onto it and presenting it as some kind of a new historical find. Yeah, right. Except that there are a few facts that really makes me ashamed that as a group of people, we allow these jokers to continue on with hoax after hoax. What's worse is that there are more and more of us that buy into the hoaxes, hoax after hoax.
This particular photo I look at was actually done as an entry to a photoshopping contest, and as such, and in the context presented, I do not consider the photograph itself as a hoax. It is actually a historical photograph of some hunters with a deer kill. The deer was expertly removed from the picture, and a composite of some other images were inserted in such a way as to present what the editor though a dead Bigfoot would look like.
A quick casual glance at the photo doesn't reveal that it is an edited photo. However, anything longer than a quick glance immediately begins to reveal flaw after flaw, showing itself to be the false image that was created in the eyes of the beholder. But enough of all that. Let's move on to the video...
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The First Bigfoot Hoax Prosecution
It is interesting to see the changes that have occurred over the centuries as I research this phenomenon we call Bigfoot today. Of course, we have only known this creature as "Bigfoot" since the latter 1950's, but he has been skulking around the shadows of our imagination since time immemorial. Prior to that he was commonly known as Sasquatch by some. Other peoples have had different names, but the bottom line here is that for centuries it was simply referred to as "the wild man of the woods."
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
The Bigfoot face Syndrome
This will be the last of my Bigfoot how-to photography series. I find myself tempted to drift far too distant from my core mission of sharing Bigfoot Tales and hunts. I'm not an instructor, never have been, and have no desire to be one. So, before I get too deeply immersed in what is wrong with Bigfoot research and photographic evidence, I'll leave you with this video I did on what I call the Bigfoot Face Syndrome.
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark; part 4
In the last installment of this series, we looked at a couple of the terms that relate to our subconscious ability to see things that are not there when we are out searching for the elusive one. This is one of the greatest obstacles to providing effective data in our search for this creature we call Bigfoot. In some ways, we could even go so far as to say that our earnest desire is actually crippling our efforts to a great degree.
If you have been hooked on Bigfoot for any length of time, and if you are reading this, you are hooked on Bigfoot, then you will likely have seen hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos presented by people that claim that their particular photo or video is the proof positive shot of the truth, the image that proves Bigfoot exists.
But there really isn't anything there to see. It's just a picture of trees and shadows dotted with occasional flashes of light. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying all Bigfoot photos are made of the stuff we call imagination. I have seen plenty of good images that depict what we call Bigfoot today. There are some good photographic and video evidence that are more than compelling. But we'll get to those at some other time.
What I am saying here is that more often than not, the Bigfoot we see are mere reflections of our imagination. We see something moving in the woods, and because we so badly want to see this thing we call Bigfoot that whatever is really there becomes this creature. So, for my second piece of advice here, (my first was to try to buy a camera with an optical viewfinder), I strongly suggest that you learn to keep your imagination in check at all times.
A lot of people go into the woods and call themselves Bigfoot researchers, but are they really researchers? Not really. That would be like a casual birdwatcher calling themselves an ornithologist, in a way. You are not really researching if you are just blindly walking around hoping to stumble upon some valuable piece of evidence.
When it comes to the photographic or visual component of data, we very often make some fatal errors when we examine the picture in front of us. One component is the three dimensional, or 3D aspect of what we are looking at. When we look at the real world, we are viewing it in three dimension; width, height, and depth. However, when we look at a reproduced image, we are only looking at two dimensions, width and height.
Granted, there are cameras today that can provide us with a stereoscopic image that we call 3D, but how many photos have you seen of Bigfoot that were made with one of those cameras? I'm guessing probably none. Therefore, when we look at one of these images, whether it be a photo or a video, we are looking at a reproduction of what someone else saw, but it is missing that third dimension of depth.
Because we can only see images in two dimensions, we are not seeing what the person who took and shared the image with us, exactly. Things look flat, in a way. However, this causes us to see the image in a different way than someone who was actually there, and we can easily dismiss what we are seeing as a hoaxed photo, or chalk the image up to a fantastic imagination.
Those of us that take these pictures and share them with the result of insult and humiliation getting tossed back at us, often become discouraged and more often than not fade into the background of the Bigfoot world, if not simply exit the arena stage left. That's too bad, because many of these pictures actually do contain images of Bigfoot, even though most people cannot see them for what they are.
In the next installment we'll talk about the Bigfoot face syndrome, and how we can change the way we take and present these images in ways that will make them more appealing, agreeable, and better evidence in our search for Bigfoot.
If you have been hooked on Bigfoot for any length of time, and if you are reading this, you are hooked on Bigfoot, then you will likely have seen hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos presented by people that claim that their particular photo or video is the proof positive shot of the truth, the image that proves Bigfoot exists.
But there really isn't anything there to see. It's just a picture of trees and shadows dotted with occasional flashes of light. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying all Bigfoot photos are made of the stuff we call imagination. I have seen plenty of good images that depict what we call Bigfoot today. There are some good photographic and video evidence that are more than compelling. But we'll get to those at some other time.
What I am saying here is that more often than not, the Bigfoot we see are mere reflections of our imagination. We see something moving in the woods, and because we so badly want to see this thing we call Bigfoot that whatever is really there becomes this creature. So, for my second piece of advice here, (my first was to try to buy a camera with an optical viewfinder), I strongly suggest that you learn to keep your imagination in check at all times.
A lot of people go into the woods and call themselves Bigfoot researchers, but are they really researchers? Not really. That would be like a casual birdwatcher calling themselves an ornithologist, in a way. You are not really researching if you are just blindly walking around hoping to stumble upon some valuable piece of evidence.
When it comes to the photographic or visual component of data, we very often make some fatal errors when we examine the picture in front of us. One component is the three dimensional, or 3D aspect of what we are looking at. When we look at the real world, we are viewing it in three dimension; width, height, and depth. However, when we look at a reproduced image, we are only looking at two dimensions, width and height.
