Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[Guest]

Here is some food for thought. I was mowing out on the farm the other day when a few little skippies (yearling deer) popped out in a field in front of me about 180 yards away. This is not rare by any means but it got me thinking about Bigfoot sightings and the lack of photo evidence. I pulled out my phone (iPhone 4S) and snapped a few pictures. I did this to prove a few points, that may well be redundant and may have been covered by now, if so I apologize.

   The phone has a fairly large megapixel camera and I was fully zoomed in. I had time to tap focus, I was sitting down on a riding mower (rumbling, but not too bad) and my adrenaline was low/non existent. These are pretty much the most ideal conditions for a nature shot on the fly if you will. I was not exited, the subject was in no rush to get away from me. Look at these photos.....they're still terrible!! For the second shot I even drove up another 80 yards toward the subjects, at that point I am 100 yards or less away, still terrible. 

   These are animals that are known, and accepted to exist by 100% of the human population, when I say: 'check out these pictures of some deer' you say: 'oh yeah, check out those deer.' Now as bad as the photos are my eyes told me a different story. I could see great detail on these deer; spots, coloration, ear and tail twitches and their behavior and attitude towards me. I could see everything very well, there was no doubt in my mind I was seeing juvenile deer grazing in front of me. 

   The point is, there is a distinct and simple reason why there are very detailed eye witness accounts of Bigfoot without decent corroborating photographic evidence. Also on the contrary, blobsquatches can get out of control because this medium can be so vague. I know for a fact there was no Bigfoot just down my trail, but if I circle a dark spot in red and say, look at the conical head and lack of neck on wide shoulders you say...hmmmm, maybe. 

 

Open minds guys. I have to believe the eye witness over the shutter witness. When you read detailed stories about BF maybe it's not as crazy as you think, and maybe it's not as easy as you think to just snap a photo.

 

 

[roguefooter]

Why do you have to believe the eyewitness?

 

Here's a website of fairy believers full of eyewitness accounts of real fairies:

 

http://www.realfairies.net/forum/

 

You can read how they take everyday situations and encounters, and manage to turn it into a fairy encounter. It all sounds very familiar when you read through it, and it shows how a strong belief can change a person's way of thinking.

 

I especially liked this thread about people seeing fairy dust on their hands:

 

http://www.realfairies.net/forum/working-with-fairy-magic/faery-dust-on-my-hands

 

When asked to post photos the excuses start coming in "It is very hard to see", "it disappears sometimes too". It's like Deja Vu.

 

Are eyewitnesses really as credible as you think they are?

Edited August 16, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

No, I should revise that I don't believe every sighting I've heard. My point was that just because there is no photo evidence of a particular sighting doesn't mean it wasn't a credible sighting as many times the camera can fail to capture what you saw in great detail with your eyes.  You're right, there's a bunch of bad out there, a bunch.

[Guest Darrell]

But we arent talking about pics of deer, elk, moose, bear, badgers, gorillas, apes, chimps or what ever. We know for a FACT that those exist. We know they are animals and exibit behaviour that verifies their traits and attributes because they are REAL animals. With bigfoot there is nothing. Everything is basically made up because you dont have an animal you can actually study.

[MIB]

I'll second that.  It surprises and irritates me how often what seems very clear in person just does not translate to photograph.   The EXPERIENCE is 4-dimensional ... height/width/depth/time.   The photo is 2-dimensional.   Lacking both depth and motion (change of position with time) which made the experience obvious and dynamic, something essential is lost and the resulting picture is too often quite disappointing.

 

(... I hope that's the point you're trying to make.  Else I missed bad. )

 

MIB

Edited August 16, 2013 by MIB

[salubrious]

But we arent talking about pics of deer, elk, moose, bear, badgers, gorillas, apes, chimps or what ever. We know for a FACT that those exist. We know they are animals and exibit behaviour that verifies their traits and attributes because they are REAL animals. With bigfoot there is nothing. Everything is basically made up because you dont have an animal you can actually study.

