So Called "myth"

[Guest]

It took me a while to find out what I thought was wrong with this post. Namely: Ray, Cliff, Paul and Roger all had a motive to hoax - money. Sending in a report to BFRO won't get you a single cent. It won't give you attention either because your real name isn't mentioned.

Why assume such a narrow field of motivations for people who spread fabricated stories of bigfoot encounters? People don't just tell lies to make money or gain fame.

[Guest]

The total number of reports would rise sharply in my opinion. The ratio of bogus vs. legitamate reports might stay the same, though a person not yet convinced by the evidence, wouldn't likely find better reason to file a bogus report, meanwhile the legitimate witnesses would feel more at ease to come forward. I know for a fact there are many sightings that don't get reported because of the negative attention it can bring.

So you think the number of real bigfoot eyewitnesses who are sitting on their stories for fear of ridicule is on par with the number of people who would claim such encounters after a bigfoot discovery?

[southernyahoo]

I think there is plenty more people who have not told there story, and they are not that hard to find in certain areas, once they know you are open and investigating the subject. After discovery, it's anyones guess, but I don't think people will report their sightings in the same way people would if they were trying to save a lost panda.

[Guest]

. . . I don't think people will report their sightings in the same way people would if they were trying to save a lost panda.

Why not? In that example dozens(?) of people incorrectly reported the animal once its escape went public. Unless there was another red panda hanging around the area (or a red panda hoaxer!), every one of those people saw something else they interpreted as a red panda, hallucinated a red panda, or simply jumped on the bandwagon to report a completely fabricated encounter. They didn't concoct crazy stories of red pandas with laser beam eyes or red pandas wearing roller skates. They presented mundane accounts along the lines of "Yes, I saw an animal matching that description at such and such place."

If we had a bigfoot discovery day, I would foresee hundreds of new bigfoot accounts and it would be nigh on impossible to correctly identify the handful of authentic encounters from within that flood of new accounts.

[BobbyO]

I'm referring to England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Isle of Man, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, etc.

I'm from England & i can assure you we don't have Troll's & Goblin's there nor i doubt, anybody in their right mind reporting them..

[Guest gershake]

Why assume such a narrow field of motivations for people who spread fabricated stories of bigfoot encounters?  People don't just tell lies to make money or gain fame.

But...?

[southernyahoo]

Why not? In that example dozens(?) of people incorrectly reported the animal once its escape went public. Unless there was another red panda hanging around the area (or a red panda hoaxer!), every one of those people saw something else they interpreted as a red panda, hallucinated a red panda, or simply jumped on the bandwagon to report a completely fabricated encounter. They didn't concoct crazy stories of red pandas with laser beam eyes or red pandas wearing roller skates. They presented mundane accounts along the lines of "Yes, I saw an animal matching that description at such and such place."

If we had a bigfoot discovery day, I would foresee hundreds of new bigfoot accounts and it would be nigh on impossible to correctly identify the handful of authentic encounters from within that flood of new accounts.

Those people were anxious to help, and many probably didn't have a good idea what a Red Panda looked like. Many probably had a breif glimpse of a loose dog., and thought better to report it if it could help. I dont think I would mis- ID a loose dog but even I need to go see what a Red Panda looks like. Is it any different than a regular Panda?

Keep in mind that many of the sightings of bigfoot I'm talking about would not necessarily be the most recent, these people would have plenty of time to rationalize what they have seen.

Do you think more people have an idea of what a Red Panda looks like than Bigfoot?

Yep, I would not have guessed it looks like this, it looks like a cross between a red fox and a racoon. Breif sightings of certain cats and dogs would explain the Red Panda sightings from people who were in a rush trying save it's life. Did the all points bulletin have a photo to help find it?

[Guest alex]

In the Red Panda case, people were TOLD to keep a lookout for the red panda, there may have been a bounty involved, who knows

[Guest]

Point taken, the red panda example did present the complication of people being specifically encouraged to report its whereabouts. I agree that this probably contributed quite a bit to the number of clearly erroneous reports. That said, those reports were still erroneous. While I certainly can't vouch for the quality of information broadcast on what a red panda looks like, I assume there was something like "size of large cat or small dog, thick reddish fur, long ringed tail."

Somewhat related, but not directly, I now have a good-natured scolding for you, southernyahoo. This will sound snarkier than I intend but your post raises a really important point, and I don't want to lose it because it applies to everyone who takes an interest in the bigfoot phenomenon. So please don't take this as a personal swipe at you.

OK, here goes:

What's the deal with not knowing what a red panda looks like? These creatures are well-represented in zoos in the US (and apparently in Europe). More important, these are characteristic creatures of dense Asian forests where bigfoot-like creatures are believed by many to occur. I know I'm biased because my background is in wildlife biology, but I strongly recommend that bigfoot aficionados invest the effort to develop some basic literacy in the life histories of the flora and fauna in the habitats where bigfoots are expected to occur. If we don't do this, how can we contemplate the existence of bigfoot from an informed perspective? There are so many wonderful, fascinating creatures in this world that people never bother to learn anything about, yet they'll spend hour after hour absorbing every bit of hypothetical minutiae they can about an animal that most likely does not even exist.

