Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Well I guess that discounts the theory of them being just another animal. I suggest that the continental eyewitness accounts, not global, suggest that there is consistency to the type of creature described. The highest level of evidence is still the foot prints which also have a consistency that includes large parts of North America. The biological nature of the footprints described by Meldrum, which I assume you have read, is the hardest evidence. Dmaker, however, when one has encountered the creature somehow that all becomes arbitrary, except in arguing their existence with skeptics, which I admit I have little interest in doing, except that it has entered this thread. I suggest you start your own thread arguing the existence of the creature. I would be happy to chime in to that thread. From here forward I will not address the skepticism of their existence, but only the parameters of that existence, no offence to you view.

[Guest DWA]

Mockingbird:  Plussed.

 

I'd be insulted (and incredulous) too if I were you.

Edited September 9, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Darrell]

JDL: Any time one steadfastly proclaims the absolute fallibility of men, one must also consider the absolute fallibility of self.

 

^Both are ultimatley corruptable. Which is why to prove anything a type specimen is required. anything less requires faith in something falliable.

 

Why am I requred to take the word of someone I dont know who posts on an internet forum as fact? I dont know what he saw. Why should he feel insulted?

  From here forward I will not address the skepticism of their existence, but only the parameters of that existence, no offence to you view.

Where Im from thats called sticking your head in the sand.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Darrell

[Incorrigible1]

Pareidolia----not when you see it sitting under a light in clear view

 

That would have been an imminently photographical (sic, made up the word) moment......Habituators claim buckets full, provide mere drips. Where's the beef?

 

 

DMaker, in spite of our run-in in the Tar Pit, I was compelled to plus your Krantz quotation. It's gold.

[Guest]

For your information......One time only. I was letting my dogs out. I don't normally carry a camera to the door with me when I let them out. Shame on me I suppose. I stared for a good 30 seconds and when I moved across the room and came back. It was gone....quietly completely gone. Sooooo...... Anything else you want to know. I may or may not answer. And btw, I am not a habituator. Witness, yes.

[JDL]

Lake County Bigfooot, on 09 Sept 2013 - 5:34 PM, said:

  From here forward I will not address the skepticism of their existence, but only the parameters of that existence, no offence to you view.

 

Where Im from thats called sticking your head in the sand.

 

And discounting every single eye-witness report is not, possibly, sticking one's head in the sand?

[Guest Urkelbot]

"Saying they cannot exist, and that those who have seen them are delusional, or mistaken, discounts the absolute consistency to descriptions spanning the continent that point to a very real creature."

 

Well once one says that one believes they do not exist, one must provide a source for all the sighting reports. Hence the list of possibilities. 

 

And contrary to what it seems you feel, but the global distribution of Sasquatch actually decreases the likelihood of it being real, not increases it. You have to look no further than Bigfoot Phd, Grover Krantz for support for that statement and about the reliability of eyewitnesses in general:

I I like what krantz says here about Bigfoots distribution. It's one of the sticking points that makes Bigfoot hard to believe. How could Bigfoot be all over north America and yet so rare that it leaves scant evidence of its ecistence. It would be much more believable if Bigfoots distribution was in scattered pockets throughout the PNW or Rockies. Its probably one of the reasons most scientists don't take Bigfoot seriously having such an unrealistic distribution. Not even taking into account the multi continent Bigfoot or Bigfoot like creatures which as krantz says makes it all the more unlikely.

As far as urban Bigfoot the only reason I could see them scrounging for food in people's backyards in the suburbs would be if high populations or other stress was forcing them out of the forests. If populations are great enough to force Bigfoot into urban enviornments then there should be physical evidence.

 

 

Sasquatch Believers vs. The Skeptics

by Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D

 

The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth.

 

Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been.

[Guest DWA]

And discounting every single eye-witness report is not, possibly, sticking one's head in the sand?

 

No.  That DEFINITELY is.

[dmaker]

Mockingbird:  Plussed.

 

I'd be insulted (and incredulous) too if I were you.

It's only insulting if you want it to be, or take it as aimed at you ( or anyone else) personally. It's not. And if you think that not a single report can be chalked up to a sub-clinical condition then you are probably quite far off the mark. 

 

For Pity sake, it's medical term! It's not an insult. For a group of people so keen on science, one would expect less recoil at a simple suggestion like that.  And as I pointed out, if you are reading this thread and claim a sighting, I am not saying that suggestion applies to you. Why, other than to be contrary, would someone read the entire list and focus on that one to take personally and get offended? I do believe it to be a factor in some sightings, and as such it needed to be included in a mature, objective list.  Nothing more.  To suggest otherwise comes off as a tool to inflame my comments.

