Reasons To Be Doubtful

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I really do not see the difference between "believing" and "knowing." If one claims to believe in something, but also states that they do not "know" whether what they believe is true, then in my opinion they were not a believer to begin with. I suppose that others might disagree with my assessment, believing that faith in an idea is more of a trust, as opposed to a firm belief or conviction, but I just do not interpret the word "belief" in such a manner. I just do not think there has to be a difference between the belief of someone who has seen a sasquatch and the belief of someone who "knows" sasquatch exists through firm convictions that are not related to direct experience. Although they are using their experiences to arrive at their belief, but these experiences do not involve a direct sighting.

 

I would have to agree that belief can affect judgement, and this is true where all types of scenarios are concerned, and is thus not limited to a bigfoot believer who interprets everything as having come from a bigfoot. I'm sure we all know this by now, having experienced it in one way or another. The way I see it there are two different ways in which a bigfoot believer adopts their belief in sasquatch. The first is direct experience that leaves no room for doubt. If one is being objective then I think that the only experience that would truly solidify belief in bigfoot is a direct sighting. Noises, strange occurrences, or other experiences that do not involve a clear view of the creature cannot truly be claimed with objectivity to have definitely come from a sasquatch. It might be likely, but without that direct sighting the possibility of error is too great. However, someone may adopt a belief in bigfoot through such experiences, without a direct sighting, as I mentioned earlier. But when it comes down to fact, the possibility of even a direct sighting being something other than a bigfoot is also a possibility. It is a less likely possibility in those instances where the observer gets such a good look at the subject that no other explanation will do. That is all about personal interpretation, meaning it is up to the individual. The other way belief can come about is through an analysis of the available evidence. I think that everyone should ask themselves the following question where this evidence is concerned- what is the likelihood that all of the available sasquatch evidence, in reality, has nothing to do with sasquatch whatsoever? Because if sasquatch did not exist, then all of the evidence would have to be explained through some other means. And this is a much more difficult problem than many realize or are willing to admit. It cannot be overstated just how much evidence there is, most of it of course being repetitious, which in my opinion is where the main difficulty arises where explaining it away is concerned. There are potential non-sasquatch-related explanations for every single piece of evidence we currently have, unless unknown DNA samples truly exist, but to explain the similar experiences and other pieces of evidence from tens of thousands of individuals, these potential "scientific" explanations are actually more improbable than the existence of sasquatch itself!

 

However I do not wish to imply with the above sentence that sasquatch is not a "scientific" concept, rather I was referring to the widespread belief that something like mass hallucination is the explanation, simply because it is scientifically accepted while sasquatch is not- even though such mass hallucination rarely if ever occurs, and even though such a scientific explanation overlooks the nuances and details of the available evidence. For instance, it is hard to claim hallucination when whatever was seen is captured on video, unless electronics can hallucinate, which some would propose as possible before they would admit to bigfoot being possible, haha. But you can see just how easy it is for many to dismiss the evidence with ideas like this. They will fish around the scientific barrel, sometimes way at the bottom, hoping to pull out some scientific explanation, ANY scientific explanation, that could apply to the evidence in question.

 

So first they would say hallucination, but the witness would rebut with direct video evidence. So the skeptic goes back into the barrel and pulls out "someone in a costume hoaxed you!" Well the witness is screwed from that point on, considering that there is absolutely no way to prove that a subject in a video is a real bigfoot, for obvious reasons. That does not mean it isn't a real bigfoot. And the skeptic goes home happy, saying they "debunked" a sasquatch encounter. NO, they most certainly did not. I will admit that I have gotten way off-topic at this point. Although to be honest this does apply to what the original poster presented since it all boils down to belief, which was our starting point. The truth of the matter is that even though it is more likely that sasquatch is real than for the proposed explanations against the existence of sasquatch to be accurate in all instances, without direct proof it all comes down to whether an individual realizes this fact- whether they realize that the existence of sasquatch is a much simpler, more probable, and elegant solution than all of the other potential explanations. It best explains every single piece of evidence. Some can see that while others cannot. Some yearn for direct scientific proof, and because of this lack of proof they cannot bring themselves to submit to faith 100%. The fact remains however that scientific proof has not arrived, but I always wish to stress that this means nothing where the existence of sasquatch is concerned. Black holes did not spring into existence at the very moment that science discovered them. It does not work that way, unless you want to get into quantum mechanics, where direct observation actually is needed to force certainty.

