Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[dmaker]

I have also read Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010), which I consider superior to Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.     Neither of them convince me or really move me off my position at all.

 

I would also like to point that while these are non-fiction, they are not peer reviewed papers that have a scientific consensus. They are well written opinion pieces with the authors interpretation of Sasquatch evidence. 

Mockingbird, if I say I don't believe in Sasquatch, then obviously I do not believe that you saw a Sasquatch.Or anyone else for that matter.  I believe that believe you saw a Sasquatch. Whatever may be the root cause to your sighting, I cannot say.  But I cannot even say maybe you saw a Sasquatch since I flat out deny the creature's existence. Sure, I could be wrong, but I really don't believe it. If you find that insulting, well I truly apologize.  Maybe you should try to bring some evidence to support your claim? But in the absence of any convincing evidence, then I'm not going to believe anyone's Bigfoot story.

Edited September 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

That's okay...Sasquatch doesn't believe in you either. I just couldn't resist. This whole thread has cracked me up to the point of being silly.....the reasoning and arguments go round and round. I'm done.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Sorry Mockingbird the intention of the thread was not "is bigfoot real", but Dmaker has that issue, and I am choosing to ignore his argument, but will look into his suggested reading. Due to being a Golf Pro in a seasonal area have not been able to read, though I have a voracious appetite for books. I will read the Grover Krantz and Bindernagel books. For many of us the idea of bigfoot is uncomfortable, and if we could prove it untrue, we could move on with a normal life. I did not choose to have an experience that convinced me of their reality, it just happened. Now that experience would not have been as profound had I not already been investigating the idea, then came my experience. So I guess some would say I projected the experience onto my own psyche. Well I could accept that if my wife was not sitting next to me the first time it occurred, and had the same visceral reaction, realizing the oddity of it.

[Guest]

I saw some possible sign when I made a impromptu mini day trip to a famous sighting location in WI a few years ago, part of the same Kettle Morraine region that runs down to the border area of this thread.

I've been exploring areas in SE Michigan that have had sightings and have noted the moraines are a common theme.  Given that a lot of those areas have been turned into parks, wildlife refuges and rec areas that run together this would seem like a great travel route for them to get between the more densely forested areas.  I actually think you have less line of sight in some of these moraine areas than in a mountainous area.

 

Great thread Lake County!  Thanks for posting.

 

This reminds me of the Mt Clemens Buffalo Wild Wings dumpster sighting in 2009.  Likely a made up story. 

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=paranormal&cdn=newsissues&tm=48&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=8&bts=71&zu=http%3A//glossynews.com/society/human-interest/200912080556/michigan-bigfoot-sightings-on-the-rise/

Has anyone heard of Homer Dickson?  A squatch could have followed the Clinton river into town and it smelled the wings...  Nah

[Guest]

LCB....I am sorry....I wasn't very clear. I was not in any way laughing at you or the subject of this thread. It was an interesting thread until as you said, all the "Big Foot is not real". Arguments and responses. Tired and frustrated with the same old, same old stuff....got silly. And believe me, I know where you are coming from.....

And LCB....you rushing the area is not any different than me this afternoon throwing sticks and rocks over the back fence into the brush. Yeah, I was trying to get a reaction too....nada.

[Guest DWA]

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

And I didn't make it one.

 

Seriously?  OK, seriously.  Dmaker is insulting people, only "no, not you, you are just mistaken, and pick one of those categories I put up, things I dreamed up in my head, and even though I didn't mean you, that's what you are." 

 

You guys crack me up.  Yep, it's a kiddie fight all right.  Maybe if the kiddies left the adults could have a conversation.

 

Sorry, hawking a bankrupt thesis; giving no one a reason to take one seriously; continually cramming it down the throats of people whose own experiences tell them one couldn't be more wrong, but one doesn't care about that, nor that one is baldly insulting them; and then demanding they treat one with the proper respect ...does not amount to being reasonable.  Dmaker has alienated two posters in this thread alone.  And is working on others' last nerve.  That may be a record.

 

I'm just here to have fun.  And teach, and learn.  And that's what Ignore is for.  I'm focusing on the ones who have something to teach me.  And can learn from me.  And filtering out the nononononononoise.

 

Bigfoot skeptics should not flatter themselves that they have a message (other than that their hearing aid or their eyeglasses, pick one or both, may not be what it was).  I'm tired of saying the same thing ten times and on Time Eleven the person I'm talking to acts like they've never seen it.  And has the perfect answer....for Time Number Eleven.

 

Put some evidence behind it and I might listen.  As it is right now the only ones listening to it are the ones that aren't listening.  If one gets one's drift.

Edited September 10, 2013 by DWA

[roguefooter]

^No you didn't make it a kiddie fight, you're just doing the high-fiving and fueling the fire. Making this a personal vendetta and trying to make the opposition look stupid is nothing but a kiddie fight.

 

I saw nothing wrong with his post. If a person doesn't believe the sightings are real, then those are the only options available to explain them. I could see how people could be offended but everything he listed are real conditions. That's his opinion.

 

Opinions can be offensive, but that doesn't mean he can't have one. If it's against the rules then report it, otherwise learn to deal with it. Nobody has to accept what he says or what you say either about Bigfoot or the sightings.

 

 

Put some evidence behind it and I might listen.

 

This works both ways.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, the proponents have.  In spades.  The "skeptics"?  Still waiting.

 

I am totally neutral in this!  Of course you wouldn't believe that.  But yep, I am.  I came into this in fact thinking:  an ape in NA is stupid.

 

But:

 

1.  I listen to evidence and only evidence;

2.  I can't stand it when people who don't get nasty and personal about it.

 

My last post describes what "hi-fiving and fueling the fire" is about.  And as I said there, it ain't me.