I think the assumption here that gets BF research and the debate over its existence in trouble is that of BF being an 'animal' of which there can be a 'specimen'. I draw a distinction as it appears that BF is a lot smarter than other 'animals' and may even be smarter than humans. I saw two close up in unambiguous conditions, so I know they exist, so I attribute their ability to stay out of sight and our consequent debate over them as evidence of their wilful intelligence. They don't want to be seen (I suspect they have some idea of how dangerous that would be for them), and they are smart enough to really make a difference in that department.

[PBeaton]

Wyoming County Bigfoot, 

 

I love snappin' pics as well. I understand your point completely.

 

Pat...

[Guest]

Blob-deer!This was a good post! Thanks!

[Guest Darrell]

I think the assumption here that gets BF research and the debate over its existence in trouble is that of BF being an 'animal' of which there can be a 'specimen'. I draw a distinction as it appears that BF is a lot smarter than other 'animals' and may even be smarter than humans. I saw two close up in unambiguous conditions, so I know they exist, so I attribute their ability to stay out of sight and our consequent debate over them as evidence of their wilful intelligence. They don't want to be seen (I suspect they have some idea of how dangerous that would be for them), and they are smart enough to really make a difference in that department.

See thats the problem. You are useing biased theroies as excuses. Thats my problem. Not really the pics (yes I do know how hard it is to take good and fast pictures) but that everything is based on a bunch of people making claims and then attributing behaviour to those sightings. Im skeptical not because of the lack of proof but because of how nothing is vetted and everything is taken as fact on face value and word of mouth alone.

[roguefooter]

I think the assumption here that gets BF research and the debate over its existence in trouble is that of BF being an 'animal' of which there can be a 'specimen'. I draw a distinction as it appears that BF is a lot smarter than other 'animals' and may even be smarter than humans. I saw two close up in unambiguous conditions, so I know they exist, so I attribute their ability to stay out of sight and our consequent debate over them as evidence of their wilful intelligence. They don't want to be seen (I suspect they have some idea of how dangerous that would be for them), and they are smart enough to really make a difference in that department.

 

Honestly if Bigfoot were that intelligent then why would their existence be so minimal and inferior to humans, to where they have to hide from them in order to survive? That doesn't sound like superior intelligence to me.

[indiefoot]

If they are real, and if they have been seen in all of the lower 48 and Canada, then they would almost have to be real smart. The alternative is they are extremely rare and that doesn't square with the reports.

[Guest WesT]

The OP is spot on. The same thing happened to me when I was attempting to photograph/document the effectivness of a hiding screen I accidently discovered last summer. At first I couldn't believe my eyes when I downloaded the pics onto my computer and viewed them. I had to look really hard to see my buddy standing next to the hiding screen. I told him he was the worlds first human blobsquatch lol. He completely dissapeared when he stepped behind the artificial construction.....  no interdimensional portal needed.

Edited August 16, 2013 by WesT

[Will]

 Im skeptical not because of the lack of proof but because of how nothing is vetted and everything is taken as fact on face value and word of mouth alone.

I think you're skeptical because you haven't seen one. How can Salubrious be using biased theories, when he has seen two of them up close. That's the rub with the believer vs skeptic, they either have to be lying or hallucinating or just simply mistaken. It could also be that they truly exist. Only one on a slab will do.

[roguefooter]

^Nobody said they have to be lying, hallucinating, or mistaken. Those are real possibilities when you rely solely on eyewitness reports.

 

Humans are subject to all kinds of error, overpowering beliefs, misidentification, and of course there's the 50/50 chance that they're lying. That's the reality of the situation.

 

It may not be easy to snap a photo, but even blobsquatches can be helpful to a claim. For one they show the person isn't just making things up, they also show they weren't hallucinating. In some cases they show the size of the subject and the terrain it was seen in, it could also show whether the shape is human-like or an animal.

 

In other cases a blurry pic can reveal everything that you need to know about the case, like Sasquatch Ontario's fish eye pic.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I don't see how blobsquatches help because all one has to do is take a picture of a shadow, pixelate it and there you go, a blobsquatch that any hoaxer can make.