Judy Caseley: Tom Biscardi Witness
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 15th, 2006
Judy Caseley, the professional wildlife photographer whose Skunk Ape photograph caused quite a stir here on Cryptomundo, offered her thoughts on her meeting with Tom Biscardi.
I can completely understand anyone’s skepticism when someone “hooks up’ with Tom Biscardi after some of the articles I have read here. In defense of someone like myself who has had a sighting and believes it is legit, I am not anyone who would have the first clue who is considered legit in the field of research. I would venture to guess that many people who have had what they believe to be a legit sighting isn’t someone who even knows much about “Bigfoot’ and the researchers out there, as the probability of a legit sighting from anyone other than someone researching ‘Big Foot’ is usually unexpected. So should a person having a sighting of something close their mind to all researchers just because of some people’s viewpoint or should that person find out firsthand for themselves what they feel is legit or not about a person, instead of believing everything they read?
Unfortunately, someone with a legit sighting may end up on the Cryptomundo site where the posters are extreme skeptics and critics and I have myself found, can really attack a person’s character accusing them of photo shopping a photograph, losing a negative, being untruthful as to when and where they took a photo; the list goes on.
Sadly, this kind of posting will only stop future credible sightings from being reported as more and more character attacks of credible people of spotless and reputable backgrounds are afraid to come forth for just this reason.
Case in point from my own experiences. Then someone “such" as Tom Biscardi calls and sure, by now, the person who has had a sighting has lost all credibility, real or not, they have heard negative feedback on someone who is ‘out’ in the field who attempts to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty, someone who looks at the whole picture first hand. This is a man who has managed to stay in business 33 years who has also had his character assassinated researching and meeting firsthand a person who just took a picture who feels their picture could be legit, who has also had their character assassinated by posters and sometimes a researcher on the Cryptomundo site who would not admit to making a mistake if they became aware of it. As a result, the person who took the picture begins to feel that they can not believe everything they read about another person because of their own similar experience of more of the same. So the person whose credibility has been attacked and criticized begins to feel, what do they have to lose by giving Tom Biscardi a chance, especially someone such as myself who found that Tom Biscardi had all the high tech equipment and trackers, and just maybe this research team can find concrete evidence that can not be disputed and thus clean up the mess the crypto bloggers have made of their reputation.
There are two sides to every story. Did anyone ever stop to think that one who feels they may have a legit sighting begins to think maybe the researchers who sit behind a computer all day typing in stories of other researchers and posters, posters who may have nothing else to do all day but also sit in front of the computer and judge others and attack that person’s character without solid evidence of what a person believes they have seen and taken a picture of, a person who only claims this is what they saw, claims this is what they took a picture of, and wants to get to the bottom of it. Myself, I only want to get to the bottom of my siting after it hit the press. Don’t get me wrong, researchers compiling data and getting poster input is important for future research … but it seems to me that just putting negative assaults out there will not further the needed support of the general public. Craig Woolheater I have to say in all honesty does try to protect his posters that believe that they may have had an honest siting before he attacks that person’s character. I respect him for that. I think with more research dollars he should be out in the field as I believe his heart is in the right place (I have never met him personally but this is just my opinion from my own posting.) My mom always said, “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it at all.” So forgive me if I sound as if I am doing just this, and I am trying to be careful not to negatively pinpoint anyone out. “All” the researchers need to look in their own backyard before throwing stones.
These people of course are considered credible researchers "not like Tom Biscardi who goes out in the field on an ongoing basis to try to get first hand accounts.” These are researchers who are not constantly exposed to the media and scrutinized as someone who is continuously in the field. Thus, it is much easier to keep a clean reputation as researchers behind the computer can think about every word they say before writing it so it won’t be misconstrued, they are not exposed to some of the real nutcases out their trying to get their fifteen minutes of fame.
I have had the privilege of meeting Tom Biscardi; I can honestly say, I was more than impressed with the research conducted and his team of trekkers. I did not let them leave my site “with the exception of one time when the media was there with their own camera,” as I wanted to make sure everything was on the up and up … after reading and being told of the negative publicity. I found the research team to be nothing more than professional and honest in the research of “my” siting. I can only speak for myself. And “no” there was not any concrete evidence found to support my sighting.
