Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I can understand the excuses put forth for a fleeting glimpse when you are not prepared but I don't think they translate well into habituation scenarios. Why do you feel that the same creature who is apparently not worried about living in someone's pole barn, isn't scared to come into a gazebo, and isn't afraid of a pair of hikers w/camera gear can't be photographed? This isn't a thread devoted to habituation scenarios. But a couple thoughts would be on-topic. In my opinion: If you are writing a book, like the Carter Farm folks, I have problems spending that money when you have nothing in that book I would consider evidence other than your say-so. I consider sighting reports equally compelling, and can get those at no additional charge. If you aren't doing it for the world, you may not care whether you get photos or not. I presume that if you are habituating and want photos you can get them. You'd have to do major convincing if you didn't have them. (That you didn't care would satisfy me, although for sure I wouldn't say you are likely to convince me unless I come there and watch them with you.) The sasquatch was more than afraid enough of the pair of hikers as the report shows. I can relate to that, lol....How true, how true. Thanks for the comments guys, it's just frustrating when someone that is in the woods to shoot pictures, sees one and can't get a shot off. Maybe the rain played a large part in the camera being put away. I guess my frustation lies in the fact that with such a great recent sighting I would return, put up some trial cams and check them every week until I hit on something if I was the one that had that sighting. Well, yeah. Sighting reports aren't proof. But I put this one on the huge pile of compelling but inconclusive evidence. Follow-up is a major issue in this field, mainly because no one is working it full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I can understand the excuses put forth for a fleeting glimpse when you are not prepared but I don't think they translate well into habituation scenarios. Why do you feel that the same creature who is apparently not worried about living in someone's pole barn, isn't scared to come into a gazebo, and isn't afraid of a pair of hikers w/camera gear can't be photographed? I completely agree with you on the subject of "habituation" sights. I'm not even sure I really believe in them at all to be honest, at least not in the way they are often described. If are able to produce regular interactions with these animals, then there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't get some pictures or some footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 "Take a picture" I just wish someone would have thought of this earlier. I can't even get a picture of my cat when it's doing something adorable or hilarious. My dogs are the same way. If I hold a camera up they panic. I don't know what they think I'm trying to do to them, but they don't like it and take off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JenJen of Oldstones Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ...and before we go there, Patterson rehearsed so thoroughly what he was going to do should he encounter a sasquatch (including movie camera in special saddlebag, ready to pull and roll) that he got the film on the run, after falling off his horse. I have seen only two bigfoot films in my life that didn't have shady camera movement issues. That, of course, is one. What was the other one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What was the other one? A video taken near Peguis, Manitoba, in March 2007, not only looks extremely enigmatic to me but has camera issues that are very well accounted for by the backstory provided. I haven't seen any other videos where that has happened. Not saying what it is, but they're the only two I don't watch it once to know it's fake and the second time to get the laughs in. Note also the slow-mo frame by frame. The filmer did that. How many hoaxers give you a frame by frame chance to shoot them up? And nothing on it helps you do that. (And I have no intention of hijacking this thread to talk about this video. My mention of Patterson was to defuse the easy rationalization of how "that is so obviously fake." I don't think guys spend a month in the woods on horseback to do that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 "Take a picture" I just wish someone would have thought of this earlier. My dogs are the same way. If I hold a camera up they panic. I don't know what they think I'm trying to do to them, but they don't like it and take off. Heh when I hold the camera up, I get a big black nose in the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Heh when I hold the camera up, I get a big black nose in the lens. That's Bigfoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted November 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 28, 2012 Lastly, why are people so afraid ? When they heard sounds and picked up smells one could hunker down and really "maybe" get a good picture. Rather their first thought is look down and run....?? I encountered one. It was sitting on its rear and it was as tall as me. I was in my truck, which made me feel a little safer, but I figured if it wanted, it could take my truck apart in a few seconds. No way I was rolling down the window for a shot with the camera. I cannot imagine being on foot and seeing something like that -how would I feel? The one I saw was easily ten feet tall. Tell me you won't have some concerns when confronted with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I believe the answer lies within the sighting report of the OP: "She gaped in disbelief for about 3 seconds and grabbed her partner's hand. By the time she turned to look again, the figure was gone." Notice in the report that she also said that it was drizzling. If it were me, my camera would have been immediately put in its bag the minute any precipitation began. These could also point to the unreliability of the report. When people are scared or "drizzling" their perception of something can be distorted or exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 These could also point to the unreliability of the report. When people are scared or "drizzling" their perception of something can be distorted or exaggerated. Nope. Not unless there is direct evidence that those things are true. She was there; we were not. Done. Toss it on the pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Nope. Not unless there is direct evidence that those things are true. She was there; we were not. Done. Toss it on the pile. The report said that she was in disbelief and it was foggy out. But your right, she was there and we should never ask questions about eyewitness reports.. Edited November 28, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) YOU HAVE TO HAVE BEEN THERE. Nobody gets to say to me "I wasn't there and SHE SAW THIS." I go with her over you, every time. I can tell you for sure that being in disbelief and it being foggy would not be insufficient to disqualify my sighting. Disbelief and foggy are not hallucinogens. If you weren't there you can't judge. That's it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That you have proof something didn't happen when you weren't there? That is one extraordinary claim, much stranger than an animal being real that thousands claim to have seen. Edited November 28, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And you weren't there to say that she accurately observed something and her perceptions weren't distorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And you weren't there to say that she accurately observed something and her perceptions weren't distorted. Then you know what you have to do with this report? Toss it on the enormous pile of eyewitness testimony to the sasquatch. That's it. None of them can be proven; but there is no compelling reason to say these people didn't see what they clearly say they saw. Sorry. Didn't say you would like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts