Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[JDL]

JDL, I like your numbered list. Only a couple really need any comment however:

1. A personal claim not currently backed up with evidence from you. So, I would say nice story bro, but it is simply a claim, and does not even rise to the level of interesting anecdote.

2. -8. Your observations on the discourse here are duly noted.

9. Now I have to say that I am impressed. I did not think that you had a sense of humour. You have proven me wrong, Sir. That was pretty funny actually. Well done!

 

dmaker, none of them needed any comment.  You took that upon yourself, and, frankly, your stance that anything I say REQUIRES a comment from you as if you are some sort of authority is offensive and unwelcome.  If you are an authority on anything at all, I have been unable to perceive it, and thus have no standing beyond your own subjective opinion, which I respect for exactly, and no more than, what it is - your own subjective opinion.

 

And, in case you didn't get it, point 9 was intended to be just as ludicrous as the practice of putting forth one's subjective opinion as if one is an authority.

[dmaker]

JDL, this is a discussion forum. Wherein people post things and discussion occurs. If you feel offended that someone responds to your posts then perhaps you might be happier emailing your comments to yourself where you can dictate expected response levels. If you get offended by responses to your comments on a discussion board then perhaps you should preface those comments with something like " I am just thinking out loud here so please do not respond or I might take offense". Otherwise, I , and most others, will assume that comments on this board are open for response. Please forgive me if my responding to your comments somehow offended you. I had assumed this to be an open forum.

If it helps, I will happily change my opening statement to " only a couple I would like to respond to" or something like that. I am sorry if my choice of words rankles with you.

In any event, point 9 was still pretty funny.

Edited September 28, 2013 by dmaker

[JDL]

Point is, this is a bigfoot discussion forum.  But every time someone attempts to discuss a bigfoot sighting, a personal experience, or bit of evidence, you jump in as if it is your personal mandate to turn the discussion away from serious debate and ratchet it back to step one.  It's like ten people trying to play pick up basketball and having some guy jump out of the stands and start grabbing for the ball screaming that the ten folks they can't play without him imposing his own set of modified rules based on nothing more than his personal beliefs.  Constantly, continuously.

 

When one constantly seeks to shut down discussion; over, and over, and over again; there is a point at which it simply becomes harassment.  And whenever one behaves in this matter, what's happening on the court is no longer a game of basketball, it is a continuing argument over the rules with someone who is nothing more than a heckler that has wandered onto the court.  Worse, it is damaging to the forum.  There are those who would contribute if there weren't a heckler on the court intent on harassment, waving around a tattered notebook full of their own scrawled and skewed set of rules.

 

Opinions are great.  Opinions are welcome.  But there is no rule that one cannot carry on a discussion predicated on the existence of bigfoot.  And it is unkind for someone to jump in and attempt to shut down such discussions whenever they occur while waving their own set of rules around.

Edited September 28, 2013 by JDL

[norseman]

Look, Sasquatch doesn't officially exist......that's not an opinion.

If proponents or knowers take offense to that? Then I invite them to come over to the dark side, rifle in hand and let's do something about it.

Nobody can argue with a slab monkey. Nobody.

[JDL]

Don't disagree with that and don't take offense to it at all.  Officially.

 

Informally, though, how do those who have personally encountered squatch, and thus no longer have further need of official proof, along with those for whom the evidence is sufficient, official or not, and would like to move on to the next level of discussion, have such discussions without interference by busybodies?

[Guest]

Well first you kick off the thread witha  few dallas gilbert pics, then show how BF flips trucks by telekinesis (vid removed, forgot language was NSFW).. and hopefully they'll roll their eyes and move along and you can have a sensible discussion in the rest of the thread.

(Grrrr, tried to post as just a link so as not to vid spam for trivial reasons, but BFF STILL put it inline)

Edited September 28, 2013 by Flashman2.0

[Guest DWA]

Don't disagree with that and don't take offense to it at all.  Officially.

 

Informally, though, how do those who have personally encountered squatch, and thus no longer have further need of official proof, along with those for whom the evidence is sufficient, official or not, and would like to move on to the next level of discussion, have such discussions without interference by busybodies?

 

Exactly.

