There are bigfoot pictures in Pennsylvania by auto camera

[torilovessmiles]

The last two images look slightly distorted when compared to the first. It is more blurred, and appears very slightly stretched diagonally. To me, it seems like it appears low quality on purpose to cover up the alterations done to the photo. I don't feel that this is the camera quality.
For example, in the first photo, that is very clearly a bear. It's a bit fuzzy, but you can see the definite shape of the ears and body, as well as an eye glare on the camera. The second two almost look like a fetus of some sort on a sonogram. It also could be faked by having a man walk in front of the camera wearing all black, adding a "furry" effect, and blurring the photo to leave more to the imagination. Then by suggesting that it is bigfoot, people will start to see the bigfoot-like features.
I believe that there are many unknown animals species. Not monsters. These types of things are myths based on glimpses of animals and fear, I think.

 

[rufus]

There are probably thousands if not millions of unidentified organisms in this world. Mostly, in the sea and the microscopic worlds. But this is a rather large animal we are discussing.

Perhaps in time, we will know the truth. Until then, I wish the hoaxers wouldn't cloud the issue.

 

[CrazyTalk]

There are probably thousands if not millions of unidentified organisms in this world. Mostly, in the sea and the microscopic worlds. But this is a rather large animal we are discussing. .

Right- there's a big difference between us finding some never before seen variation of beetle in the uninhabited rainforest, and us discovering a 12 foot tall ape/hominid in the middle of the mountains of Kentucky - if something was there - the evidence would also be. It's pretty easy to tell when large predators are using an area.

 

[Rosa moschata]

At this point, I think it's safe to say that if it wasn't for the hoaxers, there wouldn't be an issue to get clouded. But once they put the idea out there that there was a Bigfoot, just about anything in the woods not immediately identifiable as something else gets labeled "Bigfoot."

 

[rufus]

Let's try and keep an open mind on this issue. There are still vast areas of undisturbed forest that can harbor yet undiscovered species. I have hopes that we can discover as much of the flora and fauna as possible while the human life form is still on this earth.

Extinction is the fate of all organisms. Over the eons life comes and life goes. Eventually, we will suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs. Until then, let's enjoy life. Live and let live.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Keeping an open mind means also accepting when there's no evidence for something, that it most likely doesn't exist. There's nothing open about accepting every fantasy that comes along.

And no, in North America, there really aren't vast areas of undisturbed forest - not large enough to completely hide a colony of primates.

 

[Rosa moschata]

It's one thing to keep an open mind as evidence comes to light. It's quite another to hold to ideas in spite of evidence which contradicts them. That, in effect, is NOT keeping an open mind -- to the possibility that the first idea was wrong.

So, since there's no physical evidence, we go by testimony. There's already LOTS of evidence concerning how easily we can be fooled, no matter how strongly we "believe" we know what we saw.

I keep an open mind on things like Bigfoot, in that I will certainly evaluate evidence as it comes to light. But I also weigh probabilities, such as the likelihood that this species has thus far continued to avoid so many determined searches for any physical evidence (and the numerous hoaxes along the way), balanced against how easily we can see and hear things and hastily "fill in the gaps" to find an answer. Because for many, ANY answer is preferable to NO answer, even if that means making something up.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Nobody knows what they saw, at any point - that's the problem - optical processing is hugely complex, and our eyes don't work anything like a camera - you can't just look at the raw image and say "look, it's there."

We have big blind spots in our visual range (because of the optical nerve) - but we don't see huge black spots in the middle of our vision because our visual cortex fills in the image with what we think is supposed to be there. Our vision is also closely linked with our memory - we can remember things in the present that aren't there - it's all very screwy. We can implant false memories in people just by suggesting they saw something. Memory just isn't trustworthy.

Here's a couple interesting articles on memory, and perception:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/sleep-and-false-memory/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/change-blindness-and-the-continuity-field/

This reminds me of another example of selective attention. See the video below:

 

[rufus]

Well, I guess time will tell. I think the best evidence was the body parts brought in by a dog on an Indian Reservation. Sadly, they were disposed of. We could have learned a lot from them.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Its funny how the remains always seem to decompose, or be disposed of before anyone can actually take a look at them - despite the fact that actual remains would be worth millions.