[Editor's note: Rob, the photo was supposedly taken with a game camera which was left out in the field... not a handheld camera. Hope this clarifies. - Autumn]

Remember my own blobsquatch photo? I love that pic, because ‘who knows’ what it is… but is it proof (or even ‘evidence’) of a sas? Heck no! I like to think it’s one of the big guys peekin’ out at us, but hey… I’m happy if no one else buys it. :) THAT’S the attitude that I think these guys should take. Jeffery, if you KNOW it’s a sas, then be happy with that, and continue your work in the area. If you need to have validation from someone else, well… I dunno what that says about you, but you’re in the wrong biz.

Namaste!
m.

In other words… you shouldn’t have to outline the “figure”.

When you bring evidence forth, it is up to YOU, as the claimant, to provide supporting evidence and thorough research. Especially if you’re crowing from the rooftops. Your supposed “evidence” is a single photograph, and a poor resolution one at that, in which the subject in question comprises approximately .05% of the total pixel data available in the photograph. Supporting evidence, then, would be photographs taken within STRICTLY controlled circumstances, from the exact location during the exact type of lighting, to PROVE that the subject in question WAS, in fact, there and was not a simple trick of light and shadow.

You have failed, thus far, to provide that evidence to support your claim. And if you expect everyone who questions your claims and lack of supporting evidence to stop what they’re doing, get on a plane and head to your neck of the woods in order to gather it themselves, based upon a brown blob WAAAY in the back of a photograph, I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a while.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t feel that this photograph warrants any more of my time. Even if it were a Sasquatch standing there, the photograph is not detailed enough to constitute “proof” in any way, shape or form.

Others may feel differently, and I wish you the best of luck in your future research.

The angle is different, the zoom factor was different, all of which gives viewers a noticeable misrepresentation of the first image.

There is a shadow behind him in the comparison photo that if viewed from the original angle (further left) would be more pronounced. The foliage (that would be in front of it from that angle) is causing the silhouette of the “Bigfoot”.

Even if this was a real Bigfoot… it’s too blurry and too subjective to interpretation to offer up as solid evidence, let alone proof of anything.

You put this photo on the Internet for the world to see… did you think that everyone is just going to accept it as fact and not analyze it? If you can’t handle people offering up an opinion that doesn’t mimic your own then you shouldn’t post photos for people to analyze in the first place.

Also, the fact that you can’t seem to handle a critique that differs from your own without resorting to snide remarks (twice now) obviously speaks to your lack of professionalism.

First of all, my analysis stands. Yes, there is the dark tree, or part of it, to the left. And just to the RIGHT of that, to the left of the man in the photo, is the shadow that appears to be your “bigfoot” – it’s simply shown at a different angle.

As I said in my original post, I would be more than happy to reevaluate this IF AND WHEN I receive a COMPARABLE comparison photo. Until you’re standing in the same spot, at the same time of day, THE SHADOW BACK THERE CANNOT BE RULED OUT as the source of your “bigfoot”. Until then, this remains in the Blobsquatch bin. If you really want to PROVE something is standing there and it is not a shadow, do the work, go back out into the field, take the photo from the EXACT location, and send it in. A true “researcher” would do no less.

As for my member’s section and your obvious dig regarding that: I am a single mother with a freelance web business and very little income. I cannot AFFORD, Jeffrey, to pay for the bandwidth consumed by the many thousands of visitors who would download the hundreds of huge media files I have available in there if they were posted on the public site. I had a choice… keep them in my files and don’t share them at all, or ask those who wish to see them to help absorb the cost of making them available. Most folks understand that.

In the process of creating the members’ section, I inadvertently ended up creating one of the most pleasant and close-knit COMMUNITIES of bigfooters out there. The members are wonderful, our private members’ forum is enjoyable, and the membership helps keep it that way. People who choose to be belligerent and disrespectful have their memberships cancelled. By me. If I was doing this for the money, I’d take your $4.95 a month and allow my members’ forum to turn into a cesspool full of angry, rude people who do nothing but attack one another, like so many of the public forums out there.

You can keep your $4.95, Jeffrey.

I’ve spent 20 years in this field getting along just fine with the vast majority of my peers, mainly because I have kept a cool head, a sense of humor, and am careful not to jump to conclusions.

For instance, you would never find me sending out an email to Art Bell, George Noory, and anyone else who will listen, claiming bigfoot has been “CONFIRMED REAL!!!” based upon one vague photo that hadn’t been analyzed by anyone qualified to do so.

Credibility is a precious commodity in this field. Like it or not, how you conduct yourself reflects greatly on the “evidence” you bring forth. You would do well to remember that.