Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest]

bingo

[MIB]

nope

Scientists who don't support bigfoot are routinely criticized here. Shouldn't we hold their opinions on the subject in higher regard?

 

Well .. no.  Because most are relying on data from others, the same others they seem to thine aren't qualified to make the very observations the scientists so far are relying on for data, not putting their own boots on the ground.   All science is doing so far is re-considering others work, not doing new work.   The difference MATTERS.

 

MIB

Edited September 26, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

what if their opinion is that there's not enough to warrant further investigation?

[Guest]

Believers fall in the skeptics trap every time! I guess that ccan be attributed to some believers remaining in the "animal" camp.

Once you view this topic even skeptically in the human camp it nearly all falls into place. We believers continously fall for the "Well how come we have photos,scat, etc, for all other animals but not BF". We then have to stumble and bumble and flail about due to our not correcting skeptics on the "animal" comparison.

When you attack the subject with the equation that BF are a type of human with at least EQUAL intelligence, the quizzical questions which are roadblocks can be answered.

The nearest comparison I can make is to a combat mos ssoldier such as a beret or delta. Imagine a family of these soldiers who are operating in enemy lands. Actually scratch that...enemies are operating in their lands! For whatever reason they do not desire contact with the invaders.

Have to take into account that BF goes beyond human soldiers. Our soldiers are merely trained to operate in the wild. BF are born there! The wild is their television and living rooms, so basically they are intuned to the wild in a manner we just can't comprehend. It's why they notice cameras we think we've hidden well. I wonder if wasp think their nests are well hidden on our porches we know so well?

Address the questions with BF being human and you can answer the impossible questions!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I am ever amazed at the pension for debate that has erupted on this thread, I could not be more thrilled to have your minds jabbing and looking for the next uppercut! I hold to one dear fact, that we are really not out on a limb when it comes to accepting this creature as fact, the evidence is sufficient to any reasonable mind open to truth to accept, now whether the creature exists purely as a natural phenomenon is still up for debate, though I clearly lean to the natural biological view of bigfoot. Watch how quickly the world of science embraces the creature and seeks it's own definition of it's existence, that is clearly within this decade, the technology to discover it completely is catching up, bigfoot is moving from the world of legend and lore to the "Wild Kindom" in a few short years, mark my words...

Us amateur field scientists will be out of our jobs, science will take over, the mystery will be replaced with cold truth, that truth may be far less enjoyable than the spectacle we now enjoy. I realize that this day of discovery is soon to be over, and to enjoy it while it lasts. Who knows what lies for these rarest of God's creatures, and who have survived despite our making that possibility most impossible, will we protect the world they now enjoy, or destroy it, have we learned our lesson yet?

[norseman]

Going out looking for Bigfoot can also bolster false notions. Take a look at the Finding Bigfoot crew and how they think every noise and movement is a Sasquatch, and these are guys that spend a lot of time out in the woods. The same thing happens here all the time- every howl comes back as a Bigfoot howl, every movement in the bush comes back here as Bigfoot moving in the bush. Anything that resembles a coyote or a fox becomes bigfoot imitating a coyote and a fox. Did those blisters really amount to anything?

I think it's far better to go out in the woods NOT looking for Bigfoot, because the only thing people seem to be learning is how to fuel their imagination.

Ok fair enough you will get no argument from me that there are extremely impressionable people out there that think coyote calls are squatch so forth and so on.

But as a skeptic how do you level with a pro kill group that is sending bullets down range at humanoid figures in a thermal scope???

If its a bear its poaching, if its a hoaxer it's murder. If its a squatch? It's a monumental discovery......

So not all of us can be lumped into the same group. Some of us put our money were our mouth is.....and the penalties for failure are great.

It's a unique position, on one side you have skeptics warning us of murder, etc. and one the other you have anti kill proponents warning us of being ripped to shreds.

Anyhow I hear your beef, I shake my head with the phooey that is passed off as squatch activity as well.

[roguefooter]

Address the questions with BF being human and you can answer the impossible questions!

 

I think people fall to this level because they're having trouble putting the puzzle together, so they make Bigfoot smart and more flexible. Some will go further and make Bigfoot otherworldly- this gives Bigfoot the flexibility to fit any possibility.

 

This is not solving the puzzle, it's creating a new picture to accommodate the pieces. To me this is all done just to increase self-confidence in people. 

 

The impossible questions are impossible for a reason- if they could be answered then Bigfoot wouldn't be a mystery. People don't need to modify Bigfoot just so they can 'answer the questions'.

[Guest]

Believers fall in the skeptics trap every time! I guess that ccan be attributed to some believers remaining in the "animal" camp.

