@robsquatch
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Reo works an area a couple hours north of American Fork. There have been multiple sighting reports in Utah recently. Several have video footage. Here’s a vid from the same vicinity in American Fork: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnhzxrpIMU
I’ve thought a bit about the availability of food in regards to sightings as well, but I’ve come to the opposite conclusion, haha!
I’ve heard and read that, specifically, deer populations are burgeoning in the United States. I would guess that deer are a primary food source for these large cryptids. So if there really is a significant increase in the primary food supply, and a decrease in the number of humans carrying guns into the woods and shooting all the things, ie dangerous humans, and yet an overall increase in humans going into the outdoors for recreation purposes, then it’s possible that any increase in the number and/or frequency of sightings could be related both to an increase in the number of these creatures, and an increase in their boldness due to being conditioned that humans are less dangerous than we used to be.
A google search turns up many links on deer populations. Here’s a good one: http://www.koryoswrites.com/nonfiction/white-tailed-deer-overpopulation-in-the-united-states/
Lucas, that’s actually the episode I was searching for that prompted my post! Thanks for the reminder!
Hi Gumshoguy, I hadn’t actually thought of an actual table of contents, with titles and such, but I like your idea. Put me down as a supporter! Maybe that’s something Wes could incorporate into the site itself? Or maybe it’s a member benefit?
At any rate, I was more thinking of a quick reference thread that lists only the most informative, interesting, or pivotal episodes. A thread that gets pinned at the top with the other pinned posts. That way it’s always easy to find and refer to. I really do refer people to this podcast a lot. I think Wes does the best job of not coming off sounding like a crazy guy which puts a lot of first time Bigfoot inquirers at ease, and makes it easier to listen to multiple episodes without feeling guilty for listening to a bigfoot podcast! haha!
So yeah, that’s something I’d love to see.
Is this the correct video link? I’m nit seeing the Crater Lake situation being discussed where you indicated…
Also, my opinion is based on the observations I’ve made watching people do research in real life. It’s not just something I’ve thought sounded good. Again, I’m not talking about “ALL” researchers. I’m talking strictly about those interested in producing quantity over quality. I’m sure there are producers of high quantity and high quality, I just think that it’s worth talking about… or maybe not. Maybe we should just chuck it all out there and when a professional jumps in a takes credit for others work we can all just collectively say, “I told you so!”. .. which is why I asked the other part of my question – does amateur quality even matter in the end when someone else is going to likely get the credit anyway… 😛
OOPS! My bad… I made it sound like I was skeptical about the evidences of the encounters… Totally not what I meant. I was referring ONLY to research efforts and gathering evidence independent of any original encounters.
I should also clarify that I actually agree that so much quality research is the result of the hard work of amateurs. Which is exactly why I made my original comment about the integrity of the amateur research we encounter or encourage.
I’ve shared my encounter with so many skeptics and have had to deflect so much attention that resulted directly from poor research. Things like claiming sasquatch is vocalizing when it’s clear to the trained ear that it’s an owl, fox, coyote or some other explanation. Or as another example, my friend took his wife on an overnight backpacking trip. He went off trail and into a small ravine to explore a possible camp site while his wife waited above on the trail – easily within sight and sound. While down in the willows he heard an extremely large animal charging around in the bushes and then running off. His first thought was actually sasquatch… but then he realized that it sounded more like a moose or something. But he’s an avid hunter so he’s a bit more accustomed to the sounds of the forest. Still, what if a researcher had the exact same experience and came to a different conclusion – calling a moose a squatch bluff charge?
It’s this sort of thing that I wonder about. Does it do more harm than good in the pool of evidences collected or shared by enthusiastic researchers? Personally I’d rather a scant amount of good evidence than a whole stinky pile of poor evidence diluting the overall quality.I don’t feel the same about actual encounters. An encounter is very personal and I’d never call someone out for that. I believe research is a different gig though. So much of it is rewarded with the approval and attention of our peers that I can see it being tempting to be a high producer of questionable content rather than a quality producer of rare content.
