Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[makaya325]

If we were close to main post ( ie the NCO and EM clubs) I would think much more likely but even then that didnt explain the overall size very well. Its the distance and gating that really makes me doubt that scenario.

Were you at ground level or lower/higher when you spotted it? Where were you observing from?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Were you at ground level or lower/higher when you spotted it? Where were you observing from?

Go back and reread

[ElectricVoodoo]

Considering there are thousands of them, 10ft and 1000 lbs is not rare, and would occur at least once in every national park/Wildlife Center.

Stating fact, there are 10 ft. tall, 1000 lb. grizzlies where grizzlies are found (zoos/wildlife preserves out of their natural habitat notwithstanding). That is a big grizzly specimen. It isn't an average sized grizzly.

[mangler]

Found One...


Bigfoot is big fake in Fairfield
By Genevieve Reilly
staff writer
Updated: 07/01/2009 11:54:08 PM EDT

FAIRFIELD -- It goes by many names: Bigfoot, Sasquatch -- the legendary half-human, half-ape creature that, according to legend, prowls the great northern woods of the U.S. and Canada.

Some insist, however, that the hairy beast is real. Sasquatch "sightings" have primarily been reported in the Northwest.

Until now, that is.

A woman driving on Unquowa Road about 10:30 p.m. Tuesday called police to report that she "almost hit Sasquatch," which was standing in the middle of the road. She said it was 8 feet tall and very hairy, with a large body and "legs like tree trunks." When she switched her headlights to highbeams, she said, the creature covered its face and ran into the woods.

The driver told police it was "human like," but more "like an animal."

Unlike other Sasquatch sightings, where the elusive beast melts back into the deep woods, this one was located in Fairfield.

Bigfoot turned out to be a big joke -- a 16-year-old dressed in a gorillalike costume, police said. The teen told officers he was standing at the intersection of Unquowa and Sturges roads, waving at passing cars while friends watched.

A police officer escorted the sham Sasquatch back home and turned him over to his parents, who, the police report states, agreed he should have shown better judgment.


m :bike:

[Spektator]

A woman driving on Unquowa Road about 10:30 p.m. Tuesday called police to report that she "almost hit Sasquatch," which was standing in the middle of the road. She said it was 8 feet tall and very hairy, with a large body and "legs like tree trunks." When she switched her headlights to highbeams, she said, the creature covered its face and ran into the woods.

The driver told police it was "human like," but more "like an animal."


Bigfoot turned out to be a big joke -- a 16-year-old dressed in a gorillalike costume, police said. The teen told officers he was standing at the intersection of Unquowa and Sturges roads, waving at passing cars while friends watched.
Obviously the woman must have seen a real bigfoot and not the kid in the costume. Because her description is of something that would have been much larger than the average teen. And you know, eyewitness descriptions are never mistaken about details like that. :rolleyes:

[WGBH]

LT,

Would it be possible for someone to copy and send your encounter stories to me in PM here on the JREF? I'm asking you in case you do not want this info getting around. I cannot access the BFF to read that thread because they have my IP address blocked.I am pretty much lost as to what is going on in this conversation now.

[tsig]

No, I noticed no trace evidence at all. But, I was a boy and could have overlooked something of course.

Except your sighting. You see that's what puzzles me. You are willing to agree that the human mind is a less than perfect recording machine and the human eye is a less than perfect optical instrument except in that one instant where you saw BF, there you have perfect certainty.

Why do you exempt that vision of BF from all the rules on logic and common sense. In spite of the fact that there is not enough food in the area to sustain a viable population of large mammals nor enough cover to hide them, you insist that they're there, all on the basis of a brief view of something unknown.

All efforts at a rational explanations are waved off.

Your commitment to this seems to me more religious that rational.

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT,

Would it be possible for someone to copy and send your encounter stories to me in PM here on the JREF? I'm asking you in case you do not want this info getting around. I cannot access the BFF to read that thread because they have my IP address blocked.I am pretty much lost as to what is going on in this conversation now.

If you dont get it PM me and I'll hunt it up for you

[JohnWS]

Gallimaufry... hmmm. Is that more like a hodgepodge or a potpourri?
I only recall that term from the Buck Godot strip (http://www.airshipentertainment.com/buckcomic.php?date=20070111) (Zap Gun for hire!). A fun read - I must catch up - I think I'm seven months out of date.

[makaya325]

Obviously the woman must have seen a real bigfoot and not the kid in the costume. Because her description is of something that would have been much larger than the average teen. And you know, eyewitness descriptions are never mistaken about details like that. :rolleyes:

I think that most people can tell the difference between a 5ft shrimp and a towering titan from 50 feet away. :mad:

[makaya325]

Why do you exempt that vision of BF from all the rules on logic and common sense. In spite of the fact that there is not enough food in the area to sustain a viable population of large mammals nor enough cover to hide them, you insist that they're there, all on the basis of a brief view of something unknown.



Your commitment to this seems to me more religious that rational.[/QUOTE]


There is more than enough food for them in certain areas, but not small parks.

[kitakaze]

I think seeing a wolf could be neat, as long as it didn't try to eat me.

We have our own species of wolf here, the Vancouver Island wolf (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/VIslandWolf.JPG). They are rare, elusive, shy, and very smart. People visiting Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_National_Park_Reserve) are warned to keep their dogs close to them lest Fido be a lupine chew toy. When I surf at a place called Long Beach there is a wolf warning sign as you go in from the parking lot.

OK, you live in Virginia. Let's say money is not an issue. Where do you go to see wolves in the wild?

[William Parcher]

We have our own subspecies of wolf here, the Vancouver Island wolf.

[kitakaze]

We have our own subspecies of wolf here, the Vancouver Island wolf.

:mgduh

Thanks, WP. My goof.

Canis lupus crassodon
(http://books.google.com/books?id=LX5qi4qTs0UC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=%22vancouver+island+wolf%22&source=web&ots=zdNQ8bwOQt&sig=XOGNPDTqmkKYDaX7Uf2MpW53_Lc)

Subspecies of the grey wolf.

[WGBH]

We have our own species of wolf here, the Vancouver Island wolf (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/VIslandWolf.JPG). They are rare, elusive, shy, and very smart. People visiting Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_National_Park_Reserve) are warned to keep their dogs close to them lest Fido be a lupine chew toy. When I surf at a place called Long Beach there is a wolf warning sign as you go in from the parking lot.

OK, you live in Virginia. Let's say money is not an issue. Where do you go to see wolves in the wild?

Yellowstone National Park looks nice.


http://www.ypf.org/projects/wildlife/wolfEducation.asp

[Spektator]

I think that most people can tell the difference between a 5ft shrimp and a towering titan from 50 feet away. :mad:

I don't know. I've mentioned the lion that supposedly is prowling a nearby county. Four people saw the beast and got a photo of it on a cell phone--a three-hundred pound African lioness! They all agreed.

Except the photo turned out to be a neighbor's house cat--twelve pounds, not three hundred. "You could even see the collar," the owner of the cat pointed out.

Edited to add: Oh, about thirty miles from that sighting, a woman reported that the lioness killed her horse. She even found paw prints. Biologists and a vet went out to check. The horse died of natural causes; the prints were from the woman's own dog.

[Squidgy]

I haven't seen one cos I live in UK but I think if they did exist we would have more evidence by now, not just witness accounts.

What does intrigue me about it all though is the fact that Yeti have been spotted in the Himalayas and Sasquatch in North America.

Does anybody know any sort of timeline on which was reported first? I looked on Wickipedia it was hard to tell because it seems they are essentially considered different creatures.

[kitakaze]

I haven't seen one cos I live in UK...

Fear not, good sir/madam...

British Hominid Research (http://www.britishhominidresearch.co.uk/)

[kitakaze]

John, I have sent the following emails under the heading "Great Dismal Swamp primate?" to the Professor of Biology for the Elizabeth City State University and officials for the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge:

ESCU:

Dear Prof. Sekender Khan,

I am contacting you in regards to an important question regarding Great Dismal Swamp wildlife. I am a member of the forums for the James Randi Educational Foundation which is an organization which promotes skepticism and critical thinking. I have a friend and fellow member who is completely convinced that in the Pasquotank River area in 1982 while inside a deerstand on a hunting trip he saw an extremely large primate standing on its hind limbs and feeding on the leaves and fruit of a mulberry bush. He is quite adamant that he did not see a bear and said there was no snout or ears visible. He is also quite certain that the creature he saw was roughly nine feet tall and spanning six feet at the shoulders. Just before the sighting he said that he experienced a terrible odour. There are apparently similar and more recent reports from the Great Dismal Swamp area.

More details of his claim can be found here:

http://blogsquatcher.blogspot.com/2009/04/round-mulberry-bush.html

This person was apparently deeply affected by the experience and seems to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. He currently is the member of various Bigfoot enthusiast organizations including one that conducts searches for evidence of such a creature in Virginia and North Carolina. As there has never been reliable evidence for such a creature existing anywhere in North America, I am highly skeptical of this claim. I would like to know if you can provide any insight into the possibilty of such a creature existing undetected in the Pasquotank River and Great Dismal Swamp area. If you could forward this email to any member of the ECSU faculty who has expertise on the environment and fauna of the area, it would be most appreciated. Good day to you and thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Kind regards

GDSWR:

Dear sir or madam,

I am contacting you in regards to an important question regarding Great Dismal Swamp wildlife. I am a member of the forums for the James Randi Educational Foundation which is an organization which promotes skepticism and critical thinking. I have a friend and fellow member who is completely convinced that in the Pasquotank River area in 1982 while inside a deerstand on a hunting trip he saw an extremely large primate standing on its hind limbs and feeding on the leaves and fruit of a mulberry bush. He is quite adamant that he did not see a bear and said there was no snout or ears visible. He is also quite certain that the creature he saw was roughly nine feet tall and spanning six feet at the shoulders. Just before the sighting he said that he experienced a terrible odour. There are apparently similar and more recent reports from the Great Dismal Swamp area.

More details of his claim can be found here:

http://blogsquatcher.blogspot.com/2009/04/round-mulberry-bush.html

This person was apparently deeply affected by the experience and seems to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. He currently is the member of various Bigfoot enthusiast organizations including one that conducts searches for evidence of such a creature in Virginia and North Carolina. As there has never been reliable evidence for such a creature existing anywhere in North America, I am highly skeptical of this claim. I would like to know if you can provide any insight into the possibility of such a creature existing undetected in the Pasquotank River and Great Dismal Swamp area. I would also like to know if you or anyone from the GDSWR are aware of reports or sightings of such an animal in the area. Good day to you and thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Kind regards

Hopefully there is some reply.

[WGBH]

Cool, expect the worst.Hope for the best.

[makaya325]

I don't know. I've mentioned the lion that supposedly is prowling a nearby county. Four people saw the beast and got a photo of it on a cell phone--a three-hundred pound African lioness! They all agreed.

Except the photo turned out to be a neighbor's house cat--twelve pounds, not three hundred. "You could even see the collar," the owner of the cat pointed out.

Edited to add: Oh, about thirty miles from that sighting, a woman reported that the lioness killed her horse. She even found paw prints. Biologists and a vet went out to check. The horse died of natural causes; the prints were from the woman's own dog.

That is due to ONE county's craze. What is interesting about bf is that it is reported EVERYWHERE. Of course, most are probably bs, but a certain some MAY POSSIBLY be the real deal, but i would not hold my breath on it.

[makaya325]

Fear not, good sir/madam...

British Hominid Research (http://www.britishhominidresearch.co.uk/)

Are you sure that is accurate? In Europe, they call it the fear liath and shadow man.

[kitakaze]

Are you sure that is accurate? In Europe, they call it the fear liath and shadow man.

Fear liath, Scottish myth.

[kitakaze]

Cool, expect the worst.Hope for the best.

I hope Bigfoot requires a response:

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Your message will be forwarded to a member of our staff. You can expect a reply soon if your message requires a response.

ETA: Any predictions?

[Squidgy]

Fear not, good sir/madam...

British Hominid Research (http://www.britishhominidresearch.co.uk/)
Sir btw, check my sig :D
Thanks for the link.

[Squidgy]

ETA: Any predictions?

