Greene's thermal image, from the Yakima gathering thread Options

[bushloper]

After the catered dinner... who would have thought they swouldwitness Bigfooters eat at linen-covered tables , Mike Greene from North Carolina presented a short video clip (shot in what appeared to me to be infra-red) of something approaching a stump and seemingly removng a Zag Nut candy bar from the stump.

After introducing Greene, Matt Moneymaker while acknowledging that the crowd would indeed be taking photos and video of the clip, asked the crowd to not post them on the internet. "I don't want people making a decision based on a blurry copy," Moneymaker said. "Please wait for a better, more clear version." As much as I would like to say I am complying with MM wishes, the truth is at this inopportune moment the batteries in may camera went dead.

I apologize that I didn't take notes, so I am writing this from memory, and I didn't recall the gentleman's name... [thanks for having my back Anj].

Before Greene showed the clip he told us that he had lived in Pennsylvania, but he and his wife recently moved to North Carolina where their son is attending college. He has been going to this particular spot for quite a while, maybe once a week. He has tried bait, noting that small bathtub, squeeze toys seem to work the best.

On the night the footage was taken Greene was trying to figure out how to hide the camera... maybe way back inside his rig. He decided to put the camera on a tripod, and then drove about 200 yards away and waited for the tape to run through it's two-hour length.

He said he never heard or saw anything himself, but he next day he was pleased to find something on the tape.

Behind the stump there was a gradual decline down to a "gully." On the video clip an all-white figure appears to come up the hill from behind... it is unclear as to whether it walked up or crawled on it's approach. After a bit of "looking around," this figure appears to swipe the stump with it's right arm and apparently remove the candy bar. Later in the footage, a white figure (unclear that it is the same subject) is to the stumps right (on the screen), seemingly looking from behind a tree and displaying a swaying motion.

Greene did go back the next day, to find the candy bar was missing and took a bunch of photos of the area for comparison purposes.

While this was very interesting footage it was far from proof. My "socks never left my feet" during this presentation.


Below is where the photos (crappy as they were) before they were removed at Mr. Greene's demand. In the second photo, the white figure can be seen coming up the incline, between a stump (also white, but larger) and a tree.

!. It was clearly stated that the film shown was copyrighted ( by me) so please remove the photographs at once.ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE
2."What appeared to me to be infra-red" was actually shot with a thermal imager, a Ratheon PalmIR250. If you are not familiar with this type of device, I suggest you become so forthwith, as it is the most powerful tool we have in this business, and essential for anyone seriously engaged in squatching. You too can have one when you plunk down $12,000 earnest money, as I did, putting my money where my mouth was, so to speak

This post has been edited by tugboatwa: May 28 2009, 10:48 AM

[tugboatwa]

It was clearly stated that the film shown was copyrighted ( by me) so please remove the photographs at once.

When Matt Moneymaker introduced you he asked those present to not post any video on the internet as those viewing said video would be seeing a second generation of an acknowledged "blurry copy."

It was not my intention to violate anyone's copyright.

2."What appeared to me to be infra-red" was actually shot with a thermal imager, a Ratheon PalmIR250. If you are not familiar with this type of device, I suggest you become so forthwith, as it is the most powerful tool we have in this business, and essential for anyone seriously engaged in squatching. You too can have one when you plunk down $12,000 earnest money, as I did, putting my money where my mouth was, so to speak.

As I made clear, it was my opinion that the video appeared to be IR rather than thermal. Again my apologies.

[Night Stalker]

!. It was clearly stated that the film shown was copyrighted ( by me) so please remove the photographs at once.ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE
2."What appeared to me to be infra-red" was actually shot with a thermal imager, a Ratheon PalmIR250. If you are not familiar with this type of device, I suggest you become so forthwith, as it is the most powerful tool we have in this business, and essential for anyone seriously engaged in squatching. You too can have one when you plunk down $12,000 earnest money, as I did, putting my money where my mouth was, so to speak

Yeah tugboatwa!! And when you get the $12,000 . . . and buy the most powerful tool we have in the business, I suggest you learn how to focus the damned thing! And RTFM


Ahahaha I crack myself up . . this is too easy.


.

[bipedalist]

I'm sorry I posted a link to the guys video in another thread now. Geesh!

[Night Stalker]

I'm sorry I posted a link to the guys video in another thread now. Geesh!

