chelefoot Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Not me. Thanks for sharing GEARMAN. Keep em coming. If he is really out there, someone will eventually get a pic of one.
MarkGlasgow Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 It's all part of the game. When you stick your head above the parapet and share what you have you will have to contend with many different reactions. The satisfaction gained from the folks who congratulate you on a great or interesting picture/sighting/recording is immediately offset by the naysayers and those who query. It's the rough with the smooth I guess. Thanks for sharing Gearman. You will be familiar with the four witnesses and can no doubt vouch for their integrity. So I can understand your enthusiasm over this one. Not often a multiple witness sighting is accompanied by a photo.
TD-40 Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Thanks for posting these. At least they are new photos for us to review and that's always nice. How did you see footprints in a leaf covered floor? Do you have any photos?
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 And this is a perfect picture to illustrate a point that I have made before, regarding the lack of excellent video or still images of a sasquatch. Why would an animal that obviously is elusive to some degree, in that it appears to avoid humans to a much greater extent than any other animal, who has the intelligence necessary to accomplish this goal, expose itself when it knows a human is nearby, thus giving us a good picture? Obviously it doesn't know we are going to take a picture, but it will avoid us regardless of this fact. The BFRO has talked about what they call the Castle and Moat Theory, postulating that upon noticing a human, most of the time a sasquatch will attempt to put some type of natural barrier between itself and that human. This can be a river, or other water sources, but most likely is often simply terrain. If there are no steep hills or other natural obstacles to a quick pursuit by man, then most likely they will retreat into thick brush. We all know that one can take a picture of someone standing in thick brush, right in front of you, and you cannot see them very well. Sasquatch are usually dark colored, making spotting them almost impossible. Movement is the only way to know something is present most of the time, and what do you know, the sighting record indicates that these animals remain silent and still at times. So if they do not flee, for whatever reason, the odds against spotting one are still quite low, if they remain motionless. There are reports of these animals sneaking up on unsuspecting prey, so OBVIOUSLY this is a skill that an animal of this nature would have. To retain their health, seeing as how they are massive, they very likely would eat meat. Not to mention the reports that attest to this idea. Therefore it stands to reason that they would posses a high degree of stealth capabilities, which are necessary to hunt and kill a wild animal with one's bare hands. We humans use weapons, and it can still be difficult at times to hunt certain animals. How do deer hunters do it? They remain STILL and SILENT. So these are traits sasquatch would have. Now to address the images in question. I see absolutely nothing. Why? For the very reason I already mentioned. The brush is too thick. I would be surprised to learn that a sasquatch let humans get that close, but this appears to be a unique situation, if in fact there was only a baby sasquatch present. It has been postulated that sasquatch mothers leave their babies in "nurseries," while they themselves go off to hunt or whatever. This idea is not that of modern man though, as this idea was given to us by the Native Americans, who obviously are the only group of people who actually had a high percentage of belief among their whole population. The fact that we see nothing in this picture, or nothing definitive, is not surprising. What is quite important in this instance is what the witnesses saw. I would love to know if the surrounding areas held abundant food sources for a lone baby sasquatch, which some postulate as a necessity for the area in which a mother leaves her offspring. I figure that the animal is alone because of what I believe about sasquatch. A mother would never allow people to get this close to her baby if she was around. Therefore she probably was not. OR, there was no small sasquatch present in the first place. The lack of a good still shot in this instance does not mean there was no sasquatch present, and that is mainly what I wanted to get across. But, the only evidence we have from this encounter is what the witnesses reported. I would have ran up and snatched that little bugger up real quick-like. Then I would have high tailed it back to my vehicle, with the youngster probably making all kinds of distress calls. THAT would be the ultimate proof. And I would have named him Sammy the sasquatch. Ah, but this brings to mind something else that is relevant. IF someone actually did that, why would they allow anyone to take away the animal? Surely attachment would be there. This is the same reason why some "habituators" refrain from talking about or sharing their evidence or what they know. They want to protect what they feel is "theirs." If I snatched up that baby sasquatch, does anyone think that the government or wildlife agencies would let me keep little Sammy? Do you think they would let me dress him up in little clothes and shoes, and put a little hat with a propeller on top on his head? No way. And if he turned out to be called "human," do you think they would let me enroll him in public school, where he could come home and tell me how all the kids called him bigfoot, because of his humongous feet? Nope. But maybe it is for the best, as Sammy may try to kill and eat the house cat.
