Here's a link to a September 2nd event in New Mexico that sounds like a fun time for all...
http://krqe.com/2017/08/29/normally-elusive-big-foot-is-guest-of-honor-at-jemez-village-bbq/
Showing posts with label Sasquatch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sasquatch. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
The Jemez Springs Bigfoot Barbeque
Monday, July 14, 2014
Romance and Reality of the Wild Man
In this video we look at an article from 1908 that looks at the then popular legends of what were called wild men of the woods. Many times the descriptions of these wild men seem rather more like what we call a Bigfoot today, and I have to wonder, home many of these wild men tales are actually encounters with the Sasquatch of North America?
Follow along as we look at and discuss the history of these sightings and the world of the search for the wild man of the woods from the turn of the century viewpoint...
Don't forget to subscribe, and visit Bigfoot Tales at Facebook, and like the page. That platform will be the place to leave comments and ask questions.
Follow along as we look at and discuss the history of these sightings and the world of the search for the wild man of the woods from the turn of the century viewpoint...
Don't forget to subscribe, and visit Bigfoot Tales at Facebook, and like the page. That platform will be the place to leave comments and ask questions.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Was An Orang Pendek Captured in 1885?
This story comes from the newspapers of 1885, and relate the story of the capture of three members of a hairy, tree dwelling tribe from the depths of Laos. Were they simply hairy people, or were they what we now call the Orang Pendek? Follow along as Bigfoot Tales shares the story of these strange jungle people.
Was this really a story of the capture of the Orang Pendek? We cannot tell for certain today, but from the details of the story, it certainly seems possible. Much of the description of these creatures suggest something other than a conventional human being as being captured. Could these creatures have been a throwback to some former race of mankind, long forgotten in the jungles of Asia?
Follow along with Bigfoot Tales as we explore the possibilities...
http://youtu.be/j85lSlUWNNk
Was this really a story of the capture of the Orang Pendek? We cannot tell for certain today, but from the details of the story, it certainly seems possible. Much of the description of these creatures suggest something other than a conventional human being as being captured. Could these creatures have been a throwback to some former race of mankind, long forgotten in the jungles of Asia?
Follow along with Bigfoot Tales as we explore the possibilities...
http://youtu.be/j85lSlUWNNk
Sunday, May 18, 2014
On The Bigfoot Trail
Let's face the facts here, Bigfooters bear the brunt of much humor from the world today. But there is good reason for that. A large part of that reason is because we run away from the "scientific" aspect of this field of interest. Because we (at large) refuse to accept the procedural demands of the scientific community, our discoveries and theories rest within the world of fantasy and science fiction.
If we are to change the perception we have created of ourselves we need to learn a few things about the realities behind scientific research. One of those realities is that there actually is a difference between a fact and supposition. What is a fact? A fact is something that can be demonstrated, and repeated with the same results. Supposition is an idea, and while it may be a valid idea, it is not supported by fact.
Most of what we see and hear about the world of Bigfoot research is mere supposition. There are a lot of theories thrown about as fact, but there is no supporting evidence to support and prove these theories. Therefore, when we present these unsupported claims as fact, the scientific community simply chuckles at us and carries on with their own work of trying to find facts that support the suppositions they wish to present as fact.
An observation here is that more often than not, belief in unsupported suppositions presented as fact is equated with religious belief. This is a correct observation. Belief in something that cannot be proven by empirical evidence is supported by faith, and faith alone. But it is unfortunate that so many people take belief in unsupported theories and accept them as fact.
Take the issues between the creationist and evolutionist belief systems. Neither one is necessarily supported by what we call empirical evidence, but many consider creationism an unsupported belief, and evolution as a fact. This of course is not true, and can be demonstrated by the "fact" that evolutionism is actually supported not by empirical evidence, but pure supposition. Evolutionists claim that we descended from the apes, or with the apes or many other sub-ideas that try to prove that humans evolved from a lower form of life, but where is the proof of that claim?
There really is no demonstrable proof aside from suggestive manipulation of the fossil record. No one saw mankind develop from a lessor form of creature, and so the claim is unable to be demonstrable. No one can demonstrate the claim by showing that it can be repeated with the same results. Belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific fact. A demonstrable fact is that, for example, if you tip a glass full of water over ten times, the water will respond to gravity by falling to the floor. Gravity is a fact.