I hope that makes more sense and I’m sorry for the terribly unclear earlier comment. 😉
Gumshoguy, I feel like you read my post as if I were making an attack. I tried to word it as objectively as possible because I genuinely feel like they’re important points I bring up. I can’t address your answers directly right now (on mobile) but i will when I’m back at a computer. And I specifically mentioned my own encounter to demonstrate that I’m not a skeptic about Sasquatch or other people’s encounters. But I am a skeptic about that portion of amateur research that falls under the umbrella of “enthusiastically jumping to conclusions”. Obviously not all amateur research falls under that umbrella. And I wonder what the risk is to present as research observations something that actually has other explanations. I’ll addresss your specific comments when I’m at a computer.
The original post may be a trolling venture but there are some good related ideas to talk about or raise to the group. For instance, what if someone has truly had a few real encounters and provides great information, but as a result are over enthusiastic in their analysis and consideration of evidence. So they wind up either feeling pressure to “mildly” inflate their encounter stories or observed evidences for public sharing, or they simply overstep their abilities through their being overenthusiastic about what’s actually happening? These folks are well meaning and helpful/entertaining but are they ultimately doing harm to the more measured research efforts being made by more prudent amateur researchers? It seems like they may be diluting the overall quality of amateur work being done. My next question stems from that idea which is, does it really matter if the amateur research being done is diluted? Is the only valid research, in terms of public and official viability, going to have to come from legitimate scientists? After all, while amateurs may have great access to certain types of evidence, many of them, if not most, arent properly trained or educated to accurately identify much of what they’re observing. At least in terms of legitimate scientific conversation. And isn’t scientific acknowledgement what it’s going to take to “prove” this species actually exists? I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who’s had my own undeniable encounter, as well as very probable though not undeniable encounters and who shares in our community’s concern that our collective experiences and testimonies remain respectable and not become fanatical or diluted. I think the vast majority of questionable observations are very probably NOT actually sasquatch related, while at the same time, some more commonly observed things may actually be overlooked. I feel like the most important conversations are about this middle ground of amateur research and how to keep it as legitimate as possible.
Knobby, I also see that unnatural looking stiffness that makes the baby look like a puppet, but if you pause the video you linked on the 18th at the 1:25 mark and scrub to the 1:26 mark, you will very clearly see the baby pushing away from the adult as it’s arms fully extend against the chest of the adult. As it does so, you will see the ever so slight tilt of it’s head forward as if it’s better positioning itself for leverage. I think the adult is rushing the toddler away without it knowing why, so it’s sort of protesting being handled like that. Human kids do it all the time. I’m using a 32″ monitor to view the footage so maybe that’s why it’s so easy for me to see.
Maybe in the heat of the moment a few witnesses mistake kmh for mph? 80 seems a bit extreme for me to believe as well.
Somehow I feel like the Redwood film is a really good fake. It looks real to me except that I seem to recall hearing that it’s a promo piece for an upcoming project of the film maker. Maybe?
My main input though is that I feel like the independence day footage looks real to me. When the adult picks up the baby, she holds the baby close at first and the baby’s arms are bent and up higher on the shoulders. Shortly after, the baby’s arms are pushing against the chest, as if it’s trying to get down again. This rigid position of pushing against the adult’s chest is possibly why it looks so awkward.
I’ve never seen the video of the tornado child and I have to admit, it’s pretty good.
The Freeman vid strikes me as rather convincing as well.
Speaking as someone who has degree in Documentary Studies and who has been paid for a lot of hours behind a camera, and as someone who has also seen a Sasquatch first hand at fairly close range, it’s not easy getting good footage. We’re used to seeing documentary footage of nature that’s captured through arduous methodology in terms of research, equipment, as well as the logistics of setting up the shot. We forget how tough it is to get a quality capture of nature happening in the moment. I feel like the only reason Freeman had his camera out fast enough to capture this footage is because he was already filming the tracks in the mud just before this clip.
I’ve had 2 Utah encounters. Both in the Wasatch range. I’ve also heard Logan Canyon has sightings, as does the Provo Canyon/ Sundance areas.
From a Vermont news outlet:
http://m.wptz.com/news/search-team-finds-body-of-vermont-native-missing-in-idaho/35861876