[Branco]

Branco, I do not ask for specifics and am asking in earnest, what general area do you reside in and what 12 state area have you experienced these encounters in?

I live in central AR, one hour's drive to the location of the first BF sound and all three of the clear sightings. The glimpses, aggressive ones, close vocal encounters and a lot of the wood knocking/ rock and stick throwing incidents were in the southeastern state. The best states (besides AR) were AL, WV, KY, GA and MO.

[Branco]

Your 85+ years old?

Good for you dont see too much of the elderly on internet forums. My grandparents never even got a computer.

I'm 81. When I a kid, our contact with the outside world was a wooden boxed, wall hung telephone that you cranked a series of times to get in touch with someone on your same party line. To contact anyone else, you had to get the operator by cranking one long crank. We did have radios though. They actually were the good old days. A hell of a lot better in some ways, but not others.

[norseman]

I don't think I said "ALL" and I was specifically touching on the OP's use of the word "obsession". I honestly didn't think the post would be the least bit controversial so I'm surprised and disappointed. Is there nothing upon which we can mutually agree?

=====================

Bodhi wrote:

I feel for you and wish you better luck than ALL of the investigators who've come before you. Many lives have been pointlessly consumed in this search, marriages destroyed and careers ruined. I really do hope you fare better.

=====================

I can agree that Dahinden forsaked his family in his quest, but disagree that this represents all or many of the researchers out there.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I was actually being compulsive starting this thread, but I am sure glad I did. Concerning the wood knocks...to me they sound like rotting logs eing banged together, what about that moan, is that a normal Midwestern creature? I have to submit these to cornel and see if they can identify the culprit, I suggest that some of the stuff is weird at the very least  What would you think if this stuff, referring back to my recording, was going on near your house in the late night hours as when I recorded these events?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

As a fence sitter I've always had a problem with hardcore proponents that come up with excuses or reasons to account for Bigfoots elusiveness. Such as BF willingness to approach homes, dumpsters, camps, roads with cars, and such biut deathly afraid of trail cams. There are always excuses as to why BF always eludes exposure. The only reason I can reason that this thing is dang tootin impossible to find is because the population is rather small and limited to the PNW area or possibly extinct since the PGF. Do I believe it exists in darn near every state in the U.S., nope.

 

Reason is so persnickety isn't it? Like there's 250 million or so people having an estimated 1000 encounters yearly, of which about a hundred get reported, so given that only a couple of million game cameras are functioning, by chance, they will "see" only one percent of what humans "see" (Grossly overestimating their perception, resolution and field of view here.) which means that about 10 times a year a bigfoot will trigger a game camera. Probably half of those pics aren't even interesting enough to call a blobsquatch, the other half get human filtered, meaning that if anything out of the ordinary is recognisable in them, they get subject to the same approximate 10% report rate, so on average trail cams should provide something vagely squatchy looking to the BF community once every 2 years. I'd say we've seen them. and it's gonna be a shot in a thousand that is gonna be anything more than a guess the blob contest.

 

and then.... we get the tail chasing "Nothing can prove it because it hasn't been proven" rhetoric.

 

Scofftic logic/reason: Lotteries are a hoax or scam because I've never won one, I don't even buy tickets, it doesn't improve the odds. I can guess a dice roll one time out of 6, so if lotteries were genuine I'd win more often.

