Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) I doubt if this is the most likely place to find it. Why would anybody with a decent picture want to post it here of all places? Probably the only exciting consequences would be for the skeptics. It would give them a reason to spend endless hours looking for zippers, & trying to figure out how it was faked. Edited November 11, 2010 by Sasfooty
Guest Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Actually I've seen a few through the years that I liked. Granted, they're all fairly blurry, and there's no way to tell for sure if they weren't hoaxes. But some looked good enough for me to personally think, "Well, if they're real at all, this looks like it could be one of them." But yeah, blobscuatch pictures don't do anything for me. If they're real then it stands to reason some day, someone will get high quality film of them doing something very hard to fake...eating, grooming a fellow BF, building a shelter, killing an animal. Even if we can't outsmart them, which personally I find the very thought to be silly, it stands to reason that at some point by sheer chance a bird-watcher, researcher, camper ect...would have to stumble across one by accident.
Guest Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I doubt if this is the most likely place to find it. Why would anybody with a decent picture want to post it here of all places? Probably the only exciting consequences would be for the skeptics. It would give them a reason to spend endless hours looking for zippers, & trying to figure out how it was faked. Right, and the point of that would be to establish the authenticity of the photo. Why wouldn't someone want their photo objectively critiqued?
Guest gershake Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I doubt if this is the most likely place to find it. Why would anybody with a decent picture want to post it here of all places? I probably didn't word that too smart. I both meant to include people posting their original pics/videos here but also pics/videos that have made the news to be posted here. If bigfoot becomes public, so to speak, I think I'd hear it here first. If someone doesn't think so, please let me know!
Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 If they're real then it stands to reason some day, someone will get high quality film of them doing something very hard to fake...eating, grooming a fellow BF, building a shelter, killing an animal. Even if we can't outsmart them, which personally I find the very thought to be silly, it stands to reason that at some point by sheer chance a bird-watcher, researcher, camper ect...would have to stumble across one by accident. Campers, hikers, farmers & ranchers, & people just looking out their windows, or driving down the road, see them regularly, but seeing one & getting a clear, high quality picture are two different things. In order to get a good still picture, you would virtually have to be looking through the camera's view finder when you spotted one, because when you look away & then look back, they are gone. If a good one does ever surface it will more than likely be taken by pure chance, & not by someone out purposefully looking. Close up encounters happen fast & without warning, & are over before any thought can be given to picture taking. However, I think there are probably more high quality pictures out here than you would think. People have reasons of their own for not showing them to the public, & no obligation whatsoever to do so.
Guest Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Patterson and Gimlin loong ago obtained the hallmark footage of supposed BF. And they were looking. My point remains. By sheer chance, whether looking for one or by accident, a film of BF by a bird-watcher, researcher, camper ect...would have to stumble across one. Every year that goes by that this does not happen IMO casts more and more doubt on the whole thing and suggests further that Patty was indeed a fake. And if there are better pictures out there, why would anyone sit on those, but continue to post their blobsquatches? Methinks there's nothing better out there at all. Edited November 11, 2010 by WTB1
Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Methinks there's nothing better out there at all. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Some of us think & some of us know.
Guest gershake Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) If you happen to know about people who have crystal-clear pictures who just won't show them, you know about people who make many, many other people very unhappy... I also can't think of reasons to keep such pictures to yourself. If you don't want any hassle, I'm sure you (not as in you, Sasfooty) would find a way to publish them anonymously. Edited November 11, 2010 by gershake
Guest Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Thinking and knowing are two different things? Well of course they are, but I was only going by what you said, which is... However, I think there are probably more high quality pictures out here than you would think. Now, if you misspoke and you know, then I guess you could start a new thread or something about how there's all this wonderful photographic and film evidence out there that people won't post and instead want to post blobsquatches. EDIT: Oh and I noticed how you conveniently skipper right over Saskeptics point. Edited November 11, 2010 by WTB1
Incorrigible1 Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 People imagine they've been attacked.
Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Thinking and knowing are two different things? Well of course they are, but I was only going by what you said, which is... Now, if you misspoke and you know, then I guess you could start a new thread or something about how there's all this wonderful photographic and film evidence out there that people won't post and instead want to post blobsquatches. EDIT: Oh and I noticed how you conveniently skipper right over Saskeptics point. I didn't misspesk, so why don't you start a thread if you want one. I wouldn't want to start another endless series of postings for you to be somehow mysteriously compelled to waste your valuable time reading. Saskeptic has become so repetitive that I usually tune him out, but since you mentioned it, I'll do it just for you. Why wouldn't someone want their photo objectively critiqued? Why would they believe that anyone here would be objective? Edited November 11, 2010 by Sasfooty
Guest gershake Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Why would they believe that anyone here would be objective? Same question back though, why wouldn't they be objective? What motivation could someone have to attack anything that looks remotely like evidence? Just because?
Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 People imagine they've been attacked. They also imagine that they have cameras to loan out so people can take "simple" pictures.
Sasfooty Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Same question back though, why wouldn't they be objective? What motivation could someone have to attack anything that looks remotely like evidence? Just because? Maybe because they don't have evidence of their own, & it somehow makes them feel superior to belittle somebody else's?
Recommended Posts