Guest Crowlogic Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Ok. Um ... do you have a point? If so, could you state it? Y' know, 'cause "OMG" I can't read your mind? MIB The points are several. Reports of extreme size are overstated either by willful exaggeration or poor measuring skills and perception. This is of course assumes it exists. The upper end of the scale boarders on Hollywood's Mighty Joe Young. But can anyone reasonably believe that massive creatures are living among us all but unseen? How long do you think it would take the corpse of a 12 foot bigfoot to decompose into invisible? The short answer is a long time and that's just one problems of mega big being mega unknown. Perhaps it's less known today but in the late 60's early 70's folks were seeing 15 ft tall bigfoot! But that faded away when perhaps it was realized that it wasn't a believable figure. OK- one of the two that I saw had to be at least ten feet. I say this because seated on its rear, the top of its head was at 6 feet. I know this because that is the middle of the passenger side window of the truck I was driving at the time. We were on level ground, and the subject was only inches from my passenger side door. Is using a vehicle I knew extremely well an OK method of judging height? The BF to the immediate left of the man is 10 feet tall. There are those that say the the nonbelievers don't do their homework. well I have done my homework and this is what mega size actually scales into the real world.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Perhaps it's less known today but in the late 60's early 70's folks were seeing 15 ft tall bigfoot! But that faded away when perhaps it was realized that it wasn't a believable figure. None of the reports I've read from the 60's or 70's have mentioned anything that big and there's hardly any reports available from that time, except for some that were published in newspapers and a few books. There's a few reports that I know which mention something around that size, but they're all pretty recent. Edited June 6, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 The sighting reports have a staggering number of height comparison references, and it is not really surprising at all. Something is spotted next to something, and that something becomes your yardstick. Why? (Here's a real mind-blower for y'all, I know...) Because that is what people do. Whether it is that twisted limb on the sweet gum tree the ice storm broke off last Easter, that patch on the barn siding Uncle Billy nailed up right before he shipped out to Iraq, or the bluebird house Vernon nailed up three summers ago, even though I told him there weren't no bluebirds around here, and weren't never gonna be either, but he had to try, and do you know I turned out to be right.... People being people, doing what people do. Mind blowing, I know. The consistency in the reports must be explained, and to go all over the place looking for fails in the understandable stuff that people do ain't cuttin' it. Crow, you're fighting this and it's a losing fight. You'll get it. I am just wondering when.
WSA Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) This from the one who wants all to bring out their best evidence, forthwith? Sure, we'll be sure to get right on that one Crow. Let Ohio Bill know they got us working in SHIFTS!!! I'm coming around to the idea that solving one's personal preconceptions is beyond the scope of this board, if I ever believed it. Besides DWA, you are much better at it than I will ever be. Edited June 8, 2015 by WSA
salubrious Posted June 8, 2015 Moderator Posted June 8, 2015 OMG it was 12 feet tall or it was 10 or 9 feet tall. Here is what they say they are seeing. And best of all it's everywhere and better yet almost undetectable. That tallest bigfoot in my illustration is 12 feet tall. I measured the pole when I staged the photo. If that guy is 6 feet tall, the one on the right is 14 and the one on the left is 11-12'. Assuming he is 6 feet tall than the one on the far left was the size I saw. FWIW, seated on his rear he blocked nearly the entire lane, with about 6" between his rear and the center line, and with his palms place flat on the road surface ahead of his toes, about 6" to the line on the right of the road. This weekend I was at a friend's cabin where we have had occasional activity in the past (rock clacks on several occasions and some amazingly powerful woodknocks, so far nothing else so inconclusive). I can easily imagine the '14' footer being able to hide in the Wisconsin and Minnesota forests- there is plenty of cover and food! If we ever find them, maybe in time we will also sort out why bodies are so elusive (although I am convinced that we have already documented bodies in the past, just not recognized them for what they are).
Guest DWA Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) If we ever find them, maybe in time we will also sort out why bodies are so elusive (although I am convinced that we have already documented bodies in the past, just not recognized them for what they are). 1. Body found; bear in attendance; hunter didn't get close enough to see it. 2. Hunter got close enough...and the society is making sure the secret is safe with him. 3. Hunter shot one...and described an animal right in line with what the mass of the evidence predicts. (Twice. One told Grover Krantz what the foot looked like. No surprise; Grover had already predicted such a structure.) Very very good reasons abound and have been stated here repeatedly why science didn't get either the body or parts. 4. Hiker found one. See 2. 5. Fisherman logger surveyor biologist geologist etc. See 2. 6. Driver hit one. Nobody needs *this* admin headache. SSU. 7. Logger hit one. Company needs the $$$. SSU. 8. Logger saw one; told company. Company needs the $$$. SSSU. I just started the list. About 334 bodies could have been found, minimum, with just those scenarios and no more in place, and we'd be *expected* to be where we are. And 334 is way way more than a scientist would predict. Edited June 8, 2015 by DWA
Guest DTRobers Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I find it interesting that both the proponents and the opponents of the existence argument are using the volume of reports to reach opposite conclusions. The proponents claim that the number and geographical range of sightings, tracks, and vocalization argues against hoaxing activity and misperception. The opponents claim that a population of relic hominids could not remain hidden if it included the number of individuals postulated by the acceptance of those same reports.
