Guest Jodie Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 I can see multiple reasons why they would follow the rails even if they aren't riding them. There are too many reports near trains, these were just the most interesting.
BobbyO Posted April 25, 2012 SSR Team Posted April 25, 2012 I don't see what's so unbelievable about them possibly hopping trains to be honest, honestly. When/If people that haven't seen them get their head around the fact that they are actually there, then it shouldn't/wouldn't surprise you as much as it seems to now.
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 I've watched a flying squirrel climb a sheer cliff and fall to its death, I had a mountain goat come up to me and lay down at my feet like a dog (I couldn't move because I was holding the rope for my climbing partner ), and I've walked right up to a nursing fox in the middle of a fairway on a golf course. All these are highly unusual behaviors. Animals (and humans) sometimes exhibit behaviors that are unexpected to say the least. Youtube is replete with examples of unusual animal behavior. What is in the range of potential behavior for a BF? That's the question that is posed by the sighting of Stan's (not to mention the original witness, Sasfooty, and other witnesses). If more than one BF has figured out how to ride trains for transportation and/or fun, then it is possible for this to become a learned behavior within a group of BF. Then it becomes a question of how widespread is the phenomenon? Killer whales will learn new hunting techniques within a pod that are unique to that pod. The technique can be taught to individuals in other pods and the behavior can spread. BF is probably intelligent enough and well traveled enough and can communicate effectively enough to transmit the concept of train riding. The starting point is to start making observations of passing trains in potential wooded areas, with a HD video camera. Stan is apparently planning to do it in order to confirm what he saw, I don't really have any fear of making an attempt myself. What's is there to lose? A little time? I just don't get the concept of needing to ridicule this without additional observation. Peace out. I'm going to sleep.
indiefoot Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 If Stan told me it had it's head hanging out the cab window and was wearing an engineers hat. I would at least give it some thought. The guys as straight a shooter as there is. I understand the dichotomy, on one hand reclusive on the other seemingly reckless. Always avoiding, at the end of the day, being drug in in a body bag. I have seen BF, I have heard them, I've seen their tracks, and I cannot answer the question of how they have been able to avoid capture or documentation. With their athleticism the train riding would not be a trick though.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 I never met Stan but from what I've read from him in the past, I get the same impression Indie. He does seem like a straight shooter. I have a feeling (just my gut feeling - no proof) that this other guy sensed that Stan is a stand up guy and sensed that Stan didn't believe him. BF on a train was just a theory of his at first. This other guy never saw one on a train. He didn't want Stan to prove him wrong so he put his friend in a monkey suit on the train, and then conveniently pointed out the bigfoot.
Guest Tontar Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) My question would be if there is any threshold or limit to what people will accept as plausible or possible. Is there nothing that a bigfoot cannot do? Is there no place, no location, no activity that a bigfoot cannot be found or cannot be witnessed doing? I get the feeling that there is no ceiling to the possibilities, and as s student of biology and anthropology, I simply can't accept an anything goes scenario for a being that is supposed to be an ape, or a human with no domestication or culture. I also find it embarrassing that when trying to discuss such limits or no limits, that it tends to morph back into the question of one person's integrity. That person's integrity trumps all open and objective discussion, so if anyone wants to question how realistic or how unrealistic something is, the best defense is to make it a personal affront to question it. I can't see the validity of a claim, nor a much extrapolated theory of athletic, intelligent, bigfoot hobos hopping trains, traveling great distances for unknown reasons, when fair, reasonable questions are always turned back into "this guy saw what he saw, and he's a stand up guy, so just go with it..." The way I see it, as long as someone favorable says something is real, it's real. End of discussion as to why or how it could be real. Edited April 25, 2012 by Tontar
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Personal affront has nothing to do with it. Looking objectively at a report from a respected source, then going out and trying to repeat that observation with an eye toward documenting it by HD video and discussing how and why it may be happening has everything to do with it. You know, scientific process and all that.... I guess Tontar the question can be reversed. Is there nothing that you won't ridicule in order to dismiss it?
