Guest DWA Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Here's one of the latest additions to the BFRO database: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=46206 Read that follow-up report. Anything wrong with it? (smh because if I weren't doing that I'd be tearing my hair) What would YOU like to know...that the investigator didn't even ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Did they find any physical evidence of what they saw? Footprints? Anything? Did they even look for any? They both went for their phones.... Where's the pics?????? A sighting report is just a sighting report without supporting evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Well, true. But a sighting report that is well fleshed out - even without forensic or photographic evidence - can go on a pile of evidence that is getting bigger by the week. The more people see these things the less the society in general will tend to tolerate continued inaction by the mainstream. But yeah. I'd want to ask that of every witness, if only to emphasize how important it is to get it. This video is, to me, about as good as it gets other than Patty: Convince you? Probable answer: No. Did the guy look for tracks? No. He didn't think he needed them; look at that video...! Edited November 18, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) I saw the video a few years ago and my thoughts were.....The head of that thing looks way too big and it's too upright walking. As for evidence collecting? Patterson did the full Monte and where did it get him? Edited November 18, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Not his fault. When I laugh at the mainstream's numnuttiness on this topic, their treatment of Patterson is Exhibit A. Shameful. "Head way too big" and "too upright" to you. But I really doubt that's a person. Doesn't look like one or walk like one. All that being said: this is a lab practicum, not a debate. GATHER OTHER EVIDENCE; it's pretty obvious that your sighting won't be enough. But of course we haven't even begun to have scratched the surface of what hasn't been asked here. Edited November 18, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Dwa crow never had a sighting he made that up to show that anyone can write up a fake sighting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I think the other video looks like the same costume as this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 It does not make a lot of sense for one to claim that eyewitnesses should get more or better video evidence, because at the end of the day that evidence is not definitive. So a sighting report without evidence is worth just as much as a sighting with evidence to corroborate it, at least to most people. Unless of course that evidence is definitive, and the only evidence that is definitive is a body, or a relatively intact portion of one. So whenever skeptics or anyone else claim that one should get better evidence, they are really saying that you should go out and get a body. It is true though, I will give them that. But if you are interested in understanding the animals as much as you are proving their existence, then even unproven visual evidence can be useful, and that is the point of attempting to differentiate real videos from MisID's and hoaxes, and then analyzing those videos. Sometimes it all seems pointless, but there is a point to such practices. As for the encounter, I would like to know what they pulled their phones out for. It is quite possible that they took photographs but just did not include them in the report. But what is obvious from the encounter report is that a photograph is not going to show anything useful. They were so far away that they could only make out the largest of details, ie that it had a head, lol, so a cell phone camera picture would show a speck...if that. But I would still like to know. Perhaps they didn't include pictures because the pictures didn't show anything, or didn't do justice to what they saw. The other big question I have is why the animal sounded like it was in distress? What types of sounds was it producing? That might prove an important detail for proving a misidentification. I too noticed the large head on the subject in DWA's video, but I don't really think that tells us a whole lot. I mean perhaps an adolescent sasquatch has a big head, until its body catches up. It is somewhat plausible. The animal did not appear massive to me, but I am not sure of the distance. I don't think I would go so far as to say it is up there with the PGF, mainly because of the distance, the quality, and the limited details that can be made out. There are other videos that, if real, would be on par with the PGF, such as the white bigfoot video where the subject is standing only a few feet away. If that is real then that has got to be the closest sasquatch anyone has ever caught on camera. But there are doubts about that video, although I am not sure if it is fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 DWA said it best. This video is not as good as the PGF, but it's pretty good. But what did the PGF get us? BUMPKIS! Don't get me wrong, if all I had was a video camera? I'd film it. But I would have ZERO expectations........ Need a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) I think the other video looks like the same costume as this one. ***Removed video - See a few posts up^^ Er....I am a-thinkin' not. And I'm right. Just looking at 'em. Edited November 19, 2014 by DWA Removed video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Er....I am a-thinkin' not. And I'm right. Just looking at 'em. Most of the shots are bad here. But look at the profile shots and you'll see what I mean about the head and posture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) To me that's not the kind of assessment one makes. One takes everything into account. Given backstory, just not thinkin' that's the case. To people who think it's all men in ape suits, every one looks alike, including the ones that aren't (see: Patty). OK folks. What else did that investigator not ask? Edited November 19, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) To me that's not the kind of assessment one makes. One takes everything into account. Given backstory, just not thinkin' that's the case. To people who think it's all men in ape suits, every one looks alike, including the ones that aren't (see: Patty). OK folks. What else did that investigator not ask? The subject of the video you posted does IMO not move in an easy natural manner. It's to me like someone unsure trying to remain upright. I still maintain that the head is too big, at least to the PGF which is still the best video evidence. I've known that video for about 5 years. Edited November 20, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Yes, but we're not concerned about that one anymore. (Not having a scientific review of bigfoot in front of me, I don't think we can say what "easy" and "natural" would be under the conditions, for that individual. Whose legs keep in mind we can't even see, nor the snow it's moving through neither.) Back to the question in red: OK folks. What else did that investigator in the OP not ask? Edited November 20, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It does not make a lot of sense for one to claim that eyewitnesses should get more or better video evidence, because at the end of the day that evidence is not definitive. So a sighting report without evidence is worth just as much as a sighting with evidence to corroborate it, at least to most people. Unless of course that evidence is definitive, and the only evidence that is definitive is a body, or a relatively intact portion of one. So whenever skeptics or anyone else claim that one should get better evidence, they are really saying that you should go out and get a body. It is true though, I will give them that. But if you are interested in understanding the animals as much as you are proving their existence, then even unproven visual evidence can be useful, and that is the point of attempting to differentiate real videos from MisID's and hoaxes, and then analyzing those videos. Sometimes it all seems pointless, but there is a point to such practices. As for the encounter, I would like to know what they pulled their phones out for. It is quite possible that they took photographs but just did not include them in the report. But what is obvious from the encounter report is that a photograph is not going to show anything useful. They were so far away that they could only make out the largest of details, ie that it had a head, lol, so a cell phone camera picture would show a speck...if that. But I would still like to know. Perhaps they didn't include pictures because the pictures didn't show anything, or didn't do justice to what they saw. The other big question I have is why the animal sounded like it was in distress? What types of sounds was it producing? That might prove an important detail for proving a misidentification. I too noticed the large head on the subject in DWA's video, but I don't really think that tells us a whole lot. I mean perhaps an adolescent sasquatch has a big head, until its body catches up. It is somewhat plausible. The animal did not appear massive to me, but I am not sure of the distance. I don't think I would go so far as to say it is up there with the PGF, mainly because of the distance, the quality, and the limited details that can be made out. There are other videos that, if real, would be on par with the PGF, such as the white bigfoot video where the subject is standing only a few feet away. If that is real then that has got to be the closest sasquatch anyone has ever caught on camera. But there are doubts about that video, although I am not sure if it is fake. I agree, when skeptics say they never seen therefore it doesn't exist, what they really mean is you go find one for them and bring it back and leave on their doorstep. Then while your at it, leave the memory card and any or all photos in the mail box for them. Oh and, send a detailed report of any and all Bigfoot reports you may have while they sit back and scratch their toes with a tooth brush and gulp diet Pepsi and eat corn nuts ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts