Tim Stover gives a demonstration of the thermal camera device he uses in the field, and explains a little about his thoughts of using thermal devices in the field of bigfoot.
Without you this place would be dead. Always informative even if the articles aren't to much.
I found this comment from way way back that seems to sum up his message just right:
(unverified)Saturday, June 14, 2014 at 8:17:00 AM PDT 7:59... No you're not meant to believe the video up top is anything, cause it could be anything in my opinion... What you are meant to do is consider the facts prior to posting literary diarrhea. There is plenty of evidence accumilated by scientific methods that have propelled fields such ad wildlife biology and forensic science to what is widely percieved as one of the stable and reliable branches of science today. Fairies don't leave physical evidence.
*I am still looking for the magic airforce base original post. Tee hee!
Sorry Ikky, but you cannot make those claims. There's simply not enough detail and far too many unknowns in either, as well as too many confounding factors inherent to thermal imaging, to do so.
That's why I keep going on about using thermal rifle scopes. If there's not enough detail in the image at the time it's taken to confidently know the target isn't human and responsibly pull the trigger, then there's not enough detail in the image to ever make that conclusion.
Thermal blobsquatches, even from big blobs, are not good enough. You need to produce a body.
If you're going to try to argue by authority, Ikky, at least pick better authorities.
What limited math is given in those links does not include important factors like the height of the observer, the focal length of the camera, the range of estimated distances to the subject. I don't see any error analysis whatsoever.
What I do see are a lot of estimates and assumptions made by people who really really want the subject to be bigfoot.
Consider for a moment the wide range of height and size estimates given for Patty. And that's using relatively good footage (for a bigfoot video at least) at a location that's been mapped again and again with exact objective and subjective positions.
If we can't even get a reliable estimate for Patty form the Patterson Gimlin footage, how can you possibly think you have a reliable estimate for the height of something from bad thermal footage?
If you're going to come across like you know what you're talking about, it's your responsibility to at least check the sources that are critical of. All your queries are address within the two sources that I have given you. Oh, and we know what height Patty is...
Oh... And requiring evidence, only to condemn that evidence due to the people that present it, is not only rhetorical but ad hominem. You're not remotely qualified to tell anyone who is and who isn't credible, especially when you don't even look the evidence they've presented properly.
Editor's Note: This is a guest post by Suzie M., a sasquatch enthusiast. Crypto-linguists believe that the species known Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti/Yowie ect speak and understand a complex language, which by all accounts seems to stem from Asia. When one listens to it there is definitely a sense of it being Chinese or Japanese. It is a very odd mix of sounds, clicks and what could be actual words. This is the reason some experts are looking into the Asian dialect theory, some have said it could be a lost dialect, which was carried from Asia by the Bigfoot species that colonised America.
Rumors abound on whether or not Finding Bigfoot will continue, but hopeful news is on the horizon. Snake Oil Productions, the production company responsible for Finding Bigfoot, is seeking a permit for filming in the Monterey, Virginia area. Monterey lies between the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests. Definitely a good place to look for bigfoot. We can only speculate if this means Finding Bigfoot has been signed on for additional seasons, or if perhaps a new bigfoot show is in the works. We'll keep you updated on any further announcements for sure.
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
For IKTOMI!
ReplyDeleteWithout you this place would be dead. Always informative even if the articles aren't to much.
ReplyDeleteI found this comment from way way back that seems to sum up his message just right:
(unverified)Saturday, June 14, 2014 at 8:17:00 AM PDT
7:59... No you're not meant to believe the video up top is anything, cause it could be anything in my opinion... What you are meant to do is consider the facts prior to posting literary diarrhea. There is plenty of evidence accumilated by scientific methods that have propelled fields such ad wildlife biology and forensic science to what is widely percieved as one of the stable and reliable branches of science today. Fairies don't leave physical evidence.
*I am still looking for the magic airforce base original post. Tee hee!
It's clear to see you're a seriously amazing person. And though I don't know you in person, I think the world of ya Chick!! Thank you.
DeleteThermal camera are useless for bigfoot research. We already have more than enough blurry blobsquatch pictures.
ReplyDeleteOnly thermal rifle sights have a chance of producing evidence.
Brown thermal - subject in the height range of 8.5 feet tall.
DeleteCutino thermal - two subjects in the height range of 7 feet tall.
Sorry Ikky, but you cannot make those claims. There's simply not enough detail and far too many unknowns in either, as well as too many confounding factors inherent to thermal imaging, to do so.
DeleteThat's why I keep going on about using thermal rifle scopes. If there's not enough detail in the image at the time it's taken to confidently know the target isn't human and responsibly pull the trigger, then there's not enough detail in the image to ever make that conclusion.
Thermal blobsquatches, even from big blobs, are not good enough. You need to produce a body.
Sorry buddy... I can, I did, and have analysis to support those ideas.
Deletehttp://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/
https://youtu.be/l-xAuHHdaYU
... height ranges are not unknowns. Give those sources a chance.
Peace.
If you're going to try to argue by authority, Ikky, at least pick better authorities.
DeleteWhat limited math is given in those links does not include important factors like the height of the observer, the focal length of the camera, the range of estimated distances to the subject. I don't see any error analysis whatsoever.
What I do see are a lot of estimates and assumptions made by people who really really want the subject to be bigfoot.
Consider for a moment the wide range of height and size estimates given for Patty. And that's using relatively good footage (for a bigfoot video at least) at a location that's been mapped again and again with exact objective and subjective positions.
If we can't even get a reliable estimate for Patty form the Patterson Gimlin footage, how can you possibly think you have a reliable estimate for the height of something from bad thermal footage?
You can't.
Thermal footage is useless.
If you're going to come across like you know what you're talking about, it's your responsibility to at least check the sources that are critical of. All your queries are address within the two sources that I have given you. Oh, and we know what height Patty is...
Deletehttps://youtu.be/fBhr-cZXTGk
... It's laziness. Do your homework.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh... And requiring evidence, only to condemn that evidence due to the people that present it, is not only rhetorical but ad hominem. You're not remotely qualified to tell anyone who is and who isn't credible, especially when you don't even look the evidence they've presented properly.
Delete