The Birth Of Bigfoot ?

[Guest]

 

People trust their senses and tend to believe what they see but it is sometimes not as simple as seeing and reporting what was objectively there. In ambiguous situations we can be influenced by what we expect (or perhaps hope) to see.

 

 

 

And in unambiguous situations????

[Guest]

 

People trust their senses and tend to believe what they see but it is sometimes not as simple as seeing and reporting what was objectively there. In ambiguous situations we can be influenced by what we expect (or perhaps hope) to see.

 

 

 

And in unambiguous situations????

Edited July 27, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[bipedalist]

No, BF is not a creation of the Harrison Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce.  More than a few ceremonial masks and totems not to mention stone carvings have been extant probably even before the newspaper mastheads of the 1800's posted by Gigantor compliments of Tirademan.  Stick Indian comes to mind when thinking about J.W. Burns.  

Edited July 27, 2015 by bipedalist

[Night Walker]

And in unambiguous situations????

 

Then obtaining objective evidence should be a snap - which is not the case for either the Milwaukee lion nor Bigfoot...

the tracks i saw were doing things no man could do. At some point size does become the issue. and unlike a fleeting glimpse? tracks dont lie, your not mistaking a cougar track with a house cat.

 

Of course tracks can lie - are you unaware of the long folk-history of faking large human-like footprints and trackways?

 

Like I said - it is natural to trust your senses but if you think you cannot be deceived by them then you are mistaken. The solution to the Bigfoot phenomena may not be out there (in the wilds) but in here (inside our collective heads)...

[norseman]

Then obtaining objective evidence should be a snap - which is not the case for either the Milwaukee lion nor Bigfoot...

 

Of course tracks can lie - are you unaware of the long folk-history of faking large human-like footprints and trackways?

 

Like I said - it is natural to trust your senses but if you think you cannot be deceived by them then you are mistaken. The solution to the Bigfoot phenomena may not be out there (in the wilds) but in here (inside our collective heads)...

The wallace tracks were they pull a guy down a dirt road with a pickup with wood stompers to get a stride? thats not what im talking about........those dont fool anyone.

Its impossible to fool a good tracker. You can slow him down but you cannot fool him. From Walking backwards to walking creeks, you cannot conceal the evidence of your passing, but you can try to minimize it.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

There is not even the possibility that the birth of bigfoot occurred in the 50's. There are plenty of accounts that precede the events you are referring to, some coming over a century before. There are numerous credible mentions of bigfoot from the 19th century. If you are willing to believe sporadic individual reports, you can go back even further. I think that we can be certain of the earlier reports considering the large number in existence, while reports before the 19th century are, understandably, much less common. This is not to say that there were human encounters occurring regularly, because the Native Americans were still having run-ins with sasquatch all the time. They simply did not have a culture like that found in Europe and the early Americas, where journalism was relatively prevalent. Plus, America in the 18th century was restricted mostly to the eastern seaboard, and although it can be expected that there were many encounters, the chance of those actually being recorded were much less than those which came in later centuries.

 

Thus it could be claimed that there are not enough cases to make an analysis based upon probability. The 19th century reports can be analyzed for key clues that suggest authenticity, including descriptions of the animals themselves, analysis of activity throughout the years leading up to modern times, etc. We can simply be more certain about those accounts being more than individual hoaxes perpetrated by newspapers or random people, because bigfoot was NOT present in pop culture at the time. The 50's and 60's is when I would say bigfoot started to become a pop culture phenomenon, but that says absolutely nothing about the authenticity of the species itself. Just because the idea of bigfoot really took off around this time does not mean that bigfoot must have been an idea invented around this time. And anyone who would say that enterprising individuals simply reinvented Native American accounts and essentially created a hoax that spawned the idea of sasquatch would be wrong, plain and simple. There is absolutely no chance that this occurred.

[Night Walker]

The wallace tracks were they pull a guy down a dirt road with a pickup with wood stompers to get a stride? thats not what im talking about........those dont fool anyone.

Its impossible to fool a good tracker. You can slow him down but you cannot fool him. From Walking backwards to walking creeks, you cannot conceal the evidence of your passing, but you can try to minimize it.

 

Plenty of Bigfoot-inclined people were fooled by the Wallace tracks for a long time. Krantz had developed a supposedly fool-proof system of print analysis and he was fooled on more than one occasion. Meldrum and Bindernagel apparently still think the Skookum cast was made by Bigfoot's butt rather than an elk lay. Which are the authentic tracks that have lead to Bigfoot or produced unambiguous verifiable evidence of Bigfoot? If you firmly believe in the existence of Bigfoot and are confident in your own ability to detect deception then you are actually an easy target and the chances are you've already been fooled by someone or one's own self. Simply expressing an interest in Bigfoot is enough to have family, friends, acquaintances, and even people we don't even know coming out of the wood-work to play prankster (which is neither illegal nor immoral)...