Granted, there are cameras today that can provide us with a stereoscopic image that we call 3D, but how many photos have you seen of Bigfoot that were made with one of those cameras? I'm guessing probably none. Therefore, when we look at one of these images, whether it be a photo or a video, we are looking at a reproduction of what someone else saw, but it is missing that third dimension of depth.
Because we can only see images in two dimensions, we are not seeing what the person who took and shared the image with us, exactly. Things look flat, in a way. However, this causes us to see the image in a different way than someone who was actually there, and we can easily dismiss what we are seeing as a hoaxed photo, or chalk the image up to a fantastic imagination.
Those of us that take these pictures and share them with the result of insult and humiliation getting tossed back at us, often become discouraged and more often than not fade into the background of the Bigfoot world, if not simply exit the arena stage left. That's too bad, because many of these pictures actually do contain images of Bigfoot, even though most people cannot see them for what they are.
In the next installment we'll talk about the Bigfoot face syndrome, and how we can change the way we take and present these images in ways that will make them more appealing, agreeable, and better evidence in our search for Bigfoot.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark; part 3
In part two I discussed a bit about the new wave of cameras that hit the market allowing people to take better snapshots with less skill needed. This tool loaded onto almost all, if not all, cameras manufactured today. Marketing is the driving factor, and since most people buy cameras simply to take candid shots of friends and family under many different occasions, the people part of the photography world is a main selling tactic. Better people shots means more buyers for your camera.
The end result is of course that instead of making people take the time to learn the art of composition and clarity in photography, all they have to do is push a button and the camera does the work for them. It is great for wedding parties and the baby shower, but for Bigfoot hunting, it causes no end of problems.
Time and time again we look at the digital image on the back of our camera body and are certain we are looking at a Bigfoot. The reality is of course that what we are really observing is a composite image that has been created by the software in the camera of light and dark spaces, lines and dots that it thinks is a face. Since we are looking for a Bigfoot, we think that image is a Bigfoot. If we were looking for Lizard Man, we would think it was a Lizard man. The same rule would go far any sort of anthropomorphic creature we were looking for. If it has a face, then that is what we see in the camera view screen.
The lesson here is that when it comes to equipment, whether that would be a video camera or a still camera, we really should be looking for a camera that has an optical view finder as opposed to strictly a digital screen for setting up our shots. This eliminates that tendency to over-trust the image we are looking at because what we are looking at is the real thing, and not simply that composite image created for us by the camera.
We will still see faces in the shadows of course, because our brains also come with facial recognition software installed by the manufacturer. This is where a couple of terms come into play for we Bigfoot hunters. these two terms are pareidolia and simulacra. They sound rather brainy, and in a sense they are, but they help to explain why we see the things that we see, that really aren't.
Of the two terms, pareidolia is the most used. Unfortunately it is frequently misused, misunderstood, and overused. The term has been around for ages, but for those of us in the Bigfoot genre, it came into popular use after it was used by Ranae Holland in an episode of the hit TV show, Finding Bigfoot. As in many areas of popular followings, whenever a so-called expert emits a fancy term, the adorants of the hero figure latch onto the word and use it unceasingly because it fills a vacuum in their vocabulary. Eventually the term gets worn out and falls into disuse for the most part.
So what is pareidolia? Simply put, and I won't launch into a detailed explanation here, pareidolia is the unconscious act of our minds combining various features into what we perceive to be facial, or other, characteristics. In other words, facial recognition software. We so desperately want to find a Bigfoot that we subconsciously create a Bigfoot out of thin air, sort of, to satisfy that need. We create our own optical illusions to satisfy a need. Where this term gets overused is when we look at a digital image and see these images that others can see.
This is where simulacra comes into play. Pareidolia is entirely from our minds, and has no physical representation in the real world. Simulacra, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of those images that can in fact be reproduced for others to see, even without direction. Sometimes the image is too subtle for others to see, and become critical of the image. You can take a picture of a particular image that you know beyond any reasonable doubt is a Bigfoot, but nobody else can see it. Why is that.
Well, there are a few reasons for that, and the most common reason is that there really is nothing there to see. There is no Bigfoot in the image. But you know it was there. Pareidolia is driven by our imagination, and sometimes the need to see a Bigfoot will make us see a Bigfoot when nothing is there. We believe it in our minds so strongly that nothing can deter us from our claims.
Very often, someone else has presented a picture or video of what they claim is a bigfoot, but also is a picture of nothing but the forest. That same desire drives us to see what is not there, even though we did not see it in real life, and there really is no Bigfoot in the image in front of us. How do we correct that situation that we seem to get ourselves into so often.
The best way is to make certain of what we see. If you see a Bigfoot in your cameras view screen, then you should also see it when not looking through the view screen. If you can see it in your screen, but not with your naked eye, then you are probably not seeing a Bigfoot. You are seeing a simulacra, a simulated image, and others quite likely will not be able to see a Bigfoot when you show them the picture or video.
This problem also rests in our ability to view things in a three dimensional format. Normal cameras can only perceive and capture two dimensions, width and height, but we humans can also perceive depth of an image as well. I have seen very few purported Bigfoot images that contain all three possible attributes, but there are a few out there.
Next time we'll get into a little bit more about 3D images and how that can work to help you take a valid Bigfoot picture that you can share with others.
The end result is of course that instead of making people take the time to learn the art of composition and clarity in photography, all they have to do is push a button and the camera does the work for them. It is great for wedding parties and the baby shower, but for Bigfoot hunting, it causes no end of problems.
