I can appreciate this - but do these people even begin to understand the "mud" they create that people have to wade through ... and how this damages any real claims that might be made? Crying Wolf falsely too many times ... just makes people just laugh and go, "right... another loon and/or hoaxer."

I certainly don't condone it, but I don't think they care. The mud is only as deep as the boots one wears, if you know what I mean.

I've never thought a real claim could be damged by a false one, but that is just me. I just don't get too concerned with these types of people, it will always be and I can always ignore. i think that's the great part about it!

Even the early claims of Bigfoot, early 1800's were fuled by newspapers because they loved to report hoaxes.

Somethings never change, sadly. It's just more in our face because of the internet.

Agree. There are a certain amount of people who put their beliefs aside, and just continue to keep an urban legend alive.

Some just for fun.

I can appreciate this - but do these people even begin to understand the "mud" they create that people have to wade through ... and how this damages any real claims that might be made? Crying Wolf falsely too many times ... just makes people just laugh and go, "right... another loon and/or hoaxer."

Exactly - I think we are in 100% total agreement. This guy set up a scam to get his 15 min. of fame. The problem is, how does one feel pride in their work?

Unless like other hoaxes and such - it's not about "pride" - more then showing just how silly a lot of people can be, by JUMPING on The Bandwagon of Belief - without first engaging some common sense - critical thinking skills and some logic?

Agree. There are a certain amount of people who put their beliefs aside, and just continue to keep an urban legend alive.

Some just for fun.

Unless like other hoaxes and such - it's not about "pride" - more then showing just how silly a lot of people can be, by JUMPING on The Bandwagon of Belief - without first engaging some common sense - critical thinking skills and some logic?

...and as I think I said earlier about the tub with the camera. My question on that is, why put the food on top of the tub hoping it would take the top off. That is a dead giveaway to me that this was hoaxed. If the food is on top of a closed tub then there is no reason to open the tub. Why didn't he just put the food in the open tub with the camera so it would go off when the creature reached in to take the food?

In the same respect if he was smart enough to put the camera in the tub to get a close shot of BF then why didn't he do the same with the candy? Why not put the trap camera on the stump with the candy? That would have done the trick in this case.

That is exactly the problem - THE HUNT - is anything but a HUNT.

This guy in the OP is just another classic example of a HOAX being made. I mean - as you noted from my prior post on this thread, this guy knew exactly what to do. He knew where his "enemy" would lay - (to close) - and his "friend" - (as far away as possible) - to make it 'look good'.

If one was really after the 'real thing' - they would not 'cut corners', like this guy did. You would go in for the "KILL". You would set up counter 'hits' and multi-hits to make this beyond even reasonable doubts. You would go all the way to remove any and all doubts!

My prior post about what is M.I.A. in Bigfoot - family - community - droppings - food traces - and tracks just going dead. A Bigfoot track would simply NOT just go dead....

See what this guy should have done, if he was on the 'up-and-up' have several cameras set up to take pictures .. even flash at one point. A trap is suppose to be a trap. Not just one seriously questionable photo.

...and as I think I said earlier about the tub with the camera. My question on that is, why put the food on top of the tub hoping it would take the top off. That is a dead giveaway to me that this was hoaxed. If the food is on top of a closed tub then there is no reason to open the tub. Why didn't he just put the food in the open tub with the camera so it would go off when the creature reached in to take the food?

In the same respect if he was smart enough to put the camera in the tub to get a close shot of BF then why didn't he do the same with the candy? Why not put the trap camera on the stump with the candy? That would have done the trick in this case.

This guy in the OP is just another classic example of a HOAX being made. I mean - as you noted from my prior post on this thread, this guy knew exactly what to do. He knew where his "enemy" would lay - (to close) - and his "friend" - (as far away as possible) - to make it 'look good'.

If one was really after the 'real thing' - they would not 'cut corners', like this guy did. You would go in for the "KILL". You would set up counter 'hits' and multi-hits to make this beyond even reasonable doubts. You would go all the way to remove any and all doubts!

My prior post about what is M.I.A. in Bigfoot - family - community - droppings - food traces - and tracks just going dead. A Bigfoot track would simply NOT just go dead....

