On with the Bigfoot discussion Cloaking?

Enough of the political BS here. As I get further introduced into the community, and I have met a LOT of the more
respected researchers, including JC Johnson, Freeman Young, David Paulides and even Cliff Barakman, this subject
comes up more and more. How does a BF drop out of sight? I have been looking at more and more video from guys
who spend a TON of time in the field. I am seeing more and more examples of what some say is cloaking. In some
of the videos you can see what appears to be distortion in the field of view. The only way I can describe it is similar
to the movie Predator. I am not a proponent of UFOs or the relationship of UFOs and BF. The physics of such feats
makes it hard to believe, and I think most are our own government flight testing stuff.
But bending light is not that hard to believe. Heat causes distortion when you look at the road or other surfaces.
I dont think its some magical ability but more an ability to either distort light or take advantage of distortion in vision
viewing these creatures at a distance.
In looking at some of these videos it appears to be distortion in a silhouette of what might be a BF standing in plain sight.
If its true that BF can use EMF to cause people to feel uncomfortable or downright ill, then its not that far fetched that they
have some mechanism of distorting light around them.
I am of the opinion that since these creatures are nocturnal it would be best to study an night. Freeman Young is going out
at night in a nature preserve near Stanford University. He has a FLIR and was having a tough time getting it to be portable.
I have several FLIRS that I use in my work and I was able to make his much more portable. I think this is the best way to get
around this capability if they indeed have such a skill. FLIR is passive and unfortunately FLIRS are expensive and the less expensive
ones have less resolution and shorter ranges. They just havent been widely available to researchers in the field.
Night vision is kind of hard to use. The ones that you can get your hands on at BIG 5 or other sporting good stores are earlier
generations and most of them use a IR Beam to light up the surroundings because they are not good enough to use in regular
ambient light. I am guessing that if Bigfoot is completely nocturnal then they may possess the ability to see IR light used
in these less expensive night vision systems. I think thats what FINDING BIGFOOT uses to shoot their night time video
and I just dont understand why if they are seriously going out to FING BIGFOOT. The current night vision systems are just
plain expensive.
But if they can distort light in the day I dont think they can manipulate their body heat enough to not come up on some good
FLIR systems. I look forward to seeing what Freeman comes up with.
I like to fly small UAVs and my idea is to put one of my FLIRs on the bird and fly in an autonomous mode around 100 feet if the trees allow
it at night and cover a few acres up in the Sierras where I live. I just havent finished the camera mount on the gimbal system I use.
Thoughts on cloaking? Any ideas on how they may do this?

There is an uncanny aspect to many BF encounters that is anathema to the people eager to present an easily digestible picture to mainstream science. But it is ubiquitous and non-dismissible. Something strange is going on out in the woods, something we don't quite understand, that refuses to fit into the categories of understanding that science tells us are legitimate. Real creatures don't vanish into thin air or use psychic powers to communicate or even manipulate. Of course, we define "real" as something that fits into our schemata, and the common sense of the educated public still resembles something very akin to Newtonian determinism. Yet if you look at quantum theory for instance, it hints at a much stranger and less deterministic foundation to "reality" -- a state perhaps best though of as psychic given the strange influence that observers seem to have upon the observed (double slit experiment for starters).

I dont know that I believe this topic but I put it up here for discussion. If I get one more post like what I just got rid of that person will be kindly asked to leave.
THis is a Big Forum and all the things that come along with it, either igonore it or leave the forume

Let's entertain the idea for a second.

You proclaim patty to be real so why didn't she use cloaking? Must have been the Alzheimer's right?

The claim from the DNA paper is relic hominid. So where does cloaking come in here exactly? No hominids have anything of the sort, hell let's expand that to the entire animal kingdom.

Do some research on the topic, find out what people think and what BF experts believe. I dont think I believe it but I can entertain how it might be done.
But this post wasnt a educational post for you. If was for people who know what I was talking about and I was asking what they think about the topic.

Again (why you cant comprehend I dont know) I didnt proclaim patty to be real. Rather, I pointed out that there are other scientist who have studied the film and dont believe is a fake. I dont know why you can figure out what an opinion is. I offered an alternative view on the idea that Patty is a complete fake case closed as you put it. That doesnt make them right but it doesnt make you right either or as you like to say (Case Fu....king closed)

What is your definition of a bigfoot expert?