You could always pull the "ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE" out and have it removed.

You know what they say, There's no such thing as bad publicity.


.

[Grazhopprr]

Predictable. Even thermal evidence can be considered to be blobsquatches, because of the lack of detail. Unless you could install telephoto/zoom lenses on a thermal imager, the details will always be debatable. The only thing I would ever consider my thermal camera to be useful for, is just finding one in the dark, while video taping it. Only as a way to find one, but not as a definitive picture of one. Now, a guy in a monkey suit would be quite obvious in thermal, as the poly hair on it, would show up all grey, and insulating the person in the suit, would be alot cooler in the viewer, than the eyes looking through the mask, and the hands would be the same consistent temp as the suit, compared to a BF's hot hands glowing white. Only the tips of the BF's hair, would show up black, as heat radiates from the skin, through the hair, cooling at the tips. Experimenting with other primates, like chimps and gorillas, will show what to expect from a BF. Unless you develope some kind of zoom device, to get a full face screen shot, it will always be a blob of white against the dark background. And I'm not talking about digital zoom either, which is just a digital guess of the details. A real lens zoom of the real light. I'm not a camera expert, but it's been on my mind about my own thermal camera. Attaching it to a spotting telescope, or fashioning one from scratch. Spending 12 grand on a thermal blobsquatcher, without thinking out what you'll get from it, or what others will think of the resulting blob video, is kinda igrunt imo. They were never made for this application, as a definitive, scientific proof. Live and learn.

[bipedalist]

Agreed a Sony supernightshot setup if it could've have had some form of triggered remote to the candy bar movement could have gotten something at 100 ft. or less with some detail. The problems with remote setups that aren't human controlled of course would be the same focus problem however. Ever since the thread with the thermal of some guy sneaking around a stump doing his business was featured on one of these threads I've been less than impressed with distance thermal recording. A yellow of their eyes recording would be something to strive for if you lived to tell about it.

This post has been edited by bipedalist: May 24 2009, 05:52 PM

[Grazhopprr]

A nightshot camera would still be blurry as heck. A dark haired creature in the darkness, wouldn't stand out as anything more than a greyish blob. Even in HD, it would be a pixeled nightmare. I've never been a fan of nightvision as anything other than a tool for finding something. Video of nightvision, which I've experimented with for years, and have plenty of cameras for, just isn't worth the time for BF research. Just more blobsquatch.

Nighvision cameras have an interesting side effect, for daytime video, with a heavy spectrum blocker lense, turns all the foliage and pine green, to pure white. Might make an interesting BF experiment, to see if it stands out against the white, because it's hair soaks up infrared, and remains dark to black. It's worked in some of my experiments on other animals.

This post has been edited by Grazhopprr: May 24 2009, 06:00 PM

[RedRatSnake]

If you are not familiar with this type of device, I suggest you become so forthwith, as it is the most powerful tool we have in this business, and essential for anyone seriously engaged in squatching. You too can have one when you plunk down $12,000 earnest money, as I did, putting my money where my mouth was, so to speak

Hi

For about 80.00 bucks you can get a 15 million candle power portable light and bring instant daytime into any night situation and see the real deal,

Peace
Tim

[wolftrax]

Yes please respect the copyrights of blobsquatch owners and pay 12 grand to get your own blobsquatch forthwith.

[Grazhopprr]

Don't forget to take a fifth with.

[billgreen2005big...]

wow is there some sort consperacy here now in this awesome thread. i want see more about the yakima bigfoot round up event... ty bill

This post has been edited by billgreen2005bigfoot: May 24 2009, 11:26 PM

[Mulder]

Oh yes, these thermals are 100% useless because there are just DOZENS and DOZENS of types of large, bi-pedal, warm blooded animals roaming around the wilds of the world at night...

This post has been edited by Mulder: May 25 2009, 04:10 PM

[Paul1968UK]

!. It was clearly stated that the film shown was copyrighted ( by me) so please remove the photographs at once.ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE

Bushloper,

For the record, the photograph posted belonged to Tug, not you. Albeit the copyright of your video does not automatically pass to Tug just because he took a photo of it - there are certain rights that are retained by you, but Tug's photograph is his copyright, not yours - technically, you should have asked for the reproduction of your video in Tug's photo to be removed - I suggest you read the Copyright legislation and familiarise yourself with it because with the best will in the world, this will not be the last time it comes up I can assure you.

