Jump to content
Guest

Discovery Channel Bigfoot Gait Analysis

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

Exploiting the lack of evidence... rad. By all means, post a quote that shows I think Bigfoot is impossible rather than extremely unlikely...

 

 

This is not a statement of Bigfoot being impossible, which goes against me explicitly arguing the opposite countless times including citing such finds as Homo floresiensis, this is a statement how Bigfoot is perceived outside of Bigfootery...

 

 

Do you even read what you write?

 

"Bigfoot is the 20th century mermaid. It's not 21st century and has no place in it. It's an idea, a belief, that is becoming naturally more bizarre as each year carries on without something on a table anyone could agree is this manbeast you believe in."

 

Claiming that it 'has no place in the 21st century, is only an idea, a belief' says it all. That's you stating your own perception there, leaving no room for any likelihood.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote....earlier this month...

 

 

 

Many of the friends and colleagues I have become acquainted with in the Bigfoot community over the years are of the opposite position as me, that Bigfoot does exist or most likely does. This is not a position I begrudge them nor do I try and convince them otherwise. 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49020-whats-the-deal-with-skeptics/page-4#entry865904

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 It's an idea, a belief, that is becoming naturally more bizarre as each year carries on...

 

And:

 

 

"Bigfoot is a subculture not about an animal on this Planet Earth. It's an experience based in the need to vent anger to other humans. It will make you fat, make your hair quicken grey, cause you to be lethargic, and just be a generally weirdish dinner guest. IMO. "

 

 

kitakaze wrote...(in response to DWA's statement..."Give it a rest already")...

 

 

 

Like Bigfoot existing. 2014. Hello.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/3040-ray-wallace-hoaxing-and-the-pgf/page-58

 

 

Well, if that there ain't "be-grudgin'" someone somethin'.....then I dun't kno what is... :)

 

 

 

From that same post, this month...kitakaze wrote....(encouraging Bigfooters onward, in their search for Bigfoot)...

 

 

 

If they've seen the same evidence, examined the same claims, and if they find it persuasive, I can only hope it motivates them to find better evidence of the same kind of quality we have for every other mammal species in North America. 

 

 

kitakaze wrote...(wondering why the hell the search for Bigfoot continues, in 2013)...

 

 

 

"The only actual fact in Bigfootery is that a dwindling subculture of people still in the 21st century believe that North America is populated by forest hairy apemen. Why do we seriously continue doing this in 2013?"

 

 

:bbq:

 

A little overdone... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^But can't you see it? He's open to the possibility.

 

:crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

As you will read in my post (one that you have taken all over the place at this point) the fox issue is about the subject matter.  All things being equal a fox can be sighted and some witnesses claim they have sighted a Bigfoot subject.  I have not nor do I expect to in Iowa should they exist.

 

Thus, a witness knows what he thinks he saw.  Yet to have you tell it, he should not be allowed to have an opinion of what he saw.

 

As far as the man in your example that comes out of nowhere, I have not looked into it deeply and have no familiarity with it.  I can say right off the bat  I am doubtful.

 

The reasonable intent of what I posted previously on this subject is there for all who want to actually understand it / to get it.

 

You pull these bigfoot sighting examples out of some file you have sitting around.  Thus we go down the bunny trail and get lost real quick.

Certainly you understand each reported encounter must be taken on a detailed case by case basis.  This would be no different than a robbery report to the police.  It must be taken on a case by case basis.  Why else would there be 1000's of post under the heading "the PGF"     This is just one encounter.  One case   1000's of posts devoted to the study of one case.  

 

Thus I have no opinion of the case you are bringing up and probably won't with the other ones you may wish to throw out there.

 


 Saying you think Bigfoot is not impossible is pandering.

 

 

 

Since science would say Bigfoot is not impossible now science is pandering.  Who is science pandering to?  Oh wait, you just admitted in post #118 science does not say Bigfoot is impossible, so who are you pandering to?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

 

As you will read in my post (one that you have taken all over the place at this point) the fox issue is about the subject matter.  All things being equal a fox can be sighted and some witnesses claim they have sighted a Bigfoot subject.  I have not nor do I expect to in Iowa should they exist.

 

 

If you think that sightings of foxes and of Bigfoot are in any manner comparable or all things being equal, your sense of logic is in serious disrepair. 

 

What you expect or are comfortable with is non sequitur. The fact is what is convenient for your confort zone beliefs with Bigfoot and what your fellow Bigfooters are actually doing  are highly at odds.

 

Henry May's sightings to not fit your preconceived notions of what Bigfoot is supposed to be and thus it is not something you will stand and face. You are running every bit as much from that uncomfortable reality as you think skeptics are with your filtered see no evil autistic lost child and wow the PNW is so vast argument. 

 

Unfortunately for you, Bigfoot is not staying in those remote places you need it to be to maintain your belief system.

