Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Rockape]

I had them pegged as dedicated FOP users.

Bigfoot is a geographic oddity, two weeks from everywhere.

 

Plussed for getting the reference.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Rockape

[Guest Darrell]

yep.

 

That when you see one, no you didn't.

 

It does seem hard for folks to grasp, but when I see the reaction to the topic, my faith is renewed in our species' ability to block out anything, and I do mean anything, it doesn't want to see.

Come on, the argument that we cant find it because we dont believe it just doesnt work. 

[Guest]

But we are talking about bigfoot right? Not a deer, not a coyote, a skunk, or a porky. We are talking a 7-10 foot tall creature that weights in excess of 500-1000 lbs. Something bigger than most cars.

 

But a BF in a quadrapedal stance and vegetation obsuring any clear viewing...hence "black bear" , "feral hog" , "black cow" and al;l three of those can match the proposed weight of a BF

[Guest DWA]

Come on, the argument that we cant find it because we dont believe it just doesnt work. 

No, to the folks who haven't thought about this much, it doesn't.

 

I am still waiting for the explanation how science is gonna confirm something that it simply doesn't believe exists, and laughs at.  I am still waiting for that.

How does you-saw-one equate to science-confirms-it?

[Guest Darrell]

But a BF in a quadrapedal stance and vegetation obsuring any clear viewing...hence "black bear" , "feral hog" , "black cow" and al;l three of those can match the proposed weight of a BF

And how do you know what you saw for that split second wasnt one of the three you just listed? How about a horse? I have a great southend of a northbound horse bigfoot sighting I had 20 some yrs ago that shows how easy it is to mistake the mundane for the supernatural. In fact that experience might fit in perfect here.

[Guest DWA]

Not sure where "mistaking mundane for supernatural" comes in.

 

Anyone who reads a lot of reports can see clearly that conventional animals aren't being described.  Anyone who thinks that...has to prove it.

People don't jump to the unconventional explanation.  They try to plug in every single thing they know that could fit first, as the reports make clear.

[Guest]

And how do you know what you saw for that split second wasnt one of the three you just listed? How about a horse? I have a great southend of a northbound horse bigfoot sighting I had 20 some yrs ago that shows how easy it is to mistake the mundane for the supernatural. In fact that experience might fit in perfect here.

What I mean is the potential hundreds of sighting by people of a BF and they DIDNT know it was a BF because of the reason I provided....

Edited September 6, 2013 by GEARMAN

[Guest Darrell]

^Or a potential for hundreds of bigfoot sightings by people who believed that they were seeing a bigfoot but saw something else. A common and mundane animal they mistook for a bigfoot. Works just as well on both sides of the argument.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Darrell

[Guest]

^Or a potential for hundreds of bigfoot sightings by people who believed that they were seeing a bigfoot but saw something else. A common and mundane animal they mistook for a bigfoot. Works just as well on both sides of the argument.

Sometimes ..shure.No one should debate that but......some BF witnesses see them doing it and seeing them drop from 2 down to 4 and the reverse do happen !  The describe the event sometimes not knowing what they saw but only one creature fits the bill so to speak.

I recent acquired a report local to me from way back over 40 years ago and the described something as a bear but it wasnt a bear..it was very large (4-5') and was charging at them (bluff) and this location most definitely has not bears but it was along a wooded creek corridor by a dump that ties to a bigger creek with a better known creature with sightings close by just a few years earlier. The Chambers Creek Monster. The report I got described it has having long dark or black hair and being "ugly" . It was a multi witnes report. When I talked to the older brother he actually saw it first as he had heard a  sound (grunt ot huff) and looked, saw  a very big creature on 2 legs 8-9 ft tall and then it dropped to all fours and was coming towards them fast with a weird gait.

Edited September 6, 2013 by GEARMAN

[Will]

You say this according to what?

 

To describe it means it would have to have been seen.

According to me, I've hunted them. They are exclusively nocturnal when they feed.

 

Yes, they can be seen if you look, BF are seen also correct?

