Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[Yuchi1]

Eyewitness identification has long been found to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence in the court system. Look how many guys spent years in prison, sent there by eyewitness testimony (back in the day) only to be exonerated by DNA evidence.

[Guest DWA]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

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. 

 

That.  That simple.

One witness was wondering why a bear with hands, its snout apparently chewed off by something pretty nasty, was walking on two legs, until his mind caught up to what he was seeing.  THAT crazy, trying to tell oneself the thing one is obviously seeing has to be something else.

10 hours ago, Twist said:

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?  

The entire premise of bigfoot skepticism is talking down to people...using nonsense and a total lack of understanding of how the world works.  Some of us have been tired of it for decades.  Show you're paying attention, like, say, READ REPORTS, and stop slamming woo-woo eedjits and alcohol-addled hallucinators (alcohol:  NOT A HALLUCINOGEN!  *ANOTHER* thing they get wrong), and I tend not to do that.

 

THE EVIDENCE backs up my claims.  Evidence concurred upon by, ya know, SCIENTISTS actually showing how you do science. But some people wouldn't know that.  And they wonder why.

 

And while we're on evidence:  I have seen more than enough over the decades I've been hearing bigfoot skeptics repeat the same old things that have been discredited a thousand times that one thing they don't get, at all, is animals.  The most I will give some - SOME - of them is that they can be spectacularly dense in applying their animal knowledge, which otherwise isn't too bad, to this topic.

Edited August 22, 2016 by DWA

[Rockape]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

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

 

True, but unless we get one on a slab and know exactly what it is, hifliers hypothesis is as possible as any.

 

 

23 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

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.

 

 

Again, he's not talking about mis-identifying a bear for a squatch, but the possibility of a type of bear that looks human.

 

Quote

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

 

I don't think anyone has said anything about a bear-human hybrid.

[ShadowBorn]

8 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

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.

CM

That's just it that you have to sit out there and enjoy what is out there in the wild. I have always thought that the argument has been that if you sit back that they will come to you. It has been said by a couple of researchers that you do not have to go out far to have a encounter. I keep hearing about deep woods and they are a lot closer then we think. We have a lot of farm land where these guys can hang out for awhile and move on.

 

Like a single family group of creatures that do not allow borders to stop them. I mean they are animals right. So they can travel and move like what Gorillas would do in their environment . Now I am just assuming and the casting of foot prints of others might just match up in other states. This would prove that they do travel from state to state and who knows if this has been done ?

 

Grizzly Bears do have a large travel path or what ever you would call it in science lingu. But they are mostly loners  are they not? But what about these creatures , do they stake out high places? Every knock I have heard has been from above so they must like ridges . High ground and advantage point on anyone who travel nears them I bet.

 

I have heard of people being pulled or push, grabbed and who knows what else. The one that I seen looked clearly like chewbaca and not a bear. I flashed it with my light and knew what I was seeing. But have never been attacked with intent to harm me. So I am trying to understand the aggressive nature and can it be related to their animal side of them. That's what I have to believe they are a animal that lives wild.

 

I am not sure if they could be bear or have some type of bear in them, mixed with man. But if you think about this it does  sound sick if it did happen that way with man and beast. I am not sure I could handle this But what the heck did we create ? If indeed this is what happen. Bears do not have long legs with long arms as tall as I am (5' 11" ) crouching over. In a stance that a cave man would stand .  This was my second sighting and they were no bears but naked as a free bird.

 

But the crazy part of these encounters is that we drew them in with us camping out there. Some of the people I have talked too said that they had seen movement during when they were making noise. Like mowing the lawn or doing field work anything where they think they cannot be heard. It is kinda like noise being their friend and know how to use it. The same goes with camp fires where they know that boundary of light where nothing shows in the dark. Yet they can watch what you are doing or when you go to sleep. Sure they will make that raid cause they are bold and they can do it. Wake up the next morning and notice things moved or food taken. Gusty fellows I tell you yea that's what they are.  

 

Yes, I can see them behaving like bears but bears by looks nope! Cannot explain what they are but like I said I have to go with animal and man. They eat corn and deer or whatever else is available so yes they are wild some thing.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

ShadowBorn, I think they are much rarer than most animals of that size.

Grizzly are very rare and deep into environments but still many see them.

Not so many see BF, though.

 

I would second a guess that a lot of poor quality foot casts I see on the internet are in reality only a grizzly sign.

