Geocaching site photos!, Is this a bigfoot they photographed? Options

[billkirbywofb]

Saskwatcher, If you want to discount any pics from geocachers, then you must also discount any pics posted here at BFF. Afterall we have had many hoaxes posted here, one even by a respected member. Yes we should be giving geocaching storys a close examination, maybe even closer than most pics. But to automaticly throw them in the garbage bin is wrong. Specially if we make it clear to the geocaching community that claims from their members will be examined carefully. Soon there will be millions of people involved in the sport, and with a good percentage of caches being in remote areas - the chance of legitamate sightings will go up with time. So rather than automaticly deep-sixing geocachers reports, we just have to be more vigalente.

(There are a number of geocachers from this forum. It might be an idea that when they are in contact [or in geocaching forums] with other 'cachers, to let them know that we are interested in hearing of any B.F. sightings. But that we have also had problems with hoaxes or threats of hoaxes. So maybe we can get some good sightings, while letting the hoaxers know that we are onto them)

[Wildman]

Saskwatcher, If you want to discount any pics from geocachers, then you must also discount any pics posted here at BFF. Afterall we have had many hoaxes posted here, one even by a respected member. Yes we should be giving geocaching storys a close examination, maybe even closer than most pics. But to automaticly throw them in the garbage bin is wrong.

If you cannot look at the picture and see with 100% accuracy, with absolutely no room for doubt, that the image is of a genuine Sasquatch, then is it really of any use? Not at all. At most, it says that someone should investigate the area. But a report with no pictures can say the same. A blobsquatch is a blobsquatch, and as evidence it is worthless. And IMO, they should never be used to substantiate anyone's verbal or written report. Crappy evidence is crappy evidence, regardless of the reasons someone has to include it.

[tube]

To keep the movie rolling, here is a photo I took at the Bellingham conference. Even with ambient room light the reflectors work great.

This post has been edited by tube: Jul 12 2005, 02:57 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Saskwatcher]

Geo-cachers take photos (format?) and leave prints(?) in the 'cache' for the person(s) who follows the GPS co-ordinates to it, right ?
(Sounds )
Kinda like a hi-tech version of a Scavenger Hunt, huh ?

I bet there are more pics of half-nekkid hikers hitting a bong in those caches than authentically VALUABLE photos of BigFoot !

[Gigantofootecus]

I don't think that is the same bush. I don't think it is really an animal with eye shine. Why didn't anybody line up the distance between the eyes (if it were suppose to be the same entity) to help determine size?

DDA, your GIF nicely shows the distance to the figure remained constant relative to the camera over these 2 shots. One near the bush, and the other near the pillar. I did attempt to scale up the figure's eyes to match the crew members and it suggests this thing is pretty big. And if this isn't the same bush, then I'll eat a bug (but one of my choosing ) The views of the bush in the Creek 2 shot differ by over 45 degrees horizontally and approx. 10 degrees vertically from the group shot. Taking this into consideration I found that several branches matched up perfectly. The branches change shape considerably from different views, but IMO there were enough common reference points to match them up with confidence.

To me it makes sense that all these photos showing the eye-shine were taken under the bridge, which is where the cachers claimed the figure was the whole time. IMO, this part fits. A well planned hoax would require this kind of consistency.

To keep the movie rolling, here is a photo I took at the Bellingham conference. Even with ambient room light the reflectors work great.

Neat pic tube. Could you get eye-reflection from the cut-out at any angle? If not, then the alleged cut-out figure in the Creek 2 photo shows a turned body while the eyes stayed square to the camera. A cut-out could depict this apparent orientation, but it could not be angled into it. When you rotate a 2D cut-out, it just gets thinner and the eyes get closer together (and stop reflecting). Also, the best shot of the figure thru the window appears pretty symmetrical. Were there 2 cut-outs?

If you cannot look at the picture and see with 100% accuracy, with absolutely no room for doubt, that the image is of a genuine Sasquatch, then is it really of any use? Not at all. At most, it says that someone should investigate the area. But a report with no pictures can say the same. A blobsquatch is a blobsquatch, and as evidence it is worthless. And IMO, they should never be used to substantiate anyone's verbal or written report. Crappy evidence is crappy evidence, regardless of the reasons someone has to include it.