Maybe some of you should rethink that if no one is out in the field on a continuous basis such as Tom Biscardi’s research team with equipment that is of the latest technology, how are we going to get real proof the BIGFOOT lives. That is what we all want, isn’t it? Sure, anyone with a 33 year old career in the field…will come across hoaxers out there that hoax the researchers who ended up backing their claim of a siting…and that researcher ends up with the negative publicity because they want so badly to believe … believe in humanity and people’s honesty. They may get caught up in it and end up getting smeared themselves. I believe this is probably the case of much of the negative publicity surrounding Tom Biscardi as it seems to me this “hyped up” media sucks the readers in.
I personally have found how the media can change things to get reader attention … maybe we should look at him as a man who is smart enough to market himself to keep the research dollars coming in … to continue his quest in the field to continue his research so someday he can bring back the “real” proof of a “real Bigfoot.” Perhaps I am just naive, but my thought is if all the research companies try to work together … it will keep a check on everyone staying on the up and up and the research money will pour in for “all’ with the compilation of all the solid evidence that can be produced as well as utilizing everyone’s resources, to aid in the future protection of BIGFOOT as an endangered species.
Skunk Ape witness and photographer Judy Caseley will be a guest on Tom Biscardi’s, World Renowned BigFoot Researcher, internet radio show tonight at 9 PM CST. You can listen to the show online at The Bigfoot Live Radio Show ong>.
- Similar Phenomena:
I can’t tell if she’s just happy that someone finally believes in her gorilla costume photograph or if she and Biscardi realized they can mutually benefit each other and make some money off of this.
She seems like a nice lady. It’s too bad she’s going down this road.
“Extreme skeptics and critics?” I think she is missing the point of this site. Most people want to believe in the sightings that have taken place but also want to make sure they are legit. We are tired of people in ape costumes posing for pictures. I jump on this site every day hoping for the moment that I see Loren screaming in his headline, “We found one!!” Everyday, however, I am disappointed. “Extreme skeptics and critics??” Nope, try Optimistic Pessimists.
I have seen some photos that make me think and some that really creep me out. But I and, I am sure, most Cryptomundo readers really look at the evidence offered on this site with an open mind. We are all looking for that one photo, hair sample, or dare I say it the creature itself. Do I believe?
The truth is out there!
I didn’t think of Judy as a hoaxer herself but rather thought she had been hoaxed and believed it.
I think Judy is nice but naive.
Judy after you are involved in this topic for a longer period of time and have done some serious reading and researching please come back and reread your story and the responding posts. Time and knowledge will give a different perspective of the interplay there.
I wish you well.
All right Flame suit on.
After seeing some of the ‘Florida chimp’ photos here lately I am a little more open to Judy’s photos. There are some issues that must be satisfied — let’s be honest.
But my main concern was the very ape-like face in the photo. With the ‘chimp stories , I now wonder if that photo shows the Swamp Ape is truly a sub-species of sasquatch type creatures. (don’t trust my spelling right now.)
Judy, what most here are reacting to concerning TB, is behavior that appears flat juvenile and really does him no good gaining credibality.
This does not help her credibility at all.
I think most of us here are familiar with perhaps a 100 or more claimed sightings and have a certain idea of what Sasquatch look like. There’s a certain basic body shape. Massive muscular upper body, no visible neck or ears and equally massive hands hanging almost at knee level. The description is almost universal for any given report. The “skunk ape” may be somewhat different in appearance, but the photo shows something more apelike than I would expect.
Wayne
As I mentioned earlier, if YOU took a really primo photo or video of a genuine Sasquatch, what would YOU do with it?
I’ve seen the picture she took, I spent an entire day examining it. It was in my opinion a person in a suit. Maybe she was in on the hoax or she was duped. She has stated that she was a nature photographer. I am sorry if she feels that we are attacking her credibility, but its a case of apples to oranges. And now that she has involved herself with the true enemy of cryptozoology, Tom Biscardi, how can she truly expect us to believe her. Again I am sorry that she thinks were being closed and mean but she needs to really look at her picture its a person in a cheap gorilla suit, you can see that the “skunk ape” is wearing gloves. I think the recent “chimp” photos are more credible.
