Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[roguefooter]

^Why the condescending tone? Is it really that hard to discuss something without acting like there are sides here?

 

If they're showing up on surveillance systems then we should have something tangible to look at and add into the discussion here. Where are the videos so we could see them?

 

Also you have to remember that any report has a 50/50 shot at truth/lying. People lie all the time, especially about things considered tongue-in-cheek in our society like Aliens and Bigfoot. I'd take any report with a grain of salt.

 

 

We aren't talking about BF riding the metro. If you read the first post, thirty miles out from cities was talked about. That leaves a lot of ground for hiding in.

 

Is 30 miles outside of a city really urban? Around here it's only about 5 miles before you're deep in the woods.

Edited September 8, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

^Why the condescending tone? Is it really that hard to discuss something without acting like there are sides here?

 

The entire tone of bigfoot skepticism is condescending.  Occasionally, some of us get tired of it.  "Too slim for reason?"  Everything we know about animals - including the evidence for sasquatch - says:  it's happening.

 

If they're showing up on surveillance systems then we should have something tangible to look at and add into the discussion here. Where are the videos so we could see them?

 

Ask the people with the videos.  Over on the NAWAC thread, maybe bipto could say something.  There's one from OK that they have taken a good look at, but to my knowledge haven't shared.  It's mentioned here.  I thought it was more than a "rumor," which is what the report says; bipto would know.

 

http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/2270

 

Also you have to remember that any report has a 50/50 shot at truth/lying. People lie all the time, especially about things considered tongue-in-cheek in our society like UFO's and Bigfoot. I'd take any report with a grain of salt.

 

Any single report, maybe.  But when thousands of them are describing the same thing, down to fine points of classic ape behavior and morphology typically known only to primatologists, and the sightings are intricately complemented with an impressive haul of anomalous footrpints, we are at a little more than "grain of salt."  And have been, truth told, for a half-century now.

 

Is 30 miles outside of a city really urban? Around here it's only about 5 miles before you're deep in the woods.

 

I can only take the word of the OP, who presumably can make that assessment.  But places like he is describing - again, scores of reports - are routinely pooh-poohed by skeptics.

[roguefooter]

 

 

The entire tone of bigfoot skepticism is condescending.  Occasionally, some of us get tired of it.  "Too slim for reason?"  Everything we know about animals - including the evidence for sasquatch - says:  it's happening.

 

 

That to me sounds like your own personal interpretation because as a fencesitter I don't see it at all. I look at both sides and see valid arguments, and I also see people that get pretty uptight on a dime. How can anybody get uptight talking about Bigfoot of all things?

 

When I said too slim for reason I was talking about Bigfoot being in urban areas, not the "evidence for sasquatch". I'm not sure why you guys keep falling back to that.

 

 

Any single report, maybe.  But when thousands of them are describing the same thing, down to fine points of classic ape behavior and morphology typically known only to primatologists, and the sightings are intricately complemented with an impressive haul of anomalous footrpints, we are at a little more than "grain of salt."  And have been, truth told, for a half-century now.

 

Again here it sounds like you're talking about "evidence for sasquatch" in general. I'm talking about Bigfoot in urban areas.

 

 

Ask the people with the videos.  Over on the NAWAC thread, maybe bipto could say something.  There's one from OK that they have taken a good look at, but to my knowledge haven't shared.  It's mentioned here.  I thought it was more than a "rumor," which is what the report says; bipto would know.

 

Are you sure that's the report you're talking about? Because that's definitely not an urban surveillance system.

[Guest]

To say a report is a story implies that it is made up. Yes some news reporters have fabricated stories but the majority do not. Same with BF

[roguefooter]

^News reports tend to have accountability behind them, so telling a fake news report would be a high risk.

 

A person concocting a Bigfoot story has nothing to lose and a lot of entertainment to gain, so there really is no correlation between the two.

[Guest]

^Why the condescending tone? Is it really that hard to discuss something without acting like there are sides .

This x1000

It's almost not worth posting and opposing opinion

[Sasfooty]

Absolutely! So why continue to harass & ridicule people for what they know.

 

From reading the reasons that new members give for joining, I don't recall ever seeing one state that they came here to be convinced that what they saw, heard, or experienced, doesn't exist. After awhile, the constant scoffing gets old & they tend to give back some of what they've been getting.

 

Your tactics aren't working, so in the case of scoftics, as you said "It's almost not worth posting and opposing opinion".

[Guest DWA]

Opposing opinions have to be backed by evidence.  Here, they aren't.  I wish someone could point me to someplace they are.

 

And as I pointed out, the bigfoot skeptic position is condescending in its entirety.  It ignores directly relevant scientists employing their science and paints everyone else as fools.  And fails to read up, and constantly demands regurgitation of stuff that the proponents have read and analyzed, and is in the public domain.  It's a little irksome to have to dig for stuff that's in a book I paid $49 for and put it up here, free, for somebody who won't move off his pedestal until a body lands on him anyway.  

 

(And that's why I won't do it.  I'll put that stuff up when it suits my argument, not when a bigfoot skeptic is trying to save money and get laughs for free.)

 

It's gonna be problematical to bring that attitude around here.  And that should be utterly understandable.  Boy, I understand it.  That's why I'm not crouching around the fringes of fairies-are-real sites.

[dmaker]

I paid the same 49 bucks for the same book pal. I'm just not as impressed as you. I've read it, twice now. Yep, still not impressed.