And so, to get to the point of todays video, if we want to begin the transition of Bigfoot research from a fantasy game to a realistic research endeavor, we need to start following the regimen that scientists cling to. We need to learn to support our claims with demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
On the Bigfoot Trail shares some evidence that suggests that maybe there is some reality behind these assemblages of trees and such that we call Bigfoot stick structure and sign. I have observed in three separate locations repeated structure forms that, when plotted on a map, indicate that these structure could very well serve to act as trail markers. A sort of Bigfoot road sign.
The se structures include V shapes, bends, teepees and II type structures. In the example I share here, a bend signals the start of a trail diversion. If we were to walk in a straight line from this tree bend, we come to a V shaped structure made by two trees being pushed over and propped by other trees.
Continuing on in a straight line from that V, we come to a three legged teepee structure. Two legs are close together, the third extends further out, sort of like an extend arrow if viewed from above. By diverting from the straight line at the same angle as this single leg is propped at, you can go in a straight line to a second V shaped structure. The one in this video was destroyed over the winter by storms, but you can see it by going back to some of my earlier research videos.
By going straight through this V, you come to a natural growth where two trees grow close together to look like this II, or a sort of door frame. These two trees grow on the edge of a steep stream bank. Across the streambed, which has little water in it but is always quite muddy, lies a log anchored in place by sticks. You can scramble down the bank, and walk along the log to the opposite bank without leaving footprints in the mud. The trail clearly continues on from that point.
There is more in the video, but the bottom line here is that by following this trail instead of the well worn and groomed trail in a public area, one can avoid being seen from a ridgeline in plain sight of the highway and some houses, as well as avoiding having to jump across a cut through a bank that is some thirty or so feet across. This cut is more canyon like and cannot be navigated without leaving clear evidence of having been there.
This still does not provide valid proof of Bigfoot, so I present this as a mere supposition. This could be just a random sequence of events, but what I find most intriguing about this supposition is that I have also seen structure laid out in similar fashion in two other locations. Enjoy the video and keep on Squatching!
If we are to change the perception we have created of ourselves we need to learn a few things about the realities behind scientific research. One of those realities is that there actually is a difference between a fact and supposition. What is a fact? A fact is something that can be demonstrated, and repeated with the same results. Supposition is an idea, and while it may be a valid idea, it is not supported by fact.
Most of what we see and hear about the world of Bigfoot research is mere supposition. There are a lot of theories thrown about as fact, but there is no supporting evidence to support and prove these theories. Therefore, when we present these unsupported claims as fact, the scientific community simply chuckles at us and carries on with their own work of trying to find facts that support the suppositions they wish to present as fact.
An observation here is that more often than not, belief in unsupported suppositions presented as fact is equated with religious belief. This is a correct observation. Belief in something that cannot be proven by empirical evidence is supported by faith, and faith alone. But it is unfortunate that so many people take belief in unsupported theories and accept them as fact.
Take the issues between the creationist and evolutionist belief systems. Neither one is necessarily supported by what we call empirical evidence, but many consider creationism an unsupported belief, and evolution as a fact. This of course is not true, and can be demonstrated by the "fact" that evolutionism is actually supported not by empirical evidence, but pure supposition. Evolutionists claim that we descended from the apes, or with the apes or many other sub-ideas that try to prove that humans evolved from a lower form of life, but where is the proof of that claim?
There really is no demonstrable proof aside from suggestive manipulation of the fossil record. No one saw mankind develop from a lessor form of creature, and so the claim is unable to be demonstrable. No one can demonstrate the claim by showing that it can be repeated with the same results. Belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific fact. A demonstrable fact is that, for example, if you tip a glass full of water over ten times, the water will respond to gravity by falling to the floor. Gravity is a fact.
And so, to get to the point of todays video, if we want to begin the transition of Bigfoot research from a fantasy game to a realistic research endeavor, we need to start following the regimen that scientists cling to. We need to learn to support our claims with demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
On the Bigfoot Trail shares some evidence that suggests that maybe there is some reality behind these assemblages of trees and such that we call Bigfoot stick structure and sign. I have observed in three separate locations repeated structure forms that, when plotted on a map, indicate that these structure could very well serve to act as trail markers. A sort of Bigfoot road sign.
The se structures include V shapes, bends, teepees and II type structures. In the example I share here, a bend signals the start of a trail diversion. If we were to walk in a straight line from this tree bend, we come to a V shaped structure made by two trees being pushed over and propped by other trees.
