Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest]

JDL we had a 911 operator fired and arrested here in Charleston SC for failing to send the appropriate units to 45 calls for help over a 2 year period!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Sheri, Stan will very much appreciate your sharing those, The BFRO may not be the end all of bigfoot sightings, but I think it helps people to come forward and tell their story, and allows for researching the sightings and locations, without a comprehensive data base for sightings, we will never understand anything more than we do about the creature. I am thankful for researchers like Will Jevning, Derek Randles and the Olympic Project, and others who are in the field giving us hard data, but not all of can do that given our jobs and commitments, so having the BRFO data base is another way to research the activity. I took a night off of recording due to rain, but am resuming tonight, maybe tonights the night? It does make it easier to sleep knowing you have electronic ears on the situation

Sunflower, what about some bi pedal raccoons with strong arms, and a pension for sweets.

guillaume, I am attempting to produce such evidence, and present it to the thread, my wearing the process on my shirt sleeve is so that others can understand the difficulty of the situation, and the mental hoops that one must jump thru in order to keep on going, so I do not in any way feel offended by your comments, at present I have no credibility, as all I have is an experience, and none of you Know my character well enough to judge me trust worthy. I could be just making this all up, "BUT" I AM NOT

Edited September 20, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Good Morning, well I got something interesting last night. As I went out to do my whistles and apple toss, just after the first whistle(1:04) which you will hear, listen close to an imitation(1:09) coming from the distance. I have been telling my wife, often, just as I go outside I hear something like this, but it happens so fast I cannot process it. I told my wife it could have been a dog, but clearly it is not that, it sounds owlish, but so do a lot of supposed bigfoot vocalizations, you decide. Then during my next whistle(1:23) something came crashing down from a the tree line at the marsh, it was louder from my vantage point, which might force me to move my recorder closer to the action.

You may "need speakers" in order to really capture the sounds, I use my tv sound system, it can be too loud, so be careful, this happens about 64 seconds in, then after the bump bump, which is whatever was banging around, I beat a retreat to the house and also to tell my wife, it spooks me when I get an immediate reaction, I haven't even got my eyes adjusted to the dark

Whistle and Response.mp3

Edited September 20, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

@ LCB the sound is very silent 

 

Do you place (not throw) sometimes apples as a gift? So you can count them et cetera? Maybe you can 'learn' animals to get food on a quiet, safe place. Like, behind a little shed. A shed with a little hole for a camera in it .. ;-)

Edited September 20, 2013 by matthijsG

[JDL]

"And yet, there is little difference between anecdotal evidence and witness testimony, the basis of our legal systems and on which people's lives often hang in the balance."

 

That is, obviously, true. But we're not discussing the existence of Bigfoot as a legal argument. It is being discussed as a biological, scientific argument and therefore the rules of scientific evidence must apply. Not legal.

 

 

JDL and Dmaker.......

 

Apple and Oranges.

 

The question in a murder trial is whether Col. Mustard did it in the library with the butcher knife OR Ms. Plum did it in the parlor with the rope. Both are realistic probable scenarios that investigators can research and get a better picture of which person is responsible for the murder.

 

The question IS NEVER if the three headed Xenon alien did it with the fusion pulse rifle in the kitchen. In other words..........the fantastical or unrealistic is generally treated as a mental case. People claim insanity all the time, and it's wise to do so if your defense involves three headed aliens.

 

Same goes for the case of Sasquatch, as proponents in order to have ANY sort of credibility? We need to get a body to science. The longer this remains a void the longer we look like idiots in front of our peers.

 

 

There must be some basis on which to evaluate the plausibility of the thing witnessed, and you would definitely see problems with credibility addressed in a court of law.  You can't say that seeing a squirrel in your back yard or seeing it rain on a Saturday afternoon is the same as seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, or reptilian shape-shifters flickering in and out of visibility, or fairies dancing in your garden.  Angels and demons.  Mermaids and monsters.  Gods and vampires.  People have seen all these things.  Are you saying that they're all crazy?

 

You can deny the entire discipline of psychology, but that doesn't make it go away.  We know for a fact that human perception and human memory aren't very reliable at all.

 

To the OP, I hate to be negative in your thread, but if you want people at large to believe you, you need to produce some good evidence that will stand up to skeptical scrutiny.  I would think that anyone who wants to get to the bottom of what's really going on out there would want this for themself as well, not just to prove anything to random others.  I'm not making a judgment in particular, just an observation in general.

 

Ok, I get it.  Those who haven't seen one each assume that anyone who has is off their rocker.  The operative word here is that the non-observers are making assumptions based, not on a lack of evidence, but on a lack of personal experience.  In order to validate their own assumptions, which are nothing more than expressions of their own belief systems, it is necessary for them to discredit actual observers.

 

Keep telling us we're crazy and we'll keep loving it.

Edited September 20, 2013 by JDL

[Guest]

JDL - I have appreciated your stories, but it's statements such as your last one, that damages your credibility.  It seems like a large percentage of those who have had an encounter seem to embrace being called crazy.  My neighbor for example, who spends most of the summer at her mining claim, claims that she has one frequent her camp at nights - and she is nuttier than a fruitcake and proud of it.  She dresses like a hippy, is very flamboyant and thrives on the attention she gets from it.  It makes it hard to take her stories of her BF encounters seriously when she acts like that.  She is not the only person who seems a little off her rocker that I have interviewed about the big guy.  This is not to say all who have encounters are crazy, but it is my experience that some are. 