Guest Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 The potential "baby" was not alone, they had seen a glimpse of an adult ahead of it and it was hiding behind the brush to the right of the trail in the first photos. I can only assume it was the mother it's un-experienced child was catching up to her and was in sight briefly. This is close to a major river and these dense bottoms have swampy areas and are full of hogs, bears and the usual plus alligators around. A rich environment for an omnivore
Sunflower Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Gearman, I have no dog in this fight but what I do see is something that moved from pic to pic. That is what I've seen in some pics from friends. They snap pics one after the other if they think there is movement and some of those are just astounding. The dark areas on the legs of the little one is very familiar as I've seen that same characteristic in friends pics. They are not always the very same color thru and thru. Some have a mottled look to their hair and one friend got a pic where a black one had a white spot under its eye. Thanks for sharing.
Guest Darrell Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Im of the opinion, that if you present a picture as any kind of evidence, anyone should be able to see and understand what the image is with out being told what it is. Yes, we all want everyone to share all this "evidence" researchers say they have, but usually when they do its nothing but stuff like this. Then the person with the photo has to tell everyone what is what. Then when we start questioning the photos we get taken to task. Edited June 24, 2013 by Darrell
Guest Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Folks, I just shared this in a friendly gesture and I really didnt think so many would not see what I saw right from the get go or I would not have bothered. No one is entitled to have proof presented to them nor are everyone EVER gonna agree on much anyway. Here is another example, if I posted a pic of recent cast made inthe Kiamichis that was well over 20+ inches in length and toes were visible, how many would just call BS immediately regardless of the back story and other related imprints were found to go with the one cast even what appeared to be a butt imprint form sitting down? Things like this are just automatically discounted and disregarded.
bipedalist Posted June 24, 2013 BFF Patron Posted June 24, 2013 Well it doesn't help that some BF author's have proclaimed that any print in excess of 18 inches is an abject fake. Can't blame all the little peeps for everything evidential that is knocked around and minimized. Just the same thanks for sharing.
Guest Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Im of the opinion.... Then when we start questioning the photos we get taken to task. No worries, I don't have an issue with people asking questions. I do have an issue with negative comments that do nothing to further the discussion - basically, the sort of wankery that helped kill off BFF 1.0.
Guest Darrell Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) ^So post up something thats not a blurry blobsquatch. I would also take DW Lee to task on this stuff. So the esteemed leader of the MABRC who has years and years of claimed field time goes out looking for bigfoot with only his I-phone? Really??? DW has claimed to contanstly experience activity and he cant invest in a better camera? Edited June 24, 2013 by Darrell
Guest zenmonkey Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 OH i see it!!!!!!! wait nvm awesome effort as always much respect buuuuut got a better pic? Norse, if you want to jump on the NAWAC bandwagon that's fine but most of us out here would not pull a trigger on one. I respect the need of a type specimen but I am not going to kill one unless in self defensive. A lot of our research is based on observation and behavioral aspects. We already know they exist. If I had a chance to hit a smaller one with my car, maybe? I have thought about it. My luck it would be a person. So back on topic. You will have a hard time telling the witnesses they saw a hog, it was only maybe 40 yards away I think. I was not there. I will have to ask the distance. I didnt realize that the scientific method was a "bandwagon"
dmaker Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 They WATCHED IT GO ACROSS. The two pics are back to back and the other pics from that moment have nothing there. To say its a shadow is a joke. ^^ This post by the OP is why I, at least, responded with a bit of snark. You put up a pic that calling it a blobsquatch is an insult to blobsquatches everywhere, and then when a poster legitimately refers to it as a shadow you respond with all caps and characterize that response as a joke. And then you continue to complain how the "evidence" is received? That sound pretty double standardy to me fella. 1
Guest Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 ^So post up something thats not a blurry blobsquatch. I would also take DW Lee to task on this stuff. So the esteemed leader of the MABRC who has years and years of claimed field time goes out looking for bigfoot with only his I-phone? Really??? DW has claimed to contanstly experience activity and he cant invest in a better camera? This kind of stuff is a case in point - mocking the quality of the gear, faux titles, backhanded tidbits ("claimed field time" - huh? do you have a sign in sheet I've missed?). I'm sure he'd be happy to take any excess high end gear off your hands for you. Don't see it? That's fine, I know they would have preferred a clearer pic themselves too. Got a question about gear/circumstances/etc? Fine too - it's the comments and insults beyond that that leave me scratching my head. Personally, when I first saw these pics it popped out at me (I think I actually put the comparison pic of the baby ape together at the time). In other cases, I can't see what someone's referring to until it's liberally daubed with red lines (I'm also not much chop with those magic eye 3d pics). I've got my own share of odd shaped dark splotches (including a 4 photo sequence I took last Friday) but I rarely post them because that's all they are, and I'd rather not argue the toss over them, but I'm still happy to look at whatever someone else feels happy enough to share - you never know when someone's piece is going to fit the puzzle you've been working on. Dmaker - fair enough, I know what you mean, but really "a blobsquatch... an insult to blobsquatches everywhere"? I've seen a lot worse. To call that constructive criticism is an insult to constructive criticism everywhere...
Recommended Posts