Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[JDL]

imagine is the key word

it's all just too much speculation at this point. I guess it's just tough for me to imagine this creature evolving to have so many desirable physical traits but also intelligence to match humans.

 

Point is that evolution is an arms race.  Nature is rife with examples of physical and behavioral characteristics that have specifically evolved to avoid, defend against, or attack another species.

 

It isn't far fetched to postulate a division point at which one species chooses fire, tools, clothing and other technology to multiply its chances for survival, while another selects for physical traits and strategies that enable it to survive without technology.  The first becomes progressively weaker as it becomes more reliant on technology, ultimately spending its time in basements playing Xbox and World of Warcraft because it is too physically and psychologically nearsighted to survive without technology and because it no longer has to hunt for sustenance beyond its parents' refrigerator.  The second becomes progressively more robust.

 

Second, postulate that over the millennia, the two species evolve to live and compete with each other in the same world.  Each will develop characteristics that enable it to survive in a world occupied by the other.

 

If one were assigned the task of describing the characteristics that such a thing as a near human hominid must have to coexist in our world, and restrict those characteristics to the non-paranormal, the list of characteristics would likely be fairly consistent with those observed by witnesses.

[Guest]

To a certain extent it can hide in plain sight. It's not so much that we're looking for a needle in a haystack as a needle in a pile of pins.

 

For example, seen at a distance it has to do something relatively unusual in order not to be taken as a man, like leap a wideish creek or something, or walk close by an object whose height is well known to observer. Most people just aren't gonna go check the height of any distant figure against the bushes and trees it walked past. Then also you need very good contrast and/or lighting to be sure any middle distant figure isn't just wearing dark clothing. If the lighting is bad, then 50ft away you'll still err on the side of the odds and think it was a person.

[Guest]

Point is that evolution is an arms race.  Nature is rife with examples of physical and behavioral characteristics that have specifically evolved to avoid, defend against, or attack another species.

 

It isn't far fetched to postulate a division point at which one species chooses fire, tools, clothing and other technology to multiply its chances for survival, while another selects for physical traits and strategies that enable it to survive without technology.  The first becomes progressively weaker as it becomes more reliant on technology, ultimately spending its time in basements playing Xbox and World of Warcraft because it is too physically and psychologically nearsighted to survive without technology and because it no longer has to hunt for sustenance beyond its parents' refrigerator.  The second becomes progressively more robust.

 

Second, postulate that over the millennia, the two species evolve to live and compete with each other in the same world.  Each will develop characteristics that enable it to survive in a world occupied by the other.

 

If one were assigned the task of describing the characteristics that such a thing as a near human hominid must have to coexist in our world, and restrict those characteristics to the non-paranormal, the list of characteristics would likely be fairly consistent with those observed by witnesses.

To piggy-back a little...taking a scientific approach...nature is very efficient. There aren't any vacuums or wastes of space in nature. Nature fills all voids. Squatch can be seen as the filler for the void humanity would leave upon this planet. Meaning we aren't adapted to survive or thrive in the environment that squatch apparently can.

 

Large sections of this planet are still wilderness, extremely large sections contrary to our beliefs! Even here in America...there's a lot of wilderness that people never or only seldom venture into. If you've ever driven across country you know what I mean. We literally have roads and highways cutting through otherwise untouched forest and swamp. Land that upon passing you can tell humanity hasn't encroached more than a hundred yards from the highway.

[dmaker]

"It isn't far fetched to postulate..."

 

Yes it is. The whole rest of what followed that opener was far fetched in my opinion. Even if such a split took place, we have the technology and the brains to collect a Bigfoot. It's not their different evolutionary tack that makes them roam undiscovered, it is the fact that they do not exist. 

[Guest]

"You KNOW that your life depends upon you avoiding humans and never giving them evidence you truly exist."

 

Then the last thing I would do is hang around backyards in suburban Chicago.

Good. Maybe you can amuse yourself with a game of tiddlywinks instead?  You seem to suggest in your signature that it's a fun game...

That's a fair statement and perhaps they aren't terribly afraid of us. Or they maybe just cocky, this brings to mind a story I read where someone says two BF apparently played tag with their car on the highway while they were driving.

 

They stated something to the affect that while they were driving a BF ran pace with the car and tapped it on the hood. And something about  another one doing it also.