 

Some of us are read up, and know that science has accepted things with a whole lot less evidence going for them than this, and know that we've rarely seen a bigger case of The Three Monkeys than the mainstream's reaction to sasquatch evidence.

 

Hunting protocols aren't going to be sufficient to bag one, if that is one's aim, without sharing of info by people that are doing it.  This is the point that NAWAC makes consistently, and is why they are sharing what they're doing (while keeping close to the vest what makes sense to.  As you said:  busybodies ruin the stew).

 

But the evidence says these are real; and for a lot of reasons it makes sense for people to share (and debate) what they speculate or are finding out, while taking precautions against busybodies.

 

But the evidence long ago - about a half-century, in fact - passed the point of wondering what was going on.  It's pretty clear what is going on; thousands of people are seeing an animal that they describe consistently; thousands more are finding tracks that relevant scientists have linked to that animal; we have at least one film record of the animal people are describing, linked clearly with the tracks; and...[crickets]. 

 

The evidence is making more than clear what needs to be done.  Fortunately, on their own time and money, NAWAC is doing it. 

 

(Not meaning to slight anyone else; NAWAC is just spending more time, money and manpower; and that's what is needed.)

 

Those who can't see, clearly, that evidence points to an unlisted animal might want to go back to the textbooks and read up on evidence.  And then turn to reading up on the evidence for sasquatch.  The next person who does that and shows those of us who want to have an intelligent, busybody-free conversation on this that we are wrong...will be the very first.  In history.  So get crackin'.  Fame awaits you.

 

Plus understand this:  to come on here and contest people on what they are saying they personally saw, and to go on and on doing it, is to call them names without using the names.  That's simple; that's inarguable; and all one would have to do is put oneself in their shoes to see it.  Sorry, but the evidence favors them, and not those questioning them while keeping the evidence at ten-foot-pole distance.

 

Edited September 28, 2013 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

So, is all scientific evidence testable? It certainly can be tested, but scientific consensus is not always testable. If it were, there would be no further need for science to constantly revise its findings upon each new discovery to the contrary, such as in the case of the coelacanth. Science made some very grand claims concerning its extinction some 65 million years ago. Text books in our schools taught such as fact, even claiming it left its watery home, walking on its bony lobes to eventually develop lungs and to be an integral part of the Evolutionary scheme. Funny, someone forgot to inform the coelacanth of this "fact." It still swims today in the same form as its "Evolutionary" fossils despite the claims of the scientific community years ago.

 

 

So to my point, as with this above mentioned creature, seemingly defying the evolutionary perspective, so with Sasquatch.  You do not need evolution to explain it's existence or ours.  A whole other argument though.  But if creatures that defy our discovery are simply thought extinct, then turn up on some beach, what does it reveal about our perspective on the world.  We think we are the masters of the planet, and have unlocked all the mysteries, and can box them all neatly into our scientific explanations.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  If you consider the amount of new discoveries science has made over the last 100 years, and the amount of adjustment required from that knowledge, you can certainly see that we are just scratching the surface of a lot of our supposed science, and that in another 100 years we will look about as silly as those who thought the earth to be flat.  So Sasquatch is not at all far fetched, we have so little information about what is really out their, besides what is obvious.  They will be acknowledged soon enough, and the skeptics will be no more. 

[JDL]

Well first you kick off the thread witha  few dallas gilbert pics, then show how BF flips trucks by telekinesis (vid removed, forgot language was NSFW).. and hopefully they'll roll their eyes and move along and you can have a sensible discussion in the rest of the thread.

(Grrrr, tried to post as just a link so as not to vid spam for trivial reasons, but BFF STILL put it inline)

 

I like this.

 

When I founded my company, I had an investor serving on the Board who had a legal degree.  He was also an inveterate micromanager.  Whenever I prepared a document I would staff it through him.  He and I used different conventions for commas.  Both conventions were acceptable (mine colloquial, his appropriate for legal correspondence), but after having him hold up progress on correspondence for a few days, I adopted his convention simply to get things done more expeditiously.  After I switched to his convention and he had no controversial punctuation to address, he began to extensively rewrite documents into stilted legal language, and held up correspondence even more.  At that point I realized that he had a need to interject himself, catch some nit noid thing, and impose a "correction".  Made him feel he was in control.  In the interest of efficiency I switched back to my original comma convention so that he had something simple to catch, that I could "correct" with a single keystroke and get business done.  Things were smooth after that.