Wow, are you suggesting all anecdotal evidence is worthless and that it's even possible for a pic to leave absolutely no room for doubt? Can't a blobsquatch at least be corroborating evidence to strengthen a verbal/written report? I assumed they were of equal merit. Both might be crap, but they have the same stink, and hoaxing a pic is probably as difficult as hoaxing a story.

The shear volume of reportings does mean something. Using a null hypothesis, let's conservatively state that the probability of any particular eyewitness report being either a deliberate hoax or the product of incompetent observation as being 99%. Then, let us take the 1000 "most believable" reports and determine the probability that all of these reports are false. Using compound probability, the chance that all are false can be shown to be:

.99 raised to the power of 1000 = .00004 = .004%

The null hypothesis would then dictate that the probability is 100 - .004 = 99.996% that at least one report was produced by an honest, competent observer. It's also doubtful that 99% of the general public are worthless interpreters. The actual probability that at least one report is valid is very close to 100% (but not quite). Doesn't prove that all reports can't be hoaxes, but it nudges right up to it.

GF

[Wildman]

Wow, are you suggesting all anecdotal evidence is worthless and that it's even possible for a pic to leave absolutely no room for doubt? Can't a blobsquatch at least be corroborating evidence to strengthen a verbal/written report? I assumed they were of equal merit.

I'm saying a blobsquatch is a blobsquatch. There is absolutely nothing to be learned from a blobsquatch. "Hey, I saw something! I think it was Bigfoot! Here's my blurry-assed picture that proves it!" Ummm, no. All we know is the person saw something, and took a picture of something, and we have to just take on faith that what is supposedly in the picture is what the person saw, or believes to have seen. How can you put a stamp of approval on that?

And no, in all honesty I do not believe a photograph can leave absolutely no room for doubt. There will always be doubt. As far as anecdotal evidence goes, well, that's all it is. A bunch of little anecdotes. There is a good reason why I don't investigate reports. I think a good amount of people are stupid, and an equal amount are full of s**t. I am a bit too harsh, and I demand more than most can give me.

Both might be crap, but they have the same stink, and hoaxing a pic is probably as difficult as hoaxing a story.

Which really isn't that difficult, if you think about it. Especially when some reports with pictures don't get investigated at all.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=0&#entry244309

[OKBFFan]

Using compound probability, the chance that all are false can be shown to be:

.99 raised to the power of 1000 = .00004 = .004%

The null hypothesis would then dictate that the probability is 100 - .004 = 99.996% that at least one report was produced by an honest, competent observer.

GF, you are making my brain hurt! But hey, touche'!

This post has been edited by OKBFFan: Jul 12 2005, 07:15 PM

[tube]

Could you get eye-reflection from the cut-out at any angle?

That's a good question. I only took one digital photograph and I did not look at it until I got back home. This seems like one of those ridiculously easy questions to answer with simple tests.

The only other purported Sasquatch photographs that have such strong eye shine are the "Myakka Ape" photographs, at least that I'm aware of.

Do you know what makes highway signs so strongly reflective? Glass beads. This was one of the powders that I tested when I was testing for casting artifacts. As a powder, they have strong wicking action but no plasticity, thus do not produce casting artifacts. If you spread some of these "retroreflective" glass beads on the ground with the sun low and at your back you will see a "glory" or circular rainbow around your head. When this phenomena occurs with dew drops on grass it is known as "heiligenschein".

Where am I going with this? I've wonder if one could make hemispherical or even spherical reflectors using retroreflective glass beads. One could glue the beads to a table tennis ball or something. I'll bet those could be seen at oblique angles! I suspect, but do not know, that such a reflector would be more subtle than the one in the photograph I posted. I suspect it would reflect something like "turtles", the little plastic bumps in the road that define lanes on the highway.

I'm still waiting to see a cardboard cutout with LED's for eyes!

[sosha]

You guys are scaring me..lol spherical glass bead reflectors? Dang that's a science all by itself!

Anyway...like I said...if it is a hoax they certainly didn't publicize it much...and I guess the guys involved aren't talking to each other...and why take your daughter along on a hoax like that unless you area real ass of a father...which if you read his posts and look at his picture gallery....he doesn't seem to be. Both guys in this incident seem to be very serious geocachers with families...and do not seem to be into frivoulous things like bigfoot hoaxing. Of course neither one has emailed me back so....I dunno...maybe they are not interested in opening that can of worms again or it seriously scared them and they don't want to talk about it.

