Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest River]

Ben , to me, Sasfooty's photo lacks the clarity for me to see a creature. Now, that's not to say there is for a fact nothing there. What it says for a fact is that the photo is not clear enough for me to make out a subject in it. I wouldn't jump on a bandwagon and bet my life there was nothing photographed that day because I honestly don't know, I wasn't there with Sasfooty when the pic was made. I'm sure the pic is very special to sasfooty, I have certain pics that are special to me and a great memory but some of those also do not show a clear view of a creature in them. Although I know exactly where the creature is in my blurry pics, it does no good to try to relay that info to someone else that cannot see it. Blobsquatch photos remind me of that Leonardo Da Vinci saying " There are three kinds of people, those that see, those that can see when shown , and those that cannot see." I cannot see in sasfooty's pic but I am grateful she gave me the opportunity to "try" to see by posting it for my viewing pleasure. A witness showed me a pic of a bush one time. He said I wouldn't be able to see a creature in the pic. The creature was behind the bush. I'm sure the pic was memorable to him, but it just wasn't credible evidence that could be presented. The man was credible and I believe him but his evidence was collected more for his memory of the occasion than anything to be presented. It was clear though. Best, Chris B.

Those images are enough for me to say nothing there. Also, I have no issue with someone coming here to tell of their sighting. There is a sighting subforum that all of us meany head skeptics stay out of. This is the general forum, and specific claims were made. This the type of "evidence" we should be proclaiming shows sasquatch? Just curious if you feel like there is anything of subtance that came from this particular thread? Do you feel I'm being unreasonable by saying there is nothing in those images? Do you know of anyone with sasquatches regularly on their property that cannot manage any type of evidence of it? If there are any animals on my property that I see, I'm betting I can find evidence of it. (photographic or otherwise) Take me up on that claim. What should we do when we feel someone is making empty claims? Not say anything? and why?

I'm not saying discourage sighting reports at all. I'm saying that if someone has regular visits from sasquatch on their property there would be evidence of it. Do you feel like this alleged witness has sasquatch on their property? Even some of the most devoted proponents would agree with my stance. I'm curious who here feels like sasyfoot has a sasquatch on their property, and why they feel that way.

(and if they didnt want any skeptical view points, there is a subforum for it)

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Those images are enough for me to say nothing there. Also, I have no issue with someone coming here to tell of their sighting. There is a sighting subforum that all of us meany head skeptics stay out of. This is the general forum, and specific claims were made. This the type of "evidence" we should be proclaiming shows sasquatch? Just curious if you feel like there is anything of subtance that came from this particular thread? Do you feel I'm being unreasonable by saying there is nothing in those images? Do you know of anyone with sasquatches regularly on their property that cannot manage any type of evidence of it? If there are any animals on my property that I see, I'm betting I can find evidence of it. (photographic or otherwise) Take me up on that claim. What should we do when we feel someone is making empty claims? Not say anything? and why?

I'm not saying discourage sighting reports at all. I'm saying that if someone has regular visits from sasquatch on their property there would be evidence of it. Do you feel like this alleged witness has sasquatch on their property? Even some of the most devoted proponents would agree with my stance. I'm curious who here feels like sasyfoot has a sasquatch on their property, and why they feel that way.

(and if they didnt want any skeptical view points, there is a subforum for it)

Ben, I can see where you're coming from. I agree of course that everyone should expect to be questioned about their sighting and the sighting should be discussed where forum appropriate (and here is A-OK) I just feel like once your questions have been answered, and you have reviewed the evidence submitted along with the testimony of the witness(s), it's time to end the interview and make your own decision. That decision if negative, and if further discussed, should not insult another member or imply the member has lied, either directly or indirectly. I've taken reports from people I whole heartedly believe were credible. I've also taken reports from people that I know were less than credible, but I didn't hound them every day trying to get them to admit they had lied to me. I just threw the report out and proceeded to the next one. No harm done.

I understand you cannot see a creature in the pic Sasfooty presented, ok, I can't either but that's no excuse to say there's absolutely nothing in the pic. When you say there's nothing there, you commit to an absolute, that means in effect, anyone that says there IS something in the pic is not telling the truth according to you. Well, that statement is a sure fire recipe for problems. First, you'll likely be reported for calling another member a liar/hoaxer. Second, nobody will ever offer to share anything with us on the forum if they're called "liar" or "hoaxer" for their efforts. In my opinion, the pic that sasfooty presented is of too poor quality to show the subject(s) clearly, it's blurry at the required zoom and I can't determine a subject(s) in the pic. That doesn't knock sasfooty for presenting it, and it certainly does NOT suggest sasfooty hasn't told the truth. I'm sure she has. I'm glad she did present her encounters and her pic and I'd be honored to look at anything else she provides. Whether I believe her or not, I can be polite though right? Chris B.

[Guest]

I don't know if she does or not, I wasn't there. Even if her photos and recordings were crystal clear it wouldn't prove a thing to anyone on here so it's kind of a moot point to ask.

[MagniAesir]

I don't know if she does or not, I wasn't there. Even if her photos and recordings were crystal clear it wouldn't prove a thing to anyone on here so it's kind of a moot point to ask.

