!. 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

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.

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

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.


.

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.


.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Don't forget to take a fifth with.

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

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...

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.

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.

How do we know it is large?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 ...

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? )

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.



.

Click to view attachment

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.

Click to view attachment


.

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?

Several billion?

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.

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.



.

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.

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.

YES! And it's probably been done, but the problem is that it's still inconclusive, still not proof to anyone except the people who are there experiencing it and everything else that might be going along with it (sounds, vocals, whatever else). That is, unless someone could get something very close-up that actually shows facial features. Especially with facial movement, that might be reeeeallydamn compelling and hard to argue against.

Again, you're looking at what ISN'T there and overlooking what IS there: an upright bipedal-locomoting animal too big to be a human being that displays behavior traits inconsistent with other large animals (ruling out a bear, for example).

The jury is out for me as I have yet to see it.

However, we have to look at the background of the person who took* the footage and the circumstances around it. A researcher I have a lot of time for is Cliff Barackman and he has a very high opinion of Mr. Greene having worked with him (See http://northamericanbigfoot.blogspot.com/). This adds to it's credibility IMO and I'm interested in viewing it.

(* I know Mike Greene didn't actually physically "take" the footage but he is the one who is responsible for it)

To be fair, I haven't seen it with my own eyes...I am accepting the reports of what it shows in this thread as accurate.

I would still like to know just what the few missing "details" (like clear imagery of the face) would add to what the video apparently ALREADY shows...

There was no clear imagery of anything... just a white blobsquatch.

Please do not quote out of context...I asked what such imagery WOULD add to the value of the imagery already present.

What are you looking for? A big gold chain necklace with a large BF in the medallion?

A white blonsquatch standing next to a sign on the road that says NO STANDING HERE and we know the sign is 8' tall?

There is nothing about the medium being discussed that would add more value than already present. You can't stage voracity with B&W blobsquatchery.

For the sake of satisfying your question beyond justification, shall we build a frame where upon we place a thermal cam, a night vision cam, a HD color cam, stereo microphones, and maybe some Far IR 3-D modelling equipment? We can just hide all that behind the fake ficus from Walmart. Oh and a placemat that says "WELCOME PLEASE STAND HERE. Do you agree, grunt once for yes and twice for no."


.

Well, gee whiz Sam . It has to be large because he said so right? And shouldn't that be enough? It seems to be for some people (*Coff coff * Mulder) since they keep saying it again and again and have yet to, admittedly see it for themselves. Maybe it's one of those other things in this field that happen so often, if it gets repeated enough it becomes a fact , it doesn't matter if it really is or not, just as long as there are people out there dumb enough to beleive it is.

Initially the thermal footage struck me as weird looking, the gate and movement of the being on tape. It frankly reminded me of Gollum from the Lord of the Rings movies, or I thought maybe that is how a feral human would act. Its movement seemed to be that of a very paranoid person. And it was very creepy, because no normal human could move that way without being very strong and limber. Maybe Andy Serkis was on vacation in the swaps of North Carolina…in the dark…in the middle of the night…

I briefly talked with Cliff about the footage right after the showing and he said that he believes they have approached his camp(s) in the same manner, crawling, which frankly blow my mind. I go out looking, but I’m not to the level of camping at night in total darkness in the woods trying to attract 8 foot tall crawling whatevers.

I heard Mr. Greene’s intensive presentation about his research and the footage and I’m prepared to take his at his word until proven otherwise. If it’s a hoax, it’s one of the most imaginative, coolest, creepiest hoaxes that’s been done to date.

No, but it seems to be what YOU are looking for, based on your dismissal of the imagery as being "not detailed enough".




When even those inclined to DISMISS the imagery agree that it shows a BIG creature (outside human norm), then I think that's safe to call an accurate assessment of size.



This would square with similar bx positied by people like Timberghost, who have had extensive experience in and around these things.

This isn't about dismissing Greene's thermal footage. It's about a thermal video, not being able to stand on its own as conclusive proof of a BF in that footage. There has to be more to back up the claim, other than that. Taking a thermal imager out there on it's own, and expecting anyone to believe it as it is, is showing a low learning curve. That's one of the problems about night hunting. There is no extant technology that stands on it's own, without the support of other proof at the same time. Other than that, the whole experience is totally subjective, and needs to be appreciated as such. You had an experience, just like others have, and that's great for you. We can pat you on the back and say well done. Add the information to the system, and move on with the research.

An example of what to do with a thermal imager, with that baiting situation. After the BF gets used to coming in for that bait, setup a few video cameras near that bait area, aiming from different angles. Setup some high intensity spot lights, with a switch that you keep with you in a hiding place far away, but within the thermal cameras range. Watch with the thermal camera recording, and when it comes in again, wait for the right time, and hit the spot lights and cameras. BANG,,,,,you have real time video, with sound, and thermal video at the same time.