I was talking to a neighbor of my parents who is a deeply religious guy and was a pastor at one point. My dad mentioned to him about my bigfoot interest and when I was over there this weekend he was out watering his lawn and asked me to come over. He told me a story about how on some church campout he went to use the outhouse and saw something that so terrified him he ran back to his church group but didn't say a word..and held his bladder for another half hour until he had the courage to just go off a little ways in the woods to relieve himself. He said what he saw was huge, at least as tall as the outhouse roof which was 8 feet tall...and he could see it was of enourmous bulk...so he immediately thought...bear, and was going to yell...but then he saw it didn't have a snout like a bear and it's eyes would flicker he said...maybe from the light of the campfire they had...and they flickered red...he knew in his gut he said...that it was not a bear...but his mind could not allow him to comprehend what it was he was looking at. He said it stood stock still next to the outhouse just staring at him...and it's total "statue" like presence made him think mabye he was hallucinating it...that is wasn't really anything....but when the eyes would flicker...he said.."I am a grown man...a pastor...and I thought I was looking at a demon, I really did". He said he turned and walked briskly back to the group...not saying a word and no one said anything. The next morning he told everyone he didn't feel well and packed his gear and left. He said he was embarrassed later by his reaction and that he always thought he would have been braver in a situation where other people might have been in danger. But he just completely froze up and as he said.."became a very frightened 10 year old boy again".

I asked him if he wanted to report his sighting to document it because it was important to get reputable people to report these sightings. He said no...he didn't mind telling me but that he really didn't want to talk about it to anyone else. So he wouldn't elborate further, but he did say there is something else in the woods besides bears and mountain lions to fear.

Now see..I don't think they are something to fear other than what our minds do to us when we see something we cannot explain. But different people react emotionally to things in a variety of ways and sometimes it seems that sightings or encounters with these creatures really mess people up. And I think people who have closely held beliefs about how the world is don't quite know what to do with their encounters when they have them. Have we had a thread about the emotional impact on people from encounters? Because people do seem to suffer some serious emotional setbacks from sightings. I guess seeing a bigfoot shatter some illusions some people have about how the world is.

So anyway...reading these guys's posts on the geocaching site and seeing their pics....I don't find them to be the kind of people who would hoax a thing like this...but I don't know them and who knows for sure what went on there except them.

[Lexy]

You guys are scaring me..lol spherical glass bead reflectors? Dang that's a science all by itself!

Anyway...like I said...if it is a hoax they certainly didn't publicize it much...and I guess the guys involved aren't talking to each other...and why take your daughter along on a hoax like that unless you area real ass of a father...which if you read his posts and look at his picture gallery....he doesn't seem to be. Both guys in this incident seem to be very serious geocachers with families...and do not seem to be into frivoulous things like bigfoot hoaxing. Of course neither one has emailed me back so....I dunno...maybe they are not interested in opening that can of worms again or it seriously scared them and they don't want to talk about it.

I was talking to a neighbor of my parents who is a deeply religious guy and was a pastor at one point. My dad mentioned to him about my bigfoot interest and when I was over there this weekend he was out watering his lawn and asked me to come over. He told me a story about how on some church campout he went to use the outhouse and saw something that so terrified him he ran back to his church group but didn't say a word..and held his bladder for another half hour until he had the courage to just go off a little ways in the woods to relieve himself. He said what he saw was huge, at least as tall as the outhouse roof which was 8 feet tall...and he could see it was of enourmous bulk...so he immediately thought...bear, and was going to yell...but then he saw it didn't have a snout like a bear and it's eyes would flicker he said...maybe from the light of the campfire they had...and they flickered red...he knew in his gut he said...that it was not a bear...but his mind could not allow him to comprehend what it was he was looking at. He said it stood stock still next to the outhouse just staring at him...and it's total "statue" like presence made him think mabye he was hallucinating it...that is wasn't really anything....but when the eyes would flicker...he said.."I am a grown man...a pastor...and I thought I was looking at a demon, I really did". He said he turned and walked briskly back to the group...not saying a word and no one said anything. The next morning he told everyone he didn't feel well and packed his gear and left. He said he was embarrassed later by his reaction and that he always thought he would have been braver in a situation where other people might have been in danger. But he just completely froze up and as he said.."became a very frightened 10 year old boy again".