Once you view this topic even skeptically in the human camp it nearly all falls into place. We believers continously fall for the "Well how come we have photos,scat, etc, for all other animals but not BF". We then have to stumble and bumble and flail about due to our not correcting skeptics on the "animal" comparison.

When you attack the subject with the equation that BF are a type of human with at least EQUAL intelligence, the quizzical questions which are roadblocks can be answered.

The nearest comparison I can make is to a combat mos ssoldier such as a beret or delta. Imagine a family of these soldiers who are operating in enemy lands. Actually scratch that...enemies are operating in their lands! For whatever reason they do not desire contact with the invaders.

Have to take into account that BF goes beyond human soldiers. Our soldiers are merely trained to operate in the wild. BF are born there! The wild is their television and living rooms, so basically they are intuned to the wild in a manner we just can't comprehend. It's why they notice cameras we think we've hidden well. I wonder if wasp think their nests are well hidden on our porches we know so well?

Address the questions with BF being human and you can answer the impossible questions!

Humans are animals

There is no separate classification. If Bigfoot is alive, it's either a plant or an animal.

There also seem to be many many stories from this site alone that contradict the idea they don't desire contact.

Edited September 26, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

Walk into a park and try to pet a pigeon, you won't get very far, you'll probably chase it a few yards then it will take off and sit glaring at you from the nearest lamp post. However, take a bag of crusts there every day and start feeding them and they'll come closer and closer. Maybe after a while they'll nibble one from your fingers, maybe a while ofter that, they'll let you scratch their head while you're feeding them.... however... should someone else come along and try it, they'll be back on the lamp post. Either by building a rapport or by some other metric wild creatures will trust individual humans, and not others. In other cases, they may be startled such that immediate evasion is not observed, as for instance the other day when I was doing something quietly in my garage for a while and came out and nearly stepped on a rabbit... normally they'll take off when you get within 20ft of them, but this one just sat there practically between my feet for half a minute or so, could have scooped him up, before he managed to collect himself and hop away.

 

Anyway, neither example disproves the general rule that pigeons and rabbits will seek to avoid close contact with humans.

[Guest]

Avoiding contact is not. Special forces level stealth though

[Guest]

Organisms are not robots following a rigid set of rules, there will be a continuum of behaviour that centers on habitually stealthy, we only see the low end of that curve.

[Guest]

I think people fall to this level because they're having trouble putting the puzzle together, so they make Bigfoot smart and more flexible. Some will go further and make Bigfoot otherworldly- this gives Bigfoot the flexibility to fit any possibility.

This is not solving the puzzle, it's creating a new picture to accommodate the pieces. To me this is all done just to increase self-confidence in people.

The impossible questions are impossible for a reason- if they could be answered then Bigfoot wouldn't be a mystery. People don't need to modify Bigfoot just so they can 'answer the questions'.

The otherwordly part...I'm not so sure about...

But the questions which trouble people such as how come we don't have a specimen or why do they venture near urban areas...if you reward them human level intelligence...those questions can be answered.

So those mystery questions (just as in math) can be answered if you have the proper equation. Actually, most of our societal questions can be answered if we applied the correct values to our equations! Due to our arrogance, pride and know it all nature, we are missing some very important equations in our math problems of life.

[dmaker]

If by apply the correct equation you mean just make stuff up, then sure just about anything could be explained to our imaginations satisfaction.  I don't see anything that is believable that suggests we should "reward them human level intelligence".  That is a preposterous suggestion. Think about it a bit more please. If they had human level intelligence would one not expect to find things like tool use, structures beyond a pile of broken branches, clothing, etc, etc, etc.

Edited September 26, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Well arrogance is assuming you know what shape the puzzle is meant to be, many will cherry pick the couple hundred pieces that make a nice picture of a bear and/or a projection from psyche (boogeyman) and throw the many thousands of remaining pieces away...

 

Anyway, we have a bit of a dichotomy between skeptic and proponent logic it goes..

 

Skeptic:

IF dumb animal AND not recorded THEN doesn't exist

 

Proponent:

IF exists AND not recorded THEN not dumb animal.

 

Resulting in skeptics fighting very hard against the notion that's it's not a dumb animal, and proponents fighting very hard against  it's lack of existence.

 

This leads me to my tongue in cheek assertion that skeptics believe in Bigfoot, they just believe in a highly improbable and fantastical bigfoot, one that's as dumb as a plank, is not allowed to exhibit any "behaviour", is not allowed to eat, is not allowed to sleep etc etc.

[dmaker]

Let me fix that for you:

 

Skeptic:

IF no decent evidence to support claim, THEN not likely to exist.

 

Proponent:

IF we think exists AND not recorded THEN let's make up stuff to explain why.