I disagree here

If I thought I saw anything in any of the pictures that where shown on this thread I would say so, and place it as evidence towards the sasquatch being real. The same goes for the recordings on this thread.

Since I didn't see anything in those photos or hear sounds which I didn't believe were identified species such as coyotes, I didn't place them in my personal evidence file.

As for Sasfooty, she was involved in this thread, plus one other, then she started a third thread to debate her position. In my personal opinion when she started her own thread, she was opening herself up for questioning. She was for a time the center of three different threads one of which she created to state her side. It would have been very simple to confine herself to one thread and only choose to reply to what questions she wanted to.

If people want to "place blame" as it were on how this turned out I think she holds an equal measure as anyone else.

As for myself I didn't add much to this thread (or the other two) because I didn't think my thoughts for the most part were worth posting

[Guest gershake]

 

Do you know of anyone with sasquatches regularly on their property that cannot manage any type of evidence of it?  If there are any animals on my property that I see, I'm betting I can find evidence of it.  (photographic or otherwise)

She has repeatedly, patiently and reasonably explained why it is not possible for her to get photographic evidence of them. Please point out logical fallacies in the posts where she laid that out.

[Guest]

Second, nobody will ever offer to share anything with us on the forum if they're called "liar" or "hoaxer" for their efforts. . . . That doesn't knock sasfooty for presenting it, and it certainly does NOT suggest sasfooty hasn't told the truth. I'm sure she has. I'm glad she did present her encounters and her pic and I'd be honored to look at anything else she provides. Whether I believe her or not, I can be polite though right? Chris B.

This is a recurring, general problem in bigfootery. Some folks are so concerned about the potential of "scaring off" an actual witness that they're reluctant to ask tough questions of people who come forward with stories. Even many zealous bigfoot proponents will tell you that they think something like well over 90% of accounts are misidentifications and fabrications. Some people are liars and hoaxers. Do we care if those people keep coming here to "share" or is it good to weed them out? Should, for example, Tom Biscardi or the Georgia Boys be given carte blanche to submit any stories they like here on the BFF without their statements being critically evaluated?

You indicated that you are "sure" that Sasfooty has been truthful with us, but you can't really be sure. This is something I've been writing about for some time. A lot of people, when accessing an anecdotal report, remove "lying" from the list of potential explanations so as not to offend the person telling the story. Where I come from, it's rather offensive to fabricate a story. I'm more concerned about the good people getting duped by nonsense stories than I am by the potential of insulting the person who has fabricated the story. Once we get too scared of scaring people off that we cease to ask basic, simple questions of an alleged witness, we have neutered the BFF and made it no different than any number of bigfoot fan sites.

You are correct that we should always remain polite in dealing with people in these cases. I see nothing impolite in River stating the opinion that there is no bigfoot in Sasfooty's photo. I agree. Does that mean Sasfooty is lying? It could, but it doesn't have to; I can't say for sure. All I can say is that I am unconvinced by the evidence she has provided. Several folks have politely expressed the same opinion in this thread. I have seen no "attack" or "piling on" of Sasfooty, and no one calling her a liar. We readers are under no obligation to believe an alleged witness' account, and the people who choose to share their stories should not be concerned if some people are unconvinced by their stories.

[Guest gershake]

 

Even many zealous bigfoot proponents will tell you that they think something like well over 90% of accounts are misidentifications and fabrications.

Seriously? Just habituation accounts or all accounts? Where is that figure from?

[Guest]

Seriously? Just habituation accounts or all accounts? Where is that figure from?

From years of participating on the BFF and reading other people's posts. You'll probably need a new thread and poll if you want some new, objective figures.

[Guest gershake]

I was thinking about that, in fact. Will probably do so... (sometimes I wish I had been here for longer!)

[Sasfooty]

I didn’t intend to add anything else to this, but since so many here have the mistaken idea that I was trying to prove something, I’ll say it one more time.

I have nothing nor do I claim to, that I could or would post on this forum, that would prove that Bigfoot exists, & I’m not trying to prove it to anybody. Anything I posted here was simply to illustrate some of the things I see & hear--nothing more. If you don’t think it’s Bigfoot, that’s fine. To those that think I’m lying: that’s fine, because your opinion means nothing more to me than mine means to you.

The picture of the woods was posted to show why it is so hard to get a picture of them, not to show that they were there. I was on the opposite side of the house from where they were. I heard the whistles that they make when they come by, I looked around the side of the house & saw some moving around among the tree trunks in the area that I circled. I had a camera in my hand, & snapped a picture.

There were some things in that area of the picture that I thought might be some, but it was so far away that it was impossible to tell. I sent it to Sunflower, & she said she couldn’t tell either. I kept the picture & looked at it occasionally, but never found them.

When I posted it that day, Sunflower took another look at it, & found the “walking foot & leg†in another area of the picture. She enhanced it, & found the rest. She sent it to me, & it took me a few minutes to see them, but when I did, it was obvious (to me) that they were there.