OkieFoot Posted July 29, 2015 Moderator Posted July 29, 2015 In order for the skeptics' position, that BF does not exist, to be true, every encounter, sighting, footprint, trackway, report, and Native American belief, must be a hoax or misidentification. Not most, not many, ALL. In order for proponents position to be true, only one needs to be real. I look at it the same way; the weight of the evidence. Look at sightings; I've read they number over 3,000. What are the odds every single one of the 3,000 people are mistaken or hoaxed? Undoubtedly many are misidentifications; and many sightings are just a quick glimpse or of very short duration and are inconclusive. However, look at the number of people that got a good look or at least a fairly good look and a very certain of what they saw. A lot of them describe a creature 7 ft. tall, or taller, covered with hair, and much bigger and bulkier than a human and you can't just dismiss there sightings very easily. And as far as sightings being a hoax: a number of people that get a good look are pretty certain of the size of the creature they saw, around 7ft., or taller. Are they all making up their sightings just for attention? Of ones that aren't: Are we supposed to believe there are a bunch of 7ft. tall people all around the country that own fur suits and pulling these hoaxes? What percent of the population is 7ft. or taller? I think it's about .01%. Furthermore, the percentage of men 6'2 or taller is only 4-5%.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I look at it the same way; the weight of the evidence. Look at sightings; I've read they number over 3,000. What are the odds every single one of the 3,000 people are mistaken or hoaxed? Undoubtedly many are misidentifications; and many sightings are just a quick glimpse or of very short duration and are inconclusive. However, look at the number of people that got a good look or at least a fairly good look and a very certain of what they saw. A lot of them describe a creature 7 ft. tall, or taller, covered with hair, and much bigger and bulkier than a human and you can't just dismiss there sightings very easily. And as far as sightings being a hoax: a number of people that get a good look are pretty certain of the size of the creature they saw, around 7ft., or taller. Are they all making up their sightings just for attention? Of ones that aren't: Are we supposed to believe there are a bunch of 7ft. tall people all around the country that own fur suits and pulling these hoaxes? What percent of the population is 7ft. or taller? I think it's about .01%. Furthermore, the percentage of men 6'2 or taller is only 4-5%. 100% so far.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Why would BF proponents waste time arguing with the likes of me or my ilk?? Oh yes, it's a Bigfoot forum. What better place to discuss BF than a Bigfoot forum? This should'nt be hard to comprehend. [Fwiw I have a LOT of people on ignore.] 1
norseman Posted July 30, 2015 Admin Posted July 30, 2015 So human observation is accurate? Humans know what they are seeing and describe what they see accurately? In the early 1980's when I was working for a magazine I used to drive my 1952 Jaguar to work once a week weather permitting. Well one morning one of the young guys in sales pokes his head into my office and tells me that on his way in that morning he saw a Jaguar just like mine for sale at a gas station. My car was not a common model they made less than 3000 of them so I quizzed the kid for details. He told me just like my car only the color was silver not green. He insisted I should go down and see it. So at lunch I drove over and saw the Jaguar for sale. Yes it was a silver Jaguar but that's where the accuracy ended. My car was a 1952 coupe XK 120 and I was looking at a 1969 silver E-Type roadster. But the kid saw a low slung car with wire wheels and a long nose and pegged it for my model. In fact the E-Type is nothing like and XK. So human beings get things wrong. They can mean well but they get things wrong. In arguments about size proponents will argue down 15 feet tall bigfoot claims saying how people are not good at judging size. thats a two way street, during the Vietnam war USMC recon teams reported trucks being used by the NVA along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the Ashau valley. Command would hear none of it and accused recon of falsifying reports. which is of the utmost shunt to their profession. to make a long story short a communist built truck axle was airlifted to commands front lawn.
Guest DWA Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 OP: It's not the proponents who are wasting their time. But I get a funny feeling you know that.
Recommended Posts