We will keep our eyes open.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I think that most people can tell the difference between a 5ft shrimp and a towering titan from 50 feet away. :mad:

*cough hack (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/canadianhoax.htm) cough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm)

My, this thread sure is dusty...

[WGBH]

I hope Bigfoot requires a response:

Oh I sometimes get responses to my encounter. Remember the one about me being a fat, crybaby who was gang raped by 5 Bigfoot? :D


ETA: Any predictions?

Well, not until after the Holiday weekend at least.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

ahh, OK- gotcha Let me define tracks here in this case

In this case, the "track" was not a distinguishable "track" in the sense of an outline/shape/toes etc. This wasnt snow or soft dirt. This was hard ice over water and land which itself was frozen except where it was running water.

These were just "punch thru's"- if they hadnt been heard being made before sun up and unfrozen water sloshing- they probably wouldnt have even been noticed

Thanks for the definition. I'd imagine that overlaid tracks would appear as big holes in the ice, spaced in the fashion I had described earlier. I'm not 100% certain on an exact explanation for your second "maybe" sighting, but I'm leaning heavily towards a bear for this one.

[kitakaze]

Sir btw, check my sig :D
Thanks for the link.

Maybe British Bigfoots are just more polite and don't bother people as much as those big noisy and smelly American ones. Maybe they're cranky and not as outgoing. Who knows? British footers, OTOH, aren't much different from their yankee and canuck counterparts...

Check Sherwood Forest Bigfoot (http://www.britishhominidresearch.co.uk/reportsq-z1.html) in Nottinghamshirewoodtonburychestersetlandshireshire (or whatever you call it).

They seem to have a slightly better sense of humour, though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JSFM2YRBEU&feature=related

I think all that Bigfoot would have done if it caught up to the guys before they fled was say something like...

OI! Wot a you two doin' 'round me 'edges? You a coupla dunces or wot then? Coupla Brummys coom up 'avin a laugh? Or are ye a coupla fairies? Coom to 'ave a little rendevous by the verge. Is that it, then? Well, sod off! I'll not bee 'avin' any o that 'round 'ere. C'mon, off with yas then or'll 'ave you, ya Brummy poofters!

British Bigfoot. - Withdrawn and secretive. Just don't touch his hedges.

[makaya325]

*cough hack (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/canadianhoax.htm) cough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm)

My, this thread sure is dusty...

Thanks for finding that report. However, that is only ONE case of a person being fooled. The "It looked like 7ft tall" quote is bs: To prove that those people were way off, you would have to ask each individual to say how tall they thought the man was, and i would bet on it being in the lower 6's.

[Squidgy]

Check Sherwood Forest Bigfoot in Nottinghamshirewoodtonburychestersetlandshireshire (or whatever you call it).

:eek: Sherwood Forest is in Nottinghamshire, as am I.
I've seen a few people around here who could be mistaken for a sasquatch ;)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Thanks for finding that report. However, that is only ONE case of a person being fooled.

Actually, make that two cases (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4865602&postcount=1004). Let's not forget that the Canadian case involved a former police officer, someone who is trained to be a good observer. Bigfootencounters.com has some other cases involving people being fooled by costumes, but I forget if any details about height were provided. And don't forget that Loch Ness link I provided, where people were reporting having seen Nessie's head (complete with teeth in some cases) when all they really saw was a fence post.

The "It looked like 7ft tall" quote is bs:

Why, because you don't like it?

To prove that those people were way off, you would have to ask each individual to say how tall they thought the man was, and i would bet on it being in the lower 6's.

Too much time has passed. Besides, even if things played out the way you think they would, they'd still be saying the guy in the suit was taller than he really was.

[Squidgy]

OI! Wot a you two doin' 'round me 'edges? You a coupla dunces or wot then? Coupla Brummys coom up 'avin a laugh? Or are ye a coupla fairies? Coom to 'ave a little rendevous by the verge. Is that it, then? Well, sod off! I'll not bee 'avin' any o that 'round 'ere. C'mon, off with yas then or'll 'ave you, ya Brummy poofters!

Good impression :D

[makaya325]

[QUOTE=AtomicMysteryMonster;4872698]Actually, make that two cases (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4865602&postcount=1004). Let's not forget that the Canadian case involved a former police officer, someone who is trained to be a good observer. Bigfootencounters.com has some other cases involving people being fooled by costumes, but I forget if any details about height were provided. And don't forget that Loch Ness link I provided, where people were reporting having seen Nessie's head (complete with teeth in some cases) when all they really saw was a fence post.

The fence post seemed comical. I would like to test that with trained biologists instead of tourists who were probably PAID to act.


Why, because you don't like it?

No, it is because people think it is ok to say everyone is a horrible witness. Some of the passengers may have thought "5ft, 6ft, 5ft, etc. They asked one honkie instead on his opinion and closed it.


Too much time has passed. Besides, even if things played out the way you think they would, they'd still be saying the guy in the suit was taller than he really was.

There are a few reports of hoaxes, but not 100's after 100's of consistent reports. I think hoaxers play a very small part here: It has more to do with imagination and human nature than a prankster.

[makaya325]

Too much time has passed. Besides, even if things played out the way you think they would, they'd still be saying the guy in the suit was taller than he really was.[

Maybe, maybe not.

[Spektator]

[QUOTE]

The fence post seemed comical. I would like to test that with trained biologists instead of tourists who were probably PAID to act.

(snip) .

You have obviously never been a tourist in Scotland. The money flows the other way.

[makaya325]

[QUOTE=makaya325;4873142]

You have obviously never been a tourist in Scotland. The money flows the other way.

It seems hard to imagine people mistaking a bobbing stick up close to have teeth and scales. I think the producers told then what to say.

[Spektator]

[QUOTE=Spektator;4873149]

It seems hard to imagine people mistaking a bobbing stick up close to have teeth and scales. I think the producers told then what to say.

I suggest that you'd understand if you spent much time there. I've stayed several times in Drumnadrochit (http://www.drumnadrochit.co.uk/), right on the Loch. I've seen Loch Ness at all times of the day, in different light conditions, and in different weather. At times the wakes of boats look for all the world like large swimming creatures; the Monster Centre in town includes movies of such things as bobbing tree trunks, and they really look like living creatures. Especially on rainy days, with low clouds, the dark Loch can play tricks on you. I'm not at all surprised that people could imagine all sorts of details that they did not really see.

[makaya325]

[QUOTE=makaya325;4873156]

I suggest that you'd understand if you spent much time there. I've stayed several times in Drumnadrochit (http://www.drumnadrochit.co.uk/), right on the Loch. I've seen Loch Ness at all times of the day, in different light conditions, and in different weather. At times the wakes of boats look for all the world like large swimming creatures; the Monster Centre in town includes movies of such things as bobbing tree trunks, and they really look like living creatures. Especially on rainy days, with low clouds, the dark Loch can play tricks on you. I'm not at all surprised that people could imagine all sorts of details that they did not really see.

I definitely know water can play tricks on you, but you are better off identifying an 8ft gorilla on land, which isnt likely to be mistaken for any other animal on earth except man, instead of a black lump in the water, which could be anything. Since bf is human shaped, it doesnt have many mistaken identity candidates. Nessie is shaped like a long log, which could be mistaken for tons of things.

[desertgal]

Nessie is shaped like a long log, which could be mistaken for tons of things.

Source? Has the identity of Nessie been discovered? Where is the proof that a creature in Loch Ness is shaped like a long log?

[makaya325]

Source? Has the identity of Nessie been discovered? Where is the proof that a creature in Loch Ness is shaped like a long log?

Nessie is seen resembling a long neck creature, which could be logs, otters, seals, waves, etc. Since we dont see what is under the water, we only see a small part of the object in the water surfacing. That is not the case with bigfoot, Which is seen (sometimes up close) as a towering bipedal behemoth. Is there any animal on earth that resembles the description? Nope. At the same time, that does not make it more real than lake monsters.

[desertgal]

Nessie is seen resembling a long neck creature, which could be logs, otters, seals, waves, etc.

There's a difference between a long log vs. seals, waves, otters, and long necked creatures.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The fence post seemed comical. I would like to test that with trained biologists instead of tourists who were probably PAID to act.

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean they were paid off. Do you have any evidence to support this?

No, it is because people think it is ok to say everyone is a horrible witness.

You're getting it wrong. The point is that people can make mistakes and that estimates regarding fantasic things must not be taken at face value.

Some of the passengers may have thought "5ft, 6ft, 5ft, etc. They asked one honkie instead on his opinion and closed it.

The man is question is the one who reported the sighting. Remember, he thought it was a man in a suit until someone (later revealed to be one of the hoaxers) started making a ruckus about it being real.

Too much time has passed. Besides, even if things played out the way you think they would, they'd still be saying the guy in the suit was taller than he really was.

Maybe, maybe not.

Go back and reread the height given for the guy in the suit. He was in the 5 foot range. Your original example had people saying he was in the 6 foot range. 6 is greater than 5.

There are a few reports of hoaxes,

You might want to rework your definition of "few," as there are many, many cases of hoaxing.

but not 100's after 100's of consistent reports.

If a hoax fools someone and isn't found out, then it's going to be treated as a "real" report. Hell, sometimes it can be found out and still be treated as the real deal.

It seems hard to imagine people mistaking a bobbing stick up close to have teeth and scales.

The mind can play tricks on people, especially if they only get a quick glimpse at something. Let's not forget what happened to that guy who was misidentified as a terrorist and got gunned down in the UK a few years back.

I think the producers told then what to say.

This reminds me of the people who say (or at least imply) that Greg Long bribed everyone he interviewed in Yakima to badmouth Roger Patterson.

[makaya325]

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean they were paid off. Do you have any evidence to support this?

No, its just a real possibility.


You're getting it wrong. The point is that people can make mistakes and that estimates regarding fantasic things must not be taken at face value.

I agree.



The man is question is the one who reported the sighting. Remember, he thought it was a man in a suit until someone (later revealed to be one of the hoaxers) started making a ruckus about it being real.

So he was RIGHT. The hoaxer was trying to throw him off. This is a perfect case of the 1st witness being CORRECT.




Go back and reread the height given for the guy in the suit. He was in the 5 foot range. Your original example had people saying he was in the 6 foot range. 6 is greater than 5.

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".


You might want to rework your definition of "few," as there are many, many cases of hoaxing.



If a hoax fools someone and isn't found out, then it's going to be treated as a "real" report. Hell, sometimes it can be found out and still be treated as the real deal.

Such as?


The mind can play tricks on people, especially if they only get a quick glimpse at something. Let's not forget what happened to that guy who was misidentified as a terrorist and got gunned down in the UK a few years back.

That is only ONE case though. Repeat the experiment 1000's of times in different areas, and you would get different results.


This reminds me of the people who say (or at least imply) that Greg Long bribed everyone he interviewed in Yakima to badmouth Roger Patterson.

Long was out to make a quick buck and had an agenda. Bob was the man in the suit, no doubt, but long made it look like a big deal about patterson being a bad man

[makaya325]

There's a difference between a long log vs. seals, waves, otters, and long necked creatures.

A submerged twisted log bobbing up and down, while only some of it is exposed above water, can be mistaken for a monster easily.

[desertgal]

A submerged twisted log bobbing up and down, while only some of it is exposed above water, can be mistaken for a monster easily.

You have proof to support this statement, I'm sure? Many sightings that were proven to be logs and not seals, otters, waves, etc.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

So he was RIGHT. The hoaxer was trying to throw him off.

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4865602&postcount=1004).

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".

You said, and I quote (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4870953&postcount=1031) (bolding by me):

The "It looked like 7ft tall" quote is bs: To prove that those people were way off, you would have to ask each individual to say how tall they thought the man was, and i would bet on it being in the lower 6's.

In other words, you'd lose that bet.

Such as?

The Freeman tracks, various material by Ivan Marx, and the Wallace tracks spring to mind.

That is only ONE case though. Repeat the experiment 1000's of times in different areas, and you would get different results.

Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/08/15/sasquatch.html), the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

[ElectricVoodoo]

You have proof to support this statement, I'm sure? Many sightings that were proven to be logs and not seals, otters, waves, etc.

Isn't pure conjecture proof enough?

ETA: Quote

[desertgal]

Isn't pure conjecture proof enough?


I like my conjecture corrupted by evidence. ;)

[makaya325]

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4865602&postcount=1004).

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".

You said, and I quote (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4870953&postcount=1031) (bolding by me):



In other words, you'd lose that bet.



The Freeman tracks, various material by Ivan Marx, and the Wallace tracks spring to mind.



Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/08/15/sasquatch.html), the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

Yes, please, go on.

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.

[makaya325]

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4865602&postcount=1004).

Before the hoaxer threw him off, how tall did he say it was? 5ft 10? So what if he was sidetracked by a prankster? He was correct in his first report.




Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/08/15/sasquatch.html), the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

The gorilla mask incident gave no mention of height, only smell.

[EHocking]

Yes, please, go on.

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.Cite?

As I've been a birdwatcher for most of my life, anecdotally, I "know" this not to be the case.

[makaya325]

Cite?

As I've been a birdwatcher for most of my life, anecdotally, I "know" this not to be the case.

Birds are rather quick and tiny. There being may species of birds displaying different colors doesnt help your case. I can see how a person could mistake one bird for the 1000 other species, but not mistaking a bipedal hairy monster for some other species, due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.

[desertgal]

Birds are rather quick and tiny.

Source?

due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.

Source?

[makaya325]

Source?

Robbins, cardinals, blue jay, etc. Do i have to name ALL?



Source?

It is kind of obvious that bigfoot doesnt exist, but if it did, its identity would be found somewhere in the fossil record.

[Apology]

Bigfoot burglarized my garage last summer. He stole a set of combat fatigues, a Flowbee, a frozen tri-tip, and a mountain bike. Now that he has a disguise and transportation, I fear we'll never find him :(

I hope he enjoyed the tri-tip :mad:

[desertgal]

Robbins, cardinals, blue jay, etc. Do i have to name ALL?

Proof that all birds are quick and tiny?

It is kind of obvious that bigfoot doesnt exist, but if it did, its identity would be found somewhere in the fossil record.

Flip-flop.

[desertyeti]

Proof that all birds are quick and tiny?



Flip-flop.


Ostriches are little bitty things, only about 8' tall at best. Hardly visible!

[EHocking]

Birds are rather quick and tiny.Don't get out in the bush much, do you... But nice attempt at dodging the issue you raised, towhit (towhoo?)
A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.Evidence that a person is more likely to correctly identify a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight?

Sightings of "Hummingbirds" in Europe is a classic case. Lookup Hummingbird Hawk Moth.
Similarly, when in East Africa for 4 weeks, we were all so keen to spot things that a few new animals were discovered by our group. Notably the Stump Leopard and the Boulder Cheetah. There being may species of birds displaying different colors doesnt help your case.Non sequitur.I can see how a person could mistake one bird for the 1000 other species, 2048 (http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php)but not mistaking a bipedal hairy monster for some other species,The quote was "terrestrial animal", way to backpedal. due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.Besides not parsing, "you what?"

[makaya325]

[QUOTE]Don't get out in the bush much, do you... But nice attempt at dodging the issue you raised, towhit (towhoo?)[/QUOTE

Wrong

[QUOTE]]Evidence that a person is more likely to correctly identify a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight?

I meant to say an avian organism.

Sightings of "Hummingbirds" in Europe is a classic case. Lookup Hummingbird Hawk Moth.

Since humming birds have fast beating wings, it is not incredible to mistake it for a moth.


Similarly, when in East Africa for 4 weeks, we were all so keen to spot things that a few new animals were discovered by our group. Notably the Stump Leopard and the Boulder Cheetah.Non sequitur.[

What?


URL="http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php"]2048[/URL]The quote was "terrestrial animal", way to backpedal.

It is easier to see something on land than in water.

[EHocking]

[quote=EHocking;4881733][quote]Don't get out in the bush much, do you... But nice attempt at dodging the issue you raised, towhit (towhoo?)[/QUOTE

WrongPretty obvious that you lack experience then if you think birds "are rather quick and tiny".

Try this sentence, "Dogs are large and slow".
As a daschund owner you should be able to see the flaw in your assertion.
I meant to say an avian organism.And that has what to do with the question that you state that a person is more likely to correctly identify a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight?

Try this as an example (http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/camouflaged-iguana.jpg).

I say that, once I found the animal, that the site has incorrectly identified it as well.
Since humming birds have fast beating wings, it is not incredible to mistake it for a moth.Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.

It's the moth that resembles a hummingbird - there are no hummingbirds in Europe, but regularly someone "IDs" one.
What?Examples of errors of identification.
It is easier to see something on land than in water.... and the goalposts move yet again.

So you're now saying that it's easier to see something on land than in the air and in water? See the link above for an example of how wrong you are.

[makaya325]

[quote=makaya325;4882136][quote=EHocking;4881733]Pretty obvious that you lack experience then if you think birds "are rather quick and tiny".

Try this sentence, "Dogs are large and slow".
As a daschund owner you should be able to see the flaw in your assertion.
And that has what to do with the question that you state that a person is more likely to correctly identify a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight?

Try this as an example (http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/camouflaged-iguana.jpg).

I say that, once I found the animal, that the site has incorrectly identified it as well.
Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.

It's the moth that resembles a hummingbird - there are no hummingbirds in Europe, but regularly someone "IDs" one.
Examples of errors of identification.
... and the goalposts move yet again.

So you're now saying that it's easier to see something on land than in the air and in water? See the link above for an example of how wrong you are.

Is a person more likely to identify the terrestrial anima on land, or a flying lump 100ft up in the air, or a half submerged back of anything in water.

[EHocking]

[quote=EHocking;4882257][quote=makaya325;4882136]

Is a person more likely to identify the terrestrial anima on land, or a flying lump 100ft up in the air, or a half submerged back of anything in water.I have done all of these.
It is YOUR assertion that
1. A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.
2. It is easier to see something on land than in water.

So back it with something more substantial than mere opinion.

BTW. Did you find the animal in the photo that I linked to?

I don't believe that they have identified all of them it correctly.

[makaya325]

[quote=makaya325;4882261][quote=EHocking;4882257]I have done all of these.
It is YOUR assertion that
1. A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.
2. It is easier to see something on land than in water.

So back it with something more substantial than mere opinion.

BTW. Did you find the animal in the photo that I linked to?

I don't believe that they have identified it correctly.


There is no case study on identifying different animal species, but it is quite obvious if you have ever been out on the waters and in the woods like i used to.

[EHocking]

[quote=EHocking;4882288][quote=makaya325;4882261]


There is no case study on identifying different animal species, but it is quite obvious if you have ever been out on the waters and in the woods like i used to.I disagree, from personal experience in a number of environments and in a number of countries.

So what you are saying is, "in your experience" you find it difficult.

You are not "all" in the same way birds are not "rather quick and tiny".

ETA: DID you find the animals in the photo?

[makaya325]

[quote=makaya325;4882300][quote=EHocking;4882288]I disagree, from personal experience in a number of environments and in a number of countries.

So what you are saying is, "in your experience" you find it difficult.

You are not "all" in the same way birds are not "rather quick and tiny".

ETA: DID you find the animals in the photo?

Yes i did, rather easily.

[EHocking]

[quote=EHocking;4882310][quote=makaya325;4882300]

Yes i did, rather easily....

[desertgal]

There is no case study on identifying different animal species, but it is quite obvious if you have ever been out on the waters and in the woods like i used to.

Of course. Little mak has a great deal more experience playing wild man of the woods in his 18 years than anyone else here. He's a literal Grizzly Adams/Jeremiah Johnson. :rolleyes:

[makaya325]

[quote=makaya325;4882324][quote=EHocking;4882310]...

You want me to point it out for you? Ill be glad to. Should i circle it for you? I have it circled, but cant post it bc of large bandwith.

[makaya325]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296044a53d015c2f58.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16898)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Yes, please, go on.

Before I begin, I thought I'd provide a source for the London subway incident (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/01/underground-shooting.html).

If this (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ww-navidad) is to be believed, an escaped male slave sparked reports of a "wild woman"

You might be familiar with the story of children's radio show host Uncle Don cussing about kids without realizing that his microphone was still on. As this site (http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/uncledon.htm) will show you, the incident never happened, despite the claims of many (including some people claiming to have seen him do it at a live show).

I feel that all the examples I've presented are enough to convince a reasonable person that people can see things that aren't really there and give incorrect details about what they saw.

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.

If you would, could you please expand on this? I want to see if my guess of what you'll say is right or wrong.

I'll admit this is anecdotal, but I thought you might find this (http://halloweenforum.com/paranormal-unexplained/68598-bigfoot-yeti-thread-2.html) alleged account of a person mistaking a bison for Bigfoot to be interesting.

The gorilla mask incident gave no mention of height, only smell.

I didn't cite that as an example of mistaken height. Instead, it is an example of people mistaking the type of thing they saw (not unlike seeing a fence post quickly shoot out of the water and thinking it's Nessie).

[makaya325]

Before I begin, I thought I'd provide a source for the London subway incident (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/01/underground-shooting.html).

If this (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ww-navidad) is to be believed, an escaped male slave sparked reports of a "wild woman"

You might be familiar with the story of children's radio show host Uncle Don cussing about kids without realizing that his microphone was still on. As this site (http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/uncledon.htm) will show you, the incident never happened, despite the claims of many (including some people claiming to have seen him do it at a live show).

I feel that all the examples I've presented are enough to convince a reasonable person that people can see things that aren't really there and give incorrect details about what they saw.



If you would, could you please expand on this? I want to see if my guess of what you'll say is right or wrong.

I'll admit this is anecdotal, but I thought you might find this (http://halloweenforum.com/paranormal-unexplained/68598-bigfoot-yeti-thread-2.html) alleged account of a person mistaking a bison for Bigfoot to be interesting.



I didn't cite that as an example of mistaken height. Instead, it is an example of people mistaking the type of thing they saw (not unlike seeing a fence post quickly shoot out of the water and thinking it's Nessie).


People may be mistaken, but they MAY also be correct, which is seen daily.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

People may be mistaken, but they MAY also be correct, which is seen daily.

Emphasis on "may," especially when it comes to sightings of cryptids and paranormal things.

[makaya325]

Emphasis on "may," especially when it comes to sightings of cryptids and paranormal things.

You can not assume they must be mistaken because of the lack of evidence on the other camp.

[makaya325]

Do people make mistakes identifying green lights from red lights most of the time? Do they?

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You can not assume they must be mistaken because of the lack of evidence on the other camp.

Less "lack of evidence," more "investigations into the matter showed otherwise."

BTW, where's that promissary note you were going on about?

[makaya325]

Less "lack of evidence," more "investigations into the matter showed otherwise."

BTW, where's that promissary note you were going on about?

I was mistaken about the note. excitement plus assuming=mistake.

[desertgal]

I was mistaken about the note. excitement plus assuming=mistake.

Of course. There were so many Roger Pattersons living in Yakima who did/didn't go to the same/different high school/college and borrowed tons of money from Gramps...it's easy to see why you would make that mistake.

But, wait, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4882466&postcount=153) you say that you weren't mistaken about the note...

[makaya325]

Of course. There were so many Roger Pattersons living in Yakima who did/didn't go to the same/different high school/college and borrowed tons of money from Gramps...it's easy to see why you would make that mistake.

Listen, buddy, someone by the name of ROGER PATTERSON was loaned money from my grandfather for who knows what.

But, wait, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4882466&postcount=153) you say that you weren't mistaken about the note...

I NOW admit that i made a mistake and misread it.

[desertgal]

I NOW admit that i made a mistake and misread it.

But, you told us the note was signed by a Mr. Roger Patterson. A receipt for a camera, I believe you said. It wasn't signed by Roger Patterson or it was?

You complain that I repeatedly call you a troll, and, yet, you continually post ambiguous answers, avoid questions altogether, and repeatedly contradict yourself. THAT'S why you appear to be a troll.

[makaya325]

[QUOTE]But, you told us the note was signed by a Mr. Roger Patterson. A receipt for a camera, I believe you said. It wasn't signed by Roger Patterson or it was?

Correct, but i made the assumption it was the BF roger patterson, which i was wrong. It was a Different roger patterson. If it was the bf patterson, i would have much more info by now.

You complain that I repeatedly call you a troll, and, yet, you continually post ambiguous answers, avoid questions altogether, and repeatedly contradict yourself. THAT'S why you appear to be a troll.

Instead of talking about me or labeling me a troll, you could just not talk to me and not mention my name anywhere here.

[desertgal]

Correct, but i made the assumption it was the BF roger patterson, which i was wrong. It was a Different roger patterson. If it was the bf patterson, i would have much more info by now.

A different Roger Patterson who lived in Yakima at exactly the same time period. How 'bout that.

How did you establish that it wasn't the same RP? Did he sign it Roger "Not the future BF guy" Patterson?

Instead of talking about me or labeling me a troll, you could just not talk to me and not mention my name anywhere here.

I could...but I probably won't. Put me on ignore if it bothers you that much.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

A different Roger Patterson who lived in Yakima at exactly the same time period. How 'bout that.

Don't forget about him being a rodeo cowboy!

[makaya325]

A different Roger Patterson who lived in Yakima at exactly the same time period. How 'bout that.

My Grandpa went to Davis high school with a man by the name of Roger patterson. Didnt you say that it was impossible for my old man to have gone to school with rp?

How did you establish that it wasn't the same RP? Did he sign it Roger "Not the future BF guy" Patterson?

There was no mention of a 16mm lense or "Making of bigfoot".



I could...but I probably won't. Put me on ignore if it bothers you that much.

Why not?

[desertgal]

Why not?

Why?

How do you know it wasn't the same RP? Did he sign it "Roger 'Not The Future BF Guy' Patterson"?

[makaya325]

Why?

How do you know it wasn't the same RP? Did he sign it "Roger 'Not The Future BF Guy' Patterson"?

Because i feel that if it was the bf patterson, there would have been mentioning of his book and his documentary.

[desertgal]

Because i feel that if it was the bf patterson, there would have been mentioning of his book and his documentary.

In a receipt for a camera that predated 1967?

[makaya325]

In a receipt for a camera that predated 1967?

There was no date ,only a transaction.

[desertgal]

There was no date ,only a transaction.

You said your grandfather did not speak to Roger Patterson after their alleged high school years together, because Patterson didn't pay him back. If it was the BF Patterson, then it would have predated 1967.

Since there was no date, you can't be sure it wasn't the Roger Patterson.

Point is, you have no evidence that you didn't make up the entire story. Just more of your words, words, words, with nothing to back them up.

Tell us again you aren't trolling.

[Cuddles]

Makaya325 and Desertgal, stop the bickering and personal attacks or further moderator action is likely to follow.

[EHocking]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296044a53d015c2f58.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16898)
My question was, did you spot the animals in the picture.

You missed the other lizard to the right of the Iguana. The one that looks like a monitor. Grey.

Thus demonstrating the point I was making, by your very own contradiction of your generalism, "A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight." is unsupportable.

[makaya325]

My question was, did you spot the animals in the picture.

You missed the other lizard to the right of the Iguana. The one that looks like a monitor. Grey.

Thus demonstrating the point I was making, by your very own contradiction of your generalism, "A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight." is unsupportable.

I spotted the animal that i FIRST saw. Did i not circle it for you?

[makaya325]

Makaya325 and Desertgal, stop the bickering and personal attacks or further moderator action is likely to follow.

Tell desert to do me and her a favor and put me on ignore.

[EHocking]

I spotted the animal that i FIRST saw. Did i not circle it for you?So you DIDN'T see both animals, I even gave you hints.

I don't believe that they have identified all of them it correctly.
ETA: DID you find the animals in the photo?
Therefore, we have both demonstrated for ourselves that land animals are NOT that easy to identify at all.

Your assertion that they are easier to ID that those in water or in the air can hardly kick off from a false initial premise.

ETA: For dog's sake, you started a THREAD (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4885163&postcount=269)about you not being able to identify a human-sized something in a bush not 10ft away from you and your father. Why are you persisting with this?

Just admit you have absolutely no basis for asserting that an animal on land is easier to see than one in the air or in water.

[makaya325]

So you DIDN'T see both animals, I even gave you hints.



Therefore, we have both demonstrated for ourselves that land animals are NOT that easy to identify at all.

Your assertion that they are easier to ID that those in water or in the air can hardly kick off from a false initial premise.

[QUOTE]ETA: For dog's sake, you started a THREAD (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4885163&postcount=269)about you not being able to identify a human-sized something in a bush not 10ft away from you and your father. Why are you persisting with this?

Because this thing was TRANSPARENT (It had the chameleon affect), and refracted light. What was amazing was that it was blocking out part of the fence.

Just admit you have absolutely no basis for asserting that an animal on land is easier to see than one in the air or in water.

You told me to Identify a CAMOFLAUGED ANIMAL. Why dont you give me an animal that isnt unique and actually exists in NW forests.

[tsig]

But, you told us the note was signed by a Mr. Roger Patterson. A receipt for a camera, I believe you said. It wasn't signed by Roger Patterson or it was?

You complain that I repeatedly call you a troll, and, yet, you continually post ambiguous answers, avoid questions altogether, and repeatedly contradict yourself. THAT'S why you appear to be a troll.

He seems to have many aspects that's why I quit responding to him.

[makaya325]

He seems to have many aspects that's why I quit responding to him.

Good, maybe desert can do the same.

[desertgal]

Never mind.

[EHocking]

So you DIDN'T see both animals, I even gave you hints.
You told me to Identify a CAMOFLAUGED ANIMAL. Why dont you give me an animal that isnt unique and actually exists in NW forests.Keep moving those goal posts.

So now, if I have this straight, your assertion is that,

"Land animals that live in the PNW, but are not unique, and have hides, scales, skins or feathers that don't have any markings on them that might help them hide in their environment, that are not rather tiny and quick, don't look like Hummingbirds or moths and are not transparent, are easier to see than animals in the air or in the water".

I concede, you are definitely on to something here.
How could I have been so wrong...:rolleyes:

[ElectricVoodoo]

"Land animals that live in the PNW, but are not unique, and have hides, scales, skins or feathers that don't have any markings on them that might help them hide in their environment, that are not rather tiny and quick, don't look like Hummingbirds or moths and are not transparent, are easier to see than animals in the air or in the water".

Is that a concept even worth grasping for?

[EHocking]

Is that a concept even worth grasping for?Frankly, it wasn't worth responding to post 1051 by makaya325....:cool:

[makaya325]

Keep moving those goal posts.

So now, if I have this straight, your assertion is that,

"Land animals that live in the PNW, but are not unique, and have hides, scales, skins or feathers that don't have any markings on them that might help them hide in their environment, that are not rather tiny and quick, don't look like Hummingbirds or moths and are not transparent, are easier to see than animals in the air or in the water".

I concede, you are definitely on to something here.
How could I have been so wrong...:rolleyes:

Ahhhhh!! Listen, here me out:

Animals that actually live in the same enviornments as humans are very unlikely to be mistaken for something else. Sure, a sea serpent may be mistaken for many things because its long and narrow. Bigfoot, on the other hand, pretty much resembles a hairy human of extraordinary proportions: What known animal resembles that? Nothing.

Just because bigfoot doesnt have many mistaken species candidates, doesnt make it any more real than Greys. One may say "You cant mistake a Grey alien for anything else because nothing on earth resembles it", which would debunk my own statement.

[EHocking]

Ahhhhh!! Listen, here me out:

Animals that actually live in the same enviornments as humans are very unlikely to be mistaken for something else.Addendum ad infinitum:
"Land animals that live in a house, in the PNW, but are not unique, and have hides, scales, skins or feathers that don't have any markings on them that might help them hide in their environment, that are not rather tiny and quick, don't look like Hummingbirds or moths and are not transparent, are easier to see than animals in the air or in the water".

Sure, a sea serpent may be mistaken for many things because its long and narrow.Non sequitur. Does a sea serpent line in the same environment as a human?Bigfoot, on the other hand, pretty much resembles a hairy human of extraordinary proportions: What known animal resembles that? Nothing.or a gorilla or a bear...
Just because bigfoot doesnt have many mistaken species candidates,I disagree....doesnt make it any more real than Greys. One may say "You cant mistake a Grey alien for anything else because nothing on earth resembles it", which would debunk my own statement.What on earth does EXTRAterrestrial beings have to do with your statement that, "A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4879532&postcount=1051)?

[EHocking]

Ahhhhh!! Listen, here me out:

Animals that actually live in the same enviornments as humans are very unlikely to be mistaken for something else.
This is just too precious...

.
Camera trap images in the Southwestern US..
Attached Thumbnails
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101057 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&d=1247101057) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14525&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101057 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14525&d=1247101057) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14526&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101076 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14526&d=1247101076) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14527&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101076 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14527&d=1247101076)


The left one looks like a Bob cat, while I am unsure of the middle one.
:id:

[Correa Neto]

Where's that "don't feed the troll" sign?

[EHocking]

Where's that "don't feed the troll" sign?Sorry:redface1

[William Parcher]

This is just too precious...


He screwed up this easy one too. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132219&page=15)

Ones a racoon, which are EVERYWHERE

You fool. That's a ringtail.



http://www.inheatscents.net/images/cybersniper0009.jpg

[desertgal]

He screwed up this easy one too. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132219&page=15)

After all that time spent in the woods, too. Laughable.

[desertyeti]

Where's that "don't feed the troll" sign?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_105064980c4b2a1c77.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15069)

:D

[makaya325]

or a gorilla or a bear...

I can see a bear, but a Gorilla out in the colder PNW climate?

[makaya325]

Where's that "don't feed the troll" sign?

Please, I do not appreciate being called troll. I was mistaken, simple as that.

[makaya325]

After all that time spent in the woods, too. Laughable.

He showed me a picture of the animal from the backside, and I assumed racoon because of the tail. I was proven wrong.

[JohnWS]

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/JREF/Makka-3.jpg

Fer cryin' out loud..... Ignore?

[makaya325]

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/JREF/Makka-3.jpg

Fer cryin' out loud..... Ignore?

Why do you need to show everybody? Do you feel cool now for doing that?

[Correa Neto]

Hey!

You took a screenshot from my desktop?

You hacker!

[makaya325]

See, this is what i mean. :(

[JohnWS]

Hey!

You took a screenshot from my desktop?

You hacker!

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/corea3.jpg

Two more have appeared! You are surrounded by vacuous posts!:D

[makaya325]

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/corea3.jpg

Two more have appeared! You are surrounded by vacuous posts!:D

John, what have i ever done to you? Did i say something to hurt you?

[Correa Neto]

Crap. Its the second screenie JohnWS manages to take from my desktop. Gotta check the damn firewall, antivirus, etc...

[makaya325]

Crap. Its the second screenie JohnWS manages to take from my desktop. Gotta check the damn firewall, antivirus, etc...

Why are you telling everyone that you hate me?

[tsig]

Why are you telling everyone that you hate me?

Just so's you see it CN:boxedin:

[kitakaze]

This is just too precious...


Attached Thumbnails
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101057 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&d=1247101057) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14525&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101057 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14525&d=1247101057) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14526&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101076 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14526&d=1247101076) http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14527&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1247101076 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14527&d=1247101076)

Cool! Cougar, white-nosed coati (!), collared peccary (!), and illegal aliens.

The left one looks like a Bob cat, while I am unsure of the middle one.

:id:

:eye-poppi

:jaw-dropp

:dl:

[RayG]

You missed the other lizard to the right of the Iguana. The one that looks like a monitor. Grey.

Yeah, but you both missed the baby bigfoot wearing sunglasses.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2324a58b7d177754.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16942)

:cool:

RayG

[EHocking]

Yeah, but you both missed the baby bigfoot wearing sunglasses.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2324a58b7d177754.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16942)

:cool:

RayGNow you're just being silly.

If you're not going to take this seriously...:p

[desertgal]

Now you're just being silly.

If you're not going to take this seriously...:p

We have to take this seriously? Seriously?

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4120/pattersonbigfootaib2.jpg

[kitakaze]

From another thread, I want to discuss an alleged sighting of Bigfoot by a New York police officer featured twice on Monster Quest...