 

So we need to come up with some kind of dog bone to redirect pathological interference into a harmless avenue as you suggest.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

As for my recordings, I continue, but I am skeptical of most of the bumps in the night, having realized how common they are. I have a few things that pose a mystery to me, but I need more time sifting through the daily recording stuff to differentiate anything truly interesting, therefore no more posts of coyotes and stick breaks. I find it interesting that Cliff Barackman concurs with my opinion that these more eastern sasquatch do not vocalize nearly as much as their western counterparts. When I heard the whoops in July from a juvenile, and later by the same juvenile then it's parent, which is all based on the tone, which if you could hear it, it would be as obvious to you as me, I knew it was not supposed to be making the sounds, but was too inexperienced to know the difference. I presume by now that it knows not to give itself away like that, too bad. This is the type of stealth I refer to with these "more" urban bigfoots. They are far more stealthy than one living in remote isolation in a wilderness, maybe encountering a human every few years. These will not stay as long in one place, nor leave much evidence of being there at all. Cliff mentions this in his research notes for season three on Connecticut, how they seem to be more aware of not leaving footprints, avoiding soft ground, and being closed mouth. I guess I was very lucky to hear them, even though I really wanted a sighting or footprints.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Allow me to make a comment... unofficially, of course.

 

Personally, I'm a skeptical proponent. I know that's sort of on the fence, but it's where I am. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I feel certain that they may exist. I base this opinion on my own review of the evidence that's been presented by others - anecdotal or otherwise, reports from creditable witnesses, and by my own ability to come up with my own conclusions based on my own cognitive reasoning skills. I know without a doubt that it is entirely possible that this creature can exist. My own mother claims to have seen one, and I certainly take her account as a creditable one. In fact, that claim is the reason I'm here on the BFF. I stumbled upon this forum in my effort to research the subject and I've been here ever since.

 

My interest in the subject has led me to do investigation not only online, but in the field. I've researched some areas reputed to have activity. While I have no conclusive evidence that can be interpreted as proof, I have been privileged enough to stumble upon things that have bolstered my belief that the creature does indeed exist. I myself have heard wood knocks in the wee hours of the morning, had an experience with a "fluttering" sensation in my ear that I could not explain, and heard a scream that prompted me to brandish a .45 handgun as quickly as was possible. I have interviewed residents that lived around one of my research areas and listened to their accounts, many of those accounts over a period of years. These people were good folks with no reason to lie to anyone. In fact, many of them were reluctant to share their accounts with me initially. It was only after gaining their trust over time that they told me what they'd experienced. We're talking people that had good public standing, community leaders, civil servants and housewives. I found these accounts to be creditable and the people telling me these accounts to be sincere.

 

Admittedly, being on this forum in my present capacity has some benefits. Sometimes folks I correspond with tell me things they've experienced. Sometimes they share things with me, such as photos and videos. I must say that some of it is quite impressive. Just recently, I had a researcher share a photo taken with a game camera that was very compelling. Is this evidence concrete proof? No, it isn't in and of itself, but when you compile the evidence presented it's obvious that there is something there that isn't considered "normal." Much of this photo and video evidence is taken by landowners and provided to researchers. Some of it is taken by the researchers themselves. I always have to promise confidentiality because these people don't want the evidence shown for any number of reasons, which leads me to my next statement.

 

People are naturally skeptical for the most part. I find skepticism to be a healthy component in the attempt to discover the creature, so I personally don't mind it. However, skeptics are often dogmatic, and they can express their opinions in a manner that can present the allusion that anyone that doesn't agree with them is crazy. I find this attitude to be unhealthy for discussion, as opposed to a healthy skepticism that can lead to discussion that can be of benefit to all. I myself am skeptical to a degree, which sometimes makes it hard to discuss some of the attributes that proponents ascribe to the creature. I always try to be as respectful as I can regardless of the subject matter of the discussion, but there are those that, unfortunately, are not.

