Meanwhile... back on the Texas Ranch...

[Windigo]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bigfoot-exists-research-team-claims-20446834

[bob48]

Bah!

Its some bugger dressed up in a hairy suit. Who do we know in that neck of the woods who would pull a stunt like that?

[Windigo]

Bah!

Its some bugger dressed up in a hairy suit. Who do we know in that neck of the woods who would pull a stunt like that?

well Gussy-poo is too short, LB would never let any of his DNA go anywhere lest his personal security be compromised, mirth is happy to share his DNA with ladyfriends, but he's not from Texas.... you accross the pond guys can't do shit without a cuppa,Biggs is too busy as are most or the usual suspects soooo that leaves our Jewish connection in the Nor'east and South Beach Florida aaaand them thar them maritimers migsy and 40Cent, but the indepth article says they do not use bacon as a lure attractant and that's the only thing I know that could motivate any of them from their homes

Therefore...   via process of elimination it can only be... Kenny that elusive and cunning (linguistic?) swissman

ohhh and MikeGER would have just killed them for harrassing him

PS Two-ounces would never wear a cheesy fur suit cuz he's too cool

[LongBlade]

Well, Bigfoot may be real, but that image of him sleeping wasn't.

That was Steelie passed out after a hard night of drinking - right before Smuck started shaving him.

[Steelgrave]

Well, Bigfoot may be real, but that image of him sleeping wasn't.

That was Steelie passed out after a hard night of drinking - right before Smuck started shaving him.

Well, I AM a native Texan AND I love long walks in the woods. So anything is possible   8)

[Windigo]

Well, Bigfoot may be real, but that image of him sleeping wasn't.

That was Steelie passed out after a hard night of drinking - right before Smuck started shaving him.

Well, I AM a native Texan AND I love long walks in the woods. So anything is possible   8)

you're too busy getting pussy-whipped now

[Centurion40]

Say, isn't Texas where 'Bugs' shot and buried the Bigfoot?  Coast to Coast fans will know what I'm talking about.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bugs-freakazoid/

[JasonPratt]

Supposedly the footage comes from Kentucky, not Texas (although TX has its own sightings).

I've heard about this footage/study for several years; I see they're starting to do promotional releases to drum up interest in a documentary. Not sure if that means the peer-reviewed paper fell through or what. (Last I heard the paper fell through.)

Twill be interesting to see how well this stands up to the kind of rigorous analysis that has been done on the Patterson/Gimlin film and tracks. One problem I can immediately see coming is that the footage (so far released) features fur too shaggy, and footage too distant and blurry, to show whether underlying musculature is present or not. There are good reasons why the P/G film is the gold standard so far.

[Gusington]

I read about this yesterday...CNN mentioned that the lead doctor did not have the best reputation. But I want to believe.

For a while now I've wanted to put on a bigfoot suit when I go running (I run a lot through wooded areas) and freak people out.

"Holy frijoles there's a little foot on the loose!"

[LongBlade]

But I want to believe.

Me, too. But the odds of a large mammal remaining undetected seem pretty remote in today's day and age. There are too many people in too many places.

We find new species all the time, but they're usually small bugs. Sometimes a small animal.

Man-sized crypto-critters are going to be tough to hide.

[Gusington]

^I don't know, Windy goes missing for days on end pretty successfully.

[JasonPratt]

Well there's detection and there's detection. ;) The footprint evidence is very strong, and the widespread number of purported encounters across all regions of the US during colonization history (since arrival of European colonists, but especially increasing throughout the 20th century as wide forestland disappears) is impressive to me. Some modern film evidence I've seen comes close to "Patty" levels of detail, hard to fake.

Unfortunately, these people are hampering their case (whatever that may be) by how they've been treating their 'evidence'. There are now a significant number of scientific experts from multiple disciplines who would be willing and eager to analyze the data and debate the technical details back and forth. Granted, a mis-diagnosis of fraud (the data is too clear to be mistaken identity so it's either real or fraud) would be a huge personal and professional wound, and on the hypothesis the data is genuine I can see wanting to protect the data from incompetent or ideologically hostile analysis.

Still, that's just how things are. The other defense is to provide as much of the data as possible, as widely as possible, so that dialogue pro and con can average out analysis errors (con and pro!), which also has the benefit of minimizing charges of convenient obscurity. There's no point for the project team complaining that other Sasquatch researchers are complaining about snippets of data outside a meaningful context of scientific analysis WHEN THAT'S ALL THAT IS BEING PROVIDED!


Having said that, my brief (unprofessional) impressions from the (brief!) evidence so far is:

1.) the sleeping footage (which has been around a while) is completely neutral;

2.) the various walking footage looks a bit suspect or too indistinct to be useful (although I grant that the best footage is apparently of a juvenile and that this would skew physical proportions and modes of walking compared to an adult creature);

3.) the facial footage looks a little impressive but unfortunately less so in modern technology compared to, say, what that same footage would have proportionately looked like in 1967. It's necessary to see how the face behaves over time, to get a better idea. In fact, all the synergistic features of physical behavior really need to be coherently presented for experts to be able to gauge how well the purported creature 'fits' non-human and/or non-costume behavior.

Putting that another way, it bothers me that the eyes don't seem to move. Yet that might be a false impression of fakery based on a few frames where the eyes happened not to move: the only few frames available. Cherry picking small amounts of impressive data, assuming true footage for sake of argument, can lead inadvertently (and ironically) to a mis-impression of faked data.

Putting it yet another way, the boring bits are super-important for real experts to analyze the propriety of the colorful bits.