 

There is evidence behind skeptical position. There is a en ever growing evidence of absence argument that pretty much sinks the SS Bigfoot dead in the water. And that just grows with every day. 

 

There is lots of evidence of hoaxes. Would you like a large, grand list of them all? 

 

And some of your evidence charges are just ridiculous. Every other day we have to argue about the non falsifiability of your favorite body of evidence-- the reports. They are just stories and no one can do anything with them to falsify them. That's a simple fact but you pretend that it isn't constantly. 

 

And would one bring evidence to prove an implausibility? Many people find the notion of a semi-urban Bigfoot unlikely. Now how would one go about bringing evidence for that? Shall I produce pictures of urban areas with no Bigfoots in them?  No, the evidence burden is on the people making the claim. You constantly try to turn that around and claim victory. Which is simply put wrong and deliberately misleading. 

[Will]

Opposing opinions have to be backed by evidence.  Here, they aren't.  I wish someone could point me to someplace they are.

 

 

Its high time the knowers brought evidence, the rest I completely agree.

And would one bring evidence to prove an implausibility?

 

This is not skepticism. It is denial, isn't there more exciting things you could be doing?

[Guest DWA]

Its high time the knowers brought evidence, the rest I completely agree.

 

Actually, will, the proponents have brought a lot of evidence.  Proof, they haven't.   And the best of them know that, and are doing the best they can with little field time...and their own money.

 

But "knowers" triggered something, about the people that, yeah, I do have something to say about, and that's "habituators," publishing books that have no evidence in them.  And wanting me to buy those books.

 

Some habituators come here to talk, and although for those of us who would like to see proof there's a lot of smh in there, this is, now, the BFF, and should be a safe haven for folks who actually don't care who else knows but their fellow habituators, and just want to - as much of that talk seems to be - talk shop.  I'm OK with that, and just generally stay out of those conversations.

 

Given that we've seen habituation of virtually everything that lives in North America, and ape/human interactions aren't exactly unknown, especially  if there's food involved, some of these folks could actually be doing it, and we might find that out after science confirms the animal.  I can see it conceivable that there really are people who don't care who knows as long as they do, and could actually see bad things happening - to their backyard and furniture at the least - if their research became public, and it really does take all kinds to make a world.

 

But when you make people pay for it, I'm a little - OK a LOT - smh when you don't put proof in it.  You're profiteering; and you are also putting up a for-pay sighting report.  It has no more credibility without corroboration than any of those; in fact it raises a big yellow flag.  How could one have that and not put it in here?  Answer, right or wrong:  they don't have that.  Scientists, at the very least, turn their backs on this topic when they see this stuff.  Right or wrong - and science operates on evidence - they do.  Period.

 

This is not skepticism. It is denial, isn't there more exciting things you could be doing?

You're making me want to find a fairy site and see how far I can take nonononono.

[Guest]

One of my favorite books, "Bigfoot in Georgia" by Jeffery Wells has lots of footnotes to show his sources. Several books on the subject also contain footnotes. I have never read one newspaper article that named their source, because then the information would not keep flowing. I do think there is a correlation as anybody reporting an encounter or the news should be held accountable for what they are reporting. If you really seek hard evidence, then do as a lot of us do and get out and look yourself!

[Guest]

Absolutely! So why continue to harass & ridicule people for what they know.

From reading the reasons that new members give for joining, I don't recall ever seeing one state that they came here to be convinced that what they saw, heard, or experienced, doesn't exist. After awhile, the constant scoffing gets old & they tend to give back some of what they've been getting.

Your tactics aren't working, so in the case of scoftics, as you said "It's almost not worth posting and opposing opinion".

show me where I have harassed or ridiculed please

[Sasfooty]

I'm talking about scoftics in general, so if you aren't guilty, consider yourself excluded from my comment.

 

I'm not in the mood to go looking this morning.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Sasfooty

[georgerm]

If sightings around an urban area, say 30 miles from Chicago are a problem for some I understand that.  I would have my own doubts except for having done my own research and having had my own experience.  I live about 50 miles from both Chicago and Milwaukee, so my area is not truly urban.  So the twist on this thread is what is really possible, can this creature make forays into more populated areas in the wee hours of the night and make it's way back out in time to hide?  There is a morning sighting not far from Brookfield Zoo, which is not far from the sightings in the southern forest preserves that include bachelors grove, which has seen activity, as well as the areas surrounding these very densely wooded havens.  A canal connects that area to the area around Brookfield Zoo, and this could serve as the passage way between both, maybe this guy did not make it back in time and just decided to hunker down till evening.  That is what they will do, sleep all day and play at night, some hidden little spot is all that is needed, though they need to have some escape routes in case discovered.  Corn fields, marsh, water, woods, anything that will hide them in case they need to move.

 

 

It would be helpful if we could see your area on an aerial map. It should be no big deal since you are located in town.

 

 

Something strange did occur in our small town of Bandon, Oregon, several years ago. My neighbor has a 12' tall apple tree that was stripped of it's apples one night.  He lives right in town along a 50' deep densly vegetated creek canyon that runs a few hundred yards and dumps into the Coquille River. My first thought was BF but I suppose a thief could have done this in the middle of the night. It seems strange the thief would have a ladder to get the apples at the 10' high range.

 

There seems to be some friction about evidence. We need to remember that facts or truths come from the use of the scientific method of which evidence such as hair, foot prints, or dens is  just one component.. The other important part of this method is observation which amounts to reports. So let's think like scientist and keep egos out of it.  

Edited September 8, 2013 by georgerm