Edited September 9, 2013 by dmaker

[Lake County Bigfooot]

So I just mowed my lawn, nice tall long grass. The buzz of the cicada, the ground crawling with crickets, frogs follow, then the snakes, birds of prey, the rabbit, the squirrel, and the friendly chipmunk. I love them all big and small! Made a rush run into my habituation area just to see if I could startle something at rest,,,,not today, sorry, tried to get the ultimate encounter and wound up with stickers. Still had to notice the tree of about 10 inches in diameter that crashed down after taking a leak and making some whistles. That really freaked me out. Right next to that area is a little clearing with matted down marsh and some clear areas just fringing the marsh. No one could detect something sleeping in that spot, unless they bull rushed the area, thus the attempt. Oh well, they didn't get to this point only to be outsmarted by a buffoon like me :}

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I have a 1/2 acre bordering a ADID wetland, or marsh. This is surrounded by trees and then a few houses on my end, otherwise cut off from civilization. Surrounding this is forest and marsh and light residential areas. What truly fascinates me is the ways in which a Squatch could move between these areas, crossing a channel here and there and the possibilities are limitless.

That situation will be changing with the falling of the leaves, or so I think, the nocturnal nature of these creatures may allow them to inhabit such areas beyond the fall and into winter, as is evidenced by the footprint found 10 miles east of me last winter near beach park IL, that is echoed by another footprint found further north in Racine Wi, and another found near the town of Algonquin, Il. Very close to a day time sighting on the Prairie Path Bike trail... All of this is listed on the BRFO sightings for Lake County IL, Racine County WI, and McHenry County IL. All areas near me... As DWA stated google earth is the bar far the best way to "vet" a sighting. I have found the geographic relevance of sightings the most convincing evidence to their existence in these type of areas outside Metropolitans.....

[roguefooter]

Um, SLAM.  Plussed.

 

Seriously? Is that what this has devolved to? A kiddie fight?

[dmaker]

Sounds like a nice area LCB. I may not be on board with the whole Sasquatch thing, but it's hard to argue with a man who loves the outdoors.

[roguefooter]

 

 

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.

 

This might seem like a crazy idea but why not just put the 'bad people' on ignore?

 

I hate to tell you but nobody is going to leave here through any kind of pressure. If anything that only makes people more persistent.

 

 

 

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!

 

 

When someone says it's all a crock, then that's obviously an opinion. Nobody has to agree that it's good or legitimate evidence. People can debate the opinions, but nobody has to back them up. When you state something as a fact, then that's when you need to back up the claim.

 

Also aren't there multiple scientists already investing their time into this? Meldrum, Sykes/Sartori, Ketchum- they're all people of science aren't they?

 

 

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.

 

I don't struggle with the question, but I do have his book and can say that it's questionable. The chapter on the dermal ridges alone puts the "science" into question- if he's wrong about that then what else could he be wrong about? I also question his view of the Blue Creek Mountain tracks which to me are pretty obviously hoaxed.

Edited September 10, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

It's only insulting if you want it to be, or take it as aimed at you ( or anyone else) personally. It's not. And if you think that not a single report can be chalked up to a sub-clinical condition then you are probably quite far off the mark. 

 

For Pity sake, it's medical term! It's not an insult. For a group of people so keen on science, one would expect less recoil at a simple suggestion like that.  And as I pointed out, if you are reading this thread and claim a sighting, I am not saying that suggestion applies to you. Why, other than to be contrary, would someone read the entire list and focus on that one to take personally and get offended? I do believe it to be a factor in some sightings, and as such it needed to be included in a mature, objective list.  Nothing more.  To suggest otherwise comes off as a tool to inflame my comments.

This is what you said:

Posted Today, 03:13 PM

I believe that I have offered numerous reasons for the eyewitness reports database to contain not a single, genuine Bigfoot report. Off the top of my head:

Then you made your list.....I simply went through and said why each one did not apply to me....that's it. Some were insulting, though you try to get around that by saying further down you didn't mean them to be. No where in my post did I say you meant me....nowhere. Again, I merely said why none of your reasons applied to me. But since you started that post with "not a single, genuine Bigfoot report" and I have stated before that I had an encounter.....uh, help me out here. How did you not mean me? Several people have now agreed that your list is legitimate and accurate for some reports but you say the database contains not one single, genuine Bigfoot report. So if you didn't mean any of those reasons on your list to apply to anybody posting in this thread then we have legitimate reports? Is that what you're saying? But that couldn't be because you say there are no genuine reports.

I am sorry....won't engage with you again, my bad. Seriously, I am laughing so hard I nearly spit my drink out. Trying to understand what you mean will do that.