Time and time again we look at the digital image on the back of our camera body and are certain we are looking at a Bigfoot. The reality is of course that what we are really observing is a composite image that has been created by the software in the camera of light and dark spaces, lines and dots that it thinks is a face. Since we are looking for a Bigfoot, we think that image is a Bigfoot. If we were looking for Lizard Man, we would think it was a Lizard man. The same rule would go far any sort of anthropomorphic creature we were looking for. If it has a face, then that is what we see in the camera view screen.
The lesson here is that when it comes to equipment, whether that would be a video camera or a still camera, we really should be looking for a camera that has an optical view finder as opposed to strictly a digital screen for setting up our shots. This eliminates that tendency to over-trust the image we are looking at because what we are looking at is the real thing, and not simply that composite image created for us by the camera.
We will still see faces in the shadows of course, because our brains also come with facial recognition software installed by the manufacturer. This is where a couple of terms come into play for we Bigfoot hunters. these two terms are pareidolia and simulacra. They sound rather brainy, and in a sense they are, but they help to explain why we see the things that we see, that really aren't.
Of the two terms, pareidolia is the most used. Unfortunately it is frequently misused, misunderstood, and overused. The term has been around for ages, but for those of us in the Bigfoot genre, it came into popular use after it was used by Ranae Holland in an episode of the hit TV show, Finding Bigfoot. As in many areas of popular followings, whenever a so-called expert emits a fancy term, the adorants of the hero figure latch onto the word and use it unceasingly because it fills a vacuum in their vocabulary. Eventually the term gets worn out and falls into disuse for the most part.
So what is pareidolia? Simply put, and I won't launch into a detailed explanation here, pareidolia is the unconscious act of our minds combining various features into what we perceive to be facial, or other, characteristics. In other words, facial recognition software. We so desperately want to find a Bigfoot that we subconsciously create a Bigfoot out of thin air, sort of, to satisfy that need. We create our own optical illusions to satisfy a need. Where this term gets overused is when we look at a digital image and see these images that others can see.
This is where simulacra comes into play. Pareidolia is entirely from our minds, and has no physical representation in the real world. Simulacra, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of those images that can in fact be reproduced for others to see, even without direction. Sometimes the image is too subtle for others to see, and become critical of the image. You can take a picture of a particular image that you know beyond any reasonable doubt is a Bigfoot, but nobody else can see it. Why is that.
Well, there are a few reasons for that, and the most common reason is that there really is nothing there to see. There is no Bigfoot in the image. But you know it was there. Pareidolia is driven by our imagination, and sometimes the need to see a Bigfoot will make us see a Bigfoot when nothing is there. We believe it in our minds so strongly that nothing can deter us from our claims.
Very often, someone else has presented a picture or video of what they claim is a bigfoot, but also is a picture of nothing but the forest. That same desire drives us to see what is not there, even though we did not see it in real life, and there really is no Bigfoot in the image in front of us. How do we correct that situation that we seem to get ourselves into so often.
The best way is to make certain of what we see. If you see a Bigfoot in your cameras view screen, then you should also see it when not looking through the view screen. If you can see it in your screen, but not with your naked eye, then you are probably not seeing a Bigfoot. You are seeing a simulacra, a simulated image, and others quite likely will not be able to see a Bigfoot when you show them the picture or video.
This problem also rests in our ability to view things in a three dimensional format. Normal cameras can only perceive and capture two dimensions, width and height, but we humans can also perceive depth of an image as well. I have seen very few purported Bigfoot images that contain all three possible attributes, but there are a few out there.
Next time we'll get into a little bit more about 3D images and how that can work to help you take a valid Bigfoot picture that you can share with others.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark: part 2
Last time I started talk about the differences between digital imagery and celluloid or film imagery, and why digital evidence can be a bad thing in your hunt for Bigfoot. When you take a picture with an old style film camera, what you see is what you get, but in a digital camera, you get oh so much more.
Older cameras rely entirely on optics for an image, but newer digital cameras actually have software that can enhance what you see. That is pretty cool, but the drawback is that it can lead you to believe that something is there, when it isn't. Take this picture I posted last time for instance.
It kinda does look like a helmeted foot soldier with a pike and all. Was it really there? Of course not. However, the old adage states that the camera doesn't lie. That might have been true in the old days, but not any more. Today's digital camera's are expert liars.
Software manufacturers need to sell software, and so they develop software to sell to camera manufacturers who also need to sell cameras. And the cameras that sell, are also the cameras that people want. And people want cameras that take great pictures, without a lot of work going into the effort on their part.
Of course, I'm talking about consumer grade cameras here, not the higher end prosumer and pro models. These would be the DSLR's and other cameras that capture images digitally, but use high quality optics for visual targeting and focusing.
Here is the problem with today's digital cameras and why so many people can see a Bigfoot that isn't; facial recognition software. Now, I have posted this fact on several forums with a lot of negative feedback from many of the members of those forum members. The fact is, sadly, that many people would rather comfortably rest on a lie as opposed to putting some hard labor into the truth. The facial recognition software that is in these cameras, is not the same the facial recognition software that governments use to keep tabs on us.
Nevertheless, the detractors of my point don't care about facts, so to them I say; have a good day, and goodbye. To the rest of the community, I say; take a moment and learn something new. Here is how this software works: The software contains a set of predetermined parameters that are programmed to read various signals that may indicate the features of a persons face. Then it directs the cameras focusing mechanism to focus in on that specific point of the image to develop that perceived facial feature, while ignoring the rest of the image.
In a nutshell, if a set of shadows and highlights fall together in the right pattern, your camera will show you what it thinks is a person. It doesn't matter if there is a person there or not, what matters is if the camera thinks there is a person. My advice to you is that if you really want to take pictures of Bigfoot, if your camera has this facial recognition ability, try to turn it off.
Usually, this is a basic component of the autofocus function, and you will need to disable it. However, many cameras today also have various preset settings that you can also use that will disable this facial recognition software, such as scenic view or distant view. There are many names for these various settings, and the autofocus parameters will give you a different focus perspective, but at least you will not be seeing Bigfoot faces in the shadows. Maybe.
