Lake County Bigfooot

2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

1,544 posts in this topic

^^^This.  I refuse to simply believe that thousands of people are having biologically-correct hallucinations that can all be assigned to an animal that can be drawn, the same way, from every sighting and consistently identified by the hallucinated behaviors.  This doesn't happen on my homeworld.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are more inclined to believe that the mind can construct physical manifestations that can make recorded sounds,  leave footprints,  be photographed,  and be heard breaking branches than a physical object creature exists.     In other words you will embrace telekinesis but dismiss some large creature exists on the woods.      I wonder who is more into imagination, you or me? 

 

Finding Bigfoot is about the worst source of information about existence because 90% of the show is "You hear that" and their own theatrics.     To my knowledge they have only found one poor footprint in all the episodes and other than some questionable wood knocks in return to theirs that could have been made by anyone,  and some also questionable vocalizations, they have presented little evidence.      It is like watching Walking with the Dinosaurs to prove existence of dinosaurs.   The show is theatre.  

In the context of bigfoot yes I see it as a mind game.  It's a good mind game and one that has gotten more sophisticated as to how people react to it.  Until the game either plays itself out or a legitimate  subject is brought in it is all theater it is all hearsay.  Every shred of evidence ever produced is of dubious value.  Sadly the better hard evidence cases seem to wither under scrutiny.  The London trackway is yet another non starter.  So without the body on the slab there is no good source for bigfoot information.  A person can get well presented evidence from sources and theatrical evidence from other sources but neither end of the spectrum comes up solid.  Sad to say as our means of field gear has improved the same can be said of the outright hoaxers.  

 

So no I do not subscribe to a physical bigfoot any more than I subscribe to a metaphysical bigfoot.  I accept that people  see things and I accept that others need or want to see things.  It has  become for me a question of why it is not of what it is.  But accepting the physical bigfoot requires more of a type dispensation towards the subject than I can comfortably give it.  

^^^This.  I refuse to simply believe that thousands of people are having biologically-correct hallucinations that can all be assigned to an animal that can be drawn, the same way, from every sighting and consistently identified by the hallucinated behaviors.  This doesn't happen on my homeworld.

Ahhh no it is the fake  and or lack of bullet proof evidence that relegates it to theater of the mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like so...

But if a professor of Anthropology told you the beast was real you'd believe right?

Just like you would believe a blurry trail cam photo taken by a Wolverine biologist........

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit, you are a very sharp cat, but you do have one blind spot, as Bill M. once observed about you: You can't tell good evidence from bad, and it really gets you sideways on this topic, I believe. The world is not all 1's and zeros. Some things are closer to 1 and some are closer to zero.  A completely binary view of the world allows for no nuance. Try some tertiary for a change.  As smart as you might be, you are not smart enough to be certain about this.  Besides, certainty is the enemy of curiosity, and curiosity is the cornerstone of knowledge. Get you some brother. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who have yet to have a up close encounter with UHS, speak from a position of ignorance. Conjecture, speculations, baiting the messenger, picking the fly specks out of the black pepper, etc. are typical reactions from such people. I/we have seen something that has yet to be forensically defined by science, yet, we know what we've seen is something real, and it bleeds when shot. I also know that undertaking an organized effort to hunt one down and kill it is a fool's errand.

 

~48 years of trying, and failing is rather compelling evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^

So because you have failed? Nobody else should bother to try and succeed....... Huh.

Where is your blood sample? Should have been a slam dunk case.

Edited by norseman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit, you are a very sharp cat, but you do have one blind spot, as Bill M. once observed about you: You can't tell good evidence from bad, and it really gets you sideways on this topic, I believe. The world is not all 1's and zeros. Some things are closer to 1 and some are closer to zero.  A completely binary view of the world allows for no nuance. Try some tertiary for a change.  As smart as you might be, you are not smart enough to be certain about this.  Besides, certainty is the enemy of curiosity, and curiosity is the cornerstone of knowledge. Get you some brother. 

 

I entertain no certainty that Bigfoot does not exist. It is the 1% maximum probability for Bigfoot existing that keeps me interested in claims of reliable evidence...

 

These books started my lifelong passion for Bigfoot. From the age of 8 until my late 20's I was an ardent believer of Bigfoot. I researched every bit of evidence put forward, ready every book I could get my hands on, and would passionately argue for the existence of Bigfoot. It was by so deeply pursuing all claims of evidence that I eventually found that each thread pulled on comes to nothing. It was about 8 years ago that I went from believer to fence-sitter and finally to being fully a skeptic. That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested.

 

Recently there was a claim of a non-human primate arm found in Florida. This is precisely what interests me. It's not an anecdote, it's not a piece of blurry footage, it's not tale told round the campfire. It's flesh and bone and something that can be examined objectively and definitively. I went in with the same skepticism I have always had, but no less interest. After researching all the photos of the bones available to me, I concluded this was not a non-human primate arm. It was no primate, not mammal, not even an arm. It was the hind limb of an alligator. My conclusion was later confirmed by the scientists and professionals who examined the bones. I was not in any way disappointed by the conclusion, nor was I relieved, I was simply satisfied to have a definitive answer about that particular claim of reliable evidence. There's no emotional involvement in whether Bigfoot exists or not. The only thing I can say is that it would be incredibly awesome if Bigfoot did exist, but I have never seen any evidence that would persuade me to make that conclusion.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49020-whats-the-deal-with-skeptics/page-4#entry865904

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if a professor of Anthropology told you the beast was real you'd believe right?

