Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[tsig]

Sooo - you're saying that my dreams about me and Nicole Kidman have no basis in fact?
Damn! You really know how to hurt a guy.

Yep, you and Beyonce', in your dreams

 

[kitakaze]

Not on that day, no bugs bothering me. I hate bugs

I have never been one to eat much in the morning. Even now I have to force myself to eat toast when I take my meds.

I don't have a photo album. I use face book. But I can try to figure something out.

When you go in the woods, do you use an insect repellent such as OFF! ?

Have you ever heard of the plant called jimson weed?

User CP tab (upper left of the screen) > Pictures & Albums > Add Album > Browse > select the picture > voilà!

 

[kitakaze]

Lord. See this is why people laugh at us.

Researcher 1 -"They say witnesses are unreliable. We'll show we're serious and we'll take our witness and conduct a test to determine the real distance. That'll show 'em"

Researcher 2 - "Brilliant! Did you bring a measuring tape?"

Researcher 1 -"Uh, no."

Researcher 2 -"We'll guestimate!"

You went all the way to revisit the site with Billy and you didn't actually measure the distance. Why?

Here is a football field. Look at the distance between 0 - 50 yards. Look at the point between 40 and 50 yards and then at the 0 yard line. You could see muscle moving and other fine details at that distance.

 

[tsig]

Besides the seeing-a-nonexistent-animal part, it's the level of details in John's encounter story that has me skeptical. It was supposed to be about 50 yards away (150'). Yet he talks about seeing muscles, tendons, eyes and the little berries in spite of intense fear and nausea.

Given the distance, those kinds of details wouldn't be visible or noticed even if it was a (upright) bear. It's as if Bigfoot caused John to suddenly have bionic vision and memory.

Yes the laws of optics be dammed. nevermind that his eyes would have to be the size of dinnerplates to see that level of detail.

 

[tsig]

[QUOTE the facial features very well as I mentioned all I could see was dark eyes. The muscles I saw were back muscles and I could see them moving clearly.[/QUOTE]

Face and back at the same time?

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1376[/qimg]

you went all the way to revisit the site with billy and you didn't actually measure the distance. Why?

Here is a football field. Look at the distance between 0 - 50 yards. Look at the point between 40 and 50 yards and then at the 0 yard line. You could see muscle moving and other fine details at that distance.

hdtv

 

[WGBH]

double post.

 

[WGBH]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1376[/qimg]

You went all the way to revisit the site with Billy and you didn't actually measure the distance. Why?

Here is a football field. Look at the distance between 0 - 50 yards. Look at the point between 40 and 50 yards and then at the 0 yard line. You could see muscle moving and other fine details at that distance.

No, I have never returned to the site. I don't even know exactly where it is. We were just hiking in Ohio and approximated. Measure it with what? That is a totally different perspective from what I had, not even close. I don't know exactly how far it was. If you and I were in the street you could walk away and I could tell you to stop.

 

[WGBH]

[QUOTE the facial features very well as I mentioned all I could see was dark eyes. The muscles I saw were back muscles and I could see them moving clearly.

Face and back at the same time?[/QUOTE]

Tsig, it would be easier if you just read the article.

 

[WGBH]

Lord. See this is why people laugh at us.

Researcher 1 -"They say witnesses are unreliable. We'll show we're serious and we'll take our witness and conduct a test to determine the real distance. That'll show 'em"

Researcher 2 - "Brilliant! Did you bring a measuring tape?"

Researcher 1 -"Uh, no."

Researcher 2 -"We'll guestimate!"

uhm, what are you talking about? This what not a witness-investigator scenario. This was three people hiking in the woods.

Billy to John- How far away do you think it was?
John to Billy- Keep walking and I will say when to stop.
John to Billy- Stop
John to Billy- That looks about right.
Billy to John- That is less then 50 yards.
Tom to Billy- I agree.

The end.

 

[Bitter Monk]

uhm, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about this...

“About, I’m going to say less than 50 yards. I’ve always said 50 yards, but then [fellow Sasquatch Watch of Virginia researchers] Billy and Tom took me out in the woods and I kind of gauged how close I was and they were telling me that I was closer than 50 yards.