 

Conversely, there are those proponents that are also as bad as the skeptics. EVERYTHING that happens in their environment is attributed to Bigfoot. A tree found leaning at a 45 degree angle in the forest? That's a Bigfoot territory marker, never mind that there was a line of severe windstorms that came through the area a few days ago. That crashing limb that was heard in the woods behind their house? That was a Bigfoot, not a dead limb falling from a tree. A deer kill? Bigfoot did it because they've never seen a bear or a cougar around here. Then there are the grandiose claims of some proponents. Such attributes as using Morse Code, smoking cigarettes, following humans home over extreme distances to leave items in their truck beds, and claims of the like do nothing to promote healthy discussion of the creature. When you start anthropomorphizing Bigfoot to such a degree, it tends to bring out the worst in skeptics. Then there are those that claim the extraordinary, like Bigfoot cracking lake ice with its roar, calling people by name, and such remarkable claims - presented without proof. Admittedly, these claims border on hoaxing, in my opinion.

 

I've said all of that to say this - At this point NOBODY knows for sure unless they've had a personal experience with the creature. There's no way to substantiate a sighting without evidence. I get that, but that doesn't mean that the witness didn't see what they saw. You don't have to be a zoologist to know the difference between a bear and a seven foot tall bipedal ape. You also don't have to be a scientist to evaluate presented evidence or accounts. The same is true with skeptics and their ability to evaluate the claims of proponents. While accepted science is a useful tool to allow the skeptical to dismiss the claims of proponents, it's also going to be the very thing that vindicates these witnesses and proponents whenever proof of the creature is provided.

 

As much as I hate to say this, I agree with norseman - A slab on a table doesn't lie. I believe that until one is provided by whatever means, this debate will continue, along with the posturing from both sides.

[Guest]

So to my point, as with this above mentioned creature, seemingly defying the evolutionary perspective, so with Sasquatch. You do not need evolution to explain it's existence or ours. A whole other argument though. But if creatures that defy our discovery are simply thought extinct, then turn up on some beach, what does it reveal about our perspective on the world. We think we are the masters of the planet, and have unlocked all the mysteries, and can box them all neatly into our scientific explanations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you consider the amount of new discoveries science has made over the last 100 years, and the amount of adjustment required from that knowledge, you can certainly see that we are just scratching the surface of a lot of our supposed science, and that in another 100 years we will look about as silly as those who thought the earth to be flat. So Sasquatch is not at all far fetched, we have so little information about what is really out their, besides what is obvious. They will be acknowledged soon enough, and the skeptics will be no more.

I think you grossly mischaracterize scientists and science. I think it's insane to assume that anyone involved with science feels that we have mastered the mysteries of the world.

And the idea of a large ape living in NA is not at all far fetched. It's very reasonable IMO that it could happen. The idea becomes more far fetched to me with the passing years and lack of solid evidence. It's not like we are talking about a dragon.

[norseman]

Well......prove they exist officially, and that problem will evaporate in an instant.

[JDL]

Allow me to make a comment... unofficially, of course.

 

Personally, I'm a skeptical proponent. I know that's sort of on the fence, but it's where I am. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I feel certain that they may exist. I base this opinion on my own review of the evidence that's been presented by others - anecdotal or otherwise, reports from creditable witnesses, and by my own ability to come up with my own conclusions based on my own cognitive reasoning skills. I know without a doubt that it is entirely possible that this creature can exist. My own mother claims to have seen one, and I certainly take her account as a creditable one. In fact, that claim is the reason I'm here on the BFF. I stumbled upon this forum in my effort to research the subject and I've been here ever since.

 

My interest in the subject has led me to do investigation not only online, but in the field. I've researched some areas reputed to have activity. While I have no conclusive evidence that can be interpreted as proof, I have been privileged enough to stumble upon things that have bolstered my belief that the creature does indeed exist. I myself have heard wood knocks in the wee hours of the morning, had an experience with a "fluttering" sensation in my ear that I could not explain, and heard a scream that prompted me to brandish a .45 handgun as quickly as was possible. I have interviewed residents that lived around one of my research areas and listened to their accounts, many of those accounts over a period of years. These people were good folks with no reason to lie to anyone. In fact, many of them were reluctant to share their accounts with me initially. It was only after gaining their trust over time that they told me what they'd experienced. We're talking people that had good public standing, community leaders, civil servants and housewives. I found these accounts to be creditable and the people telling me these accounts to be sincere.

