Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Branco]

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. 

 

The credibility of every witness is questioned in nearly all cases. There are many witnesses in this country who could and would testify about Bigfoot in credible fashion if asked to do so.

  

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?

 

As far as I know, no one on this thread has claimed to have seen any of those entities you mentioned except Bigfoot, which does in fact meet one of the dictionary meanings of the word "monster". If "People have seen those things" I would suggest there are a LOT more people who have seen Bigfoot and that those people who have seen them were able to more accurately describe their appearance and their movemens than did those seeing the menagerie you mentioned. 

 

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.

 

The "discipline of psychology" has very little to do with the four hundred years of  the more than ten thousand credible sightings of Bigfoot that have been reported. From experiences in investigating such reports - and seeing the creatures myself - it is a near certainty that for every reported sighting or encounter, there are many more from the areas investigated that were never reported to anyone except relatives or close friends.   

 

"Human perception and human" may not be "very reliable at all", both I remember each one of the animals - many of which I never knew existed - when I worked in the Amazon Basin, and I remember every animal I've seen in this country, including three Bigfoot. So I would say humans do pretty well in that regard.

 

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.

 

And that "good evidence" should be sent to which skeptical person on this forum to scrutinize? 

 

 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.

 

Do you seriously think that those of us who spend an inordinate time trying to learn more about these creatures DON"T try to find evidence and DON"T send what we find to someone that is qualified to evaluate it? Prove it to random others?? What in blue blazes do you mean?

This is a Bigfoot discussion forum. It is not a laboratory for evaluating field samples of possible evidence. If you are looking for proof, its in the field.

 

Have to ask: If you saw a Bigfoot in broad daylight at close range would you recognize it based on how other people have described them? To you personally, would that be proof that they do in fact exist?

Respectfully

Edited September 21, 2013 by Branco

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Lake: Sounds like you got some interesting stuff going on! Good luck in your ventures, and keep us updated!

[Guest]

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

Curious as to what this trait is. Didn't want this question to get lost in this thread.

[Guest]

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.

You can't just guilt people into believing you when you have all these claims of sightings and yet still no confirmed bigfoot. What do you expect from the non-believers?

Edited September 22, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[roguefooter]

This is a Bigfoot discussion forum. It is not a laboratory for evaluating field samples of possible evidence. If you are looking for proof, its in the field.

 

 

Evidence and proof are a big part of Bigfoot discussion, otherwise what would be the point of discussing it? There are also people that say "There is no proof in the field". It's simple when there is no requirement to back up your claim. So who's correct if neither side had anything to show for it? Only one side could be right.

 

People go out in the woods every day- probably millions of people, and they're not finding anything. Millions live in the woods and they're not seeing anything either. Are these people lying? If you're seeing Bigfoot then it must be a very very very rare instance and not something that could be found by simply 'going out in the field'.

 

John Green has spent 50-60 years out in the field and found no proof. What would you tell him? How about people that live in major urban areas? Should they quit their jobs and move if they want proof? How about people that can't go out in the woods or are wheelchair bound? Should you just label them all as 'armchair researchers that are being lazy' so not to put the burden on yourselves for making these extraordinary claims?

 

 

Do you seriously think that those of us who spend an inordinate time trying to learn more about these creatures DON"T try to find evidence and DON"T send what we find to someone that is qualified to evaluate it?

 

There are actually several on the forum that have already made it clear that they're not interested in evidence or proof, even though they claim to be in constant contact.

