Most Compelling Encounter Reports, To You Personally?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I think one of the main reasons we denialists , realists or skeptics  have no solid evidence that the wonderful film is a hoax is the reason there is  no skeptical focus on  just the film. As I said the film is very compelling ,but can never really be 100 percent proven.I completely agree the  character of Patterson is not  relevant. I have read the arguments from both sides. The film is definitely a win for the believers. Unfortunately there is not much else to go with it.

[BC witness]

DWA, like yourself, I weigh each report against other reports, and these 3 are part of more than a hundred that share the Upper Fraser Valley and its tributaries, so they are not isolated cases. The Vedder Road case is just 3 km from the point where the Chilliwack River flows out onto the Sardis flats at Vedder Crossing, while the Cow Creek case is at a feeder creek that flows into the Chilliwack about 30 km upstream from that point. In another recent thread, "Hiker Found Dead", the location is on the Lindeman Lake trail, which lies in a pass between the Chilliwack River/Lake valley, and the Silverhope Creek/Skagit valley just to the east, so a logical corridor for foot travel between the 2 valleys. That pass lies about halfway up the Chilliwack, between Vedder Crossing, and Cow Creek, so all these sightings tend to corroberate each other.

 

I very recently heard several more reports, given on camera, that take place in one or the other of these adjacent valleys. You might see these on TV later this year.

[Terry]

Two more that didn't make my initial list:

 

 

I hadn't heard the second story before so thanks for posting!  You would think that if a bf had unintentionally come up on the boy like that so close and personal that over the years the same thing would have happened to someone else who was ready with a camera?  There are all sorts of birders and wildlife photographers who spend lots of time in the field and who would be ready for this type of incident.  Still a good, believable report!

 

t.

[Guest]

Apart from the obvious Patterson and Gimlin encounterm where they have the footage to back it up, I'd say old time reports like William Roe in the 1950s who gave a detailed description quite at odds with the feeling at the time. Or summer deputy sheriff Verlin Herrington in 1969 who was pressured by his bosses to change his story to a bear encounter. He didn't and stuck to his guns. He wasn't re-hired the next summer. Or multiple witness encounters such as the Crandell Campground incident in 1988. The more I think of it, there are lots of compelling encounters for me. I could go on and on but that's just a sample.

[beerhunter]

Proof of Bigfoot is in the bones, college instructor says

Professor believes he’s found proof the beast resides in the Mount St. Helens Area

 

Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:00 am

Proof of Bigfoot is in the bones, college instructor says By Justyna Tomtas
for The Reflector The Reflector

 

Is the mystery of Bigfoot’s existence finally solved?

One Centralia College professor said he has discovered scientific evidence that proves the creature’s existence.

He believes the information will be one of the biggest scientific finds of the century.

Mitchel Townsend, a Winlock resident and teacher in the college’s Continuing Education program, said he was walking through the woods near Ryan Lake in East Lewis County when he came across a stack of bones. The find itself was unusual since predators typically disperse remains rather quickly, he said. Upon further inspection, he noticed large human-like teeth imprints in the bones.

“I got to looking at the bones and they had been gnawed on by what looked to me to be giant human teeth,†he said.

After two of his students from Lower Columbia College found two more stacks of bones on the south side of Mount St. Helens, he said it became clear the “kill sites†were similar in a variety of ways. The bone stacking technique is specific to a humanoid and was cited as human behavior, he said.

Again, human-like teeth imprints were notched into the bones.

No predator impressions or tool marks were found on the remains, and after consulting with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Townsend said, all natural predators in the area were ruled out.

The two additional sites located by his students shed more light on the creature responsible for the activity.

The trio found footprints with a length of 16 inches, he claims. Height, weight and proportion calculations, paired with the length of the stride between steps, conferred the creature had to be about 8 feet, 8 inches tall. Although the footprints looked human, they had a much wider and broader profile and did not have an arch.

“If you add it all up, you have an 8-foot, 8-inch tall creature that is killing animals at different areas of Mount St. Helens with its bare hands, chewing them up, literally skin and bones and all, and spitting them out between its legs,†Townsend said.

