[Merged] Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one? [Archive] - Page 9

atpeace

21st January 2010, 12:57 AM

I jotted down five things that must be overcome, if someone is to believe in Bigfoot.

1. Bigfoot is a HUGE, GIGANTIC, (Most claim 8-9 feet tall) Beast, yet it is still not classified.

2. Bigfoot is elusive, yet howls/screams menacingly at researchers, week after week, year after year. Yet it is still not classified.
2A. The elusive Bigfoot chucks: Rocks, pinecones, dead voles at researchers, it bangs on trees within a few feet of researchers. Yet it is still not classified.
2B. The elusive Bigfoot walks on open hillsides in broad daylight, in front of 90+ onlookers, it casually strolls away, while armed horseback riders approach it. Yet it is still not classified.

3. Bigfoot lives in places such as; Salt Fork State Park, the Swampy peripherals of Florida, The semi-rural farm fields of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the highway rest-areas of Washington, and the suburban driveways/fields of New Jersey, Yet it is still not classified.

4. Many Bigfoot hair and fecal samples have been gathered by researchers, with accompanying reports of their authenticity, Yet it is still not classified.

5. Many perfectly sane, non-medicated, non-lying, non-hoaxing individuals have reported sightings, with each report being investigated by a competent, relevently trained expert, Yet it is still not classified.

Please add more if you can.

On tv last night, on a [side]show I refuse to mention, Tim Farmer from the Kentucky Dept of Fish and Wildlife says there are probably "tens of thousands" of trail cams in Kentucky. Someone else on this show said he has been placing cameras for the last 10 years! Yet, it is still not classified.
ap

kitakaze

21st January 2010, 01:28 AM

On tv last night, on a [side]show I refuse to mention, Tim Farmer from the Kentucky Dept of Fish and Wildlife says there are probably "tens of thousands" of trail cams in Kentucky. Someone else on this show said he has been placing cameras for the last 10 years! Yet, it is still not classified.
ap

Here is what you're talking about at 1:04...

gRRHWsfCz5w

JcR

21st January 2010, 04:04 AM

Bigfoot is a bird. It can fly, but can't poop.

atpeace

21st January 2010, 06:40 AM

Kitakaze, thanks for posting the youtube vid and editing your post for those of us (moi) slow on the upswing:o
ap

William Parcher

21st January 2010, 09:45 AM

Seein' em in Kentucky (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28535&st=66&start=66)

Yes...I did see this creature in my garage. On this night I woke around 2am hearing something in my garage which is located right next to my bedroom wall. It sounded to me like a person going through my tools. Maybe picking though all my cheap tools looking for the nicer ones. After hearing this go on for a few mins, I decided to creep to the backdoor and try to peek into the garage to catch whoever it was. What I seen looked to me like a very large man-like creature. I didnt at first call it a bigfoot, but I couldn't think of any thing else that it resembled. It was a bigfoot is all I can say. No.. I cant prove it...

The lake situation... The woman whi I spoke with has heard whatever this thing is tearing her dogs apart. even mentioned that she thought that the last thing she heard from her dog that night was what sounded to her like the dogs groan as it was being thrown! She said that the grown seemed to be moving away fast.

Drewbot

21st January 2010, 12:37 PM

kitakaze

21st January 2010, 05:26 PM

Frog disabling... :frogsat: :mallet: :melting

idoubtit

21st January 2010, 06:17 PM

The folk tale of Bigfoot, regionalized to Kentucky.

The myth is perpetuated by the same type of people that perpetuate the Dogman in Wisconsin, the Chupacabra in Peurto Rico, the Mothman in New Jersey...

Nobody remembers the story unless you throw in Pig tossing, or goatsucking, or Dogswitching, or Infrasound.

Dogman is in Michigan. Apparently, he is more wolflike in WI.
Mothman is in W. Virginia. Jersey Devil is in NJ. I can understand your confusion.

LTC8K6

21st January 2010, 07:03 PM

Sasquatch is eating dogs now?

No wonder they won't track one...

kitakaze

21st January 2010, 08:06 PM

Dogman is in Michigan. Apparently, he is more wolflike in WI.
Mothman is in W. Virginia. Jersey Devil is in NJ. I can understand your confusion.

Don't forget Boogers (http://www.times-herald.com/local/Bigfoot-researchers-pick-up-on-Booger-916515) are found in Georgia and occasionally in your nose.

According to the article, having children around will increase your chances of sighting a Booger, which let me tell you, that's really true.

William Parcher

21st January 2010, 09:11 PM

The folk tale of Bigfoot, regionalized to Kentucky.

These people have now got a whole sophisticated website with cameras looking at the surroundings 24/7. Yeah this is the guy who had the Bigfoot rummaging around in his garage.

The Kentucky Live Research Project (http://theklrp.ning.com/)

They even have a fancy logo. Look what the Michigan Recording Project could have been.

HarryHenderson

22nd January 2010, 12:10 AM

With that site the main thing that always worried me to death was the question 'can everyone there be friends'. I now see the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Seems they're so caught up in it all they even make public announcements of the various 'unions'. I guess it does eliminate that sometimes awkward 'are you friends with or are you friends with' inquisition you sometimes get when you're just trying to get a quick hook-up for the night, and stuff. I mean, since it's all right there for...everyone...to see.

No ****!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285184b594af1612f7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18796)

atpeace

22nd January 2010, 02:09 AM

With that site the main thing that always worried me to death was the question 'can everyone there be friends'. I now see the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Seems they're so caught up in it all they even make public announcements of the various 'unions'. I guess it does eliminate that sometimes awkward 'are you friends with or are you friends with' inquisition you sometimes get when you're just trying to get a quick hook-up for the night, and stuff. I mean, since it's all right there for...everyone...to see.

No ****!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285184b594af1612f7.jpg

kinda makes you feel sorry for the unnamed guy "and 1 more joined TheKLRP.com"

She/He must be a lab tech, mainstream scientist or wildlife expert. They tend to have no names.

But was the unknown animal "bigger than ANY known animal?" That's what I want to know?!

http://twitter.com/theklrp/statuses/5974286158

ap

JcR

22nd January 2010, 06:35 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b59a8ae21431.jpg
Hinterland Who's Who
For a more complete story of the Bigfoot why not contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa.

Drewbot

22nd January 2010, 07:09 AM

These people have now got a whole sophisticated website with cameras looking at the surroundings 24/7. Yeah this is the guy who had the Bigfoot rummaging around in his garage.

The Kentucky Live Research Project (http://theklrp.ning.com/)

They even have a fancy logo. Look what the Michigan Recording Project could have been.

Parcher, last year, there was a Kentucky Bigfoot Live Web Feed, it was actually started up by the MABRC and Darkwing if I remember correctly, The people involved seemed very Bulletmaker-like. I also believe that MABRC got thrown off the project, and ended up trying to set up a Bulletmaker Live Feed. I believe this is also about the time that MABRC and Bulletmaker had the falling out. Can someone verify if this is the same Kentucky Bigfoot house/camera set up? Melissa Hovey was involved in the KY project if I remember correctly.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=737&view=&hl=kentucky&fromsearch=1
Here is the old KY bigfoot, but the links to the live feed don't work. Bill Green did see a White Bigfoot however on one of the live feeds.

William Parcher

22nd January 2010, 09:36 AM

Can someone verify if this is the same Kentucky Bigfoot house/camera set up? Melissa Hovey was involved in the KY project if I remember correctly.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=737&view=&hl=kentucky&fromsearch=1
Here is the old KY bigfoot, but the links to the live feed don't work. Bill Green did see a White Bigfoot however on one of the live feeds.

It is the same. The Kentucky Incident Blog (http://livingwithsasquatch.blogspot.com/). Web address is "livingwithsasquatch" LOL.

The Shrike

22nd January 2010, 12:10 PM

It is the same. The Kentucky Incident Blog (http://livingwithsasquatch.blogspot.com/). Web address is "livingwithsasquatch" LOL.

Some wacky crap there . . .

JcR

22nd January 2010, 03:54 PM

I think David Paulides (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrwV3XfwUZs&feature=related)? Talked about how trail cams may emit high frequencies that Bigfoots and other primates can detect and avoid.
Electronics can give off high frequencies... Well I quess that explains it all

Drewbot

25th January 2010, 01:13 PM

tsig

25th January 2010, 02:50 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f

1,500,000 deer in Wisconsin, 1 in 20,000 are albino, that means there are 75 Albino deer in Wisconsin. (figures from the attached video)

75 Deer, in a state the size of Wisconsin, and two dudes can fill a freaking book full of pictures, and put a 6 1/2 minute film in the can loaded with footage.

But Bigfoot, no uh uh.

Dude just driving down the road sees a flash of a white deer, gets his camera and captures it. Bigfootry has hundreds of people, looking all over the country, and they can't get one. Not even close.

That's because they haven't perfected the over the shoulder looking back camera.

BF hunters flee where no animal pursueth.

LuvGodzilla

25th January 2010, 04:06 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f)

Thanks for sharing that link on the Albino Deer of Wisconsin, they are beautiful :)

Now if only Bigfoots were Albino so we could find them in the woods like these deer ;) in the spring and summer.

I do have a picture of an albino wild turkey in a large group on a frost covered hill, only spotted it because it was moving (camera on full zoom).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b5e233a5c781.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18834)

GT/CS

25th January 2010, 04:19 PM

Thanks for sharing that link on the Albino Deer of Wisconsin, they are beautiful :)

Now if only Bigfoots were Albino so we could find them in the woods like these deer ;) in the spring and summer.

I do have a picture of an albino wild turkey in a large group on a frost covered hill, only spotted it because it was moving (camera on full zoom).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b5e233a5c781.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18834)

The tall one at the right side of the large flock looks like a hunched-over bigfoot. You may want to take a closer look at that!!!!!!

kitakaze

25th January 2010, 04:47 PM

Now if only Bigfoots were Albino so we could find them in the woods like these deer ;) in the spring and summer.

Look, look! Right down there! Can you see it?

YETTI WHITE BIGFOOT DEC.20/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5Nt4bvfSg)

Residents of this small Pa. town are concerned of recent sightings and strange noises being heard at night of what appears to be some sort of big foot human looking type creature. The creature though, is white in color. A homeowner captured this footage after they heard a disturbance in the back yard of their wooded property. This homeowner and others in this town had previously heard strange noises and disturbances for the last two weeks or so prior to this being captured on film.

atpeace

25th January 2010, 05:54 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f

1,500,000 deer in Wisconsin, 1 in 20,000 are albino, that means there are 75 Albino deer in Wisconsin. (figures from the attached video)

75 Deer, in a state the size of Wisconsin, and two dudes can fill a freaking book full of pictures, and put a 6 1/2 minute film in the can loaded with footage.

But Bigfoot, no uh uh.

Dude just driving down the road sees a flash of a white deer, gets his camera and captures it. Bigfootry has hundreds of people, looking all over the country, and they can't get one. Not even close.

When will proponents and (re)searchers realize what they are really doing is a phenomenal job of showing an extremely high probability that Bf does NOT exist.

Can one be a pathological optimist?

What does that say about Bf (re)searchers? That could be an eye opening list: Characteristics of a Bf (Re)searcher
ap

William Parcher

28th January 2010, 08:04 AM

Guys were seeing them in Vietnam?

BFF thread on Vietnam Rock Apes (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27726).

Now Coleman has a blog on the Rock Apes. (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/vn-rock-ape/)

Various quotes...

"During the night, a sentry spotted what he thought was a group of Viet Cong trying to get thru the perimeter defense wires. They opened up on them, only to find out that they had killed 12 'Rock Apes'. He swore that they were as big as a man and walked upright. Apparently, they were so common, it was no big deal to see them almost daily."

"My stepdad was in Vietnam and he’s very coherent, no PTSD or anything, and he’s told stories about them. He said they were very tall and I doubt they would mistake a wide, orange orangutan for a skinny vietnamese man. I think it’s pretty obvious they exist/ed."

"My grandfather Airforce Master Sargent Richard Duane Locke told me about these apes. He said they looked like old men. He also said a few times when they threw grenades and such the rock apes would throw them back. From what he tells me they were a common sight."

"He said something to the effect of, "You know what the worst thing about being on a patrol was? The damned rock apes. They’d jump out from anywhere and scare the hell out of everyone. Ya couldn’t shoot them because it would give away your position, so we just had to keep moving while they hurled branches, sticks and rocks at us.""

rayval68 talking about the 'Minnesota Iceman': "Heuvelmans guessed that the creature had been murdered in Vietnam during the war and smuggled into the United States in a 'body bag'."

LuvGodzilla

28th January 2010, 08:09 AM

Look, look! Right down there! Can you see it?

YETTI WHITE BIGFOOT DEC.20/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5Nt4bvfSg)

Creepy thing with black eye sockets? Looks alien to me, can't see anything Bigfooty about it ;)

Reminds me of this:

STRANGE ENTITY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRuz3JCW0L8)

I think this guy could be the one to investigate the Yetti White Bigfoot Dec.20/09. He's a specialist.

Jonny Dagger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaZ-xKcCgxc)

154

3rd February 2010, 01:08 AM

bob jackson Says:
April 9, 2008 at 5:43 AM
I’m sure others may have waited to tell what they “saw or heard” but its not my character to do so. I told friends and recorded in log books from the beginning …. just like I didn’t wait until I retired from govt. service to “whistle blow” on what was happening in Yellowstone.

I never saw the need to advertise to the outside world my sightings and sounds, not because I was concerned with others thinking I was a wacko… life was too short to inhibit , but because I was pretty encased in a Yellowstone backcountry world. I don’t know if this is why others with professions in the outdoors don’t “tell” of strange happenings but it was with me.

The word slowly got out and some people with interest in big foot would call me if they had the perseverance to wait till my months were up in the backcountry. They have been calling me off and on since the late “70’s. I guess the internet allows all this info to finally be pulled together and made available to everyone.

There was quite a bit of other first hand info on big foot expressed to me, by those using Yellowstones backcountry, until the fires of “88. After that it took till the late 90’s before the sounds and tracks came back.

Now does anyone want to know about blue lights moving in the mountains or “spot lights” from the sky lighting up a quarter mile area of mountain in front of one just like daytime with all the trees and rocks visible? One sees some fairly uncommon things while riding the trails at night.

bob jackson Says:
April 10, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Smoke, No blogs or anything like that.

My first “encounter” was on a ten day ski patrol in March ‘74. There were four of us and in skiing to Heart Lake we crossed fresh tracks in some fairly firm snow. They sunk in 8-12″ and were maybe 18″ long. They lifted fairly straight up so were walking tracks. The distance between tracks was as far as we could stretch our legs in ski stride.

The second time was summer in the Gallatin in the mid 70’s. I was riding off trail on upper Fan Creek and came upon Nine Quarter Circle’s Kelsey and a guide. Their dudes were fishing down stream a couple of miles and as outfitters do they were out riding the country. We were talking and hear a loud, continuing “sound” coming from a mile or so upstream in Stellaria Creek. It kept going for a long time. A half to one minute where there was no break in volume. No catching a breath or anything. Sounded like a thousand elk going to their death or kinda Tarzan like with a mechanical bent to it. I bet one could have heard it 2 miles away.

The third time was later that fall coming out of Sportsman Lake cabin. I was packing two horses and on a narrow and fairly steep, wooded hillside trail path. … high elevation with subalpine fir thickets in a 80 acre meadow below me 30-40 yards down the slope. All at once my horses started blowing and flaring their nostrils a lot and …. all trying to break away. This means griz except I looked to where they looked and there was just a little deer at the edge of one of the closest fir thickets (fifty yards away) that look like a really big tepee. Couldn’t be a bear because there wouldn’t be a deer there. Held tight rein to get a longer look, but knew the slope was too steep to keep the horses on the trail and not start sliding down hill …. or get wrapped up in each other. In about ten seconds all at once the deer bolted and instantly this bear fur like thing came running out the other end of this thicket. only it was running on two legs. Maybe 6 1/2′ or a bit taller. Arms swung like a Neanderthal movie type thing. Didn’t run real fast. Thickets were 40-75 yds. apart and this thing would hit these things for cover zig zagging in and out till it reached the deep woods on the edge of this meadow. Never saw a bear run in any but a straight line. As a crow flies it was probably no more than a mile or so from where Nine Quarter Circle and I heard the long-loud sound. Bet if I’d been there a couple of minutes later I would have seen a bigfoot eating that deer. Fourth time was in the mid eighties, I think. I was riding up to Howell Creek cabin at dark on Fall boundary patrol. Howell is in Thorofare country, the SE corner of the Park and 9000′ elevation. Heard the same sound again upsteam no more than 200 yards away. Timed it this time—28 seconds. Very loud and strong!! Could find no tracks in the morning but then again it wasn’t country to see many tracks. Such is life in the backcountry.

bob jackson Says:
April 12, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Norm, No, I have not heard recordings. And you guys were some of the very few to make it to this remote area of the Park.

I have had others describe the same sound. I always asked them to describe it before I related to them what I heard. Trail crew heard it once on Howell in the mid 90’s. A back packer in upper Lamar in the late 70’s 20’ from where he was sleeping in the woods (seasoned Yellowstone co. bus driver and avid back country user) an outfitter from Jackson hole (again Howell Ck.) and blister rust control crew in early ’70’s. Also trail crew of the early ’70’s. Both encountered “it” on Mt. Ck. And Howell Ck. Trail Crew was so spooked they packed horses up in the dark and rode 18 miles to Park point cabin on the Lake. Blister Rust crew kept lighting cherry bombs as they hustled ahead on foot. Blister Rust had come upon tracks right next to a freshly boned elk in the deep woods of Mt. Creek earlier that day to add to the suspense. Trail Crews was same day also. All hell broke loose that day I guess.

Two backpackers saw the footprints on Fish Hawk Pass (right South of Howell on upper Mt. Ck.) in the early 80’s.

All accounts I heard first hand. Lots of other accounts but second hand. I think it is kind of neat to have creatures out there…like griz and “this thing” that humbles us a bit.

http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/is-it-a-bear-or-bigfoot/

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/former_controversial_yellowstone_ranger_becomes_bi son_rancher/C38/L38/

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2002/Clifford/Clifford.html

Of course, somebody here needs to school Mr. Jackson. He couldn't possibly have seen what he claims to have seen and heard. We know better than that, and certainly better than him. The rocking in the saddle surely must have just got him hallucinating. What else could it be? Obviously...

William Parcher

3rd February 2010, 12:08 PM

Obviously...

...we got us another Bigfooter. You and Jackson have much in common. You both claim to have seen Bigfoot and yet cannot demonstrate that you actually did - let alone that the proposed creature even exists at all. You both have a "thang" now as well. The stories are fun to tell and hear and Bigfoot is a wonderful folktale.

Now does anyone want to know about blue lights moving in the mountains or “spot lights” from the sky lighting up a quarter mile area of mountain in front of one just like daytime with all the trees and rocks visible? One sees some fairly uncommon things while riding the trails at night.

Yes yes, tell us about the lights Uncle Bob. Tell us!

LTC8K6

3rd February 2010, 12:27 PM

You and Jackson saw bigfoot? Okay...

Too bad you didn't document it for science...

Vortigern99

3rd February 2010, 01:23 PM

Of course, somebody here needs to school Mr. Jackson.

Agreed. He needs to learn a little more about the known and documented human phenomena of hallucination (hypnagogic, hypnopompic, drug-induced, etc.), misperception, miscomprehension, misidentification, memory impermanence, intentional hoaxing, and lying. There are any number of books and websites dedicated to the description of each, so I cannot understand why he has not availed himself of these facts in order to better comprehend the world we all live in.

He couldn't possibly have seen what he claims to have seen and heard. We know better than that, and certainly better than him.

Disagreed. He could possibly have seen a 6 1/2-foot tall, two-legged "bear fur thing" that swung its "Neanderthal arms" while in pursuit of a deer.

The question is... what did he actually see? A man in a "bear fur" suit, perhaps, performing a willful and intentional hoax on the claimant? There is ample evidence that human beings sometimes hoax other human beings, after all -- sometimes with fur suits involved.

There is no concrete evidence, on the other hand, for the existence of a massive, stinking, noisy, bipedal wood ape that would require upwards of 8000 calories per day and which mysteriously leaves no scat, no bones, no fur, nor any trace of its passing that cannot be hoaxed or fabricated.

The rocking in the saddle surely must have just got him hallucinating. What else could it be? Obviously...

"Rocking in the saddle"? Do you mean from the horses "blowing and flaring their nostrils a lot and …. all trying to break away"? Hmmm. No, I doubt this would cause hallucination. Frantic equine behavior is not a known or studied cause of hallucination.