"It isn't far fetched to postulate..."

 

Yes it is. The whole rest of what followed that opener was far fetched in my opinion. Even if such a split took place, we have the technology and the brains to collect a Bigfoot. It's not their different evolutionary tack that makes them roam undiscovered, it is the fact that they do not exist. 

You're terribly confident in what we can do aren't you! Not saying that we can't or even that we haven't because I think we have. Just for whatever reason it hasn't been shared with the rest of us.

 

I've seen one on a military installation so I KNOW they exist.

[Guest DWA]

To a certain extent it can hide in plain sight. It's not so much that we're looking for a needle in a haystack as a needle in a pile of pins.

 

For example, seen at a distance it has to do something relatively unusual in order not to be taken as a man, like leap a wideish creek or something, or walk close by an object whose height is well known to observer. Most people just aren't gonna go check the height of any distant figure against the bushes and trees it walked past. Then also you need very good contrast and/or lighting to be sure any middle distant figure isn't just wearing dark clothing. If the lighting is bad, then 50ft away you'll still err on the side of the odds and think it was a person.

Exactly.  Here is an example of how one applies what I call "bootsole cred" to the data.

 

(Skeptics.  Stop saying it isn't data.  It's repetitive, boring, and just shows you're not reading it.)

 

Just like the friction of shoes on a rock face, bootsole cred is a force which must be applied.  Many people have bootsole cred in a number of outdoor arenas - rock climbing, mountain biking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife and scenic outdoor photography, etc.  But their negative pronouncements on this topic show, conclusively, that they aren't applying that cred to their analysis (well, they're not really doing any) of this specific topic.

 

Those of us who actually are doing that application can come up with many reasons that many, many more people are seeing sasquatch than are reporting them.  Above is only one:  they just didn't register it as one when they saw it.

[dmaker]

" many more people are seeing sasquatch than are reporting them." -DWA

 

I assume you some evidence to back up this subjective out of thin air pulled "fact"?

 

Thankfully, "boot cred" is pretty weak sauce when it comes to scientific evidence. That is, if we want to treat this scientifically, or we would all rather just gather around, make stuff up, and exchange campfire stories.  That is cool too, but let's not disguise it as something more serious.

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

"Many people have bootsole cred in a number of outdoor arenas - rock climbing, mountain biking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife and scenic outdoor photography, etc.  But their negative pronouncements on this topic show, conclusively, that they aren't applying that cred to their analysis (well, they're not really doing any) of this specific topic." -DWA

 

So again you display a remarkable disdain and goalpost moving for anyone that does not share your opinion. You constantly refuse to acknowledge that someone can share your experiences, meet even some of your requirements, but still not arrive at your conclusion. This boggles my mind. Maybe some of these people have applied their cred to this particular topic and just don't happen to share your opinion.  You do realize that is a possibility, do you not?  To simply refuse to accept that someone could not possibly arrive at a difference conclusion than you is simply not facing up to the reality of the situation. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

You cannot be said to have arrived at a conclusion when you have openly stated that you refuse to think about it.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Bada.  And Bing.

[dmaker]

You cannot be said to have arrived at a conclusion when you have openly stated that you refuse to think about it.

You could not be further from the mark Flashman. I have stated numerous times how much thought I have given to this topic. I have listed the numerous books that I have read, documentaries I have watched, witness reports that I have read, etc, before I arrived at my conclusion.  I am also still here most days reading posts. How am I refusing to think about it exactly?  Just because  think about it and don't arrive at the same conclusion as you and DWA,  hardly means I refuse to think about it. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest LarryP]

You cannot be said to have arrived at a conclusion when you have openly stated that you refuse to think about it.

 

Yes. It's known as "Normalcy Bias".

 

Pseudo-skeptics suffer from an acute case of normalcy bias due to their deep seated fear of everything and anything that cannot be explained in materialist terms.

[Guest Darrell]

^So if I am skeptical Im just afraid that bigfoot exists?  Huh? Thats just a truck load full of crap.   

[Sunflower]

Did I mention that I have pics?????

 

They exist, they eat, sleep, give birth, die, and they are the Boss of the Woods.  The hairy guys are way more adept at living in the woods than anyone here on this forum.

[Guest]

Apologies to dmaker, I called it wrong there, crossed threads.

 

However, you will spot several examples on these forums of that type.