Edited September 22, 2013 by roguefooter

[Lake County Bigfooot]

It is my guess that at some point, when you have been convinced, beyond any doubt, say perhaps by having a daytime sighting, or something of that magnitude, that evidence is no longer needed. By that I mean that evidence has been met for that individual to no longer need proof, they have seen it and know it is real. However, for all of us who have not seen it, whether or not we claim any other experiences with them, we will always want that definitive proof, and that is why I would like to document anything I can to help uncover the truth of the situation. It is still possible within my skeptical mind to doubt they even exist, yet what I heard and experienced keeps me from arriving at any conclusion, if your honest you can venture forward, if you just do not want it to exist, then heck what are you wasting time for arguing against it's existence. Are you really that freeking bored that you spend your time here arguing against something you do not believe exists, because for a fact you cannot know it does not exist. This might actually be more dysfunctional than some eclectic persons supposed experience. I have no time for this at all, I would not be wasting my time if I did not have a very real suspicion that they are really visiting my freeking backyard, and that I might actually be able to demonstrate that to you....

[Branco]

Evidence and proof are a big part of Bigfoot discussion, otherwise what would be the point of discussing it? There are also people that say "There is no proof in the field". It's simple when there is no requirement to back up your claim. So who's correct if neither side had anything to show for it? Only one side could be right.

Have you are anyone else had any proof sent to you via this forum? If there was requirement for witnesses to providing proof of what they have seen and described after posting, this forum would be dead as a door nail within the hour. Discussing evidence is one thing, believing that you are going to see it on this forum is ludicrous. To suggest you are entitled to, or qualified to evaluate evidence takes that to a new level.

People go out in the woods every day- probably millions of people, and they're not finding anything. Millions live in the woods and they're not seeing anything either. Are these people lying? If you're seeing Bigfoot then it must be a very very very rare instance and not something that could be found by simply 'going out in the field'.

That statement above is absolute nonsense. Can you substantiate the source of that "extraordinary claim"?

John Green has spent 50-60 years out in the field and found no proof. What would you tell him? How about people that live in major urban areas? Should they quit their jobs and move if they want proof? How about people that can't go out in the woods or are wheelchair bound? Should you just label them all as 'armchair researchers that are being lazy' so not to put the burden on yourselves for making these extraordinary claims?

Thousands of people have found evidence of them, and thousands have seen them. None of the evidence "proves" anything. If after spending 50-60 years, Mr. green didn't see one or two of the animals to convince himself that they exist, he was spending his time in the wrong places. Had he seen one or more and didn't mention that he apparently didn't trust his own eyesight.

The claims being made by some members on this and other threads are only "extraordinary" to some. Those who require proof will just have to wait for someone to provide it to them.

There are actually several on the forum that have already made it clear that they're not interested in evidence or proof, even though they claim to be in constant contact.

That is perfectly understandable to myself and many other who have interacted with these creatures in a peaceful manner. The "proof" of their existence is unnecessary as far as I and other are concerned. What good will the proof of their existence do them? None.

Scientific proof derived from just one of the primates will just be one piece of the puzzle. I don't really think the public or science wants to, or needs to know what is missing from the rest.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Branco

[roguefooter]

Have you are anyone else had any proof sent to you via this forum? If there was requirement for witnesses to providing proof of what they have seen and described after posting, this forum would be dead as a door nail within the hour. Discussing evidence is one thing, believing that you are going to see it on this forum is ludicrous. To suggest you are entitled to, or qualified to evaluate evidence takes that to a new level.

 

There is a difference between a witness describing an encounter, and presenting an encounter as being evidence of something or as factual information. The latter claims are what people expect to be supported by evidence, not the simple telling of a story.

 

Also nobody here has suggested any sort of entitlement for anything other than expecting simple common courtesy to back the claims you make on a forum. If this is a problem then you probably shouldn't be making claims that you have no intention of backing up. 

 

 

That statement above is absolute nonsense. Can you substantiate the source of that "extraordinary claim"?

 

There is nothing extraordinary or nonsensical about millions of people NOT seeing Bigfoot. With millions of homes located in wooded areas and people that live, recreate, and work in the woods, it's pretty simple to substantiate that these people aren't seeing or witnessing anything given that there is nothing substantial to suggest otherwise.

 

An extraordinary claim would be "four hundred years of the more than ten thousand credible sightings of Bigfoot that have been reported".