However, the claimant might be lying. We certainly have ample evidence of that charming facet of human behavior. Or he might simply be mistaken, a result of a misidentification on the spot combined with memory impermanence and a will to believe.

154

3rd February 2010, 08:11 PM

Or he might simply be mistaken, a result of a misidentification on the spot combined with memory impermanence and a will to believe.Or he might be giving a entirely accurate and truthful reporting of his observations of a rare and elusive creature.

I challenge you and Parcher to talk to him. His number is there in the blog link.

GT/CS

3rd February 2010, 08:13 PM

Or he might be giving a entirely accurate and truthful reporting of his observations of a rare and elusive creature.

I challenge you and Parcher to talk to him. His number is there in the blog link.

Why should they talk to him?

154

3rd February 2010, 08:15 PM

...we got us another Bigfooter. You and Jackson have much in common. You both claim to have seen Bigfoot and yet cannot demonstrate that you actually did - let alone that the proposed creature even exists at all. You both have a "thang" now as well. The stories are fun to tell and hear and Bigfoot is a wonderful folktale.What "thang" is that?

We both have spent far more time in remote wilderness than the vast majority of people, and he far more than I.

154

3rd February 2010, 08:24 PM

Why should they talk to him?

To ask him about pistachios...

GT/CS

3rd February 2010, 08:49 PM

To ask him about pistachios...

That would be a more usefull subject than an imaginary forest creature.

William Parcher

4th February 2010, 09:03 AM

What "thang" is that?

Both of you guys have Bigfoot encounter stories. That's the thang you got. You can use them to wow and entertain people.

We both have spent far more time in remote wilderness than the vast majority of people, and he far more than I.

There is simply no way to know if you are telling the truth about anything related to yourself. But besides that, what does spending time in the wilds have to do with telling Bigfoot stories? Do you find that it makes them more believable for the listener?

Vortigern99

4th February 2010, 11:39 AM

Or he might be giving a entirely accurate and truthful reporting of his observations of a rare and elusive creature.

Yes, he might be. That certainly is one possibility. But since this "rare and elusive", massive, stinking, noisy, bipedal wood ape, which according to testimony frequents populated areas and recreational parks, and attacks people with sticks and rocks, has left us not a shred of non-hoaxable evidence, despite thousands of game cams in existence in areas it supposedly frequents, decades of intensive searching by dedicated enthusiasts, and the fact that every other mammal species in North America has been catalogued, classified and examined, then you'll understand if I don't embrace his, yours, or any claimant's unsupported, unsupportable, eminently hoaxable stories.

Drewbot

4th February 2010, 12:26 PM

LuvGodzilla

4th February 2010, 05:46 PM

Jackson, a man who spent years in Yellowstone NP in remote locations looking for and confronting Poachers who also advocates for certain animal protections can't tell the difference between a common animal and an uncataloged animal or job stress (hallucinations?). There certainly must be some motivation for him to discuss his experiences.

I listened to Jackson tell his story. He witnessed tracks, heard vocalizations and witnessed once an animal he couldn't identify. He had discussions with other Park employee's and found that some had a similar story to tell as well.

What I don't understand is the reluctance to do what anyone in his position should do and that is get the Wildlife Biologists out there to identify this animal based on it's scat, hair samples, DNA, feeding habits etc,.

Yellowstone of all places where many species (some endangered) are studied should have had enough resources to follow up on reports from Park Employees, I highly doubt a conspiracy existed for any reluctance to do so. It sure makes one wonder how that didn't happen. If it were a Grizzly behaving in a fashion unknown to science wouldn't they be all over it.

I'm more interested in understanding this fellows story because in all the years he worked in the park, he only witnessed this once. Not the continued experiences other footers have. Especially in such remote conditions.

HarryHenderson

4th February 2010, 07:40 PM

How far the leap?;
To believe in the existence of this biological marvel; a beast so fast that it can outrun moving cars, a beast so stealthy that it cannot be catalogued, a beast so intelligent that it never stumbles on a rocky cliff, never wanders into a deer hunter's field of fire, never darts in front of game-cam, never meanders onto a military firing range, never curiosly approaches a bear hunters' bait-pile, a beast so clever that it avoids cars, trains and trucks without fail, a beast so dextrous that it can run-down ungulates, porpoise to capture salmon, a beast so strong that it can toss 200 pound pigs with ease, a beast so diverse that it can exist in the cold northern pine forests, the suburban driveways of middle America, the open Semi-Urban fields of New Jersey, or the swamps of Central Florida, a beast so biologically efficient that it can eat thousands of calories of food, without leaving any biological evidence of it's passing.
How far the leap?
Excellent Drew!

...I'm more interested in understanding this fellows story because in all the years he worked in the park, he only witnessed this once. Not the continued experiences other footers have. Especially in such remote conditions.
Meaning, so meager was his supposed exposure to 'Bigfoot' that there's just gotta be a more logical explanation...and you wanna know what it is?! ;) Akin to the notion that the vast majority of supposed 'Bigfoot sightings' last all of 5 seconds or less, and but rarely happen more than once to any one 'witness'?! That darn monster somehow makes everyone witness him the exact same way every time.

Say, maybe it's time that old school Bigfoot™ moniker be revised more towards the reality, Superfoot™. "So anways I sees this 16 foot tall Superfoot™ when I was goin' to Aintry..." Eh, kinda maybe.

LuvGodzilla

4th February 2010, 08:14 PM

Excellent Drew!

Meaning, so meager was his supposed exposure to 'Bigfoot' that there's just gotta be a more logical explanation...and you wanna know what it is?! ;) Akin to the notion that the vast majority of supposed 'Bigfoot sightings' last all of 5 seconds or less, and but rarely happen more than once to any one 'witness'?! That darn monster somehow makes everyone witness him the exact same way every time.

Say, maybe it's time that old school Bigfoot™ moniker be revised more towards the reality, Superfoot™. "So anways I sees this 16 foot tall Superfoot™ when I was goin' to Aintry..." Eh, kinda maybe.

No, not at all Harry. I'm interested in the motivation for his story. Here is a park employee that spent decades in the Park in remote areas and only had one visual per his own words. I'm much more interested in the human factor than the belief in the creature's existence.

Jackson had spoken with other park employee's and had heard stories from them. Did this knowledge create the willingness to see and hear: vocalizations, tracks and one sighting?

From Jackson's own words he spent a great deal of time remote from people and staking out/confronting poachers (dangerous job), he was also advocating for the Elk and Grizzlies protection on the parks boundaries so one would assume he was very familiar with the wildlife that is abundant in Yellowstone NP.

Because of his decades in the Park, why was there never any follow up by Wildlife Biologists to the experiences from Jackson and the other employee's he spoke to? I would determine that there was no follow up because there was nothing to follow up on in reality.

You have to be kidding Harry, the forums are full of people that claim multiple encounters, maybe not visuals, but encounters with the hairy beast on their weekend and mini expeditions. Heck, there is enough Bigfoot related internet radio shows almost every day of the week discussing the witnesses and their experiences. It truly is a study of Human behavior and present day folklore.

Bob Jackson had a unique opportunity to get science involved in researching employee claims in Yellowstone NP, it didn't happen. I guess Harry, I'd like to know why and it's rhetorical. ;)

HarryHenderson

4th February 2010, 09:52 PM

...You have to be kidding Harry, the forums are full of people that claim multiple encounters, maybe not visuals...It truly is a study of Human behavior and present day folklore.

Bob Jackson had a unique opportunity to get science involved in researching employee claims in Yellowstone NP, it didn't happen. I guess Harry, I'd like to know why and it's rhetorical. ;)
It's not just a study, it's a Bigfoot Claims Extravaganza. As to the why, well, Bob 'Ranger Smith' Jackson also thought he saw Yogi Bear stealing picnic baskets and we all know he's just a made-up cartoon character. Wait, I mean woodchuck, wait, how much wood...

William Parcher

4th February 2010, 10:01 PM

From Jackson's own words he spent a great deal of time remote from people and staking out/confronting poachers (dangerous job),

I wonder if poachers would shoot a Bigfoot. Man you could get a lot of money for one of those.

rockinkt

5th February 2010, 02:58 AM

bob jackson Says:
April 10, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Smoke, No blogs or anything like that.

My first “encounter” was on a ten day ski patrol in March ‘74. There were four of us and in skiing to Heart Lake we crossed fresh tracks in some fairly firm snow. They sunk in 8-12″ and were maybe 18″ long. They lifted fairly straight up so were walking tracks. The distance between tracks was as far as we could stretch our legs in ski stride.

Question:
Given the fact that they must have eliminated all the more mundane explanations for the tracks - why did they choose to ignore the perfect opportunity to track and find scat, hair, and maybe the beast itself?

Answer:
Because the description of the tracks they saw was exaggerated to make the story better; or, there was little evidence that the tracks were of something that did not have a normal explanation (animal bounding through the snow).

Drewbot

5th February 2010, 05:35 AM

I found evidence of a Dopple-Bigfoot in Clare County Michigan 2 weeks ago.

Obvious shape shifting, as the beast, in human form, transforms into a giant Bigfoot, and then back to human form, within 10 strides.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5760/foot2f.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/i/foot2f.jpg/)

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8858/foot1.jpg (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/foot1.jpg/)

LTC8K6

5th February 2010, 06:06 AM

I wonder if poachers would shoot a Bigfoot. Man you could get a lot of money for one of those.

How would you get the body away from the MIB?

William Parcher

5th February 2010, 10:43 AM

There is a new thread (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28711) over on BFF that is kind of "soul searching" for the identity of their forum.

Teresa says something I've seen before...

Wherever you have skeptics and proponents of a subject come together you're going to have some lively conversations, sometimes too lively. Where am I going with this post? I don't think the forum is dying, I don't think it's on its way to oblivion. It still has a great purpose for those who research, for enthusiasts, and for the skeptics who keep us all honest.

For the skeptics who keep us all honest. Yeah, I've seen that same phrase used there before and it just gets a nod of approval. But what does it really mean? Does it really mean that if skeptics arean't around the default would be for Bigfoot believers to be dishonest? We are going to tell lies unless you stop us?

Drewbot

5th February 2010, 02:08 PM

There is a new thread (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28711) over on BFF that is kind of "soul searching" for the identity of their forum.

Teresa says something I've seen before...

For the skeptics who keep us all honest. Yeah, I've seen that same phrase used there before and it just gets a nod of approval. But what does it really mean? Does it really mean that if skeptics arean't around the default would be for Bigfoot believers to be dishonest? We are going to tell lies unless you stop us?

That is funny, because they make a point to get rid of the skeptics who keep them honest. It's much for fun for footers to have back-patting and 'bravos' than face-palming and laughter.

GT/CS

5th February 2010, 02:49 PM

tsig

5th February 2010, 03:33 PM

You and Jackson saw bigfoot? Okay...

Too bad you didn't document it for science...

BF is so scary that all those that see it run away.

HarryHenderson

5th February 2010, 06:38 PM

Some of them have tried to allude to the real issue, but none of them have the guts to come right out and say it, which IMO is the fact that there are a half dozen or so total loons (or trolls pretending to be loons) who are dragging the site down, and turning it into a laughing stock. Those are the members who should be banned.
While that is likely nearest the truth, the 'general Bigfoot boredom' factor can't be disregarded either (nowadays). Popular Bigfooting™ has been around about 50 years and yet there's...whoops, still nothing. Everyone's just done with it. Take away say (maybe) 10 key posters here and the 'Bigfoot threads' on the JREF would surely fade away (or mostly). I started at the BFF in 2003 - and in the 7 years since then I've learned such minuscule 'more' about Bigfoot, that was FRESH & NEW I mean, that it could be easily argued I've learned nothing-zero-zilch more. I remember being bored-to-cynicism with it 4-5 years ago. It's really simple, "there's nothing more to see here folks." Really.

BTW, I only come here for the intermission snacks, Bigfoot be damned. :)

GT/CS

5th February 2010, 07:47 PM

Surely? I thought it was Shirley!

154

6th February 2010, 12:49 AM

Both of you guys have Bigfoot encounter stories. That's the thang you got. You can use them to wow and entertain people.I don't use it to wow and entertain people. I use it as the first basis for my continuing interest. I mention it occasionally. Seems it's about the same with Jackson.

There is simply no way to know if you are telling the truth about anything related to yourself. But besides that, what does spending time in the wilds have to do with telling Bigfoot stories? Do you find that it makes them more believable for the listener?I don't care if you believe me or are wowed, are entertained or find anything "more believable." Irrelevent.

Yes, he might be. That certainly is one possibility. But since this "rare and elusive", massive, stinking, noisy, bipedal wood ape, which according to testimony frequents populated areas and recreational parks, and attacks people with sticks and rocks, has left us not a shred of non-hoaxable evidence, despite thousands of game cams in existence in areas it supposedly frequents, decades of intensive searching by dedicated enthusiasts, and the fact that every other mammal species in North America has been catalogued, classified and examined, then you'll understand if I don't embrace his, yours, or any claimant's unsupported, unsupportable, eminently hoaxable stories.I told you that before you ever told me that. While I obviously understand, again, your every objection, none of that dictates that the creature does not exist.

Vortigern99

6th February 2010, 07:58 AM

I told you that before you ever told me that. While I obviously understand, again, your every objection, none of that dictates that the creature does not exist.

It establishes the high probability that no such animal could or can exist. The prospect of bigfoot's existence defies all known workings of the natural world, of animal physiology and behavior, and of logic and reason itself. New laws of physics and biology would have to be theorized -- such as that bones melt and scat evaporates -- in order for bigfoot to be a real, living animal.

And I repeat these facts not for your sake -- who have evidently made up your mind to believe an unsupportable theory based on what was likely a personal hallucination or a hoax -- but for the sake of newcomers, visitors and interested parties, who might come and read this thread looking for information about the 'foot.

I was once such a person. It took having the rationales for this animal's extreme improbability explained to me in a concise, informative manner several times, before something clicked in my mind and I realized: "Oh... waitaminnit. 8000+ calories a day, just like bears, and yet bears have to raid human residences to obtain these calories, and as a result are seen and photographed across North America on a daily basis [just to name one rationale]! It just doesn't add up!"

I'm hoping that even if you don't have this experience, someone else out there will.

JcR

6th February 2010, 08:30 AM

I wonder how many train operators had to blow their horns to get a dumb Bigfoot off the tracks.

Dr Jeffrey please report back to your lab. You have an urgent phone call from CN. Dr! Please I hope you're not out frolicking about "again" with Sarmiento looking for Blueberries. Anyone here?

JcR

6th February 2010, 08:43 AM

Well then again, maybe if Neil Young digs deep enough into his pockets.

The Shrike

6th February 2010, 09:39 AM

"Oh... waitaminnit. 8000+ calories a day, just like bears, and yet bears have to raid human residences to obtain these calories, and as a result are seen and photographed across North America on a daily basis [just to name one rationale]! It just doesn't add up!"

Interesting. The "caloric needs" angle is probably the weakest skeptical argument in my opinion. To me, the most compelling argument by far is that there isn't a scrap of physical evidence that has ever been produced to verify the existence of a creature with the largest reputed distribution of any terrestrial mammal other than Homo sapiens.

JcR

6th February 2010, 09:57 AM

I think an animal that may need 8000 + calories a day will leave more than a scrap of evidence left around to be found. More so if they are distributed across many different environments and regions.
Vort's example is strong and sound; to me anyways.
Though, I guess one could argue that they never see a Bigfoot raid their dump or garbage can. So they must be nomadic foragers, looking for odds and ends and nice ladies leaving them pancakes.

Just a Thought: Why is it disadvantageous for this creature to avoid Humans?

Too add: I'm sure there are reports of dumpster diving Bigfoots

Drewbot

6th February 2010, 10:25 AM

William Parcher

6th February 2010, 10:44 AM

Too add: I'm sure there are reports of dumpster diving Bigfoots

"I put my hands on the edge of the dumpster, and raised up to look... he started raising out of the dumpster and I fired." Bang! Bang! (http://www.bigfootery.com/trailer.wmv)

JcR

6th February 2010, 11:12 AM

"I put my hands on the edge of the dumpster, and raised up to look... he started raising out of the dumpster and I fired." Bang! Bang! (http://www.bigfootery.com/trailer.wmv)

Two Dumpster away from a Bigfoot. MY oh My.
Bang! Bang! Two Dumpsters short of crazy something?

JcR

6th February 2010, 12:05 PM

I don't think Neil Young could have ever sung "Bigfoot's throwing shadows on our eyes."

William Parcher

6th February 2010, 12:20 PM

Hello cowgirl in the sand
Is this creek at your command?
I've got so much that's at stake
Will you show mid-tarsal break?

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/191ecf07.gif

Vortigern99

6th February 2010, 12:38 PM

Interesting. The "caloric needs" angle is probably the weakest skeptical argument in my opinion. To me, the most compelling argument by far is that there isn't a scrap of physical evidence that has ever been produced to verify the existence of a creature with the largest reputed distribution of any terrestrial mammal other than Homo sapiens.

It's all these factors taken together that makes the caloric requirement "angle" so compelling. In order to obtain those calories an animal will naturally wander into human-inhabited areas, scavenging from garbage cans, game feeders, picnic baskets, kitchens, etc. -- just as we see with bears, raccoons, squirrels, and other omnivorous mammals. This activity in populated parts of the country would lead to photographic evidence, mortal remains (via roadkill and other accidents), scat and/or hair samples, and confirmed sightings by wildlife professionals. There isn't any of this; hence the extreme probability that no such animal exists or could exist.

ETA: Yeah, what those other dudes said. :cool:

Óðinn

6th February 2010, 12:45 PM

Just the lazy bears scrounge food from humans. And if bigfoot ate the same food as bears how would you identify their scat besides testing every lump of sh*t for DNA?

JcR

6th February 2010, 12:58 PM

All I got is some Jam
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b6dc9866909f.jpg

Vortigern99

6th February 2010, 01:01 PM

Just the lazy bears scrounge food from humans. And if bigfoot ate the same food as bears how would you identify their scat besides testing every lump of sh*t for DNA?

Given that numerous NA townships, wildlife areas and parks struggle with bear problems every fall, there must be a he// of a lot of "lazy bears" -- to the point that calling these animals "lazy" is as redundant as calling them "hairy". I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here.

Also, scat is only one item in a long list of spoors the animals would leave behind if they existed, the rest of which I note you've ignored.

Óðinn

6th February 2010, 04:53 PM

Given that numerous NA townships, wildlife areas and parks struggle with bear problems every fall, there must be a he// of a lot of "lazy bears" -- to the point that calling these animals "lazy" is as redundant as calling them "hairy". I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here.

Also, scat is only one item in a long list of spoors the animals would leave behind if they existed, the rest of which I note you've ignored.
Humans provide "easy" meals for bears, but most aren't garbage bears. And what does that have to do with bigfoot anyway? Like bear like bigfoot?

A bigfoot would be expected to leave scat, prints, tree twists, elk lays, etc., which they appear to. My point was that bears seem to do fine with their caloric intake, and not just the garbage bears. So how would you distinguish between bigfoot & bear scat?

Defensive much?

GT/CS

6th February 2010, 05:11 PM

River

6th February 2010, 05:27 PM

Yall hear about that dang new video that came out?? They finally caught the big guy on film!@

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/iammenotu/gary_busey_monster.gif

Vortigern99

6th February 2010, 07:49 PM

Humans provide "easy" meals for bears, but most aren't garbage bears. And what does that have to do with bigfoot anyway? Like bear like bigfoot?

A bigfoot would be expected to leave scat, prints, tree twists, elk lays, etc., which they appear to. My point was that bears seem to do fine with their caloric intake, and not just the garbage bears. So how would you distinguish between bigfoot & bear scat?

Defensive much?

"Defensive much?"

Wow. Look, I'm fairly certain this is a discussion forum... you know, in which one person posts a thought/notion/idea/factoid/opinion, and another person responds to same. If you're going to ask "Defensive much?" every time my opinion dissents from yours, we're going to waste a lot of time/effort/energy/bandwidth here. I really don't understand what prompted you to type that, and I hope we can just move on.

Kitakaze has a far more eloquent way of phrasing this idea than I do; it was his explanation of the problem that finally swayed me that bigfoot's existence is extremely unlikely. Where I fall short of clarity and succinctness in expressing the idea, I apologize, but I assure you the idea is a sound one.

And what does that have to do with bigfoot anyway?

