Thursday, December 1, 2016

Ohio Bigfoot Hunter Thermal Signature

Tim Stover gives a demonstration of the thermal camera device he uses in the field, and explains a little about his thoughts of using thermal devices in the field of bigfoot.


  1. Without you this place would be dead. Always informative even if the articles aren't to much.

    I found this comment from way way back that seems to sum up his message just right:

    (unverified)Saturday, June 14, 2014 at 8:17:00 AM PDT
    7:59... No you're not meant to believe the video up top is anything, cause it could be anything in my opinion... What you are meant to do is consider the facts prior to posting literary diarrhea.

There is plenty of evidence accumilated by scientific methods that have propelled fields such ad wildlife biology and forensic science to what is widely percieved as one of the stable and reliable branches of science today. 

Fairies don't leave physical evidence.

    *I am still looking for the magic airforce base original post. Tee hee!

    1. It's clear to see you're a seriously amazing person. And though I don't know you in person, I think the world of ya Chick!! Thank you.

  2. Thermal camera are useless for bigfoot research. We already have more than enough blurry blobsquatch pictures.

    Only thermal rifle sights have a chance of producing evidence.

    1. Brown thermal - subject in the height range of 8.5 feet tall.

      Cutino thermal - two subjects in the height range of 7 feet tall.

    2. Sorry Ikky, but you cannot make those claims. There's simply not enough detail and far too many unknowns in either, as well as too many confounding factors inherent to thermal imaging, to do so.

      That's why I keep going on about using thermal rifle scopes. If there's not enough detail in the image at the time it's taken to confidently know the target isn't human and responsibly pull the trigger, then there's not enough detail in the image to ever make that conclusion.

      Thermal blobsquatches, even from big blobs, are not good enough. You need to produce a body.

    3. Sorry buddy... I can, I did, and have analysis to support those ideas.

      ... height ranges are not unknowns. Give those sources a chance.


    4. If you're going to try to argue by authority, Ikky, at least pick better authorities.

      What limited math is given in those links does not include important factors like the height of the observer, the focal length of the camera, the range of estimated distances to the subject. I don't see any error analysis whatsoever.

      What I do see are a lot of estimates and assumptions made by people who really really want the subject to be bigfoot.

      Consider for a moment the wide range of height and size estimates given for Patty. And that's using relatively good footage (for a bigfoot video at least) at a location that's been mapped again and again with exact objective and subjective positions.

      If we can't even get a reliable estimate for Patty form the Patterson Gimlin footage, how can you possibly think you have a reliable estimate for the height of something from bad thermal footage?

      You can't.

      Thermal footage is useless.

    5. If you're going to come across like you know what you're talking about, it's your responsibility to at least check the sources that are critical of. All your queries are address within the two sources that I have given you. Oh, and we know what height Patty is...

      ... It's laziness. Do your homework.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Oh... And requiring evidence, only to condemn that evidence due to the people that present it, is not only rhetorical but ad hominem. You're not remotely qualified to tell anyone who is and who isn't credible, especially when you don't even look the evidence they've presented properly.