 

Admittedly, being on this forum in my present capacity has some benefits. Sometimes folks I correspond with tell me things they've experienced. Sometimes they share things with me, such as photos and videos. I must say that some of it is quite impressive. Just recently, I had a researcher share a photo taken with a game camera that was very compelling. Is this evidence concrete proof? No, it isn't in and of itself, but when you compile the evidence presented it's obvious that there is something there that isn't considered "normal." Much of this photo and video evidence is taken by landowners and provided to researchers. Some of it is taken by the researchers themselves. I always have to promise confidentiality because these people don't want the evidence shown for any number of reasons, which leads me to my next statement.

 

People are naturally skeptical for the most part. I find skepticism to be a healthy component in the attempt to discover the creature, so I personally don't mind it. However, skeptics are often dogmatic, and they can express their opinions in a manner that can present the allusion that anyone that doesn't agree with them is crazy. I find this attitude to be unhealthy for discussion, as opposed to a healthy skepticism that can lead to discussion that can be of benefit to all. I myself am skeptical to a degree, which sometimes makes it hard to discuss some of the attributes that proponents ascribe to the creature. I always try to be as respectful as I can regardless of the subject matter of the discussion, but there are those that, unfortunately, are not.

 

Conversely, there are those proponents that are also as bad as the skeptics. EVERYTHING that happens in their environment is attributed to Bigfoot. A tree found leaning at a 45 degree angle in the forest? That's a Bigfoot territory marker, never mind that there was a line of severe windstorms that came through the area a few days ago. That crashing limb that was heard in the woods behind their house? That was a Bigfoot, not a limb dead falling from a tree. A deer kill? Bigfoot did it because they've never seen a bear or a cougar around here. Then there are the grandiose claims of some proponents. Such attributes as using Morse Code, smoking cigarettes, following humans home over extreme distances to leave them items in their truck beds, and claims of the like do nothing to promote healthy discussion of the creature. When you start anthropomorphizing Bigfoot to such a degree, it tends to bring out the worst in skeptics. Then there are those that claim the extraordinary, like Bigfoot cracking lake ice with its roar, calling people by name, and such remarkable claims - presented without proof. Admittedly, these claims border on hoaxing, in my opinion.

 

I've said all of that to say this - At this point NOBODY knows for sure unless they've had a personal experience with the creature. There's no way to substantiate a sighting without evidence. I get that, but that doesn't mean that the witness didn't see what they saw. You don't have to be a zoologist to know the difference between a bear and a seven foot tall bipedal ape. You also don't have to be a scientist to evaluate presented evidence or accounts. The same is true with skeptics and their ability to evaluate the claims of proponents. While accepted science is a useful tool to allow the skeptical to dismiss the claims of proponents, it's also going to be the very thing that vindicates these witnesses whenever proof of the creature is provided.

 

As much as I hate to say this, I agree with norseman - A slab on a table doesn't lie. I believe that until one is provided by whatever means, this debate will continue, along with the posturing from both sides.

 

Very well said. 

 

Most of us are skeptics to one degree or another.  Based on my experiences, if someone tells me that they have seen a bigfoot, I do not consider that, in and of its self, controversial, but if they start talking about paranormal capabilities, I get very skeptical and tune out.  When people first started talking about zapping I dismissed it out of hand.  But when a couple of members that I know to have their feet on the ground talked about it, I decided to take another look.  Though not fully convinced yet, I'm at the stage where I consider it possible that their lung capacity and thoracic strength may be sufficient to produce a pressurized infrasound wave that can affect vulnerable points in our nervous systems at close range.

 

So considered skepticism, is something we should all embrace.  Dogmatic skepticism shared as personal opinion should be noted and respected.  But all should refrain from skeptical jihad.

Well......prove they exist officially, and that problem will evaporate in an instant.

 

Yes, but those who have encountered them, and those who have analyzed the evidence for relevant nuggets, can contribute to this outcome.  So free discussion, unfettered by skeptical jihad, is essential.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

 

As much as I hate to say this, I agree with norseman - A slab on a table doesn't lie. I believe that until one is provided by whatever means, this debate will continue, along with the posturing from both sides.

 

I want to clarify this statement - I don't hate agreeing with norseman. I hate that a sentient creature may have to be killed to prove its existence.