Given all we know about mammalian behavior and food acquisition strategies (see: black bears, squirrels, rats, raccoons, feral dogs, cats, etc.), we can reasonably assert that a mammal requiring 8000+ calories per day is going to seize any opportunity to gather food from any source it can without risking injury to itself.

If bigfoot resides in the same wilderness areas where human beings hike, fish, hunt, camp, and conduct biological research, it's reasonable to induce that bigfoot will take advantage of the easy food supply so provided. Bigfoot would be raiding garbage cans, picnic sites, food storage sheds, campers, and even kitchens with a frequency comparable to all the other NA mammals that do this.

This activity, this on-going quest to obtain 8000+ calories a day, would provide ample opportunities for our obtaining clear and unambiguous photography, scat and hair samples, mortal remains via roadkill and other accidents, and encounters with wildlife professionals. Since none of this happens, we can reasonably deduce that bigfoot does not exist.

A bigfoot would be expected to leave scat, prints, tree twists, elk lays, etc., which they appear to.

Please provide evidence that any sample of any of the above can be attributed to a bigfoot. The last time I did research into this question, about three weeks ago, I found that scat and hair samples are hoaxed or inconclusive; prints and twists are provably hoaxed or hoaxable; elk lays are laid by, you guessed it, elk, and as to "etc." I have no idea what you mean and I can only express hope that you'll be more specific in future posts.

My point was that bears seem to do fine with their caloric intake, and not just the garbage bears. So how would you distinguish between bigfoot & bear scat?

Scat is identifiable not only by its digested contents, but also by DNA present in shed cells, and so traceable to a specific genus and/or species. Do you need me to get more specific than that?

Óðinn

6th February 2010, 08:57 PM

A bigfoot would be expected to leave tree twists and elk lays???????? Expected by whom? What makes up "etc"?
This was a facetious reference to their spoors. Mythical tho they may be.

"Defensive much?"

Wow. Look, I'm fairly certain this is a discussion forum... you know, in which one person posts a thought/notion/idea/factoid/opinion, and another person responds to same. If you're going to ask "Defensive much?" every time my opinion dissents from yours, we're going to waste a lot of time/effort/energy/bandwidth here. I really don't understand what prompted you to type that, and I hope we can just move on.

Relax, I just sensed that you thought I was on your case.

Kitakaze has a far more eloquent way of phrasing this idea than I do; it was his explanation of the problem that finally swayed me that bigfoot's existence is extremely unlikely. Where I fall short of clarity and succinctness in expressing the idea, I apologize, but I assure you the idea is a sound one.
I certainly don't blame you for thinking bigfoot is a myth. It likely is.

And what does that have to do with bigfoot anyway?

Given all we know about mammalian behavior and food acquisition strategies (see: black bears, squirrels, rats, raccoons, feral dogs, cats, etc.), we can reasonably assert that a mammal requiring 8000+ calories per day is going to seize any opportunity to gather food from any source it can without risking injury to itself.
Yes, an animal needing lots of calories would likely be looking for the easy meal. But what if their numbers were low and hoaxes were abundant? Then we might not see much trace of them. They also would know better than to look to humans for food. The fact is, this myth could be set up any way you wanted to for them to remain undetected.

If bigfoot resides in the same wilderness areas where human beings hike, fish, hunt, camp, and conduct biological research, it's reasonable to induce that bigfoot will take advantage of the easy food supply so provided. Bigfoot would be raiding garbage cans, picnic sites, food storage sheds, campers, and even kitchens with a frequency comparable to all the other NA mammals that do this.
But you are doing a "if they exist" scenario, which doesn't really mean much unless we knew their distribution.

This activity, this on-going quest to obtain 8000+ calories a day, would provide ample opportunities for our obtaining clear and unambiguous photography, scat and hair samples, mortal remains via roadkill and other accidents, and encounters with wildlife professionals. Since none of this happens, we can reasonably deduce that bigfoot does not exist.
In your opinion.

A bigfoot would be expected to leave scat, prints, tree twists, elk lays, etc., which they appear to.

Please provide evidence that any sample of any of the above can be attributed to a bigfoot. The last time I did research into this question, about three weeks ago, I found that scat and hair samples are hoaxed or inconclusive; prints and twists are provably hoaxed or hoaxable; elk lays are laid by, you guessed it, elk, and as to "etc." I have no idea what you mean and I can only express hope that you'll be more specific in future posts.
As I mentioned above I was being facetious. These are the "classic" bigfoot spoors that you were talking about. They seem to be present. If they were absent it would be even more damning. Such as an absence in Native American lore. That would be very damning IMO.

My point was that bears seem to do fine with their caloric intake, and not just the garbage bears. So how would you distinguish between bigfoot & bear scat?

Scat is identifiable not only by its digested contents, but also by DNA present in shed cells, and so traceable to a specific genus and/or species. Do you need me to get more specific than that?
But who is going to look at a pile of sh*t and test it for DNA if it looks just like bear sh*t? I axes you?

GT/CS

6th February 2010, 10:08 PM

This was a facetious reference to their spoors. Mythical tho they may be.

[Snip

Sure it was.

154

7th February 2010, 01:34 AM

It establishes the high probability that no such animal could or can exist. The prospect of bigfoot's existence defies all known workings of the natural world, of animal physiology and behavior, and of logic and reason itself. New laws of physics and biology would have to be theorized -- such as that bones melt and scat evaporates -- in order for bigfoot to be a real, living animal.Despite your insistence, no new laws of physics and biology are required to provide reasonable possible explanations to counter your reasonable and expected objections. I simply must, have and do factor in such objections into my consideration of what I, and hundreds if not thousands of others, have witnessed. I don't have the answers even though I acknowledge and consider the same questions.

And I repeat these facts not for your sake -- who have evidently made up your mind to believe an unsupportable theory based on what was likely a personal hallucination or a hoax -- but for the sake of newcomers, visitors and interested parties, who might come and read this thread looking for information about the 'foot.Unsupportable to your closed mind. You must dismiss sightings accordingly because, thus far, the alternative is untenable to you. Eventually, who knows, maybe just later this year, you will have to reconcile your certainty with its apparent falseness in the face of multiple pieces of video and additional evidences.

I was once such a person.No, you were not. Don't give me that typical condescension- I was once as dumb and duped as dummy you, but now I know better because I have given it greater consideration than you have or can. No. You did not see clearly in your headlights that which would dispel all uncertainty and force total reconsideration. On the contrary, if anything, I was once more of your persuasion. Although not dismissing it outright, without very compelling substance, I needed to see myself to believe. I saw. I completely understand that you require nothing short of that very compelling substance or your own unmistakable observation.

>>Okay- edit to add- upon re-reading, yes, I understand you meant you were a newcomer, visitor, and interested party just looking for information. That's fair. Forgive me for acting upon my prior impression from prior exchanges.

It took having the rationales for this animal's extreme improbability explained to me in a concise, informative manner several times, before something clicked in my mind and I realized: "Oh... waitaminnit. 8000+ calories a day, just like bears, and yet bears have to raid human residences to obtain these calories, and as a result are seen and photographed across North America on a daily basis [just to name one rationale]! It just doesn't add up!"And then I saw and have to ponder and wonder at explanations to attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable, which only leads to a greater respect for the creature.

I'm hoping that even if you don't have this experience, someone else out there will.Why do you feel the need to dissuade, much like so many atheists? I don't feel any need to argue against fictions I don't believe in. Agnostic is fair. An atheist is a fool I say in the house of atheists.

JcR

7th February 2010, 06:07 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b6eb4d2c9e7f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18942)
But how will I lead them to you?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b6eb54b06437.jpg
(http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18943)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b6eb482beed2.gif

Unsupportable to your closed mind. You must dismiss sightings accordingly because, thus far, the alternative is untenable to you. Eventually, who knows, maybe just later this year, you will have to reconcile your certainty with its apparent falseness in the face of multiple pieces of video and additional evidences.
Bring it on...:)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b6eb9a526778.jpg

William Parcher

7th February 2010, 10:24 AM

Unsupportable to your closed mind. You must dismiss sightings accordingly because, thus far, the alternative is untenable to you.

Epic Battle

Ladies and Gentlemen for your entertainment we bring you...

I Saw a Bigfoot vs. No You Did Not

154, I was wondering if Bigfoot ties in with your views on cattle mutilations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160504)...

...the carcasses did show apparent unexplainable evidences which would defy common explanation...

There have been too many such incidents reported, investigated and documented to dismiss out of hand...

I believe something has been happening in this regard, but do not believe that it is by "extraterrestrial aliens that travelled millions of light years to get here."

Are you thinking chupacabras or Bigfoot, or even some other undocumented cryptozoological predator?

Vortigern99

7th February 2010, 10:48 AM

Below I'm quoting and responding to only those statements I disagree with, or which require a response:

But what if their numbers were low and hoaxes were abundant? Then we might not see much trace of them. They also would know better than to look to humans for food. The fact is, this myth could be set up any way you wanted to for them to remain undetected.

Sure, the myth might be creatively expounded upon in any way one's imagination leads it. As a (published) comics writer, (unpublished) fantasy author and lifelong D&D Dungeon Master, I assure you that my mind, for one, can invent any number of scenarios that explain away the inconsistencies in the bigfoot data set, and offer any number of fantastical explanations for why we can't find the beast. It doesn't mean those explanations have a basis in biological reality.

However, the biological reality of a living, breathing, walking, reproducing, defecating and eventually dying mammal of the size and mass we're talking about does not include the behaviors and phenomena you speculate that it might, since such behavior (namely avoiding human food sources and a lack of unambiguous evidence) defies all known mammalian behaviors. Further, the minimum breeding population would have to be dense enough to allow continued genetic viability, and at the numbers so projected, there must be some verifiable traces left somewhere of the animal's existence.

But you are doing a "if they exist" scenario, which doesn't really mean much unless we knew their distribution.

No, I was more specific than merely postulating "if they exist"; my scenario, based on the letter of the majority of sightings, includes the projected distribution:

If bigfoot resides in the same wilderness areas where human beings hike, fish, hunt, camp, and conduct biological research, it's reasonable to induce that bigfoot will take advantage of the easy food supply so provided. Bigfoot would be raiding garbage cans, picnic sites, food storage sheds, campers, and even kitchens with a frequency comparable to all the other NA mammals that do this.

In your opinion.

I already said "we can reasonably deduce" the named scenario. That's an opinion. Will you stop pointing out the obvious?

These are the "classic" bigfoot spoors that you were talking about. They seem to be present. If they were absent it would be even more damning. Such as an absence in Native American lore. That would be very damning IMO.

Conversely, does the presence "in Native American lore" of underwater tigers, thunderbirds, shape-shifting women and nature gods provide support for the contention that those beings/creatures exist? Your logic here is somewhat loopy.

But who is going to look at a pile of sh*t and test it for DNA if it looks just like bear sh*t? I axes you?

LOL. Raccoon excrement looks different from bear excrement looks different from dog excrement looks different from human excrement, yet we're all omnivorous mammals. What makes you think bigfoot dung would look exactly like bear dung? Visual identification would surely be the first step.

William Parcher

7th February 2010, 11:13 AM

I found evidence of a Dopple-Bigfoot in Clare County Michigan 2 weeks ago.

Frozen doozie. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28721&st=33)

Spektator

7th February 2010, 11:18 AM

(snip)
LOL. Raccoon excrement looks different from bear excrement looks different from dog excrement looks different from human excrement, yet we're all omnivorous mammals. What makes you think bigfoot dung would look exactly like bear dung? Visual identification would surely be the first step.

According to Bob Titmus, bigfoot scat looks like horse droppings. Except the big pile of bigfoot poop (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/neissreport.htm) he reported proved to have been actual horse droppings, confirmed not by a lab test but by his patron, Tom Slick, observing a horse contributing to the pile.

154

7th February 2010, 01:16 PM

154, I was wondering if Bigfoot ties in with your views on cattle mutilations...
Are you thinking chupacabras or Bigfoot, or even some other undocumented cryptozoological predator?No.

So now what do you do with it?

You're funny, WP, and eminently predictable. Why do you think I posted that when I posted that, and how many times have you attempted to use it already since?

Vortigern99

7th February 2010, 06:48 PM

Despite your insistence, no new laws of physics and biology are required to provide reasonable possible explanations to counter your reasonable and expected objections. I simply must, have and do factor in such objections into my consideration of what I, and hundreds if not thousands of others, have witnessed. I don't have the answers even though I acknowledge and consider the same questions.

Which laws of physics and biology currently in operation in the known universe satisfy the absence of fossil evidence and indeed of all mortal remains of this species? Which explain the lack of hair and scat? The lack of unambiguous photography? The lack of all non-hoaxable physical traces of the animal, eg tracks and other signs of passage?

Unsupportable to your closed mind. You must dismiss sightings accordingly because, thus far, the alternative is untenable to you. Eventually, who knows, maybe just later this year, you will have to reconcile your certainty with its apparent falseness in the face of multiple pieces of video and additional evidences.

Ah, the age-old argument between skeptic and believer: "Your mind is closed to the evidence." 154, I assure you that I want bigfoot to be real with all my heart. I can also assure you that my mind is wide open to accepting solid, corroborated, verifiable evidence for its existence, just as we possess for every other animal in North America. With bigfoot, there is none. Why do you suppose this is?

No, you were not. Don't give me that typical condescension- I was once as dumb and duped as dummy you, but now I know better because I have given it greater consideration than you have or can. No. You did not see clearly in your headlights that which would dispel all uncertainty and force total reconsideration. On the contrary, if anything, I was once more of your persuasion. Although not dismissing it outright, without very compelling substance, I needed to see myself to believe. I saw. I completely understand that you require nothing short of that very compelling substance or your own unmistakable observation.

>>Okay- edit to add- upon re-reading, yes, I understand you meant you were a newcomer, visitor, and interested party just looking for information. That's fair. Forgive me for acting upon my prior impression from prior exchanges.

I appreciate your apology and effort to set the record straight. To further clarify, while I have never seen or experienced bigfoot first hand, I was once an ardent believer in it/him/her/them. The PG film once lived in my imagination as a cinematic record of the real deal. You can plot my progression from believer to skeptic right here in the various threads of this forum, and in bigfoot-related threads on other discussion forums such as theforce.net and megomuseum.com. The evidence of my skeptical development is at your fingertips if you wish to research it.

What I mean to convey to you here is that I know what it's like to believe.

As to your sighting, your repeated insistence that you know the animal is real because you and thousands of others have seen it avoids/ignores/neglects the known and documented phenomena of hallucination, among other perceptual distortions. Just because you saw something doesn't mean it exists. The mind "plays tricks", including allowing you to enter into a dream state while you are still awake. Since we have ample evidence of this facet of the human brain, and none at all for the existence of this animal, the only reasonable conclusion is that it probably does not exist.

And then I saw and have to ponder and wonder at explanations to attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable, which only leads to a greater respect for the creature.

Why do you feel the need to dissuade, much like so many atheists? I don't feel any need to argue against fictions I don't believe in. Agnostic is fair. An atheist is a fool I say in the house of atheists.

I've never, in all my posts on the subject, said that bigfoot definitely, categorically does not exist. I have said that given the lack of evidence for it, it probably doesn't. This is an important distinction, as it avoids the dogmatic assumptions that others, on both sides of the debate, often make.

If it turns out the animal is real, and that all the various indicators of its non-existence are explicable by some remarkable anomalous qualities heretofore unimagined by science, then I will be among the first to exclaim "WOW!" and then get on with the business of studying what must be a truly fascinating beastie.

Until that happens, based on the evidence at hand, I will continue to argue in favor of the extremely high probability that it does not exist. Because that is what science, this site, this forum and this thread are for: distinguishing between fantasy and fact, imagination and reality, speculation and proof.

If you have no interest in persuasion or dissuasion, I have to ask what it is you're doing here, responding to my and others' posts.

Drewbot

8th February 2010, 05:15 AM

But who is going to look at a pile of sh*t and test it for DNA if it looks just like bear sh*t? I axes you?

Someone schooled in the art of Bigfootry.

i.e. Meldrum had blood that looked just like bear blood, tested from the Canadian Cabin.

There will always be some hopeful Bigfooter to waste money testing bear scat in hopes of obtaining "Unidentified Primate" as a result.

Óðinn

8th February 2010, 04:36 PM

..Conversely, does the presence "in Native American lore" of underwater tigers, thunderbirds, shape-shifting women and nature gods provide support for the contention that those beings/creatures exist? Your logic here is somewhat loopy.
Zoom..over your head. My point was that the ABSCENCE of this myth in Native lore would be suspicious. No?

LOL. Raccoon excrement looks different from bear excrement looks different from dog excrement looks different from human excrement, yet we're all omnivorous mammals. What makes you think bigfoot dung would look exactly like bear dung? Visual identification would surely be the first step.
I didn't realize you were a bigfoot scatologist. Do tell.

Someone schooled in the art of Bigfootry.

i.e. Meldrum had blood that looked just like bear blood, tested from the Canadian Cabin.

There will always be some hopeful Bigfooter to waste money testing bear scat in hopes of obtaining "Unidentified Primate" as a result.
Good on em, because for all we know it does look like bear scat. It's only bigfooter money anyways, no harm done. Actually, it's stimulating the economy.

LTC8K6

8th February 2010, 09:39 PM

Good on em, because for all we know it does look like bear scat. It's only bigfooter money anyways, no harm done. Actually, it's stimulating the economy.

It's also proving that the skeptics are on the right track... :D

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 10:11 AM

I still don't get why one would assume that because bears need a lot of calories and bigfoots likely need a lot of calories (although 8000/day is much higher than they'd need IMO) that bigfoots would raid trash cans like bears do. Moose are big animals of northern woods that need a lot of calories but don't habitually raid trash cans. Why assume that a bigfoot diet is identical to that of bears? Even if it was, there are other things besides caloric needs that factor into bear-raiding behaviors. For starters, some bears "lose their fear of humans" for whatever reason. Other bears never do. What's wrong with bigfoots being more like the latter, i.e., their propensity to avoid humans is stronger than their desire to root through our trash?

Of course, the entire premise ignores the fact that bigfoots have been reported raiding human stores of food.

When you start to consider the implausibility of bigfoot on ecological grounds, I think you run into the danger of special pleadings to make that case on par with what the 'footers offer to make bigfoot sound plausible. It's better in my estimation to simply conclude that there is no bigfoot because there is no good physical evidence for it.

Drewbot

9th February 2010, 11:51 AM

I still don't get why one would assume that because bears need a lot of calories and bigfoots likely need a lot of calories (although 8000/day is much higher than they'd need IMO) that bigfoots would raid trash cans like bears do.

Can we assume that they would defecate, raid crops, kill pets, get hit by cars while foraging, or wander upon a hunter's baitpile like bears do?

Moose are big animals of northern woods that need a lot of calories but don't habitually raid trash cans.
Moose are herbivores, and probably wouldn't be looking for last nights Stouffer's Lasagna.

What's wrong with bigfoots being more like the latter, i.e., their propensity to avoid humans is stronger than their desire to root through our trash?
Bigfeets LOVE human, they can't get enough human, they peek in human's window, while he is watching Hogan's Heroes reruns in the middle of the night, They cross interstates at night in full sight of human, They sideways-rock in plain sight of humans at campgrounds throughout the country, they only avoid humans, when the human has a camera, or a gun.

Of course, the entire premise ignores the fact that bigfoots have been reported raiding human stores of food. Right, but NOT leaving any evidence of such raiding.

It's better in my estimation to simply conclude that there is no bigfoot because there is no good physical evidence for it.
That is the base assumption, but to demonstrate how silly things are, we sometimes use things like irony, absurdity, etc... And to me and others it is SILLY to think that an Omnivorous BIGFOOT that is already in contact with humans, and must eat at some level an amount of food that it would not be able to resist a 1/2 bag of NUTTER BUTTERS sitting on the top of the garbage can, outside of the Widow Tucker's farmhouse in rural Ohio, which also happens to be in perfect view of the traffic camera at the corner of State Rt. 87 and County Rd. 169.

JcR

9th February 2010, 12:43 PM

I still don't get why one would assume that because bears need a lot of calories and bigfoots likely need a lot of calories (although 8000/day is much higher than they'd need IMO) that bigfoots would raid trash cans like bears do. Moose are big animals of northern woods that need a lot of calories but don't habitually raid trash cans. Why assume that a bigfoot diet is identical to that of bears? Even if it was, there are other things besides caloric needs that factor into bear-raiding behaviors. For starters, some bears "lose their fear of humans" for whatever reason. Other bears never do. What's wrong with bigfoots being more like the latter, i.e., their propensity to avoid humans is stronger than their desire to root through our trash?
Be nice to have pictures (clear pictures) of uncatalogued animals (BF) raiding our garbage, or eating whatever it has a fancy for in the more remote regions of the wilderness. We have pictures of Bears in both scenarios.
Sure one could say bogus to any Bigfoot sighting that puts it too close to us. The "real deal Bigfoot" eats, poops, and breeds only in remote regions, In those places where hunters and biologists find Bears.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b71b88f1670a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18976)
Guess Bigfoot has reasons "not known to us" why it avoids being cataloged.

