Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest DWA]

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

 

His point?  Bigfoot skeptics are not skeptical.  They are true believers in what they want to believe.  They can't defend what they think; and "no proof...yet...." is no defense.

 

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.

 

Right.  Everybody Googles bigfoot, every day, ten times on the hour.  And Googling "Bigfoot Forums"?  Cool.  When you know to Google that.  Everything looks much easier to people immersed in it.

 

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.

 

Says someone who, by that comment, shows that he doesn't read reports.  I leave the ad hominem words out of sentences, particularly when they reveal stuff that should have told me, whoops, I don't know enough to say that, do I.

 

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.   

 

Not being read up on the evidence is what doesn't get a pass.  Once again, you have shown that.  Get read up.  (Bigfoot skeptics:  not informed on the evidence.)

Edited September 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Note silence and pure dismal on this BFF on an actual report I got recently and continuing to research and field observations by my friends that include a degreed biologist/researcher. Of course I am dismissed as "crazy" or a "bleever" typical...... 

[dmaker]

"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. " -DWA

 

I'll agree with you on the photos/video section part of your comment in relation to this forum, and any Bigfoot forum for that matter. But if we were dealing with a real creature then the photos and video section would actually be the better place to look than reports. Real creatures can be photographed. Who wants to read stories when you could look at pictures or video of the creature. Oh wait....yeah, there aren't any.. Me? I'm tired to death of just story after story after story..

 

But the BFF is certainly very easy to find. To suggest that people that lodge sighting reports do not know how to use Google to find something as simple as the BFF raises the obvious question of how did they find the BFRO to report their sighting in the first place?  The yellow pages? I highly doubt that...

 

Says someone who, by that comment, shows that he doesn't read reports.  I leave the ad hominem words out of sentences, particularly when they reveal stuff that should have told me, whoops, I don't know enough to say that, do I.

 

Well the reports are just a collection of stories and have to be treated as such. There is nothing in the mountain of reports that can be directly used to prove anything. They should be read and considered. After being read they paint a pretty unbelievable picture. A creature with that description and that range, including that close to human populations, and for this long and NOT be confirmed? That becomes unbelievable. That is precisely why they must simply remain stories.No more or less convincing than all the anecdotal reports of fairies and lake monsters.  And before you bring up your BS detector comment that is surely to follow, you should remind yourself that the scientific method ( of which proponents love to claim adherence to) does not permit you to discard things that do not fit with your preconceived notion of this phenomenon. A scientist must consider the entire body of reports. One does not get to cull out the ones that don't feel right or fit in your mind. The hypothesis as a whole must be considered if one wants to stick to the scientific method. 

 

Just sayin.....

Edited September 6, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest Darrell]

Lets look at reality for just one minute. The reason a bigfoot cant be found is'nt because skeptic Darrell or Dmaker wont let you, its because YOU (bigfooters) cant find one. Claiming our skeptical main stream society wont acknowledge this is just dodging reality.    

 

 

His point?  Bigfoot skeptics are not skeptical.  They are true believers in what they want to believe.  They can't defend what they think; 

 

Really? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Like I said before, you are makeing up the rules as you go and expect everyone else to keep playing your game.

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot skeptics are always telling the other side that the other side is doing what bigfoot skeptics do constantly.

 

Read up.

 

When the proof is in, "no proof....yet..." is gonna look like somebody wasn't paying attention.  Unless, you know, that's some kind of prediction you are making.  That a ouija board you have there...?

Edited September 6, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

No proof yet does not look dumb at all....it looks..well, skeptical.

 

Claims are made of a giant ape-man running amok in all parts of North America. Including suburbs and trailer parks and dumpsters. A response of well that sounds pretty unbelievable, do you have any scientific evidence that can be used to prove this fantastic claim? Er, no, but we got lots of stories and other evidence that has quite often been proven to be fabricated. Uhm, ok, well then I'm going to remain skeptical until you can prove this claim of yours. 

 

What follows is 50 years of more stories and more dubious evidence and ( faked footprints, failed DNA studies) , and of course, more hoaxes. What is there in that that would compel one to move off from the skeptical response? And the more time that passes without any real scientific evidence being brought forward simply serves to entrench the skeptical response.

