Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[mesabe]

My bad, I totally agree with you DWA, I just got twisted in the logic, and of course the edit didn't work when I tried to correct it. So I had to post again, making my reply even stupider. lol

or trolls?

[Guest DWA]

So now you're telling me you don't like ugly dwarves with aphrodisiac tears.  Man, some people. 

 

 

Isn't it weird how every thread eventually turns into the same conversation? LOL.

 

It is the dangdest thing.  I can't even imagine myself invading the thread "UDWAT Nest in My Chimney" and turning it, with only 50 posts, into "UDWAT Don't/Do Exist, Dangit" and then doing that over and over with thread after thread.  But JREF must not have any space left for new scoffers.

[Guest]

*** Mod Statement ***

 

Back to the Topic guys and stop with the personal attacks:

 

General Guidelines:

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

 

BFF Rules

 

Consider this a Verbal Warning and get back on topic or the next action comes with penalty.

 

Ginger

[Sunflower]

They come into town, they will check dumpsters from time to time.  Oklahoma has several large cities where this happens more than you know.  Tulsa is a large town and deer run around all the time.  We saw one jump over a concrete barrier from where it was....someone's backyard lol.

 

Do not be fooled by urban settings as far as theses guys are concerned.  They are opportunists.  From where I live we go about 6-7 miles in a different direction from the gifting spot and have gotten tapping noises.  Raccoons, oppossums, armadillos, and birds do not tap in sequences like what we heard that day. 

 

The area is adjacent to a ranch that has from 2500-3000 acres and I was not surprised.  A friend has a place that's over 3000 acres, I doubt that she has ridden the entire place.  Our gifting area is along side of another place that is approximately 4000 acres.

 

It's just a couple miles from here and yes small towns are considered urban where I live.

[roguefooter]

^I lived in Broken Arrow for almost 10 years and have seen deer run around in Tulsa- including reindeer. What I found was that there were people in town who were raising them and they would occasionally get loose. My car almost got run over by a very large reindeer.

[roguefooter]

 

The really funny thing about this is that the "prove its" will likely say after the proof that see, we were telling you to do this all along, when in fact

 

1. No, we were telling you;
2. You spent years saying things that were utterly and now indisputably demonstrably wrong; and
3. You sure did waste a lot of your life on this being wrong and adding nothing to the discussion.

 

 

If it weren't for skepticism and the "prove its" we wouldn't have been able to weed out the hoaxers in this field. Those people would still be here destroying any credibility that the field might have. You could hate and insult them all day long but they're a necessary part of this field, and a welcome one.

 

Also I would never assume that anybody on this forum is wasting their time. For anyone to act like their time is somehow more worthy or contributing than someone else's is just childish.

 

 

There is tracks, casts and eyewitness testimony to indicate they do indeed exist. Every case simply cannot be misidentification. I wish someone would post evidence that they do NOT exist. Don't recall ever seeing any.

 

You're asking people to prove a negative- that's not how things work. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.

 

All of the evidence points that you made have been shown to be highly subject to hoaxing and misidentification. Anything that fallible will never be indication of existence, it's going to take something much more definitive. Even the testimony of scientists and experts have been shown to be fallible (like dermal ridges), so where does one draw the line for credibility and authenticity?

 

When I think about Bigfoot going into urban areas I don't see any real evidence for it or anything that would even make sense for it to be there. Urban areas usually run 24 hours and don't close for the night, are usually full of surveillance systems, and provides no natural cover or camouflage. There is a perfectly good reason why people are skeptical of claims like these and it doesn't mean that people are being mean or condescending.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

Rogue, I wouldn't compare it too Ninja Turtles. Maybe a solicitor and a defense attorney. One trying to prove guilt, the other not guilty. I am not here to debate evidence that has already been presented, it gets old and redundant.

[roguefooter]

Lol- the Ninja Turtle part of my post was just a draft of what I was thinking about. I just forgot to delete before I hit enter.

Edited September 9, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

 

If it weren't for skepticism and the "prove its" we wouldn't have been able to weed out the hoaxers in this field. Those people would still be here destroying any credibility that the field might have. You could hate and insult them all day long but they're a necessary part of this field, and a welcome one.

