Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[WSA]

OK ALL, I had to look back at the topic title, then go back and read the OP's 1st post. We are OFF topic concerning his comment for discussion. For the sake of this thread, the comments should be directed towards discussions regarding Urban Bigfoot instead of personal battles of who believes who and the who's right and who's wrong debate.

Thank you!

KB

Point taken KB. Let me just go on record to say I don't know if you can find BF in urban areas, or not. If anyone wants to share an account that I might learn from, I'll certainly welcome that.

[Guest DWA]

Going back to the OP (gladly):

 

You say that it goes undetected.   Well, people seeing footprints and hearing sounds is "detecting."  Those cops detected something.

 

Those who think they're crazy for having things like this announce themselves need to take into account the role of plain ol' denial in helping something remain "undetected."  People in your area may have more stories to share than you think.  (So might the authorities...if they'd share them.  Wonder what those cops heard, and saw.) 

[dmaker]

Going back to the OP, I find the notion of an urban Bigfoot untenable. Yes, the cops detected "something", at least according to the anecdotal report provided here. That "something" has an almost limitless list of possibilities that should be exhausted before one pole vaults to "It was Bigfoot". Especially when this is not even a claim to a visual sighting. 

 

And when faced with a pretty outrageous claim, and requests for confirmation of that claim go unfulfilled, then sorry, not buying it. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[NathanFooter]

I am not sue if there are urban staying family groups but I am of the mind that young adults looking for their own piece of dirt, enter urban areas looking for food or just being ,,teens ,, .

 

Maybe older individuals who have trouble hunting due to injury or something could be taking food from dumpsters and trash cans.

[chelefoot]

Chelefoot...I get your point, and I agree, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone show up here and say, "Here. Done." Some evidence advanced is naturally more compelling than other evidence, but.

 

I'm going to reply to this on the Bigfoot Junkie thread, so I don't contribute to the topic being off track.

[Branco]

The three bigfoot that I have seen clearly were, on average, 25 miles west of Little Rock. (There have been about 20 sighting reports from that area as well, most of which are posted on BF web sites.  (Mountains.)

 

There are others about 20 southwest of Little Rock. (River bottoms.) All four forks of the river head in the mountains mentioned above.

 

If there is a river passing nearby, there are now, or have been in the past, BF passing alongside it. 

[Guest]

I am not sue if there are urban staying family groups but I am of the mind that young adults looking for their own piece of dirt, enter urban areas looking for food or just being ,,teens ,, .

 

Maybe older individuals who have trouble hunting due to injury or something could be taking food from dumpsters and trash cans.

Yes, I think they can range 10-15 miles in a nights adventuring, so could live in any dense "dormitory" habitat within that range of conurbation and exploit food sources inside city limits. They might not do it very long if they provoke prowler calls and cops turning up with flashlights, or modify behaviour accordingly.

[JDL]

So, asking if someone has some evidence to support their claim is vilifying them?  Would you prefer if everyone just linked hands, shared some made-up Bigfoot stories, and then discussed how awesome their stories are? Because any attempt to seek substantiation for any claim here is constantly met with push back, especially from you. 

 

Do you even recognize the subjective bias in this post?

 

Objectivity is the key to discussion, not subjectivity.

Sorry, KB, was responding to this one a couple of pages back.  OP discussion only from here out.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Right.  And (on topic!) here's objectivity:

 

This guy heard something really strange.  On consideration, it seems linked to other strange things he's been experiencing, in ways that might make sense to someone conversant with sasquatch evidence.

 

If no one can show conclusively what happened here; if this guy isn't demonstrably (as: you can prove it) deluded or putting us on or getting hoaxed, it might be the best thing to do to pull out a chair and hear more about what continues to happen.  Alternatively, there's a "Bigfoot Junkie" thread where one might explore more thoroughly one's own purpose.

 

To make presumptions that 'this can't possibly be x' in the face of no evidence supporting one is in no way definable upon this planet an objective stance.

[dmaker]

What better way to remove as much subjectivity as possible than by offering supporting evidence of a subjective claim?  Yet that very suggestion, somehow, is resisted. It seems to me that adding some compelling, objective evidence to the claim would effectively reduce the subjective ambiguity involved and serve the greater purpose of finding out what is, exactly, at the root of the original claim.  Adding more layers of subjective observations that cannot be confirmed adds to the discussion, yes, but compelling objective evidence would really help focus in one what is really happening.

 

As I have stated, I find the suggestion of an urban Bigfoot to be untenable. Adding more subjective comments to that claim do nothing to advance the claim beyond an anecdotal story. As such it will remain that way until, or if, anything beyond anecdotal comments ever arrive. 