What I will say is that the posting of the photograph on this non-commercial website is aceptable under fair use doctrine, despite Moneymaker's request, and I want to make it perfectly clear that the removal of the photograph has been done out of courtesy to you.

[Grazhopprr]

No one said that thermal cameras were useless. They're just not a very good use as any kind of proof. What you see in a thermal image, is just a blob of light energy, in a recognizable outline, as opposed to the background. It's not "scientific proof" of BF, that would be accepted by the scientific community. It's good as an indicator only, for those who believe in BF. Unless you could get to within 10 feet or so, you will not see any detail of what you have in the screen. Thermal imagers were not designed for detailed examination of distant objects, so the pixel resolution is very small, even compared to a regular non-hd video camera. You would need a zoom/telephoto type lens, to see anything other than the outline of the subject. Do a websearch for thermal imaging, and see what is shown in the images. Youtube has lots of examples.

[Mulder]

No one said that thermal cameras were useless. They're just not a very good use as any kind of proof. What you see in a thermal image, is just a blob of light energy, in a recognizable outline, as opposed to the background. It's not "scientific proof" of BF, that would be accepted by the scientific community. It's good as an indicator only, for those who believe in BF. Unless you could get to within 10 feet or so, you will not see any detail of what you have in the screen. Thermal imagers were not designed for detailed examination of distant objects, so the pixel resolution is very small, even compared to a regular non-hd video camera. You would need a zoom/telephoto type lens, to see anything other than the outline of the subject. Do a websearch for thermal imaging, and see what is shown in the images. Youtube has lots of examples.

I don't give a flying rat whether you can see the eyes, or count hairs or any of that minutiae. SOMETHING walking upright on two legs much bigger than a man was captured on those images. Unless you're prepared to claim (and prove) that the footage was digitally faked, then we have ABSOLUTE proof a large bipedal animal was captured on that film.

The scoftics and denialists have everyone so gorram focused on "monkeys on the slab" that they ignore all the other excellent evidence to be had.

[Bitter Monk]

...then we have ABSOLUTE proof a large bipedal animal was captured on that film.

How do we know it is large?

[Grazhopprr]

As you wish. Mike Greene's "video" will draw just as much scoffing as any of the other videos on Youtube today. It will prove nothing to the scientific world. It might wow some in the BF community, but that will be totally subjective. Mr. Greene will learn this soon enough, and put his new toy into the proper perspective. As an adjunct, a means, not an end. Enough said.

[julio12]

All Thermal cameras show is a image of a heat source and nothing more,will it prove anything No! But it does leave to arguments does it not.

[Pywacket]

then we have ABSOLUTE proof a large bipedal animal was captured on that film.

We? What is this we business? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you trying to speak French?

We don't have anything! And I doubt Mr. Greene does either!

[LondonPaul]

Are the thermal movies interesting to look at?, "Yes".

Do they show an actual Sasquatch?, "Quite Possibly".

Do they constitute absolute proof of Sasquatch existence?, "Obviously Not".

Are they relatively easy to hoax, "Certainly"

Would I pay to view one, "No".

Their main purpose is the keep the "Sasquatch" ball rolling. With all the media attention devoted to this field since 2000, people obviously have deduced that a fairly constant stream of new 'evidence' is required to be thrown out there with little or no quality control.

[GuyInIndiana]

Hi

For about 80.00 bucks you can get a 15 million candle power portable light and bring instant daytime into any night situation and see the real deal,

Peace
Tim

Damn straight skippy!

But as long as you can sound high and mighty quoting the cost of a useless piece of equipment while pretending to be forthright and yada yada ... well ...

[Grazhopprr]

Now, having posted what I have, I need to clarify, that I've not seen Mike Greene's presentation, and whether he said anything about his thermal video being of any proof, or what that video will mean to the BF community. I've only put my 2 cents in as to my own experience with thermal, infrared nightvision, and standard video, and what I personally assume it means to proof. If I've made assumptions of knowing Mike Greene's motivations, or intentions, I appologize now.

David R. Winter-Edmonds, Wa.

( Anyone know a good lawyer? )

This post has been edited by Grazhopprr: May 25 2009, 09:33 PM

[Night Stalker]

I've seen this golden nugget of non information.

It's as much fun as watching a black and white cartoon.