Build your experimentation with steps added on each time. Don't just take the first thing you get, and go running about all excited about "getting it ". The steps I typed above, may not work, but at least it's an idea added to the situation as it unfolds, knowing that the thermal would not be enough.

Please spend twelve grand to find out for yourself forthwith...

Wow, that's pretty harsh coming at him like that for no reason Py. Hopefully, "we" (you) didn't make a purchase during the recent huge sale of "high horses" around here.

Anyone want to bet money that those who use this "gotcha, didn't I" emoticon more then once a week (inappropriately I might add) also laugh at their own jokes more then anyone else does?


As someone who's no expert on how thermal works (I leave that to my "partner" Longtabber) I'd say after 3 years and many long all nighters since we've had access to them, I'm pretty damn comfortable using them and understand what I'm looking for and or seeing. One or more of you mentioned one of my field partners and best friend, Cliff. I know he's done some recent experimentation with these units with distance, clothing, no clothing etc.. that we should see on his website or blog if it's not there already and I'm missing it.
(On a sidenote, I'm proud of my friend Cliff, his website and the way he researches and reports and am glad many others are enjoying his efforts.)

I notice alot of negative opinions regarding thermal imaging as an evidence tool. What I'd love to see without anybody taking it personally, is if someone here that's criticized thermal in general (not this particular footage) to explain how thermal can be scientifically worthless or hoaxed. In other words, what can somebody do to manipulate either the post-footage or manipulate the subject in the footage to make persons believe a large, "naked" (void of clothing) disproportionate subject (compared to say a human subject) can be attempted to be presented as evidence when there's additional proper measurement comparison footage... for example? Please don't insult my intelligence either by saying it's distance because I'm fully aware of the yardage threshold with these units and where a bipedal subject for instance, becomes an undiscernable "corona." A matter of fact, Longtabber who's an expert with Flir (maybe not Raytheon) has assured me in our private discussions seeking his expertise, that a thermal subject can be scientifically proven with the help of imaging software regardless of how "unsexy" the footage may appear on casual visual examination. I recall that accurate, specific temperature, plays a huge part in this process.

Some people understandably may not have a "I brake for boring white thermal blobsquatches" sticker on their bumper, especially purist enthusiasts & skeptics.....but "if" it can be scientifically proven does it really matter what they think? On the flip side, no matter how impressive visually, if for some reason a specific thermal footage can't be scientifically proven by "experts," that just makes it very intriguing and the topic of many more threads & heated exchanges, does it not?

We may not hear from LT for awhile (who's on assignment but I've sent him the link to this footage & given him the backstory). So anyone who's made a definitive statement about what thermal can and can't prove want to weigh in with facts and not subjective feelings....pre--Longtabber's thoughts? Remember it's not what you'd prefer to see or your opinion, it's what science will or will not accept based on if it can be substantiated...period.

I'm impressed with this footage due to the visible appearance & agileness of what we see of the subject (which reminds me of the one I saw, Greene's is just less thick upstairs) but I'm completely unfamiliar with the location (N Stalker did a good job of describing it based off daytime shots we were shown at the event) & I respectfully defer my final opinion to results LT can come up with and a finished investigation (which still needs some time).
In the interim, here's 2 shots I found of what's likely a wolf and the other humans, from an older BFRO page (I'm sorry I don't have distance on these). These were both shot with a 250D Raytheon (like Mike Greene). Can you make out the number of girls and boys? Although the persons in the pic are listed, by body shape alone (and clothes, LOL) I could detect one of them that is a friend I've been out with numerous times here in CA.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

This one is from the X200xp handheld which I've used the most extensively and had my sighting with. You can see how similiar the overall picture & results from both units are. Of course the 250D being the stationary unit is a wider lense.

Click to view attachment

Double-post........

Is that a 25mm lens or a 15mm lens?





*click heels together three times*

Isnt that guy in the middle a tad large?
Isnt that guy in the middle a tad large?
Isnt that guy in the middle a tad large?

No? Well he LOOKS a tad large.





.

Actually, Bart, it's just a "whistle" emoticon, not a "gotcha, didn't I" emoticon. I am still waiting for Paul to get us one of those.

My response was to Mulder's use of the word "we". As if the "we" was meant for just himself and Mr. Greene, or for us all, collectively. (Maybe Mulder is part owner of Mr. Greene's thermal image? I dunno.)

I haven't seen Mr. Greene's thermal image. My doubts about his thermal image are based upon my own use of thermal imaging and the comments from those that have seen his thermal image.