 

As far as a human bear hybrid, a chimera, could be a product of DNA science but not natural breeding as it defies the whole definition of species and evolution. Otherwise there would be a lot of dog humans since certain people have a perverted twist...

 

There are those that claim dogmen but that is where I and the and the fantasists and delusionists have to part company.

 

I knew there was a reason I read books....

 

 

[Guest DWA]

I'm not sure that sightings can be used as a rarity index.  For something like this it can safely be said that reports are the tip of the iceberg of actual encounters.

 

I think from the reports there are a lot more of them than there are grizzlies.  First, much much larger range; second, their comfort with humans appears much closer to that of black bears than that of grizz.  If you read the reports, most encounters are significantly closer to civilization than grizz tend to get.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, DWA said:

 

That.  That simple.

One witness was wondering why a bear with hands, its snout apparently chewed off by something pretty nasty, was walking on two legs, until his mind caught up to what he was seeing.  THAT crazy, trying to tell oneself the thing one is obviously seeing has to be something else.

 

(1)The entire premise of bigfoot skepticism is talking down to people...using nonsense and a total lack of understanding of how the world works.  Some of us have been tired of it for decades.  (2) Show you're paying attention, like, say, READ REPORTS, and stop slamming woo-woo eedjits and alcohol-addled hallucinators (alcohol:  NOT A HALLUCINOGEN!  *ANOTHER* thing they get wrong), and I tend not to do that.

 

(3) THE EVIDENCE backs up my claims.  Evidence concurred upon by, ya know, SCIENTISTS actually showing how you do science. But some people wouldn't know that.  And they wonder why.

 

And while we're on evidence:  I have seen more than enough over the decades (4) I've been hearing bigfoot skeptics repeat the same old things that have been discredited a thousand times that one thing they don't get, at all, is animals.  The most I will give some - SOME - of them is that they can be spectacularly dense in applying their animal knowledge, which otherwise isn't too bad, to this topic.

 

(1) Negative, the premise of skeptics is to question theory and ideas until actual PROOF is provided.  The fact that they disagree with you is what makes you feel this is the premise and makes you so defensive.  A true skeptic only requires more proof or evidence of BF than the eye witness accounts you seem to hang your hat on.  You are on such a high horse about your beliefs and ideas that you view anyone in disagreement with you as an inferior.  THAT is a major character flaw of yours.  

 

(2) blah blah blah, reports reports reports, this is the same ol' saying you have in EVERY SINGLE POST.  Reports are a good starting point, a possible good base to begin hypothesizing on location, habits, etc.  They are not PROOF of BF as you seem to think.  

 

(3) No, the evidence does not back up ANY CLAIM, it may strengthen a theory or hypothesis, but until one is on the slab it does not do what you claim.  It gives you a direction to shoot for, it is not a bulls eye as you think.

 

(4)  Everyone on this forum from skeptic to proponent have heard you preach the same ol' rhetoric's time and time again about "evidence", you have no "evidence" you have the BFRO reports and other like sites that have reports on them.  You oversell yourself as a "scientist" and an expert.  You have read reports and a few BF books, I believe thats as far as it goes.  DO something besides preach about reports, then come talk about being a scientist. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

21 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

(1) Negative, the premise of skeptics is to question theory and ideas until actual PROOF is provided.  

After the first sentence, non sequitur, so I just deleted that stuff.  ^^^This ain't science.  Crucifying and ridiculing people who say they're seeing something, consistent with what thousands of others have seen, something that is leaving consistent footprints fer chrissakes, because you haven't, is idiocy, I can't really give it a nice name.  How many times have I said this and scientists who know what's up agree with me!?!?!? SCIENCE IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOUT PROOF!! **** Proof is what you give the ignorant people who pay you.  Science is about INQUIRY.  Know what inquiry proceeds from?  EVIDENCE.  And how many times have I said THIS here????  Science is eyewitness testimony, backed by advanced degrees, no IT IS, and your efforts to show me I am wrong will only prove my point, so please do not try, as others have. To their embarrassment, I should add.  Scientists have been following eyewitness testimony to confirm things as long as there has been science.  Scientists have been relying on the testimony of other scientists for as long as there has been science.  Don't *make* me start talking down to you now.

****And that's been put up on this site, as quotes, from scientists who know what science is.  You find it, I'm tired of spoonfeeding.

 

Quote

 

(2) blah blah blah, reports reports reports, this is the same ol' saying you have in EVERY SINGLE POST.  Reports are a good starting point, a possible good base to begin hypothesizing on location, habits, etc.  They are not PROOF of BF as you seem to think.  