 

I am quite satisfied that Henry May did not fabricate his reports of Bigfoot in Mississippi and Georgia. People can see foxes and not have to bend their understanding of the world because foxes are an established reality of nature. Bigfoot is not and if you see one and you find yourself looking for explanations that fit with the world as we understand it, that is completely reasonable.

 

Try to come to the place where you don't run away from what is actually being reported, where you don't get cooties from a report because it doesn't fit within your established paradigm.

 

The sighting details are laid out for your along with the conditions. The witness is a member here, an honest and sincere person. What alternatives can you suggest for his sightings?

 

If you have no alternatives to suggest, your remote fallacy will never have any legitimacy and you clearly have no interest in trying to address the problems with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Oh Kit,

How did we get on the porch with an 8 ft bigfoot?

Backdoc

 

Finding Bigfoot. Bigfoot on the Deck. It licked the glass door, at the same height as the Golden Retriever's nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^But can't you see it? He's open to the possibility.

 

:crazy:

 

 

Oh, absolutely, rogue....anyone can see that....kit states that very clearly... ;)

 

I'm just not sure whether or not I should "continue doing this in 2014"....or, if I come across to people as a "weirdish dinner guest"....(I'm all worried about Thanksgiving now... :o ).....or, if this interest of mine will cause me to "get fat"...or "make my hair quicken gray"....(fortunately, that awful side-effect hasn't happened yet...at 56 :) )....or, whether I should consider other people's Bigfoot sighting reports as "absurd/bizarre" or........."reasonable"??? 

 

I just don't know what to think, at the moment.....but, I am optimistic that kit will straighten this all out, for us.

 

 

 

Hey kit...just trying to get some clarification here...

 

How about David Griffin....is it reasonable to think that he is being honest in his testimony, when he says...."I saw what I saw...and, I know what I saw"....(at about the 3:50 mark)...

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bigfoot is simply a Bigfoot of the Gaps now.  Containing attributes designed to counter any scientific claims of non-existence.  

 

Someone said there is no evidence of Bigfoot passing through, someone created plaster casts of a giant human foot.

 

I say Bigfoot should have been photographed by now, you attribute this to an ability to detect game cams.

 

I say Bigfoot should have been collected by 100's or 1000's of years of human terrain destruction and exploitation, you attribute this to Bigfoot's ability to be elusive.

 

I say Bigfoot would have been wiped out by extensive Bare-Earth logging as the other large animals were East of the Mississippi, you say that Bigfoot has the ability to migrate out, to safer pastures, and then migrate back into the areas.

 

I say Bigfoot would have been shot by a hunter, you say he can sense guns.

 

I say a Bigfoot corpse would have been found by now, you say they carry off their dead.

 

I say a Bigfoot fossil should have been found by now, you say the soils Bigfoot die in destroy fossils.

 

I say Gigantopithicus has never been found within 5000 miles of Beringea, you say, we just haven't found them yet.

 

Can you think of any more GAP arguments for Bigfoot's existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

 

Let me just take one of your points for now.

 

I don't often hear people say Bigfoot carry off their dead. I don't doubt some have said this.   It does seem to me when serious people have looked into the idea of why we don't have Bigfoot bodies laying around in the woods, better things are offered.

 

I have watched shows where they basically take a dead animal and put in in the woods and put a camera on it. In no time all traces (or nearly) are gone due to the wild reclaiming the deer or whatever.

 

I know this does not prove or disprove Bigfoot, but I do think it does a better job offering a more reasoned reason to answer your point.  Would you say that  is reasonable based on the actual tests they conduct on this?  Put another way, is there anything is that answer you would have a disagreement?

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What hurt Bigfoot more than anything was

 

Bigfoot is simply a Bigfoot of the Gaps now.  Containing attributes designed to counter any scientific claims of non-existence.  

 

Someone said there is no evidence of Bigfoot passing through, someone created plaster casts of a giant human foot.

 

I say Bigfoot should have been photographed by now, you attribute this to an ability to detect game cams.

 

I say Bigfoot should have been collected by 100's or 1000's of years of human terrain destruction and exploitation, you attribute this to Bigfoot's ability to be elusive.

 

I say Bigfoot would have been wiped out by extensive Bare-Earth logging as the other large animals were East of the Mississippi, you say that Bigfoot has the ability to migrate out, to safer pastures, and then migrate back into the areas.

 

I say Bigfoot would have been shot by a hunter, you say he can sense guns.

 

I say a Bigfoot corpse would have been found by now, you say they carry off their dead.

 

I say a Bigfoot fossil should have been found by now, you say the soils Bigfoot die in destroy fossils.

 

I say Gigantopithicus has never been found within 5000 miles of Beringea, you say, we just haven't found them yet.

 

Can you think of any more GAP arguments for Bigfoot's existence?

 

I say the end of Bigfoot started when all the "DNA proof" in hair, frozen boxes... turned out to be fake.

 

Hoaxers would have been much farther ahead if they left the phony bologna out of the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Drew,

 

Let me just take one of your points for now.