The encounter involved not one but TWO police officers. The creature was witnessed at close range in the headlights of the squad car. The creature was on TWO legs and walked across the road in only four steps and stepped over a guard railing and into the wood line. Dan Gordon got out of the car, but his partner was too frightened to follow. He pulled his revolver from the holster. He went to the tree line and could still here the creature walking away. This is one of the most credible encounter stories I have heard.

My question is what does the other officer think?

Also, I need to find the links for both episodes but I remember that there were important differences in the way the show represented the encounter each time.

[EHocking]

We have to take this seriously? Seriously?

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4120/pattersonbigfootaib2.jpg
Do you have her phone number?

[kitakaze]

do you have her phone number?Yup...

555-SHAG

She doesn't like cowboys and no pictures, please.

[desertgal]

Do you have her phone number?

I've a feeling we've all had her number for some time. ;)

[makaya325]

Yup...

555-SHAG

She doesn't like cowboys and no pictures, please.

What is she looking for in a man? Personality? :p

[desertgal]

What is she looking for in a man? Personality? :p

Good camera skills. :p

[makaya325]

Sorry Sweaty, but Patty is just not that into you. :o

[Spektator]

Here's an example of an eyewitness who was tragically wrong: a young hunter who mistook a middle-aged hiker for a bear. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HIKER_SHOT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US)

[makaya325]

Here's an example of an eyewitness who was tragically wrong: a young hunter who mistook a middle-aged hiker for a bear. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HIKER_SHOT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US)

That must have been one stupid and uncommon hunter.

[desertgal]

That must have been one stupid and uncommon hunter.

Oh, for the love of God, please do a little research before you post. Such hunting accidents are not at all uncommon. It's why smart hunters wear bright orange vests. It's not a fashion statement. It's so they won't get shot by other hunters.

Are you this moronic in real life?

[makaya325]

Oh, for the love of God, please do a little research before you post. Such hunting accidents are not at all uncommon. It's why smart hunters wear bright orange vests. It's not a fashion statement. It's so they won't get shot by other hunters.

For everytime a hunter goes out hunting, how many mistake a human for a bear? Very few. I am sorry, but if you mistake a paltry human for a giant bear, then you need to get your eyes checked.

[desertgal]

For everytime a hunter goes out hunting, how many mistake a human for a bear? Very few. I am sorry, but if you mistake a paltry human for a giant bear, then you need to get your eyes checked.

Well, I guess that answers my question. :rolleyes:

[makaya325]

Well, I guess that answers my question. :rolleyes:

It is true though. If one has trouble telling a human from a hair covered giant in broad daylight, then you should not have a rifle in your hand.

[desertgal]

It is true though. If one has trouble telling a human from a hair covered giant in broad daylight, then you should not have a rifle in your hand.

No, it isn't true. If you did even a modicum of research, you'd know that.

You're a lost cause, Mak. We can all keep telling you how absolutely moronic your posts are, and how you need to do research, and educate yourself, so on and so forth...but you obviously aren't listening.

I thought there was hope for you...I was wrong.

[Spektator]

In one typical year, 193 people (http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030908/006328.html) were killed by hunters who mistook them for deer, bears, or other game.

[makaya325]

No, it isn't true. If you did even a modicum of research, you'd know that.

You're a lost cause, Mak. We can all keep telling you how absolutely moronic your posts are, and how you need to do research, and educate yourself, so on and so forth...but you obviously aren't listening.

I thought there was hope for you...I was wrong.

This is not about research. This is about people being HORRIBLE pathetic eyewitnesses. How in the hell do you mistake a bipedal human for a hair covered, 1000 pound quadraped, or a 1200 pound antlered herbivore? Why do hunters make these kinds of mistakes? It does not make sense.

[Spektator]

This is not about research. This is about people being HORRIBLE pathetic eyewitnesses. How in the hell do you mistake a bipedal human for a hair covered, 1000 pound quadraped, or a 1200 pound antlered herbivore? Why do hunters make these kinds of mistakes? It does not make sense.

The heaviest wild black bear on record was 880 pounds; males rarely get heavier than 500 lbs, females than 300 lbs. White-tail deer run 200-300 pounds as full-grown adults.

[makaya325]

The heaviest wild black bear on record was 880 pounds; males rarely get heavier than 500 lbs, females than 300 lbs. White-tail deer run 200-300 pounds as full-grown adults.

I am talking about the larger bears, specifically the Kodiak and Grizzlies. The 1200 pound example was a moose.

[Spektator]

I have yet to find a report of a hunter's mistaking a human for a grizzly or a moose. Plenty of stories of hunters' mistaking humans for white-tail deer or black bears, though.

[makaya325]

I have yet to find a report of a hunter's mistaking a human for a grizzly or a moose. Plenty of stories of hunters' mistaking humans for white-tail deer or black bears, though.

But why? Unless the human is a mother-in-law or Shaq, I dont see how an experienced hunter could mistake a bipedal species (human) for something quadrapedal.

[Ravenwood]

This is not about research. This is about people being HORRIBLE pathetic eyewitnesses. How in the hell do you mistake a bipedal human for a hair covered, 1000 pound quadraped, or a 1200 pound antlered herbivore? Why do hunters make these kinds of mistakes? It does not make sense.

Mak, do yourself a favor & take a Hunter's safety course. Get out from behind your computer & actually get out in the woods where people hunt. There is a reason it's the LAW in Hawaii to have to wear blaze orange safety vests while hunting, because 1.) People make mistakes & 2.) There are some really stupid hunters. I have been shot at during gobbler season, sitting in a bush WITH the state mandated safety vest on, giving a hen call to draw a cautious Tom into range (hens are not legal prey) I have also heard incoming rounds pass by, because someone fired at "movement" not a clear target. In some areas of the CONUS, it is legal to hunt in Ghillie suits during bow season IIRC, and that would complicate matters more...(hint: you have to be aware of what is behind your target while hunting...I've had my .45-70 punch clean through a russian boar-that round probably still had a bit of punch to it & probably continued a way down range.)

[makaya325]

Mak, do yourself a favor & take a Hunter's safety course. Get out from behind your computer & actually get out in the woods where people hunt.

Just because i find hunting ridicolous and immoral does not mean i am a stranger to the outdoors. I am a regular when it comes to backpacking and berry picking.

[makaya325]

I still dont understand why there is not a seperation between shootings due to "sudden movements" and "mistaken identities".

[Ravenwood]

You sure don't seem to get out there where the critters & hunting is at, otherwise you would know these things. No one that I know of would dare go out during hunting season without blaze orange, because they know hunting accidents happen. I hope your ancestors are proud of your stance on hunting, seeing how it kept them clothed & fed...

[makaya325]

You sure don't seem to get out there where the critters & hunting is at, otherwise you would know these things. No one that I know of would dare go out during hunting season without blaze orange, because they know hunting accidents happen. I hope your ancestors are proud of your stance on hunting, seeing how it kept them clothed & fed...

Well i dont accept hunters who kill animals just for fun and entertainment. Food is a different matter.

What is the deal with the "Blaze orange". Why cant people tell the different between a hairy animal and a hairless human?

[Ravenwood]

Of all the people I hunt with, no one is doing it for "fun" we keep our freezer's full, I use the hides for various projects, and antler become handles for my home forged knives. Tusks and such are made into traditional Hawaiian pendants, even the bone is carved into fishooks. You have obviously never hunted or been in a shoot or no shoot situation, so trying to explain this to you is going to be like trying to explain physics to a cocker spaniel. If you want to understand it, get off your butt & learn about it

[Ravenwood]

Oh, and why Blaze Orange? Because you might not notice the guy on the right....

[makaya325]

Oh, and why Blaze Orange? Because you might not notice the guy on the right....

No, i mean why wear it so you dont be mistaken for an animal? Are people that unreliable when it comes to identifying things at close range.

[Ravenwood]

No, you wear Blaze Orange so hunters know you are a human being & not to shoot in your direction. If I see Blaze Orange in the downrange area, I will lower my weapon to a safe direction so as not to put my fellow hunters in danger...Define close range. Are we talking Climax forest or triple canopy vegetation? Are we talking hunters , wildlife photographers, rangers, researchers or backpackers? I'm 6'3" and have had people walk right over me when I was lying prone in my Ghillie suit (and this is paintball...they know I'm out there & in a Ghillie suit (I have scared a couple of hikers that wandered up into our renegade field once...They had no idea what I was at first, or why I was yelling "Hikers! Cease Fire! Cease Fire!") There are very many variables, and peoples eyes can play tricks on them. Again, look at the guy on the right-that's all over the counter camo gear that you can buy at like Cabellas...no photoshop or camera tricks, thats just how camoflage works. Throw a real (as in not shop bought, but "made to match the terrain you are in" Ghillie suit with full veil & gun wrap & you will see nothing till the guy moves, and even then you will have a hard time telling what you are looking at.
People who only partially see something sometimes make mistakes about identifying it, that's just the way life goes. Heck, try looking at witness statements from urban crime situations like the London subway bombing or the unfortunate shooting of the mistakenly suspected person that followed some months later. eyewitness accounts can be terrible in just about any situation

[Apology]

Oh, and why Blaze Orange? Because you might not notice the guy on the right....

That guy on the right has a SUPERB ghillie suit. It's almost like a work of art, except you can't see it :p

[Spektator]

No, i mean why wear it so you dont be mistaken for an animal? Are people that unreliable when it comes to identifying things at close range.

Yes, they are. What people expect to see influences their perception. I personally know of one instance in which a man walking down his own driveway to pick up the mail was shot (non-fatally) by a hunter only a couple of dozen yards away because the hunter could have sworn the man was a deer. I have nearly run out of the road because a dog dashed in front of my car--only to realize that the dog I thought I had seen very clearly was a piece of wind-blown trash. Since we moved to this county I have served on at least fifteen juries over the years, and as a juror I have heard witnesses testify to impossibly different versions of the same events--one witness' "blue Toyota" was another witness' "green Honda"; in one case witnesses described the same person as white, Hispanic, black, tall, medium, heavy, skinny, brown-haired, black-haired, wearing a tan shirt, wearing a yellow shirt, carrying a car side mirror, carrying a pistol, and carrying a bottle. A little research will find you a boatload of psychological studies showing that human perception is very unreliable indeed. Personal incredulity will not alter that.

[EHocking]

Just because i find hunting ridicolous and immoral does not mean i am a stranger to the outdoors.... just inexperienced with hunting... Obvious by your comments and underlined by this post.

Others are posting information for you that explains that hunters DO mistake targets and fatalities occur. Do yourself a favour and review the evidence against your posted opinions. Apply Occam's Razor.I am a regular when it comes to backpacking and berry picking.Which does not qualify you to comment on the mentality and/or skills of hunters.

Argument from incredulity is not valid in this case.

Hell's Bells man, you mistook a photo of a mountain lion for a bobcat and a ringtail for a racoon. I'm not even FROM the US and was able to identify these animals.
Are people that unreliable when it comes to identifying things at close range. The two examples of your lack of skill at identifying animals alone should give you an answer to that question...:rolleyes:

[makaya325]

I still find it ridicolous that people who shoot someone because they mistooken them for a deer arent stripped of their hunting license.

[GT/CS]

Mak, do you know what bad habit most recreational deer hunters have (other than shooting animals for no reason)? They drink while they hunt.
I'm going to assume you can figure out what happens when people mix alcohol and guns so I won't spell it out for you.

[makaya325]

Mak, do you know what bad habit most recreational deer hunters have (other than shooting animals for no reason)? They drink while they hunt.
I'm going to assume you can figure out what happens when people mix alcohol and guns so I won't spell it out for you.

I did not think of that. I can understand if a hunter mistakes a human for a bigfoot, but i dont see how they can mistake a deer or fur covered bear for a human.

[GT/CS]

If the bushes move they shoot. If they see a shadow they shoot. If they hear a noise they shoot. Remember psycho Dick Cheney's little hunting accident?

It's not about mistaking one animal for another, it's about shooting first then identifying what they shot. The only way one has a chance of staying alive in the woods during hunting season is to wear bright orange, and that doesn't always work.