Proponent logic/reason: Well we've got a few bucks riding ourselves just in case, and we've talked to a lot of people that have won, the odds really, really suck, but we figure that if we attempt strategic betting and watch like a hawk for any suggestion of systematic error, one of us will get there. If anyone knows of any low cost way to bulk buy tickets and bring the odds down, we're listening. We're tracking past numbers but they are insufficient to make testable predictions about how the numbers will fall in the future.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Thanks Branco for the words of encouragement, I actually do not think this thing

will allow me to give it up. I find a fascination in simply the notion that such

things could exist, that we would be duped by nature, serves us right. I remember

when I was young reading field and stream articles about black panthers in Wisconsin,

a melanistic cougar no doubt, people said it was ridiculous, the DNR said impossible,

well cougars are documented in Wisconsin now, and that was roughly 40 years to prove.

I think in the end these creatures will be proven to be real, but as I stated earlier

we need to stick to the facts and not simply fall prey to our belief. What I would call

my position "skeptical belief". I believe no doubt, although I remain skeptical of any

and all experiences outside of my own two eyes clearly seeing one, and knowing it was

truly not a hallucination by finding evidence it was there, that would be what it would

take to be an absolute knower such as yourself.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

An alleged bigfoot wood knock sounds too flat? No problem. Bigfoot now use their hands to create flat sounding wood knocks. Of course, why wouldn't they? Urban legends and myths morph to resist the intrusion of reality. Awesome, I love stuff like this.

 

Actually, that hypothesis has come out of observation and experiment. I think you will agree it unlikely that in purportedly squatchy areas, that a sasquatch is standing on duty 24/7, next to a suitable tree, knocking stick over his shoulder to return woodknocks in a timely fashion... but this is what has been observed, a researcher knocks, the responses come back rather quickly, more quickly than would be suggested by the necessity to find a likely stick, find a likely tree and hit it. The logical conclusion to that is that a creature is making it with a part of their body that is permanently on hand. Now if you'd like to post some field studies on beavers that confirm that they respond to knock or other sharp noises by returning the same number of tail slaps back again, or indeed anything that indicates beaver can count, we'll consider it.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Flashman2.0

[Guest DWA]

[sigh] ...why I keep on telling people to get read up on the evidence....

 

 

An alleged bigfoot wood knock sounds too flat? No problem. Bigfoot now use their hands to create flat sounding wood knocks. Of course, why wouldn't they? Urban legends and myths morph to resist the intrusion of reality. Awesome, I love stuff like this.

 

Actually, that hypothesis has come out of observation and experiment. I think you will agree it unlikely that in purportedly squatchy areas, that a sasquatch is standing on duty 24/7, next to a suitable tree, knocking stick over his shoulder to return woodknocks in a timely fashion... but this is what has been observed, a researcher knocks, the responses come back rather quickly, more quickly than would be suggested by the necessity to find a likely stick, find a likely tree and hit it. The logical conclusion to that is that a creature is making it with a part of their body that is permanently on hand. Now if you'd like to post some field studies on beavers that confirm that they respond to knock or other sharp noises by returning the same number of tail slaps back again, or indeed anything that indicates beaver can count, we'll consider it.

 

There is evidence that they leave good hitting sticks next to good hitting trees.  This requires too much smarts?  No more than chimps are using ...or even woodpeckers, who know where all the downspouts are on their territories.

Edited November 20, 2015 by DWA

[CMBigfoot]

what about that moan, is that a normal Midwestern creature? 

 

According to this article there are wolves, coywolves, and coyotes in Illinois. Could the moan have come from one of these animals?

 

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-227226.html

 

If you like wildlife documentaries and have the time, I recommend watching this one called Meet the Coywolf. It's very interesting.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/coywolf-meet-the-coywolf/8605/

[Twist]

Flash a , regarding the trail cam subject. I find it odd we don't have a trail cam yet that is clear but I understand the odds of catching one given the vast range. That all makes sense. What I was getting at is the proponents that try to explain it away by saying the Bigfoot actively avoids it. BF is going to be a flesh and blood creature if discovered yet a lot of special abilities are attributed to it by certain people.

[JDL]

Personally, I thought the Jacobs' photo was compelling.

 

This GIF shows the creature approaching the bait, the same creature bending down to smell the bait, and a bear cub that also came by to investigate the bait.