Continuing on in a straight line from that V, we come to a three legged teepee structure. Two legs are close together, the third extends further out, sort of like an extend arrow if viewed from above. By diverting from the straight line at the same angle as this single leg is propped at, you can go in a straight line to a second V shaped structure. The one in this video was destroyed over the winter by storms, but you can see it by going back to some of my earlier research videos.
By going straight through this V, you come to a natural growth where two trees grow close together to look like this II, or a sort of door frame. These two trees grow on the edge of a steep stream bank. Across the streambed, which has little water in it but is always quite muddy, lies a log anchored in place by sticks. You can scramble down the bank, and walk along the log to the opposite bank without leaving footprints in the mud. The trail clearly continues on from that point.
There is more in the video, but the bottom line here is that by following this trail instead of the well worn and groomed trail in a public area, one can avoid being seen from a ridgeline in plain sight of the highway and some houses, as well as avoiding having to jump across a cut through a bank that is some thirty or so feet across. This cut is more canyon like and cannot be navigated without leaving clear evidence of having been there.
This still does not provide valid proof of Bigfoot, so I present this as a mere supposition. This could be just a random sequence of events, but what I find most intriguing about this supposition is that I have also seen structure laid out in similar fashion in two other locations. Enjoy the video and keep on Squatching!
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
LIfe Cycle of the Bigfoot Legend
Does Bigfoot Exist?
Recently, there has been an uptick in the numbers of people calling foul play in the greater Bigfoot community. Why is that, some of us tend to wonder. Then there’s other folks who really don’t give a rat’s ass about it, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their stage time. And there in a nutshell is the biggest impediment to finding the answer to the question of whether there really is a creature we call Bigfoot. Stage time.
For those of you who have been following me for a while, and actually paying attention, my interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon extends to the folklore behind this so-called urban myth, not just to the modern day vagueness of the current slew of reported sightings and encounters. In my book Sasquatch; searching for the answer, I delve into the chronology of some of the phenomenon that have dotted the folklore of many nations since the beginning of written history, with special emphasis on the sea serpents bracing the early to mid nineteenth century literature. It turns out that Maine in particular, or to be more precise, Casco Bay, has quite a little history of that particular creature.
My findings of the time period mentioned is that the phenomenon of the sea serpent has much the same chronological history of the Bigfoot phenomenon we are enjoying today. in short, the life cycle of the creature ebbed and flowed in much the same way as the life cycle of this current crypto-zoological entity seems to be ebbing and flowing today. Stories of monsters an mysteries have always been present through the ages, and many of these stories keep resurfacing every so often with surprising regularity, and their life cycle follows the same pattern, century after century.
In short, the chronological histories of these creatures goes like this:
Even before that, there were other names and vague descriptions, but in the end, we have always come to the same conclusion that this mythological creature walks like a man on two feet, is covered with hair, cannot speak as we do, hides in the darkness of the forest, and sometimes is even a cannibal. For thousands of years there has always been, as Linnaeus called him, a Sylvestri hominie, or wild-man.
So, to get back to the question, does Bigfoot exist, I believe I can say with absolute certainty that yes indeed, Bigfoot does exist. Do I have proof? Not one shred, but that doesn’t really matter in the long run, because like religion, existence of this creature depends more upon faith than it does facts. There is something out there in the dark forests of the world that leaves tracks, drops piles of scat, cries in the night and creates lovely artwork with interwoven piles of sticks.
Most of the time, we can easily find an alternate attribution to the reasons these things exist, but every now and then, we come across something that makes us truly ponder the possibilities. Bigfoot does indeed exist, even if it is only in the resources of our mind, and it exists for very simple reasons.
For one thing, throughout the ages mankind has always had something to fear. There are lots of things for us to fear, but for the most part, what we fear most is the unseen. The forms that lurk in the shadows of our mind. And because we haven’t the courage to confront those shadows, we also need a hero to battle those fears. Every so often, we come across a mythology that accomplishes these two things all at once.
The wild-man of the woods, Bigfoot as we call him today, is indeed a creature that lurks in the forests of our minds, and at the same time becomes the hero we need to overcome those fears of the unknown.
Happy Squatching!
For those of you who have been following me for a while, and actually paying attention, my interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon extends to the folklore behind this so-called urban myth, not just to the modern day vagueness of the current slew of reported sightings and encounters. In my book Sasquatch; searching for the answer, I delve into the chronology of some of the phenomenon that have dotted the folklore of many nations since the beginning of written history, with special emphasis on the sea serpents bracing the early to mid nineteenth century literature. It turns out that Maine in particular, or to be more precise, Casco Bay, has quite a little history of that particular creature.