[makaya325]

If the bushes move they shoot. If they see a shadow they shoot. If they hear a noise they shoot. Remember psycho Dick Cheney's little hunting accident?

It's not about mistaking one animal for another, it's about shooting first then identifying what they shot.

So what your saying is that hunters accidently shoot people due to being "trigger happy" rather than mistaken?

Why cant hunters be more patient on what they are looking for and less trigger happy by shooting at anything moving?

[Blackdog]

Mak, do you know what bad habit most recreational deer hunters have (other than shooting animals for no reason)? They drink while they hunt.
I'm going to assume you can figure out what happens when people mix alcohol and guns so I won't spell it out for you.

Sorry GT but that's a bunch of crap.

That's like saying most people who don't hunt are tree hugging radicals.

And to be fair I've hugged more than one tree in my day and I am a recreational hunter who keeps, processes and eats all the meat I shoot. And I am not ashamed of it one iota, in fact I enjoy it.

[Ravenwood]

So what your saying is that hunters accidently shoot people due to being "trigger happy" rather than mistaken?

Why cant hunters be more patient on what they are looking for and less trigger happy by shooting at anything moving?
Most are, and those who do, not only lose their hunting permits, but the right to own firearms (criminals are not allowed to own guns legally in the US) but then again, you could have easily looked up that information instead of just being "Trigger Happy" with your keyboard and spouting off without thinking or researching. Hmmmm....perhaps there is a similarity in mindset, seeing your difficulties with identifying wildlife, booze & good judgment....

[makaya325]

Most are, and those who do, not only lose their hunting permits, but the right to own firearms (criminals are not allowed to own guns legally in the US) but then again, you could have easily looked up that information instead of just being "Trigger Happy" with your keyboard and spouting off without thinking or researching. Hmmmm....perhaps there is a similarity in mindset, seeing your difficulties with identifying wildlife, booze & good judgment....

I can identify real wildlife in nature, but pictures are trickier, since they only show static subjects.

[Ravenwood]

Let me get this straight, you can ID a creature that is moving through cover/vegetation and may not be clearly seen better from a static photograph...the technical term for that is Bravo Sierra. That & you say you are an experienced woodsman with no knowledge of hunter safety procedures or what a hunter would experience when stalking game. You can't keep any of your stories straight can you? (I'm surprised no one called you on your claim in an earlier post in another thread to owning a couple of BF suits, along with the rest of the verbal effluent you have been caught spilling here.) Bit of advice, Mak, straighten up & stop with the kid antics, or your stay here will not be long. And I for one, will not be broken up about it...and yes, I also think your behavior is quite trollish, but am willing to give you a last chance before I toss you in the ignore box...

[makaya325]

That & you say you are an experienced woodsman with no knowledge of hunter safety procedures or what a hunter would experience when stalking game.

Oh, im sorry that i dont know about Hick (Not you or anyone here) procedures when it comes to killing animals with guns. Spears and Crossbows are much more effective, IMO.

[Ravenwood]

Again, you go spouting off without knowing anything. I have unted with a 6" damascus Boar Spear, taking down a 275lb boar in the Kahukus, Crossbows are illegal to hunt with unless you are handicapped, and I'm willing to bet my 90lb yew longbow is more effective than any crossbow you could pull...again, you go off shooting your mouth off about "Hick" procedures. I would like to see you have to come out here to the East Maui watershed area where we had to cull several boars last week(they damage endangered native vegetation, some of which are very rare, with less than a handful of varieties in the world, & only in Hawaii) where we coursed them with dogs & knives, yes knives, not guns spears or crossbows...Think before you spout off, Troll...

[makaya325]

Again, you go spouting off without knowing anything. I have unted with a 6" damascus Boar Spear, taking down a 275lb boar in the Kahukus, Crossbows are illegal to hunt with unless you are handicapped, and I'm willing to bet my 90lb yew longbow is more effective than any crossbow you could pull...again, you go off shooting your mouth off about "Hick" procedures. I would like to see you have to come out here to the East Maui watershed area where we had to cull several boars last week(they damage endangered native vegetation, some of which are very rare, with less than a handful of varieties in the world, & only in Hawaii) where we coursed them with dogs & knives, yes knives, not guns spears or crossbows...Think before you spout off, Troll...

Mistaken? Yes

Misinformed? Yes

Troll? NO

[Akhenaten]

Mistaken? Yes

Misinformed? Yes

Troll? NO


You appear to be both mistaken and misinformed on the definition of troll.

[RayG]

Again, you go spouting off without knowing anything....Think before you spout off...

Mak, read, read again, then read once more what Ravenwood has said here. He speaks the truth. Let it sink in. Learn.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

If the bushes move they shoot. If they see a shadow they shoot. If they hear a noise they shoot. Remember psycho Dick Cheney's little hunting accident?

Cheney's incident is totally unrelated to someone shooting at a shadow or moving bushes, though. No comparison at all, really. No reason to label Cheney as "psycho" over it, either.

[William Parcher]

Local Michigan resident researching Bigfoot phenomena (http://www.ogemawherald.com/detail/81529.html)


Phil Shaw of West Branch, who enjoys researching Bigfoot, said it is possible to see Bigfoot in the area because of the terrain, but that it’s not an everyday occurrence.

Shaw and his wife, Carol, believe they saw Bigfoot in 2006 while on vacation outside of Michigan.

"If you believe the anthropologists that have studied this, there's lots of history," Shaw said. "Lots of proof actually of sightings, footprint casts, handprints, footprints, hair analysis."

"If people are interested (I'll talk)," he continued. "I'm not ashamed about it. I'm retired, so I can keep my job."


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/fe9b643b.jpg

[Lusikka]

Anybody living near Old Hartford Castle in Illinois? There perhaps is some field investigation to do:

"This guard had always ridden his bicycle to work. He was riding-in one night to assume his late night shift, traveling along a lonely stretch of Poag Road that runs by Cahokia Creek which winds through the woods and crosses the old castle acreage---when he suddenly found himself face to face with a 9 or 10 foot tall hairy manlike creature standing on the side of the road. This thing let out a blood-curdling howl just as this guy almost ran right into him. I guess it's a miracle that the guard didn't fall off his bicycle! He somehow continued to manage to peddle his vehicle---and a lot faster then. He raced on until he reached the guard gate, and in an extremely agitated state told the man he was relieving all about his encounter. This man, simply not believing his story, laughed at him, telling him he was full of sh**!

As fate would have it, on the next night this man who had made fun of the first guy's fantastic tale of a Bigfoot encouner had his chance to reconsider the wisdom of his ridicule. During his shift a Bigfoot came and stood directly across the road from the guard gate and vented a hideous howl at him. It would have been poetic justice had he actually messed in his pants, considering the ugly thing he had said to the other guard. And for all we know this did happen as he was so shattered by what he witnessed that he quit his job the next day.

Postscript : My friend who found the huge footprints all around the moat area of the castle ruins tried to talk to the guard who had had the encounter on his bicycle, but this man refused to talk to him and, in fact, said he didn't ever want to talk to anybody about it again."

In the Examiner (certainly a yellow newspaper) July 4.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3340-Memphis-UFO-Examiner~y2009m7d4-Recent-BigFoot-enconters-in-the-dark-environs-of-Old-Hartford-Castle

I suspect the case is easy to debunk. But, after all, it would be interesting to know what really happened there. At least the writer claims that someone quit his job, that is easy to verify.

[zerospeaks]

I grew up in alabama, a remote part of it to say the least.

When I was 19 I married a little girl and we got a house near the Warrior River, out in the middle of nowhere.

I was driving home one night down the long and windy road towards the house when suddenly I saw some big and hairy and it was standing up on two legs. and it was looking at me as I drove by. I can't post links yet, but if you go to pinthemap / 15e51b2cf31261d9e you can see I put the exact location where I saw this thing.

Now, I was scared to death! My first thought (as I was hitting the gas to get out of there) was "I can't believe bigfoot is freaking real!".

I told my father-in-law at the time what happened and he said I saw a bear scratching his back on a tree, and that he had seen that two. Now it should be known that bear's in those parts are extremely rare but not unheard of.

Now, I did not believe him and I argued with him forever, I knew that it was NOT a bear! I had seen bigfoot with my own eyes and that was all the proof I ever needed.

6 months later or so, we were outside working on clearing some land when I saw a bear in the distance scratching his back on a tree. I knew at once that I had fooled myself. I never saw bigfoot, I saw this bear (probably the same one, since they are so rare there) and I felt foolish.

So from now on, I need a dead bigfoot in the hands of the authorities before I will even consider believing in bigfoot.

[William Parcher]

the long and windy road

...that leads to your door, will never disappear. :)

[Greg_in_CO]

I've seen one while playing Little Big(foot) Planet:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25856419@N00/2851011026/

[JcR]

Yes! I had had a very close encounter many years ago to. To think "it" (Bigfoot) could actually fool me.
It stayed very still. I'm sure it was holding it's breath to, as I strolled on by. Down that wooded path, my remote backwoods, my home. I know all the bushes and foliage here... Like the back of my hand.
If you're so inclined to share my woods, I'll see you in there. A creature of feather using a branch as a rest stop, or you slither through my grass, I'll see you in there...
I'm sure this Bigfoot thought his effort to conceal itself was good enough, maybe I just caught him off guard that morning. I guess we can all have our bad days.
Even the elusive lifestyle that Bigfoot has carefully structured over the years, may have a few faltering moments. This Bigfoot could have been from another region I suspect, not being familiar to this new surrounding, and just didn't adapt in a sufficient time or manner... I still think he didn't expect to have the likes of me stumble on by, and it's quick tweaks and adjustments were either too late, or simply malfunctioned. I don't really know to this day. This Bigfoot may feel he had "one" on me that day, and I'm sure I had no Chokecherry bushes.

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/Bf-chokecherry.jpg

[William Parcher]

Got him!

[William Parcher]

Kitakaze, why did you have to let this young Bigfoot get drunk? What were you thinking? And there you are taking his picture. You told me that you were gonna keep him in good shape before selling him to Tom Biscardi. I see you found a plumber to help the poor thing. What do you think he is going to do? Roto-Rooter him out, or pour in some Drano? WTF?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9e3d2bc7.jpg

[wicked_ways]

Got him!

William, certainly you jest!
you are just trying to tear my prying eyes away from the big horn sheep in the top middle of the photograph.
my super powers are too great for you!
(or i need a bifocal adjustment) ;)

seriously, can anyone make out the elusive big horn?

[William Parcher]

seriously, can anyone make out the elusive big horn?

I see him. King of the Rockies!

[wicked_ways]

I see him. King of the Rockies!

now, the only thing left to do is to go out and try to photograph the bighorn sheep.

while doing that, you will get the bigfoot who will think you a trying to capture the king of the rockies, and not escape to another dimension!

voila! the evidence!

:duck:

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze, why did you have to let this young Bigfoot get drunk? What were you thinking? And there you are taking his picture. You told me that you were gonna keep him in good shape before selling him to Tom Biscardi. I see you found a plumber to help the poor thing. What do you think he is going to do? Roto-Rooter him out, or pour in some Drano? WTF?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9e3d2bc7.jpg

:D

There were no instructions included in the empty freezer I got him in that I bought on ebay so I gave him an old Stones t-shirt and fed him peanut butter and jagermeister. That's what's on the wall there. Poor little fella. It didn't work out so I sent him somewhere where he could be with his own kind...

0v7xORkoQMU

[HarryHenderson]

:D I smoked for 27 years and I don't think I've ever seen anyone or anything look that cool smoking. Too funny!

[makaya325]

Does littlefoot have the Good Hodgkins?

[kitakaze]

:D I smoked for 27 years and I don't think I've ever seen anyone or anything look that cool smoking. Too funny!

One question - who gave the monkey a light?

[JcR]

Bigfoot Doesn't travel alone. It seems Bigfoot travels with some friends. Could be they just got caught up in Bigfoot's finely twined social fabric, and just tagged along, not wanting to miss out. Who wouldn't want to miss out on the life and times of Bigfoot. Thinking of all the elusive fun a Bigfoot could have. I still don't think this one wanted anything to do with me. I guess our two worlds will never meet. Like that favorite fishing spot that you never share, keeping it to yourself. The "exclusive enjoyment" alone, between you and the elements, the woods, the fresh air, and the fish that flow through these clear waters. Water, without thought, finding the easy passage. Even a Bigfoot.

