Guest Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Similar to this by chance? I haven't seen one sufficiently well to notice the head shape, but based on the descriptions of those who have, that looks about right. However, on at least two occasions, the witnesses thought the hair was longer than what's show in that image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) I haven't seen one sufficiently well to notice the head shape, but based on the descriptions of those who have, that looks about right. However, on at least two occasions, the witnesses thought the hair was longer than what's show in that image. I'm pretty sure i've been ridiculously close to them in my area while I was "asleep"(It's footsteps woke me up so I just layed there listening taking it all in), if it does it again I am going to try to sneak a peak at whatever it was and will be sure to comment on the head, it did it twice in one night at the same time other things were knocking and "500lbs owl hooting" off in the distance across the "river", it was enough to convince me of what was happening but not enough to run home about and start spouting off that it was bigfoot and all of this, isn't the way I want to conduct myself. Gotta see it close and clear for me to "Officially" claim activity. There is a frame from the PGF where you get a good shot of Patties head and it came to a point in the back very very similar to the "Big Red" that TimberGiant got, I will try to find a picture of that frame tonight. Edited June 1, 2014 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You weren't gone very long. either thats really good or really bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Would you prefer Bipto in a stark, small room, with a bright light cast strongly on his face? A large mirror on one wall, and hard-boiled detectives grilling him? Waterboarding is the only way to go. The predicate for the question(s) were statements made previously by Bipto and so they appeared to be logical in that context. Apologies to anyone so offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Check with Stan Courtney as he originally posted it on his place. http://www.stancourtney.com/wordpress/gamecam-photo/ Thanks to both of you for sharing the pic, happy that my assumption was proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 The predicate for the question(s) were based on my recollection and interpretation of statements made previously by Bipto and so they appeared to be logical in that context. Fixed that for you. Not all sightings by NAWAC members or others were from the side and/or back as you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) It's still very early in the season. Nothing to say one way or the other. The one we refer to as Old Gray (which is either one animal several of us have seen or multiple animals — I tend to think it's just one) looks very much like Patty but taller by at least a foot. Most of the others we've seen are thinner and much less thick all the way down. Massive upper body development in at least one, others slimmer overall. I don't recall anyone having a clear enough view of a face in X to comment on that. Then, if not from the face on position, what other positions are there? Yes, my question(s) are from taking your statements at face value (no pun intended). Edited June 1, 2014 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Like I said, misinterpretation. I said no one had had a clear view of the face. You thought that meant all visuals were from behind. There are 360 degrees of possible viewpoints, but that's not what determines "clear view of face." Length of visual, speed of animal, intervening obstructions, lighting conditions, etc., including perspective based on the location of the witness relative to the animal's face all determine whether or not a sighting of the face is clear. We have not had a clear sighting of a wood ape's face in X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Like I said, misinterpretation. I said no one had had a clear view of the face. You thought that meant all visuals were from behind. ( Actually, no..."From the above, it appears profile and rearward views were your/groups observations."...from post #318 ) There are 360 degrees of possible viewpoints, but that's not what determines "clear view of face." Length of visual, speed of animal, intervening obstructions, lighting conditions, etc., including perspective based on the location of the witness relative to the animal's face all determine whether or not a sighting of the face is clear. We have not had a clear sighting of a wood ape's face in X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Like I said, misinterpretation. I said no one had had a clear view of the face. You thought that meant all visuals were from behind. There are 360 degrees of possible viewpoints, but that's not what determines "clear view of face." Length of visual, speed of animal, intervening obstructions, lighting conditions, etc., including perspective based on the location of the witness relative to the animal's face all determine whether or not a sighting of the face is clear. We have not had a clear sighting of a wood ape's face in X. I don't think folk understand that when you see something that, um, isn't real, details are going to be the very last thing you are focused on unless (1) you aren't in total denial about what's happening to you and start collating or (2) you get a long and close enough encounter for (1) to finally happen to you. You can be convinced from evidence that they're real and be totally taken aback when one presents itself to you. Seeing its face isn't memorizing its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I don't think folk understand that when you see something that, um, isn't real, details are going to be the very last thing you are focused on unless (1) you aren't in total denial about what's happening to you and start collating or (2) you get a long and close enough encounter for (1) to finally happen to you. You can be convinced from evidence that they're real and be totally taken aback when one presents itself to you. Seeing its face isn't memorizing its face. That's why eyewitness evidence has long been established in both the judiciary as well as law enforcement as the least reliable form of evidence. The "moment" is a rush, the likes of which you have never before experienced. Lot's of people out there that "think" they've had an encounter and only a few that actually have....as, it changes you, forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Eyewitnesses are about as powerful a form of evidence as exists. Why, when you say you saw something of relevance, you are automatically a person of intense interest, to all parties involved. Again the confusion of evidence and proof. What an eyewitness account is not, is proven. And that is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It's also a fallacy to think that a witness is a witness is a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Eyewitnesses are about as powerful a form of evidence as exists. Why, when you say you saw something of relevance, you are automatically a person of intense interest, to all parties involved. Again the confusion of evidence and proof. What an eyewitness account is not, is proven. And that is irrelevant. No, physical evidence is far more powerful. It can be tested and the truth of it can be established. I would rather take a photo, a video or a biological sample over a story any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Oh. You mean like footprints, examined by directly relevant experts and pronounced genuine? Um, you mean, like them? You do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts