Thermal cameras - why no footage?

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:WE as humans don't know all science........

That doesn't mean that we must consider every fanciful hypothesis to be credible until proven otherwise. That way madness lies.

But you will agree that Some Scientific theory we use to hold as FACT has been proven wrong. By new Information.

If you notice i am not jumping on and saying this or that IS a big foot.

I appreciate that, but surely you can't think that all possibilities are equally plausible?

If someone claimed to witness a Bigfoot carrying young in a marsupial pouch, laying eggs or using a Predator-type camoflage; would you give these things serious consideration? We can infer from what we know about known animals that these possibilities are so unlikely that they don't bear thinking about.

We are of course putting the cart before the horse here and such speculation is pointless without specimens or decent documentation of Bigfoot. And then there is the issue of authenticity; why even contemplate alleged Bigfoot physiology if the source information can't be verified as genuine?

If someone showed me footage of a Bigfoot that exhibited behaviour which suggested it might have infrared sight, my first question isn't 'is this physically possible?' but 'is this real?'. There is however some crossover where what is physically possible will have some bearing on whether the evidence is genuine.

This is why i take in account many of the "stories" I look for the similarities in the stories or the images.
Example we both agree that the white squatch is odd because of no eye shine.
So see I am not jumping and saying it is real because like you the other stories talk about eye shine and even the other footage.
So why doesn't this on have it.
It could be that big foot doesn't have eye shine and all the other eye shine is something else.
So i am not a die heard believer. I am curious on the creature I believe it is real just don't know what it is really like and i would like to know.

CMcMillan wrote:But you will agree that Some Scientific theory we use to hold as FACT has been proven wrong. By new Information.

Not really. Science doesn't deal in facts, it only presents working theories based on available information. These theories must withstand the rigours of falsification and as and when new information comes forward they are reinforced, reworked, or rejected accordingly. This is all part of an ongoing and gradual process and you don't get major upheavals that require us to suddenly throw out everything we thought we knew.

But just because science can get things wrong it doesn't follow that we should consider all possibilities equally credible. The caveat would be that all things are possible within reason, but when it comes to Bigfoot possessing traits that have no precedent in the natural world, we are dealing with possibilities that are largely unreasonable. If you think that Bigfoot has spontaneously developed infrared vision, that doesn't just call for a minor revision in our knowledge of the natural world, but a rewriting of everything we know about evolution, palaeontology and genetics. That's one hell of an ask and it would be something unprecedented in the history of science.

Right but what IF it does HAVE infrared sight?
That will shake up and change what we KNOW.
see that is the flip side of this coin.
Bigfoot could be the creature that defies all our logic.
we won't know till we examine one.

CMcMillan,

I appreciate where you are coming from, but if you take on board what I'm saying it will give you a better idea of what is plausible (as opposed to possible) and make it easier to sort out genuine Bigfoot sightings or evidence from hoaxes and misidentifications.

You can always keep a middle file open, where everything about an account adds up except a couple of minor implausible details. Most people are very poor witnesses and they can easily embellish genuine sightings with false details that don't make sense. But when it comes to such accounts, you can't consider them evidence or use them as the basis for speculation about Bigfoot physiology. You just have to sit back and wait for something more credible to come along that might explain, confirm, or refute the anomalies.

There were all sorts of myths about gorillas before they were recorded by science and it's a good bet that the same would apply to Bigfoot. It's my opinion that infrared vision and eyeshine are likely to be 'mythological' traits the same as Bigfoot ESP and EMP abilities.

CMcMillan wrote:Right but what IF it does HAVE infrared sight?
That will shake up and change what we KNOW.
see that is the flip side of this coin.
Bigfoot could be the creature that defies all our logic.
we won't know till we examine one.

Science will just have to deal with it if that turns out to be the case.

All I'm saying is that the existence of these traits in an unknown ape would represent an huge upset in the natural sciences. By comparison the notion that these traits are the product of misperception or hoaxing is a much more plausible option. It's an odds game and the odds are stacked against infrared vision in an unknown ape (assuming that's what Bigfoot is).

Woodwose wrote:CMcMillan,

I appreciate where you are coming from, but if you take on board what I'm saying it will give you a better idea of what is plausible (as opposed to possible) and make it easier to sort out genuine Bigfoot sightings or evidence from hoaxes and misidentifications.