See what this guy should have done, if he was on the 'up-and-up' have several cameras set up to take pictures .. even flash at one point. A trap is suppose to be a trap. Not just one seriously questionable photo.

This is exactly what I am on about when talking about Bigfoot hunters and their methods.

Time to start doing what is necessary instead of for show.

and start thinking like a true hunter.

This is exactly what I am on about when talking about Bigfoot hunters and their methods.

Time to start doing what is necessary instead of for show.

All joking aside, this entire thread has been an awesome read! Everyone's observations are just great and the humor is top notch. I totally agree that it seems fishy. The mere fact that he used to deal with unveiling fraud was honestly a red flag to me. People often use their "expertise" to help back up their own hoax. And JJB- I totally agree that the camera was way too far away.

If I were doing this investigation, I would have drenched myself in Scent-A-Way and hung out mercenary style. I'd dig a hole in the ground and put a layout blind in it, cover that with camo netting and leaves and wait by that darn candy all night with the camera right on that thing. Or set up shop avian style in a tree stand. Whatever method, any hiding place should be left there for weeks beforehand so whatever critters are around get used to something "new" being there and it can take on the scent of the surrounding area.

If these people are that serious about catching a "squatch", then they better start getting serious about capturing one. None of this nansy-pansy out of focus "oops the bait was out of view of the camera" business. Get in there, get dirty, and start thinking like a true hunter.

I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault! Bigfoot is blurry... and that's extra scary to me.

Cause there's a large, out - of - focus monster roaming the countryside. Run!

Mitch Hedberg 1968 - 2005

"Jj, body heat is notuniform. Especially at night. Even with animals .. there would be "cold - cooler" spots and warmer - hotter spots. If there is way to much uniform body heat - it is rigged. He also stated, based on G.B. comment, that true investigator would not have a camera at that distance unless they were trying to hid something. People that track animals put the camera(s) as close to the food as possible (usually no less then 6 feet) to get the best picture as possible. The animals have no clue about the camera and nor would the Bigfoot ... unless it had pre-knowledge of it?"

Regarding non-uniformity, that is a true statement to a degree, but the limiting factors are distance and detector resolution. For example, at >20 feet, raytheon and flir detectors tend to lose the ability to distinguish smaller temperature variations on human/animal targets making them appear brighter and more white. The greater the distance increases, the targets simply appear all white. Higher resolution detecters help a little, but not much a distance. In close though, you can see veins, inflamed muscles, etc..

here is a video that shows how the resolution comes into play, check out the comparison at 1:23 between a 160x120 and a 320x240 system.

However, as distance increases from the target, the same thing will happen to the higher resolution imager.

regards

Andy

I have to agree with Ghostbreakers ... observations. Like way way too many other B.F. videos - Out of Focus, Distance problems and so on. But here is another thing. The 'author' is aware of what he would need to do 'pull this off' ... I would run "beta-tests" to work out the bugs.

I talked with a friend of mine (client) who is into thermal - inferred night vision. One of the things in our dialog (he has not seen the video-we talked on the phone) that was brought out...

"Jj, body heat is notuniform. Especially at night. Even with animals .. there would be "cold - cooler" spots and warmer - hotter spots. If there is way to much uniform body heat - it is rigged. He also stated, based on G.B. comment, that true investigator would not have a camera at that distance unless they were trying to hid something. People that track animals put the camera(s) as close to the food as possible (usually no less then 6 feet) to get the best picture as possible. The animals have no clue about the camera and nor would the Bigfoot ... unless it had pre-knowledge of it?"

As I re-watched this, my critical thinking kicked in - and I'll speculate ---> He likely ran a few "Beta" tests to find the best DISTANCE to pull this off. I bet he found that too close was well ... to close .... and he would likely be busted. So distance was his "Friend" .... being to close was his "enemy".

Just my 2 cents worth.

With the evidence that this person provided I would agree with JJB. Nothing provided has shown a serious effort to capture real evidence. Then again I have yet to see any serious effort by anyone to date but that is my opinion.

Even that aside. If this was my attempt and I thought my use of candy would attract a bigfoot, at the very least, I wouldn't take a chance of missing the shot by putting the bait so far away from the camera. So too, if I was standing there with a thermal camera and a bigfoot came into view, I am not sure I would be so calm as to be able to take such a steady filming.

