Where You Think Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Old Dog]

This would all mean something if Kit thought Sasquatch living in the Kootneys was not absurd but plausible.

But since we are to him all just chasing each other around with foam swords, Im putting him ignore and done playing this silly game.

Adios.

 I think I'll join you on that one Norseman.

[kitakaze]

This would all mean something if Kit thought Sasquatch living in the Kootneys was not absurd but plausible.

But since we are to him all just chasing each other around with foam swords, Im putting him ignore and done playing this silly game.

Adios.

 

ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€‚

I do not think Bigfoot living in the PNW is absurd...

 

 

 

I think Bigfoot existing is highly unlikely, and the best odds I'd give it is 1% within the PNW. It's a high enough probability to base belief on. As Drew mentioned, many Bigfooters put it much lower.

 

 

I think Woods & Wildmen is full of people all over North America doing very silly things, but I also think there are serious researchers whom I respect very much, who make very, very valuable contributions to wildlife conservation...

 

 

Major win for these guys...

http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/mammals/bigfoot-hunters-have-found-something-unexpected-in-del-norte-county.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=redefine

[kitakaze]

When he announced he was prepared to write a rebuttal to Bill Munns book BEFORE it came out... need I say more?

 

Because I have spent years being intimately familiar with Bill's arguments both in public discourse and private conversation. I knew much of what he was going to argue before it was published because I know Bill personally. This is not some shocking thing for two people who have spent many, many years in PGF research. There were many instances in which I agreed with Bill or felt he made a valuable contribution to understanding the PGF, such as documenting the filmmaker's physical movement during the shooting of the film, which I was I was very clear about. The interpretation is where the debate and discourse is.

 

People tend to take a reductionist view and want to black-hat those who have opposing viewpoints. 

[kitakaze]

 

To Gavin, you are the one that is absurd.  Do you feel comfortable with him judging you and your falling in lockstep with others in society?  I would imagine with all of your foreign experience, and being a sane, responsible and productive member of society,  you would be able to more than understand this concept, but maybe not.  Maybe you are simply falling victim to your own prejudices.

 

 

This is not specifically addressed at Old Dog, whom I encourage to use the ignore function, but addressing the point in general.

 

Old Dog's comment is fair, and as I said, there is flexibility. It's because of my foreign experience that I look at people all over North America falling in lockstep with tattoo abuse, hipster beards and ear stretching as absurd. Absurd like forehead implants here in Japan. Doing ridiculous and often permanent things to yourself because everyone is doing it. Absurd on lemming level.

 

But that is social commentary on society at large. Here we are dealing with a biological discussion of species range - specifically where does Bigfoot not exist. What this thread seems to show is that we can not seem to pin down a mutually acceptable place in North America where Bigfooters will agree Bigfoot does not exist. The North Dakota rash of sightings is a good example, I think. I think hoaxing to be the only likely explanation there, not misidentification of a known species or wishful thinking. I think someone was putting on a costume and messing with people at the trailer park, the home, and the highway and leaving fake tracks.

 

Are they insane? Do they not know there are people out there like Norseman who will drop them with a high calibre round if they are convincing in their hoax?

 

It does not matter, because people can most certainly be that stupid. No, really...

 

http://www.livescience.com/22742-bigfoot-hoaxer-killed-in-accident.html

 

Man hit by not one, but two vehicles in Montana doing exactly what I think was done on Highway 22 in North Dakota.

 

And yet when we are talking about North Dakota, people such as Norseman look for the fairy dust of Bigfoot belief, the trees and water, to justify Bigfoot being in those places. This is an understandable reaction, but let's be absolutely clear here, the trailer park , the house and the highway are very unambiguously places of human habitation and activity, places which any Bigfoot should be making a bee line away from, should they want to remain elusive.

 

So to this the Bigfoot enthusiast tries to maintain the suspension of disbelief and will say, "Well, they're animals, and intelligent and curious, so they will sometimes be motivated by hunger or curiosity to come into places of human habitation." I know this from having been so long a Bigfoot believer, that that was how I myself would justify similar reports if they came from where I thought Bigfoot did exist.

 

The problem is that intelligence, curiosity, instinctual or physical need that brings Bigfoot to the trailer park, the home, the highway, statistically that luck has to run out. Now factor in that what we are being presented with in this thread - literal coast to coast Bigfoots in every state and province - and we are well in the Twilight Zone, the state of absurdity. Bigfoot, no matter how stealthy or intelligent, simply could not exist like that and beat the odds. To have a species of massive land animal live in every state and province of Canada and the contiguous U.S. doing things the Bigfoot enthusiasts insist that they do, and never once have obtained the body that we should have had countless time over, that is the absurd.