JcR

9th February 2010, 12:45 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b71acc26fc52.jpg

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 12:54 PM

Can we assume that they would defecate, raid crops, kill pets, get hit by cars while foraging, or wander upon a hunter's baitpile like bears do?
I wouldn't assume all of those things. I assume they defecate, but some 'footers report finding piles of squatch poo. So what? The fact that none of it has been shown to be anything extraordinary is immaterial to the 'footers. To them, the bigger problem is how ignorant skeptics are of bigfoot evidence. It plays into all their "science is closed-minded" nonsense.

Moose are herbivores, and probably wouldn't be looking for last nights Stouffer's Lasagna.
Why can't bigfoots be herbivores too? This mode of nutrition works for other big animals in the reputed range of bigfoot (e.g., moose) as well as for other animals that might be close bigfoot relatives (e.g., gorillas). We might think it more likely for something like a bigfoot to be an omnivore, but there's no ecological reason they couldn't be strict herbivores.

. . . they peek in human's window, . . . They cross interstates at night in full sight of human, They sideways-rock in plain sight of humans at campgrounds throughout the country, they only avoid humans, when the human has a camera, or a gun.
Right, and every time a skeptic says "Bigfoot needs X many calories a day so therefore they should be seen raiding campgrounds, stealing Nutter Butters", etc., the 'footers simply reply "We have seen them do that!"

When skeptics spout easily-countered arguments like these, I worry that it does more harm than good. For the true believers, this is like serving up T-balls for them to knock out of the park - all to the cheers of the adoring fans. That's why I think we need to be really careful about things like this.

To me, the specific life history attributes alleged for bigfoot don't really matter. If bigfoot is highly mobile and crosses roads and is tempted by pies cooling on farmhouse window sills, then the lack of any evidence of such creatures is only marginally sillier than if bigfoots are effectively sessile hermits that photosynthesize and reproduce parthenogenetically. The damning thing is the lack of physical evidence no matter how bigfoots spend their free time.

William Parcher

9th February 2010, 01:16 PM

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 01:37 PM

Would a herbivore Bigfoot have a huge pot belly like a gorilla?
Maybe, maybe not. A diet of pure roughage would require a big fermentation chamber, but one that included a lot of fruits wouldn't necessarily. Chimps (although they supplement with meat when they can) aren't as pot-bellied as gorillas; gibbons lack a pot belly and they're following a fruit and leaf diet, IIRC.

Patty has nothing like that. They even say she is pure muscle.
They don't all say that. I think there's at least one whole BFF thread dedicated to Patty's "thickness," with some even speculating that she must be pregnant.

Bigfoot is almost always described as having a large bodybuilder physique. Nothing gets said about a Buddah belly. Agreed - alleged eyewitness accounts should carry more weight than Patty anyway when it comes to wild speculation about the life history requirements of a mythical creature.

William Parcher

9th February 2010, 01:53 PM

Maybe, maybe not. A diet of pure roughage would require a big fermentation chamber, but one that included a lot of fruits wouldn't necessarily. Chimps (although they supplement with meat when they can) aren't as pot-bellied as gorillas; gibbons lack a pot belly and they're following a fruit and leaf diet, IIRC.

Why are you talking about tropical primates that have those foods available year round? Patty lives where the fruits, shoots and tender leaves vanish in winter. A herbivore primate in North American winter is eating bark, twigs or evergreen needles, right?

LTC8K6

9th February 2010, 02:22 PM

Aren't there lots of reports of sasquatch raiding garbage cans, though?

JcR

9th February 2010, 03:00 PM

The damning thing is the lack of physical evidence no matter how bigfoots spend their free time.
I think most would agree to that. (Evidence science can sink its teeth into)

OK! on with my blabbering...
Then again some may believe there is plenty of physical evidence.
If one wants to speculate a Bigfoot might be an herbivore, fine. What would lead him or her to that way of thinking? Anecdotal reports of Foots hunting Deer or foraging for water plants? Could suck the sap out of trees.
I know I cannot conclude what fuels a Bigfoot based on this. We can speculate till the end of time.....Is it an omnivore, herbivore or a obligate carnivore. It realistically would need some source of calorie intake with what is available to them in the different seasons and regions, (not like it can order pizza) :)
I think it is safe to say any big galoot in the North American wilderness would need plenty of calories. How does Bigfoot stimulate its metabolism? Chewing rattleroot?
I can claim a Bigfoot doesn't need to poop. (not realistic) But kinda hard to prove me wrong. (Insert photo of poopin Bigfoot here)

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 03:47 PM

Why are you talking about tropical primates that have those foods available year round? Patty lives where the fruits, shoots and tender leaves vanish in winter. A herbivore primate in North American winter is eating bark, twigs or evergreen needles, right?

In the far North, yes, an herbivore would most likely rely on such staples during the winter and, unless we invent a ruminant bigfoot (their imprints are rather elk-like . . . ) then we might assume that a big ol' fermentation gut would characterize bigfoots. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Squirrels are small so perhaps not a good example, but they make it through harsh winters on nuts, etc., without the benefit of a big fermentin' gut. Maybe the particular digestive flora of bigfoots is more efficient than that of gorillas, so a lot of time in fermentation is not necessarily a given.

William Parcher

9th February 2010, 04:02 PM

Squirrels are small so perhaps not a good example, but they make it through harsh winters on nuts, etc., without the benefit of a big fermentin' gut. Maybe the particular digestive flora of bigfoots is more efficient than that of gorillas, so a lot of time in fermentation is not necessarily a given.

With caches of nuts so large that they are visible from planes? But what is the predominant nut of the PNW mountains anyway?

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 04:35 PM

With caches of nuts so large that they are visible from planes? But what is the predominant nut of the PNW mountains anyway?

Any 'footer worth his salt will tell you that the PNW is so "rugged" that even downed planes aren't "visible from planes" in that landscape. Shouldn't be too hard to hide big caches of nuts in stumps, holes, etc. Of course, bigfoots being so smart and all, they could also simply raid squirrel nests, i.e., let all the other cachers (squirrels, corvids, chickadees) do the hard work and then reap the benefits through theft. Viola! Bigfoot has spatially distributed food supply available accessed through (1) its superior brain and (2) its dexterous hands.

That said, it's pine nuts in the PNW almost exclusively, so ol' bigfoot is probably gonna need some serious salt to aid in the digestion of those suckers. Maybe this is why bigfoots seem to hang around roads . . .

ps: yes, it says "viola" on porpoise.

The Shrike

9th February 2010, 04:40 PM

JcR

9th February 2010, 05:33 PM

With caches of nuts so large that they are visible from planes? But what is the predominant nut of the PNW mountains anyway?

Was predominant in the PNW. ...Nut? ...well

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b71fc1a40352.jpg

Actually I think he was very cool

Maybe Bigfoot is a Mishaabooz.

Drewbot

10th February 2010, 05:43 AM

Why can't bigfoots be herbivores too? This mode of nutrition works for other big animals in the reputed range of bigfoot (e.g., moose) as well as for other animals that might be close bigfoot relatives (e.g., gorillas). We might think it more likely for something like a bigfoot to be an omnivore, but there's no ecological reason they couldn't be strict herbivores.

If BIGFOOT is an herbivore, the possibility of it TOSSING 200LB HOGS against a tree, breaking the creatures spine, and then proceeding to eat the pig's still-warm liver, with a side of squirrel nuts goes down. And this scenario MUST EXIST, for me to still be interested in BIGFOOTRY.

Also, I don't think you'll find too many footers in agreement about Bigfoot being an herbivore. Remember Patty was probably fishing, Bigfeets eat clams on the beach, they ambush deer, they bite shrew's heads off and toss them at moving vehicles, they toss pigs, I mean, what you are putting forth does not jibe with Footer-speak.

Plus speaking of squirrel larders being utilized, I also think that Bigfoot is actually who taught native Americans to follow bears to their dens in late fall, marking their location, so that during the long winter, the bigfoot could go to the den and rouse a groggy bear from it's den, break it's neck a la Steven Seagal, and have a nice bear meat tar-tar with some juniper bark and chianti, providing much need protein throughout the winter.

Vortigern99

10th February 2010, 07:17 AM

Drewbot, your posts are getting more entertaining by the day. That your logic and reasoning are nigh-unassailable is icing on the (skepti)cake. :D

Drewbot

10th February 2010, 08:01 AM

I have decided the most effective way to illustrate absurdity, is through the use of absurdity.

LTC8K6

10th February 2010, 08:39 AM

If BIGFOOT is an herbivore, the possibility of it TOSSING 200LB HOGS against a tree, breaking the creatures spine, and then proceeding to eat the pig's still-warm liver, with a side of squirrel nuts goes down. And this scenario MUST EXIST, for me to still be interested in BIGFOOTRY.

I appreciate that. It is my life quest to see bigfoot toss a hog, or at least tote 2 of them off, one under each arm, whilst stepping over crotch high rail fences...

Drewbot

10th February 2010, 08:48 AM

I appreciate that. It is my life quest to see bigfoot toss a hog, or at least tote 2 of them off, one under each arm, whilst stepping over crotch high rail fences...

I know, you are the one who got me fired up about the HOG-TOSSING scenario.

The one thing I am contemplating however, is whether I should spell it: HAWG-TOSSING.

The Shrike

10th February 2010, 01:40 PM

Like "punkin-chunkin,'" hawg tossing could develop into an annual civic event bringing in thousands to some struggling rural economy.

Of course, the 'footers can just as easily agree with you that the hog-tosser is an obvious bit of mularkey. They might stress some more mundane sightings, like the one of the bigfoot chowing down on osage-oranges.

LTC8K6

10th February 2010, 02:21 PM

The hog tossing is a BFRO certified class A report, though.

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=8547

LTC8K6

10th February 2010, 02:24 PM

The attack leaps: distance was about thirty yards. Fifteen yards per leap. This was on all fours.

I'd like to see that too. Imagine the noise when a 700 pound quadruped lands from 45 feet away!

Just imagine a 500 pound brown bear 45 feet away, leaping on you in one shot...

there were no footprints.

Ummm....yeah....

The Shrike

10th February 2010, 02:47 PM

Ummm....yeah....
You skoftics are such killjoys. Next thing you'll be sayin' that bigfoots don't kidnap people in their sleepin' bags, carry them for miles through the wilderness, and steal their snuff.

William Parcher

10th February 2010, 03:06 PM

Was predominant in the PNW. ...Nut? ...well

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b71fc1a40352.jpg

Actually I think he was very cool

Maybe Bigfoot is a Mishaabooz.

I would not call Rene Dahinden cool. At most he was interesting. It is very much uncool to abandon your wife and young boys to go looking for Bigfoot with a gun for the rest of your life. He did have the balls to explain that he couldn't bring himself to spend ANY time or money on his family because it would keep him from finding Bigfoot. A fool and an a**hole all rolled up into one guy.

JcR

10th February 2010, 03:44 PM

I would not call Rene Dahinden cool. At most he was interesting. It is very much uncool to abandon your wife and young boys to go looking for Bigfoot with a gun for the rest of your life. He did have the balls to explain that he couldn't bring himself to spend ANY time or money on his family because it would keep him from finding Bigfoot. A fool and an a**hole all rolled up into one guy.

I omitted a lot of aspects of his life. an a**hole roll, fine by me.
ETA: My first draft was (Was a predominant Nut of the PNW). Well then I changed it.

jhunter1163

10th February 2010, 03:58 PM

And to me and others it is SILLY to think that an Omnivorous BIGFOOT that is already in contact with humans, and must eat at some level an amount of food that it would not be able to resist a 1/2 bag of NUTTER BUTTERS sitting on the top of the garbage can, outside of the Widow Tucker's farmhouse in rural Ohio, which also happens to be in perfect view of the traffic camera at the corner of State Rt. 87 and County Rd. 169.

Hell, I wouldn't be able to resist that. Those Nutter Butters would be MINE.

JcR

10th February 2010, 04:29 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b71acc26fc52.jpg
Didn't intent on deleting this yet, an oops. Needed an adjustment anyways.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b73405358e93.jpg

tsig

10th February 2010, 10:25 PM

I know, you are the one who got me fired up about the HOG-TOSSING scenario.

The one thing I am contemplating however, is whether I should spell it: HAWG-TOSSING.

Southern: Hawg

Northern: Hog

tsig

10th February 2010, 10:30 PM

I'd like to see that too. Imagine the noise when a 700 pound quadruped lands from 45 feet away!

Just imagine a 500 pound brown bear 45 feet away, leaping on you in one shot...

Ummm....yeah....

What a basketball player she'd make! Talk about "float" time.

rockinkt

11th February 2010, 01:09 AM

According to Bob Titmus, bigfoot scat looks like horse droppings.
<snip>

And we all know that Bob Titmus was an expert on horse-crap because he spent a great deal of his life spreading it around. ;)

Drewbot

11th February 2010, 05:17 AM

And we all know that Bob Titmus was an expert on horse-crap because he spent a great deal of his life spreading it around. ;)

There is also a story of Bob Titmus taking someone to stake out a known Bigfoot Lavatory, a place where a Bigfoot pooped on a regular basis, only to find out that an old indian parked his mule in the very same spot on a regular basis while he went and picked herbs.

Spektator

11th February 2010, 05:32 AM

There is also a story of Bob Titmus taking someone to stake out a known Bigfoot Lavatory, a place where a Bigfoot pooped on a regular basis, only to find out that an old indian parked his mule in the very same spot on a regular basis while he went and picked herbs.

Why, yes. Check out post 2080 in this thread for the link. ;)

LTC8K6

11th February 2010, 08:23 AM

http://www.wshs.org/wshs/pressroom/2010/giantsinthemountains.aspx

WASHINGTON STATE HISTORY MUSEUM EVALUATES SASQUATCH EVIDENCE
Giants in the Mountains: The Search for Sasquatch Opens January 23

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/wshm/featuredexhibits/giantsinthemountains.aspx

William Parcher

11th February 2010, 10:29 AM

Everything you wanted to know about Bigfoot rock hurling, stone throwing, lobbing rocks, herding and bluff charging by Bobbie Short with Roger Knights (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/rocks.htm).

Sample quotes...

There are instances where rocks don't seem to be deliberately thrown at passers-by but seem to be lobbed precisely to land in and around trail walkers. It's hard to say if this is to get attention or if it is a low-dose level of aggression used to rid people from an area where they are not wanted.

Certainly there are written bow-hunter testimonials where Sasquatches have been seen taking down deer with rocks aimed precisely to do that particular task; it is quite effective. There is another account where a Sasquatch in eastern Ontario side-armed a projectile, believed to be a rock, at a fleeing snow shoe rabbit and nailed it on the third leap and a story I was told recently where ‘something' lobbed or pushed a 400 lb boulder down the mountainside at a terrified passer-by who didn't take kindly to the message.

There is no doubt in my mind that the proficiency they have in rock placement is a learned skill; a behavior perhaps taught to male Sasquatches undoubtedly becoming a means by which they take down hoofed animals, game birds and geese in flight.

Witnesses relate stories of Sasquatch kidnapping Indian maidens, stealing fish from housewives larders, hurling rocks at prospectors and killing deer with clubs.

"It can outrun and out jump anything else that has ever been known and not only that, but the seven foot tall creature could throw rocks with wonderful force and great accuracy. It had broad hands and feet and his body was covered by copious amounts of hair. In short, he looks like the very devil."

"...five campers saw a Bigfoot several times saying it watched them and threw rubbish bins around and also took food left for it."

...a shocked farmer watched as a Bigfoot killed his calf by throwing it to the ground. There are other stories of Sasquatches throwing dogs up against trees to stop their barking and heel nipping… and yet another testimony from a rancher in AZ who found his hunting dog 14 feet up a pinión pine tree.

The Sasquatches, (Tom) Akren reported, stood their ground on the trail waving their arms and wouldn't move. In the first story I heard him tell, the male Sasquatch waved his arms violently in what appeared to be a bluff charge stamping his foot forward several times on the ground and wouldn't let the mules go any further.

Suddenly a very large male Sasquatch stepped out onto the trail just in front of them and just stood there glaring at them. The appearance of the creature and its huge size sent the kids into hysterics; they had been in the lead on the trail and just that quick they were behind their Dad, screaming and hollering and tugging on his clothes scarred to death. The creature just stood there as Les struggled with himself and his kids to gain some composure and head them back up the trail. The children wouldn't head out by themselves; instead they just clustered near their Dad slowing their progress on the trail. The Sasquatch advanced on them to the point that Les in his fright and concern using the only tool he had - a 7 ft. fly pole - shaking the tip of the rod in the creature's chest as he walked backwards up the trail. He continued this until the creature stopped, which was just a few feet from their pickup truck. The creature stood there as they clambered into the truck and left.

Les drove straight home dropped off this kids then drove to the Police Chief's home to tell him what he had just experienced. Bob W. could tell Les was really rattled and had him sit down. Les was not a drinking man; a complete tea totaler but when Bob W. offered Les a drink to settle his nerves, he took a big one. Incredibly, this is a true story...

A non-drinker slams down a big one all because of a terrifying Bigfoot who threatened his family. It's true!

Regarding the IMAX film where the bear is chasing a caribou herd, why would a bigfoot chase a herd of caribou as seen in that video when they are said to be as proficient with stone placement as reports in the database show?

Wait a second, that wasn't a bear.

LTC8K6

11th February 2010, 10:40 AM

Wait a second, that wasn't a bear.

Why would a human chase a caribou when they are said to be proficient with stone placement?

And they can carry a nice Browning rifle...

Spektator

11th February 2010, 11:55 AM

There are instances where rocks don't seem to be deliberately thrown at passers-by but seem to be lobbed precisely to land in and around trail walkers. It's hard to say if this is to get attention or if it is a low-dose level of aggression used to rid people from an area where they are not wanted.

My stand is that this is bigfoot-talk for "I yearn for you tragically."

Of course, I've also been hit, twice, by partially-eaten nuts hurled by squirrels--once on the head, once on the shoulder. I maintain that bigfoot is not a primate, but a member of the squirrel group--a giant ground squirrel that has lost its tail through evolution. Look at a squirrel's back feet--huge in proportion. Look at those small front feet--they're adapted as tiny little pink hands. Awwwwwww. Few million years of convergent evolution, and you have bigfoot.

And no one can prove that's wrong.

GT/CS

11th February 2010, 12:29 PM

My stand is that this is bigfoot-talk for "I yearn for you tragically."

Of course, I've also been hit, twice, by partially-eaten nuts hurled by squirrels--once on the head, once on the shoulder. I maintain that bigfoot is not a primate, but a member of the squirrel group--a giant ground squirrel that has lost its tail through evolution. Look at a squirrel's back feet--huge in proportion. Look at those small front feet--they're adapted as tiny little pink hands. Awwwwwww. Few million years of convergent evolution, and you have bigfoot.

And no one can prove that's wrong.

A huge 500 pound mutant squirrel. I like it and I'm on board.

We'll need to set up a web-site and a not-for-profit;) organization with a cool acronym so we can get the gospel to the masses.

atpeace

13th February 2010, 12:44 AM

I'll now refrain from further mad speculation about the winter diet and physiology of mythical creatures in the North American woods. No good can come of this! We should, however, start a watch clock to track how long it will take someone on the BFRO to report finding a massive "bigfoot cache" of nuts. Starting . . . now!

BTDT: I remember pages of speculations on wood debri covered Snowmounds a year or so ago on the BFRO. One speculation was they were used to house large caches of ....drumroll please....N U T S.

If my memory serves, which it often doesn't.

ap

William Parcher

13th February 2010, 05:50 PM

Otter feeding mistaken for a struggling sledder (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/136779.html)

Witnesses who reported a snowmobiler wearing all black and a black helmet struggling to escape Moosehead Lake's East Outlet actually may have seen an otter, Maine Warden Service officials said Friday.

Thursday's search began after 2 p.m., when three people onshore reported seeing a person struggling in the lake near Wilsons campground. Wardens used an airboat on the water as warden pilot Charlie Later flew overhead.

Wardens found pieces of crayfish and a small bloodstain on the ice near where the person would have gone in, signs that at least one otter was there having a snack, Cpl. Mike Joy said.

