Unique Sighting Report - Ability Of Bf To Hide In Plain Sight

[Guest]

Interesting thing i've noticed looking through night vision scopes is it seems to almost invert color tones. Things that are dark or black look white and light colored objects look dark. It's all about what reflects light and absorbs it

[Guest]

Coonbo, there is a sighting from Ky that mentions the same kind of disappearing that the older man described in your post. I will try to dig it up but basically the report stated that the BF disappeared into a sort of blurry area. If I remember correctly the appeared and dissappeared from it in a farmers field.

[Guest]

Maybe the BF have a multi billion dollar defense budget and have come up with something like this.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into this vid. If you look to the right side it "appears" greatly that the screen has been split. you just see part of a vehicle....even though an individual goes left to right, across this screen split.

Edited July 7, 2012 by treadstone

[BobbyO]

So it makes sense to me that Sasquatches take this form of communication away, or at least try to take this form of communication, away when possible during an encounter with a Human, where possible of course.

So this " turning away " makes complete sense, it also i think, goes outside of the realm of the Human Template in the way we look at things.

Sasquatches i'm convinced, are " just another tree " a lot of the time, an incredible amount of the time.

They observe us, then they " disappear ", but of course they don't just " disappear ", they just disappear from us, that's all.

This one was observed doing very similar behaviour to the one in WA that this initial thread is about, very similar.

http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=23171

I could add a dozen plus reports of this behaviour, Sasquatches hiding behind Tree's, big Tree's.

Other time's if they are caught out of cover, then they themselves turn into Tree's, i'm 100% convinced of it.

Another one from WA i just stumbled upon..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=946

[Guest]

What a great thread.. late to respond on some of the specific instances .. dont know the number but one of the BFRO reports is of a jogger who is doing a lap and realizes there is a sasquatch beginning to walk out into the open and it doesnt notice him yet as he stops. Perhaps he moved off the track into the woodland edge. Dont recall. What I do recall is a car goes by and he sees the sasquatch bend over and yield its posterior high in the air. Stopped .. stump. This reminds me of one of my interrogations locally.. with a youngster in class. She volunteered the information after I asked about unusual wildlife. She said her dad was plowing.. and he noted a stump that should not have been there so he pullled the plow, and pointed the tractor over in that direction. As he drew closer, the stump stood up and ran away on two legs into the woods.. it was covered with hair and fast. She said her father had no idea what it was but it wasnt a guy it was some animal covered with hair on two legs. The references to Tom Browns comments on seeing things unfocused on a particular spot looking for movement is a good one.. and I like the comment I have read (forget the origin of it..) we see only what we want to see and... I will see it when I want to see it.....

[JDL]

^Interesting. In this position the squatch could watch someone behind it by peaking backwards through its own legs. I've watched toddlers do this on more than one occassion. It also reminds me of one of the shots in the Jacobs photo set, which I believe to be genuine. The juvenile squatch may have assumed the position when he sensed the camera taking the previous shot of it. By doing so he gave us a shot of this behavior.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JDL

[JDL]

It also occurs to me that from this position, backside to what it is watching, a squatch could rapidly move directly away from it either bipedally or quadrupedally. Another advantage of the behavior.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JDL

[BobbyO]

Another one from WA i just stumbled upon..

http://www.bfro.net/...port.asp?id=946

Sorry Guys, i just realised that that is a very long report so here's the meat of it anyway..

My sister told me she was scanning a gravel bank we had just noticed earlier that day, when a large black object she had assumed was a stump, or piece of a log which had washed onto the gravel, suddenly stood up, and took three quick steps toward the woods, and was gone. The sun was almost down, and the gravel bank was in deep shadows, so she could make out very little detail, but she said it was defiantly not a cow or bear. She said it walked on two legs, and she got the impression it was walking hunched over, and that it had no neck, and massive shoulders, that the body seemed almost impossibly bulky. She said it moved very fast, like it knew we were there, and it was trying to sneak away. Apparently, it was bent over on the gravel bar for some time, she noticed it when she first looked that way, and it was several minutes before it got up and moved. She seemed quite shaken by the event, and it was a long wait while it got dark, us there alone with no way out, and no car to hide in.