Again, I'm not specifically taking a poke at you southernyahoo, and I know you're very experienced and familiar with the species in your favorite haunts - and these likely don't include temperate Asian forests. I hope we can all agree that my message of "learn as much as you can about ALL the wildlife in our forests" is universally positive. Cheers, and thanks for a good discussion about anecdotal reports in the wake of a potential "discovery day."

[Drew]

Keep in mind that many of the sightings of bigfoot I'm talking about would not necessarily be the most recent, these people would have plenty of time to rationalize what they have seen.

Time to rationalize what people have seen is not always good.

Someone sees what they think is a Bigfoot

Someone calls a BF organization

BF org. sends out an investigator

Someone thinks, 'oh my, the investigator is coming all the way out here to see me'

Someone embellishes the details of the sightings to make sure the investigator doesn't think they are making up the story.

Investigator reacts positively to the details of the sightings.

Someone thinks that the positive reaction is good.

Pressure to perform in other words.

[southernyahoo]

Good point, I am familiar with the need to be believed over-riding adherence to the facts.

[OnlyASize12]

I have always wondered: If Sasquatch is just a myth, then why has it been reported into modern day? You do not see many reports of Goblins or Dragon's as much as you do with Sasquatch. As far as I am concerned, Goblins do not leave track's behind, nor do they have this much controversy surrounding them, do they?

If Sasquatch is just a myth, then it is a pretty lame one. Hoaxer's could have reported so many more cooler attributes to Bigfoot ( Shoot beams out of its eyes, lift a giant boulder and throw it 100 yards, etc), But what you tend to get is reports of an Evolutionary exception to the laws of nature.

Members of the forum, what are your opinions on the modern day persistence of this creature, real or imagined, we have all come to love?

'

Seems self-evident to me that ol' 'quatch simple ate the rest

Survival of the Hungriest.

Seriously, that is an interesting question.

A possible answer is that the "regular" Bigfoot report is at least plausible. The "normal" behavior reported is that of a large reclusive primate in fairly rough countryside. If you want a lie/myth/tall tale to be believed, the closer to reality you keep it, the more likely it will be accepted. It is easier to accept the idea of a "lost" primate than that we haven't noticed a 30 foot fire-breathing dragon skulking about.

Of course, what makes the most sense to me is that there is in fact an actual "thing" that is out there in the woods and being seen from time to time. The "myth" is alive because it isn't really a myth.

Tim

[Guest Bob]

Bigfoot is a myth, based on folklore. Trolls, Goblins, etc. are also myths, but we don't hear about them much...as they are part of European folklore, not so much in North America.

Next question....

I have had two sightings. The first was daytime and close up. The second was at night with a full moon, close up too and this myth stood there for 15 minutes. The next question is - Have you ever looked?

[kbhunter]

Bob, thanks for your short and frank answer. I want to thank you for joining here and there are some of us that are in the same "boat" as you. I wasn't even looking for the **** thing, they found us on our property. As a warning, I will tell you there are a few here that want to take everyone that has an experience to task or may even come very close to calling you a lier. (hopefully staying in the rules) I am here to say, don't let those few bother you becuase there are more jumping into our boat all of the time.

Hmm, LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT NEED A BIGGER BOAT!!

[Guest Bullfrog]

Crowlogic, on 05 September 2010 - 05:41 PM, said:

My opinion is that Sasquatch was not a myth. I believe that Sasquatch was a relic population of a hominid ancestor that lived on in small numbers into the late mid 20th century. I think the line went extinct sometime in the 1970's.

proof?

I personally think Crowlogic's view makes sense. Its not a matter of "proof," its a matter of probability.

What's the probability that a large bipedal ape is living all across North America in 2010 that mysterious avoids trail cameras, highway collisions, hunters, substrate generally suitable for leaving lots of tracks, and otherwise just doesn't leave any sign of its existance that can clearly be documented? I submit that the probability is low. Not impossible, but less than 50%.

On the other hand, what's the probability that Native Americans and early settlers described a creature with very specific and unique physical traits and habits that were commonly noted across vastly different cultural traditions, and furthermore traits that were overwealmingly ape-like, where most of the eye-witinesses involved wouldn't have any independant knowledge of what an ape is or what one looks like? Is it more likely that Native Americans and settlers were basing their observations on something they actually observed, that they were having some sort of genetically encoded memory flare up based on some ancient encounter an extinct ape had with humanity thousands of years ago, or that they were just all making it up and it was a chain of conisidences mixed with "snowballing" of traditions that the accounts were so similar? I submit the first possibility is more likely. The latter two options aren't impossible, but I find them less likely.

So what's left? It makes more sense to me that the reason Native American and early settler accounts of sasquatch share so many common traits with each other and with apes is because the first eyewitnesses were in fact seeing a real creature, the same type of creature, and a creature that is ultimately some sort of ape. But it also makes sense to me that the reason physical evidence isn't there in recent decades is because there are no sasquatches now to leave the evidence.