"With the glare from the ice conditions, an otter would look black in color, and witnesses said the [snowmobiler] was wearing all black with a black helmet," Joy said.

Otters were in the area, Joy said.

JcR

14th February 2010, 06:25 PM

I watched this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kM0f3y9BVw&feature=related) and the only thing I was left wondering about was this heaving dog at 1:41.

Drewbot

15th February 2010, 06:15 AM

Otter feeding mistaken for a struggling sledder (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/136779.html)

There is a Cryptozoid from Ireland, I believe, it is the MASTER OTTER, that steals women, and if someone kills the GIANT OTTER, then they are cursed, and all their loved ones will die. I'm guessing Cryptomundo will have an article asking if this could be an American sighting of the MASTER OTTER

http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2009/11/dale-drinnon-master-otter.html

Drewbot

15th February 2010, 06:19 AM

I watched this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kM0f3y9BVw&feature=related) and the only thing I was left wondering about was this heaving dog at 1:41.

The dog was clearly exhibiting signs of dog Asthma or vomiting of some sort.

Shadou

15th February 2010, 07:36 AM

Master otter? Sounds more plausible than bigfoot.

William Parcher

15th February 2010, 09:44 AM

Spektator

15th February 2010, 11:29 AM

New Bigfoot book available at Amazon.

Bigfoot in Georgia (http://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Georgia-Jeffery-Wells/dp/0937663174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266251712&sr=1-1) - by Jeffery Wells. They sure do see them there. The cover of the book indicates lots of sightings on the state outline. I guess a person would have to be goofy to think Bigfoot ain't been living in Georgia.
(snip)
I've lived in Georgia for nearly all my life (less 18 months in NYC, a year in NC, and shorter periods, mainly summers, elsewhere), used to go hiking for weeks every summer, know dozens of hunters, kayakers, and other outdoor enthusiasts, and have never run across anyone who seriously claimed to see bigfoot. I have run across students who did a student film of bigfoot and others who discussed but as far as I know never carried out staging a bigfoot sighting hoax. Just for what it's worth.

JcR

15th February 2010, 11:50 AM

The dog was clearly exhibiting signs of dog Asthma or vomiting of some sort.
This dry heaving dog has left a bigger impression on me than the Bigfoot thermal. And this is my wonderment. :)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b799602e2f48.gif

Bitter Monk

15th February 2010, 01:46 PM

Bitter Monk, was the Bigfoot that you saw in Georgia, or elsewhere?

I had a brief sighting in the North Georgia mountains.

I have run across students who did a student film of bigfoot and others who discussed but as far as I know never carried out staging a bigfoot sighting hoax.

Any chance those students were from SCAD?

Spektator

15th February 2010, 05:51 PM

I had a brief sighting in the North Georgia mountains.

Any chance those students were from SCAD?

Atlanta campus of SCAD, yes. Was your sighting near Dahlonega?

Bitter Monk

15th February 2010, 06:27 PM

Atlanta campus of SCAD, yes. Was your sighting near Dahlonega?

Not too far as the crow flies. You can read the report I filed here. (http://www.sasquatchonline.com/index.php?option=com_corepubreports&Itemid=57&task=showreport&id=67) I'm afraid it's rather boring as sasquatch sightings go.

Spektator

15th February 2010, 06:30 PM

You have heard about Mr. Ledbetter and his booger suit, then. One campus policeman is sure the guy's going to get himself shot one of these days.....

Bitter Monk

15th February 2010, 06:33 PM

Actually I haven't but I'd be interested to hear more. I'm guessing this is the North Georgia campus you're referring to?

Spektator

15th February 2010, 06:54 PM

North Georgia College and State University. Some of the SCAD students shot some footage near the campus; there is a guy who likes to wear a "booger suit" (or so I'm told) and stroll around in various parts of the National Forest from time to time. I don't know anything about him except one of the campus policemen knows him and is sure he's going to get himself shot one of these days. I gather it's some kind of hooded thing that is either fur or shaggy like fur. So far as I know, the SCAD students were not involved with the eccentric Mr. L. or vice versa; it's been probably three years or more since I head anything about the "booger suit".

Bitter Monk

15th February 2010, 07:03 PM

That's pretty interesting but not surprising. I guess Jerry Clower was right about those Ledbetters.

JcR

15th February 2010, 08:05 PM

Not too far as the crow flies. You can read the report I filed here. (http://www.sasquatchonline.com/index.php?option=com_corepubreports&Itemid=57&task=showreport&id=67) I'm afraid it's rather boring as sasquatch sightings go.

Is there any good fishing down near the Jones ridge dam?

Crazyfish

16th February 2010, 03:34 AM

Hello everyone,
I had posted this over at BFF in response to a guy advocating killing one of them Boogers for study and the protection of the species. I got a few laughs, (OK 1, and he was drunk) But of course for the majority of the true footers, they thought it was Satanically provoked Blasphemy!. From the Spawn of the very Devil Himself! And now they tell me that I WILL burn in cryptoid Hell for all of eternity. Waaaaaaaaaaaa! My question being. What circle of Hell would I be placed in? Anyone know? I need to know what to bring, and how to pack. Will my phone work there? HELP!

footsdontfailme
View Member Profile Topics
Find Member's Posts
post Yesterday, 08:08 PM
Post #210
Two toes - Windigo
Group Icon
Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 11-January 10
From: Central WI
Member No.: 43,210

Warn: (0%) -----

" Hi jimmy, This is getting way off topic, but I can't seem to find a pertinent thread. (Mods please bump this if you can find this one.)
I am not disagreeing with you about dropping one, in His oversize tracks, for the prevailing consensus seems to be, that we require a type specimen in order to study and protect the Big Guy.

But anonymity seems to have been his best defense against Humans so far. I'm certain that there are more than a few wealthy big game hunters who would love nothing more than to have Footy's pointy little sagittal crest hanging on their trophy wall, acquired by any means, with no regard to cost.

What concerns me even more, is how many Yuan would a Sasquatch penis and other parts bring on the Asian apothecary and restaurant market.

They would be poached mercilessly, protection notwithstanding. Have you checked the price of Tiger wanger lately ? or a Rhino horn ? Even the common Bear's parts are very valuable. Considering the size of the feet and all that entails, it seems that Harry would be worth a lot more dead, than alive.

If you think you think you get a lot of Spam for bogus Viagra and various "male enhancement" products now. You ain't seen nuthin yet."

Any helpful suggestions, or advice, would be most appreciated.

Drewbot

16th February 2010, 08:12 AM

What was Neil Burgstahler's Handle?

The one where he was maintaining we were NSA operatives?

I can't find that thread.

Spektator

16th February 2010, 08:34 AM

What was Neil Burgstahler's Handle?

The one where he was maintaining we were NSA operatives?

I can't find that thread.

Historian, wasn't it?

William Parcher

16th February 2010, 09:37 AM

You can read the report I filed here. (http://www.sasquatchonline.com/index.php?option=com_corepubreports&Itemid=57&task=showreport&id=67) I'm afraid it's rather boring as sasquatch sightings go.

Not boring for you I would imagine. It is an encounter for you in which you would answer the question "have you seen a Bigfoot?" with "yes". Not a "maybe" or "not sure" encounter.... correct?

Your sighting was in February 2007. The report is titled "67: Researcher has first sighting after 4 years' work at Georgia site." Does this mean that you had already been a Bigfooter for four years before your sighting? I noticed that you joined BFF in April 2004.

I was accompanied on the trip by three film students from the Savanna College of Art and Design. They were there to film me for a documentary they were producing on the sasquatch phenomenon.

How were you able to determine that you had not been hoaxed by a costume?

You had already founded and managed the Georgia Bigfoot website and organization by May 2006. A blog on Cryptomundo mentions you (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/elkinscast/).

Take Sam Rich of Georgia Bigfoot, for example. It was good to see him highlighted a couple days ago, in "Is There Bigfoot in Georgia?". Rich has noted the natural trails that denote some activity local researchers call the Belt Road Booger.

In May 2006 you spoke to a local reporter (http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4906451&nav=8fap) for the article "Is There Bigfoot in Georgia?"

"There's a natural trail right through there." said Sam Rich, Georgia Bigfoot researcher.

Sam Rich runs Georgia Bigfoot dot-com. He also investigates sightings written into the website. That's where this cast of a track came from...in Pike County, on Elkins Creek, 1997. But check out the track compared to gorilla and black bear casts. Quite a difference.

"I think it strengthens the argument and definitely points to the fact that the phenomenon is worthy of research. But whether or not there's actually a large undiscovered animal out there is something were still trying to find out." said Rich.

At that point (May 2006) you were "trying to find out" if Bigfoot exists. Nine months later (February 2007) you saw one for yourself and the question was answered, right?

Drewbot

16th February 2010, 10:26 AM

BITTER MONK- Did those guys film you after or while you had your sighting?

manofthesea

16th February 2010, 10:57 AM

You have heard about Mr. Ledbetter and his booger suit, then. One campus policeman is sure the guy's going to get himself shot one of these days.....

Georgia. Policeman. Bigfoot suit.

All that's missing is a freezer. And a slew of innards.

Spektator

16th February 2010, 11:05 AM

Georgia. Policeman. Bigfoot suit.

All that's missing is a freezer. And a slew of innards.

Except the campus cop is NOT involved at all, except he knows (or knew) the guy--and this was some years ago--and miles and miles away. Otherwise, dead on! ;)

Bitter Monk

16th February 2010, 11:35 AM

I'm trying to reply via my iPhone at the doctor's office so if I miss something bear with me.

The title of the report refers to the amount of time I'd been investigating that area. I'd been actively investigating the subject since 2001. I started my website (never an organization) in 2001 initially as a means of sharing information.

The size and fluidity of its motion convinced me that it was real. I don't expect that to convince anyone else, and the potential for a hoax always has to be accounted for. That said it didn't answer any questions for me. Instead it left me with a lot more questions.

Drew the film guys were in camp making dinner at the time it happened. It was probably an hour after that when we left camp
and resumed filming.

Drewbot

16th February 2010, 11:41 AM

Drew the film guys were in camp making dinner at the time it happened. It was probably an hour after that when we left camp
and resumed filming.

It's funny that you were there all those years, and didn't see anything until you brought this film crew with you. I wonder if they had a friend they were communicating with, just to get your reaction for the documentary. I mean none of them saw it right?

You were there all these years, never saw anything, they show up one time, and all of them are doing dishes at the time of your sighting. Wow.

Bitter Monk

16th February 2010, 11:45 AM

That was certainly something I had considered. I hadn't told them where we were going to be prior to showing up at the campsite, and prior to the sighting all three were in my sight the whole time. That said I still thought the exact same thing you're thinking, and it's one of the main reasons I didn't run into camp screaming at them.

darkwing

16th February 2010, 02:07 PM

Drew, you really need to get your facts straight, the MABRC did not start this up, nor were we thrown off it. The MABRC became involved to help evaluate the activity there, and became involved in the placement of additional cameras. The landowner was advised to not claim everything was bigfoot related and the need for evaluation of all video and audio before being thrown out there as "bigfoot-related". The landowner balked, and continued posting everything as "bigfoot-related" then began asking for donations for more cameras and additional equipment, despite no evidence to back up the claims of bigfoot activity. The decision was made by the MABRC to part ways with the whole project, since every shadow and cricket chirp was being claimed to be bigfoot-related.

The bulletmaker feed was never made live to avoid all the same problems that the Kentucky Live feed has, and will have as long as they claim everything is "bigfoot-related".

Parcher, last year, there was a Kentucky Bigfoot Live Web Feed, it was actually started up by the MABRC and Darkwing if I remember correctly, The people involved seemed very Bulletmaker-like. I also believe that MABRC got thrown off the project, and ended up trying to set up a Bulletmaker Live Feed. I believe this is also about the time that MABRC and Bulletmaker had the falling out. Can someone verify if this is the same Kentucky Bigfoot house/camera set up? Melissa Hovey was involved in the KY project if I remember correctly.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=737&view=&hl=kentucky&fromsearch=1
Here is the old KY bigfoot, but the links to the live feed don't work. Bill Green did see a White Bigfoot however on one of the live feeds.

Drewbot

16th February 2010, 02:16 PM

Drew, you really need to get your facts straight, the MABRC did not start this up, nor were we thrown off it. The MABRC became involved to help evaluate the activity there, and became involved in the placement of additional cameras. The landowner was advised to not claim everything was bigfoot related and the need for evaluation of all video and audio before being thrown out there as "bigfoot-related". The landowner balked, and continued posting everything as "bigfoot-related" then began asking for donations for more cameras and additional equipment, despite no evidence to back up the claims of bigfoot activity. The decision was made by the MABRC to part ways with the whole project, since every shadow and cricket chirp was being claimed to be bigfoot-related.

Your website had a direct link to the Kentucky live-feed. When I went back to the MABRC website to get answers it said that it no longer existed. The people at the KY live feed at the time said the MABRC was kicked out. My facts are straight, it's just a matter of who is telling the story.

You are the person who let Bulletmaker limit my account, threaten me, when I debunked his Bigfoot/Deer Feeder photo, you are the one who didn't support me when I debunked the YOWIIE photos because you didn't want to offend the photo poster, please don't tell me about checking my facts. You sold me out to help out your Bigfoot buddies, even though I was honestly debunking their claims.

The bulletmaker feed was never made live to avoid all the same problems that the Kentucky Live feed has, and will have as long as they claim everything is "bigfoot-related".
I would hope that the Bulletmaker feed was never made live because you found out he was hoaxing you all these years.

darkwing

16th February 2010, 02:23 PM

Your website had a direct link to the Kentucky live-feed. When I went back to the MABRC website to get answers it said that it no longer existed. The people at the KY live feed at the time said the MABRC was kicked out. My facts are straight, it's just a matter of who is telling the story.

You are the person who let Bulletmaker limit my account, threaten me, when I debunked his Bigfoot/Deer Feeder photo, you are the one who didn't support me when I debunked the YOWIIE photos because you didn't want to offend the photo poster, please don't tell me about checking my facts. You sold me out to help out your Bigfoot buddies, even though I was honestly debunking their claims.

I would hope that the Bulletmaker feed was never made live because you found out he was hoaxing you all these years.

Your facts are straight? Depending on which side is telling the story? How can you have the facts straight when you claim that?

Bulletmaker never limited your account, he never had that power. You never debunked the Deer Feeder photo or the Yowiie Photo, all you did was draw some stick figures on what you thought it looked like to you. To this day, I can't say what is in either one of them, and neither can you. You have never visited the location to attempt to verify anything.

And as for Bulletmaker, his claims of hoaxing fell short of the truth, how can a crippled old man go running through the woods at night, when he is terrified of the dark. Especially knowing that the people in the field are well armed and could possibly take shots at him.

And it's really funny that you claim your access was limited, when you have the top level of access granted to forum members there, and last I checked, that account was still active. Hmmmm, tell me another story. :rolleyes:

William Parcher

16th February 2010, 02:30 PM

The size and fluidity of its motion convinced me that it was real. I don't expect that to convince anyone else, and the potential for a hoax always has to be accounted for.

You are convinced you saw a Bigfoot, but it may have been a hoax. Is that what you are saying?

That said it didn't answer any questions for me. Instead it left me with a lot more questions.

It didn't answer the question "Does Bigfoot exist?" ? Is that still a question on your mind?

Bitter Monk

16th February 2010, 05:59 PM

You are convinced you saw a Bigfoot, but it may have been a hoax. Is that what you are saying?
It didn't answer the question "Does Bigfoot exist?" ? Is that still a question on your mind?

I'm convinced what I saw was real based upon what I saw. What I meant was if you could show me what I saw again, like a magician explaining a magic trick, I wouldn't argue against the fact that it could have been a hoax. I also know that because my experience is nothing more than an anecdote that there's nothing there to dispel the potential for hoax, misidentification, hallucination, etc from anyone's own personal opinion.

The bottom line is we're not talking about the neighbor's cat. We're talking about the highest of mighties when it comes to mysteries. There will always be questions and conflicts in my own mind until I get close enough to pet one.

Spektator

16th February 2010, 07:21 PM

I respect that, Bitter Monk. I made a couple of calls today but failed to connect with anyone who can tell me more about the guy who gets, or at least used to get, his jollies by roaming around in a shaggy suit.

Bitter Monk

16th February 2010, 07:28 PM

Spektator

16th February 2010, 07:48 PM

Thanks for the effort. If you ever do hear anything I'd be really interested.

I got stopped more than once by locals making sure we weren't running a shake n' bake meth operation. They're good people for the most part but rightfully suspicious of any shenanigans.

Ha! Some hikers near Neels Gap once overtook me on the trail, kept looking back at me, and finally approached me to ask if I had any, you know...weed. Must have been my hippie-like appearance in my younger days, I don't know. Anyway, being a clean-living sort, I had no funky substances, but sometimes I wonder what sort of reports they might have made after indulging out there in the wilderness.....

Bitter Monk

16th February 2010, 07:55 PM

Wow, the synchronicity continues. I was up at Neels Gap one afternoon and crossed paths with three hikers on the trail. I headed down an old abandoned two track that cuts back north west down into the holler on the north side of the gap and they stayed on the trail heading north east.

I just assumed they had kept hiking. Well it got dark and I started to hike my way back up out of the holler. There was enough moonlight so I wasn't using my flashlight. I was trying some different locator calls trying to get a response as I slowly made my way back up. When I cleared the gap I looked back and you could see their tents and a small fire on down the trail. I know they had to have heard me the whole way and for a long time after that I kept watching for class b type reports from that area and time. :D

WGBH

16th February 2010, 09:19 PM

I'm convinced what I saw was real based upon what I saw. What I meant was if you could show me what I saw again, like a magician explaining a magic trick, I wouldn't argue against the fact that it could have been a hoax. I also know that because my experience is nothing more than an anecdote that there's nothing there to dispel the potential for hoax, misidentification, hallucination, etc from anyone's own personal opinion.

The bottom line is we're not talking about the neighbor's cat. We're talking about the highest of mighties when it comes to mysteries. There will always be questions and conflicts in my own mind until I get close enough to pet one.

Very well said Sam.

154

16th February 2010, 11:27 PM

This is the one I've wanted to see Kit and Vort dismiss as usual also.

HarryHenderson

17th February 2010, 01:06 AM

...Bill Green did see a White Bigfoot however on one of the live feeds.
So I guess that's that! There is a Bigfoot! And with the confirmation coming from the most unlikely source. Just wow! :eek:

So anyway, I'm in awe there's people apparently still willing to associate themselves in some kind of 'positive way' with the persona/activities of that internet rocket surgeon 'Bulletmaker'. Cripes! In Bigfootdom™ when exactly does something finally get tossed out as 'not news'? Never? And I'm not talking to Drew.

BTW, Darkwing, somewhere (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4769893#post4769893) on this forum is a post that says...
...So you are admitting that BM was Tornado and not his brother like he claimed? And the fact is, Bullet couldn't remember his password half the time on the MABRC Forum, I probably changed it over a hundred times for him whenhe would lock himself out.
I'm having a hard time reconciling the obvious lack of 'insight' such actions would normally generate. I mean, this idiot couldn't 'remember' his password for more than 3 or 4 HOURS at a time, and you indulge him by resetting it not ten or twenty times, which would be outrageous enough, but over one hundred times? On a site he/they probably participated in everyday? Is any of that 'suspicious' to you even a little? What about this: "There is something mentally wrong with somebody who 'forgets' their password 50 times, and 10 times so if they forget it 100 times." Honestly, that you indulged him/them to the degree you did is PURE INSANITY to me. The fact 'he' was at the time making totally OUTRAGEOUS claims regarding Bigfoot wasn't a 'real concern' of yours either?

Can you enlighten my ignorance, please?

JcR

17th February 2010, 01:18 AM

It is a nice spot. Bitter Monk: I might have missed you addressing this, but did you get any recordings of the vocalizations?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b7ba8a5bfb3a.jpg

darkwing

17th February 2010, 06:02 AM

BTW, Darkwing, somewhere (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4769893#post4769893) on this forum is a post that says...

I'm having a hard time reconciling the obvious lack of 'insight' such actions would normally generate. I mean, this idiot couldn't 'remember' his password for more than 3 or 4 HOURS at a time, and you indulge him by resetting it not ten or twenty times, which would be outrageous enough, but over one hundred times? On a site he/they probably participated in everyday? Is any of that 'suspicious' to you even a little? What about this: "There is something mentally wrong with somebody who 'forgets' their password 50 times, and 10 times so if they forget it 100 times." Honestly, that you indulged him/them to the degree you did is PURE INSANITY to me. The fact 'he' was at the time making totally OUTRAGEOUS claims regarding Bigfoot wasn't a 'real concern' of yours either?