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jacobs+creature+photos&view=detailv2&&id=162BE2D0A3AC2F5DB208DE6B2D85F8482CBC751D&selectedIndex=0&ccid=MfU32LhX&simid=608048223216600916&thid=OIP.M31f537d8b8571219cda904bde130a53cH0&ajaxhist=0

Edited November 20, 2015 by JDL

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Since I do a lot of recording I am familiar with a wide range of coyote sounds, now wolves might visit the area but do not have a breeding population to my knowledge this far south, but I could be wrong. My neighbor swears he took a photo of a wolf passing through our yards, my guess is that is was a very large coyewolf. I have had several moans as reactions to the tree banging, and another in reaction to me closing my screen door. I do not know why a coyote or wolf would react to a humans or something else tree banging, but I also have tree banging that is a reaction to the coyotes, like the coyotes set off whatever was banging. It is really incredible because as stated above something would have to be sitting around waiting for the coyotes to go off, that is how fast these reactions are, as is the moaning following the tree banging. I would have to say that it is unusual to say the least. I set my recorder out at night and I am very aware of what my neighbors do at night, mostly they are in bed before me, and they do not sit around with an object waiting to bang on trees. I might say perhaps there is another secret squatcher living in the adjacent houses, but what are the odds, and why would they be squatching in my backyard. The odd thing is when I heard the whoops that lasted around 5 minutes after my one neighbors fire work show, I never heard any human voices, no laughing, no screaming kids, just these very high pitched and very clear whooooop whooooop. It all is very unusual stuff and not easily dismissed, except if you just choose to ignore some obvious questions. Just the kind of stuff that makes you get caught up in the belief that is might be Sasquatch related, although that is still very unlikely stuff. That belief leads to if they can live here then they can live a whole lot closer to people then one might think, all conjecture. I sure as heck want to end the mystery of my backyard once and for all.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

[sigh] ...why I keep on telling people to get read up on the evidence....

 

There is evidence that they leave good hitting sticks next to good hitting trees.  This requires too much smarts?  No more than chimps are using ...or even woodpeckers, who know where all the downspouts are on their territories.

 

I've seen precisely one report of a "could be" knocking stick, so is there somewhere these are getting documented so we know it's actually a pattern not a fluke?

[CMBigfoot]

Since I do a lot of recording I am familiar with a wide range of coyote sounds, now wolves might visit the area but do not have a breeding population to my knowledge this far south, but I could be wrong. My neighbor swears he took a photo of a wolf passing through our yards, my guess is that is was a very large coyewolf. I have had several moans as reactions to the tree banging, and another in reaction to me closing my screen door. I do not know why a coyote or wolf would react to a humans or something else tree banging, but I also have tree banging that is a reaction to the coyotes, like the coyotes set off whatever was banging. It is really incredible because as stated above something would have to be sitting around waiting for the coyotes to go off, that is how fast these reactions are, as is the moaning following the tree banging. I would have to say that it is unusual to say the least. I set my recorder out at night and I am very aware of what my neighbors do at night, mostly they are in bed before me, and they do not sit around with an object waiting to bang on trees. I might say perhaps there is another secret squatcher living in the adjacent houses, but what are the odds, and why would they be squatching in my backyard. The odd thing is when I heard the whoops that lasted around 5 minutes after my one neighbors fire work show, I never heard any human voices, no laughing, no screaming kids, just these very high pitched and very clear whooooop whooooop. It all is very unusual stuff and not easily dismissed, except if you just choose to ignore some obvious questions. Just the kind of stuff that makes you get caught up in the belief that is might be Sasquatch related, although that is still very unlikely stuff. That belief leads to if they can live here then they can live a whole lot closer to people then one might think, all conjecture. I sure as heck want to end the mystery of my backyard once and for all.

 

If bigfoot and coyotes are hanging out together in the Chicago area? I think it's only a matter of time one of these coyotes with a crittercam mounted to it should get video of a bigfoot.

 

http://urbancoyoteresearch.com/new-research