Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Oh, but since then I have not seen any deer, which is unusual. I hope my deer were not Squatched. Well I trust they would not overharvest the area. I think they have a sense of what they can harvest, and still leave some for later. That explains the need not to stay in one area, unless they can eat vegetable matter due to it's abundance. Habituation, say for Sasquatch Ontario, is a whole lot easier because his Squatches have not be exposed or had to adjust to living near a human population. They are in a remote area, and people come to the area occasionally. They rule the roost, which is the opposite hear, which would certainly lead to a different kind of behavior. The ability of these creatures to adapt is by far their most amazing quality. I would ask you to ponder the various environments that they inhabit, for they seem to adapt to many. Near me they have been described as having a longer snout, and even wolf like, which really adds to the oddity of the situation. If I see one I hope it looks more traditional, because I cannot fathom a doglike bipedal, though baboons and other apes have longer snouts, so I will remain open minded.

[Sasfooty]

You can put a piece of clear plastic over the inside of window screen & leave the window open for awhile longer. Living in the south & my window being on the south side of the house, I have been able to leave the window open all winter a few years. Sleeping in a cold room is supposed to be good for you anyway. 

[Guest]

"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?"

Absolutely agree with this. And this is what those of us dealing with backyard visitors deal with constantly. It is one heck of a game changer when you realize that you have to add the so-called "not real" to the list. We have come to realize that, oh yeah, it is real.

It is far easier to blame the "something else". I know this well because I got very good at blaming "something else" for well over a year. My explanations didn't make sense to me half the time but it is easier to do than allowing your brain to go to something "not real". Then you see the "not real" ...oops....game changer! Yeah, everything else does it.....why not them?

[Guest]

LCB.....we used to have deer constantly. I would get up in the mornings and see their tracks all over my front yard, under the trees, in the flower beds(ugh), etc. My neighbors would tell me how many they would see in my yard on their way out to work in the mornings....usually anywhere from 5-20. Seriously. We had so many deer incidents that I lost my fondness for "Bambi". Bambi is a nuisance. That is what I thought.

This summer....almost no tracks in the yard. The 3 or 4 deer we have seen have disappeared. One of those acted soooo strangely my neighbors commented on it too. A young doe showed up one day and wandered around among all of our houses in the daytime even though most of us have dogs that were barking furiously at her. She did this for almost a week. We all watched her wondering what was up with her. Was she sick? Didn't seem to be. Was she a tame deer someone released on our hill? Dunno. But that her behavior was strange was absolutely clear to us all. She wanted to hang as close to the houses as possible, in the day time in spite of the dogs. Then she was gone. No tracks, no sign of her anywhere. While she was here, she acted like a stray dog that hangs close to houses.

Not saying what did or did not happen to her but in light of all the deer we used to have, her behavior seemed strange. One neighbor feels as if someone is poaching them. Could be that for sure. They have been busy, busy, busy if so.....and they are using a bow. All possible. No gunshots that I have heard. So whether squatched or poached, you decide. But something has decimated the deer population on our hill.

I actually miss the stinkers now...and my heart gives a twinge when I actually see one because I know it won't be here for long.

[Guest DWA]

Yep, Mockingbird, that's what happens to people whose reality gets rocked, as the OP amply illustrates.  He's now hot onto something that Just Wasn't Real for him...until it happened to him.

 

But the OP illustrates the handiness of the open mind.  (You do too, by the way.)  He had an open mind to the evidence; so he didn't react by closing all his doors, turning on all his lights, and getting all his meals by delivery, like, you know, some people whose worlds have gotten rocked by something that wasn't real...until it happened to them.  He decided to start gathering evidence.  Something clearly pointed to by the reaction of his wife...who, geee, what a coincidence, has spent a lot of time around primates.

 

I can hear some people now.  SEE!?!?  PRIMATES!  SHE THINKS EVERYTHING'S A PRIMATE!!!!

 

Uh.  Huh.  Gotcha.  Chiding the rest of us for closed minds when one says, in so many words, that one is in denial.

 

Nope, here's the way a scientist - or an open-minded layman - thinks about this.

 

My wife knows something about this.  Her reaction to what we're hearing should say something to me.

 

That's a little better than:  You don't think my denial is right?  Well, that's just close-minded!  Why can't I simply ignore the evidence, and tell people they're wrong to pay attention to it?

 

Answer:

 

You aren't wrong to pay attention to it.  That's the only thing to do.

 

And if it says there's a sasquatch in your backyard...urban or no...I'd consider you a little tetched to deny that.

[Guest LarryP]

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?

 

"You Can Prove a Negative"

 

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

[Guest DWA]

^^^Bada-bing.

 

ANY SKEPTICAL ASSERTION made in this discussion can be supported by evidence.

 

• All sighters saw something else (not my fault if no skeptic is doing the work, it can be done and laziness is not an excuse)
• Patterson/Gimlin was faked
• These tracks are faked
• This film on Youtube isn't a bigfoot (human proportions and movement = human)

I could keep going.

 

No one can expect to be taken seriously in a scientific argument who cannot back claims made with evidence.  It's the public's (and the mainstream's) ignorance of this simple tenet that is the problem.

[Guest LarryP]

The intellectually dishonest, "You can't prove a negative",  argument is nothing more than Randian folk logic.

[Sunflower]

Dmaker,

 

I don't know why you've come to this thread to post your list, but to me it seemed like a trap.  If you wanted to rile some people up then feel satisfied because you have managed that.  However, to all the knowers here who have seen them, taken pics of them, fed them, interacted with them, gotten earth shattering recordings of them, remember, whatever the naysayers post here or elsewhere it does not diminish the fact that you KNOW!!!

 

I KNOW, I HAVE PICS (as others do) AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. And yes I am yelling.....

 

Peace

[Guest]

Honest question

 

Should this thread only contain pro-bigfoot ideas and discussion? 

 

Dmaker posted an opposing viewpoint and didn't attack anyone else.  He made it clear that he wasn't trying to offend, yet it seems the reaction he getting is a bit unbalanced. 

[dmaker]

• "All sighters saw something else (not my fault if no skeptic is doing the work, it can be done and laziness is not an excuse)"  -DWA

No matter how many times you say this it will not become true because you want it to.  How many sources must one cite that disprove your above statement. It's Science 101. Anecdotal reports cannot be falsified. It's that simple. 

 

I have cited a source for this today even, from a cyrptid friendly source:

 

"...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. . . ." Ben Roesch

How many sources will it take before you stop claiming something this is simply false?  I really don't understand this. You talk about me not listening to you... There it is for you in black and white: "they are not falsifiable"  

 

Why do you keep on insisting that they are??

LCB, you mentioned Sasquatch Ontario. Do you accept his evidence, as presented on Youtube, as genuine? You believe that he has Sasquatches in his area and that they can speak his name, and that the voices on the recordings are indeed Sasquatches in Ontario ( not far from where I live in Ontario honestly), and do you also believe that Sasquatches picked up his digital camera and took those photos, as is also claimed on his site?

Dmaker,

 

I don't know why you've come to this thread to post your list, but to me it seemed like a trap.  If you wanted to rile some people up then feel satisfied because you have managed that.  However, to all the knowers here who have seen them, taken pics of them, fed them, interacted with them, gotten earth shattering recordings of them, remember, whatever the naysayers post here or elsewhere it does not diminish the fact that you KNOW!!!

 

I KNOW, I HAVE PICS (as others do) AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. And yes I am yelling.....

 

Peace

Sunflower, not sure why you are getting so upset. Surely I am not the first person you have encountered in life that is dubious of Sasquatch claims?  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I understand that you are a "knower", and that is great for you. 

 

Rather than get upset when someone does not take such a claim at face value and deride them in ALL CAPS, perhaps you could provide some convincing evidence? I'd be happy to be proven wrong by you, or anyone else, for that matter.  Do you have such evidence, or is just what you say, not what you can show?

 

 

My list was not provided to serve as a trap. It was provided to serve as what I consider to be the source of Sasquatch evidence. And that list has plenty of studies that can prove that people will claim seeing things that are not there for those various reasons.  Not sure what is so troubling about that to be honest. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest Squatchologist]

Sunflower lets see those pics 

[dmaker]

"You Can Prove a Negative"

 

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

LOL. Sorry, but did you actually read that document?  It's not supporting your position the way you think it is...

Replace UFO with Bigfoot, and the result is interesting:

 

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? 

I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement 

that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) 

a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, 

even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep  

believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always 

turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too 

much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove 

that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument 

against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and 

since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the 

argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against 

aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of 

extraterrestrial abduction.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Disappearing deer? Could be cougar or wolf. Both are now in nw il. If they're there, that means wis mn and iowa too.

[dmaker]

Also interesting from that paper Larry:

 

"Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all 

shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be 

hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty 

good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia. The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises."

 

Based on that above I would make the inductive argument that the lack of any objective, confirmed physical evidence for Bigfoot ( i.e. a specimen or clear sample from one), coupled with the complete evidence of absence over the last 50 years makes it highly probable that Bigfoot does not exist.

 

To disprove that, all one need to do is provide a Bigfoot.