 

Not if they ignore or bypass evidence, or make claims with nothing to back them up.  That kind of behavior doesn't advance sicence but retards it.  All the debunking that has been done in this field, pretty much, has been done by the proponents, the best of which exhibit skepticism in its true form.

 

Also I would never assume that anybody on this forum is wasting their time. For anyone to act like their time is somehow more worthy or contributing than someone else's is just childish.

 

When one is doing nothing but nononono, and has had things pointed out to one multiple times that one's latest posts seem to indicate one is just ignoring, that needs to be pointed out.  It strangles this forum no less than it strangles science.  It has been commented many times how every single thread turns into it's not real/you're not paying attention!  That's not the proponents doing that.  The people not paying attention are doing that.

 

You're asking people to prove a negative- that's not how things work. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.

 

Right.  When one claims all the evidence for sasquatch adds up to a crock, one must prove that.  Otherwise one has shown that one misunderstands the difference between evidence and proof.  To claim that science has no obligation to follow up a mountain of consistent evidence is a truly extraordinary claim.  The extraordinary proof, please.  Or one has no claim, and is just spouting nononononono!

 

All of the evidence points that you made have been shown to be highly subject to hoaxing and misidentification.

 

No they have not been.  The hoaxes in this field have been set aside and are irrelevant.  There is a large body of evidence that has not been debunked and looks substantially different from the stuff that has.

 

Anything that fallible will never be indication of existence, it's going to take something much more definitive.

 

Which is called "proof."  The "fallibility" of evidence that isn't proof does not remove the scientific requirement to investigate it if it shows frequency and coherence.  NAWAC and BFRO, among others, at least seem to get this.  And NAWAC is in OK seeing wood apes hand over fist, and consistent reports are coming in faster than they ever have, and sound just as much like authentic experience as any that have been filed, while those who aren't paying attention continue to spout nononononononono.  To simply pass this off as stories or mistakes is a red flag:  one either isn't reading them, or isn't thinking about it enough.

 

Even the testimony of scientists and experts have been shown to be fallible (like dermal ridges), so where does one draw the line for credibility and authenticity?

 

One uses one's best guesstimate based on what one knows.  And then tests it.  Scientists are charged with making such calls all the time.  How could science advance without such calls being made?

 

When I think about Bigfoot going into urban areas I don't see any real evidence for it or anything that would even make sense for it to be there.

 

I don't see any reports from Fifth Avenue, NYC, if that's what one means by "urban areas."  Areas such as those described in this report are consistently poohpooed by bigfoot skeptics, and have scores of reports ...and for good reason, as practically every large animal we know about makes occasional use of such areas.  One would expect the smartest of those animals, in fact, to use these areas more, and to consistently get away with it.

 

 

 

[1980squatch]

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?

 

LCB I have enjoyed your thread, in fact am somewhat envious- not of your possible BF activity, but of waking up the BFF with a thread that hit 9 pages, drawing out the proponents, the skeptics, the mod warning and even the angry mod follow-up threat!

 

Seriously though, I appreciate how you handled the pressure here and just followed up on the posts with more information, sharing, and the promise of more research.  There are a lot of extraordinary claims made in the BFF, and frankly I do not find your claims to be that extraordinary.  Your title might have attracted the skeptics somewhat, but really a more accurate description may have been "non-wilderness BF" or something. 

 

