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...
Showing posts with label hoaxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hoaxes. Show all posts
Friday, April 25, 2014
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)