 

I talk about the evidence to anyone who will.  I have decided I will stop talking to anyone who won't.

When one pulls a stack of causes out of one's head and says that's it, folks, I'm right, and offers not thing one to back it up, one makes the woo-woos look like Nobel winners.

[Incorrigible1]

DWA, neutral? Really? Puhleeze.

[Guest DWA]

...and for the reasons stated, one side lost me.

 

If that side would recognize - for its first Lucid Moment - that there is a difference between compelling evidence and proof; that each entry in a scientific debate must marshal and defend evidence; that "no proof yet" is just not an intelligent position; and that trying to ram down other people's throats what it's obvious they are, they just don't know it and oh I didn't mean you, honey...

 

...well, they might make this a civil discussion.

 

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

[roguefooter]

Oh, the proponents have.  In spades.  The "skeptics"?  Still waiting.

 

 

I'm not really sure what it is that you're expecting. What claims are being made that require proof from the skeptical POV? Can you give an example?

Edited September 10, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

First of all I meant move on as in move on to discussing other forms of evidence.

 

 

 

Why would you want to discuss other forms of evidence for something which you have REPEATEDLY stated does not exist?

 

Though it does provide a chance to mention that it becomes more difficult to move on, as you say, when someone offers their opinion of the witness report data and they are basically condescended to and told they lack proper reading skills because otherwise they would have arrived at the same conclusion as DWA.

 

 

 

Why would that make it difficult for you to move on?

 

You're absolutely positive that BF doesn't exist. So why do you care if someone else reaches a different conclusion than you have reached regarding the witness report data?

 

 

Moments like that can compel someone to return to the fray, if only to defend the cheap shots taken at their intelligence and ability to read.

 

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

"Tell me about your childhood."

Edited September 10, 2013 by LarryP

[Guest DWA]

"Let's not discuss the compelling stuff.  Let's discuss the other stuff, which I can handily dismiss because we have barred the compelling stuff."

 

Oh, it's not reading skills, and it's not intelligence.  It is what mindset does to those things.

 

The dumpster-diving, carport, front porch, back yard, crop and garden raiding, back door trash-snatcher is every bit as compelling as any other kind of sasquatch report (I am so good at turning back to the topic!).  Why?  Simple.  Everything else does it!

 

Why would the smartest thing out there not do it, and why wouldn't it get away with it more often, particularly when the kneejerk response is to blame something else because this isn't real?

Edited September 10, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

You know, DWA, for your sake I hope that I am wrong and that proof comes in your life time. It's not very likely, but hey, who knows? Because otherwise you are going to be sorely disappointed. For someone who claims neutrality on this topic, you sure do seem to have a lot of emotion vested here. 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't find eye witness reports compelling. Particularly when dealing with cryptids. One does not have to look far to find evidence of a Bigfoot hoax. And whether you like the evidence or not, there is plenty of evidence and examples of people seeing things that are just not there. There are far more scientific studies based on that then there are Bigfoot actually. You don't like it when those theories are aimed at what you find to be compelling evidence, but you cannot deny the numerous peer reviewed studies on the fallibility of human memory and the ability of the human mind to see things that are not there. Stop saying that there is no evidence for that, there is quite a bit. Just like there is evidence of hoaxes. But you ignore all that and cry, oh skeptics, they have zero evidence! When it just isn't true.  And we all know that one cannot falsify an eye witness report, so don't even start about disproving them as evidence. You know that is impossible.

 

Let's look at what Ben Roesch, editor of the The Cryptozoological Review, had to say about eye witness reports in an article for The Fortean Times:

 

“Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence. . . . [W]hile physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process. . . . Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting. . . . Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence†(Roesch 2001).

 

Now I have quoted two members of the Bigfoot, or cryptozoological community since yesterday who do not have as favorable an opinion as you do about eye witness reports. I am not cherry picking comments from skeptical sources. Is it possible, perhaps, that you place too much emphasis on them?

 

You must know the value of anecdotal evidence in a scientific discussion. It has been pointed out to you many times. You choose instead to ignore that and vilify anyone who challenges the anecdotal reports as someone who just enjoys calling people liars or crazy.  That tactic may get you traction with some folks, but for others that are paying more objective attention, I don't imagine it really works.

Edited September 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Another good nights sleep, I guess the coyotes even were resting a bit from the heat.  Been in the 90s, that's warm for Sept. in Chicago, won't last though.

One observation, up till and shortly after the time I heard whoops in my yard, deer were commonly being seen in my yard.  I had put out a Moultrie Camera and captured many images of deer.  I was hoping for something a bit more unusual, as luck would have it, or as their intelligence dictates, the night of the whoops I had left it inside the house, just got lazy.  Every time I put it out I got eaten alive by mosquito's.  Man what if I had gotten a real clear photo, dammit.  Well I learned an important lesson from that.  It's like when you get lazy when your fishing because you haven't got a strike in hours, then you get caught off guard and can't react.  You have to expect them to be around even when they are not, because you may never get a second chance, that's my fear.  I have recently bought sound recording equipment and will post anything unusual I get, and maybe some of the wild coyote action just for fun. This might give me an idea if I have been missing anything during my sleep.  My wife thought she hear something real unusual in the vein of the whoops, but I was not able to hear it, though she was greatly disturbed by it, which is a sign.  Sooner or later I will have to close my windows at night, I will at least have the recorder for ears.  The Moultrie Camera may need to be given a stealth makeover, hiding it within some other normal looking object, I could use some ideas for that if you have any...time and patience might be on my side...