I asked him if he wanted to report his sighting to document it because it was important to get reputable people to report these sightings. He said no...he didn't mind telling me but that he really didn't want to talk about it to anyone else. So he wouldn't elborate further, but he did say there is something else in the woods besides bears and mountain lions to fear.

Now see..I don't think they are something to fear other than what our minds do to us when we see something we cannot explain. But different people react emotionally to things in a variety of ways and sometimes it seems that sightings or encounters with these creatures really mess people up. And I think people who have closely held beliefs about how the world is don't quite know what to do with their encounters when they have them. Have we had a thread about the emotional impact on people from encounters? Because people do seem to suffer some serious emotional setbacks from sightings. I guess seeing a bigfoot shatter some illusions some people have about how the world is.

So anyway...reading these guys's posts on the geocaching site and seeing their pics....I don't find them to be the kind of people who would hoax a thing like this...but I don't know them and who knows for sure what went on there except them.

Wow, that was a great story. It's this kind of story that really makes me think they are real. Not so much that he is a Pastor but... ya know he didn't need to call you over & tell you that story just for the fun of it. Why would he? I know he could have lied but it's just the way he told it etc.... It is interesting to hear how seeing one effects people.

Anyway -great story. Great thread to.

[tube]

This is a "quick and dirty" test I did this evening. I sprayed adhesive on two light bulbs then sprinkled on glass beads. I must not have used enough adhesive or it did not adhere properly because the beads started to come off. These are the reflective bulbs in my front yard. I shot this at sunset, but there is a streetlignt behind me so there is some ambient light. I'm only posting one picture because the rest did not turn out too well. I suspect that if I kept on experimenting I could get it fairly well dialed in. I think the photograph is slightly out of focus; my camera would not auto focus in this low light and I couldn't see well enough to focus manually.

But it does work; home made retro-reflective spheres. Fake "eyeshine" from any angle!

I hereby predict for the future; blobsquatches are out, glowing eyes are in!

Then again I predicted that "chew sticks" would take off...

Attached image(s)

 

[walkingcarpet]

I was talking to a neighbor of my parents who is a deeply religious guy and was a pastor at one point. My dad mentioned to him about my bigfoot interest and when I was over there this weekend he was out watering his lawn and asked me to come over. He told me a story about how on some church campout he went to use the outhouse and saw something that so terrified him he ran back to his church group but didn't say a word..and held his bladder for another half hour until he had the courage to just go off a little ways in the woods to relieve himself. He said what he saw was huge, at least as tall as the outhouse roof which was 8 feet tall...and he could see it was of enourmous bulk...so he immediately thought...bear, and was going to yell...but then he saw it didn't have a snout like a bear and it's eyes would flicker he said...maybe from the light of the campfire they had...and they flickered red...he knew in his gut he said...that it was not a bear...but his mind could not allow him to comprehend what it was he was looking at. He said it stood stock still next to the outhouse just staring at him...and it's total "statue" like presence made him think mabye he was hallucinating it...that is wasn't really anything....but when the eyes would flicker...he said.."I am a grown man...a pastor...and I thought I was looking at a demon, I really did". He said he turned and walked briskly back to the group...not saying a word and no one said anything. The next morning he told everyone he didn't feel well and packed his gear and left. He said he was embarrassed later by his reaction and that he always thought he would have been braver in a situation where other people might have been in danger. But he just completely froze up and as he said.."became a very frightened 10 year old boy again".

Cool story. As for me, I think I would have had no problem evacuating my bladder. :willies:

I think, Sosha, that the consensus is not one of hoaxing, but of misidentification. I lean a little that way myself.

But just a little. Look at the daughters eyes--she is seriously freaked. That kind of fear is tough to fake, unless, of course, she wasn't in on the hoax. Which would mean, in fact, that her father is an ass.

This post has been edited by walkingcarpet: Jul 13 2005, 01:19 AM

[Susan]

I'm not sure where I stand on the Geocaching pics. I don't think they have anything to do with the request by the Florida guy for people to hoax a skunk ape sighting. They happened two years previously and the Florida request was just this past Feb.