Edited July 25, 2012 by BobbyO

[Guest]

i was playing with a 320x240 flir last night....and with my hairy papillion dog....and b/c of all the hair on that dog, regardless of what palette i selected for best contrast when the dog walked among bushed etc and stems of those it literally disappeared at certain angles b/c the hair at it length was ambient temp....and only at certain angles did the heat come thru.. primarily in the face and feet.....

as I marvel to my son, he says everyone knows that, video games have Thermal Camera options and in those hair is used for invisibility cloak or something....lol anyway, this is well known - just not to me until I saw it in the field.

I know this is a thermal example compared to the 'heat waves" that obscured view in daylight,...really interesting story too...but I suppose the hair/combined with extreme patience, and perhaps even our own willingness to not see....(or a psychic BF to suggest we aren't seeing) contributes... rather than an inter-dimensional explanation... that;s all...and please forgive if someone has already mentioned this...

Edited July 25, 2012 by apehuman

[bipedalist]

^Interesting. In this position the squatch could watch someone behind it by peaking backwards through its own legs. I've watched toddlers do this on more than one occassion. It also reminds me of one of the shots in the Jacobs photo set, which I believe to be genuine. The juvenile squatch may have assumed the position when he sensed the camera taking the previous shot of it. By doing so he gave us a shot of this behavior.

....It also occurs to me that from this position, backside to what it is watching, a squatch could rapidly move directly away from it either bipedally or quadrupedally. Another advantage of the behavior.

It's also the manner in which Peter the moose-hunter in Canada shot and killed a Sasquatch allegedly-- stooped over so it appeared to be a moose derriere. He stated he then tried to put a bullet right up the old alimentary canal then so to speak. Peter apparently made sure there would be no rapid escape for "that moose", lol.

Edited July 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

This latest BFRO report, Memories told of activity over several years at a family home near Oglethorpe (report # 32435), has an interesting quote in the follow up research:

"The family was so frightened they called relatives for several nights to come guard the house. Some walked the perimeter, one was on the roof. All had guns. One night, the uncle on the roof noticed movement behind the father, and shouted, “Behind you!†At the same time, the father backed up to what he thought was a tree, only to have it move. Both ran in different directions, the father toward the house and the creature towards the woods but not before slamming into the hood of the car. It left three large dents on the jeep."

From the original report from the witness:

"My dad said one night all of my uncles came over and they were looking around the house for it and one of my uncles yelled down from the roof of the house that my dad was leaning against it,and when he turned around and looked up at it,it got spooked and beat the hood of the jeep and destroyed it."

I've read other reports that people have come close enough to have been touched by a BF before they saw it. This is the first time I've read a report of physically leaning on a BF, thinking it was a tree, before being told to turn around and look!

This report also indicates at times the BF had a strong disagreeable smell, but it must not have had any smell during this particular encounter.

[Guest Transformer]

BFS,

I get the notion of this thread and whole-hearted agree with it: If you perceive something to be part of the landscape say a stump (at relative distance), it will look like a stump if it fits your preconceived notion of what a stump should look like. Not attempting to derail this thread, but there’s a huge problem with this guys story. He claims to have sighted the bigfoot @ 250 yards and observed it for 45 minutes. He claims that it filled half the field of view of the scope. Even if he had the glass cranked all the way to 9, his bigfoot would need to be a minimum of about 25 feet tall and 10 feet wide for his description of how big it appeared through the glass to be remotely accurate. Just to be as half as tall as the field of view at 9 power at that range, his ninja squatch is going to need to be around 14-17 feet tall. Yet he estimates it to be 8 feet tall? Those numbers simply do not compute. In this case it wasn’t like those estimates were made in haste on a fleeting encounter. He’s claiming 45 minutes.

I’ll buy someone realistically describing an 8 foot tall bigfoot as “dwarfing†an elk, even an adult Roosevelt. But something that is 8’ tall or even 10’ tall is simply not remotely going to fill anything but a small percentage of the FOV @ 9X and 250 yards. His own words are self-contradictory.