Edited September 6, 2013 by will

[dmaker]

" Anyone who reads a lot of reports can see clearly that conventional animals aren't being described.  Anyone who thinks that...has to prove it." DWA

 

Nope. There we have the attempt to make anecdotal evidence appear falsifiable. It's not. Until Bigfoot is proven, no one has to believe that a person who says they saw a Bigfoot actually saw a Bigfoot. In fact, the more reasonable response is that the person probably saw some other, more common animal, or some other type of pareidolia effect.  The person who states they saw a Bigfoot has to prove that Bigfoot exists if they want to convince somenone, otherwise it is perfectly acceptable to think they saw anything but a Bigfoot with no onus whatsoever to prove anything.  If the witness does not care about convincing anyone, then that is totally fine too. Just don't expect everyone to take them seriously. 

 

Dude1: I saw a Bigfoot last night.

 

Dude2: Cool story bro, but in my opinion you probably saw something else. 

 

Dude1: Yeah, well you can't prove I didn't see a Bigfoot!!!

 

^^ That is not at all how this works.

 

Or, since legal comparisons are popular here:

 

Detective: Did you burgle that house last night?

Suspect: Nope. But I saw who did.

Detective: REally? Who then..?

Suspect: Bigfoot did it.

Detective: ..... We have no evidence of such a thing.

Suspect: I have some dog hair you can send to a lab.

Suspect: In the meantime you must convince the jury that Bigfoot did not do it.

Edited September 6, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Not sure where "mistaking mundane for supernatural" comes in.

 

Anyone who reads a lot of reports can see clearly that conventional animals aren't being described.  Anyone who thinks that...has to prove it.

People don't jump to the unconventional explanation.  They try to plug in every single thing they know that could fit first, as the reports make clear.

 

Go look in the photos/videos section and you will see people clamoring over themselves to be to first one to say it is BF - when it is obviously a bear, or a moose or even a guinea hen. 

[Guest DWA]

The photos/videos section isn't the place to look for this.

 

The reports are the place to look for this.

 

The photos/videos section has a bunch of people looking at it because they are on the BFF, which isn't the easiest thing on the internet to find, so they can discuss this.  Because they believe in it; or believe in its impossibility; or...well, they're skeptical, like me, but true skeptics aren't the most abundant thing on this board.  The photos/videos section seems to draw the polar opposites in disproportionate amount.

 

Now, the reports.  Reading them, one realizes that the average person filing a report is a hardboiled skeptic who just had a battlefield conversion.  This is just as one would expect; a recent poll put it as 70% skeptics on this topic.   With all the rest of the guidebook consistency of reports

 

(we know this is going in the Hominidae when it's confirmed; how many cryptids can we draw the taxonomic tree options for right now?  That consistent)

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to postulate that it isn't "bleevers" having all these sightings (heck, many "bleevers" think it's human, something very questionable when one reviews the evidence).

 

And substantiating that would be that most of them try to call it something familiar...and after a long look, realize that it isn't something familiar.

Edited September 6, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

But DWA, all NASCAR fans have mullets and drink budweiser, so of course all BF proponents are 'bleevers'...don't you get it?

 

Oh, and your comment here: "true skeptics aren't the most abundant thing on this board" - plussed.

[Guest Darrell]

^Well Duh! Otherwise it would be the Bigfoot Skeptic Foums.

 

 The photos/videos section has a bunch of people looking at it because they are on the BFF, which isn't the easiest thing on the internet to find, so they can discuss this.  

 

Well, maybe. Maybe not. Google "Bigfoot" and the first site is the BFRO. Google "Bigfoot Forums" and the first site is this one, the BFF.

 

 

Now, the reports.  Reading them, one realizes that the average person filing a report is a hardboiled skeptic who just had a battlefield conversion.  

 

Huh? How in the world can you make that statement? That is just, well, asinine. That may be your opinion but it doesnt make any sense.

 

 

And substantiating that would be that most of them try to call it something familiar...and after a long look, realize that it isn't something familiar.

Nope, you dont get a pass on this one either. Most reports dont even involve a sighting but some other type of encounter that person just cant or wont attribute to something obvious. Nobody can really know what those people encontered. Very few of the reports of sightings are for more than a couple seconds. With all of the media attention on bigfoot do you think the average person isnt going to make a connection to bigfoot first?  thats why this is as much a social/psychological phenomina than anything else.