You can always keep a middle file open, where everything about an account adds up except a couple of minor implausible details. Most people are very poor witnesses and they can easily embellish genuine sightings with false details that don't make sense. But when it comes to such accounts, you can't consider them evidence or use them as the basis for speculation about Bigfoot physiology. You just have to sit back and wait for something more credible to come along that might explain, confirm, or refute the anomalies.

There were all sorts of myths about gorillas before they were recorded by science and it's a good bet that the same would apply to Bigfoot. It's my opinion that infrared vision and eyeshine are likely to be 'mythological' traits the same as Bigfoot ESP and EMP abilities.

Right so lets say the eyeshine and infrared vision are just that not real. Then that could lend more credibility to the white bigfoot in PA.
So which way do you look at it.
If we take away the eyeshine theory then many of the creatures are being miss identified as owls or other animals which then gives the white bigfoot more room to be accurate.
its a catch 22

CMcMillan wrote:Right so lets say the eyeshine and infrared vision are just that not real. Then that could lend more credibility to the white bigfoot in PA.

Only if the footage was otherwise credible. As I said on the white Bigfoot thread, a person in a suit wouldn't produce eye-shine either. It only becomes a catch 22 situation if there is nothing else in the video to determine whether or not it's a hoax. In my view the lack of eye-shine is the only squatchy thing about the video..........and that's stretching things.

I have one question on your animal logic belief that the Bigfoot doesn't follow the norm we would expect to see.
Explain the evolution of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) see this animal defied logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

Because of the early divergence from the therian mammals and the low numbers of extant monotreme species, the platypus is a frequent subject of research in evolutionary biology. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY),[64] although given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.[65] The platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilisation.[34][66] Since the platypus lacks the mammalian sex-determining gene SRY, the mechanism of sex determination remains unknown.[67] A draft version of the platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008, revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians, and fish. More than 80% of the platypus' genes are common to the other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced.[34]

Edit:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/boy-in-china-with-cats-eyes/

It is also believed by some researchers that Homids of our past did have tapetum lucidum and as we spent more time hunting and gathering in the day we lost it. So could it be a recessive gene in us? And maybe its not recessive in Big Foot.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Monotremes branched from other mammals more than 100 million years ago and the platypus didn't just spring up out of nowhere with an ability to lay eggs etc. It's an unusual animal with an intriguing genetic makeup, but I don't see why you think this is relevant to an ape developing infrared sight?

Woodwose wrote:I'm not sure what your point is.

Monotremes branched from other mammals more than 100 million years ago and the platypus didn't just spring up out of nowhere with an ability to lay eggs etc. It's an unusual animal with an intriguing genetic makeup, but I don't see why you think this is relevant to an ape developing infrared sight?

Edit:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/boy-in-china-with-cats-eyes/

It is also believed by some researchers that Homids of our past did have tapetum lucidum and as we spent more time hunting and gathering in the day we lost it. So could it be a recessive gene in us? And maybe its not recessive in Big Foot.

And some primates do have tapetum lucidum

Tapetum lucidum is less problematic than infrared vision, but it's estimated that our branch of primates lost it around 57 million years ago. That's long before ourselves or bigfoot would have branched out from other apes.

If it exists as a recessive gene then you would expect it to have been documented in humans or other great apes. Unlike things like vestigial tails, there have been no accounts of tapetum lucidum appearing in any humans. There are other good reasons to discount the recessive gene hypothesis and the Chinese boy you linked to is a good case in point. See the following explanation:

[T]here is no single genetic mutation that could produce a fully formed and functioning tapetum lucidum, Reynolds explained; such an ability would require multiple mutations, which would not occur all at once. Evolution happens incrementally, he said, not by leaps and bounds. “Evolutionarily, mutations can result in differences that allow for new environmental niche exploitation. But such mutations are modified over long periods. A functional tapetum in a human would be just as absurd as a human born with wings.

http://tiny.cc/st92iw

I would argue that the same would also apply to bigfoot as it must have evolved from a known line of apes fairly recently and there is unlikely to have been enough time for such a complex mechanism to re-evolve. I could be wrong about this of course, however I think eye-shine would only be possible if bigfoot's lineage diverged at the time we diverged from the other great apes (6 million years ago). The problem being that there is no fossil record for another branch of apes that bigfoot could belong to.

I will however say that there could have been extreme environmental conditions that accelerated bigfoot evolution, but since we don't see anything like that happening with the other fauna found in bigfoot territory, this seems very unlikely.