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

To all those struggling with the question of whether Bigfoot even exist, I suggest reading Jeff Meldrum's book Sasquatch "evidence meets science". In it he presents what I would consider a convincing case that based on the physical evidence alone, when viewed without bias, it is reasonable to accept the reality of this creature, and to dismiss the evidence simply as a hoaxers would be very unreasonable. 1980Sasquatch, I am glad you have enjoyed the thread, and understand that I am not suggesting a Bus Stop Bigfoot, though that sounds like a cool title for a fiction book, I am suggesting that where the eco system supports the possibility, and bigfoot are present, they will venture into areas far closer to Metropolitans than what most would think possible. When I say that they need an eco-system that is supportive of them, that must include areas of greater remoteness, but that might mean an area that simply does not get human interaction. Say an old gravel pit, or just a large track of undeveloped land, connect this to a greenway, add a waterway and a railroad track, and I would venture to say that at some point they will investigate an area to see it's potential. Now who is looking for them between 2am-4am in such areas, not many people are awake or aware enough when they are. Security camera's may be the best eyes, but most, if not all of the areas I would deem usable do not have security cameras. I do not doubt they may discover dumpster diving, as they have demonstrated the liking for human food in other situations. That remains the most interesting possibility of them being drawn into a more urban area. When I was younger, much younger, I managed a gas station-c store that had outdoor dumpsters just adjacent to a large forest preserve, upon arriving to work what I assumed was an old bum, covered in dirt and quite hairy, climed out and walked off, I assumed he was sleeping in there because it was warm. I do not think it was a Squatch, but homeless people can become pretty wild looking after long periods apart from society. I wonder if my mind could have tricked me into thinking it was more human than it was, because my memory was that it was really odd looking, and I had to process it. Still I think it was a bum. But I mention this noting that I have a belief that the adults send the young into yards and areas they would be more noticed, in order to gather apples and stuff. The young ones do not leave the larger prints and can hide a bit easier, but as was my case, spook a little easier, a trade off, but those apples were quite tasty... mmm gooood

[Lake County Bigfooot]

When considering suitable habitat realize that there are subtleties involved. Is there and adequate food source, is there an area of remoteness, is there a connection to other areas that are usable, is there a stream or water source nearby, and lastly can travel to the area via the greenways be possible. Realize that the greenway may be something that runs right through civilization, a bike path, railroad tracks, stream, or power lines, or simple geographic features like tree lined ridges. I think they use all these things in combination and explore areas to see there potential, not leaving any obvious sign of their presence, because there instinct is extremely strong in this type of situation, to avoid detection at all costs! Some of you may realize my habituation attempts, well the jury is still out on whether they stay long enough for that possibility in these more populated areas. I have had some interesting circumstances, a tree crashing down, branches being snapped, a possible rock thrown, I will occasionally update that progress at the habituation thread, which I recommend highly for those already in the camp of accepting the creature as real....

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Lastly for this morning I leave you with an interesting thought, that is that these creatures may derive a certain pleasure in outwitting us. This is a common perception by those who have interacted at some level with the creature. They have been known to even laugh at us when we demonstrate fear, or fall for some type of trickery. These are highly intelligent creatures, some have suggested them to be more human than ape, and others suggest they have supernatural abilities, disappearing and the like. Well that really muddies the water, because I am content to contend they are highly developed primates which have adapted to a nocturnal existence, who were probably driven from areas retreating west, like most animals, and are currently making a comeback due to reforestation. They may have never left certain areas, but I think they are expanding there range. Teddy Roosevelt wrote about an account of them dating back to the 1800s, and native American tribes all speak of their existence. Imagine that, having duped us for all this time, and living in proximity to us, yet hiding their presence, an amazing reality in my mind. What intrigues me most is that they understand us, they know our habits, study us from a distance, and continue laughing as they know we are easy prey.

[dmaker]

" To simply pass this off as stories or mistakes is a red flag:  one either isn't reading them, or isn't thinking about it enough." -DWA

 

 Comments like the above can seem to restrict conversation down to two possibilities only: agree with me, or you're just not reading properly.  It completely discounts the idea that someone can read the stories and not believe them and not feel they hold much value as evidence and move on. It suggests a problem in comprehension that is just not there. The personal incredulity that someone could read reports and still not be impressed is injected into the argument at it's very core and creates a barrier to discussion.

 

No matter how much I think about the Bigfoot stories, they still just come across as stories.  I know that it is hard, for some reason, for you to accept that, but it is likely true for quite a few people. Quite a few of those happen to be mainstream scientists too I would wager. Yet in your argument they are lazy or negligent in their duties if they don't think about the Bigfoot reports enough, or correctly.

[Guest]

 

 

Otherwise one has shown that one misunderstands the difference between evidence and proof.  To claim that science has no obligation to follow up a mountain of consistent evidence is a truly extraordinary claim. 

 

 

No, the bigfoot believers are the ones who have to follow up on this "mountain of consistent evidence" and bring in the monkey. They'll have a much easier time then someone finding a rare beetle in a foreign jungle.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Jerrymanderer