Consistency In Sighting Reports

[Guest Crowlogic]

The thing about this is that it's a multivariate analysis, and pings are happening all over the map.  To all the things BobbyO plots on one can add the consistencies in behavior and morphology that are perfectly congruent with those of known primates, the great apes in particular.  Every time I read a report I tick off all the guidebook consistencies I have seen in the other reports I have read.  There are rarely fewer than five.  The variety of ways one can say "compliant gait" or "sagittal crest" or "midtarsal break" or "prognathous jaw", without even knowing what those things are, are...well, about as varied as English.  And the reports prove it.  The voices are all the voices of a continent.  If they're all fake, then voila!  we have the Great American Novel.  People just are not this good...unless they are all describing a similar thing they all saw.  I can't see how anyone can understand what's up with these reports if one has not read them and drawn from an entire lifetime of experience, particularly of animals and the outdoors, in thinking about them.  And note that we aren't even talking about the footprints...which dovetail, with a precision one does not see outside wild nature, with the reports.  And we have a film that ties the whole thing up with a bow.  Sometimes, people, denial is denial.

 

 

Um...SEE!?!?

DWA the proof is a body.  It is the one and only thing that is proof.  Actually the Skookum cast is about the most entertaining and damning piece of evidence that exists.  I'm dumbfounded that anybody took that thing seriously.  Such are the straws grasped at I guess.  Perhaps there exists denial on both sides of the issue.

 

 Perhaps less hands get dirty in the field because on a more rational level even the believer knows it's an empty cause.  People go out and pan for gold.  It's really hard to make money panning for gold.  You can buy lottery tickets and do better.  But they do it anyway because they believe there is gold to be found.  The same with Bigfoot.  Finding it is a form of gold but requiring a bullet proof belief to get out and do it.  Gold is proven to exist in spite of it being as difficult to get as Bigfoot and there's a lotta folks doing it and some are bringing back gold itself not reports of gold or mystery gold.  BTW I've never panned for gold but I could write a pretty darn good essay of my time in the Rockies doing it.  Once again there is access to every type of activity imaginable now.  

Edited November 13, 2014 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

See you are stuck on this proof thing.  This hyper-empirical emphasis on must-have-proof is contrary to practically everything else we do in our daily existence as people.  If I could show you that 99% of what you accept you have no proof for you'd get it.  But then again...

 

What you say about Skookum indicates how little you understand about it.  Meldrum over you.  Krantz over you. This guy over you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daris_Swindler

 

Now if you are gonna tell me that I need to just trust you on this over them, well I need to see credentials.  And EVIDENCE.  (Remember:  if you say it was an elk you are automatically disqualified as someone I need to take seriously.  Hint:  elk do not levitate.)

 

Look.  I get that some people are really really frustrated (didn't you have a sighting?  You didn't answer that) that there hasn't been proof.  Take it from me:  it's a lot more fun to know this is probably real based on a judicious and thorough read of the evidence.  LOTS more fun; and you're right to boot!

Edited November 13, 2014 by DWA

[17x7]

I have only found one (1) track.  It was neither amazing nor proof of the creature.  No film crew showed up.  Never saw what made it.  It was just one small piece of evidence that really doesn't prove anything unless you understand the back story.  It could have been faked.  I don't see how.  Here is why.

 

A few hours drive into Oregon's high Cascades is an area my dad and I liked to hunt for deer.  This particular weekend we had not seen another person or rig anywhere.  Near the end of an unmaintained road was a '2-track' that turned off and made an ugly, rutted, climb up into a meadow and stopped at the top of the ridge a few hundred yards above.  I got out along this road and dropped into a draw and popped out at a game trail.  This trail didn't proceed to the road, but started (ended actually) at a spot where poachers had placed salt blocks years ago and animals now came to eat the salty soil left behind, and then went into a series of alpine meadows along the ridge.  My point is that you had to know this trail was there.  You couldn't see from anywhere, which is why the poachers used the spot.  I was going to walk this trail that led into the bottom of these meadows while my dad watched one of the meadows from the top side.  There hadn't been rain lately and the ground was baked hard.  Along the trail, there was a reasonably fresh mole hill and in it was this one track.  It measured roughly 17" inches long by 7" across at the ball of the foot.  The soil was mostly dry so the track had crumbled around the edges, but the shape was unmistakable.  You could see the shape of the toes and the outline of the whole foot.  Even the soil pushed up between the toes and ball, and the mid-tarsal break.  Instantly recognizable.