Can you enlighten my ignorance, please?

Sure Harry, I put up with the crap so that the MABRC could access his property, and after he inserted himself into an important investigation on his own, and screwed things up massively so that it could not be completed, he was removed from the organization. His attempts to discredit everything that had occurred on his property derailed a lot of things. The MABRC is way far better off without him, as new areas have opened up, and new investigations have been done in a more positive light.

The MABRC has changed, we've trimmed the fat off, new equipment is being used (thermals, wireless microphones, ground and break beam sensors, etc.) and in-depth investigations on any evidence that is provided for examination. A recent trail cam picture from Oklahoma that showed what appeared to be a large bi-pedal hairy-looking figure in it was investigated and debunked, that investigation is on the forum now for all to see, and should be an eye opener for how the MABRC is operating now.

As for Bullet forgetting his password, I work as a Network Administrator, I've seen people forget their passwords all the time. It's nothing new to me.

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 06:25 AM

Bulletmaker never limited your account, he never had that power.

I was not allowed to post on the Bulletmaker's Den portion of the website.

You never debunked the Deer Feeder photo or the Yowiie Photo, all you did was draw some stick figures on what you thought it looked like to you. To this day, I can't say what is in either one of them, and neither can you. You have never visited the location to attempt to verify anything.
Bulletmakers Deer Feeder photo clearly shows a baseball hat.

Yowiie photo, I showed that the branches were doing the moving, and not the alleged Yowiie. Yowiie poster even verified that it was extremely windy that day.

I CAN say that neither one shows a Bigfoot

And this doesn't show a family of Bigfeet.
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=793

And as for Bulletmaker, his claims of hoaxing fell short of the truth, how can a crippled old man go running through the woods at night, when he is terrified of the dark. Especially knowing that the people in the field are well armed and could possibly take shots at him.

You must have some good evidence of BIGFOOT then, if all those sightings weren't Bulletmaker or his Good ol' boys.

And it's really funny that you claim your access was limited, when you have the top level of access granted to forum members there, and last I checked, that account was still active. Hmmmm, tell me another story. :rolleyes:

IIRC I haven't been back since you got hit by that worm or virus or whatever.

darkwing

17th February 2010, 06:49 AM

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 06:57 AM

I'm not going to argue with you Drew, you had the same access to post there as anyone else in Bulletmaker's Den. You never debunked anything on the pictures. A "BAT", you never claimed that before, but now you are?

The Yowie Pic animation that was put together from the series of pictures taken showed something else was moving besides the tree limbs. It was never claimed to be a Yowie, but it was something moving through there.

You go off half-cocked and claim to debunk things, but you never have debunked anything. Go read the Oklahoma Trail Cam photo investigation on the forum, you will see how it's really done, not the way you do it with stick figures.

I said "HAT" not "BAT" Get your facts straight.
And I posted it at MABRC first, but it got DELETED and I was not allowed to repost it in Bulletmakers Den. So I posted my work here, Please tell me you don't see a Baseball hat in the lower left corner.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1970549d1ff5c953e8.jpg

Bitter Monk

17th February 2010, 07:07 AM

It is a nice spot.

The best part is it looks like a foot. :D

Bitter Monk: I might have missed you addressing this, but did you get any recordings of the vocalizations?

From that spot the previous year? No we didn't.* We did get a nice recording later that same night at Frying Pan Gap but upon closer review it ended up being a yote domain call. At the time we were hearing it though you could only hear the higher end of the call. Sounded like a banshee screaming down off the mountain.

*[insert lame bigfooter excuse]My ghetto fabulous recording rig was busted[/lame excuse]

darkwing

17th February 2010, 07:09 AM

Yeah, the shape could appear to be a baseball cap, (and you had bat on your post until you edited that) but that is an awful tall baseball cap, for it to go all the way up the side of the picture like that.

But you still didn't debunk that picture, you only speculated what you seen in the picture. Remember, speculation is not proof, and everyone will see something different in that picture. I never claimed that it was a bigfoot, it was speculated it could be the arm and leg, but since Bullet could never provide the negatives, it remained all speculation and could not be proven to be anything other than a blobsquatch.

Your attempt to position yourself as the great debunker is falling very short of your goal.

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 07:39 AM

Yeah, the shape could appear to be a baseball cap, (and you had bat on your post until you edited that) but that is an awful tall baseball cap, for it to go all the way up the side of the picture like that.

No, I only added the picture in my edit, does anyone have access to my original post before I added the picture? Or can a mod verify that I had HAT in my original post?

That is his hand, the hat bill is clear, the hand is reaching up and adjusting the camera.

darkwing

17th February 2010, 07:45 AM

No, I only added the picture in my edit, does anyone have access to my original post before I added the picture? Or can a mod verify that I had HAT in my original post?

That is his hand, the hat bill is clear, the hand is reaching up and adjusting the camera.

Again, all you have is speculation on your part, Drew. SPECULATION. Go read the report done on the Oklahoma Trail Cam picture and learn how it's done. Until Bullet ever comes up with the original negative for us to compare with, all anyone can do is speculate, and I don't see Bullet ever producing the negative. Once again, you did not debunk the photo, you only have given your impression of what is in it. Can you not get that through your head? Speculation and debunking are two totally different things here.

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 07:54 AM

Again, all you have is speculation on your part, Drew. SPECULATION.

No, I have common sense. It is a baseball hat, and a hand of someone adjusting the camera and getting snapped.

Common sense tells me PGF is a guy in a suit, it is obvious.

Speculation tells people that it is an UNCLASSIFIED GIANT HAIRY BEAST THAT HAS A HUGE RECTUM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtqZVFupzuo

Vortigern99

17th February 2010, 08:24 AM

This is the one I've wanted to see Kit and Vort dismiss as usual also.

Can you be more specific? Which one is "this one"?

And I do not "dismiss" reports. I use critical thinking skills and the skeptic's toolkit to address them and offer mundane possibilities, alternatives to the supernatural thinking you've allowed your mind to slip into.

darkwing

17th February 2010, 08:30 AM

No, I have common sense. It is a baseball hat, and a hand of someone adjusting the camera and getting snapped.

Common sense tells me PGF is a guy in a suit, it is obvious.

Speculation tells people that it is an UNCLASSIFIED GIANT HAIRY BEAST THAT HAS A HUGE RECTUM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtqZVFupzuo

Common sense? From the guy who takes a ghurka knife out and threatens to stab anything that runs at him in the dark?

You, nor anyone else can state 100% that it's a hat and a hand, you have no proof to back that claim up. All you have is speculation on your part. No common sense.

Not defending the photo, just can't see how you can claim your speculation is a debunking of the photo like you claimed you did.

LTC8K6

17th February 2010, 09:12 AM

darkwing

17th February 2010, 09:22 AM

I see the cap and face at the bottom, and the rest is a shirt sleeve...

LTC,
You notice it as a cap and face because it was stated previously by Drew as that, it's now implanted in your mind that is what it is and of course you see it yourself now. But what if you had looked at the picture without knowing that, then how would you have viewed it?

I'm not arguing about what it is, I'm arguing that Drew can't claim to have debunked it on what limited information was available, and based upon his speculation.

GT/CS

17th February 2010, 10:06 AM

RayG

17th February 2010, 11:10 AM

Common sense? From the guy who takes a ghurka knife out and threatens to stab anything that runs at him in the dark?

Seems to be a pretty effective way of ensuring no bigfoot encounter at close range. Why do you think all these bigfoot expeditions have no-gun policies?

Common sense dictates no guns = no dead humans pretending to be bigfoot.

RayG

WGBH

17th February 2010, 11:24 AM

Seems to be a pretty effective way of ensuring no bigfoot encounter at close range. Why do you think all these bigfoot expeditions have no-gun policies?

Common sense dictates no guns = no dead humans pretending to be bigfoot.

RayG

That would not be the case Ray. Unless prohibited where you are investigating, it is always a good idea to carry protection or be with someone who is.

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 12:17 PM

That would not be the case Ray. Unless prohibited where you are investigating, it is always a good idea to carry protection or be with someone who is.

JC- His point is, that I used the "I WILL CHARGE ANY BIGFOOT WITH THIS GHURKA KNIFE AND DON"T CARE WHAT HAPPENS" So that there will be nobody in camp willing to risk hoaxing me. Since it seems to me most outings involve some sort of hoaxing or messing around with people, I felt that was an effective way to nip that in the bud.

WGBH

17th February 2010, 12:28 PM

I understand Drew. Which is why I would have no problem at all having you and your very large knife there. If people are stupid enough to hoax, they belong on the Darwin awards. Speaking only for myself, I feel safer out there knowing there is protection.

Óðinn

17th February 2010, 03:15 PM

JC- His point is, that I used the "I WILL CHARGE ANY BIGFOOT WITH THIS GHURKA KNIFE AND DON"T CARE WHAT HAPPENS" So that there will be nobody in camp willing to risk hoaxing me. Since it seems to me most outings involve some sort of hoaxing or messing around with people, I felt that was an effective way to nip that in the bud.

What you nipped in the bud was a chance to catch the hoaxers in the act. Probably a big mistake unless you wanted to give bigfoot a chance.

HarryHenderson

17th February 2010, 06:18 PM

...As for Bullet forgetting his password, I work as a Network Administrator, I've seen people forget their passwords all the time. It's nothing new to me.
OMG, you really don't have a ******* CLUE what my meaning was do you?! Clueless™ is a movie, not a desirable 'character trait'. I shan't bother you further.

Drewbot

17th February 2010, 06:19 PM

What you nipped in the bud was a chance to catch the hoaxers in the act. Probably a big mistake unless you wanted to give bigfoot a chance.

Good point. but I also didn't want to accidentally hurt a human being.

154

17th February 2010, 06:55 PM

Can you be more specific? Which one is "this one"?

And I do not "dismiss" reports. I use critical thinking skills and the skeptic's toolkit to address them and offer mundane possibilities, alternatives to the supernatural thinking you've allowed your mind to slip into.I'm looking forward to your and Kit's consistent questioning, you know... of someone claiming to have seen a bigfoot... in the "anybody seen a bigfoot?" thread. Did you critically think that I might have been referring to the unrelated Drew/MABRC stuff?

...the supernatural thinking you've allowed your mind to slip into.Quote me.

Vortigern99

17th February 2010, 08:15 PM

I'm looking forward to your and Kit's consistent questioning, you know... of someone claiming to have seen a bigfoot... in the "anybody seen a bigfoot?" thread. Did you critically think that I might have been referring to the unrelated Drew/MABRC stuff?

Okay, thanks for clarifying, in your round-about way, that it's Bitter Monk's sighting you're suggesting that I comment on. With all the posts on a variety of topics, including references to Georgia and "booger suits" from various posters, I sincerely did not understand which case you were referring to.

I haven't chimed in to question Bitter Monk for two reasons: One, WP is already asking all the right questions. He's got it covered, and anything I might add at this point would be overkill IMO.

Two, Monk/Sam has already allowed that "it could have been a hoax", and that "there's nothing there to dispel the potential for hoax, misidentification, hallucination, etc from anyone's own personal opinion."

Rather than begrudgingly admitting this under intense grilling, Monk has been very open-minded, from the moment he began discussing his sighting, about allowing possibilities other than the dogmatic "Nope. It was definitely bigfoot!"

He doesn't need me to guide him in that direction; he already understands that it might have been something other than what he thought he saw.

With you (154) and WGBH, you steadfastly adhere to the belief/opinion/certainty that what you saw was a giant, hairy, stinking, unclassified NA biped, and that any other possibility (hoax, perceptual distortion, etc.) is extremely unlikely.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Quote me.

You claim to have seen bigfoot. The only way to explain the lack of verifiable physical evidence for bigfoot's existence, after five decades of intensive searching by scientists, wildlife professionals and laymen alike, is that it is supernatural/paranormal/anomalous/"alien"/whatever. Hence, my assertion that you've allowed yourself to slip into supernatural thinking with regard to belief in this creature's existence.

Again, I hope that clarifies.

154

17th February 2010, 08:51 PM

Quote me.

You claim to have seen bigfoot. The only way to explain the lack of verifiable physical evidence for bigfoot's existence, after five decades of intensive searching by scientists, wildlife professionals and laymen alike, is that it is supernatural/paranormal/anomalous/"alien"/whatever. Hence, my assertion that you've allowed yourself to slip into supernatural thinking with regard to belief in this creature's existence.

Again, I hope that clarifies.

Again, please quote my words, any of them, that justify your insult that my mind has slipped into the "supernatural/paranormal/anomalous/"alien"/whatever" or just say "oops" and maybe even "sorry."

LTC8K6

17th February 2010, 10:43 PM

LTC,
You notice it as a cap and face because it was stated previously by Drew as that, it's now implanted in your mind that is what it is and of course you see it yourself now. But what if you had looked at the picture without knowing that, then how would you have viewed it?

I'm not arguing about what it is, I'm arguing that Drew can't claim to have debunked it on what limited information was available, and based upon his speculation.

Actually, I was merely pointing out your error in thinking that Drew meant the whole thing was a baseball cap.

I see the whole thing as the wrinkly sleeve of a long sleeved t shirt.

Vortigern99

18th February 2010, 08:45 AM

Again, please quote my words, any of them, that justify your insult that my mind has slipped into the "supernatural/paranormal/anomalous/"alien"/whatever" or just say "oops" and maybe even "sorry."

It's not an insult. You're being too sensitive to derogation which is not there.

1. Bigfoot cannot be explained by mundane/scientific means.

2. It can only be paranormal/supernatural.

3. You believe in bigfoot.

4. Therefore, you engage in supernatural/paranormal thinking.

Do you really need me to quote you stating #3? Or are you now asserting that you don't believe you saw a bigfoot?

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 08:52 AM

I'm convinced what I saw was real based upon what I saw.

What I meant was if you could show me what I saw again, like a magician explaining a magic trick, I wouldn't argue against the fact that it could have been a hoax.

You feel that you saw a real Bigfoot but you might be wrong. Is that a good summary of your position?

I also know that because my experience is nothing more than an anecdote that there's nothing there to dispel the potential for hoax, misidentification, hallucination, etc from anyone's own personal opinion.

Nor does your experience work against the theory that Bigfoot does not exist at all. The potential for hoax in your sighting report can go two ways. You may have been hoaxed (costume), or you may be the hoaxer (fictitious sighting).

The bottom line is we're not talking about the neighbor's cat. We're talking about the highest of mighties when it comes to mysteries. There will always be questions and conflicts in my own mind until I get close enough to pet one.

We must disagree on at least one point. I do not regard Bigfoot as being a mystery. I think that for the most part, it is the believers who refer to it as a mystery. I think I understand why they declare it a mystery and it has a lot to do with defining their modus operandi. It isn't enough to just mention Bigfoot. You need to somehow justify this quirky obsession. So you say that there is an interesting mystery to be solved.

Although I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist and it is true that Bigfoot could exist, I would put the chances of this so low that they might as well be zero. It isn't helpful for me to argue that the odds are better than zero. To do so would muddle the argument and force me to entertain absurdities. I don't want that.

I would further say that many Bigfoot believers use the "solve the mystery" directive in a sort of false way. They put it as a personal and community quest to solve the mystery one way or the other (exists or does not exist). But what happens to that goal when the mystery cannot be solved for non-existence? You see, that person cannot ever genuinely prove that Bigfoot does not exist. So that side of the mystery question cannot ever be taken care of. Therefore, the mystery can only be solved one of two ways. It can only be solved by confirming the existence of Bigfoot. The most that that person could do is say that they no longer believe in Bigfoot. They might say they solved the mystery. But put them in front of a believer and they will be told that they did not solve the mystery at all.

Óðinn

18th February 2010, 09:43 AM

It's not an insult. You're being too sensitive to derogation which is not there.

1. Bigfoot cannot be explained by mundane/scientific means.

2. It can only be paranormal/supernatural.

3. You believe in bigfoot.

4. Therefore, you engage in supernatural/paranormal thinking.

Do you really need me to quote you stating #3? Or are you now asserting that you don't believe you saw a bigfoot?

Well that pretty much shoots the scientific method in the bigfoot. When did the "we would have found one by now" argument become scientific evidence? Does that imply that since there are so many sightings that at least 1 MUST be true? Same kind of logic.

You can't get to #4, since #1 is fallacious. This isn't critical thinking, it's pseudo-skepticism. Like it or not, it is the skeptic's position to refute claims that bigfoot exists, but you can never prove it doesn't. Yet your 4 statements are structured like a logical proof, which they aren't.

Since I'm sure you already knew this, I suspect your intentions weren't as forthright as you claim. Now come on, say you're sorry and let it go. :D

Vortigern99

18th February 2010, 09:54 AM

Well that pretty much shoots the scientific method in the bigfoot. When did the "we would have found one by now" argument become scientific evidence? Does that imply that since there are so many sightings that at least 1 MUST be true? Same kind of logic.

You can't get to #4, since #1 is fallacious. This isn't critical thinking, it's pseudo-skepticism. Like it or not, it is the skeptic's position to refute claims that bigfoot exists, but you can never prove it doesn't. Yet your 4 statements are structured like a logical proof, which they aren't.

Since I'm sure you already knew this, I suspect your intentions weren't as forthright as you claim. Now come on, say you're sorry and let it go. :D

Hogwash.

The only errors I've made are ones of omission. I haven't the time or inclination to re-list, ad nauseam, all the supernatural miracles that bigfoot must perform if it is a real creature, in order to explain the lack of bones, scat, hair, unambiguous photography, DNA, sightings by accredited biologists, non-hoaxable tracks, etc. etc.

Your own inclination to believe in bigfoot, which is evident in every post you make on the subject, clouds your own critical thinking on the subject.

It's true and correct that I can never prove bigfoot doesn't exist, since proving a negative is a logical fallacy, and goes without saying. If you would feel better were I to add "probably" and "likely" to my syllogism, then I will happily do that. Every other post I've made on the subject includes those adverbs, and for the sake of simplicity in a succinct syllogism, I've omitted them. By all means, re-insert them where they belong.

1. It's highly probable that bigfoot cannot be explained by mundane/scientific means.

2. It's highly probable that bigfoot can only be paranormal/supernatural.

3. You believe in bigfoot.

4. Therefore, you engage in supernatural/paranormal thinking.

Correa Neto

18th February 2010, 10:14 AM

...snip... When did the "we would have found one by now" argument become scientific evidence?
...snip...
Like it or not, it is the skeptic's position to refute claims that bigfoot exists, but you can never prove it doesn't.
...snip...
At a certain point, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence, regardless of how much the proponents of fringe subjects may try to negate this fact. Bigfoot IMHO reached this point.

The skeptics' position is actually to critically evaluate claims; its not to refute them. Claims will be refuted if the evidence and methods used to back them are considered flawed. Again, IMHO, that's where bigfoot stands.

Óðinn

18th February 2010, 11:34 AM

Hogwash.

The only errors I've made are ones of omission. I haven't the time or inclination to re-list, ad nauseam, all the supernatural miracles that bigfoot must perform if it is a real creature, in order to explain the lack of bones, scat, hair, unambiguous photography, DNA, sightings by accredited biologists, non-hoaxable tracks, etc. etc.

Your own inclination to believe in bigfoot, which is evident in every post you make on the subject, clouds your own critical thinking on the subject.

It's true and correct that I can never prove bigfoot doesn't exist, since proving a negative is a logical fallacy, and goes without saying. If you would feel better were I to add "probably" and "likely" to my syllogism, then I will happily do that. Every other post I've made on the subject includes those adverbs, and for the sake of simplicity in a succinct syllogism, I've omitted them. By all means, re-insert them where they belong.

1. It's highly probable that bigfoot cannot be explained by mundane/scientific means.

2. It's highly probable that bigfoot can only be paranormal/supernatural.

3. You believe in bigfoot.

4. Therefore, you engage in supernatural/paranormal thinking.

:D Good one. This is the antithetical of critical thinking. Nothing changes by using "probably" or "likely". You can't construct a logical proof with fallacious statements. Sorry, there is no time limit after which we can make scientific conclusions. It just doesn't work that way. A scientific proof must be rigorous, without expiry dates.

So I believe in bigfoot? Nope. I don't think it's impossible, but I just like to play the devil's advocate to you pseudo-skeptics to keep you honest. Actually, my only interest in bigfoot has always been the PGF. As a photo analyst, I find the film fascinating from a historical perspective, in that it hasn't been thoroughly debunked long ago by you "experts" in the bigfoot phenomenon. There's just enough missing information that you can't put a bow on it and call it a day. I realize this frustrates some of the skeptics who demand to be shown the monkey or they're calling "times up".