There are some other aspects that also need to be covered here, such as the terms pareidolia and simulacra, and we'll get into these phenomenon next time.
Older cameras rely entirely on optics for an image, but newer digital cameras actually have software that can enhance what you see. That is pretty cool, but the drawback is that it can lead you to believe that something is there, when it isn't. Take this picture I posted last time for instance.
This is a bit blurry, but understandable when you consider how enlarged it is from the original shot. It is a shot taken from a long distance of an area where I though I could sense something. I could not see anything with the naked eye, so I looked through my camera's viewfinder. I could see what I thought was a whatever, but when I got over to the place I took the photo of, there was nothing there. Naturally. Happens all the time in Bigfooting.
So, as we all do, I took a closer look at home, and upon examining it thoroughly, declared this to be an image of a medieval soldier. Yah, right. A medieval in the backwoods of 21st century Maine. Take a look at this image with the requisite redlines and all.
Software manufacturers need to sell software, and so they develop software to sell to camera manufacturers who also need to sell cameras. And the cameras that sell, are also the cameras that people want. And people want cameras that take great pictures, without a lot of work going into the effort on their part.
Of course, I'm talking about consumer grade cameras here, not the higher end prosumer and pro models. These would be the DSLR's and other cameras that capture images digitally, but use high quality optics for visual targeting and focusing.
Here is the problem with today's digital cameras and why so many people can see a Bigfoot that isn't; facial recognition software. Now, I have posted this fact on several forums with a lot of negative feedback from many of the members of those forum members. The fact is, sadly, that many people would rather comfortably rest on a lie as opposed to putting some hard labor into the truth. The facial recognition software that is in these cameras, is not the same the facial recognition software that governments use to keep tabs on us.
Nevertheless, the detractors of my point don't care about facts, so to them I say; have a good day, and goodbye. To the rest of the community, I say; take a moment and learn something new. Here is how this software works: The software contains a set of predetermined parameters that are programmed to read various signals that may indicate the features of a persons face. Then it directs the cameras focusing mechanism to focus in on that specific point of the image to develop that perceived facial feature, while ignoring the rest of the image.
In a nutshell, if a set of shadows and highlights fall together in the right pattern, your camera will show you what it thinks is a person. It doesn't matter if there is a person there or not, what matters is if the camera thinks there is a person. My advice to you is that if you really want to take pictures of Bigfoot, if your camera has this facial recognition ability, try to turn it off.
Usually, this is a basic component of the autofocus function, and you will need to disable it. However, many cameras today also have various preset settings that you can also use that will disable this facial recognition software, such as scenic view or distant view. There are many names for these various settings, and the autofocus parameters will give you a different focus perspective, but at least you will not be seeing Bigfoot faces in the shadows. Maybe.
There are some other aspects that also need to be covered here, such as the terms pareidolia and simulacra, and we'll get into these phenomenon next time.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Bigfoot Faces in the Dark
There are a good many Bigfooters out there that have yet to see a real live, in the flesh Sasquatch, in spite of their earnest desire to have an encounter of their own. The vast majority of the worlds population will never even have an encounter. Those of us that have had an encounter usually have it as a matter of chance.
Perhaps we had never even heard of Bigfoot before, and saw a strange looking animal on the roadside, unsure of what we were seeing, and to a point even disbelieving the event. After all, for most of us, we don't even know what a Bigfoot looks like. But when we have that first encounter, and finally come to the realization that it was real, and we really did see something that is considered to be a cryptid life form, we become hooked for life.
Sometimes it takes years for us to really get into the meat of the subject for varying reasons, but sooner or later, we do, and we start spending more and more time in the woods searching for this elusive hairy man of the woods. But we often feel the need to share our experiences, and so we start buying equipment. Rudimentary efforts usually start with a cell phone. Maybe we splurge and get that fancy fifty dollar digital camera that does both still shots and videos.
But no matter the pathway you take, all roads lead to the necessity of sharing your time in the woods in a pictorial manner. This is a good thing because it provides a platform with which to share evidence by way of visual data This data is easy to share, inexpensive, for the most part, and can be transferred from person to person easily over the internet. But there are problems that arise with the use of this newer digital technology.
In the days of celluloid film imagery, the film had to be developed, and took days to mail to other researchers instead of through the seemingly instantaneous process we use today. But the imagery we obtained as evidence in those days was much more secure, and much more valid than todays digital files are. The biggest reason the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty the Bigfoot has retained such authority is because it is in fact a celluloid production. The pictures we see in the film are just that, a series of optical images that in its original state, cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is. And that is a bipedal creature covered with hair, apparently female, striding into the woods beside a river.
Of course, there is much argument and speculation over what that creature is, and whether it is a real animal, or a man in a suit. But we cannot argue that the film does indeed show a bipedal creature walking away from Roger Patterson as he films it. It is unquestionably a real film.
We can fast forward through the decades intervening between that day in 1967 to today, and observe the rapid growth of available Bigfoot imagery, and we can also observe the rapid growth of the plethora of Bigfoot imagery that isn't. And that, in itself, is where the greater part of dissension in the greater Bigfoot community lies. The now perennial question of; is it a Bigfoot, or isn't it?
That's the problem with Bigfoot hunting today. We present pictorial evidence, but the vast majority of these pictures and video become discredited, outright rejected, manipulated, and turned into so much rubbish. After all, if we see a Bigfoot in the brush, and take a picture of it, shouldn't everyone else see the same Bigfoot in the brush? I mean, it's right there behind that bush, you can plainly see its leg sticking out. Um..., yeah, sure it is. And that Bigfoot is sitting on a pink unicorn too.
Why is it that we can take a picture of a Bigfoot and not have anyone else see it in our photograph or video? That's a good question, and we'll tackle that in our next Bigfoot Tales blog post.
