Bigfoot And Trains

[GuyInIndiana]

Personal affront has nothing to do with it.

<snip>

I guess Tontar the question can be reversed. Is there nothing that you won't ridicule in order to dismiss it?

Oh. My. Word. When did rational, clear, objective thinking become "ridicule"? No one is saying Stan is lying. But it's certainly rational that given the extreme brevity of the sighting it could be a misidentification. That's not ridicule.

If more are documented then we might represent a trending behavior and start discussing its implications.

You can can bet your bottom dollar that since this kind of claim has now been made publicly, that there WILL be more claims come in that it's been observed. Reports aren't "documented" events: they're a person's observation of an event that can be fraught with inaccuracies and bias.

Edited April 25, 2012 by GuyInIndiana

[Guest Jodie]

Yeah, I can think of all kinds of possibilities for seeing a large hairy something on the end of train:

1. A hobo wearing a beaver or some other fur type coat that was stolen went for a ride on a train to make a quick get away.

2. Man who cared enough to create a hoax decided to don a furry chewbaca outfit and take a little ride despite the risks involved with homeland security ( hobo has nothing to lose by doing this)

3. A deer got caught on the train and decided to sit perfectly still while it was moving

4. A bear got on the train and was taking a nap

5. Someone threw a Flokati rug on the end of the train and it didn't blow off.

6. A fluffy dog went for a ride.

Now how many reports of the above do we have of any of these? Oh. My. Word. Not a single one, can you believe that?

Any rational being would have looked to see if there were any before declaring it more likely to be a hoax or misidentification. Is anyone going to tell me that people don't report these types of things yet it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen?

[Guest Tontar]

BFS, several times now you have characterized my astonishment at the idea of bigfoots hopping trains as "ridicule". I think that you have confused amazement, astonishment, or the inability to accept bigfoots hopping trains for unexplained reasons, as ridicule. There's a huge difference, and I suspect that were I to mischaracterize you or your words that you would not be too pleased about it.

If you want to point out ridicule and put its messengers in their place, perhaps you will take note of the above list as a prime example of ridicule. "A bear got on the train and was taking a nap." "A deer got caught on the rain and decided to sit perfectly still while it was moving." Etc.. I think that my expressing amazement and disbelief that bigfoots ride trains is not ridicule. I think that posting of ridiculous alternate examples is ridicule. Ridicule does relate to ridiculous, correct? My sense is that you are favoring the true ridicule, while taking offense to legitimate disbelief.

Jodie, I hope that you are not suggesting that I am being irrational for not being as eager to accept bigfoots hopping trains, without first going out to verify for myself whether they do or not. Certainly I am making an assumption that bigfoots don't ride trains, just as you seem to be making an assumption that they do. Neither of us have verification that they do, or that they don't. However, if you really want to play the "any rational being" card, you should understand that the definition of "rational" is not limited to, or defined by, a relatively small peer group like this. Consider asking around outside of this group, see how many people outside of bigfootery think that it is irrational to be highly suspect of the general idea that bigfoots ride trains.

I've expressed my feeling about this subject, which is disbelief and amazement. I have asked for some supporting theory or reason that might legitimately explain how and why bigfoots would ride trains, and not gotten any serious answers. I'm of the opinion that I stepped into the wrong room in the building, where a party of unwelcoming people don't like my kind. As such, I'll step back out and not be a party pooper any more. Sorry for the intrusion. Cheers.

[Guest Jodie]

Jodie, I hope that you are not suggesting that I am being irrational for not being as eager to accept bigfoots hopping trains, without first going out to verify for myself whether they do or not. Certainly I am making an assumption that bigfoots don't ride trains, just as you seem to be making an assumption that they do. Neither of us have verification that they do, or that they don't. However, if you really want to play the "any rational being" card, you should understand that the definition of "rational" is not limited to, or defined by, a relatively small peer group like this. Consider asking around outside of this group, see how many people outside of bigfootery think that it is irrational to be highly suspect of the general idea that bigfoots ride trains.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding......we have a winner. You and I illustrated perfectly the hypocrisy of this community. How science and critical thinking are twisted unto their own ends to justify the outcome desired.

I know they exist, you don't think so, it's all relative in how you add up the circumstantial evidence.

[Guest Tontar]

Once again, you're mistaken. You believe they exist, I am not sure either way. Just because I doubt they would ride trains doesn't mean I don't believe they exist. Two different things.

[Guest Jodie]

Well I take it back then, the point was dependent on the view as to which is more probable.

I took it from here:

they exist

they can jump

they can run

they are seen by trains

jump/run + train= one could very possibly get on a train.

To say I'm not being objective is simply a misinformed judgement.

I see no evidence of any other kinds of animals or people being spotted on trains ( people on the outside of trains). Primates do have culture from troop to troop, they can learn. If it is physically possible for bigfoot to get on train and they can learn, why is it not as at least as probable that Stan saw a bigfoot on a train than a human or other animal?

now if you don't know they are real, your conclusion is going to be slightly less favorable for train riding bigfoot.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Jodie

[Guest spurfoot]

Here is the crux of the matter:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Take your choice, constructivist epistemology or positivism.

[Guest Tontar]

I see you're not letting me out the door very easily. Primates have a form of culture, but it is far different from human culture. If you want to say that gorillas have culture, then you can also say that wolves have culture. Pack and troop behaviors help define animals' social structure and insure survival, and beyond that indicates various degrees of intelligence and creativity.

However, you are making a huge extrapolation in the form of what bigfoots are capable of, what they may be prone to do, what they may be interested in doing, and so on. I understand that you believe they exist. You say you know, I say you believe, there's a difference but until those that don't believe begin to believe, then proof of their existence is not a hand. That's just a given. For example, Dr. Meldrum believes they exist, but nearly all of his peers do not. What he believes as a person is one thing, as a scientist he should have unequivocal evidence to prove existence in order for him to proclaim he knows. If he did, then that evidence and knowledge should be transferable to his peers, but for some reason they do not see the same provenance as he does, so between people, between scientists, there is some disconnect.

It's not a black and white thing at this point. It's an unknown. And as an unknown, the mental abilities, the physical abilities, the level of cultural development, the capacity to communicate ideas, the capability to think in abstract terms, the ability to learn more advanced, "civilized" behaviors and activities, is completely unknown. I admit, there are those that say they have nightly visitations, communicate via garbled English even, and that there are all manner of perspectives on what bigfoots are, sasquatch are, "Forest People" are, but all of those perspectives are purely subjective and unverified in a way that anyone or everyone can rest assured in their reliability. There is doubt. There is not universal agreement. Heck, you take the top 5 most respected bigfooters in the world, and they will give you different opinions on what they are, apes or humans, smart or dumb, you name it. Completely subjective.

When we start picking and choosing which primate behaviors we want to use to paint the picture more clearly, taking the swimming behavior from macaques, or the grub eating behaviors of chimps, or the bark eating behaviors of gorillas, and mixing and matching whatever we want in order to come up with a fully fleshed out species that we have yet to positively document, then again, we let our perspectives and personal preferences direct our reasoning.

Primates do have culture from troop to troop. And they can learn. Yet, do other primates, other than humans, ride trains? Many other species of great apes have the physical capability to hop on trains, but have they? Is there a reason that they would? That's what I have asked several times. I have been of the mindset that, assuming bigfoot exists, why would they ride trains. Compare them to other wild apes. Bigfoot has no tools of note. They wear no clothes. They smell to high heaven. They are most often seen singularly, and as far as we can tell, would be solitary. Very few reports of troops of bigfoots have been made, to my knowledge. If they travel around in troops, then MY... OH... MY... how come this isn't major news? And as solitary primates, like orangutans, why would they need to ride trains? To go visit other bigfoots they don't like? To leave the lush area they are in and travel to barren deserts? To cities?

To speculate on a bigfoot train riding behavior, you need to also entertain the idea of a train riding culture, that is, they need to have a compelling reason to do it, something that drives them to jump on and ride trains. You have to have a definite minimum form of intelligence, a reason for travel, and likely a much more defined social infrastructure than most people would imagine them having.

Just because someone doesn't think there is a lot of merit to the idea that bigfoots ride trains doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in bigfoot. Sort of like, just because one believes in bigfoot doesn't mean they have to believe they ride trains. There are numerous quite vocal proponents of bigfoot within this forum. Bill Munns, for example, is a highly respected member who believes in the existence of bigfoot. Do you think he believes they ride trains? Dr. Meldrum, a huge proponent, does he think they would ride trains?

My point is, one doesn't have to accept train riding as a plausible behavior in order to accept the possibility to probability of bigfoot existing. One can be a proponent and still think train riding is out of the question. Likewise, one doesn't have to be a skeptic, or a non-believer to have a hard time accepting train riding. Likewise, one does not have to include train riding as a natural and completely believable concept just because bigfoots are considered to walk, and to run, and to jump. Having the physical ability to do something does not mean it will be a likely thing to do. Wolves can walk, they can run, and they can jump, yet they don't seem to ride trains. The same can be said of chimps and gorillas and other apes. They all could, but why would they? The reason has to fit a cohesive construct of their lifestyles and natural behaviors.

Here is the crux of the matter: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology Take your choice, constructivist epistemology or positivism.

It would be good for you to provide a practical illustration of how both of these philosophies are represented in the forums! :-)

[indiefoot]

Monkey on a train

[Guest Jodie]

Culture only means things learned and passed onto another, not necessarily on the scale of human culture. For a bigfoot to step onto the platform of a stopped train does not indicate that it would need to know where the train is going, what it is, or how far it is going anymore than any other animal would. Why it would do this, who knows? Curiosity maybe, accidental the first time? I don't know, but the mere act of a bipedal creature getting on a train is not preposterous.

Whether any other ape would or not, it's not likely we will find out as the great apes are predicted to be extinct by 2035. There aren't many apes left in areas where trains run through the African continent. Who would tell us if it happens? Who would care to repeat the story of a chimp or bonobo climbing onto a train? I'm not really overly concerned about Bill Munn's or Dr. Meldrum's opinion on the matter, but if you are interested I can PM or e-mail and ask them to get in touch with you so that you can discuss it. How would you feel if they agreed with me?

Unfortunately, any other animal would fall off the train since it has no hands to hold onto anything for balance once the train gains top speeds. That leaves man or bigfoot. I happen to think it's ludicrous for a human to be wearing a fur coat or suit riding on the outside of a train, simply because a hobo wouldn't own a fur coat, and the risk of getting prison time would be too great if the person wasn't an idiot. There is still the increased risk of falling off the train in a suit to be considered.

Edited to say- well there you have it, at least one pic of primates climbing on the train. They don't look particularly concerned about doing it.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Jodie

[Guest BFSleuth]

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?

Oh. My. Word. When did rational, clear, objective thinking become "ridicule"? No one is saying Stan is lying. But it's certainly rational that given the extreme brevity of the sighting it could be a misidentification. That's not ridicule.

You can can bet your bottom dollar that since this kind of claim has now been made publicly, that there WILL be more claims come in that it's been observed. Reports aren't "documented" events: they're a person's observation of an event that can be fraught with inaccuracies and bias.

I went back and reread Tontar's post that I was originally responding to, and I agree he doesn't use the word "ridicule"... my bad. Perhaps I was too strong in my assertion. It just seems that for some folks they tend to dismiss sighting reports out of hand rather than give the benefit of the doubt and explore whether there is something to the behavior that is noted.

The documentation I'm mentioning isn't to go out and make observations and report them. That would just end up being another sighting report that can be easily dismissed. The documentation I'm talking about is to go get video evidence of the behavior. If that can be accomplished then it will be a benefit to all, both "believers" and skeptics.

Tontar, I saw that you also made a follow up post noting that you may be involved in an effort to document this behavior, or did I read that incorrectly?

[Guest Tontar]

Tontar, I saw that you also made a follow up post noting that you may be involved in an effort to document this behavior, or did I read that incorrectly?

No, I am not involved in any effort to document train riding.

[Guest]

Culture only means things learned and passed onto another, not necessarily on the scale of human culture. For a bigfoot to step onto the platform of a stopped train does not indicate that it would need to know where the train is going, what it is, or how far it is going anymore than any other animal would. Why it would do this, who knows? Curiosity maybe, accidental the first time? I don't know, but the mere act of a bipedal creature getting on a train is not preposterous.

I don't see how bigfoot could possibly have been experimenting with trains to the extent suggested and have remained undiscovered at train stations all over the country and/or found maimed and dead along tracks everywhere.

Unfortunately, any other animal would fall off the train since it has no hands to hold onto anything for balance once the train gains top speeds. That leaves man or bigfoot. I happen to think it's ludicrous for a human to be wearing a fur coat or suit riding on the outside of a train, simply because a hobo wouldn't own a fur coat, and the risk of getting prison time would be too great if the person wasn't an idiot. There is still the increased risk of falling off the train in a suit to be considered.

This assumes an animal was actually seen. Jumping to the conclusion that it was a hobo wearing fur, a hoaxer in a suit or a bigfoot is premature. It would be much more likely that an inanimate object was misidentified.

[Guest Tontar]

I don't see how bigfoot could possibly have been experimenting with trains to the extent suggested and have remained undiscovered at train stations all over the country and/or found maimed and dead along tracks everywhere.

I think you might not have seen the suggestion above where a lot of things happen around trains and in the rain industry that are not public knowledge; what happens around trains, stays around trains. Just as it was said that hobo deaths are not reported, the assumption could be made that bigfoots are also not reported. I don't buy that at all, as if a bigfoot was found dead around a train, I am pretty sure it would turn up somewhere in the public eye!

This assumes an animal was actually seen. Jumping to the conclusion that it was a hobo wearing fur, a hoaxer in a suit or a bigfoot is premature. It would be much more likely that an inanimate object was misidentified.

Thank you for that! :-)

[Guest]

Edited to say- well there you have it, at least one pic of primates climbing on the train. They don't look particularly concerned about doing it.

With respect -- indiefoot's monkeys-on-train pictures look greatly to me, like having been taken on a train in India. I can submit, from first-hand experience, that monkeys are often found in India, in assorted populated settings. They're semi-tame, unafraid of humans, and can -- in the hope of being fed -- be bold, cheeky, and a considerable nuisance. Among other locations, I've seen them hanging around railway stations. Am sure that monkeys climbing onto Indian passenger trains, in quest of hand-outs, is a frequent occurrence.

I see this as a far cry from the "Bigfoot hitching rides on freight trains" proposition -- very different situations, because of perspectives additional to that simply of "is it physically possible for a primate"?