CMcMillan wrote:It is also believed by some researchers that Homids.......

I hope you are not referring to Danny Vendramini?

Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

StankApe wrote:Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

Shove it Stank your being an asshole because I question your LOGIC you can't accept it.
Your just being an immature troll who can't accept someone who has a different opinion than you.
Still you haven't explained why the Suit stories are so different. But you can't So its just like you think of bigfooters who make shit up or change the facts you and other skeptics do the exact same bs that you accuse BFooters of.



Wood I decided to look at some evolutionary timelines

http://www.newscientist.com/movie/becoming-human
Since we are dealing with the fossils it is very hard to say when we may have had the tapetum lucidum or if we did.
Also it could be possible we actually branched off "Big foot Homid and not gorilla" we are using our best guess.
It could be that we "Big foot is an immediate ancestor to us who didn't evolve to hunt during the day time" who didn't discover fire.
We won't know what could be until we capture and study one. And then see where they may bury their dead. or discover fossils

I get we need to start with what we know but we also can not limit ourselves by the "standards" of what we know.
Nature surprises us all the time.

StankApe wrote:Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

Wheres the +1 button when you need it!

BurdenOfProof wrote:

StankApe wrote:Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

Wheres the +1 button when you need it!

whats funny I show you both the same logic and rational explanations for things that counter what you believe.
And I don't say that your responses are meaningless or that I am discussing with a brick wall.
I show you where your evolution and natural belief's have gone wrong in some species.
or how we have people or other animals with conditions that "they just can't have" yet I am the one being Illogical.

Its funny I thought a Skeptic who really was a skeptic and not just a jerk would actually do research in the area and see where things COULD happen. Then take that in account.
I am not making this shit up. I am using my brain and looking at the real life possibility of things.
Does it deviate from the norm of the "known primates" yes but the fact is we are making our own assumptions about bigfoot and we don't know yet where it may lie in evolution.

Where our evolution and natural beliefs have gone wrong?

I don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is a demonstrably true fact, no faith required.

And where have you shown evolution is wrong?

CMcMillan,

The estimates for the loss of tapetum lucidum are based on the DNA of humans and other primates that lack that physiology.

If bigfoot branched off from early hominids or early hominids branched off from a bigfoot ancestor, there should be some fossil record of this or indications from the fossil record that there is a missing branch of hominid/ape.

we also can not limit ourselves by the "standards" of what we know

I disagree.......we can only speculate around what we know to be plausible. Whilst nature can throw up surprises it doesn't produce anomalies that fall outside the bounds of our general understanding of evolution and genetics.

The other problem is that every time you have to rely on unlikely possibilities for bigfoot evidence to make sense you only serve to undermine the case for the existence of bigfoot. Every additional unlikely possibility makes the evidence more and more implausible.

Relying on a multitude of 'what ifs' to support bigfoot just comes across as apologetics. Don't get me wrong, all this speculation is very entertaining, but it doesn't really add anything to the subject.

Any bigfoot theory that relies on convoluted possibilities should be shelved until corroborating evidence comes up. In the mean time we should just get on with the business of figuring out how to spot hoaxes and misidentifications and how best to determine if these animals exist. After decades of research we still havn't got these basics figured out.

StankApe wrote:Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

Shut up, Stank! I really, really enjoy Woodwose's logical and quite educational responses! BTW CMc, you chided Stank for not reading... um... you obviously missed that he said he knew of no MAMMAL that sees in infrared.

Back on topic, Paul says he's about to FLY two Flirs 200 feet up? Are they silent? Planes or helicopters?

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/45/

A fragment of a pinkie finger excavated from a deep cavern in southern Siberia may point to a new species of ancient human. The 40,000-year-old bone yielded DNA markedly different from that of modern humans or Neanderthals, challenging the current view of how our ancestors migrated out of Africa.
Johannes Krause and Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, zeroed in on mitochondrial DNA (which is passed down intact from a woman to her children) preserved in the ancient bone. In January they identified it as belonging to an unknown female hominid whom they nicknamed “X Woman.” Her mitochondrial DNA differed from present-day human DNA at nearly 400 positions, twice the difference measured between human and Neanderthal DNA. The genetic patterns indicate that X Woman, Neanderthals, and modern humans shared a common genetic ancestor about a million years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120808132705.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120813155521.htm

