Comments on: The Kryder Blobsquatch Image

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:53:32 +0000

Mr. Kryder, Your reply was posted as an update to the original article, as it was a year and a half old and likely would not been seen in the archives. See: Kryder Bigfoot Video: Update

By: Robert W Kryder

Robert W Kryder — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:43:39 +0000

I left a long reply. I notice it’s not posted yet. It answered the questions they are asking. And I did not save it before sending so please either post it so I can have the opportunity to address the concerns here or please send it back to me and I’ll revise any information that is not acceptable. Thank you.

Robert W Kryder
505-269-9582
explore_it_all@hotmail.com
http://www.kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com
CEO/PROJECT MANAGER
KRYDER EXPLORATION LLC

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:21:52 +0000

How anyone can even say the thing is too still when the video is so jerky…the only time it’s actually still and in focus is during a freeze frame. that thing could be swaying like a hooded cobra with the resolution we’re seeing. Again..I don’t disagree with the naysayers but I would like to encourage Kryder to show us what beyond this little clip he’s got. That think could look just like a cross between Patty and King Kong and still be faked…but his other observations which he briefy touches on but offers nothing but his anecdotes are intriguing and I presume, considering his involvement with high tech there must be something he can display to expand on his claim, if not exactly prove, so we can get a handle on what it is he thinks he’s seeing.

By: raisinsofwrath

raisinsofwrath — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:49:52 +0000

I concur with DWA.

While some animals can stand perfectly still for quite a long period of time, history dictates that Bigfoot is not one of them. Furthermore, even an animal such as a deer will eventually twitch it’s ear or a muscle. The bigger an animal is the more unlikely it can stand motionless for more than a minute or two.

If this is a real BF, I will stand naked and motionless (as motionless as possible) on that ridge. Trust me, you don’t want to see that. Of course if I could get those girls that had the bigfoot statue stolen from their store to…..Loren, you remember them don’t you? I know you might have to search your memory but it should come to you. Then maybe you could repost something on that. Simply to remind the rest of us of course. You know, for research sake……..

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:08:32 +0000

OK, I saw it. I don’t need the time back. That was funny!

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, sees anything from that far away, not moving at all, and immediately yells BIGFOOT, as “eyewhitness” John Frost did. He might be a golden eagle, or something, because that just seems to credit human eyesight too much. The camera just moves too much to even allow the possibility that the distance was a factor in the steadiness of the shot.

There is much else, to me, that seems common to obvious fakes about this one. I’m not saying it is that (shoot, you tell me what that is); but if I were assembling the big pile of apparently legitimate observations, this wouldn’t be in it. Not only are there too many “fake” earmarks, but there’s nothing in there that tells me that this is even an animal, never mind what kind.

My previous comments stand, because one should be aware of reports before one slams a subject that doesn’t move. But this video doesn’t, well, move me.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:38 +0000

I like what dogu4 says, and will add this to show why it really pays to read sighting reports.

(BTW, I don’t know what that is, and may or may not watch the video to find out.)

Numerous reports describe an animal that, when standing “still,” tends to sway from side to side slightly, but enough for the motion to be easily observable to humans some distance away. People describing it make it clear that it’s quite different from the behavior of humans standing “still.”

Numerous reports also describe animals holding stock still, in what appears an effort to avoid detection by “freezing” and blending in. Motorists passing an animal on the side of the road report most of these. The observations are rarely long (moving car); but at least one was by an individual on foot, outside his car, of an animal that stood stock still for so long that the observer actually LEFT THE SCENE from, ennui? Who knows? But it was clear to him that the animal wasn’t going to move while he was there.

Reports, reports only, and unconfirmed. But still, frequently described behaviors.

Saying nothing about what this is (and certain I won’t glean anything from the video): it can’t be discounted for the simple reason that it doesn’t move.

Read sighting reports.

By: arewethereyeti

arewethereyeti — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:38:29 +0000

Maybe I missed something; but if these guys did, as stated, return two days later and visit the spot “it” was standing, why are we lacking an image of the ridge-line sans Sasquatch? Or, better yet, another shot with one of them standing in “its” place for comparison? At least we’d know ole Tall, Dark and Stolid wasn’t just a misidentified rock outcropping. Kinda makes you wonder…

By: semillama

semillama — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:25:04 +0000

If it’s alive, I vote for Golden Eagle, actually.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:52:20 +0000

I don’t personally think they “hoaxed” this but I do agree it looks like some sort of natural outcropping. And animals have been known to stand still for a LONG amount of time.

So Dogu4, you may be on to something here. Nice theorizing.

Still think it is a natural formation, but you never know…

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:08:55 +0000

OK..I’ll bite. Things, living animated things, can and do stand still for that long, especially ambush predators. It’s modern humans, impatient fuss-budgets that we have become, who don’t. Mark one for how our expectations lead us to disregard signs. Looks fake, mark two, since we don’t know what they actually look like in the specifics and there’s no reason to think they all look alike anymore that those creatures which many presume may be their closest cousins (we humans) all look alike, unless we can actually see a lot more detail, like seams or other evidence of artificiality, I will abstain from saying it looks positively fake. Mark 3, the distance over which it’s seen: humans have eyesight perfectly adapted for the kind of lifesyles that our ancestors had (ripe fruit and food sources at a few dozen to a few hundred feet) and that doesn’t necessarily involve identifiying megafauna at distances of several thousand feet. The telephoto lens on the small hand-held video camera likewise is designed for bringing fellow humans at a social gathering into fuller frame, and not for capturing detail of animals at distances greater than 1/2 mile. I don’t know what they could have seen with their binoculars; even the most powerfull handheld binocs don’t add that much when trying to determine things like animals over distances approaching a mile, and even less when the distances are greater.
I don’t know what’s up with this video, but I will say that based on the paleogeography and paleoclimate of our last 2 million years, that if an archaic cousin of humans, adapted to living as a hunter and in a solitary lifestyle, in contrast to our human socialized structures which are universal in our single modern species, were to exist and have made it to North America, it would have to have been adapted to living in the open high aspect terrain exhibiting the mosaic of ecosystems that typified northern Eurasia and North America during vast majority of the last few hundred thousand years, and not some shy retiring forest dweller such as many would suggest because some witnesses report seeing them at closer range in those conditions. I don’t necessarily doubt that they inhabit forests now, just as grizzly bears which evolutionarily are clearly adapted to open country likewise will retire to forest habitat, but how would a forest dwelling ape, bipedal or not, have made it across the landscape of Laurentian super-continental landform from northern Eurasia to North America when there was no contiguous forests in which to dwell unless it were capable of existing in the type of conditions that were present? The broken dry savannah and steppe that existed did have plenty of prey for a predator adapted to live preying upon the herds, few of which,if any, were forest dwelling themselves, according to what fossil records exist.
I don’t find the video filtering process very convincing.It’s interesting but I don’t know much about it, and can’t speak as to Kryder’s expertise, but the idea of searching for BF out on the open terraine of the intermountain west sounds like one that has some promise and I would love to see more evidence such as Kryder claims to have found before I dismiss his claims.