In the early seconds where it is apparent that something with a rounded head area rises from behind the stump, an arm raises over the stump allegedly to snatch a toy or snack.

The white areas in this film are contrasted from black by an increase in temperature where parts of tress that had late exposure to direct light will appear lighter in the video.

The brightest envelope is a silhouette changing shape and compared to the size of the stump is considerably large. Anyone can say this, because Mr Greene sufficiently shows the size of the stump at the distance from the IR unit. The size of the stump, trees etc is more readily apparent in the standard video footage supplied.

It is also apparent that this shape is behind other solid objects, being the stump and some trees.

From a few feet behind the stump, that whole area is then on a downgrade of some 20 degrees, possibly more.

This mass does appear to approach the stump by crawling UP the incline on hands and knees.

After the blob backs down and out of sight, due to the incline, it is then seen standing up and the outline of the silhouette increases in size as the torso appears taller in the frame. This gives the impression that it is walking upright toward the stump area and that of the fallen tree.

Toward the end of the footage, the shape glows white alternating and emerging from the left side, and then the right side of a trees. It looks like a humanoid shape rocking back and forth, but quite large in size. Portions of the torso and arm can be compared to the trees it was standing behind.

The question that I have after having see the terrain and the grade behind the stump, is how this still seem visible from around the waist or mid torso up, if it is some 12' - 15' behind the fallen tree and stump. My impression is that there is a 4' - 5' drop between the ground level (horizon) and the ground where its feet would be. That's quite some waist hight. If the object is behind the tree indicated in the presentation, then it must be standing on ground that is already several feet lower than the stump base.

I understand that this camera was on a short tripod which affects the view angle to the horizon, but this still seem disproportionate to me.

If anyone is willing to spend the $4 to see it, maybe you will take notice of my impression.



.

[Volsquatch]

Toward the end of the footage, the shape glows white alternating and emerging from the left side, and then the right side of a trees. It looks like a humanoid shape rocking back and forth, but quite large in size.

[Night Stalker]

Actually I took that pic of your mom and reversed it, now it looks a lot more like what I described. Thx for the try, don't stay up too late working on clever.

And for all you BF out there spending your spare time to raise awareness of BG, WE SALUTE YOU Mr. STEALTHY SNEAKER UPPER.




.

This post has been edited by Night Stalker: May 26 2009, 01:11 AM

[Mulder]

I've seen this golden nugget of non information.

It's as much fun as watching a black and white cartoon.

In the early seconds where it is apparent that something with a rounded head area rises from behind the stump, an arm raises over the stump allegedly to snatch a toy or snack.

The white areas in this film are contrasted from black by an increase in temperature where parts of tress that had late exposure to direct light will appear lighter in the video.

The brightest envelope is a silhouette changing shape and compared to the size of the stump is considerably large. Anyone can say this, because Mr Greene sufficiently shows the size of the stump at the distance from the IR unit. The size of the stump, trees etc is more readily apparent in the standard video footage supplied.

It is also apparent that this shape is behind other solid objects, being the stump and some trees.

From a few feet behind the stump, that whole area is then on a downgrade of some 20 degrees, possibly more.

This mass does appear to approach the stump by crawling UP the incline on hands and knees.

After the blob backs down and out of sight, due to the incline, it is then seen standing up and the outline of the silhouette increases in size as the torso appears taller in the frame. This gives the impression that it is walking upright toward the stump area and that of the fallen tree.

Toward the end of the footage, the shape glows white alternating and emerging from the left side, and then the right side of a trees. It looks like a humanoid shape rocking back and forth, but quite large in size. Portions of the torso and arm can be compared to the trees it was standing behind.

The question that I have after having see the terrain and the grade behind the stump, is how this still seem visible from around the waist or mid torso up, if it is some 12' - 15' behind the fallen tree and stump. My impression is that there is a 4' - 5' drop between the ground level (horizon) and the ground where its feet would be. That's quite some waist hight. If the object is behind the tree indicated in the presentation, then it must be standing on ground that is already several feet lower than the stump base.

I understand that this camera was on a short tripod which affects the view angle to the horizon, but this still seem disproportionate to me.

If anyone is willing to spend the $4 to see it, maybe you will take notice of my impression.
.

I am utterly speechless that you would consider the video (as you yourself describe it) to NOT be extremely exciting. By your own description, it is very large, upright walking and bipedal. It engages in a stealth approach, and takes something from the bait pile.