I do know that I probably should NOT have read that story you just posted, Sosha, not when I am leaving to go camping tomorrow!!!! All these pictures with alleged eye-shine and stories about going to the outhouse in the dark, DAMN!!! That is something I always have on my mind when going to the bathroom after dark when camping. (think I'll stick with the portable urinal in the tent this year!!!)

One question..... which picture was taken first? The one with the people or the one without? I was just curious. Another question......is it just me or does anyone else think the guy on the right looks like film critic, Roger Ebert?

[JohnWS]

All these pictures with alleged eye-shine and stories about going to the outhouse in the dark, DAMN!!!  That is something I always have on my mind when going to the bathroom after dark when camping.  (think I'll stick with the portable urinal in the tent this year!!!)

I got spooked by glowing white/yellow eyes when I stayed as a kid ('71) in a remote cottage in North Wales. There was no inside toilet, and when I went out, these damned eyes were towering over me from the field behind the house ! Turned out to be a cow on the slope just over the wall...

[Gigantofootecus]

FWIW, I did a bit more digging into the "Wildman Creek Cache" and here's a little background. This cache, which is still ongoing to my knowledge, was located under a bridge crossing Pettiquah Creek, about 50 miles SW of Tulsa Oklahoma and began at least 3 years ago (maybe longer). More details about the original cache might be available if you become a member of geocaching.com. Any members here?

I never saw any last names of these 3 cachers, known by their pseudonyms, Baron, Parkermen, and Parkermen's daughter Taryn. Since their alleged encounter, for the most part, they have kept a low profile with all this. No fanfare, no BFRO report and Baron and Parkermen posted only 1 log each to the geocaching.com website and that seems to be it. Parkermen's log was more descriptive and got picked up by some geocaching sites that reposted his log and pics. Baron's log entry and pics (including the Creek 2 shot) have not been circulating thru the geocache sites (overlooked?). I never saw a single enhancement done on any of the photos except by other cachers who superimposed themselves into the group shot as a humorous attempt to "solve the case". Not one person accused the Baron/Parkermen cachers of hoaxing. If anything, the geocache community seemed intrigued and somewhat matter-of-fact about it all. I didn't see any feedback or dialogue stemming from the Baron/Parkermen encounter. No red flags from anyone doubting the integrity of this crew. If they're perpetrating a hoax, it's a very subtle one, and based on their actions it might be more likely these 3 were also victims of the hoax.

Apparently, their story is well known amongst geocachers and I found 10 cache logs for what's now known as the "Bigfoot Cache". The original cache that Baron/Parkermen found in Feb 19/2003 (you can see Taryn holding the box in the group shot) was replaced in July 17/2004. It's now a Doritos container and cachers are expected to trade items and place an entry in a logbook.

The group shot was indeed taken at the exact location they found the cache, under the bridge. The pic was intended to document the finding of the cache. You can apparently park within 50 feet of the cache which I assume is at the top of the embankment at the elevation of the Creek 2 shot.

There was considerable buzz regarding the Wildman Creek area prior to the Baron/Parkermen encounter. The satellite photo for this cache site makes references to bigfoot tracks, stone throwing, mutilated deer, and more. This was the draw to this site all along. Maybe it's the power of suggestion but a few cachers that posted a log about this site commented on the foul stink. One cacher apparently found several animal bones/carcasses. The stink was mostly attributed to rotting flesh. Interesting that rotting animal carcasses would be a prominent feature in this area for over 2 years. Here's some snippets from the posts for this site:

December 26, 2004
"This was our first geocache find! How fun! We left a donkey and took the knife. No sign of Bigfoot...likely he was off for Christmas vacation. However, we did find several animal bones and carcases! We really did! Thanks for a great time."

October 29, 2004
"LAST CACHE OF THE DAY. JUST GETTING DARK. DID'NT SEE ANY BIGFOOT, BUT DEFINETLY COULD SMELL HIM. SURE NEEDS A BATH. THANKS FOR THE HINT. "

October 23, 2004
"Well I decided to go and get this one and the roads were not bad considering it rained yesterday. A beautiful Fall morning out in the country. As I arrived at the bridge area I could feel something watching me. I shrugged it off as i proceeded to look for the cache, still feeling as I was not alone. Finally found the cache and paused for a minute to look around the bridge with my camera. I heard some noises and leaned over the bridge and took a picture then headed back to my car. As I sat down and looked, there was something, I don't know what, running away down through the grass, so I took a couple of pictures and quickly left."