I think this has more to do that the Bigfoots are tied into somehow with Aliens.
History channels Ancient Aliens did a segment on how some people believe Big Foot is tied to Ancient Aliens and even Aliens at present.
I have read as well that some people believe that bigfoots are tied into the "forest spirts" or the "forests center of powers" more than humans are. Several people have observed strange lights associated in "deep" forest areas that also have more bigfoot activity.
I will see if I can link to some of the videos i have seen on this as well soon.
I don't see them have some kinda of cloaking device. I would tend to believe they are more adapted to hide from Humans and know how to use shadows and the woods better to hide themselves.

I will indulge this this last time. A big foot expert is someone who has been in the field for years. Written books on the subject. Some of the people I know are
Freeman Young, JC Johnson, David Paulides of the Hoopa Project, Chris Noel of Impossible visits, Chris Barakman of Finding bigfoot TV show. WIlliam Evans who shot the baby in the craw of a tree. Those are people who have spent months weeks Days camping in the field to get the data they get. All People I have talked to who have on top of their field work spent hours looking at video tape looking at irregularities, things that arent supposed to be there. Like Chris Noels Camp fire IR tape. Those are recognized experts doing cutting edge stuff at the forefront of technology. These guys are on countless TV and Radio shows. JC Johnson of Crypto Corners has a TV show coming up on the Sci Fi Channel those are experts that are recognized as people to go to on the subject along with Dr. Jeff Meldrum. Those are people who are published in the field and have given much of them selves in the name of research.
CMcMillan I tend to agree with you, I think they are experts in using light and shadows in hiding themselves. If you have ever seen a Indian rock are in a canyon out here in the desert some stuff is unseen until the sun strikes it the right way and then there it is plain as day.
If you watch some of the Billy240Z videos on Youtube you can see examples of how they use light to show or hide themselves. But he cloacking subject comes up more and more

I had a look at some of Billy240Z videos and well I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking at?

"in the nest of bigfoot"

hes just walking around a fallen down tree and aparently the sasquatches are everywhere?

he shows no evidence as to why this patch of woods is a sasquatch nest, he just reached that conclusion and we should take his word for it?

Edit:

OK I am done. The guy is saying a baby bigfoot sleeps over at his house and even snores. I am done. i tried to see where he was actually joking about this but it looks like he is being serious.

"So the baby's who come in my house are scared? lmao so you know they stay with me one even snores . Fear nothing really works....."

"Yes it is very much a trust thing with them they deal with us on a personal level.

In this film I did not step any closer because there is some big ones right in front of me. I can sense when I should stop and this is one of those times.

The group I am learning from now do come in my home at times and the parents stay near by all the time."

I don't think Bigfoot have any cloaking abilities that could be considered supernatural. Many animals and insects can blend in to their surroundings quite easily through camouflage. Some insects look like sticks, hares change colour etc. etc.
It's alleged that Bigfoot have oily hair to repel water, and most suspected Bigfoot we have seen are dark in colour. Dark colours blend in well with shadows and sun glistening off oily hair might give an appearance of "cloaking". Maybe the properties of their oily hair and skin reflect light in such a way that this gives them an advantage in the forests. Add to that the poor results from digital zoom on camcorders.
I have seen a few videos where someone has recorded what looks like a Bigfoot, and from what I saw, it almost looked like the Bigfoot was cloaking. It was a trick of light and bad optics in my humble opinion.
I would think that Bigfoot would have the capability to have it's own way of blending in to it's surroundings, but I don't think they have supernatural abilities, and I do not think they're aliens.
It's certainly a good question to ask. I don't have any science to back that up, it's just an idea I've had for quite awhile.
While I'm on this subject, quite some time ago a fellow YouTuber posed the very same question to me. I gave the same answer but I think it was more lengthy than what I've written here. I think I said something to the effect that the Bigfoot have a natural ability to bend or refract light because of the nature of their physical make up, a form of camouflage if you will. I also stated it was an opinion I had based on videos I've seen, and maybe it's a plausible theory.
I unsubbed this person because I got the impression they were fabricating evidence or misleading viewers. I decided to read his comments, and wouldn't you know it, he passed this off as his own idea.
Anyway, I'm not a biologist, scientist or any other "ist" with a bunch of letters after my name. It was just my own observation, whether it's a valid one or not.
Sorry about the minor rant, it's been bottled up too long and I needed to be rid of it.