 

Prof. Meldrum doing so now nor Prof. Disotell doing so in the future without reliable evidence means nothing. It undermines the very most basic principle of skepticism and critical thinking. Nothing anyone says will make me believe anything. That is the purview of belief culture. I will accept Bigfoot existing with the greatest of enthusiasm, but it will take the same evidence we have for any known North American mammal species for me to accept it.

 

We've been doing it that way since Linnaeus and Bigfoot should not be given any special passes.

 

Just like you would believe a blurry trail cam photo taken by a Wolverine biologist........ 

 

 

No, but were clear images from the trail cams of the Cascades Carnivore Project to come forward of the same quality for that which allowed them to establish the incredible presence of a wolverine in Washington, I would be beyond the edge of my seat and my appraisal of the likelihood of Bigfoot existing would change drastically depending on the quality of images and circumstances of their capture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From kit's post, above....kitakaze wrote....(emphasis mine....because "Love" deserves emphasis :) )...

 

That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested.

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Interested in Bigfoot is no state of silliness. At least if it is a silliness, it's one that you can discuss at a dinner table and with some modicum of wit, find entertaining results. Believing in it without reliable evidence is something else. Then you become the person at the table talkng about aliens guiding the pyramids construction because you thought maverick thinking was listening closely to a nonsense documentary on TV the other night that had no interest in actual facts. Telling the world "facts" is the purview of Bigfootery. The only actual fact in Bigfootery is that a dwindling subculture of people still in the 21st century believe that North America is populated by forest hairy apemen. Why do we seriously continue doing this in 2013?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-141

 

 

So, kit....what keeps you "interested in claims of reliable evidence" in 2015??? 

 

I thought we all should have "given it up" back in 2013... :popcorn:

 

 

Bonus 'kit quote'...

 

 

There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambiguous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe one day if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

"I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested."

 

.....In "Boogeymen"... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote-mining addiction.

 

No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe oneday if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. 

 

 

Full post...

 

http://www.internati...=137614&page=10

 

Belief in a species of giant land mammal living in breeding populations across North America without reliable evidence equates belief in boogeymen. Bigfoot is everywhere yet nowhere.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because bigfoot isn't everywhere doesn't mean it isn't anywhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote-mining addiction.

 

No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe one day if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. 

 

 

Full post...

 

http://www.internati...=137614&page=10

 

Belief in a species of giant land mammal living in breeding populations across North America without reliable evidence equates belief in boogeymen. Bigfoot is everywhere yet nowhere.

 

 

I like this line from your JREF post, kit... :) ...

 

"Maybe one day if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. "

 

It has that nice ring of "condescension" in it...like your use of the word "boogeymen".

 

 

 

Gee whiz, kit....all those years you railed against Bigfoot's existence' on JREF....in glowing, insulting, mocking tones.....all you were really objecting to was it's "reported range"??? 

 

All us "intransigent believers" need to do, is to say that we think it's range is more confined than it has been reported in....and our belief would be "just fine/okee-dokee"?? 

 

Who'd have thunk there was such a simple remedy for the problem?! ;)

 

 

Oh, wait a minute....it's not that simple....kit hath also saith:

 

 "OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube? You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.
What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen.
It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem?
 
Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported.
 
Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it."
 

 

 
kit wants us to talk about Bigfoot existing within a smaller range.....but just don't talk to him about it existing within only a smaller range. :wacko:
Edited by SweatyYeti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that groups of people have sighted Sasquatch at the same time, Rhettman Mullis PHD was on a boat carrying vehicles across Puget Sound when the whole group of people saw one swimming to an Island, the encounter lasted 10 minutes before it was out of sight. Of course he was only10 years old at the time, so I guess it could have been a Bear, or an Otter, strange thing is that it swam with a modified crawl, talented bear I might add. There is absolutely no logical explanation for such sightings without there being real creatures being seen, the specific geographical and anatomical consistencies defy anything but that being the reality. As Dr. Bindernagel states we have already effectively discovered the Sasquatch. Despite some misidentified or hoaxed tracks, there is track evidence so compelling that it alone might prove such a creature exists, the I believe when I see it mentality is just not that honest, because if your honest, you already are seeing it, the totality of the evidence is that compelling, and the last 60 years is the tip of the iceberg of that evidence. These creatures have been documented for 100s of years, known by tribal peoples for much longer, and preexisted man on this continent. That is a fact, and it will be proven, and the knowers and believers will be vindicated. The day Jerry Crew found those tracks and coined the term Bigfoot, well if you as me that set the whole thing back, the media has obscured the world from the reality of this creature by it's antics, and science abandoned the subject as taboo. It is not any better today with Bigfoot Bounty, Monster Hunters, the whole hoopla that is bigfootery, including Finding Bigfoot. Science will need a cold hard slap in the face to wake them back up to this reality, and that is long overdue.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Quote-mining addiction.

 

 

You have 'contradiction addiction', kit. :)

 

 

And "Bombshell Constipation"... :lol:

 

Although, we do get a few 'puffs of smoke' from them, every once in a while. :stinker:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of you familiar with the concept of a Tulpas? I think that is what bigfoot might be. Considering all of the thought/belief put into the possibility of the existence of the creature it would be no small wonder that we have all of these sightings, assuming Tulpas are real. Here are two cases where parapsychologists and more traditional scientists created the illusion of ghosts. The mind is an extremely powerful organ. I think we are capable of much more than we generally give it credit for as far as what we can and can't perceive. It's how we interpret that perception that matters, whether it's observations made while performing an experiment or trying to distinguish a hallucination from reality.

 

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

 

http://www.time-loops.net/Experiment_Philip.htm

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11214511/Ghosts-created-by-scientists-in-disturbing-lab-experiment.html

 

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

Edited by Divergent1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.