The “Chimp” photo COULD be a baby skunk ape. The other picture-(Judy’s I guess) was laughable. So maybe her and Tom shared a couple brews and had a laugh! HA, HA, Hu-NOT FUNNY. I do think that TB must have some $ and tends to get around more than some of us could ever dream of, so it’s possible he could luck out and find a REAL one someday. It would be a shame that someone who has knowingly promoted hoaxed films (Ivan Marx’s) would get the credit for proving the real thing. May it never be. In my opinion Roger Patterson proved the existence of Sasquatch and if we ever get more confirmation- like a body; that the scientific name should be “Sasquatch R. Pattersoni” or some such thing. Now THAT guy has endured undeserved criticism and should be rewarded somehow; even if posthumously.
I’m not trying to be ugly, but she just lost all credibility in my eyes by joining up with *shudders* Biscardi. This doesn’t help her case, it only hurts it.
Tom is still a fraud.
Judy seems to believe that every poster to this site is some armchair amateur researcher who’s never been out in the field. I’ll admit, despite good naturalist skills and a fair amount of outdoors experience, I do tend to fall into this camp. But I know that there are many other posters here who DO get out in the field, DO go looking, DO speak to witnesses, etc., and I also know that several of them ARE witnesses themselves, both to Sasquatch and Skunk Apes, and obviously more besides.
I put it to those among us who believe that they have seen something to come forward with their opinions of her photo. Perhaps then she’ll have a better perspective, at least of those she perceives are attacking her.
As for me, I want to believe, Judy. I’m willing to accept that you saw something once, and that you saw something on another occasion and documented it to the best of your ability. I am not willing, however, to accept that the 2 must therefore be the same thing, nor am I prepared to say that I believe your documentation shows what you think it does. Obviously you believe. But I have to ask, even putting aside the odd facial features suggestive of a cheap mask, how do you explain the very shiny, glove-like appearance of the hand? As a nature photographer, what is it about your photo that looks natural to you?
This is the first time i’ve seen the photo in question, and it looks to be either a guy in a suit, or severly Photoshopped (bleeding around the edges of the “skunk ape” and a totally different contrast). I figure, since she’s a professional wildlife photographer, she should have some knowledge of Photoshop to touch up the photos she takes.
On the subject of Tom Biscardi, I don’t know much about him, but, I can tell he’s a bit of.. well, lets not go there, shall we?
I have analyzed this photo for days on end. I have even read up on separating layers and doing color composites. There is nothing in this photo that is not real. The glove like appearance is just that, it appears to be a glove. On very close examination, there is a clear split going clearly across where the hand would meet the arm which can’t be seen easily on a low resolution photo. That part is actually vegetation mixed in with mud. If anyone listened to the radio show tonight, the negative was sent out to someone very qualified in the field of analyzing bigfoot negatives, it was actually a very clear picture and negative, and nothing could be found on the negative proving this to be a man in a monkey suit. Actually, the negative only showed further proof that this is a real creature that was photographed. Perhaps this does not look like the typical bigfoot because it is not. Perhaps it is an ape like creature that has learned to adapt like a bigfoot. I do not know. I think the real focus needs to stay on a picture that is reproving itself to be the real thing, a witness that has not backed down on her claims and has come up with the negative and discredited many of the comments that have been written. Many of you have been keen enough to really study this picture and be open enough to admit that hey, we may have the real thing of something here. I was skeptical too, not any more.
I don’t doubt that she saw something, sometime. What I doubt is the authenticity of her Swamp Ape photos.
I still think they are fake.
I do not believe that the people here are such incredible, hard core skeptics. A skeptic of this type would just flatly deny the existence of these creatures despite any evidence to the contrary. It is my feeling that the posters here are quite open minded to look at these photos and to entertain the possibility that these cryptids exist, or in the case of first hand witnesses, KNOW it exists. I do not think the aversion to believing every dodgy photo or half baked story full of holes constitutes an extreme level of skepticism. If I see an obviously fake looking photo and question its veracity, am I a hard core skeptic? I think not.