Also as JJB stated. Of all the thermal images I have seen. I haven't see a living thing that didn't have different thermal tempatures over it's body regardless of how much hair it has.

Just for fun, google "Thermal images for animals" and look at some.

I talked with a friend of mine (client) who is into thermal - inferred night vision. One of the things in our dialog (he has not seen the video-we talked on the phone) that was brought out...

"Jj, body heat is notuniform. Especially at night. Even with animals .. there would be "cold - cooler" spots and warmer - hotter spots. If there is way to much uniform body heat - it is rigged. He also stated, based on G.B. comment, that true investigator would not have a camera at that distance unless they were trying to hid something. People that track animals put the camera(s) as close to the food as possible (usually no less then 6 feet) to get the best picture as possible. The animals have no clue about the camera and nor would the Bigfoot ... unless it had pre-knowledge of it?"

As I re-watched this, my critical thinking kicked in - and I'll speculate ---> He likely ran a few "Beta" tests to find the best DISTANCE to pull this off. I bet he found that too close was well ... to close .... and he would likely be busted. So distance was his "Friend" .... being to close was his "enemy".

Just my 2 cents worth.

I too have a problem with the thermal image and his explanation. I have seen many thermal images of all kinds of people and animals. In all living things I have seen on thermal they all have different heat signatures on different parts of the body. This was all one bright white signature. I would think being covered with hair that other parts would show up differently.

As far as the candy. Well, I could understand it maybe since other animals will take candy or other human foods and eat them if found. All kinds of animals rummage through human trash.

I wonder though why, as with most BF footage, it is so short. If it was a stationary camera then it should show from the time it came to the time it left. If he was taking the video then why not try to get closer or follow it.

Also, why put the top on the tub and then put the food on top of that. Why would BF take the top off when easy pickings were right on top. I mean how many BF's know what a rubbermaid tub is or that it has a top? Probably should have put the food in the tub with the camera. Then he would have gotten the photo when it went for the food. Better yet why not put candy with the trap cameras?

I better stop. LOL The more I look at it and think about it. It seems more like a hoax than a sighting.

The thermal is too consistent on the image, imo. I have no knowledge on these cameras but have spent time looking through them. My vet/friend uses one for imaging horse problems, which injuries are usually heat related. We also had verified cougar sightings and the barn has used thermal and I have viewed the horses many times. So many variables. Horses have different coat thickness, summer/winter. Some where blankets winter, fly sheets summer. We have a nervous horse that just sweats standing still. Some were down sunning, their back would be warmer and the underside cooler than normal from the ground. Just exercising, would flucuate. So, many variables for a heat signature on just horses. Imagine what would be possible on other animals. lol

I can't tell if this was shot in fall/winter. Bears would have their blubber and do have two sets of fur. I didn't find a video/pictures of the site after the supposed bigfoot left, meriting more investigation of the area of the thing. lol Bears have more of a problem cooling down, than being warm.

Why aren't these hunters ever wildlife experts, that could show thermal or video of other animals known to the area, so they can be possibly ruled out. National and state park rangers would be my best bet on a credible sighting, but nothing. I can only speak for the area I live in which has had a few bigfoot sightings, the rangers have seen nothing strange. Other than the cougar that was left loose into the wild. They even got pictures and tracked it, very elusive animal. I ride horses in these state preserves for years, nothing out of the normal. But, I do carry my bino's and have a camera. I'm always looking. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

We can see car plates from space and find bin laden in a cave but can't find bigfoot. hmm

Looks very Bigfoot-like to me!

Wow that is the most incredible footage I have ever seen. If that was a guy in a suit you could see his heat signature through the suit but the heat signature is consistent. Truly amazing

I also like his answer as to why all the game cams have come up with nothing ---- 1. Bigfoot is so smart it knows where the cameras are and how to avoid them (I bet they have pics of people walking in the woods) -- Or -- 2. Bigfoot can sense the EMF emitted by the cameras, so it stays away.....Really????

There is one other possibility that is much, much, more likely ----- Bigfoot does not exist.........