Guest Jodie Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Not at all Tontar, I believe that Stan saw what he thought was a bigfoot on a train, and because of his character, I do not doubt his honesty in saying that. Whether he did or not is still debatable.
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Tontar speak much truth. Re: Stan Courtney as a "stand-up, straight-shooter" kind of guy: People of great honesty and integrity often assume that the rest of the world operates under the same standards they do. James Randi would tell you (based on his career as a magician) that such people are among the easiest to dupe. They are in generally poorly suited to spotting deception because it's simply a foreign concept to them. So absolutely, Mr. Courtney could be a prince among men - intelligent, honest, sincere, compassionate, etc. But if anything, those qualities make me more likely to think that he was duped by someone else in this scenario. ^But if bigfooters want to go out and take HD video of passing trains, go for it. I think call blasting is silly and a lot of folks do that.
Guest Jodie Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Well there is only way to find out. Get a hobo to put on a fur coat while they ride the rails this winter and see how many bigfoot sightings happen as a result of it.
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 That Mr. Courtney may have been duped is a possibility. Which is why trying to go out and independently verify with observations from a variety of researchers without telling anyone their location or time of observations is key to solving the problem. If someone is able to document such an event with HD video then I think most folks would then be able to say that Stan might be right after all. If more are documented then we might represent a trending behavior and start discussing its implications.
indiefoot Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 My question would be if there is any threshold or limit to what people will accept as plausible or possible. Is there nothing that a bigfoot cannot do? Is there no place, no location, no activity that a bigfoot cannot be found or cannot be witnessed doing? I get the feeling that there is no ceiling to the possibilities, and as s student of biology and anthropology, I simply can't accept an anything goes scenario for a being that is supposed to be an ape, or a human with no domestication or culture. I also find it embarrassing that when trying to discuss such limits or no limits, that it tends to morph back into the question of one person's integrity. That person's integrity trumps all open and objective discussion, so if anyone wants to question how realistic or how unrealistic something is, the best defense is to make it a personal affront to question it. I can't see the validity of a claim, nor a much extrapolated theory of athletic, intelligent, bigfoot hobos hopping trains, traveling great distances for unknown reasons, when fair, reasonable questions are always turned back into "this guy saw what he saw, and he's a stand up guy, so just go with it..." The way I see it, as long as someone favorable says something is real, it's real. End of discussion as to why or how it could be real. Should we ignore the credibility and experience of a witness? He didn't say it was flying a crop duster. What he saw was something a BF as described by many witnesses would easily be able to do if they wanted to. Who knows why, no one know much about their behavior. If he sees one driving a car, I promise, I won't believe it. Re: Stan Courtney as a "stand-up, straight-shooter" kind of guy: People of great honesty and integrity often assume that the rest of the world operates under the same standards they do. James Randi would tell you (based on his career as a magician) that such people are among the easiest to dupe. They are in generally poorly suited to spotting deception because it's simply a foreign concept to them. So absolutely, Mr. Courtney could be a prince among men - intelligent, honest, sincere, compassionate, etc. But if anything, those qualities make me more likely to think that he was duped by someone else in this scenario. Is the reverse true? A persons who is good at spoting deception is possibly dishonest and lacks integrity?
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Is the reverse true? A persons who is good at spoting deception is possibly dishonest and lacks integrity? Possibly; I don't know. What I can tell you is that a primary reason James "The Amazing" Randi has been so successful in promoting science and skepticism is that he is, to quote **** Jagger, "practiced in the art of deception." He's a magician and worked as a "psychic" in his act. So he knows deception, and for many years made a living off of fooling people in his stage act. I imagine that a police detective would be much better than I am at spotting a liar, but that doesn't mean that the detective is a liar too.
Recommended Posts