 

So there has to be some line drawn where the absurd becomes plausible. There has to be some boundaries set, where we say OK, here and here and here, but there, no, that is too much. To the one who have answered with places such as North Dakota, New Mexico, etc, how do you account for the specific sightings presented from those places?

 

I think Bigfoot exists nowhere but in our minds and hearts, but if I am wrong, I expect it to be in somewhere like my homeland of Vancouver Island and most certainly not in a New Town, ND trailer park.

[Rockape]

Who is this Gavin and how did he get involved in all this?

[kitakaze]

Gavin is a fictional representative of an absurd North American trend created to highlight what can be reasonably considered absurd. He was created in response to the idea suggested about who can be the judge of what is absurd when Old Dog said this...

 

You are not the judge of what is absurd or not. 

 

 

Deeming Bigfoot in every province and state of North America as absurd is the most natural and expectable conclusion one can make when presented with the notion. I don't take any personal affront at the idea, but I do think it's a pretty huge toss under the bus of all the men and women across the continent who work in wildlife sciences when we talk seriously about pan-continental Bigfoot.

[Old Dog]

Who is this Gavin and how did he get involved in all this?

 

Poor ol' Gavin was drug into this post as an extreme and non contextual correlation to the existence of Bigfoot in other than classical environments.  I feel sorry for good ol' Gavin, being offered up as a straw man.

[Cotter]

 

One of the largest land mammals in North America living in every state and province, coming into trailer parks, people's houses, etc, and being unknown to science is not only absurd, if that is the world you live in and you think that is reasonable, you're making Gavin look conservative.

Feel free to explain why it's not absurd.

 

 

Well, it's not absurd due to the fact that all large north american animals have exhibited the behavior you are describing as absurd. 

 

 

 

What is absurd is that we have not been able to obtain proof.  Or, if someone has, it has been effectively swept under a rug somewhere.

[dmaker]

^^ That is the absurdity. Every single one of those animals you mentioned are well known to science and the world at large. To suggest than an animal larger than most of those even behaves the same way and cannot even be captured on film? Ridiculous.  Your post only emphasis the absurdity of the whole thing. 

[norseman]

We have film, what we dont have is a body.

How many people are out there in the business of collecting a body? I can tell you for a fact not many. I've gone alone 99.9% of the time I've been out.

Edited October 9, 2015 by norseman

[dmaker]

You do not have film anywhere near as clear as the photos above. 

 

Not to derail into a PGF discussion, but do you, Norse, feel that the PGF depicts something that is undeniably a real unclassified animal? There is zero doubt in your mind?

Edited October 9, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

Very little.

[salubrious]

 

But that is social commentary on society at large. Here we are dealing with a biological discussion of species range - specifically where does Bigfoot not exist. What this thread seems to show is that we can not seem to pin down a mutually acceptable place in North America where Bigfooters will agree Bigfoot does not exist. The North Dakota rash of sightings is a good example, I think. I think hoaxing to be the only likely explanation there, not misidentification of a known species or wishful thinking. I think someone was putting on a costume and messing with people at the trailer park, the home, and the highway and leaving fake tracks.

[snip]

 

And yet when we are talking about North Dakota, people such as Norseman look for the fairy dust of Bigfoot belief, the trees and water, to justify Bigfoot being in those places. This is an understandable reaction, but let's be absolutely clear here, the trailer park , the house and the highway are very unambiguously places of human habitation and activity, places which any Bigfoot should be making a bee line away from, should they want to remain elusive.

 

 

Of course there are good number of sighting reports in which BF is looking into windows and the like.

 

I go by Native American names for BF. If the local tribes don't have a word for it, BF likely isn't there. The only one of those I know of is Hawaii, and oddly enough there are no sighting reports ever from that state.

[dmaker]

Very little.

Is there any doubt in your mind that the animals depicted in the photographs posted in this thread are real animals? 

 

Your lack of doubt in the PGF does nothing to explain why there are literally thousands and thousands of photos and video footage of other large animals in North America, and only one (in your estimation) of a bigfoot?

 

That does not strike you as absurd? And perhaps might create some doubt in the authenticity of the one film you are not 100% sure about?

 

 

I can't even begin to estimate the odds that bigfoot exists, and behaves as described in this thread and many reports, yet we have no clear photographs or video. Or in Norses case, ONE film that he has very little doubt is a bigfoot. That is a huge problem for the bigfoot claim.  You are content to just shrug and think well if Patty looks real (to you) then I guess the rest of her kind are just very, very, very good at avoiding attempts to photograph one?  That makes more sense than entertaining the idea that maybe, just maybe, the more likely scenario is that Patty is not real?

Edited October 9, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

Not in my estimate, in mine there are more, albeit not as clear as the PGF.