With all of the con men making money off people’s hopes these days (like Biscardi, hate to say), is it any wonder that a cryptozoology enthusiast would approach things from a realistic angle, with a grain of salt? I believe that most of the posters here are of a healthy amount of skepticism, falling somewhere between a true believer and full blown skeptic. I take this subject seriously, as I’m sure most of us here do, and I don’t like being made a fool of. This hardly makes me an extreme skeptic. I sense a bit of bitterness in this article about the failure of the intelligent posters here to simply buy this story hook, line and sinker. Yes, Biscardi will believe her, and I’m sure he may have a bigfoot hand to sell her as well.
It’s sad that while she is passionate about her sighting, she can’t see she is being used to further someone else’s agenda.
However, she does bring up a good point.
While skepticism is good, it would be beneficial to heed her advice about treating witnesses with a bit more respect. I’ve seen some posts that made me feel uncomfortable because they do seem to attack people as idiots.
I think you can say what you want about evidence, and even question the details of someone’s report, but we should all be careful to be respectful of the witness.
People should feel welcome to bring forward evidence and they won’t if they feel like they will be called a fool even if it appears clearly faked.
Wow. Everything that’s tough about crypto seems to be in this thread.
1. Judy: you’re right. We tend to jump to Photoshop too quickly, and condemn too quickly too, for people who have, most of us, never seen these things. (I saw evidence once, I think. But no sas.)
2. Photoshop guys/gals: You’re right too. All pieces of evidence need to be scrutinized and the fakes separated from the real leads. (Got that, Scientific Establishment?)
3. Those who think Judy was hoaxed: Right, too. OK, maybe not about that specifically; I mean, I wouldn’t know. But it’s unfair to slag someone as an idiot, or worse, when someone is possibly the hoaxee and not the hoaxer. As Judy herself points out: many, if not the vast majority, of people making sightings don’t know thing one about the field. They just know they saw something, and it sure wasn’t ordinary.
We need to put on the green eyeshades and the reading glasses, for sure. And OK, somebody can fire up the much-maligned Photoshop. But maybe we need to be slower on the draw with the poison pens.
This is my reply to above and my opinions.
History teaches a lot about this subject. Although not Bigfoot related, the following is Crypto related and ties into Bigfoot photos.
The Photo of the Fairies with little Girl that had England and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Author of Sherlock Holmes) convinced.
In later life as an old, near her end Woman was confessed a Hoax. Paper Fairies on Hat Pins (and many an expert examined the photos and said the fairies were real!) And refused to accept her explanation.
The Loch Ness Photo of a Head and Neck in the water. In his late years, the now old Man confessed was a model submarine with a added Head and Neck.
It is not our place to be blind trusting fools. And accepting Fuzz Blobs as true proof, will only bring this subject to ridicule.
I have seen to much too be such a Fool and I have experienced many times how people’s own agenda cloud and change witness reports.
I have been to Loch Ness, so I can say I have got out from my Desk. I live in Alien Cat Country.
I have gotten near to and photographed wild, shy and non-human tolerant creatures. So I know how good pictures should be and I don’t need to use Stock captured Animal Photos.
As a Example, illustration. If you want to fake a Nape do this:
Get a Pet Ape and let it run free in a Field and play about. Then take photos of the playing, free running Ape.
Now if these photos were presented on a Crypto site would they be proof of wild Napes?
If you didn’t know how the picture were achieved could you tell it was not a Wild free Ape?
Food for thought!
Mememe, in your earlier posts you accused the photographer of photo shopping this picture. You claimed in many of your posts that there was a vehicle, boat, window, man, etc. You attempted to back up this claim with photos and even the readers could not see this in the photo. Then you attempted to say that the photo on Crypto was different photos and Craig set you straight on this.
CryptoGoji suggested in an earlier post that he “… believes that we should hold all judgment … see what is going on with the negative.” Sasdave also replied that “… time and a negative check will tell who’s been hoaxed.” Carnivore follows with a post that reads “can’t do much with a low res pic from the papers…really need a better picture… Hope the negatives have not been lost or destroyed in Wilma.” Bigfoot Believer7 felt he “believes she is giving herself an excuse if she doesn’t find them.” Psychosis challenged with “… I know there is a negative but the negative will not show the superimposed mouth, leading me to safely predict that the negative is gone. Remember I said this.”