This is a picture I took of something I saw while on a Bigfoot excursion. I have circled the area and placed an arrow to point out the thing I saw for you.
Perhaps we had never even heard of Bigfoot before, and saw a strange looking animal on the roadside, unsure of what we were seeing, and to a point even disbelieving the event. After all, for most of us, we don't even know what a Bigfoot looks like. But when we have that first encounter, and finally come to the realization that it was real, and we really did see something that is considered to be a cryptid life form, we become hooked for life.
Sometimes it takes years for us to really get into the meat of the subject for varying reasons, but sooner or later, we do, and we start spending more and more time in the woods searching for this elusive hairy man of the woods. But we often feel the need to share our experiences, and so we start buying equipment. Rudimentary efforts usually start with a cell phone. Maybe we splurge and get that fancy fifty dollar digital camera that does both still shots and videos.
But no matter the pathway you take, all roads lead to the necessity of sharing your time in the woods in a pictorial manner. This is a good thing because it provides a platform with which to share evidence by way of visual data This data is easy to share, inexpensive, for the most part, and can be transferred from person to person easily over the internet. But there are problems that arise with the use of this newer digital technology.
In the days of celluloid film imagery, the film had to be developed, and took days to mail to other researchers instead of through the seemingly instantaneous process we use today. But the imagery we obtained as evidence in those days was much more secure, and much more valid than todays digital files are. The biggest reason the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty the Bigfoot has retained such authority is because it is in fact a celluloid production. The pictures we see in the film are just that, a series of optical images that in its original state, cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is. And that is a bipedal creature covered with hair, apparently female, striding into the woods beside a river.
Of course, there is much argument and speculation over what that creature is, and whether it is a real animal, or a man in a suit. But we cannot argue that the film does indeed show a bipedal creature walking away from Roger Patterson as he films it. It is unquestionably a real film.
We can fast forward through the decades intervening between that day in 1967 to today, and observe the rapid growth of available Bigfoot imagery, and we can also observe the rapid growth of the plethora of Bigfoot imagery that isn't. And that, in itself, is where the greater part of dissension in the greater Bigfoot community lies. The now perennial question of; is it a Bigfoot, or isn't it?
That's the problem with Bigfoot hunting today. We present pictorial evidence, but the vast majority of these pictures and video become discredited, outright rejected, manipulated, and turned into so much rubbish. After all, if we see a Bigfoot in the brush, and take a picture of it, shouldn't everyone else see the same Bigfoot in the brush? I mean, it's right there behind that bush, you can plainly see its leg sticking out. Um..., yeah, sure it is. And that Bigfoot is sitting on a pink unicorn too.
Why is it that we can take a picture of a Bigfoot and not have anyone else see it in our photograph or video? That's a good question, and we'll tackle that in our next Bigfoot Tales blog post.
This is a picture I took of something I saw while on a Bigfoot excursion. I have circled the area and placed an arrow to point out the thing I saw for you.
This following image is a blown up section of that area in the red circle. In it you can almost make out the image of what looks like a person, with its left arm sort of bent over its front abdomen area. Is this a Bigfoot? No, it is not. What is it? Well, tune in next time to find out.
Until then, thanks for watchin', and keep on Squatchin'!
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Could Bigfoot Be Human
In my latest book, Could Bigfoot Be Human, I take a concerted look at the possible human connections we may have with this creature we call Bigfoot today. Many is the theory positing what tis creature may be, with claims stretching from it being wholly human, wholly ape, some sort of "manster" or even a disembodied alien from a distant galaxy. So what is this thing that inhabits the dark recesses of the forests around us?
Nobody knows for sure, and in fact, not one person has been able to present a body, nor any other fully acceptable and definitive shred of evidence to prove this thing even exists. The human aspect is just one theory, and few people have given it any serious examination, for many reasons. The DNA puzzle is the main progenitor of controversy in this angle of research, but this is simply because we really do not have a complete grasp of what DNA is and how it works.
We think that because we share genetic material with the monkey world then we must be related, but this is sheer nonsense. DNA are the nuts and bolts of biological matter that makes the creature what it is, whether that be human, ape, or even a gerbil. DNA are a kind of signal that instructs all of the non-DNA parts of the body in how they are supposed to grow and behave. They make us look like we do, and work in the ways that we work. Nothing more than that folks. There is no magical link that proves that we are related to the monkey families. But that's an argument for another day.
Getting back to my book, I start out by examining a bit of philosophy surrounding this enigma, and look at where the legends of Bigfoot came from. The book is full of foot notes and illustrations that chronicle the legend of this creature under the many different names he has held since the early post deluge age. Nearly every culture through history has some sort of reference to what has been called, until recently, this hairy man of the woods. Sometimes wild man of the woods would suffice, but the reference always included "man of the woods" consistently describing a man or manlike creature that subsisted wholly of the sylvan world. These creatures, or people, if you will, lived, breathed, ate, drank, slept, played, and surrounded themselves in a culture of bare existence entirely reliant upon there woods skills and habitat.
Does my book prove that Bigfoot is human? Not beyond doubt, but it does lend a lot of weight to the argument. Anything bigfoot can do, we can do. They look the same as us, just a little bigger and hairier, but is that so unusual? Not really, and as evidence I look at the lines of various indigenous peoples from around the world that may share some of these same attributes.
While not wholly conclusive, and it wasn't designed to be, if you have been sitting on the fence waffling between the human or ape position, this book just may help you make the decision that Bigfoot is indeed a human, albeit a little bigger and harrier than you and I are.
Get it now at my bookstore, or shop online at Amazon of Barnes & Noble.
Could Bigfoot be Human?
By D.L. Soucy
Paperback,
208 Pages
Could Bigfoot be Human?