And whether I believe or not, your logical proof that a believer engages in paranormal thinking is still hogwash.

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 12:03 PM

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 12:14 PM

This is the antithetical of critical thinking. Nothing changes by using "probably" or "likely". You can't construct a logical proof with fallacious statements. Sorry, there is no time limit after which we can make scientific conclusions. It just doesn't work that way. A scientific proof must be rigorous, without expiry dates.

Your statements here have an interesting relationship to the status of extinct (extinction). For this, there is no argument that the animal (or plant) existed/exists in the first place. But how to scientifically deal with the subject of extinction? Is it scientific to say that the passenger pigeon is extinct? Is it non-scientific?

To say "there are no living passenger pigeons" is to speak of a negative. So we can't prove that negative. But we generally accept it. Are there any scientists/ornithologists who refuse to say that the bird is extinct? Would you agree that that statement is acceptable for the pigeon? Why not the same for Bigfoot?

Vortigern99

18th February 2010, 12:46 PM

:D Good one. This is the antithetical of critical thinking. Nothing changes by using "probably" or "likely". You can't construct a logical proof with fallacious statements. Sorry, there is no time limit after which we can make scientific conclusions. It just doesn't work that way. A scientific proof must be rigorous, without expiry dates.

So I believe in bigfoot? Nope. I don't think it's impossible, but I just like to play the devil's advocate to you pseudo-skeptics to keep you honest. Actually, my only interest in bigfoot has always been the PGF. As a photo analyst, I find the film fascinating from a historical perspective, in that it hasn't been thoroughly debunked long ago by you "experts" in the bigfoot phenomenon. There's just enough missing information that you can't put a bow on it and call it a day. I realize this frustrates some of the skeptics who demand to be shown the monkey or they're calling "times up".

And whether I believe or not, your logical proof that a believer engages in paranormal thinking is still hogwash.

There is nothing "pseudo-skeptical" about requiring evidence before allowing the probability of a species' existence. Anecdotal reports and hoaxable, unverified samples do not constitute evidence.

Based on this dearth, it is absolutely logical, rational and scientific to assert that it is highly probable that bigfoot does not exist.

Given that you object to my syllogism based on the inclusion of the above italicised phrase, which I inserted to clarify my position, I understand your line of reasoning and hereby retract that syllogism.

It remains, nevertheless, that magical thinking is required to explain the lack of evidence for a massive animal that, if it exists, must leave some evidence of its existence in the form of physical, testable, verifiable matter: scat, bones, hair, sightings by accredited professionals, non-hoaxable tracks, etc.

There is none of that; ergo, the only rational conclusion is that it is highly probable the animal does not exist. There is no known mechanism by which an animal's bones, etc., might melt away leaving no trace. Only the supernatural can explain away the absence of these traces.

Argue pedantically and linguistically with me all you like. Where I am unclear in my construction of logical proofs or erroneous in my omission of key adverbial clauses, I apologize and submit that language is imperfect, and that I am human and make mistakes. This does not alter my assertion that appeals to supernatural forces are required to account for the absence of evidence for this animal.

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 12:50 PM

Your statements here have an interesting relationship to the status of extinct (extinction).

In his Ivorybill book, Jerry Jackson discusses just how thorny those discussions can get when dealing with a former Endangered species. It's more than an academic issue when the resolution has great bearing on funding priorities for a federal agency.

You're right that it's a highly relevant question, i.e., why does negative evidence of Passenger Pigeon = there are no Passenger Pigeons but negative evidence of bigfoot does not = there is no bigfoot?

I suspect that the 'footer response would be twofold. First, unless Passenger Pigeons underwent a rapid and extreme evolutionary change long about 1900, then their likely behaviors and habitats are well-known, and do not include "super stealth." Given what we know about this species from those who did study (and hunt) them, there's nothing to suggest that any could be hiding anywhere. In contrast, ol' squatchy thrives on stealth, and apparently always has, so there's nothing to indicate that not finding them demonstrates that they're not there. (That's special pleading and a circular argument in one!)

The other response has to do with "evidence." The 'footers, of course, don't agree that the evidence is negative. From their vantage, 100s of people have seen bigfoots since 1914 (when "Martha" the last Passenger Pigeon died at the Cincinnati Zoo), but there has been no sustained, widespread phenomenon of Passenger Pigeon sightings. Those sightings are bolstered by tantalizing pieces of other evidence (e.g., PGF, audio recordings, footprints), all of which point to the existence of a real, live, flesh-and-blood bigfoot. So they see the "you must believe in a paranormal bigfoot because there's no evidence for a flesh-and-blood one" argument as a straw man.

Vortigern99

18th February 2010, 12:50 PM

Concur with "belief in bigfoot does not necessitate paranormal or supernatural explanations."

On a scale of plausibility, the reason we have no physical evidence (assuming there is a physical bigfoot) is still far more likely due to a series of unusual circumstances surrounding the life history of an unusual flesh and blood creature than due to the singular magical properties of said creature.

I disagree. Bones do not melt into the earth. Hair does not evaporate. Scat does not turn to dust and blow away. Tracks and other signs of passage do not close over in an instant. Sightings cannot be limited to non-scientists. Photographs do not blur owing to some quantum field emitted by a real animal. Magical thinking is absolutely required to explain the absence of evidence.

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 12:59 PM

...but there has been no sustained, widespread phenomenon of Passenger Pigeon sightings.

A BFF Bigfooter thinks he has seen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13776) a passenger pigeon. He hasn't yet said otherwise.

I've seen a bird several times that looks a lot like the female passenger pigeon pics I can find....

Anyway, very few birds of any kind around at the minute, hope they come back in spring, so I can try and get a pic to clear this mystery up.

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 01:09 PM

I disagree. Bones do not melt into the earth. Hair does not evaporate. Scat does not turn to dust and blow away. Tracks and other signs of passage do not close over in an instant. Sightings cannot be limited to non-scientists. Photographs do not blur owing to some quantum field emitted by a real animal. Magical thinking is absolutely required to explain the absence of evidence.

By this logic, we should all be neck-deep (or worse) in the accumulated remains of generations of dead things. Shirley, you can't be Sirius. (Thanks Harry!)

First, consider the Drake equation. Most scientists will tell you that there should be life on other planets because the number of potentially habitable planets is likely to be very large. So an apparently unusual event becomes probable given many many chances for it to occur. It goes the other way too: We might think it highly improbable that no physical evidence has been verified for bigfoot, but the likelihood of missing that evidence becomes much more probable if we simply assume there to be a extremely low population density. Special pleading? Yes, but not pleading anything especially crazy. . .

Of course, the other big problem with this logic is that 'footers do claim to find scat and hairs and footprints and have produced at least one clear photographic record in the PGF. Scientists have seen them too. Know thine enemy.

I agree with you that the lack of any such evidence as you've described being confirmed to come from such a creature as a bigfoot is, in fact, negative evidence of such a creature's existence. But if, later this evening, a lucky snow plow driver working a pass in the Cascades were to tag a bigfoot and cart its smelly hide back to civilization, what would be the more likely explanation: that this one's "quantum beaming worm-hole device" malfunctioned at an inopportune moment, or son of a gun, the danged things really did escape our notice all those years just by being stealthy and rare?

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 01:18 PM

A BFF Bigfooter thinks he has seen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13776) a passenger pigeon. He hasn't yet said otherwise.

I wouldn't characterize his statements as "thinks he has seen" one. He was clear from the get-go that he wasn't sure and was looking for more information.

I'll concede it's possible that a similar number of people claim to have seen passenger pigeons in the last, say, 40 years as have claimed to have seen bigfoot, but we just don't hear about the people claiming to see the pigeons. That said, I've never met anyone claiming such a sighting, nor have I ever heard of a second-hand account from any of my ornithological brethren.

Vortigern99

18th February 2010, 01:27 PM

By this logic, we should all be neck-deep (or worse) in the accumulated remains of generations of dead things. Shirley, you can't be Sirius. (Thanks Harry!)

That's absurd. We have identified the mortal remains of every animal species in North America, including those that share bigfoot's putative habitat. We are not "neck-deep" in the dead bodies of mountain lions, bears, raccoons, possums, etc. etc. Why are bigfoot's mortal remains so special? Be careful not to include any special pleading or supernatural thinking.

First, consider the Drake equation. Most scientists will tell you that there should be life on other planets because the number of potentially habitable planets is likely to be very large. So an apparently unusual event becomes probable given many many chances for it to occur. It goes the other way too: We might think it highly improbable that no physical evidence has been verified for bigfoot, but the likelihood of missing that evidence becomes much more probable if we simply assume there to be a extremely low population density. Special pleading? Yes, but not pleading anything especially crazy. . .

There is a certain population density required to sustain the genetic health of the species. At the numbers required by anthropologists' and biologists' estimates, we would absolutely have evidence of its existence.

Of course, the other big problem with this logic is that 'footers do claim to find scat and hairs and footprints and have produced at least one clear photographic record in the PGF. Scientists have seen them too. Know thine enemy.

If you're going to use the PGF to support your contentions here, I invite you to peruse the hundreds of pages on the topic already covered in this forum, if you haven't already done so. Despite Odinn's assertions to the contrary, the thing has been debunked as a man in a suit... to my satisfaction and that of many others, if not to his.

I agree with you that the lack of any such evidence as you've described being confirmed to come from such a creature as a bigfoot is, in fact, negative evidence of such a creature's existence. But if, later this evening, a lucky snow plow driver working a pass in the Cascades were to tag a bigfoot and cart its smelly hide back to civilization, what would be the more likely explanation: that this one's "quantum beaming worm-hole device" malfunctioned at an inopportune moment, or son of a gun, the danged things really did escape our notice all those years just by being stealthy and rare?

I have said numerous times, in this thread and elsewhere, that if we discover a specimen I'll be among the first to say "Wow, it looks like I was mistaken," and get on with the business of studying what must be a fascinating animal. The explanations for its melting bones etc. will make for an enthralling series of peer-reviewed papers, I'm sure.

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 01:33 PM

...but there has been no sustained, widespread phenomenon of Passenger Pigeon sightings.

I wouldn't characterize his statements as "thinks he has seen" one. He was clear from the get-go that he wasn't sure and was looking for more information.

I'll concede it's possible that a similar number of people claim to have seen passenger pigeons in the last, say, 40 years as have claimed to have seen bigfoot, but we just don't hear about the people claiming to see the pigeons. That said, I've never met anyone claiming such a sighting, nor have I ever heard of a second-hand account from any of my ornithological brethren.

The Coelacanth Card can be played. You don't even need sustained or widespread sightings to be wrong about extinction. A smallish population of Wooly Mammoths could be living right now in the taiga where nobody goes and nobody sees them.

I know why the Bigfoot believers on BFF like you. ;)

Óðinn

18th February 2010, 01:48 PM

Your statements here have an interesting relationship to the status of extinct (extinction). For this, there is no argument that the animal (or plant) existed/exists in the first place. But how to scientifically deal with the subject of extinction? Is it scientific to say that the passenger pigeon is extinct? Is it non-scientific?

To say "there are no living passenger pigeons" is to speak of a negative. So we can't prove that negative. But we generally accept it. Are there any scientists/ornithologists who refuse to say that the bird is extinct? Would you agree that that statement is acceptable for the pigeon? Why not the same for Bigfoot?

That's a pretty good analogy..except that they're sort of opposite positions. One is supposedly gone, while the other is supposedly here waiting to be classified. I would think that fossil evidence must exist for a species to be classified as extinct, and of course an absense of the animal in recent geology. But we all know how some species have reappeared from extinction. I see the Coelacanth Card has been played. So the extinction of an animal isn't a scientific certainty by any stretch.

Drewbot

18th February 2010, 01:52 PM

Dear The Shrike,

There will be no Bigfoot roadkill. Bigfoot is not a biological entity. Bigfoot is the result of a conglomeration of years of stories, books, photos, and films about a mythical hairy ape-man. It's believers have achieved a level of "TINY, FRINGE, SUB-CULTURE".

I can tell that you do not believe bigfoot exists, you are obviously doing this for fun, or to exercise your debate technique.

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 01:53 PM

Why are bigfoot's mortal remains so special? Be careful not to include any special pleading or supernatural thinking.
It's a matter of how special the pleading is allowed to be. A 'footer could respond that bigfoots have always occurred at at exceedingly low population density and that they have always been exceedingly wary of humans. That could be enough to explain the lack of verified remains for such creatures, with pleading that may be special but requires no supernatural explanation.

That's where I disagree with you. Unless I'm misreading you, you're making a paranormal explanation for bigfoot more likely than a really unlikely biological/ecological explanation.

There is a certain population density required to sustain the genetic health of the species. At the numbers required by anthropologists' and biologists' estimates, we would absolutely have evidence of its existence.
I've made one of those estimates myself, and came up with ~ 3000–6000 of 'em for that healthy population. But maybe there're only 1000 of 'em and it's an unhealthy population? Maybe only 500? That would make them far less likely to be detected - certainly not an absolute - and again, would require no paranormal explanation.

If you're going to use the PGF . . . the thing has been debunked as a man in a suit... to my satisfaction
Mine too, but before we gain any traction with the general public on that, I sure would like to see something peer-reviewed.

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 02:08 PM

That's a pretty good analogy..except that they're sort of opposite positions. One is supposedly gone, while the other is supposedly here waiting to be classified. I would think that fossil evidence must exist for a species to be classified as extinct, and of course an absense of the animal in recent geology. But we all know how some species have reappeared from extinction. I see the Coelacanth Card has been played. So the extinction of an animal isn't a scientific certainty by any stretch.

I was trying to draw an analogy between a question of existence and a question of extinction. I felt that you overemphasized the importance of "Bigfoot does not exist" as being a non-scientific position. It is non-scientific. But so what? The position that T. rex is extinct is non-scientific. Why? The Coelacanth Card. They still exist in the place where nobody is looking.

I think that you overemphasize the aspects of Bigfoot skepticism that are non-scientific. It is taking the standards and rigors of critical thinking too far.

The Shrike

18th February 2010, 02:11 PM

Dear The Shrike,
I can tell that you do not believe bigfoot exists, you are obviously doing this for fun, or to exercise your debate technique.

I try to be an advocate for science and critical thinking, and I know a lot more about animals and their habitats than I do about physics, chemistry, astronomy, psychology, etc. I have learned enough psychology/sociology, however, to understand that when we skeptics voice easily-refutable claims that we can sometimes exacerbate the problem. We contribute to the whole "science won't take this seriously" thing. Google "warmers vs deniers" if you'd like a non-bigfoot example.

It is easy and can be fun to ridicule those wacky bigfooters, but I prefer not to paint them with such a broad brush. They may all be wrong about there being a bigfoot, but many of them have come about their belief honestly by weighing the evidence and simply deciding that it tilts slightly more toward the "pro" side. I disagree with them, but that doesn't make them crazy.

If bigfoot was impossible, then belief in it would necessitate a paranormal explanation. But bigfoot is not impossible, it's merely implausible. Therefore, belief in bigfoot could be grounded in accepting some things about it that are highly unlikely, but not paranormal. That's all I'm trying to point out.

JcR

18th February 2010, 02:23 PM

The Coelacanth Card can be played. You don't even need sustained or widespread sightings to be wrong about extinction. A smallish population of Wooly Mammoths could be living right now in the taiga where nobody goes and nobody sees them.

I know why the Bigfoot believers on BFF like you. ;)

Sounds like a song
A Bigfoot goes where nobody knows
Nobody sees where a Bigfoot goes
A place where Woolys 'n' Bigfoot be
Nobody goes there to look 'n' see

Óðinn

18th February 2010, 02:37 PM

That's absurd. We have identified the mortal remains of every animal species in North America, including those that share bigfoot's putative habitat. We are not "neck-deep" in the dead bodies of mountain lions, bears, raccoons, possums, etc. etc. Why are bigfoot's mortal remains so special? Be careful not to include any special pleading or supernatural thinking.

Except for the ones we missed. You can't claim the list of known animals is all inclusive and we can't know what fossils haven't been discovered, yet.

The problem here is you haven't taken into consideration that the level of misidentifications, hoaxes & delusions could represent an enormous % of sightings. Actually finding bigfoot evidence would then be unlikely and all we're debating over is the hoaxed crap. This isn't special pleading, IMO it prevents you from scientifically concluding there is no bigfoot.

If the myth wasn't designed so well (i.e. vast habitat, low numbers, stealth, intelligence, looks like a hairy human, etc.) then I would be agreeing with you. But there are too many possible conditions that may have allowed them to exist undetected from us. Highly improbable, sure, but that's about as far as you can take it. Instead you've concluded that believing bigfoot possibly exists (as you once did) is akin to believing in magic. I'd be surprised if there were many here who agreed.

William Parcher

18th February 2010, 02:48 PM

This isn't special pleading, IMO it is preventing us from scientifically concluding there is no bigfoot.

Scientifically concluding there is no bigfoot. How would that be accomplished?

Óðinn

18th February 2010, 02:53 PM

Scientifically concluding there is no bigfoot. How would that be accomplished?

Poor choice of words. I didn't mean to scientifically prove there is no bigfoot (which is of course impossible), but rather to satisfy Vort's criteria for concluding there is no bigfoot.

JcR

18th February 2010, 03:29 PM

One would need a lot of guesswork and speculation to estimate a minimum viable population of an unknown species. A little bit of input from the species in question (Bigfoot) would help.
logical guesses and sensible what ifs scenarios for a Bigfoot is still fiction to me.
Sure I can imagine small clans of nomadic Bigfoot on the move, forever striving not to interbreed too much. Catching along the way; nuts, berries, tubers, deer and backyard pancakes. If a problem arises readjust the what ifs.

ETA: I omitted a lot of other factors that have an impact on the viability of species.

HarryHenderson

18th February 2010, 08:06 PM

...This does not alter my assertion that appeals to supernatural forces are required to account for the absence of evidence for this animal.
The term 'supernatural', while perfectly valid and descriptive of what you speak, is the lynch pin in this I think. You're using it matter-of-fact-ly, 'clinically' even, but it appears it's being taken more personally than you actually intend. That is, insinuating a reliance on some sort of 'magic' when it's really more (simply) a case of deliberate (or not) ignorance/omission.

As for the bigger picture, once again a discussion 'degenerates' (escalates?) into the same ole tired arguments of why there is or isn't a Bigfoot really. This is what, the 1,319,169th time it's been 'argued' without the actual possibility of some resolution?

I say we start discussing more about Bigfooters who beat their wives and rip the tags off mattresses, and stuff. Like. That. Forget that darn beast, he's not there anyway, and he's not near as interesting anymore either. :)

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 01:17 AM

<snip>
Mine too, but before we gain any traction with the general public on that, I sure would like to see something peer-reviewed.

I agree that there is no way of scientifically disproving the PGF because it is impossible to obtain any evidence - pro or con - from the pieces of film available that can prove anything.

However - I would hasten to add - that the statements of both Patterson and Gimlin as to how the pieces of film in question came into existence - in and of themselves - prove that the pieces of film are useless from a scientific point of view.

The pieces of film that they have produced must be considered false or ill-founded information and therefore not of any scientific value.

Why? Because until we have a clear and concise statement that covers the exact methods of how the pieces of film came into being (the full and complete path and time-line of the filming, developing, and transport to the first showing), plus the original entire film from which the pieces are obtained, there is no way any reputable scientist would - or should - even give such obviously suspect (read fraudulent) information a second look.

Drewbot

19th February 2010, 05:48 AM

I think VORT'S point, while he hasn't articulated it a clearly as he intended, is somewhat legitimate.

If he said something like, "FOR BIGFOOT TO BE A DISCOVERED AS A REAL CREATURE WOULD TAKE A MIRACLE" instead of 'If Bigfoot exists it must be magical or supernatural.
His point would be easier to swallow for some.

Remember that Bigfoot doesn't live in the deep ocean like the Coelacanth, it lives in the woods, woods bordering farmland, driveways, dirt roads, and dumpsters in semi-rural North America. With the Coelacanth, a scientist finding a 50million y.o, fossil might say something like "It is unlikely that the Coelacanth exists, but the ocean is immense and deep so ...", but with 'Foot, a scientist can't say that, there are sightings in trailer parks, casino parking lots, rest areas, highways, state parks, this guy isn't as elusive as those who are trying to find it might have you think. For 'Foot to remain undiscovered all these years, in such close proximity to humans would take a miracle.