Neanderthals and modern humans once shared a common ancestor who is thought to have spanned Africa and Europe about half a million years ago. Just as there are very different populations across Europe today, populations of that common ancestor would not have been completely mixed across continents, but rather closer populations would have been more genetically similar to each other than populations further apart. (There is extensive genetic and archaeological evidence that population in Africa were 'structured'; in other words, different populations in Africa only had limited exchange through migration, allowing them to remain distinct from each other both in terms of genetics and morphology.)
Then, about 350-300 thousand years ago, the European range and the African range became separated. The European range evolved into Neanderthal, the African range eventually turned into modern humans. However, because the populations within each continent were not freely mixing, the DNA of the modern human population in Africa that were ancestrally closer to Europe would have retained more of the ancestral DNA (specifically, genetic variants) that is also shared with Neanderthals.

See its amazing how we keep changing what we supposedly KNOW when we find new information.

Kel wrote:

StankApe wrote:Just pack it in Woodwose, its like arguing with a cat, you present a logical and rational POV backed up with all the evidence of evolution and speciation and the response is "meow".....

Shut up, Stank! I really, really enjoy Woodwose's logical and quite educational responses! BTW CMc, you chided Stank for not reading... um... you obviously missed that he said he knew of no MAMMAL that sees in infrared.

Back on topic, Paul says he's about to FLY two Flirs 200 feet up? Are they silent? Planes or helicopters?

Yes I did miss he said Mammals my bad.

CCMcMillian wrote:
"I think part of the issue is that we are making an assumption that Bigfoots are an ape.
Now granted this tends to be the most logical belief that they are a branch of the "Primate family" much like humans.
But we evolved differently than our cousins the ape and possibly the bigfoot. "

I stopped assuming the ape theory a while ago. I think they are humanistic and are as intelligent as anything in the forrest.
Thats the basic premis I start out with before I start any hypothesis.

GT3Paul wrote:CCMcMillian wrote:
"I think part of the issue is that we are making an assumption that Bigfoots are an ape.
Now granted this tends to be the most logical belief that they are a branch of the "Primate family" much like humans.
But we evolved differently than our cousins the ape and possibly the bigfoot. "

I stopped assuming the ape theory a while ago. I think they are humanistic and are as intelligent as anything in the forrest.
Thats the basic premis I start out with before I start any hypothesis.

Well do you assume they are more Hominid then?

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/6/79.06.02.x.html

1. Australopithecus africanus (The South African apeman)
2.Homo erectus (Sinanthropus pekinensis�Chinese man from Peking, or Peking Man)
3. Ramapithecus punjabicus (Rama�s ape)
4. Australopithecus robustus (Paranthropus robustus�large ape akin to man)
5. Australopithecus boisei (Zinjanthropus boisei�the nutcracker man)
6. Homo habilis (�able man� or �handy man�)
7. Australopithecus afarensis (�Afar apeman�)

In discussing some of the more salient aspects of current evolutionary thought, an effort has been made to avoid considering earlier forms of hominids as incomplete or imperfect humans. It is a mistake to regard earlier forms only in relation to modern man, or to suggest that the evolutionary process of the past 15 million years has been one of direction toward producing today�s man. Earlier hominids had their own unique qualities, and these species enjoyed long periods of successful existence. Homo sapiens is a species that has been present on earth for approximately 200,000 years, as compared with 1 million years for Homo erectus or for Australopithecus robustus. Another aspect of our uniqueness is that we happen to be the sole surviving representatives of a family that was formerly diverse. Our longrange success as a species and the evolutionary trends that we continue to express are matters which remain to be seen.

This is where I think Big Foot falls into play here.
See bold in quote
I think it should read ... species enjoyed long periods of successful existence and still does today.

https://www.msu.edu/~robin400/timeline2.html

http://pratclif.com/origins-life/Hominid%20Species.htm

No one thing about thermal camera if you watch destination truth or any of those shows,
Thermal camera's are just going to show a heat source and the size of it.
I don't think a Thermal picture is going to prove to anyone that it is a bigfoot.
It will just give you a thermal blob-squatch

Of course i would be interested in seeing them.
I think more likely is the
Night vision devices
Infrared illuminated (I2) cameras
I2 cameras try to generate their own reflected light by projecting a beam of near-infrared energy that their imager can see when it bounces off an object. This works to a point, but I2 cameras still rely on reflected light to make an image, so they have the same limitations as any other night vision camera that depends on reflected light energy – short range, and poor contrast.