roguefooter Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 How about the Sugar Run, PA Bigfoot? Nope, one just can't mistake a bear for a Bigfoot. They saw it clear as day and it definitely was not a bear.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 That picture looks to me like it could be a person in a bear costume. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Some sort of costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'm just saying what it looks like to me. The limb proportions seem kind of odd for a bear, it looks like a person on their hands and feet. Then again, it could simply be a bear with wet fur. Animals with wet fur do look different from what they normally would, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Study more bear reports. That helps some proclaim what is and isn't authentic. Or look those making the reports in the eyes, that always works, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2014 I know that my sighting was not a bear as a bear cannot sit in the pose in which the BF I saw were seated. I have yet to see a bear anywhere near that size too but a large polar bear would be in the ballpark. Google 'seated bear' look at 'images' and you will see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Or look those making the reports in the eyes, that always works, too. "Contrary to popular belief, the eyes deceive." ~Leroy Jethro Gibbs, NCIS[/] Edited April 21, 2014 by Leftfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 The pic in #286 looks to me like a very mangy emaciated bear. You can see the ears in the blurry blowup, though it's hard to tell if the snout is turned towards the camera, or away from it. Given the melting snow pack, I assume that this is an early spring shot, with the bear just out of the den, and very hungry after hibernation, hence the visible ribs. The rear leg clearly shows the hock joint, which we, and other bipeds, don't have. What little fur is left may well be wet, as stated above, emphasizing the thin frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'd agree bear in a heartbeat, but the ears look strange to me. It isn't a bigfoot in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Here's what needs to happen: I need to see this long list of bigfoot sightings that were conclusively debunked as bear sightings. Otherwise, it's just silly. What, we mistake goats for Clydesdales too? Come on. Again: not a single report I have read could be an honest misidentification of a bear. (By a mentally useful person.) An Olympic athlete in a suit? Maybe one. Nah, maybe two, but not likely. This is the kind of misconception that starts out with: Bigfoot's not real, so here's what's happening...ummmmm....err...... And yep, you guys are kidding me with those 'examples.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Just because a might be a real sighting does not mean hallucination or misidentification are poor suggestions to explain the event. Misidentification is a far more likely explanation than hallucination. But due to the sheer number and commonalities of Class A sighting reports it is still completely ridiculous to try to write them ALL off as not being an actual sighting of a BF. Statistically that's an impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) "Again: not a single report I have read could be an honest misidentification of a bear. (By a mentally useful person.) " DWA That is not very respectful of people who have, in fact, misidentified a bear. Plus, I find it very hard to fathom how someone who claims to have read more bigfoot reports than anyone else here or anywhere, could have not come across any reports that could have been an innocent bear misidentification? According to you, anyone who misidentifies a bear is mentally ill? A quick BFRO search brings up this little gem: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=41506 This is a fisherman travelling after midnight in Northern California: " I saw something reddish brown looking over a guard rail. Could only see the head and part of the shoulders, for the rail was at the top of a hill. It wasn't a bear, or have never heard of a brown bear in the area" This person had a fleeting glimpse of something, at night, and only seems to rule out bear due to the color of this glimpse. So if whatever he saw was black, then he would most likely have thought it to be bear. Bears with brown or red coloring do occur in Northern California. In fact, cinnamon brown is a quite common color for black bears in Northern California. It is quite possible that is what he saw, but the color lead him to conclude bigfoot. Does this make him mentally ill in your logic? Edited April 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Considering nearly half of them are incarcerated for carrying drugs which is a "forensic" sort of crime detection I think your numbers are both spurious and irrelevant. Many cases are based on eye-witness testimony which is much less reliable than forensic evidence. There is NO WAY around that. Of course there is "NO WAY around that". Which was why he made the very valid point that a huge amount of people are convicted every year solely based on eyewitness testimony. The witnesses weren't hallucinating, guilty of misidentification, or lying. So that alone blows your contention that ALL BF Class A sighting reports can be attributed to something other than the witnesses saw a BF out of the water completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 "Again: not a single report I have read could be an honest misidentification of a bear. (By a mentally useful person.) " DWA That is not very respectful of people who have, in fact, misidentified a bear. Plus, I find it very hard to fathom how someone who claims to have read more bigfoot reports than anyone else here or anywhere, could have not come across any reports that could have been an innocent bear misidentification? According to you, anyone who misidentifies a bear is mentally ill? A quick BFRO search brings up this little gem: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=41506 No it's not very respectful of those laughable loonies that bigfoot skeptics laugh at. You didn't read that report, did you? I did. You didn't. You need to read stuff that does nothing for your case before forwarding it in defense of your case, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Oh heck, let's help here. And yes, this is from that there very report: "He stated it had neatly maintained hair four to six inches long" (NOT A BEAR) "It had very broad shoulders" (NOT A BEAR) "and had to be very tall due to the steepness of the embankment" (I am six feet; any black bear taller than me is a giant) "Its facial features were human like" (a frequently noted feature of bears, uh hunh) "but the nose was described as not flat like an ape, and had a slight bridge" (oh DEFUHNUTLEY a bear there) Will this kill this silly thread now that we know what the problem is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts