Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[norseman]

Agreed.

[Twist]

Just more talking down to people by DWA, making claims that he as a Super Scientist cannot back up.  Do you have verified studies proving skeptics cannot identify wildlife?  Or in you case, what you consider proof, tens of thousands of reports?  

[Guest WesT]

Or as WesT would say...  "link please"

 

[wiiawiwb]

It's just plain silly to think that wildlife biologists, forest rangers, or experienced hunters are going to confuse a walking bear and a sasquatch.  No way I am going to be confused.Those who seek to dismiss sasquatch sightings as misidentifications, which were really bear, are people who haven't spent enough time in the woods.

Edited August 22, 2016 by wiiawiwb

[MIB]

I don't think that's the claim being made.  Maybe.   Dunno, can't read DWA's mind.    What I think is being said, though, is that it is more probable someone would assume a sasquatch is a bear, mistake a sasquatch for a bear, than the other way around, particularly if they're not sure what they see but they don't believe sasquatch exists.   I can certainly lump my father into that group.    He tells of seeing a 9 foot tall stump with arms in a snowy field one day that sure looked like what a bigfoot would look like, and it was gone when they came back, but of course it couldn't be a bigfoot because bigfoot doesn't exist.    There's the thought process that biases against confirmation.     Same thing .. the hairy thing y' only get a glimpse of sprinting away on two feet must have been a bear because bigfoot doesn't exist.    I hear that a lot. 

 

MIB

[Guest WesT]

I've heard it like this. "How do you know it was a bear?"   "I don't know what else it could have been."

 

[Twist]

I"m of the belief that mis-identification definitely goes both ways.  For and against BF.  I just hate seeing unfounded statements made such as skeptics not being able to identify wildlife.  Most people that have had a legitimate BF sighting, I would venture a guess were skeptics or did not even put thought into BF prior to the event.  

[Incorrigible1]

10 hours ago, DWA said:

 

It is well worth noting that few if any in the skeptic camp are really up on wildlife identification (one of a number of areas of human existence they aren't up on, or on which their careful observations go right out the window when this is the topic under discussion).

 

Conclusion jumping at it's finest. Kids: Don't be a conclusion jumper!

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Most Sasquatch enthusiasts on YouTube seem to have very low comfort with being in the deep woods and don;w realy have an idea what deep nature looks like on an ongoing basis or are able to make any meaningful interpretations. 

 

You don't get a sense of what lives out there, if you are in the right habitat you will also see what lives in that habitat.

 

The fact that people rarely see a Bigfoot and even more rarely see one repeatedly means that getting into the right environment is very hard for a man on foot.

 

My guess is you need to hike about 12 miles into the deepest high altitude canyons with visibility comparable to a rain forest and stay there for weeks or repeatedly hike that 12 miles on an ongoing basis.

And that is 12 miles in 12 miles out. The last several miles likely will be pure bushwhacking up lost canyons no one ever goes up except once or twice every decade or so.

 

This is the permanent environment. I doubt Bigfoot very often come any closer that a half dozen miles to human habitats, roads, and forestry operations. Sometimes they may have to cross a human corridor to get back to a continuous deep forest habitat or as new habitat is exploited by man they may linger for awhile before moving further away.

 

If they can hear you, smell you, your machines or your dogs, radios, traffic, snowmobile, generator, gun, that is their signal to avoid and evade and to move deeper and more upslope where the visibility can be measured in feet and you don't see anything unless you are right on top of it.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Here is my illustration of Patty if on all fours or as close as you can get with the trunk of the body parallel to the ground like you would have with a bear on all fours

.

[wiiawiwb]

If a "creature" is on two legs is ~7' tall or more, we can eliminate black bear.  So, unless the witness is in grizzly or brown bear territory, if they see something in that range, it can't be a bear they are seeing.

Edited August 22, 2016 by wiiawiwb

[Rockape]

I think we're going off the rails here. If you read hiflier's OP, he's not saying BF sightings are actually mistaken bear sightings.

 

His point is that perhaps what we think of as BF is an unknown type of bear, one which has a very human form.

[norseman]

Which is ludicrous.....no offense meant.

[Twist]

I agree Norse,  the limp proportions are way off, the ear location is way off, the snout of the bear is not described in any BF I've heard of, and what I have seen of bear tracks they do not look to be to easily confused with what we consider BF tracks unless there were some odd overlay of two prints.  Not much adds up other than 2 heavy/bulky animals.  

[wiiawiwb]

Whether the OP is addressing people who confuse BF for a bear or a bear for a BF, it circles back to the same issue. Nobody who has spent a good amount of time in the woods, and especially someone who knows the fauna of the forest, would ever confuse the two.

 

This hybrid-bear-human is preposterous; no offense meant either. Genetics simply wouldn't allow it.

 

I would expect city boys from New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, or the like, to be completely befuddled about the woods and the dynamics that happen with the animals that inhabit it. Local hunters don't confuse a bear and Sasquatch when they have a clear view.  Absolutely no way.