The teeth marks in the bone show what Townsend said were impressions of incisors and canines, but 90 percent of the teeth were beyond “the range of human possibility.†As for the mouth size, the bite ratio was calculated at 2 1/2 times wider than that of a person.

The bones also showed dental signatures and different human chewing strategies from ancient caveman, including bone peeling, he said.

“The bottom line is only humans do that because of the shape of our teeth and the shape of our jaw so we have to gnaw on the edge of (the bone),†Townsend said.

A double arch structure also showed the teeth were closely related to the Neanderthals, and the molars left triangular impressions as opposed to circular impressions an ape or chimpanzee would leave, he said.

The evidence is what the professor said was forensic dental evidence and behavioral evidence showing the massive creature is part human. His discovery aims to prove there is in fact a hominin species living in the area of Mount St. Helens that derived from the breeding of Native Americans and a giant ape.

“My theory is it’s not an ape, it’s a hybrid that has been interbreeding with Native Americans for the last 80,000 years,†Townsend said. “That’s why it is so smart and it has human teeth.â€

Townsend’s information will be published in a research paper, and he challenges the scientific community to discredit his information. He said the four-year project helped solve the mystery because the focus was based on forensic evidence. The information used was also heavily based on comparison proof from the top scientists in the world.

“The evidence stands on its own, you prove the evidence wrong,†he said, adding that the bones would be made available for examination to any scientist who wanted to examine the remains. “… We’ve put thousands of hours in this. We just want to give this to the world and the scientific community free of charge to add to the scientific body of knowledge.â€

 

Here is a recent article about actual people in the field doing their best to take a scientific approach to BF.   

 

[JDL]

Very interesting.  Tried to follow the link, though and couldn't.

Found it by searching this link.  http://www.thereflector.com/news/article_a10bc414-03db-11e5-bbbf-af83bd8208b9.html

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thank you for sharing . I think that is very interesting and will be looking forward to more information and supporting evidence.

I hope other professionals follow up on this . Most likely is a known predatory species ,but I suppose time will tell.

[MNskeptic]

I like Mike Wooley's encountered described in several interviews on the net.

[bipedalist]

Very interesting.  Tried to follow the link, though and couldn't.

Found it by searching this link.  http://www.thereflector.com/news/article_a10bc414-03db-11e5-bbbf-af83bd8208b9.html

Beerhunter and JDL we have a whole thread about that research at What about the bones thread

ch

[WSA]

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=32249

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1719

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5801

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=34954

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36004

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37304

[Guest DWA]

I hadn't heard the second story before so thanks for posting!  You would think that if a bf had unintentionally come up on the boy like that so close and personal that over the years the same thing would have happened to someone else who was ready with a camera?  There are all sorts of birders and wildlife photographers who spend lots of time in the field and who would be ready for this type of incident.  Still a good, believable report!

 

t.

The only thing I can say is...had I had a camera to my eye, the shot wouldn't have happened.  Many *have* had one ready...and realized after the encounter that, oh, camera.  I guess this is what happens when you see something that you knew wasn't real.  Seems plausible enough to me.  P and G went in specifically to get what they got, and prepared for just the thing that happened.

[Guest DWA]

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=32249  Debunked.  Fence contractors are NUTS.  If they don't speak your language:  DOUBLE NUTS.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1719    Debunked.  Key word:  TRAILER.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5801    Debunked.  Anything near AL:  swamp gas and key word:  TRAILER.  Plus, fisherman.  They are never up to any good.  So, um, er...lie.  Right.  LIE.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=34954  Debunked.  Read about all that stress.  He probably had this hallucination at work.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36004  Debunked.  Key word:  construction.  The fumes ALONE.  Plus stress, impress buddies, get contracts, OK, LIE.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37304  Debunked.  Dirt bike.  I hope I don't have to continue here.

 

Or, you know, a body might just read them; wonder why someone would say this; would recognize that "people do this" means people who tend to bring unwanted attention onto themselves, and, um, this many of them doing that over A BIG APE, that they are borrowing specialist expertise to consistently describe, um, oh, OK  there; and...well, I just have to say that those debunks are right in line with skeptical par for course.  They are not exaggerations.