Nobody knows for sure, and in fact, not one person has been able to present a body, nor any other fully acceptable and definitive shred of evidence to prove this thing even exists. The human aspect is just one theory, and few people have given it any serious examination, for many reasons. The DNA puzzle is the main progenitor of controversy in this angle of research, but this is simply because we really do not have a complete grasp of what DNA is and how it works.
We think that because we share genetic material with the monkey world then we must be related, but this is sheer nonsense. DNA are the nuts and bolts of biological matter that makes the creature what it is, whether that be human, ape, or even a gerbil. DNA are a kind of signal that instructs all of the non-DNA parts of the body in how they are supposed to grow and behave. They make us look like we do, and work in the ways that we work. Nothing more than that folks. There is no magical link that proves that we are related to the monkey families. But that's an argument for another day.
Getting back to my book, I start out by examining a bit of philosophy surrounding this enigma, and look at where the legends of Bigfoot came from. The book is full of foot notes and illustrations that chronicle the legend of this creature under the many different names he has held since the early post deluge age. Nearly every culture through history has some sort of reference to what has been called, until recently, this hairy man of the woods. Sometimes wild man of the woods would suffice, but the reference always included "man of the woods" consistently describing a man or manlike creature that subsisted wholly of the sylvan world. These creatures, or people, if you will, lived, breathed, ate, drank, slept, played, and surrounded themselves in a culture of bare existence entirely reliant upon there woods skills and habitat.
Does my book prove that Bigfoot is human? Not beyond doubt, but it does lend a lot of weight to the argument. Anything bigfoot can do, we can do. They look the same as us, just a little bigger and hairier, but is that so unusual? Not really, and as evidence I look at the lines of various indigenous peoples from around the world that may share some of these same attributes.
While not wholly conclusive, and it wasn't designed to be, if you have been sitting on the fence waffling between the human or ape position, this book just may help you make the decision that Bigfoot is indeed a human, albeit a little bigger and harrier than you and I are.
Get it now at my bookstore, or shop online at Amazon of Barnes & Noble.
Could Bigfoot be Human?
By D.L. Soucy
Paperback,
208 Pages
Product Details
- ISBN: 9781304718723
- Copyright :D.L. Soucy (Standard Copyright License)
- Publisher: Bigfoot Tales
- Published: February 11, 2014
- Language: English
- Pages: 208
- Binding: Perfect-bound Paperback
- Interior Ink: Black & white
- Weight: 0.81 lbs.
- Dimensions (inches): 6 wide x 9 tall
Monday, April 14, 2014
A Lumbercamp Bigfoot Kill
This story is a fictionalized story from one of C.A. Stevens' young adult series, The Knockabout Club, written in the latter half of the 19th century. This one in particular is from the book title The Adventures of Six Young Men in the Woods of Maine. Rather a long title, but that seems to be normal for those days. The book describes the journey of six young men as they travel through the backwoods of Maine into Canada and back into the Aroostook region with a guide named Nugent.
At one particular place, and old abandoned lumber camp, they decide to camp for the night, and Nugent tells them the tale of why the camp was considered to be haunted. The story was subtitled, the Woods Demon. In a nutshell, back in the early 1800s a lumber crew of twenty plus men were there one winter, and had some problems with not a four legged critter, but a two legged one. While the story itself was presented as pure fiction by Stevens, I can't help but wonder if this not really a story telling of an actual Bigfoot encounter, resulting in the creatures death.
Stevens describes the woods demon as being bipedal, giant in size, covered with hair, the hair on its head being pulled into a frightful tuft, which could have been a way to describe a coned shape or sagittal crest, brown skinned, strong enough to wrench a log door held together by clinched spikes, and unable to communicate with speech, although it uttered garbled sounds.
Not your normal human being in any way, is it? Here they were, in the dead of winter, and this bipedal, manlike creature was about with no clothes save a loosely wrapped bearskin and skins tied around its feet. At that time of year it can get to 40 below on some nights.
So, enjoy the video, and come to your own conclusions, as always, and don't forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more Bigfoot Tales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5-xSZM4PLA&list=UU2SWNa9SF0eogNXDISPdKNg&feature=share
At one particular place, and old abandoned lumber camp, they decide to camp for the night, and Nugent tells them the tale of why the camp was considered to be haunted. The story was subtitled, the Woods Demon. In a nutshell, back in the early 1800s a lumber crew of twenty plus men were there one winter, and had some problems with not a four legged critter, but a two legged one. While the story itself was presented as pure fiction by Stevens, I can't help but wonder if this not really a story telling of an actual Bigfoot encounter, resulting in the creatures death.
Stevens describes the woods demon as being bipedal, giant in size, covered with hair, the hair on its head being pulled into a frightful tuft, which could have been a way to describe a coned shape or sagittal crest, brown skinned, strong enough to wrench a log door held together by clinched spikes, and unable to communicate with speech, although it uttered garbled sounds.
Not your normal human being in any way, is it? Here they were, in the dead of winter, and this bipedal, manlike creature was about with no clothes save a loosely wrapped bearskin and skins tied around its feet. At that time of year it can get to 40 below on some nights.
So, enjoy the video, and come to your own conclusions, as always, and don't forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more Bigfoot Tales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5-xSZM4PLA&list=UU2SWNa9SF0eogNXDISPdKNg&feature=share
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Are All Bigfooter's Liars?
Once again we come to a point in the cycle of evidence presented to the public that suggests definitive proof of the existence of what we call Bigfoot today. And of course, most of the evidence is either flawed, misrepresented, or downright fabricated with an intent to defraud the viewer. Over the last few days we have seen a couple of new, sort of, images and videos accompanied by claims of visual proof that we just cannot argue with. The presenters suggest that the images are real, and since they are real, they are above reproach.
A couple of cases in point include one from Down-Under that present to us a Yowie in the raw,and another image that asks if the whatever they are in the image are three Bigfoot hiding in a cave.