Before and after...I didn't even need to bring my shovel.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/BeforeAfter-BF-Chokecherry.gif

[wicked_ways]

Bigfoot Doesn't travel alone. It seems Bigfoot travels with some friends. Could be they just got caught up in Bigfoot's finely twined social fabric, and just tagged along, not wanting to miss out. Who wouldn't want to miss out on the life and times of Bigfoot. Thinking of all the elusive fun a Bigfoot could have. I still don't think this one wanted anything to do with me. I guess our two worlds will never meet. Like that favorite fishing spot that you never share, keeping it to yourself. The "exclusive enjoyment" alone, between you and the elements, the woods, the fresh air, and the fish that flow through these clear waters. Water, without thought, finding the easy passage. Even a Bigfoot.

Before and after...I didn't even need to bring my shovel.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/BeforeAfter-BF-Chokecherry.gif

but the elusive big horn sheep! he disappears with the Bigfoot bush?
so, sad, yet just like a bigfoot. :)

[William Parcher]

Well, Jon Larsen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27216) sees them in Patagonia, Arizona. Really big ones. He's been a member of BFF for 7 years. Member #37 to be exact. If they thought he was a hoaxer they would have canned him long ago, right?


I've seen one 10 footer but it wasn't really as tall as a typical mature adult male gets to be. I consider 11-12 feet tall about average for mature males. I've seen 13.5 footers. I've also seen 7 footers.

For those who like to do experiments: Figure out how tall a sasquatch has to be to step over a 5 strand barbed-wire fence that is breast-bone high on a 5-8 tall man without leaving valuable body parts there. No hands allowed just "whomp, whomp, whomp" over the fence and keep walking. One of the animals which I saw was walking up-hill and stepped over the fence described, didn't slow down and didn't leave any hair or anything else hanging on the fence.

[makaya325]

Well, Jon Larsen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27216) sees them in Patagonia, Arizona. Really big ones. He's been a member of BFF for 7 years. Member #37 to be exact. If they thought he was a hoaxer they would have canned him long ago, right?

Ever consider the possibility that that is exactly what he saw?

I know, this is an irrelevant post, but the above is a second path many of you guys do not consider following.

[mikeyx]

Ever consider the possibility that that is exactly what he saw?

I know, this is an irrelevant post, but the above is a second path many of you guys do not consider following.

Then you admit that you've seen one? Interesting...

[makaya325]

Then you admit that you've seen one? Interesting...

Did I ever say that? Get YOUR facts straight.

[mikeyx]

Did I ever say that? Get YOUR facts straight.

Nope, you said it.....

[makaya325]

Nope, you said it.....

That i saw a bigfoot? Nope, i never have. If you think that i had said that, please, by all mean, point it out.

[mikeyx]

That i saw a bigfoot? Nope, i never have. If you think that i had said that, please, by all mean, point it out.

Seriously, you're gonna dodge this now? Nice...

[makaya325]

Seriously, you're gonna dodge this now? Nice...

What is there to dodge? Your non-existent evidence that i claimed to see bigfoot?

[mikeyx]

What is there to dodge? Your non-existent evidence that i claimed to see bigfoot?

Or you looking silly being trolled, just making a point.

:D

[makaya325]

Or you looking silly being trolled, just making a point.

:D

Please show me the post in which i have claimed to see bigfoot. It should not be too hard for you, since you are quite confident.

[mikeyx]

Please show me the post in which i have claimed to see bigfoot. It should not be too hard for you, since you are quite confident.

actually I ust made it quite clear I was merely poking you with a stick for sport, and you're trying (BADLY) to turn the tables, even if you didnt say you saw a bigfoot I now demand you prove that the critter doesn't exist. Not opinions, facts. do it, now.

:eye-poppi

[makaya325]

actually I ust made it quite clear I was merely poking you with a stick for sport, and you're trying (BADLY) to turn the tables, even if you didnt say you saw a bigfoot I now demand you prove that the critter doesn't exist. Not opinions, facts. do it, now.

You are kidding, right?

The burden of proof is not on me to prove it does not exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it does exist. By your logic, since Unicorns can not be proven to not exist, then they exist, right?

I may be considered a moron here, but even i know who the burden of proof is on!

I heard you say that you are a Bigfoot "enthusiast". What puts you in that camp?

[mikeyx]

You are kidding, right?

The burden of proof is not on me to prove it does not exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it does exist. By your logic, since Unicorns can not be proven to not exist, then they exist, right?

no, prove it doesnt

I may be considered a moron here, but even i know who the burden of proof is on!

I heard you say that you are a Bigfoot "enthusiast". What puts you in that camp?

that doesnt change your burden, you will answer, you cant seem to resist, so it cant possibly exist WHY?

[makaya325]

no, prove it doesnt

Prove to me unicorns dont exist. Go ahead!

Do you see the analogy with the unicorn and bigfoot here?




you will answer, you cant seem to resist, so it cant possibly exist WHY

Say wha?

[makaya325]

so it cant possibly exist WHY

May i have the honor to show you why it can not exist? If you say YES, then i will list all reasons why bigfoot can not exist.

[mikeyx]

May i have the honor to show you why it can not exist? If you say YES, then i will list all reasons why bigfoot can not exist.

bring it....

[makaya325]

bring it....

Very well then:

1. Every living organism, from Elephants to bacteria, leaves it own ecological impact on the environment. EX: a new predator is introduced into a large area full of deer. As time goes on, the deer population will start to decrease, due to the predator consuming them. Bigfoot, however, does not leave any ecological impact on its environment. There is no decrease in deer, elk, bear, plants, etc population, which you would expect if there was a breeding population of monstrous apes, which in reality there is no such thing.

2. Lack of remains- Every Animal, no matter how rare, has to leave remains behind. Scientists have no trouble finding a new species of insect in the remote, unaccessible areas of the Congo, yet no one can seem to find a population of hairy titans living in such close perimeters to people. The fact that nearly all of NA has been mapped and developed, yet not one finding of any large ape remains, makes the likelyhood of bigfoot plummet extremely low.

3. Lack of tools- If bigfoot has evaded man for all of these centuries, you would certainly expect tools and culture from such a smart species. The fact that bigfoot is never found, yet is described as smart as a bag of dirt, does not support consistency for it being a real species.

4. Every mammal, when giving birth, would be experiencing so much pain, which would make them scream their heads off. A sasquatch would require a huge voicebox, and if ever in a painful situation, its voice would certainly be heard for miles and miles.

5. Not all forests remote- Even the Dark, mysterious forests of the PNW are surveyed and mapped to death. Wildlife biologists and park rangers do travel great distances and cover so much land that any large species would be found by now.

6. Why so few sightings?- If this thing is real, it has to have an MVP (Minimum viable population) of around 4000. If this were the case, people would be running into these things daily, not once in every blue moon.

7. No consistent behavior- No one has ever reported seeing a bigfoot give birth, mate, or fight with each other, all of which you would see in a real population of a REAL species.

8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

9. Where the tracks lead to- A couple 1000 of these Hairy giants would certainly leave trackways behind. Don't you think that at least one trackway would lead you to your grand prize?

I am waiting, Mikey

[William Parcher]

These are what you have been calling Laws of Nature?

[makaya325]

These are what you have been calling Laws of Nature?

I guess you can look at it that way

[Tumbleweed]

Last of the Neanderthals hiding out in the vast forests of Siberia and Canada. And as an evolutionary tool for survival, natural selection favored the psychic ones. That's why you can never catch em! They know you are coming! Ever been to Bowron lakes wilderness in Northern BC? You can just feel the emptiness as you gaze north and east knowing you could travel for months in a straight line and not see a soul

[makaya325]

Last of the Neanderthals hiding out in the vast forests of Siberia and Canada.

Why not Canada and Alaska?

[makaya325]

The perfect theme music for bigfoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfO3szikvnI

[makaya325]

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6032

Yes, people actually do studies in the PNW forests

[Tumbleweed]

Why not Canada and Alaska?
Okay Alaska too. Wherever it is still somewhat ice age-ish, and human density is still low

[Tumbleweed]

Mabyev the Neandertthals were driven north by the Crog Magnons and American Indians. The end of the ice age at the same time enabled them to find a niche in areas newly melted out and colonized by plants and animals, but still too cold for farming or too remote for human hunter/ gatherers who were beginning to concentrate in villages or permanent camps. Perhaps they became so terrified of human contact because ethnic cleansing was practiced on them, that they avoided us at all costs, developing keen senses like those of a cougar to alert them to our presence. Cougars are quite common and yet VERY rarely seen in a wilderness setting. Just musing around, postulating on how Big Foot could possibly exist. Its the no body has ever been found that is the logic fly in the ointment. They dispose of their dead like we do?

[makaya325]

Mabyev the Neandertthals were driven north by the Crog Magnons and American Indians.

Unlikely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

According to the still-debated New World migration model, a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which allegedly connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The most recent point at which this migration could have taken place is c. 12,000 years ago,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found

[makaya325]

Okay Alaska too. Wherever it is still somewhat ice age-ish, and human density is still low

The problem is that no known species of great ape lives in cold environments. All known species live in tropical climates. So if bigfoot exists in the cold environments, then it is likely an offshoot of the Neanderthal.

[Akhenaten]

The problem is that no known species of great ape lives in cold environments. All known species live in tropical climates. So if bigfoot exists in the cold environments, then it is likely an offshoot of the Neanderthal.


Homo Sapiens is known to inhabit cold climates.

[makaya325]

Homo Sapiens is known to inhabit cold climates.

That is true, but i was referring to great ape species that generally prefer cold climates, and that number is: ZERO

[Akhenaten]

The problem is that no known species of great ape lives in cold environments. All known species live in tropical climates. So if bigfoot exists in the cold environments, then it is likely an offshoot of the Neanderthal.






Homo Sapiens is known to inhabit cold climates.





That is true, but i was referring to great ape species that generally prefer cold climates, and that number is: ZERO





Fail

[EHocking]

That is true, but i was referring to great ape species that generally prefer cold climates, and that number is: ZEROPlease, please, PLEASE, start checking your facts before spouting your ill-informed opinion as absolutes.

[makaya325]

Fail

Ahh, you forgot to read what i wrote AFTER that

[makaya325]

Please, please, PLEASE, start checking your facts before spouting your ill-informed opinion as absolutes.

That is a fact, though. There are no known species of great ape that prefer colder climates over tropical climates( Except Japanese Macaque's)

[EHocking]

That is a fact, though. There are no known species of great ape that prefer colder climates over tropical climatesAverage temp in Volcanoes National Park - 9.6degC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanoes_National_Park#Facts). Fail.( Except Japanese Macaque's)Macaques are not great apes. Fail.

[makaya325]

6Macaques are not great apes.

i know that. They are monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_primates#Habitat_and_distribution

Some species are partially terrestrial, such as baboons and Patas Monkeys, and a few species are fully terrestrial, such as Geladas and Humans. Non-human primates live in a diverse number of forested habitats in the tropical latitudes of Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and South America, including rainforests, mangrove forests, and montane forests. There are some examples of non-human primates that live outside of the tropics; the mountain-dwelling Japanese Macaque lives in the north of Honshū where there is snow-cover eight months of the year; the Barbary Macaque lives in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria and Morocco. Primate habitats span a range of altitudes: the Black Snub-nosed Monkey has been found living in the Hengduan Mountains at altitudes of 4,700 meters (15,400 ft),[92] the Mountain Gorilla can be found at 4,200 meters (13,200 ft) crossing the Virunga Mountains,[93] and the Gelada has been found at elevations of up to 5,000 meters (16,400 ft) in the Ethiopian Highlands. Although most species are generally shy of water, a few are good swimmers and are comfortable in swamps and watery areas, including the Proboscis Monkey, De Brazza's Monkey and Allen's Swamp Monkey, which has developed small webbing between its fingers. Some primates, such as the Rhesus Macaque and gray langurs, can exploit human-modified environments and even live in cities.[70][94]

[makaya325]

Average temp in Volcanoes National Park - 9.6degC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanoes_National_Park#Facts).