[WSA]

What I find pretty compelling in those FL reports I posted is the personality that comes through. These encounters are with animals with quirks, curiosity and motivations that give it that "X" factor for me. The one described by that witness as looking like it was "in despair" struck me especially. Who writes something like that into a hoaxed report? Really? Over the years and hundreds of reports you come to see these encounters are as unique as much as they are similar. If they were all being ginned up by hoaxers, I'll just say I've never seen liars so consistently creative while paying such close attention to baseline animal traits.   

 

O.K., one I didn't post: A witness who claims to have lived around them for years, and has hunted them with no success. On the one hand, he claims that when they are shot, they merely look at the shooter with a bewildered, "Why did you do that?" expression.   On the other hand, their reported inability to link murderous intent with a need to evade and avoid has some eerie similarities with the NAWAC's experiences.

[Guest DWA]

Well, you have said it before:  people just aren't that good.  What they are exceptional at is coming up with any conceivable excuse for believing what will keep them comfortable.  One can see that nowhere as well as one can see that here.  When you have no explanation, you will damsite make one up:  

 

• a suit that doesn't exist (no evidence, ever, and like one person who has ever claimed one and his story changes all the time);
• the camera couldn't be showing what it shows because this guy is a *snake,* he actually like did some less than perfect things;
• a variety of possibilities, because one of them HAS to fit it HAS to...particularly when one finds no evidence for any of them;
• a failure to recognize how statistical probability works ...combined with an inability to apply it when one actually might have a clue, ditto one's scientific specialty;
• disrespecting thousands of experiences and claiming sole priority for one's lack of one;

...whoops, sorry, bigfoot skeptics do this to people.  

 

I think we all find different things compelling to us.  None of these made my list (and a number didn't that I kind of went, hmmm, what about that?).  But re-reading them (yes, folks, we really do read all of them), one is still faced with the constants:  between five and a dozen, if not more, guidebook-true indicators, and ...who, really, would make that up...??

[Guest DWA]

I put a lot of time into this one. The camera in the phone was authenticated, image deletions were detected, collateral witness revealed big conflicts in material facts of the event and the primary witness confessed to deception on the third interview.

 

The primary BFRO investigator did not respond to my request for an interview.

 

 

Wow!  Take that one off the list then.  OK, skeptics...only a few thousand more...but remember we have a film proven to be the real thing.

 

I'm gonna do threads like this one more often!  Finally somebody does what I've been bugging the skeptics to do forever...and got ONE.

 

Do wanna know this though...what's it still doing up there...?

 

 

Shoot, let's ask more questions.  That's what skeptics do.

 

1.  Image deletions?  I do that all the time, what kind?  One has to show that the images here were altered, and how.

2.  What were the differences between witnesses?  Different estimates of time height and weight simply show how bad folks are at those things.  What were the differences?  Spell them out.  Bigfoot skeptics routinely jump on the wrong things.  Two people seeing the same thing will have different recollections...which can still show the consistency one would expect.

3.  So, the guy just laughed and said, fooled ya?  Really, what did the guy say?  How did he fess up?  One can say "fake" when it wasn't; bigfoot skeptics routinely expect crazier stuff than that; and that happens all the time.

 

Details!  Science demands it.

 

 

From a purely skeptical standpoint...when do I put this one back on the list?  

 

I always had reservations about aspects of it.  For one, the images don't seem to be in the sequence one would expect for a progression down that hill.  (In fact it is kind of hard to construct such a sequence.)  For another, one could make the case that several different gorilla shots were Photoshopped in, as some of the pics do appear to be different individuals.  For another, aspects of the testimony - particularly about the gait coming down the hill, on which the investigator did what one should and dug deeper - seemed odd to me.  But nothing seemed so implausible - nor stil does - that this could not have happened; and one needs evidence before pronouncing sentence.

 

For which I am still waiting.  Just what skeptics do.  

 

(edited to add what a scientist would think)

Edited June 15, 2015 by DWA