 

I have yet to see or even hear about "ten thousand" sightings, and wonder how anyone could possibly know if they're credible or not. What did you base these claims on?

 

 

 

Thousands of people have found evidence of them, and thousands have seen them. None of the evidence "proves" anything. If after spending 50-60 years, Mr. green didn't see one or two of the animals to convince himself that they exist, he was spending his time in the wrong places. Had he seen one or more and didn't mention that he apparently didn't trust his own eyesight.

 

 

If thousands of people have found evidence, then where are the thousands of pieces of evidence that have been found?

[JustCurious]

577 posts and no one has asked an obvious question?  Lake Country Bigfooot, wouldn't it have made sense to try to talk to the officer on duty that night to see what he or she might have seen or thought was seen?  You could have even divulged what you heard without stating what you think made the sounds to further the conversation.  Who knows what you might have learned.

 

As for the coyote recordings, I have observed and heard this behavior.  The initial 'call' seems to be a combination locator/call to hunt to which the other coyotes in the area respond with all the howling.  Then the pack yipping is their attempt to scare up their dinner.  My guess is that the twig snaps are probably a nervous deer moving near your apple tree or in the brush out there.  A few years ago, there was a pack on a hill near our cabin in northern Wisconsin that we could watch.  There were 3 other packs nearby, one to the east one to the southeast and one to the southwest while the one we could clearly see was to the west.  Nightly around 11pm, the first howl came from the southeast and was always a lone coyote.  One by one the other packs would respond.  Then the pack we could see would take off yipping and soon the other packs would join so that the packs were all together making that awful racket.  There's a river no more than 1/4 mile away and we'd be able to track them running down the river.  As for the deer twig snap sound, that's just always the sound I hear and know that if I stop and look real close I'll find a deer.  (Just a hint: a bigfoot isn't going to be as dainty as a deer). LOL

 

Which leads me to my next question.  Can you see the apple tree from your patio when you go out at night?  I'm wondering if the thuds you're hearing might be deer.  We had an apple tree in the front yard right outside our kitchen window and at night the deer would come to the house and occasionally you could see them standing on their hind legs to reach higher apples.  It's possible that you're catching them in the act when you come out and they're dropping back down to all fours.  Though I have to admit I'd think they'd be long gone by the time you open the door and step outside.

 

Kudos for your efforts!  One thing is for certain, you won't find anything if you don't look.

[indiefoot]

People go out in the woods every day- probably millions of people, and they're not finding anything. Millions live in the woods and they're not seeing anything either. Are these people lying? If you're seeing Bigfoot then it must be a very very very rare instance and not something that could be found by simply 'going out in the field'.

 

How can we trust all of these anecdotal accounts of being in the woods and not seeing Bigfoot? Without some kind of proof to back up the claim, they are just stories. We have already heard how eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

 

Is it possible that at least some of these millions of people have actually witnessed a Bigfoot and it just did not register, or they misinterpreted the sighting as a hallucination or a more common animal? ( Tongue firmly in cheek)

[Branco]

There is a difference between a witness describing an encounter, and presenting an encounter as being evidence of something or as factual information. The latter claims are what people expect to be supported by evidence, not the simple telling of a story.

 

Don't think I've ever read, wrote or heard of any encounter report which was submitted as "being evidence of something", but all were presented "as factual information" -some of which have of course have not been. I see no reason to expect that a 10 second encounter with a Bigfoot by a hunter, fisherman, hiker , etc  which the witness chose to disclose as an actual event would be, or could be, "supported by evidence". It would simply be a statement of fact. As I said before, if your are are wanting evidence to evaluate each of the tens of  thousands of encounter reports that have been published, you are barking up the wrong tree. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Also nobody here has suggested any sort of entitlement for anything other than expecting simple common courtesy to back the claims you make on a forum. If this is a problem then you probably shouldn't be making claims that you have no intention of backing up. 