The first one, referred to in this Daily Mail article shares the story from a couple of Yowie researchers know as "J&J Yowie Research" presents an image captured by an infrared game camera. It shows what they call irrefutable proof of a Yowie. I'm not so convinced, and given that these guys have a reputation in Australia as being a sort of Rick Dyeresque team, I question the evidence. Upon closer examination,it appears to me as though what we see is an image of a hand holding something wrapped in cloth, being waved around by a human being. Pictures number 2 and 3 of their slide show clearly show what could be four fingers of a left hand, with a reflection from a ring worn on one finger. Viewing the video, as the object turns to shows what may be a thumb.
Are they liars? My take on what I see in the video is that they may well be. The problem here is, are they deliberately making a video for the purposes of hoaxing the public into believing the video is of a real Yowie? Or, are they merely presenting a video and interpreting it as a Yowie? I haven't met them, so I have no idea and cannot make that determination fairly, but what I can say is that my belief is that this video does not present an image of a Yowie.
Do Yowies exist? As certainly as Bigfoot exists, I would say extends to the existence of the Yowie. Here is a link to a good video of an encounter by some other people. http://youtu.be/RSvcg80hyGY
A second image has come to the forefront in recent days that shows what the presenter claims may be three Bigfoot hiding in a cave. You can see three figures that appear to have glowing eyes. We tend to call that eyeshine, and many aficionados claim that Bigfoot have the power to make their eyes glow. I don't agree with that presumption, and no one has presented empirical proof that these beings actually have this power.
But at any rate, this image, which you can see here at Bigfoot Evidence, is pretty interesting,and at first glance definitely shows the three figure, with glowing eyes. However, upon downloading the image and working with it in my photo software, it seems as though these are not Bigfoot, but three owls of some sort. I won't bother with the details, but again, the question is asked, are these people liars?
Again, hard to tell since I have no acquaintance with them. However, to get back to the original intent of this post, are all Bigfooters liars? One would easily make the presumption that we seem to be, but this is not the case. Many time the error in presentation is not an outright lie, but a misinterpretation of the data presented. More often than not, our zeal to have the proof the world desires is so great, we simply bow under the pressure to be the one to present the long sought after irrefutable proof.
Unfortunately, we also have to suffer the multitude of people who present evidence that is not really investigated, as well as those that fabricate evidence to either gain acceptance, or to simply have a little fun making us look like fools.
Habituators are probably one of the, if not the most prolific sub groups presenting false information under the guise of evidence. While there are some that may indeed be having interactions with one or more of these beings, provided they are real in the first place, my feeling is that the majority of them are either living in a world of imagination, or they are playing games with us.
The inability, or simply the unwillingness of the rest of the greater world of Bigfooters to demand physical evidence beyond videos which are easily created and falsely made enables this sort of behavior to flourish. Instead of being able to conduct real research and investigation into this phenomenon, we are obstructed with a need to take people at their word, and as such prohibited from coming to any valid conclusions,
Are these people liars? Many are, and in fact I'll step out on a limb and suggest that probably the vast majority of them are. This statement will probably make some enemies, but as for me, I am more interested in finding the truth than I am in making faux friends over the internet. Are we all liars? Not at all, but unfortunately, we must deal with the stigma of those that are, and hopefully enough of us will arrive at that place that requires us to start calling a liar a liar, and begin to present the truth of this matter concerning what we today call a Bigfoot.
Maybe the truth is that there is no Bigfoot, maybe not, but until we start getting serious about the subject, we will never know for sure.
A couple of cases in point include one from Down-Under that present to us a Yowie in the raw,and another image that asks if the whatever they are in the image are three Bigfoot hiding in a cave.
The first one, referred to in this Daily Mail article shares the story from a couple of Yowie researchers know as "J&J Yowie Research" presents an image captured by an infrared game camera. It shows what they call irrefutable proof of a Yowie. I'm not so convinced, and given that these guys have a reputation in Australia as being a sort of Rick Dyeresque team, I question the evidence. Upon closer examination,it appears to me as though what we see is an image of a hand holding something wrapped in cloth, being waved around by a human being. Pictures number 2 and 3 of their slide show clearly show what could be four fingers of a left hand, with a reflection from a ring worn on one finger. Viewing the video, as the object turns to shows what may be a thumb.
Are they liars? My take on what I see in the video is that they may well be. The problem here is, are they deliberately making a video for the purposes of hoaxing the public into believing the video is of a real Yowie? Or, are they merely presenting a video and interpreting it as a Yowie? I haven't met them, so I have no idea and cannot make that determination fairly, but what I can say is that my belief is that this video does not present an image of a Yowie.
Do Yowies exist? As certainly as Bigfoot exists, I would say extends to the existence of the Yowie. Here is a link to a good video of an encounter by some other people. http://youtu.be/RSvcg80hyGY
A second image has come to the forefront in recent days that shows what the presenter claims may be three Bigfoot hiding in a cave. You can see three figures that appear to have glowing eyes. We tend to call that eyeshine, and many aficionados claim that Bigfoot have the power to make their eyes glow. I don't agree with that presumption, and no one has presented empirical proof that these beings actually have this power.
But at any rate, this image, which you can see here at Bigfoot Evidence, is pretty interesting,and at first glance definitely shows the three figure, with glowing eyes. However, upon downloading the image and working with it in my photo software, it seems as though these are not Bigfoot, but three owls of some sort. I won't bother with the details, but again, the question is asked, are these people liars?
Again, hard to tell since I have no acquaintance with them. However, to get back to the original intent of this post, are all Bigfooters liars? One would easily make the presumption that we seem to be, but this is not the case. Many time the error in presentation is not an outright lie, but a misinterpretation of the data presented. More often than not, our zeal to have the proof the world desires is so great, we simply bow under the pressure to be the one to present the long sought after irrefutable proof.