If you listened to the radio show last evening, the negative was produced to someone unknown as recommended by another unknown poster. It was a credible source. Why would anyone who has a solid reputation in the industry lie about a negative on someone he never even met or knows? This one picture is not worth his reputation. No one is going to take a chance and send out negatives to an unknown source when a photographer clearly knows that the equipment today can detect ‘fake … photo shopped, etc.’
Perhaps some of the readers and bloggers here need to now agree that there has been follow-up with questions and answers … maybe admit that some or all the accusations have been false, and keep an open mind that there is really a live species of something in this photograph. It is difficult to admit and also embarrassing when someone puts the evidence out there that was continuously challenged when bloggers said the evidence would be lost and this would happen. So now I see that these challenges have been dealt with and now are questioning another reputable source that analyzed the negative. May be time to admit … perhaps this is a real species of something … perhaps related to BigFoot … living in the Everglades.
Then produce the negative and tell me what animal, plant, tree or rock has windows.
Produce the other amazing photos!
Because others refuse to acknowlege what is plainly in front of them bares no weight.
I to have listened to the sales pitch advert radio show (in my opinion).
I bet he gives away sooper secret world reknowned bigfoot researcher decoder rings to all of his guests, too.
It bares no weight that none of the honest posters here admit to not seeing boats, vehicles, windows, men in blue clothes … it bares no weight that the negative has been produced to a very capable source and saw no boats, vehicles, windows. etc. It bears no weight that world renowned researcher gives decoder rings to all of his guests so is not favoring anybody. LOL!!!
Perhaps you should take a better look at the men and blue … never know what this illusionional imagined picture of these men may be telling you! Think I would lock my doors!
Well Swamp_Screamer, you did make some interesting points. I wanted to believe Judy, and I still think there might be hope for her photograph. However, she loses a lot of credibility by joining with Tom Biscardi.
Apparently this “upstanding” citizen didn’t do her homework before allowing a stranger into her life. A simple google search would have told Judy exactly what she needed to know about a “researcher” like Tom Biscardi. If she feels he is a credible researcher - then obviously its because he believes her story, and why wouldn’t he, he has never challenged anyone’s story. I would recommend Judy do that google search and look for his adventure from last year in Nevada. *heres a hint - 2 bigfoots in captivity*.
You’re right Judy - researchers such as myself who DO GET INTO THE FIELD do not conduct ourselves or handle our research the way Tom Biscardi does. We don’t call everything a bigfoot and we require a little more evidence than the witnesses say so.
I personally find it comical that the people who have contact with biscardi over sightings with pictures - and the “animal” in question looks very similar to another carpet wearing bigfoot.
Not all researchers in this work conduct their work via the internet - but we do network on the internet with other researchers. Maybe Judy should discover the power of the internet before she invites more people to her home to destroy her credibility even further. My advice to you, cut ties and run if your story is legit, because right now, blasting us for your inability to check out a name is not helping your credibility and you are not hurting ours with your nasty comments.
Oh, and P.S. Owning kewl gadgets doesn’t make you a researcher - and you gotta stray more than 100 yards from the road. Go out with some real researchers - if you don’t mind getting a dirty, cold ,hot, tired and basically uncomfortable. Stay with Biscardi if you don’t like the inconvenience of REAL RESEARCH.
And I quote “This is a man who has managed to stay in business 33 years”. I did not know bigfoot research was a business. And we wonder why there are hardly any serious scientists interested in bigfoot research when people like Biscardi lower it to the level of a snake oil salesman. Maybe Judy should give Tom some of her money as an investment in his “research”. They can take the traveling monkey suit show on the road together.
Words words words. Judy has an avalanche of words. What could she be trying to bury with that avalanche of words?
If her photo was a legitimate photo of a “real” swamp ape, she would not need to shovel out all those words to try to justify it. It would speak for itself.
Come to that, it HAS spoken for itself. It screams “I am an attempt by an otherwise credible nature photographer to capitalize on the Swamp Ape hype! I am a joke that got out of hand! I am a guy in a monkey suit! Don’t question my authenticity, just shell out a day’s pay for me!”
If it were real, it would be “Hey, it’s real. Take it or leave it.” But it isn’t, and so the avalanche of words.
I had the same response Kittenz. All her talking made me less inclinded to believe the story. Someone get Judy Caseley an editor.