 

I don't often hear people say Bigfoot carry off their dead. I don't doubt some have said this.   It does seem to me when serious people have looked into the idea of why we don't have Bigfoot bodies laying around in the woods, better things are offered.

 

I have watched shows where they basically take a dead animal and put in in the woods and put a camera on it. In no time all traces (or nearly) are gone due to the wild reclaiming the deer or whatever.

 

I know this does not prove or disprove Bigfoot, but I do think it does a better job offering a more reasoned reason to answer your point.  Would you say that  is reasonable based on the actual tests they conduct on this?  Put another way, is there anything is that answer you would have a disagreement?

 

 

Backdoc

 

You are utilizing Bigfoot of the Gaps arguments again.

 

You are saying that Bigfoot is the only animal that dies and decomposes or gets eaten before anyone can discover it, or it can get fossilized.

 

Dead Bears, Deer, Elk, Moose, all get found in the same areas Bigfoot lives.  Regardless of how fast one or some carcasses get scavenged, there are some that do not decay before being discovered, there are some that do not disappear before being fossilized.

 

Even on a scavenged carcass, a bone or a skull , even if found randomly in the woods, would be anthropologically tested and found to not be human.

Seriously, think about this, we have a creature that is supposedly so elusive and crafty, that it doesn't get killed and eaten by hungry loggers, it avoids game cams WITHOUT FAIL, it sneaks into subdivisions and looks into windows undetected by security cams, when it dies it decomposes before anyone can stumble upon it.

 

YET!

 

* They lay down in the middle of a paved road, while a truck or van slows down and drives right past them.

 

* They throw rocks, howl, steal food, directing attention at themselves

 

* They need to bend trees to navigate the forest

 

* The break the rear legs of deer in a spiral fashion.  Why? Do they like to watch the deer in agony?, are they simply increasing the danger to themselves by maiming the creature rather than going for a swift killing neck shot or throat choke?

 

Absurd.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If there were fewer bears for the sake of an animal wouldn't such dead parts be harder to find.  

 

I see dead deer on the roads 1-2 a week in prime deer hunting country here is Iowa.  Deer walk down my street here in town.

 

But I have never seen a Bobcat even though they are starting to make a comeback.

 

I imagine it would be harder to find a dead Bobcat vs a dead deer.  

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I've thought I've seen one, and don't believe in Bigfoot.

 

With an honest look at the total devastation of most of our country, by loggers, miners, farmers, etc... , and the complete, thorough exploration of this countries backwoods, at one time by explorers, and now by weekend hikers and bikers, and Snowmobilers, Those who thought they saw a BF could realize that there is no Bigfoot.  It is this lack on an honest open look at how little space there actually is, that would preclude either a body being found, or some verifiable evidence that such a creature exists.

 

With an honest look at the fallability of the human mind,Those who thought they saw a Bigfoot could see that the subject is a product of imagination, neurological disorders, or chemical imbalance.

 

Those who thought they saw a Bigfoot, are supporting their belief through rationalization, not through facts.  

 

If you thought you saw a Bigfoot, and can't look at the complete lack of evidence, and the fallibility of the human mind, and say, 'You know what? That wasn't a Bigfoot. What have I been doing ?' Then I consider that unreasonable in light of the lack of evidence, and the known ability of the mind to fill in blanks and create features that don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I've thought I've seen one, and don't believe in Bigfoot.

 

 

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, Drew...regarding the 'probability' of Bigfoot existing. :)

 

 

 

With an honest look at the total devastation of most of our country, by loggers, miners, farmers, etc... , and the complete, thorough exploration of this countries backwoods, at one time by explorers, and now by weekend hikers and bikers, and Snowmobilers, Those who thought they saw a BF could realize that there is no Bigfoot.  It is this lack on an honest open look at how little space there actually is, that would preclude either a body being found, or some verifiable evidence that such a creature exists.

 

With an honest look at the fallability of the human mind,Those who thought they saw a Bigfoot could see that the subject is a product of imagination, neurological disorders, or chemical imbalance.

 

Those who thought they saw a Bigfoot, are supporting their belief through rationalization, not through facts.  

 

If you thought you saw a Bigfoot, and can't look at the complete lack of evidence, and the fallibility of the human mind, and say, 'You know what? That wasn't a Bigfoot. What have I been doing ?' Then I consider that unreasonable in light of the lack of evidence, and the known ability of the mind to fill in blanks and create features that don't exist.

 

 

But what about the people who claim to have had clear sightings...such as David Griffin?? 

 

kitakaze says that it is "reasonable" to think you may have seen a Bigfoot...if you had an unclear sighting of something in the woods....(Scott Herriot's case, for example).....but, what about crystal-clear, up-close alleged Bigfoot sightings?

 

Is it "reasonable" to think that those people may be 100% honest, in their testimony...and may have seen a Bigfoot? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...