I can’t buy this Colonel’s story as anything but pure bunk and I really don’t think this account adds credibility of bigfoot’s reputed ninja-like ability to “hide in plain sight†at distances as short as 15 feet.

Exactly.

I find it difficult to believe that a hunter wouldn't notice an object with hair if he looked right at it and it was only 15 feet away. That's really close and at that distance hair would stick out like a sore thumb.

t.

He could pick it out with a scope at 250 yards and somebody couldn't see it at 15 feet? All these people talking about camo are forgetting the fact that it was NOT blending because he could see it perfectly through his scope at 250 yards even when it stopped moving. Even if I swallowed that part of the story I could not understand how he could have failed to see a possible danger to the hunters one of which could have been his father coming so close to a unknown monster of huge proportions that looked like it could have been setting up an ambush! This tale reeks of tallness.

I've written before about various aspects of our inability to see what is straight in front of us.........being 5 or 10 yards from an elephant in thin bush in Africa, and no-one in the car saw it until it flapped its ears...........my daughter sitting just a few yards off a well-walked footpath in open woodland doing fieldwork observation of birds, wearing a bright red coat, and noting (because she was bored) how many people saw her (around 3%).........and me sitting at a waterhole in Namibia watching a group of 4 young male lions drinking after a kill then going to lie down separately in the shade, and "disappearing" to the extent that other cars would pull up, look around, think there was nothing to see, and drive off again. I knew where they were so I could still see them, just.

This isn't some crazy artifact of their coat, or weird light-bending phenomena.........it is a combination of our awful abilities in the wild, and animal camouflage developed over millenia.

Mike

Peter Capstick talked about the inability of people to pick out elephants at close range because their huge size makes it impossible to take in the whole shape of the animal so it is not recognized as such. He advised his hunters to look for "parts" of elephants like legs, ears, tusks, trunk. Your point about movement is very important too. All animal's vision including humans are drawn to movement. Your description of your sighting of the lions and then the lions moving off and becoming nearly impossible to see is also worth noting. Lions are just the right colour to blend in with their surroundings due to tens of thousands of years of evolution and that is one of the main reasons they can get close enough when stalking their prey. However, there is no indication that the creature involved with this tale is in any way camouflaged. I would have to see the size of the stumps in the specific area this guy talks about but the huge bulk of the creature he describes would have stuck out like a sore thumb in most pine forests of that area.

[Scarecrow]

A term that applies to the discussion is "Normalcy Bias". It is the brain's attempt to categorize something unusual with something it recognizes, something "normal". It is the reason that so many of the victims in the Colorado Cinema shooting initially thought that the gunman was some sort of promotion for the movie so several people just sat still while he shot them. They couldn't conceive that someone would just come in and start shooting, so their minds created a scenario that they could comprehend.

I recall reading a book twenty or so years ago, about a Navy SEAL team in Vietnam. They were doing some recon, and while crossing an opening in the jungle, they saw a couple of Viet Cong heading their way. They didn't have time to make it to cover so they all laid down on the ground on top of each other like a pile of logs. The enemy passed within 20 feet of them and didn't even notice them. Even though the Viet Cong were looking for enemies, they still didn't expect to see men lying on top of each other in a pile, so they identified them with something they did expect to see.

It comes as no wonder that someone walking down a trail sees a strange stump or tree, will immediately identify it with something they recognize, and not even know they just had a sighting.

[Guest Particle Noun]

That's interesting Scarecrow. In a way, it raises questions about the idea that people who otherwise don't have an interest in Bigfoot would misidentify something like a bear or other mundane creature as a bigfoot. I'm sure there is a real psychological term for that, but I'll call it "Paranormalcy Bias."

[salubrious]

Tom Brown Jr. talks about something called 'dead zones'. These are the areas where our eyes may not look, for example taking in a mountain vista we will miss things in the foreground. Basically the idea is if you can identify the dead zones, you can hide in them while in plain sight.