Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[roguefooter]

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?

 

Don't forget that we're talking about urban areas here. Is Bigfoot seen in urban areas where there's a surveillance system practically around every corner? I don't think so.

 

If that were the case then there should be loads of video footage out there. We know wild animals occasionally go through urban areas because they're seen- either by people or camera. Where's the Bigfoot footage?

Edited September 7, 2013 by roguefooter

[roguefooter]

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.

 

I think the video section shows just how easily and quickly that something can be tagged as a Bigfoot. If it can me misidentified in a video then it can be misidentified in the field. A sighting is brief and can't be played back and reviewed, so the margin of error could be even greater.

[dmaker]

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....

LCB, as you describe the rich bounty of wildlife in this area does it occur to you that of all the species you mentioned, evidence of their presence woud not be difficult to obtain? If they are as bountiful as you describe, I would guarantee you that if even a small effort was launched to go out and gathere evidence of their presence, that that evidence would easily be obtained. I don't think anyone could argue with that acutally. It doesn't take an expert. I have deer and coyote living within a km of my house. I hike often and have numerous pictures of these animals. It woud not be difficult to go one step further and gather hair or scat. I have almost stepped in deer scat countless times. So you can see where my question is going most likely. Why is Bigfoot exempt? I don't care how smart an animal is, it still sheds hair and it still has to poop. Yet somehow it evades detection methods that have worked for every other animal on this continent. Now why is that do you suppose?

[Will]

 

If that were the case then there should be loads of video footage out there. We know wild animals occasionally go through urban areas because they're seen- either by people or camera. Where's the Bigfoot footage?

I'm just giving you an example of a rare animal, and how it is seldom seen. There has to be hundreds of trophy class whitetails in any given state, mostly around urban and suburban areas. they are seldom seen if at all. The reason is they only come out at night. How about an owl, how many of those have you seen without looking for them?

 

What it says to me, if there is only a few hundred of these creatures and they are highly intelligent, it is plausible that they might not be seen.

[Guest]

lots of sightings for only a few hundred

[dmaker]

I've seen lots of owls. I do midnight snow shoe hikes on the bruce trail in the winter and hear all kinds of barred owls. And in Footery, hearing is as good as seeing, isn't it?

[Will]

^Lots of owls and they are rarely seen, but only because they come out at night. The trophy caliber whitetail is a better example, its a very smart animal that lives to not be seen.

[dmaker]

^^ But I can probably visit a zoo or museum and see a specimen, no?

Or an HD documentary with plenty of footage of one, no? Can you say the same about ole Footie?

[Will]

Aren't you comparing apples with oranges though. If you really want to take a skeptical viewpoint that is. A denialist viewpoint is more where you are, and that's fine but saying a BF could live in an urban or suburban environment is a possibility.

[dmaker]

I was simply countering your proposition that other animals are very elusive and nocturnal. Ok, fine. But those other animals have not escaped detection, capture and classification. So I am left wondering what your point was exactly.

[Will]

The point is, its a possibility. When you add in how rare these animals could be, coupled with there rumored intelligence and the many sightings, it remains a possibility.

[dmaker]

So basically your point is that if we believe everything that the anecdotal evidence has to offer ( as you said, rumours) then there remains a possibility. Well that possibility, as you put it, is no stronger or weaker than the possibility for lake monsters, fairies and unicorns. When posed against the evidence for real creatures, Bigfoot fairly pales.

Unless you wish to appeal to supposition again.

Edited September 7, 2013 by dmaker

[Will]

There you go again comparing apples and oranges. The sighting database for BF is quite large and goes back many years. The sighting database for unicorns, lake monsters, or fairies does not. That makes it a possibility for a skeptic. Your position is sound though coming from an unbeliever.

Edited September 7, 2013 by will

[dmaker]

The sighting database, as you put it, for fairies goes back to the middle ages. That trumps Bigfoot reports by about 950 years at least.

What was your point again?

[Will]

For the third time, the point is its a possibility. For you no, but for the skeptic, the possibility is there. Why is this so hard for you to except?

 

A better question would be, why are you here?

 

You have stated for months now your unbelief. How much longer is it going to take to convince you BF does not exist?

 

I could go on the fairy forums for about 2 minutes to figure out its not for me. How many months have you been here?