Unfortunately, we also have to suffer the multitude of people who present evidence that is not really investigated, as well as those that fabricate evidence to either gain acceptance, or to simply have a little fun making us look like fools.
Habituators are probably one of the, if not the most prolific sub groups presenting false information under the guise of evidence. While there are some that may indeed be having interactions with one or more of these beings, provided they are real in the first place, my feeling is that the majority of them are either living in a world of imagination, or they are playing games with us.
The inability, or simply the unwillingness of the rest of the greater world of Bigfooters to demand physical evidence beyond videos which are easily created and falsely made enables this sort of behavior to flourish. Instead of being able to conduct real research and investigation into this phenomenon, we are obstructed with a need to take people at their word, and as such prohibited from coming to any valid conclusions,
Are these people liars? Many are, and in fact I'll step out on a limb and suggest that probably the vast majority of them are. This statement will probably make some enemies, but as for me, I am more interested in finding the truth than I am in making faux friends over the internet. Are we all liars? Not at all, but unfortunately, we must deal with the stigma of those that are, and hopefully enough of us will arrive at that place that requires us to start calling a liar a liar, and begin to present the truth of this matter concerning what we today call a Bigfoot.
Maybe the truth is that there is no Bigfoot, maybe not, but until we start getting serious about the subject, we will never know for sure.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Was Pomoola A Bigfoot
In my travels through the folklore of Maine's past, I have repeatedly come upon stories and references to the Indian figure known as Pomoola, or more often in the past, Pamola. They have different spellings, but they are the same creature. One problem I encounter as well is the many different forms this creature has taken.
The more popular description paints Pomoola as a cat sort of creature, often compared to the eastern cougar that once populated the state in large numbers. Numbers large enough whereby once upon a time, if you wanted to go big cat hunting, you could do so with great success, provided of course you had the fortitude to carry through with your task. There are more than a few indications that this Pomoola may have even been, in early time, taken as a saber tooth tiger. The saber tooth, of course, was not a tiger, but was a member of the cougar family.
This can be seen in the size of the fossil skull finds of this now extinct creature. One problem is, just how long ago did this creature become extinct. archeologists and anthropologists alike claim that this creature died out some six million years ago. But is this true? It could be, but then how do we explain the legends that speak of the aboriginal settlers of this continents encounters with a big cat that matches the description of what the saber tooth would have looked like.
This first video, Was Pomoola A Sabertooth, describes one such legend that shares the story of how Sol Sockalexis came into possession of an eight inch long blackened tooth from one of these creatures that was killed by a lightening strike, not six million years ago, but in 1823.
http://youtu.be/-5lNJ1-4gTw
Now that we have this legend in hand, let's take a look at another recently derived legend that hails from a New York Times article from 1913. In this story, Pomoola takes the shape of a bipedal creature that lives in a cave found, supposedly, near the top of Mount Katahdin. this version of the mythological character resembles a giant human like being, that is able to converse with the Indians, and lives with his wife and children, surrounded by the trappings of an all too human like abode filled with foodstuffs and other products found useful in daily life. The description given here is akin to that which we all too often find is a description of what we call a Bigfoot today. Follow along with Bigfoot Tales as we share the story, and come to your own conclusions as to what the legend of Pomoola may be based upon.
http://youtu.be/EuN1eqeBi44
The more popular description paints Pomoola as a cat sort of creature, often compared to the eastern cougar that once populated the state in large numbers. Numbers large enough whereby once upon a time, if you wanted to go big cat hunting, you could do so with great success, provided of course you had the fortitude to carry through with your task. There are more than a few indications that this Pomoola may have even been, in early time, taken as a saber tooth tiger. The saber tooth, of course, was not a tiger, but was a member of the cougar family.
This can be seen in the size of the fossil skull finds of this now extinct creature. One problem is, just how long ago did this creature become extinct. archeologists and anthropologists alike claim that this creature died out some six million years ago. But is this true? It could be, but then how do we explain the legends that speak of the aboriginal settlers of this continents encounters with a big cat that matches the description of what the saber tooth would have looked like.
This first video, Was Pomoola A Sabertooth, describes one such legend that shares the story of how Sol Sockalexis came into possession of an eight inch long blackened tooth from one of these creatures that was killed by a lightening strike, not six million years ago, but in 1823.
http://youtu.be/-5lNJ1-4gTw
Now that we have this legend in hand, let's take a look at another recently derived legend that hails from a New York Times article from 1913. In this story, Pomoola takes the shape of a bipedal creature that lives in a cave found, supposedly, near the top of Mount Katahdin. this version of the mythological character resembles a giant human like being, that is able to converse with the Indians, and lives with his wife and children, surrounded by the trappings of an all too human like abode filled with foodstuffs and other products found useful in daily life. The description given here is akin to that which we all too often find is a description of what we call a Bigfoot today. Follow along with Bigfoot Tales as we share the story, and come to your own conclusions as to what the legend of Pomoola may be based upon.
http://youtu.be/EuN1eqeBi44
About Bigfoot Tales & Folklore
Hi folks!
Just wanted to take a moment to introduce the new home of My Bigfoot Tales blogsite. I've been doing Bigfoot Tales for quite some time over at Wordpress, but it doesn't quite cut it, and I wanted to develop a more concise platform for my folklore and woods-lore research and material.
I hope you'll enjoy the new site, and I will begin loading it up with all sorts of Bigfoot knowledge and stories. Until then, happy Squatching!
Just wanted to take a moment to introduce the new home of My Bigfoot Tales blogsite. I've been doing Bigfoot Tales for quite some time over at Wordpress, but it doesn't quite cut it, and I wanted to develop a more concise platform for my folklore and woods-lore research and material.
I hope you'll enjoy the new site, and I will begin loading it up with all sorts of Bigfoot knowledge and stories. Until then, happy Squatching!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)