 

Let's talk out that. I respectfully and with "simple common courtesy" ask you to point me in the direction of some of the "claims" of any sighting or encounter reports that have been published on this forum that have "been backed up" by compelling evidence since they were posted. I don't  HAVE a problem understanding the expectations and/or the intended purpose of this forum. With the expectations you have that any and all statements of fact published here should be backed up with evidence, "then you probably "should not be" wasting your time by reading the posts.

 

Just so that you understand; I have clearly seen three of the subject animals over a period exceeding 30 years. That FACT has been made known a few times on this and other forums, and on different BF research sites. I was not submitting "claims", I was stating facts. If you are expecting "evidence" of my personal encounters; you are SOL. 

 

 

There is nothing extraordinary or nonsensical about millions of people NOT seeing Bigfoot. 

 

I would not expect that the "millions" of people who live in New York, Chicago, D.C., etc.have had much of a chance of seeing a BF. It is very nonsensical to think otherwise.

 

With millions of homes located in wooded areas and people that live, recreate, and work in the woods, it's pretty simple to substantiate that these people aren't seeing or witnessing anything given that there is nothing substantial to suggest otherwise. 

 

Yes, thousands of those people have seen them. Few of them that live, work or "recreate" in the woods carry a camcorder or camera at eye level while performing those functions. Even if they did, any images they were able to capture would not be accepted as proof on anythings and discounted by skeptics. (And I suppose they would have to do that since they have no point of reference.) Hundreds of hunters each year see the things, but after seeing one, shooting it to pacify the skeptics' constant need for proof  never crosses their mind. It's actually "pretty simple" for someone who has never been around BF to simplify a way to "substantiate" their existence. Give it a go for a few years and report back.

 

An extraordinary claim would be "four hundred years of the more than ten thousand credible sightings of Bigfoot that have been reported".

I have yet to see or even hear about "ten thousand" sightings, and wonder how anyone could possibly know if they're credible or not. What did you base these claims on?

 

It's pretty obvious you have not done your home work. Not gonna do it for you.

 

If thousands of people have found evidence, then where are the thousands of pieces of evidence that have been found? You're catching on now.

[Painthorse]

@ Branco, bravo, well said!

[Sunflower]

Branco, Lake County and Indie,

 

Excellent posts and I agree with all of you on your points of explanation. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

JustCurious, no doubt deer were frequenting the area, at least till July when I heard distinct primate whoops at a loud volume.  I called the local sheriffs office to find out what they were responding to, but as for talking with the specific officer I was not able to get them to offer up any information.  It was certainly odd that he stopped back.  I knew after a few minutes that the whole situation was a fluke, he was out their doing something else shining his spot, and he alarmed the young squatch, that was the same one who went off during the fireworks, I could really recognize the voice as being the same.  But this time Mom was not far away telling baby to move to safety, maybe baby was slow and got spotted, I do not know, maybe officer will someday come forward, doubt he would risk being thought unfit for duty.  It is a fine line for these guys, I am sure they see stuff at night that we don't being out on the roads,  it is perhaps the only way to catch a sighting in my area.  All the sightings are road crossings, or near the road, or bike trail,  I suspect train engineers have seen more than their share of Squatches as well, but they have the same issue, just like a pilot seeing a UFO.   The apple tree is about 20 yard out my door, and clearly visible, when I go to interact, or attempting to get a response I am about 50 yards out toward the marsh, and surrounded by some brush.  I will have to post pictures to give you guys an idea of the lay of the land.

[JDL]

You can't just guilt people into believing you when you have all these claims of sightings and yet still no confirmed bigfoot. What do you expect from the non-believers?

 

Too much, I guess.

 

I'd appreciate it if they acknowledged that their non-belief is no more than that, a belief.  I'd also appreciate it if they stopped rationalizing with regard to the body of evidence.  Sure, some evidence is faulty, and sure, some reports are mistaken, but that doesn't mean that all evidence and all reports can be rationalized away on that basis.