That may be so, however, Gorillas prefer the warmer, moist areas.

[William Parcher]

That may be so, however, Gorillas prefer the warmer, moist areas.

But because they suck at long distance walking, they stay up on the mountain. They have little chats with each other like, "I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna go down there. I know it's paradise." But they never do. They set-up therapy sessions because they sometimes suffer from not getting what they desire.

[makaya325]

But because they suck at long distance walking, they stay up on the mountain. They have little chats with each other like, "I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna go down there. I know it's paradise." But they never do. They set-up therapy sessions because they sometimes suffer from not getting what they desire.

So, just because Gorillas lack the stamina to travel certain distances, does not mean that we should reconsider their type of environmental perks. :p

[William Parcher]

Unfortunately, mikeyx set you up to derail this thread with your Laws of Nature list. Please take it somewhere else or start a new thread.

Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[makaya325]

Unfortunately, mikeyx set you up to derail this thread with your Laws of Nature list. Please take it somewhere else or start a new thread.

I can not move my post.

[William Parcher]

Take it somewhere else = begin the topic anew in an appropriate thread. You can then place a link leading to this page with something like "here is where this topic/conversation started".

[makaya325]

Take it somewhere else = begin the topic anew in an appropriate thread.

Wait, Im confused. How do i begin a new topic in a thread? Would not that be considered derailing?

[William Parcher]

Instead of making even more posts to explain this - I did it for you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71572&page=31).

No need to make another post here to thank me either.

[RayG]

Wait, Im confused. How do i begin a new topic in a thread? Would not that be considered derailing?

Mak, I fear you are going to make my head explode...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2324a1f0cf92e169.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16531)

RayG

[EHocking]

i know that. They are monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_primates#Habitat_and_distribution
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/26614a7473561c161.gif

[EHocking]

Average temp in Volcanoes National Park - 9.6degC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanoes_National_Park#Facts).That may be so, however, Gorillas prefer the warmer, moist areas.WHERE do you think Mountain Gorillas hang?
WHY do you think I quoted the average temperature of these PARTICULAR mountains.

Yeesh.

[Tumbleweed]

[quote=makaya325;4959751]Very well then:

1. Every living organism, from Elephants to bacteria, leaves it own ecological impact on the environment. EX: a new predator is introduced into a large area full of deer. As time goes on, the deer population will start to decrease, due to the predator consuming them. Bigfoot, however, does not leave any ecological impact on its environment. There is no decrease in deer, elk, bear, plants, etc population, which you would expect if there was a breeding population of monstrous apes, which in reality there is no such thing.

But would wandering small hunter/ gatherer groups leave that much impact in the far northern reaches of Canada. Did the Indians deplete the buffalo?

2. Lack of remains- Every Animal, no matter how rare, has to leave remains behind. Scientists have no trouble finding a new species of insect in the remote, unaccessible areas of the Congo, yet no one can seem to find a population of hairy titans living in such close perimeters to people. The fact that nearly all of NA has been mapped and developed, yet not one finding of any large ape remains, makes the likelyhood of bigfoot plummet extremely low.

But if they buried, burned or even ate their dead, that would make the likelhood of finding remains of small tribes slim

3. Lack of tools- If bigfoot has evaded man for all of these centuries, you would certainly expect tools and culture from such a smart species. The fact that bigfoot is never found, yet is described as smart as a bag of dirt, does not support consistency for it being a real species.

Maybe for some reason they are terrified out of their wits of man and avoid him at all costs. Do apes have tools and "cities"? Its not hard to elude man. Its his dogs that are hard to hide from. Ask Mr Cougar

4. Every mammal, when giving birth, would be experiencing so much pain, which would make them scream their heads off. A sasquatch would require a huge voicebox, and if ever in a painful situation, its voice would certainly be heard for miles and miles.

Aw come on

5. Not all forests remote- Even the Dark, mysterious forests of the PNW are surveyed and mapped to death. Wildlife biologists and park rangers do travel great distances and cover so much land that any large species would be found by now.

Valid point - for the PNW, but not the Yukon NWT and the area around Hudson Bay. Siberia as well

6. Why so few sightings?- If this thing is real, it has to have an MVP (Minimum viable population) of around 4000. If this were the case, people would be running into these things daily, not once in every blue moon.

See above answer

7. No consistent behavior- No one has ever reported seeing a bigfoot give birth, mate, or fight with each other, all of which you would see in a real population of a REAL species.

8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

Most of the sightings, if not all, in the lower 48 are hoaxes. They don't count. And really? They have been reported in Hawaii??

9. Where the tracks lead to- A couple 1000 of these Hairy giants would certainly leave trackways behind. Don't you think that at least one trackway would lead you to your grand prize?

Again it depends on how remote the place is. It would be difficult to find tracks in, say the Northwest Territories becuse the only people who visit there are fishermen not looking to bag a bigfoot and possible Bigfoot hoaxers. No scientists looking for Bigfoot as far as I know
All that being said. Bigfoot will have to remain a myth until definitive scientific proof is shown.

[FFed]

Ever been to Bowron lakes wilderness in Northern BC? You can just feel the emptiness as you gaze north and east knowing you could travel for months in a straight line and not see a soul

Highway 16 is only about 40-50kms away so I don't know about months without seeing anyone.
Bowron Lakes Provincial Park (in central BC) is full of people. So many that BC Parks has to limit the number of people they give passes to. As an ex-BC back country Park Ranger, I can tell you that the back country is full of people. You may not see many when you are a hiker or camper, but when it is your job to find people, they are everywhere.

[Tumbleweed]

Highway 16 is only about 40-50kms away so I don't know about months without seeing anyone.
Bowron Lakes Provincial Park (in central BC) is full of people. So many that BC Parks has to limit the number of people they give passes to. As an ex-BC back country Park Ranger, I can tell you that the back country is full of people. You may not see many when you are a hiker or camper, but when it is your job to find people, they are everywhere.

Well sure, Bowron Lakes is well used , but how about going nne 50 miles or 1000. Even Northern BC is sparsely populated, and NWT Yukon and the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario are as empty as the Amazon. Sure there are a few "towns" of 50 - 500 people and roads linking them, but for the most part there are few permanent residents flung far and wide. Like Alaska the long hard winter discourages all but the stubborn -- and the last of the Neaderthals!

[Tumbleweed]

Lazy scientists are just waiting around for a big game hunter to bag one and bring the remains to them for dissection. Until then, it's ALL anecdotal

[Tumbleweed]

Enlist Bear Grylls of Man Against Wild. If ANBODY could find him that dude could. Just dump him by parachute into prime Saquatch real estate and see what gives

[Spektator]

Very well then:
(snip)
8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

Most of the sightings, if not all, in the lower 48 are hoaxes. They don't count. And really? They have been reported in Hawaii??
(snip)

Yes, they have been reported in Hawaii. (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/aikanaka.htm) The Hawaiian brand is eight feet tall and wears a loincloth....

[makaya325]

Yes, they have been reported in Hawaii. (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/aikanaka.htm) The Hawaiian brand is eight feet tall and wears a loincloth....

The big question is: Did the Hawaiian bigfoot steal the Letterman jacket?;)

[makaya325]

Enlist Bear Grylls of Man Against Wild. If ANBODY could find him that dude could. Just dump him by parachute into prime Saquatch real estate and see what gives

I hope you know that is just television..in other words..ENTERTAINMENT, not reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Grylls#Criticism



Man vs. Wild / Born Survivor has been criticized for fabricating some of the situations Grylls finds himself in. In 2006 it was revealed that Born Survivor misled viewers into believing that Grylls was stranded in the wild alone when he was not and Channel 4 suspended the show for a few weeks.[29] The issue of scenes being manipulated was raised by Mark Weinert, a U.S. survival consultant. He told the UK's Sunday Times that Grylls spent nights in a motel in Hawaii when he was claiming to be stranded on a desert island. Mr Weinert also alleged that a raft was put together by team members before being taken apart so Grylls could be filmed building it.[30]

Grylls was shown trying to ride "wild" horses that were in fact tame, and had been hired from a trekking station nearby.
That Grylls had drank his own urine while "stranded" in a desert.
A scene where Grylls was purported to have escaped from an active volcano by leaping across lava, avoiding poisonous sulphur dioxide gas, was actually created with special effects, using hot coal and smoke machines.
Similarly, it was revealed that Grylls stayed at a crew base-camp in the Costa Rican jungle, while giving viewers the impression that he was alone.
There have been several other incidents, including the impression Grylls built a raft "in a matter of hours with no tools". According to an adviser on the show, the raft was actually in part built by a stunt consultant.
This episode implied it was filmed on a small South Pacific island, which Channel 4 admitted was actually a peninsula in Hawaii, the scene of Hollywood movie shoots.
These incidents were confirmed by Channel 4, who argued that it was not a documentary, but a "how-to" guide to survival, implying that staged scenes were acceptable in that context.[31][32][33][34] Discovery and Channel 4 aired re-edited episodes, removing elements that were too planned, with a fresh voice-over and a preceding announcement pointing out that some situations are "presented to Bear to show the viewer how to survive".

Survivalist Ray Mears has labelled Grylls a "boy scout" and a "showman" who uses TV trickery on his programme Born Survivor,[18] although one columnist pointed out that these accusations coincided with the start of one of Mears' shows on BBC2.[35]

[mikeyx]

Very well then:

1. Every living organism, from Elephants to bacteria, leaves it own ecological impact on the environment. EX: a new predator is introduced into a large area full of deer. As time goes on, the deer population will start to decrease, due to the predator consuming them. Bigfoot, however, does not leave any ecological impact on its environment. There is no decrease in deer, elk, bear, plants, etc population, which you would expect if there was a breeding population of monstrous apes, which in reality there is no such thing.

2. Lack of remains- Every Animal, no matter how rare, has to leave remains behind. Scientists have no trouble finding a new species of insect in the remote, unaccessible areas of the Congo, yet no one can seem to find a population of hairy titans living in such close perimeters to people. The fact that nearly all of NA has been mapped and developed, yet not one finding of any large ape remains, makes the likelyhood of bigfoot plummet extremely low.

3. Lack of tools- If bigfoot has evaded man for all of these centuries, you would certainly expect tools and culture from such a smart species. The fact that bigfoot is never found, yet is described as smart as a bag of dirt, does not support consistency for it being a real species.

4. Every mammal, when giving birth, would be experiencing so much pain, which would make them scream their heads off. A sasquatch would require a huge voicebox, and if ever in a painful situation, its voice would certainly be heard for miles and miles.

5. Not all forests remote- Even the Dark, mysterious forests of the PNW are surveyed and mapped to death. Wildlife biologists and park rangers do travel great distances and cover so much land that any large species would be found by now.

6. Why so few sightings?- If this thing is real, it has to have an MVP (Minimum viable population) of around 4000. If this were the case, people would be running into these things daily, not once in every blue moon.

7. No consistent behavior- No one has ever reported seeing a bigfoot give birth, mate, or fight with each other, all of which you would see in a real population of a REAL species.

8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

9. Where the tracks lead to- A couple 1000 of these Hairy giants would certainly leave trackways behind. Don't you think that at least one trackway would lead you to your grand prize?

I am waiting, Mikey

you post pointless opinions, no facts

we're done here

[mikeyx]

That is true, but i was referring to great ape species that generally prefer cold climates, and that number is: ZERO

you assume its an ape not a proto human or something else.

[Jungle Jim]

you assume its an ape not a proto human or something else.

Just curious, but what might "something else" be?

[makaya325]

you post pointless opinions, no facts

we're done here

Could it be that you can not come up with rebuttals for each one, and feel insecure?

[mikeyx]

Just curious, but what might "something else" be?

thats kinda the mystery isnt it, no I dont think its a paranormal something something

[mikeyx]

Could it be that you can not come up with rebuttals for each one, and feel insecure?

You're not worth rebutting, you post opinions as though they're facts and prove rather tiresome. At least with kit and the others the conversation is interesting, you, I am just poking with the proverbial stick. Now know your role and do as you were told.