My idea came from technology we already have, or are working on. Plenty of videos on cloaking out there.

Burden, I have talked to Billy alot, and I agree with about .126 percent of what he says. Some of his videos are good stuff.
Some are great. Others are GREAT shots of grass. I think he has a gift for seeing the Sqautches. I also think some of his thinking
is heavily influenced by some of the Grass he was shooting. But some how he gets a gem every 25-30 videos. He is one strange dude
and I no longer talk to the guy. Some of his thought process is not based in reality. But again he gets some gems somethings.

Which ones are the great ones? would you post a link? There are a lot of em and the few I looked at were just video of trees and grass and stuff.

I am in Vegas at a conference so when I get back, I will go through them and try to get the best ones.
Two of them are the Baby Sas in a craw of a tree, thats in Facebook/findbigfoot. I think its judged to be one
of the top 5 videos.
The other one is Old Gray.
You can see the old gray Sas, trying to stay still. but he just doesnt make it.
The Produce 2 is great, in the first 7 seconds you can see something walking away in the mist.
There are TONS of others that say they are everywhere and I couldnt find Squat. I asked him about it
but he didnt like my questions.
I just dont have the resources or time here to go through it all.

The baby in the craw of the tree is ridiculous.

Its simple pareidolia. The fb fb guys compare 2 frames 8 seconds apart and proclaim it has moved. What you can actually see is the entire angle of view has changed, the camera man has moved to a different position so of course you would expect shadows/shapes to move slightly.

When he says a baby sas is sleeping round his house and snores it is extremely difficult to take anything he says seriously.

Somehow that doesnt surprise me that you take a couple of comments this guys makes and then make a gross generalization I was a member of his private
group on Facebook but his behavior got so weird I no longer partake. But that doenst mean some of the film work he does isnt good.
I have seen the long version of the baby and I see it move. I dont care what you say. Its one of the best films ever. I knew him before he
got lost in his grass haze and he had some good videos. Worth seeing. Others not so much The produce 2 was excellent.
But then again you dont believe the PGF either.

BurdenOfProof wrote:The baby in the craw of the tree is ridiculous.

Its simple pareidolia. The fb fb guys compare 2 frames 8 seconds apart and proclaim it has moved. What you can actually see is the entire angle of view has changed, the camera man has moved to a different position so of course you would expect shadows/shapes to move slightly.

When he says a baby sas is sleeping round his house and snores it is extremely difficult to take anything he says seriously.

What other reasons do you feel the Baby film is ridiculous.
If bigfoot believers must prove to you that bigfoot is real with evidence why can't you show your own analysis of the film and show us why you feel it is ridiculous. I think better understanding comes from sharing your doubts with what you believe makes it ridiculous.
Look at Woodwose with the bigfoot photo. I think Both of us showing things we have seen helps both the skeptics and the Believers to question more.
Not just saying its ridiculous.

Now what seems more of a leap of logic? Taking the fact that this guy is a bit crazy combined with his massive list of pareidolia videos (and some that are just obviously of trees and grass with nothing else in the frame) and coming to the conclusion that he hasn't filmed anything (I looked at 30 of his videos and I can honestly say I couldn't see a thing in any of em) OR to freely admit that the guy is a bit crazy and yet still buy into the idea that despite this, he has somehow actually filmed Bigfoot?

CMcMillan wrote:showing things we have seen helps both the skeptics and the Believers to question more.

I couldn't agree more - through analysis and counter analysis I think we are more likely to arrive at a better understanding of any evidence that is put forward. We should be pooling our resources together regardless of where we stand on the scale of belief in Bigfoot.

The 'no it isn't' 'yes it is' pantomime you get in the Bigfoot Evidence blog comments contributes nothing to the subject. Everyone is going to disagree on certain things, but it's the manner in which we disagree that is important.

It also helps if you enter into discussions knowing that there is a chance you may be mistaken.................all too many debates breakdown because outspoken individuals would rather save face and stick to their guns than admit that they were wrong about something.

I like SN's explanation of oily hair, but I havent read any reports (and i have read a lot) that said their hair was oily. I'd imagine hair would have to be extremely oily to displace light. If they had the ability it would explain to a degree a lack of more video/pics, but given their size and supposed athletic ability, i would argue they would be at the top of the food chain and no need for cloaking abilities.

If they do have cloaking abilities, then the government already know about it and the military are already doing tests on them.