As I said gauging distance can be difficult for an untrained observer. As part of their "investigation" of your sighting, they took you out to an area other than the location of your sighting in order to attempt to recreate the distance the object was observed. The only reason to do that would be to attempt to attain an accurate distance. So in order to ascertain the distance, since witnesses have a difficult time at determining distance by observation, they took you somewhere and attempted to ascertain the distance by observation.

In looking at the Sasquatch Watch gallery I see several photos that include tape measures. Overlooking the fact that they were attempting to recreate an aspect of your sighting at a different location, there's simply no excuse to rely on guesswork when all they're doing is replacing your guess with theirs.

Billy to John- How far away do you think it was?
John to Billy- Keep walking and I will say when to stop.
John to Billy- Stop
John to Billy- That looks about right.
Billy to John- That is less then 50 yards.
Tom to Billy- I agree.

The end.

Exactly my point. They replaced your guess with their guess.

 

[WGBH]

I'm talking about this...


As I said gauging distance can be difficult for an untrained observer. As part of their "investigation" of your sighting, they took you out to an area other than the location of your sighting in order to attempt to recreate the distance the object was observed. The only reason to do that would be to attempt to attain an accurate distance. So in order to ascertain the distance, since witnesses have a difficult time at determining distance by observation, they took you somewhere and attempted to ascertain the distance by observation.

In looking at the Sasquatch Watch gallery I see several photos that include tape measures. Overlooking the fact that they were attempting to recreate an aspect of your sighting at a different location, there's simply no excuse to rely on guesswork when all they're doing is replacing your guess with theirs.



Exactly my point. They replaced your guess with their guess.

This was not a investigation of any type. We were not attempting to re-create anything. We were walking and chatting in the woods. Where are you getting this idea from?

 

[Bitter Monk]

This was not a investigation of any type. We were not attempting to re-create anything. We were walking and chatting in the woods. Where are you getting this idea from?

William Parcher directly challenged your accounting of the detail by saying the distance you gave was too great (which I agree with).

I replied that witnesses were notoriously bad at estimating things like distance. You then replied...

I know I suck at it. When Billy and I tried to judge the distance ourselves (we did not physically measure) he said it was less than 50. I was also 10-12 feet high in a tree.

I'm getting it directly from you John. I specifically put "investigate" in quotes because it obviously wasn't a true investigation.

 

[mikeyx]

I'm talking about this...


As I said gauging distance can be difficult for an untrained observer. As part of their "investigation" of your sighting, they took you out to an area other than the location of your sighting in order to attempt to recreate the distance the object was observed. The only reason to do that would be to attempt to attain an accurate distance. So in order to ascertain the distance, since witnesses have a difficult time at determining distance by observation, they took you somewhere and attempted to ascertain the distance by observation.

In looking at the Sasquatch Watch gallery I see several photos that include tape measures. Overlooking the fact that they were attempting to recreate an aspect of your sighting at a different location, there's simply no excuse to rely on guesswork when all they're doing is replacing your guess with theirs.



Exactly my point. They replaced your guess with their guess.

care to comment on you doing most of your research in timberghost country, or so I've heard? A stone's throw from mabrc country?

 

[WGBH]

William Parcher directly challenged your accounting of the detail by saying the distance you gave was too great (which I agree with).

I replied that witnesses were notoriously bad at estimating things like distance. You then replied...



I'm getting it directly from you John. I specifically put "investigate" in quotes because it obviously wasn't a true investigation.

I agree with William and you. It probably was not 50 yards. Which is why I now say "less then 50 yards." I have no idea exactly how far away the animal was, but I described what I could and could not see.

 

[LuvGodzilla]

You witnessed the subject from a height of somewhere between 10 and 12 feet from the deer stand. The subject was approximately 9x5.5 feet in height/width.

You mentioned a viewing port (mail slot) size.

The deer stand was camo netted.

You mention that you viewed the subject from the waist up.

You feel it was less than 150 ft away (you haven't given us a number to replace the 50 yds yet).

Were you viewing it from the mail slot sized port or through the camo net?

If you were above the subject and the deer stand floor (?) is 10 to 12 feet high, where in the deer stand were you viewing it from - standing up, sitting or kneeling?

Thank you.