 

If no Bigfoot track has ever yielded any objective evidence in support of Bigfoot then why aren't good trackers invited to inspect fresh Bigfoot tracks? Surely, their independent expertise would come in handy...

[Guest]

Then obtaining objective evidence should be a snap - 

 

 

Unambiguous sightings should be a snap to provide evidence for? How so?

[bipedalist]

Here is theone reference to the J.W. Burns historiography for those interested:  http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/jwburns.htm

 

Note also that the "Rendezvous" and gathering of BF in certain locales as referenced above has apparently been witnessed by Thom Cantrell as he related at the Bremerton, Team Squatchin USA 1st Annual Conference in April of this year (whether it is at the Morris Mountain location related in the above reference I couldn't tell you). 

Edited July 28, 2015 by bipedalist

[norseman]

Plenty of Bigfoot-inclined people were fooled by the Wallace tracks for a long time. Krantz had developed a supposedly fool-proof system of print analysis and he was fooled on more than one occasion. Meldrum and Bindernagel apparently still think the Skookum cast was made by Bigfoot's butt rather than an elk lay. Which are the authentic tracks that have lead to Bigfoot or produced unambiguous verifiable evidence of Bigfoot? If you firmly believe in the existence of Bigfoot and are confident in your own ability to detect deception then you are actually an easy target and the chances are you've already been fooled by someone or one's own self. Simply expressing an interest in Bigfoot is enough to have family, friends, acquaintances, and even people we don't even know coming out of the wood-work to play prankster (which is neither illegal nor immoral)...

If no Bigfoot track has ever yielded any objective evidence in support of Bigfoot then why aren't good trackers invited to inspect fresh Bigfoot tracks? Surely, their independent expertise would come in handy...

they are.......

http://www.tracknature.com/x/home.php

as for the rest of it? its all conjecture on your part. the trackway i saw with the terrain and snow depth could not be made by a man.

Edited July 28, 2015 by norseman

[Night Walker]

Unambiguous sightings should be a snap to provide evidence for? How so?

 

Events which are unambiguous in nature can be (and usually are) documented in some way(s) which demonstrate that they objectively happened. Events that are purely subjective in nature are unable to be objectively documented. Such subjective experiences (like seeing the "Milwaukee lion", Bigfoot, or a ghost or UFO), however, may be experienced as "real" and can be as (inspiring/terrifying) as any objective experience...

 

 

 

they are.......

http://www.tracknature.com/x/home.php

as for the rest of it? its all conjecture on your part. the trackway i saw with the terrain and snow depth could not be made by a man.

 

 

The only thing I could find about Bigfoot on that site was an ad for a seminar featuring Todd Standing's bunny (ie the Bigfoot-butt-in-the-mud guy). That's not encouraging particularly when I've been stressing the importance of independent analysis and about how easy it is to be tricked by others or by our own selves... 

 

I'd be interested in hearing more from Dr. Halfpenny on the subject, though - do you know if such info available somewhere without the $250 price-tag?

[Night Walker]

as for the rest of it? its all conjecture on your part. the trackway i saw with the terrain and snow depth could not be made by a man.

 

Did you document the trackway?

[Guest]

Events which are unambiguous in nature can be (and usually are) documented in some way(s) which demonstrate that they objectively happened. 

 

 

 

We already have that with the PGF. Good footage (non-replicable with a human in a suit) and a good track way with two eyewitneses.....yet still the scoftics reject it.

The goal posts are always moving for these such people.

[Rockape]

Sorry. Maybe the title was errant.

Obviously not the birth of hairy wildman stories but the birth of the modern social construct of bigfoot.

I read both of your posts and links. Both are appreciated but I haven't had time to address yet.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the modern social construct of bigfoot", but if I understand correctly it started with the internet and as Doc noted, greed. Before the internet and messageboards, forums, etc. I'd say most didn't have access to the tons of information out there nor a place to discuss it. Most probably never gave much if any thought to research and documentation before that either.

 

We also have those who try to turn a profit from bigfoot and therefore propagate stories, usualy the more ridiculous the better, in order to generate revenue. I believe we are seeing that here with this sudden influx of Sasquatch Chronicles people and their steady promotion of Bob Garrett.

[Guest Crowlogic]

We already have that with the PGF. Good footage (non-replicable with a human in a suit) and a good track way with two eyewitneses.....yet still the scoftics reject it.

The goal posts are always moving for these such people.

Goalposts move get over it.  As details/information is gained assumptions and presumptions are entitled to change.  What can you present in this world that is without change and immune to change?