 

Why was this not so easy to have faked?  We spent somewhere around $75 bucks in fuel to get there.  We had seen nobody all weekend.  This track was not along a roadway.  It was not near any camp.  It was not even along the 2-track, but off a hidden trail that you can only find by knowing it was there and then some way down it.  Why would a hoaxer spend the money and time to get all the way to this place hoping to find a fresh mole hill (the ground was too dry and hard anywhere else) so they make one track in a place only visited by a couple of humans a year?  If they did such a thing, how did they get in and out without being noticed?  It just doesn't make sense to me.  Something made that print.  Now, it could have been a very artistic chipmunk with a twisted sense of humor or a BF.

That's my point.  Even a single print is easily overlooked and anyone can say, "Well, anybody can give size dimensions of a print and say they saw it.  That doesn't prove anything.  It would be so easy for somebody to have faked that."  Sure, sure it would.

 

17x7

[Guest DWA]

^^^But see, man, you don't get it.  To people who don't understand how the world works and who don't even realize that they absolutely know that no one they've ever met - and no one those people have ever met - would ever, in a thousand years, do something like that, well, it's obvious, fake, done.

 

"Just because you don't think it's possible to fake something like that..."  .   Uh-huh, sure, Mr. Bigfoot Skeptic.  Rriiiiiight.  YOU know it's almost impossible.  YOU DO.  You just don't know that you know that, because you suspend everything else you know when this is the topic under discussion.  Because that's the way Bigfoot Skeptical Mind works.  It doesn't consider everything else.  It just goes:

 

This.  Real?  Bigfoot:  not real.  So this?  Not real.

 

When you consign everything you have seen on this topic to total oblivion each time a new piece of evidence is under consideration:  it's easy, isn't it?

 

But here's where the bigfoot skeptics show their Achilles' heel.  I'd bet more that that track was made by a bigfoot than any of them would bet that it wasn't.  Know why?

 

They aren't well-informed enough to bet; and they know it.

(My track find was similar to yours.  I know what did it; because there is no rational way anything else on the planet did.)

Edited November 13, 2014 by DWA

[David NC]

17x7.  There is a large trust issue among a lot of people in the world now. It seems that  man is not good for their word anymore unless you prove yourself to someone. I bet that if someone they really trusted close to them (if they do trust anyone) were to have an experience then they would not be all the hoaxing/liar/misidentification talk being thrown at them. Crowlogic has a point in that Sasquatch information is all over the web for people to access and there are some reports that are falsely reported, some that are misidentification and anyone into this subject needs to be informed that they will have to deal with some of that stuff. Crowlogic you have provided a good point and the best thing to get an idea of what we are dealing with is to assign a probability percent to the amount of reports that you think are false. Taking the North American population, what percentage would you put on the average person making any statement being a lie?

[BobbyO]

^Hey Bobby. What animal population is illustrated in your graph? If it's deer and elk, why would a predator (BF) move out of the territory with a growing food source? Wouldn't it be natural for the population of predators to grow simultaneously?

 

It's Humans TM, in Colorado Springs.

 

Edit : David beat me to it, thanks, and sorry for not being clearer.

Edited November 13, 2014 by BobbyO

[salubrious]

 There is a huge difference between a liar/hoaxer and an honest mis ID or poorly interrupted sighting.

 

 

I am more curious than ever now- do you think I misidentified the creatures I saw? Just as a reminder, I saw them from no more than 10 feet in the brights of my headlights, and that was with the truck fully stopped. I had plenty of time to observe them before coming to the conclusion that, due to their size, maybe hanging around was not exactly the best move.

 

What I saw had no snout and so was not a bear. Nor could I see its ears- they were beneath the hair on its head. The pose was particularly striking- a dog, cat, buffalo, bear, porcupine- what have you- could not sit in that pose. I could clearly make out its torso, the diameter of its thighs, the length of its 'arms' (it was pretty obvious they were not legs, being no-where near as powerful nor the same length).