My findings of the time period mentioned is that the phenomenon of the sea serpent has much the same chronological history of the Bigfoot phenomenon we are enjoying today. in short, the life cycle of the creature ebbed and flowed in much the same way as the life cycle of this current crypto-zoological entity seems to be ebbing and flowing today. Stories of monsters an mysteries have always been present through the ages, and many of these stories keep resurfacing every so often with surprising regularity, and their life cycle follows the same pattern, century after century.
In short, the chronological histories of these creatures goes like this:
- A myth, legend, or fairy tale from a prior generation is revived, often by someone claiming to see the creature.
- The story is laughed at, and the believers are ridiculed.
- Other people show an interest, and the numbers of people involved in this creatures study or research increase.
- The believers move from the category of being lunatic fringe to “maybe there is something there.”
- Some people see the trend and decide to take advantage of an opportunity to gain easy money and reputation.
- The belief that this creatures existence becomes more widespread, involving a much wider audience.
- Aficionados and sideline believers become more intensely involved with searching for the answer, and subsequently divide into groups or categories of varied levels of belief or acceptance of the creature. These categories range from the outright skeptic to the adoring believers with an almost religious fascination to the creatures existence.
- The scientific community becomes involved, and disputes arise over the facts of this creatures existence.
- Further splits arise amongst those following the creature, resulting in diametrically opposed factions, one side only interested in empirical evidence, the other insisting they have presented the evidence but nobody believes them.
- Interest begins to wane, and the people interested in earning the fame and fortune of this creature opportunity formulate new ways of stirring up interest.
- It finally dawns on most of the believers that there really is nothing to see here and move on to another interest, usually a different mythology.
- Interest simmers, kept barely alive by a faithful few until another generation comes along and renews the cycle of the mythological creature in its many forms.
Even before that, there were other names and vague descriptions, but in the end, we have always come to the same conclusion that this mythological creature walks like a man on two feet, is covered with hair, cannot speak as we do, hides in the darkness of the forest, and sometimes is even a cannibal. For thousands of years there has always been, as Linnaeus called him, a Sylvestri hominie, or wild-man.
So, to get back to the question, does Bigfoot exist, I believe I can say with absolute certainty that yes indeed, Bigfoot does exist. Do I have proof? Not one shred, but that doesn’t really matter in the long run, because like religion, existence of this creature depends more upon faith than it does facts. There is something out there in the dark forests of the world that leaves tracks, drops piles of scat, cries in the night and creates lovely artwork with interwoven piles of sticks.
Most of the time, we can easily find an alternate attribution to the reasons these things exist, but every now and then, we come across something that makes us truly ponder the possibilities. Bigfoot does indeed exist, even if it is only in the resources of our mind, and it exists for very simple reasons.
For one thing, throughout the ages mankind has always had something to fear. There are lots of things for us to fear, but for the most part, what we fear most is the unseen. The forms that lurk in the shadows of our mind. And because we haven’t the courage to confront those shadows, we also need a hero to battle those fears. Every so often, we come across a mythology that accomplishes these two things all at once.
The wild-man of the woods, Bigfoot as we call him today, is indeed a creature that lurks in the forests of our minds, and at the same time becomes the hero we need to overcome those fears of the unknown.
Happy Squatching!
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Butte Bigfoot Exhibition
While I have titled this a Bigfoot exhibition, it was back then labeled as a "wild man" exhibition, as the term "Bigfoot" did not exist until the late 1950's time frame. Nor was it referred to as a wild ape or monkey display as at the time, the trend to label these wild men as ape-like creature still had not gained momentum. It really wasn't until Fred Becks encounter with the wild men in 1924 that the reference to the simian world took hold.
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
Certainly sounds like it fits the Bigfoot bill, although the height was a little lacking. But maybe it was a younger Bigfoot, not fully all grown up? Was this story a hoax, was it a real Bigfoot, was it just a wild man? Follow along on the video and find the answers as Bigfoot Tales shares the story of the Butte Bigfoot Exhibition...
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
This
creature was short, well built, and his body was covered with hair of the
length and shade of a black bear's. The hair of his head was in clusters and
mats as big as your hand, lying plastered on his head and dangling on his neck...he had
eyebrows fully four inches long, sticking nearly straight out, behind which
glistened as bright a pair of round, quick, glittering brown eyes as were ever
seen in ape or chimpanzee.
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.
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.
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)