 

 

Would it help, DWA, if I offered some reasons why I find the notion of an urban Bigfoot untenable? It's mostly along the lines of if the creature existed, in the numbers suggested, then it would be hard enough to miss in our remote forests where it is reported, much less in our own backyards. Think of this comparison for a moment. You have the recent Erickson press conference and subsequent documenatry trailer on youtube. In that trailer Bindernagle, Meldrum and others estimate the Sasquatch population to be upwards of 12, 000 in one persons estimate. According to the WWF the total population of pandas was estimated at 1,600.  Yet they can still be found, photographed and studied. We have specimens in zoos. Yet here, in our very own backyards of our suburbs is a creature of even greater size and in even far greater estimated numbers, and yet not a single piece of objective, biological evidence can be found? That is remarkable enough when applied to our forests far removed from human populations, but when this discussion is suggesting that creature is stealing apples from a suburban backyard? Well, yes that seems untenable to me.  And simply offering stories as evidence of this claim do not really do it for me. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

So, if proof isn't produced instantly, it didn't happen?  Oh.  OK. 

 

So, if I want science to prove something, and it doesn't give me the proof right away, that thing isn't real?

 

Oh.  OK.

Those of us who want to see the scientific process at work, as it most certainly is here, chuckle. 

 

And realize that where science isn't making progress, this is why.  There actually are scientists who believe - and from a practical standpoint this is actually most of them who have opined on this topic - that if it isn't proven, it isn't real.

 

Nature just laughs and proceeds.

Edited October 3, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

It seems you are in a position of recurring activity, which gives you some rather unique options/opportunities.  Is there any way to obtain more evidence than just anecdotal and inconclusive recordings?  If this thing is basically playing catch with you and raiding your apple tree - how can we use this to obtain more evidence?  I'm thinking along the lines of collecting a hair sample with double sided tape.  Or use printer toner to try to capture finger prints.  Or a screw board such as Meldrum used to obtain tissue samples.  Something that can get some physical evidence, not just another story.  Thoughts...?

 

I personally don't think it will be officially "discovered" until a body is on a table somewhere - but if in the meantime we can garner more interest for serious study by obtaining more physical evidence, then why not do it?  The more tissue samples we can get that are unidentified the more it may start turning heads.  Stories have already turned all the heads they ever will. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by Nod4Eight

[dmaker]

No, DWA. I am suggesting one try to get better evidence to potentially raise the discussion above the level of anecdotal tale. How is that not science? Do you think science pushes back on the notion of collecting hard evidence to support a claim? 

 

What Nod said above ^^^    Things like that are what is required here, not more ambiguous evidence. 

 

 

 

I know if I thought I had an apple loving Bigfoot that kept coming to my backyard then I would be sitting in a tub of apple sauce with a camera each and every night

Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

In that trailer Bindernagle, Meldrum and others estimate the Sasquatch population to be upwards of 12, 000 in one persons estimate. According to the WWF the total population of pandas was estimated at 1,600.  Yet they can still be found, photographed and studied. We have specimens in zoos. Yet here, in our very own backyards of our suburbs is a creature of even greater size and in even far greater estimated numbers, and yet not a single piece of objective, biological evidence can be found? That is remarkable enough when applied to our forests far removed from human populations, but when this discussion is suggesting that creature is stealing apples from a suburban backyard? Well, yes that seems untenable to me.  And simply offering stories as evidence of this claim do not really do it for me. 

 

So, pandas eh? Hokay, take a look at range map, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda let's be generous, say those blodges equal about twice the area of that island off the coast there which is Taiwan. 14,000sq miles x2 = 28,000 square miles, with 1,600 pandas they get about 17.5 square miles each or there's about 0.06 of them per square mile.

 

Then we take 12,000 Sasquatches and to give you an advantage here, let's say area of the US only, approx 2.8 million square miles. 2.8m/12,000 = 233.33 square miles each or ~0.004 to the square mile. Ah, range you say, range, well lets guesstimate that the prairie and desert areas in which they are not commonly reported (Hey, using anecdotal evidence to support your position, you're welcome ) are about half, so those 12,000 critters are absolutely crammed into a mere 116.66 square miles each or there's ~0.008 per square mile.

 

That looks to me, with some error range in the figures (and neglecting Canada) that Sas would be 5 to 20 times harder to find than Giant Pandas... and if you ask me, if there's one example of lack of adaptability and intelligence leading to extinction, it's the panda. It's like "Here I sit, in the exact colors chosen by the highway patrol for visibility/recognition, slowly munching on bamboo all day, betchya can't find me" .... Panda researcher: "Well, I'll just walk up this hill and take a look around, yes looks like a grove of bamboo over there, I'll just walk over, dumdedum, oh is that something black and white", Panda: "****!"

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, I forgot how dumb Pandas are when seeking food vs a giant ape-man that wanders into our backyards to steal our apples.