(Note: Likely a tongue-in-cheek post. 2 pics submitted by this cacher shows himself with a superimposed gorilla head, in homage to the Wildman. But the 3rd pic seems innocuous enough to be sincere. And..I know, I know, this pic is a major blobsquatch, if even that, but it shows the bridge in daylight)



July 20, 2004
"FTF The only sign of Big Foot were some foot prints in the sand and of course his smell."

February 19, 2003 (Pakermen)
"We grabbed our cameras, GPS's, and caching stuff and started looking for the best route to approach this cache. The GPS says it was under the bridge, and we finally found the best place to get down to the cache. The smell of dead rotting animal carcasses was beginning to get terrible at this point and I started getting the feeling that something was watching us, but I didn't say anything to the others, figuring I'd start a panic with the rest of the caching crew and then we'd never find this cache....Having set up my camera on a miniature tripod, we got together for a group picture, holding the cache for photographic proof as being at the cache site."

February 19, 2003 (Baron)
"We got to the site, it STANK, BAD, like dead rotting skunk (I have washed my jeans and they still stink), and the place was creepy with a capital CREEPY."

So..should this cache site represent a point of interest for squatch-watchers? The Baron/Pakermen crew obviously aren't spot-light whores. Are they hoaxers having second thoughts, or victims of a hoax, or are they just trying to put the event behind them? Need the cachers to pipe in.

Ok I'm done with this one...no really!

[Matt Hale]

FWIW, I did a bit more digging into the "Wildman Creek Cache" and here's a little background. This cache, which is still ongoing to my knowledge, was located under a bridge crossing Pettiquah Creek, about 50 miles SW of Tulsa Oklahoma and began at least 3 years ago (maybe longer). More details about the original cache might be available if you become a member of geocaching.com. Any members here?

The original cache has been archived and the cache that replaced it is named "Bigfoot Cache". The coordinates show it is approximately 44 ft from the original cache, possibly the other end of the bridge?Since I'm a member I did some searches of the forums at groundspeak. Using the key word "sasquatch" I found this thread and picture. High Desert Sasquatch After reading the thread I searched for caches with the keywords bigfoot and sasquatch in the names. The results were 29 caches using the word Bigfoot and 16 using the word Sasquatch. And this may be of interest to Gigantofootecus, 10 of the 16 using sasquatch are located in British Columbia.
Also checked out the caches hidden by the poster of the High Desert Sasquatch thread since he is a local. No bigfoot caches in the 8 he has hidden but one of them is a Prineville cache that took me 2 tries to find.
Here is the pic from the thread.

Attached image(s)

 

[sosha]

So there are a lot of people out there geocaching who know about bigfoot/sasquatch and hopefully are not really hoaxer type people. It really does sound like a fun sport...is it a sport? I joined geocaching.com just because some other people in another group I belong to suggested it. But they do go into some remote places so maybe it the BFRO wanted some info they could ask for info about it. Like I said...some people just flat out refuse to talk about their experience because of the emotional scare factor....I am sure there are a lot of people out there who have had experiences...maybe even have pictures but will not come forward out of fear of ridicule. I think we should have a bigfoots anonymous group..lol. But then again I know there are jerks out there who would just have to make up stuff.

Anyway...I have not partaken in geogaching yet...work is taking up all my time..but someday...and who knows...maybe I'd go out at night..lol.

[AngelS]

I think geocaching sounds like fun. Especially after reading this thread. Thanks for starting it Sosha.
Angels

[billkirbywofb]

One important thing about geocachers is that while they do not leave photos in their caches (based on the several hundred cashes I have looked at and the inventory of objects they contain) a lot of them do carry cameras into the field to document that they have found the cach. And to post photos of the view from the cach site for others to enjoy. So we have a lot more people now out there with cameras. And maybe some kind of results will come of it. Since these people are very observent of the area that they are hiking thru.