Here’s what gets me.
NO TALK ABOUT WHAT SHE SAW!
Just “I took a picture, there it is.” Then a whole buncha defensiveness. When I don’t hear details, my skeptometer starts redlinin’.
How ’bout it, Judy? The whole sighting(s), beginning to end. In detail. (One can come up with tons of them, no matter how brief the sighting.) Help us out here.
After much thought, kittenz makes a good point. I have tended to post an avalanche of words in defense of myself. I had grown fond of this site and some of the posters and was attempting to allow the readers to get to know the real me and my thoughts on why I feel as I do.
I did not intend to insult any of the posters here (I find many quite intelligent with great deal of humor). If anyone took it that way, I truly apologize. We are all human and all have feelings and I do not wish to contribute to such childish behavior.
I do not know how many people read this site but it is a small handful compared to the millions of people in the world. Seems like 30 or so regular posters. I do not need to convince anyone whether what I saw is real or not. It felt real to me, that’s all I can attest too. I was more attempting to have an intelligent conversation with questions and answers on a site I was hoping could be more of a sounding board for me, with some respectable comments, questions and opinions.
I feel I have met the challenges that were presented to me by the posters on this site (even had the negative analyzed) and still I am being treated ‘by some’ like I am nothing but a joke without feelings. Well, I do have feelings and feel more of myself than that and am willing to continue to answer any questions.
However, if my character continues to come under attack, I am logging out of this site for good. I am not going to subject myself to negativity if I can avoid it unless it is constructive.
DWA, I am ready to answer any questions regarding my sighting, please specify what you would like to know as I do tend to ramble on. LOL! And for the posters who have been kind in your remarks, positive or negative, thank you for that.
For all that are telling me to go out with ‘real’ researchers, if that is what you feel you are, perhaps we need to set a date and have any and all who want to research come down and we will all make a day of it. I would love that. My sighting has been out there for weeks on end and as of yet only one person has showed up. Everyone who would want to do this is invited. I won’t single any one out. I am open to all who want to research and investigate my sighting.
Judy: you’re apologizing for the volume of your words.
That’s not the problem. The problem is the topic material of the avalanche.
The actual sightings — not the personal defense — are where we want the data dump. I wouldn’t want to stop it, or channel it. You could fill three threads with it, for all of mine, as long as you’re talking about what you saw, not what others might think of it, or you.
Questions? I’d have a thousand of them for you. But if I’d seen one of these things myself, no one would have to ask me any questions. If I thought I had a receptive listener, they could just turn on a tape recorder, and come back from time to time to change tapes so I could keep going.
My story would start with the start of my day (overview OK there, lol); continue with my approach to the sighting location; when I first saw or heard or smelled something; what it looked like and what I thought it was; how that assessment changed as I looked at it; why I only got one photo (or none, as I got of my only piece of firsthand evidence); what I was thinking about after it disappeared and on the way home; whether I thought I should tell anybody, and how that decision was made…
I’ve only given the start of what you’d get from me. Sheesh, my track find could fill a book larger than many I’ve seen.
When you’re talking about the animal, WHAT YOU SAW and how you reacted to it, knock yourself out! RAMBLE! Guarantee we’ll be listening then.
Hi DWA,
Wow … like you say, I could fill page after page. I am not putting off attempting this feat, I do however have a very busy schedule with my eco tours through the Thanksgiving holidays. In the meantime,if you can get through the “decoder rings” and the “sales pitches” and keep an open mind to listen to my first ‘hand’ account on bigfootliveradioshow.com that would be a good start. In the meantime, I am going to start writing my story for you and any one who is interested in reading about it. I appreciate your kind input and hope to have it posted within the next few days. A tape recorder would be easier, as it may require some bit of typing. It would be an honor to share my experience with people such as yourself who are sincerely interested in hearing the intricate details. Thank you DWA for sharing your helpful input.
Oh, Craig has posted the link to the November 15th radio show at the beginning of the posting … otherwise I will post my experience of my siting asap.
total crock
“Those who disregard the past are bound to repeat it.” - George Santayana
For more about Tom Biscardi’s outrageous behavior in 2005 during his appearances on Coast to Coast with George Noory, please click on this link.
http://www.lorencoleman.com/biscardi.html