Just how many large, bipedal, stealthy, and intelligent animals do you think ARE out there?

[wolftrax]

Several billion?

[Night Stalker]

I am utterly speechless that you would consider the video (as you yourself describe it) to NOT be extremely exciting. By your own description, it is very large, upright walking and bipedal. It engages in a stealth approach, and takes something from the bait pile.

Just how many large, bipedal, stealthy, and intelligent animals do you think ARE out there?

LOL @ wolftrax. Not that I want to, but I saw it coming.

Mulder, I want to get your back here, but you make it too easy to be a target. On the one hand, we have complete atheists that for the life of me, I can't figure out why they are even here. On the other, you have evangelists that run from one soothsayer to the next like a scene from The Life of Brian. "It's the s h o e . . the SHOE is holy! Follow the shooooeeee"

Given the way the forum is, I think the best thing to do is take the Ben Stein approach, and just say Bueller, , , Bueller.

Yes, on the face of it, I can't see why a man with Mr Greene's reputation would cleverly hoax this in order to repay all his time vested in freezing his nuts off, only to charge $4 and get huffy about copyrights. Doesn't make sense to me.

As much as I resent a lot of the dogma here, I understand where a lot of the pragmatism need be.

Just how many large, bipedal, stealthy, and intelligent animals do I think ARE out there? Does this include escaped convicts and-off-the-grid ex vets? I dunno, probably more BF then we think and less all the time.



.

[Mulder]

LOL @ wolftrax. Not that I want to, but I saw it coming.

Mulder, I want to get your back here, but you make it too easy to be a target. On the one hand, we have complete atheists that for the life of me, I can't figure out why they are even here. On the other, you have evangelists that run from one soothsayer to the next like a scene from The Life of Brian. "It's the s h o e . . the SHOE is holy! Follow the shooooeeee"

Given the way the forum is, I think the best thing to do is take the Ben Stein approach, and just say Bueller, , , Bueller.

Yes, on the face of it, I can't see why a man with Mr Greene's reputation would cleverly hoax this in order to repay all his time vested in freezing his nuts off, only to charge $4 and get huffy about copyrights. Doesn't make sense to me.

As much as I resent a lot of the dogma here, I understand where a lot of the pragmatism need be.

Just how many large, bipedal, stealthy, and intelligent animals do I think ARE out there? Does this include escaped convicts and-off-the-grid ex vets? I dunno, probably more BF then we think and less all the time.
.

Based on your description, the figure on the video is too large to be a person. You even comment yourself on just how big it is.

[Night Stalker]

As I said, the stump is readily identifiable. And while I'm no stump expert, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once last year. The stump appeared to be about <T H I S W I D E> in the video, and the shoulders and head appeared to be about < T H I S W I D E > Sorry, I don't have my EtchaSketch.

Well, I've seen some pretty damned large people. A lot of them hang out at Mc Donalds. What I question is if this is too large to fit in the space it appears to.

I can't say what the pitch\grade of this incline is, but I think if I were standing behind either of those two trees with my feet on the ground, that thermal cam wouldn't even see the top of my head. Personally I think he should take some surveyors out there to map this for him, instead of tying a ribbon on a tree. In his defense, he literally had not had the time to do this yet, so I expect this will be forthcoming.

Anyhoo, that's all folks. I don't know how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.



.

[LondonPaul]

Several billion?

Man! You beat me!! - I was about to type "Humans"!

Seriously, groups like the BFRO and others have some pretty neat and advanced thermal equipment, and considering the amount of time they are all out in the field, isn't it likely that they're gonna catch one of these things on them sooner or later?

The general consensus among a lot of people, however, is that they're simply underwhelming.

This post has been edited by LondonPaul: May 26 2009, 08:08 AM

[Grazhopprr]

Thermal imaging can be used to quite an advantage, if used with other evidence at the same time. It's just another type of evidence, but can't stand on it's own as proof of anything. The " wow " factor is fun and interesting, but leaves you with more questions than answers. And, you can buy thermal imagers on ebay real cheap. That's where I got mine for about 1500.00. Buyer beware, but I got a good deal. If you decide to buy one on ebay, study what that thermal image has, with google first. Learn what they can do, and can't do, first. Every imager has it's plus's and limits.

This post has been edited by Grazhopprr: May 26 2009, 08:48 AM