I was watching "Missing in Alaska" and it had me wondering... I work hard in the research of Bigfoot - extensively with some of the best researchers I know. I come across repeated rock stack situations. Sure, hikers do rock stacks, but some are found in places that are extraordinary. Why? Well, on the Hairy Man episode of the show, they discussed the electromagnetic properties.
Let's take this into mind fuck territory - UFOs associated with Bigfoot. If we want to play with the concept that; there is an association and it's not an incidental findings -- then if you were here and needed to let the UFOs know where you are on this planet, might you create a beacon? Not something we humans might notice, such as a device, but using natural resources in concentration?
Just a thought.
I don't necessarily buy into the correlation, but I believe in humble research. Humble research closes NO doors. In fact, me considering the necessity of a pile of rocks makes me have to observe every possible explanation. I am more thorough. Always remain humble. Never say NEVER.
Some folks might want to follow fairy figures in the shapes of bushes in photographs, others might want to try to talk psychically with Bigfoot, and yet others might chase UFO reports and Bigfoot sightings and find correlations. I may not take those paths because that is now where what I've been working on has led me. But, I wish them to continue their search. If you remain humble in the field, you never have to look stupid when you are proven wrong for laughing at the other guy. And, that other guy searching for aliens or fairies, might just come up with a new technique, new equipment that changes our avenue of study, as well.
You don't need to embrace someone else's concepts or theories or even chase out in the field doing what they are doing, but do allow for all avenues to be taken. Yours is no more valid than theirs. They are oranges and apples. But, it all is guided by the same thing, the desire for knowledge and the fearless pursuit of answers.
While we're on the subject of Bigfoot, I'd like to mention some techniques that could make your life easier. The biggest problem with capturing something on video is you rarely see it while you're filming. You go back and find it later. The problem with this is that people dispute it as something in the natural setting, like a tree stump or rock. You can not only verify that it was not part of the surroundings, but might also capture its motives if you do this -
Pan the area with the camera, remaining in place, zoom in and out if you see interesting things in the distance, dark spots or oddities. Do so slowly. Now, pan back the same technique, pan one more time. You've panned 3 times now. You gave it time to remain still and be filmed (their #1 defense is to freeze in place because they know movement will draw your eye). The second time you pan, you might have captured them making their move. The third time, you likely got nothing because it's gone!
They do watch your head movement to see if you're looking their way. If you look around and think you see something, turn your head away, but move your eyes to keep staring at it, you may turn the camera in your hand to point at it. So long as your head looks as if you are looking in another direction, they will ease up and try an escape.
Hope this helps. I am coming across new concepts every time I work with researchers. I am realizing where they are going right and wrong and finding common factors we can't ignore, like the importance of the head turn as an indicator for them to be safe to flee.
Please keep wondering and asking questions, but always be respectful of those who have earned a huge respect by nature of their ability to outsmart us for so long!
Pretty cool. I am beginning to think rock stacks are territorial markers. Also the first Bigfoot I saw this year was caught out in the open at dusk and it look like a big hairy bush. Very ghille suitish in appearance. It did not move while I was staring, so I turned my head away and when I looked back a couple of seconds later it looked like it had sat down on the bank (it was on the next ridge over). Fortunately the gloaming period briefly brightened the scene and I was able to make out a pale gray facial region with a dark eyebrow ridgeline on top of the pale gray area.ReplyDelete
That is a most excellent observation. I've been reviewing a fellow researcher's work and saw something that really caught my attention and I've always assumed, but never saw a photographic example of - the use of foliage. They have two options - they stand still and let light and shadow fall on their translucent hair and become one with the forest, or they hit the floor and this fellow had grabbed the branch with his right hand, took himself down into a squat using the branch to blot him out and hide him. His legs were in such a position that if he needed to run, he could go fast.Delete
I will try to use the pan 3 times technique. Good advice.ReplyDelete
Yes. Results so far with researchers have been good. No need to go back and re-photograph the area to show nothing was there. Getting stable footage is key, but the problem is most the time no one sees a Bigfoot standing there behind or beside a tree until they get home and review. This way - instant comparison. We do the same in ghost investigations to show a site. I film it with lighting so we can find out if a light is a reflection off an item in the room or if something has moved.Delete