Finding Bigfoot Show Last Night In Fl?

[Guest]

When I first saw the Stacey Brown footage several months ago, whenever they released it, my immediate thought was Kareem Abdul Jabar, the seven foot plus center for the Los Angeles Lakers, and Milwaukee and UCLA before that. Just the proportions of arms legs and body. Whatever it was I knew or discerned it was very tall, with my youthful memories of watching Kareem play basketball. The size comparision was impressive, as well as Cliffs' analysis and explanation of his arriving at the height estimates. but the proportions look exactly how I would remember and think a very very tall humanoid subject would look.

[Trogluddite]

I didn't like the image - they made a point of stating that the people who shot it were using "1st generation thermals" so that's why it was a poor quality unlike modern thermals that "show variations of temperature." Well, I occassionally used stone-age thermals back in the 80s and if you saw a living creature (and even many objects) there were variations in temperature.  That is, a person or object had "hot spots" due to variations in its temperature.    LIke this picture (mods: feel free to delete if the picture hogs up to much space).  

 

The image of the bigfoot appeared to be a uniform color (heat).  The image of Bobo (in clothes) appeared to be a uniform color (heat).  Was bigfoot in clothes?  Not dispositive by any means, but enough to make me wonder.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by Trogluddite

[Guest]

In April they aired a behind the scenes show on this episode and it was the first time they showed the recreation with Bobo.  Here is the episode on youtube.  The recreation starts around 13:00 and as I said it is behind the scenes so it shows a little more information.  By the way, the recreation looks a little different because they filmed it in the daytime vs at night. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7RJIwKvSo

 

[Rockape]

Ok, but other than wishful assumption, where do they get actual proof a BF did this? WHY oh WHY is it always the FIRST thing people conclude to be the cause of things they don't know?

Agreed, and do these people even own a cat? I know they have several dogs, and a dog is capable of the same thing.

[LeafTalker]

The owners of the dogs were the ones who pointed to the unusualness of the snake story. 

 

My guess is that the owners of the dogs: 

 

-- know their dogs' patterns of behavior.

-- know the whereabouts of their dogs, and therefore know the degree of likelihood that one of their dogs, vs. another being, dug up the snake.

 

The information we currently have favors the thesis that a BF dug up the snake. 

 

But that is something someone could certainly ask the Bridges to confirm. Meaning, someone could ask, "Did you find the snake story worthy of note because all the dogs were in the house at the time that the snake appeared on your doorstep?"

Edited November 27, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Rockape]

These appeared to be "house dogs", in that they stay in the house at night and are not out wandering the yard. Still, a dog is a dog and they tend to like to dig up dead stuff.

[LeafTalker]

What they tend to do, I think, becomes immaterial, if the dogs were not present to do the thing that dogs tend to do. 

[Rockape]

But we know dogs were there.

[LeafTalker]

Do we? I thought we thought there was a good possibility they were in the house. Didn't you say they were "house dogs" who were kept in at night?

 

 

The whole point is, we need more data. (Well, you do, more than I.)

 

The owners of the dogs, who presumably know the dogs' habits and their whereabouts, seem not to be connecting the appearance of the snake with the dogs.

 

That means either that 1) they know the dogs were confined somewhere when the snake appeared; or 2) they don't keep track of their dogs whereabouts, and don't know much about the habits of dogs.

 

I'm giving them credit for knowing something about dogs, and having a sense of their whereabouts. 

 

But it's true, there's a slim chance that "option 2" is the right one, and I can see why you might want to investigate to determine whether that slim possibility is the operative one. 

Edited November 28, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest]

Many people have reported receiving dead animals as gifts. Here are some links about this:

 

 

P.S. I think they do it because they think we like to eat the same things they do..... 

 Thanks! That is fascinating.... and gruesomely sweet.

[GuyInIndiana]

I never claimed it was proof, but it is odd.  When something like that happens at a place that has had lots of activity and clear sightings then it is not too far out there to think that it was a sasquatch that did it.  For the record, I'm definitely not one to think a sasquatch is responsible for every weird thing that happens. 

 

Cats most definitely will bring dead things to your doorstep, but it's rather odd that a cat would dig up a venomous snake twice.

 

Sorry. That wasn't directed at 'you'. The show deliberately leaves the viewer with the conclusion based on the testimony presented, like MANY things they do, that it's the subject of the show [bigfoot] that HAS to be responsible for the unusual find. Not something normal.

 

The show intentionally makes you believe the family is saying "a bigfoot did this."

[Guest]

GuyInIndiana, no problem and I didn't take it personal.  The show definitely likes to build things up and relate many things to a sasquatch. 

 

Maybe I shouldn't be speaking so much for the Bridges, but I will add that their dogs stay in a fence.  They didn't in any way think their dogs could have done it.  Their thoughts were it was probably a sasquatch that dug up the snake although they didn't say they 100% believed that.  It was more of how weird is that and what else could have possibly done it. 

[LeafTalker]

 Thanks! That is fascinating.... and gruesomely sweet.

 

"Gruesomely sweet" is a perfect description.  

[Guest thermalman]

"Trick or Treat?"

[LeafTalker]

Mostly treat, is my guess.