Also, 'Foot is frikkin' HUGE, it's not like it is a blind 1.5" long newt, 2000 feet below the ground in some secluded pool in one cave in Kentucky, 'Foot is a monstrous beast, 12 feet tall, 700 pounds in some cases.

He is huge, and lives in Clare County Michigan, it would take a miracle for 'Foot to remain undiscovered.

Vortigern99

19th February 2010, 09:44 AM

WP, HH and Drewbot have all articulated precisely the points I've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make. Well said, fellas, though I would hasten to add a few "probably"s and "likely"s to Drew's post, above.

Also, RockinT's explanation of why the PGF cannot be considered valid, based on its occluded provenance and lack of original footage or negatives, is superlative.

Bitter Monk

19th February 2010, 10:48 AM

You feel that you saw a real Bigfoot but you might be wrong. Is that a good summary of your position?

That's fair enough. It's like I said about the neighbor's cat. You would never second guess yourself if you saw your neighbor's cat (unless it was dead, driving a car, etc). However, I saw something that I know flies in the face of convention. I didn't just throw my hands up and say "That's it, problem solved, all you skeptics are stupid" because seeing it with my own eyes didn't close my eyes to all the very real problems with the phenomenon (hoaxing, no bodies, no roadkill, etc).

The potential for hoax in your sighting report can go two ways. You may have been hoaxed (costume), or you may be the hoaxer (fictitious sighting).

I wouldn't argue that point either. Like I said, I know my report is nothing more than my own accounting of an event that can't be verified or used to support anything other than my own statement that it happened. I would never expect someone to take it at face value, and would honestly question someone that did.

We must disagree on at least one point. I do not regard Bigfoot as being a mystery. I think that for the most part, it is the believers who refer to it as a mystery. I think I understand why they declare it a mystery and it has a lot to do with defining their modus operandi. It isn't enough to just mention Bigfoot. You need to somehow justify this quirky obsession. So you say that there is an interesting mystery to be solved.

That's an interesting take on the subject and I can totally see where you're coming from. I don't think it applies to a 100% of the people 100% of the time but I think it is a nice summation of at least a portion of the proponents. I would go even further to say that in some cases fostering the mystery with no desire to see it resolved is what motivates some individuals.

Although I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist and it is true that Bigfoot could exist, I would put the chances of this so low that they might as well be zero. It isn't helpful for me to argue that the odds are better than zero. To do so would muddle the argument and force me to entertain absurdities. I don't want that.

Again, fair enough and I wouldn't argue against you on that point. I think the last part of your post (didn't want to quote it all for brevity) was a very cogent point, and would describe the classic "burnout" that a lot of people experience.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 11:02 AM

I would never expect someone to take it at face value, and would honestly question someone that did.

The person that investigated your report may have taken it at face value. Or, would you say that their assessment of your characteristics pushes the evaluation past "at face value"?

Investigation Report: Final analysis: ... Although the witness's account is anecdotal, knowing the witness's demeanor and skeptical nature, along with his knowledge of the area's native wildlife, I find this witness's account valid. I believe he saw what he saw.

Upon reflection, would you now say that this is the wrong way to express a final analysis? You must have seen a Bigfoot because you are a good guy.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 11:09 AM

However, I saw something that I know flies in the face of convention.

Not really. Bigfoot hoaxing is fairly common. I think it's most prevalent in the context of Bigfooters. You were already a Bigfooter and so were a prime candidate for hoaxing. Remember that the MRP hoax was directed at people who were already Bigfooters. In contrast, I would be a terrible person to try to fool with a Bigfoot hoax.

Bitter Monk

19th February 2010, 11:21 AM

The person that investigated your report may have taken it at face value. Or, would you say that their assessment of your characteristics pushes the evaluation past "at face value"?

I was referring to someone simply reading my account, or worse yet someone simply reading my account and then trying to argue that it somehow supports the idea that Bigfoot is real. Mike conducted what I thought was as good an investigation as possible (barring going back in time).

Upon reflection, would you now say that this is the wrong way to express a final analysis? You must have seen a Bigfoot because you are a good guy.

I don't think he was wrong to express himself that way, and I don't think he came to that final analysis because I'm a nice guy. There are plenty of people out there that would swear under oath that niceness isn't one of my qualities. ;)

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:22 AM

That's fair enough. It's like I said about the neighbor's cat. You would never second guess yourself if you saw your neighbor's cat (unless it was dead, driving a car, etc). However, I saw something that I know flies in the face of convention. I didn't just throw my hands up and say "That's it, problem solved, all you skeptics are stupid" because seeing it with my own eyes didn't close my eyes to all the very real problems with the phenomenon (hoaxing, no bodies, no roadkill, etc).

I wouldn't argue that point either. Like I said, I know my report is nothing more than my own accounting of an event that can't be verified or used to support anything other than my own statement that it happened. I would never expect someone to take it at face value, and would honestly question someone that did.

That's an interesting take on the subject and I can totally see where you're coming from. I don't think it applies to a 100% of the people 100% of the time but I think it is a nice summation of at least a portion of the proponents. I would go even further to say that in some cases fostering the mystery with no desire to see it resolved is what motivates some individuals.

Again, fair enough and I wouldn't argue against you on that point. I think the last part of your post (didn't want to quote it all for brevity) was a very cogent point, and would describe the classic "burnout" that a lot of people experience.

I sometimes get lazy (and a little nasty) and lump all "footers" into a subset of people who are inferior in their intelligence and substandard in their research processes.

Bitter Monk's posts in this thread reminds me that there are people (don't forget wolftrax) who are intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method and are in the field trying to answer the questions to their own satisfaction.

Whether I agree or disagree as to what the ultimate end result will be regarding their search is irrelevant.
My hat is off to them.

Bitter Monk

19th February 2010, 11:37 AM

My hat is off to them.

Dude you just vouched for me. That's the red flag of doom! :D

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 11:41 AM

I was referring to someone simply reading my account, or worse yet someone simply reading my account and then trying to argue that it somehow supports the idea that Bigfoot is real. Mike conducted what I thought was as good an investigation as possible (barring going back in time).

Hold that thought...

I don't think he was wrong to express himself that way, and I don't think he came to that final analysis because I'm a nice guy. There are plenty of people out there that would swear under oath that niceness isn't one of my qualities. ;)

I didn't mean "nice" when I said good. I meant having certain "good" qualities (mainly skepticism).

Bitter Monk's posts in this thread reminds me that there are people (don't forget wolftrax) who are intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method and are in the field trying to answer the questions to their own satisfaction.

Intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method... and claim Bigfoot sightings of their own. These props have been talked about by other Bigfooters on forums. You can see it in BM's report investigation. Now, would the end result of having people (such as you) vouch for those qualities cause an intelligent onlooker to say "hey, if those guys believe then this whole thing is not a folktale - smart logical science-brained people DO NOT BELIEVE in folktales"?

My question is not without precedent. I've seen Bigfooters say they believe because some "very credible person" that they know claimed a sighting. You sometimes hear them say that this person wouldn't lie about such a thing.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:42 AM

Upon reflection, would you now say that this is the wrong way to express a final analysis? You must have seen a Bigfoot because you are a good guy.

Stating "He saw what he saw" is in no way, shape, or form, proof that the investigator believes that the only thing BM could have seen was a bigfoot.

The statement only indicates that the investigator believes that BM is not lying and that BM believes he observed what he described.

As a police investigator - I have often heard that term used and used it myself to describe that a witness is sticking to their statement and adamant that their description of the event/subject is exactly correct.
One should not use it as an an endorsement or negation of the witnesses' claimed observation and in the law enforcement circles I rolled in - it wasn't.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 11:44 AM

Dude you just vouched for me. That's the red flag of doom! :D

I recall that rock has claimed a (possible) Bigfoot sighting himself. Longtabber PE claimed sightings and was vouching for other witnesses.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Bigfooters vouching for other Bigfooters. Klub Kool-Aid. :D

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:47 AM

Hold that thought...

I didn't mean "nice" when I said good. I meant having certain "good" qualities (mainly skepticism).

Intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method... and claim Bigfoot sightings of their own. These props have been talked about by other Bigfooters on forums. You can see it in BM's report investigation. Now, would the end result of having people (such as you) vouch for those qualities cause an intelligent onlooker to say "hey, if those guys believe then this whole thing is not a folktale - smart logical science-brained people DO NOT BELIEVE in folktales"?

My question is not without precedent. I've seen Bigfooters say they believe because some "very credible person" that they know claimed a sighting. You sometimes hear them say that this person wouldn't lie about such a thing.

Parcher - You have a bad habit of trying to put everything into your own, narrow, frame of reference.
From the only frame of reference that matters - the scientific one - there is no evidence to preclude there being a bigfoot. (However unlikely we think it is).

To continuously knock, belittle, and attempt to nullify the thoughts of others who are using a truly scientific approach is certainly your M.O. Parcher - and it gets a little tiresome.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:50 AM

I recall that rock has claimed a (possible) Bigfoot sighting himself. Longtabber PE claimed sightings and was vouching for other witnesses.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Bigfooters vouching for other Bigfooters. Klub Kool-Aid. :D

You are forgetting that I refuted that nonsense that is on the BFD. (purposely - I think - given your track record).

One again - FOR THE RECORD - I have NEVER seen anything that remotely resembled a sasquatch/bigfoot. Neither have I seen anything that I could construe as a track/hair/feces of same.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 11:55 AM

Parcher - You have a bad habit of trying to put everything into your own, narrow, frame of reference. From the only frame of reference that matters - the scientific one - there is no evidence to preclude there being a bigfoot. (However unlikely we think it is).

To continuously knock, belittle, and attempt to nullify the thoughts of others who are using a truly scientific approach is certainly your M.O. Parcher - and it gets a little tiresome.

The claim of Bigfoot is beyond tiresome - it's absurd. How many centuries has it been now? I'm here to stuff it into my narrowness and punch it with my puny fist.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:56 AM

Hold that thought...

I didn't mean "nice" when I said good. I meant having certain "good" qualities (mainly skepticism).

Intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method... and claim Bigfoot sightings of their own. These props have been talked about by other Bigfooters on forums. You can see it in BM's report investigation. Now, would the end result of having people (such as you) vouch for those qualities cause an intelligent onlooker to say "hey, if those guys believe then this whole thing is not a folktale - smart logical science-brained people DO NOT BELIEVE in folktales"?

My question is not without precedent. I've seen Bigfooters say they believe because some "very credible person" that they know claimed a sighting. You sometimes hear them say that this person wouldn't lie about such a thing.

Since you read the BFF - you know that I have attacked and derided that type of investigative conclusion to the point of warnings and being suspended.

Parcher - Once again - you are not being honest in your line of questioning and points.
Such dishonesty is often seen in those with no real investigative abilities who are trying to be quasi-investigator in their line of questioning on an internet board. It just shows that they do not understand how little skill and knowledge they have in the real world of investigative interviewing and interrogation.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 11:58 AM

The claim of Bigfoot is beyond tiresome - it's absurd. How many centuries has it been now? I'm here to stuff it into my narrowness and punch it with my puny fist.

Ah yes - the antithesis of true skepticism and skeptical argument. You demonstrate it well.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 12:00 PM

You are forgetting that I refuted that nonsense that is on the BFD. (purposely - I think - given your track record).

I distinctly remember you telling me that the BFD management vandalized your profile to make it look like you had claimed a sighting. But I thought (could be wrong) that you did have a maybe encounter. I'm apologizing if you didn't, but my intent was not malicious.

atpeace

19th February 2010, 12:01 PM

I sometimes get lazy (and a little nasty) and lump all "footers" into a subset of people who are inferior in their intelligence and substandard in their research processes.

Bitter Monk's posts in this thread reminds me that there are people (don't forget wolftrax) who are intelligent, logical thinkers who understand the scientific method and are in the field trying to answer the questions to their own satisfaction.

Whether I agree or disagree as to what the ultimate end result will be regarding their search is irrelevant.
My hat is off to them.

Ditto. I've really appreciated reading this very intelligent, informative, and civil exchange. I've got a lot to learn.

ap

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 12:01 PM

I'm possibly the worst Bigfoot skeptic that you will ever come across.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 12:14 PM

I distinctly remember you telling me that the BFD management vandalized your profile to make it look like you had claimed a sighting. But I thought (could be wrong) that you did have a maybe encounter. I'm apologizing if you didn't, but my intent was not malicious.

Apology accepted.

Also - I owe you an apology for getting a little heated.

William Parcher

19th February 2010, 12:20 PM

It's ok, rock. But there is something like in the back of my mind about your position on Bigfoot. I was wrong about the encounter. Do I remember that you do think Bigfoot is out there?

Drewbot

19th February 2010, 12:59 PM

Rockinkt, did you forget this sighting?
Funny that you should ask about what I have contributed to sasquatch/Bigfoot research. Just the other day I looked up in the sky and saw a gigantic squatch being shot at by a cowboy and a fake Indian.
Everybody else said it was just cloud formations - but I know different...

WGBH

19th February 2010, 04:24 PM

Parcher - You have a bad habit of trying to put everything into your own, narrow, frame of reference.
From the only frame of reference that matters - the scientific one - there is no evidence to preclude there being a bigfoot. (However unlikely we think it is).

To continuously knock, belittle, and attempt to nullify the thoughts of others who are using a truly scientific approach is certainly your M.O. Parcher - and it gets a little tiresome.

Amen.

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 05:07 PM

Rockinkt, did you forget this sighting?

Guilty! :blush:

rockinkt

19th February 2010, 05:40 PM

It's ok, rock. But there is something like in the back of my mind about your position on Bigfoot. I was wrong about the encounter. Do I remember that you do think Bigfoot is out there?

Honestly, I thought that there must have been been something to the many, many claims that I had researched in another context.
However, once I began to get a feel for, and understanding of, the many people whose work that I had taken for granted as being of adequate quality - I realized my huge error.

The vast majority of the people involved in the sasquatch/bigfoot research phenomenon couldn't investigate their way out of a wet paper bag.

The BRFO always was - and always will be a front for scamming people out of their money. There never was any science involved in anything that they did and never will be as long as Moneymaker is at the helm.

The Native context of this phenomenon is a joke and has become a political and ethnological game perpetuated by dime-store Indians and sanctimoniously deluded quasi-academics.
In a very few tribes - there may be a real connection to some aspect of the sasquatch/bigfoot phenomenon - but I can only think of one person whose knowledge and commitment to this is genuine.

The phenomenon is also full of half-truths and downright lies and has lots of "leading people" that are willing to knowingly spread these half-truths and downright lies.
The science in the research is generally bad to non-existent.
The scientists involved are either deluded or liars.
The Skookum cast is an elk-lay no matter how the main liars involved want to spin it.
Chicutt's "dermal ridges" are a case of a person working outside of his expertise and not using any of his standard procedures that are essential in his line of expertise.

My family was close to Clayton Mack. I learned a great deal of my bear and bushcraft from him. He was my hero. I didn't think he would look me in the eye and tell me a lie. Now - I'm not so sure.

manofthesea

19th February 2010, 09:14 PM

GT/CS

19th February 2010, 10:25 PM

[QUOTE=rockinkt;5636526]
The Native context of this phenomenon is a joke and has become a political and ethnological game perpetuated by dime-store Indians

[QUOTE=manofthesea]

Can you name one "dime-store Indian" that you're referring to?
If not, I'll consider that a slander against indians and you'll be reported.

Please read the membership agreement

Vortigern99

19th February 2010, 11:01 PM

[QUOTE=rockinkt;5636526]
The Native context of this phenomenon is a joke and has become a political and ethnological game perpetuated by dime-store Indians

[QUOTE]

Can you name one "dime-store Indian" that you're referring to?
If not, I'll consider that a slander against indians and you'll be reported.

I fail to recognize any "slander" in the contention that Native American shop-owners support the belief that "sasquatch" is an Indian legendary figure by selling bigfoot-related merchandise.

If that's slander, then you can add me to the list of "reported" persons, because, yes, Native American shop-owners do indeed support the belief that "sasquatch" is an Indian legendary figure by selling bigfoot-related merchandise

I further fail to comprehend how naming specific supporters of the sasquatch legend for monetary gain would exonerate RockinT, the accused slanderer. If anything, speaking in generalities as RockinT has done is non-actionable, whereas naming specific names would be slander, if the contention being made were slanderous, which it isn't.

ManoftheSea, are you sure you've thought this through? I can't say for sure, but it seems reactionary, baseless and needlessly prickly.

rockinkt

20th February 2010, 02:59 AM

[QUOTE=rockinkt;5636526]
The Native context of this phenomenon is a joke and has become a political and ethnological game perpetuated by dime-store Indians

[QUOTE]

Can you name one "dime-store Indian" that you're referring to?
If not, I'll consider that a slander against indians and you'll be reported.

I'm a proud member of the Sto:lo from my mother's side.
I have written of this elsewhere and you have seen it.

The fact that I am willing to state that members of the Sto:lo and other First Nations in Canada perpetuate a myth started by a European - JW Burns - for their own profit and/or political gain is not news.

Kitakaze has done an exceptional job of researching and providing facts that creatures such as you claim to have encountered (i.e. the creatures JW Burns' invented from melding and corrupting many First Nations legends and modern titillating stories) do not exist in any Coastal First Nation's historic legends or ancient stories.

I stand by my statement. Do what you will.

ETA: This is not the first baseless attack on me by this person. He also accused me of being Kitakaze on this board in his posts on the BFF when I was pointing out the fact that seal masks were not sasquatch masks and that people who were unfamiliar with the real legends of the First Nations should not be trying to see sasquatch in every traditional carving.

Correa Neto

20th February 2010, 05:16 AM

BRAVO!!!

I'm very happy to see someone else feels like I do regarding the myth-twisting made by some fringe subjects proponents attempting to back their preconceived ideas.
It is especially ironic (and/or nauseating) when they pretend to be defenders of a given culture or ethnical group while prostituting it to suit their own needs.

You certainly noticed that these folks also have the tendency to make false claims and personal attacks when their methods are shown false, flawed and quite often dishonest.
Some of them think to have learned a new trick- "play by the rules" attempting to shut those with diferent positions via reports or baiting to flame war, hoping for suspensions and even bans. I suggest you to consider the use of the "ignore" feature - it can reduce a lot the noise .

I've also been "exposed" as a Kitakaze sock, BTW, can't remember by who...

Moss

20th February 2010, 01:36 PM

Interesting how this discussion here is mostly a scientific or at least materialistic discussion. (Or should that be nonsupernatural? I have a bit of a hard time finding the exact term.)
A lot of the supernatural Bigfoot stuff seems to be pretty syncretistic around an European/nonnative core and only uses native myths to claim it is older than European settlement.

atpeace

20th February 2010, 02:45 PM

Honestly, I thought that there must have been been something to the many, many claims that I had researched in another context.
However, once I began to get a feel for, and understanding of, the many people whose work that I had taken for granted as being of adequate quality - I realized my huge error.

The vast majority of the people involved in the sasquatch/bigfoot research phenomenon couldn't investigate their way out of a wet paper bag.

The BRFO always was - and always will be a front for scamming people out of their money. There never was any science involved in anything that they did and never will be as long as Moneymaker is at the helm.

The Native context of this phenomenon is a joke and has become a political and ethnological game perpetuated by dime-store Indians and sanctimoniously deluded quasi-academics.
In a very few tribes - there may be a real connection to some aspect of the sasquatch/bigfoot phenomenon - but I can only think of one person whose knowledge and commitment to this is genuine.

The phenomenon is also full of half-truths and downright lies and has lots of "leading people" that are willing to knowingly spread these half-truths and downright lies.
The science in the research is generally bad to non-existent.
The scientists involved are either deluded or liars.
The Skookum cast is an elk-lay no matter how the main liars involved want to spin it.
Chicutt's "dermal ridges" are a case of a person working outside of his expertise and not using any of his standard procedures that are essential in his line of expertise.

AMEN!!!!! I figured it out in a couple months after I started researching bf, and I'm not half as smart as the people on the pro sites. It was such a red flag to me, that those who were so knowledgeable in this and that and with bush and animal knowledge could believe and propogate all of the unsupported and ridiculous claims.

[/quote]My family was close to Clayton Mack. I learned a great deal of my bear and bushcraft from him. He was my hero. I didn't think he would look me in the eye and tell me a lie. Now - I'm not so sure.[/quote]

I really enjoyed reading Mack's book White Guys and Grizzlies some time ago. Not so much for the trophy hunting but just for all interesting bushcraft. He seemed like such an amazing man. (though i don't know how true to him the book was)
ap