[Guest]

is it at all concerning that this subject draws in some eclectic individuals?

[Guest]

It always seems to be the eclectic ones who have the most encounters.  Could it be the big guy is attracted to the patchouli?

[indiefoot]

Is there a subject that doesn't draw in some eclectic individuals?

[Guest]

no, but some have a much much higher percent than they should

[MIB]

Laffin' here.   You're close to something but missing the target.   Every habituator I know has one thing in common.   Sometimes people with that thing are eclectic, even eccentric, even "crazy".   But not always.   There are habituators who are just as normal as can be, but they do share this trait. 

 

I'm curious if anyone else has figured it out.

 

MIB

[Sasfooty]

I saw it years ago, but I'll wait for others to guess before I say.

[Guest guillaume]

Keep telling us we're crazy and we'll keep loving it.

The word is "fallible."

 

I see that this becomes a personal argument a lot around here, and there's no reason for that.  We're all fallible humans.

 

One is welcome to believe anything one wishes, but in order to convince others of remarkable things, one needs evidence.  That's what it's about, not belief systems or any other abstract difference, because everyone is a skeptic in some context.  Similarly, everyone has been fooled by their perceptions and memory on some occasion.  I certainly have.  The call for evidence is not an insult--it's a natural and inevitable part of trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Sorry guys if my recording is tuff to hear, I suggest if you have speakers to amplify the sounds, I need a wind sock and a way to eliminate the hum. I am working on refining it. Maybe a parabolic mic down the road. On the subject of crazy individuals, I can relate to anyone who feels that involving themselves in researching something that gives you so little to go on, although what it gives you is undeniable, that is the frustration, knowing their out there and not being able to get more out of them. I am skeptical by nature, at least once a day I convince myself to quit wasting my time with them, and then something else happens and I cannot dismiss them. In a way that can make you feel nutty, the whole mental struggle. For any armchair bigfooters, who do not actively investigate phenomenon in nature, I suggest that you cannot understand what those who do are going through. I do not see bigfoot around every tree, and I am trying to convince myself they are present at all, but that's the rub, you cannot fundamentally know until you see them or find tracks, and both are rare to occur. But they do make mistakes, and you can catch them if your careful and persistent. Or you may even win their trust, whatever that means, and they will give you some convincing interaction. I suggest to those questioning the sanity of those who claim experiences to withhold judgment until the individual proves themselves a nut. I experienced this reading Freeman Youngs, "Communing with Bigfoot", he lost me when he said he had seen in excess of 100 at one time, that was my breaking point. Those who claim routine experiences, outside of a real habituation situation, are possibly overly imaginative. I cannot dismiss those who spend years actively searching and getting snippets, and being honest about the difficulty, and pressing forward, Derek Randles would be one such researcher, and Will Jevning, I think Cliff Barackman is an honest researcher as well, Bobo, I have some doubts, but I do not know any of these individuals well enough to give them my Cart Blanche endorsement.

The recorder will be with me from now on when I attempt to interact with them, and I will be leaving it out near the action...

Edited September 21, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[JDL]

JDL - I have appreciated your stories, but it's statements such as your last one, that damages your credibility.  It seems like a large percentage of those who have had an encounter seem to embrace being called crazy.  My neighbor for example, who spends most of the summer at her mining claim, claims that she has one frequent her camp at nights - and she is nuttier than a fruitcake and proud of it.  She dresses like a hippy, is very flamboyant and thrives on the attention she gets from it.  It makes it hard to take her stories of her BF encounters seriously when she acts like that.  She is not the only person who seems a little off her rocker that I have interviewed about the big guy.  This is not to say all who have encounters are crazy, but it is my experience that some are. 

 

 

The word is "fallible."

 

I see that this becomes a personal argument a lot around here, and there's no reason for that.  We're all fallible humans.

 

One is welcome to believe anything one wishes, but in order to convince others of remarkable things, one needs evidence.  That's what it's about, not belief systems or any other abstract difference, because everyone is a skeptic in some context.  Similarly, everyone has been fooled by their perceptions and memory on some occasion.  I certainly have.  The call for evidence is not an insult--it's a natural and inevitable part of trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

 

I acknowledge that the word "crazy" was poorly chosen.  Fallible would have been a better choice.  I probably should have left the last sentence out altogether.

 

Point is, the skeptical argument is un-provable.  It is based on nothing more than a belief system, no matter how they try to cloak it in their own rationalizations.

 

And, for the record, had I never seen one, I would likely be a skeptic myself.  I am, after all, a former field grade military officer, West Point graduate, former West Point faculty, licensed professional chemical engineer, patent holder, and founder of a quickly growing business.  Not exactly the fanciful type.

 

In my first direct encounter I had no frame of reference within which to place the "man" standing in front of me.  I had never heard of bigfoot or had any clue that they might exist.  I was pristinely unaware of them.  I kept trying to convince myself that what we had encountered was just a man , despite its stature, physiology, and hair (note, this is the opposite of seeing a man and trying to convince oneself that they have seen a bigfoot).  With subsequent encounters, I concluded that they were a different type of people, but still didn't know what they actually were.  It was two years before I picked up a tourist pamphlet on a trip through Oregon which contained a reprint of the Army Corps of Engineers write-up on them.  At that time it was a relief to learn that they were not a complete unknown to the government.

 

Once again, I apologize for my poor choice of words.