I was reluctant to mention it, but did because I thought there might actually be somebody here that would be able to see them & would enjoy looking at them. I got numerous Pms saying that “Yes, I seem them“, or “Yes. I think I see them.†I guess they had their own reasons for not saying so here, & that’s fine, too. I just appreciate that they were kind enough to tell me privately. I think there may even be a skeptic or two that sees them, because some of them have been strangely quiet on the subject.

There are also several people who have sent Pms saying that some of the things I’ve written are exactly like things that they, or people that they know have experienced. They don’t have anything to say in public, either, & I certainly understand why. It would be pointless to try to have a discussion here.

So, I hope this will clear up some of the confusion about the picture & the reason it was posted.

[Guest]

What value do you have from those photos posted? I'm just calling it as I see it. (or rather dont see it) I've yet to see anyone say they see anything in those images except for the "witnesses". (story tellers? or do they really see something in those images and outlines?) I don't think giving an honest opinion about alleged evidence that is presented here is wrong, and it was posted here publically for folks to do just that. I enjoyed the "stories" just as much as anyone else. When it comes to specific claims, we can debate the facts. Do you see anything in those images?

Feel free to call it as you see it (or rather don't see it). Feel free to act anyway you want to act, anonymously on a internet forum. I use my real name. I want witnesses to contact me or my organization. Berating witnesses on the internet would be counter-productive for me. Feel free to bully and be negative on the internet. If you would scroll up you would see I posted I did not see anything. Does this behavior make you feel empowered? Do you get a rush from insulting people?

[Guest]

This is a recurring, general problem in bigfootery. Some folks are so concerned about the potential of "scaring off" an actual witness that they're reluctant to ask tough questions of people who come forward with stories. Even many zealous bigfoot proponents will tell you that they think something like well over 90% of accounts are misidentifications and fabrications. Some people are liars and hoaxers. Do we care if those people keep coming here to "share" or is it good to weed them out? Should, for example, Tom Biscardi or the Georgia Boys be given carte blanche to submit any stories they like here on the BFF without their statements being critically evaluated?

Absolutely. This is the internet. Skeptics can be rude and insulting and get away with it. I get that. This is why we have places like the JREF. I agree with the 90% of sightings being misidentifications and fabrications. I deal it all the time. It's the OTHER 10% that I focus on. How can you "weed" someone out on the internet? How can you even know they are real? How can you know they are hoaxing? Investigations and interviews need to be done face to face.

[Guest]

I have nothing nor do I claim to, that I could or would post on this forum, that would prove that Bigfoot exists, & I’m not trying to prove it to anybody. Anything I posted here was simply to illustrate some of the things I see & hear--nothing more. If you don’t think it’s Bigfoot, that’s fine. To those that think I’m lying: that’s fine, because your opinion means nothing more to me than mine means to you.

It seems to be lost on some people when you make admissions like this. They don't seem to understand that some people like to come and discuss a topic of a undiscovered animal. They seem to feel a need to hammer home facts that you admit to. Being "scientific" does not mean you need to be a jerk. Listening to what someone says does not mean you need to believe what they say.

[Guest gershake]

 

It would be pointless to try to have a discussion here.

I'm still really sad that people would say so. I think this is exactly what this place is for, and I think most people on here behave really well.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

This is a recurring, general problem in bigfootery. Some folks are so concerned about the potential of "scaring off" an actual witness that they're reluctant to ask tough questions of people who come forward with stories. Even many zealous bigfoot proponents will tell you that they think something like well over 90% of accounts are misidentifications and fabrications. Some people are liars and hoaxers. Do we care if those people keep coming here to "share" or is it good to weed them out? Should, for example, Tom Biscardi or the Georgia Boys be given carte blanche to submit any stories they like here on the BFF without their statements being critically evaluated?

You indicated that you are "sure" that Sasfooty has been truthful with us, but you can't really be sure. This is something I've been writing about for some time. A lot of people, when accessing an anecdotal report, remove "lying" from the list of potential explanations so as not to offend the person telling the story. Where I come from, it's rather offensive to fabricate a story. I'm more concerned about the good people getting duped by nonsense stories than I am by the potential of insulting the person who has fabricated the story. Once we get too scared of scaring people off that we cease to ask basic, simple questions of an alleged witness, we have neutered the BFF and made it no different than any number of bigfoot fan sites.

You are correct that we should always remain polite in dealing with people in these cases. I see nothing impolite in River stating the opinion that there is no bigfoot in Sasfooty's photo. I agree. Does that mean Sasfooty is lying? It could, but it doesn't have to; I can't say for sure. All I can say is that I am unconvinced by the evidence she has provided. Several folks have politely expressed the same opinion in this thread. I have seen no "attack" or "piling on" of Sasfooty, and no one calling her a liar. We readers are under no obligation to believe an alleged witness' account, and the people who choose to share their stories should not be concerned if some people are unconvinced by their stories.

Saskeptic, nobody has ever said you shouldn't ask questions. The Bigfoot Forum IS debate. Something skeptics may wish to consider though. Out of all the pics, and stories of encounters presented here, how many have you chosen to believe? Chris B.