 

[Bitter Monk]

I agree with William and you. It probably was not 50 yards. Which is why I now say "less then 50 yards." I have no idea exactly how far away the animal was, but I described what I could and could not see.

That's fair enough John. I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing the attempt to ascertain the distance.

care to comment on you doing most of your research in timberghost country, or so I've heard? A stone's throw from mabrc country?

I like that. You know the MABRC has a bad rap. You also know I've never worked with or for the MABRC. By your logic everyone should just pack up and go home since Tom Biscardi has at one time or another visited just about everyone's backyard. That would be most unfortunate as it would leave 'bleevers and skeptics alike with nothing much to talk about.

 

[WGBH]

You witnessed the subject from a height of somewhere between 10 and 12 feet from the deer stand. The subject was approximately 9x5.5 feet in height/width.

Correct

You mentioned a viewing port (mail slot) size.

Correct

The deer stand was camo netted.

Not netting it was canvas type material.

You mention that you viewed the subject from the waist up.

Correct

You feel it was less than 150 ft away (you haven't given us a number to replace the 50 yds yet).

Because I am not sure. You want me to guess? OK between 35 and 40 yds.

Were you viewing it from the mail slot sized port or through the camo net?

a mail slot sized port. I could not see through the camo.

If you were above the subject and the deer stand floor (?) is 10 to 12 feet high, where in the deer stand were you viewing it from - standing up, sitting or kneeling?

Thank you.

Sitting on a camp stool/chair, there were 2 of them in the blind.

 

[Medic212]

Hello, this is David. I'm Michelle's (sugarb's) husband. I understand that you all would like to hear my side of the story. I've got a couple more days off on this vacation so I thought I would go ahead and give it a go. So here goes....

Michelle already gave you a discription of the location, time of day and all that, so I'll just generalize that part.

We were heading down the road, it was around 7 or so, clear night the road seemed pretty well abandoned for the most part, which didn't shock us being in po-dunk arkansas. I was driving we were in a 97 f150 standard cab. As we were driving I was able to see something on the opposite side of the road in the distance, I by the way have very good vision, and I'm very observant when I drive, I constantly scan my mirrors and look out ahead of me for possible hazards, occupational habit I suppose. At first I was unable to identify what it was that i saw. As we moved closer you could tell that it was moving toward us and not just something on the side of the road. after a few seconds we realized that it was a live something and it was running alongside the road and appeared to be moving fairly quickly. As it approached us we could see that it was very tall, taller than the cab of the truck probably around 7 feet or a bit taller. It was on 2 legs arms hanging down to the side swinging slightly. It had long hair but not extremely long. very short to no neck, like a linebacker, imagine having a bigfoot on your football team, my Raiders could use him. It ran along the edge of the road and right about the time it passed the truck it ran down off the road and into the ditchline. We both turned a bit to watch or at least I did I'm pretty sure she did too. I could only see it for about another 2 seconds maybe so I couldn't tell if it stayed in the ditchline or if it ran across the field to our left, and it was gone.

For the next 5 or 10 seconds our drive was silent. Then we both pretty much simaltaneously used a few explitives to ask if the other had seen what happened. We both answered yes. Michelle asked if maybe it was a deer, I explained that I had never seen a deer running on its hind legs. Then she asked if maybe it was a person, I responded that that would be a very big and very hairy and very fast person. I then wanted to turn around and see if we could get a better look at whatever the hell it was. Michelle was against it, but i tried for a minute to convince her that it would be ok. I soon realized that she was pretty freaked out and gave up on it.

I don't know for sure that what we saw was a bigfoot, but to be honest with you I've thought about it alot and am really more skeptical of the "reasonable" explanations that I am of the not so reasonable. I have this belief that while we have the ability to discover and prove a lot of things, that it is much more unreasonable to think that we know everything that exists out there than it is to think openly that there are in fact creatures and beings that we can't explain. I think it is very arrogant of people who think that we are alone and that we know it all.

I hope that this is of some help to you all in determing whether or not our account is credible.

 

[clayflingythingy]

I have this belief that while we have the ability to discover and prove a lot of things, that it is much more unreasonable to think that we know everything that exists out there than it is to think openly that there are in fact creatures and beings that we can't explain. I think it is very arrogant of people who think that we are alone and that we know it all.

Spoken like a true woo.