 

So- mis-identification? Or am I lying about this? Hallucinating? Because those are really the only options, that is if you can't allow for their existence. The 4th option is of course that I am telling the truth. Which do you think it is? If you don't want to answer its no worries, and I won't be offended by your response whatever it is. 

[Guest DWA]

 

 Perhaps less hands get dirty in the field because on a more rational level even the believer knows it's an empty cause.  

 

No, there are lots of good rational reasons.  Like mine:  if the mainstream doesn't want to know forget 'em.  All they have to do is invest themselves like I did and if they don't want to do that much, I'm OK making fun of them.  I don't owe 'em anything for their lack of curiosity and neither does anyone else.  It amuses me no end how die-hard scoffers act as if proponents owe them proof.  No they don't.  Now:  explain NAWAC to me.  You can't.  You don't know them.  I do.  Know why they're getting their hands dirty?  1 is the evidence.  2 is that most of them have seen one.  (Alton Higgins would say "scientist" to you if you saw him across a Wal-Mart parking lot at midnight.  He's seen one.  Him over you.)

 

People go out and pan for gold.  It's really hard to make money panning for gold.  You can buy lottery tickets and do better.  But they do it anyway because they believe there is gold to be found.  

 

And they, um, find it?  Yes they do.  Look for bigfoot you'll find him too.  Ask Roger Patterson.  Ask NAWAC.  Not doing too well on the real-world examples here.

 

  BTW I've never panned for gold but I could write a pretty darn good essay of my time in the Rockies doing it.  Once again there is access to every type of activity imaginable now.

 

That's why one story means nothing.  If you are honestly gonna tell me that every report is somebody doing that...it's more likely, from a purely rational standpoint, that centaurs are real.  It's more likely that a marble statue will wave its hand at me.  And yes, that is possible; a marble statue can wave its hand at me.  The odds against that happening are long, but they have been calculated.  See what you don't know?  Should give you pause.

[17x7]

Yeah.  I have a friend that had an unusual encounter with something while bear hunting once.  Whatever is was shadowed him in the darkness for about half a mile as he walked out.  His conclusion was a bear walked a half mile on it's back feet only and followed him out.  I asked him what made him think a bear would do that, bears can't walk on two feet that long and over rough terrain.  His answer was that a bear had to have found a way because the only other option was bigfoot and they don't exist. 

 

17x7

[BobbyO]

 

So- mis-identification? Or am I lying about this? Hallucinating? Because those are really the only options, that is if you can't allow for their existence. The 4th option is of course that I am telling the truth. Which do you think it is? If you don't want to answer its no worries, and I won't be offended by your response whatever it is. 

 

Ahh but Sal, this is the real crux of it.

 

For many on here, there is no 4th option, that one you gave just isn't there for them.

 

And around and around we go.

[salubrious]

Just as non-existence is no longer an option for me...

[Guest DWA]

Yeah.  I have a friend that had an unusual encounter with something while bear hunting once.  Whatever is was shadowed him in the darkness for about half a mile as he walked out.  His conclusion was a bear walked a half mile on it's back feet only and followed him out.  I asked him what made him think a bear would do that, bears can't walk on two feet that long and over rough terrain.  His answer was that a bear had to have found a way because the only other option was bigfoot and they don't exist. 

 

17x7

 

Oh.  Bears don't shadow people like that either unless they're planning to eat them.  So.  According to his very own logic, he must have been eaten, because the only other option is...

 

...and there's the rationality we're dealing with, exhibited by "rational" people.  Sheesh.

Edited November 13, 2014 by DWA

[Guest thermalman]

Thermalman. The graph above was for the human population growth in and around Colorado Springs.

Thanks David. There were no headings on it and the subject was deer and elk.

[David NC]

Thermalman the boil down of the post was that thru analyzing report data Bobbyo found a pattern of big increase in human population where they were a lot of reports before the human population growth. The sightings in the area dropped but the sightings moved progressively to a new area where there were not that many sightings of Sasquatch before and the new area also coincided with migration routes of deer and elk that were being tracked by hunting groups. A pattern with connections that should not be lining up like that if the reports were faked/ hoaxed etc.

[Incorrigible1]

By all means, someone drag a report in and plop it down on a scientist's dissection table. Detection issue solved.

 

 

Or not.