 

What is unreasonable about that?

Edited September 6, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

If Roger Patterson can get a sasquatch in plain sight there's no reason others can't.

 

It seems proponents are too used to reading about how rare animals in foreign lands were "discovered" by funded scientists. One size fits all I guess.

[Guest Darrell]

the put up or shut up argument is just as valid as yours. Its not my responsibility to prove you wrong, in this venue you have the responsibility of proof. I dont really know why this is even controversial. Produce a specimen and speculation about existance goes away.

[dmaker]

Yes, but in the complete and utter failure to produce a specimen, all proponents have are stories and speculation.

 

Something has to keep the Bigfoot myth going after all.

[Guest Darrell]

^ Yes. Collect a specimen and all skeptics have to accept the reality. Fringe skeptics might employ some of the same arguments proponents do such as govt fabrications, but main stream science and society has to acknowledge existance of the creature. Its no longer a phenomina. Its truth. But dont expect me or anyone else skeptical of this to accept your belief based on the anecdotal accounts you have.

[Guest DWA]

All that's fine.  People are working on the proof (go over to the NAWAC thread), and I'm content to wait for what they're putting up.

 

What those of us informed about this have a problem with is the "no proof at this moment means none, ever" attitude that tends to show up a lot around here.  Proof rarely shows up precisely on humanity's schedule.  And NAWAC has spent about 80% of all history's serious bigfoot expedition time.

 

Roger Patterson did the remaining 20% (give or take).

[dmaker]

It's not really that proof is not showing up on my schedule. For me, it's more like people talk about all these encounters and whatnot. Bigfoot nests, and cracked hickory nuts, and this and that, etc. These seem like perfect opportunities to gather the necessary proof. But that NEVER happens. All we get are stories of these opportunities, but no results from them. You mention NAWAC. I find it difficult to wrap my mind around a team of people, seemingly surrounded by Wood Apes, but unable to gather any samples that could be used to provide the proof that would end this silly debate? 

 

It's not about schedule, it's about stories again. Stories where the people involved would seem to be in a unique position to gather something conclusive, but then that never happens. Ever..  That's what I'm saying..  I could understand no proof coming in a timely manner if people were not constantly claiming contact. But with each claim to contact that results in just more stories..well it leaves one wondering..

[Guest]

boom

[Guest]

Given the nature of the claim, proof should have shown up.

 

I'm not saying bigfoot doesn't exist 100%, but given the lack of proof after centuries it makes me doubt it very much.  

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Driving home from work, I work in Arlington Heights Il. and commute to my home town of Antioch, that transition zone of 37 miles is pretty amazing, it goes from no wild acreage, to hundreds of wild acreage in about a 10 mile stretch. Amazingly most of the actual sightings north and west of Chicago have been in that transition zone, say 5 miles from the heart of suburbia. These sightings include one crossing a road at 4pm which was only a mile or so from two large nature preserves. The other was in the 70s in the same area, and just a few miles west another sighting turned up recently on the Prairie Path bike trail, and this was in daylight. All of these locations were around houses within a semi rural setting, but very close to larger expanses of denser woods. A common thread are that railways were nearby, and the greenways between all these sightings connect nicely, sometimes with not many options. The possibility of a greater north/south migration is facilitated by the Fox, Illinois, and Mississippi rivers, not to mention the Des Plaines, Kankakee, others. Numerous small streams do the area and also provide limited habitat during my hypothetical migration. Southeast Wisconsin just to my North has had some pretty famous action, including the deer stolen from the pickup truck by a bi pedal creature at about 4am. That is only 10 miles north of me or so. Farmland fills the gaps between forest and marsh, corn being the predominant crop, standing 7 feet tall or so in late summer. Need I say more, but I will. Deer and Coyotes are especially healthy and abundant in our area, and every variety of small mammal as well. Wolf's and Black Bear are making appearances along with the occasional cougar. Hell, this is just like when Daniel Boone ventured across the land, well not quite but you get my point, nature is really making a come back in some areas, mine being one of them....