It's Friday, or what I call "Bigfoot Friday" where I cover offbeat news about Bigfoot research or answer nagging questions from Bigfoot enthusiasts who send in emails. The nagging question of the day, which usually comes from skeptics: "Why is there still no good video footage of Bigfoot?"
I usually give my stock answer that, in fact, there are hundreds of compelling videos on Youtube or even videos with analysis on www.facebook.com/findbigfoot. And I remind skeptics that beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc. And sometimes I link the person to the recent Michael Greene thermal images of Bigfoots -- but I know even that footage won't convince most people that Bigfoots exist.
Patterson/Gimlin Footage vs Michael Greene's Thermal Images
Earlier this year, Bigfoot researcher Michael Greene announced that he had amazing thermal footage of Bigfoots. The official press release that hit the wires on June 3, 2010 stated, "This is the most important footage of a Sasquatch since Paterson/Gimlin film taken over 40 years ago,” according Matthew Moneymaker, head of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization ( BFRO) as he introduced guest speaker Michael Greene to a crowd of 250 Bigfoot researchers in Yakima, Washington, at an invitation only tribute to Bob Gimlin.
There are details in the footage of that are amazing, such as: multiple Bigfoots creeping across the forest, their cone-shaped heads and extremely long arms. All of that is consistent with what researchers often record from the field -- but here's the bigger question:
Is Thermal Imaging Good Enough Proof of Bigfoot?
Greene's thermal images are intended to prove that these figures are giving off heat, not people hoaxing and wearing costumes. However, thermal images leave out so much detail that it's difficult to judge what kind of creatures are moving around in among the trees. Sure, they're not squirrels but how do we know they're not college students goofing around?
I'm not against modern digital cameras. Team Yang (I'm a member) owns two FLIRs which we've had deployed in the field for six months recording 24/7. We have invested in the same assumption that thermal imaging will prove Bigfoot exists, however, after using the equipment we've come to realize its limitations.
At close range (up to 30 yeards) it could be the perfect tool for recording Bigfoot, but that would be true of any digital camera. And an HD camera with color might even be more convincing -- more like the Patterson/Gimlin film. Of course, thermal allows you to record both day and night and HD cameras suffer in quality in low light conditions or complete darkness. And you obviously have to have your gear set-up in the right place at the right time (how did Greene do that?).
This is why so much of the video you see today is just crappy cell-phone images -- because the people who get lucky enough to have a Bigfoot sighting, just don't carry HD cameras or thermal imaging.
We live in the video age, but all of us know that video is cheap and easily faked or manipulated, which makes everyone a critic and a skeptic. Lately I've been getting emails and phone calls from Bigfoot enthusiasts (opportunists?) who have asked me, "Why doesn't somebody shoot Bigfoot and prove it once and for all?"
That's an ominous question that always twists that ethical knot in the pit of my stomach. I met a man from Wisonsin who claimed that while he was hunting deer, a Bigfoot walked right in front of him. The hunter was so stunned at the size and beauty of the Bigfoot that he simply lowered his gun in awe and respect of this creature. I hope everyone who experiences Bigfoot has the same reaction.
I'd rather settle for crappy video images that leave me with a little doubt than to rely on a dead body to convince the skeptics.
J. Andersen, Associated Content
Fortunately, although it has not been due to pay it, but he was still on the road...
Posted by: Shox NZ | 01/09/2011 at 08:02 PM