Right right riiiiiiiiiiiight.  A good starting point, with which you have done what, precisely?  NOTHING.  I just got done telling somebody that said sasquatch are rarer than grizzlies that that is very clearly not the case.  You figure out how I got there.  (I know how he did.  He avoids the evidence.  So does everybody.  Know why, studious?  IT'S TOUGH SLEDDING, thinking about this, so why not sling hash that no one can call you on?  other than.....ME, of course?) 

And if I started listing for you the rank incredible discredited BS that bigfoot skeptics put in EVERY SINGLE POST, I'd never stop typing.  Basically, Repeating Wrong Stuff, Over and Over, IS bigfoot skepticism.  Much to learn here, grasshopper.

\

Quote

 

(3) No, the evidence does not back up ANY CLAIM, it may strengthen a theory or hypothesis, but until one is on the slab it does not do what you claim.  It gives you a direction to shoot for, it is not a bulls eye as you think.

And so what are you doing with it?  Don't bother.  I know.  I can read what you are doing with it, right here.

 

Quote

 

(4)  Everyone on this forum from skeptic to proponent have heard you preach the same ol' rhetoric's time and time again about "evidence", you have no "evidence" you have the BFRO reports and other like sites that have reports on them.  You oversell yourself as a "scientist" and an expert.  You have read reports and a few BF books, I believe thats as far as it goes.  DO something besides preach about reports, then come talk about being a scientist. 

Dude, if you don't want to think about this, that is your problem.  I can't figure out why someone with that attitude would stay here.

 

I've never seen anything, in my LIFE, like bigfooters skeptic and proponent.  Everyone avoids the evidence...which is what reports are, and if you don't understand that they tell you what to look for, when and where, then you don't get how to go about this.  Your issue, and thank God not mine.

I want you to find something.  Let me know how you do by tomorrow.

 

Isn't that specific?  That's where you are if you don't READ REPORTS.  And aren't we surprised that other than us scientific proponents, NO ONE knows what they're looking for, where to look and when.

 

(Yes.  I've said all three things here, copious times.  Paying real attention there, aren't we.)

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by DWA
To elucidate to people badly in need

[Twist]

Whats idiocy is your claim to have read so much about BF and BF reports, yet you have missed or ignored the fact that I have talked more than once on this VERY SITE about my own experience with a creature I believe to be BF.  I do not crucify anyone and I am one of the thousands of "others" 

 

As far as skeptics go, I am skeptical of people that claim to have intimate knowledge of these creatures social construct, diet, habits, habitats,  etc.  There are definitely more people out there that know a LOT more about them than me, but as a yet unclassified animal I am skeptical about people that make absolute claims about them other than existence.   

 

For a "man" that comes across as a know it all, and self admittedly "all that he knows" is from reading, until you have educated yourself enough to know who is and is not a BF skeptic on this forum, I give you no more credence or attention.  As far as I am concerned you care about nothing more than down talking people and standing on your soap box.  I bid you good'day sir.  

[Guest DWA]

Failure to launch, but hope it felt good.

 

And that's the funniest thing about you all; you aren't the first person who's had an experience that sounds to me like a diehard scoftic.  Seeing one doesn't make you an expert, but many think it does.

[Twist]

And reading about one does not make you an expert or a scientist.  Sorry, you do not get your honorary scientist badge by posting the word "science" 1000 times on this message board.  Your posts are essentially a practice in futility.  No one has blown more hot air on a message board than you, you have posted 9,344 posts on here, I'd wager about 100 of them were actual useful valid information.   

[Guest DWA]

You shouldn't reveal how little you know that blatantly.

 

Just know that when I read the guys you don't think you need to read, because, you know, they have really advanced degrees and have thought copiously about this and demonstrate how to apply science to unraveling the unknown...

 

They CORROBORATED pretty much right down to the nub the conclusions TO WHICH I HAD ALREADY COME by ...wait for it, studious...

 

READING (AND THINKING ABOUT) REPORTS.  Uh huh, hot air, son, I hearya.

 

SCIENTIST, dude.  [mic drop] [looks in mirror] handsome sukkah, too.

Edited August 23, 2016 by DWA
rubbiing it in

[Twist]

Do you know what books I have read?  Please enlighten us all to what I have read.  I'm waiting.  Please provide your SCIENTIFIC proof to what I have read, you know since science is your strong point!

 

Wait, is this just more talking down to someone because you lack the actual knowledge of which you speak?? Sounds like it.  

 

You truly have delusions of grandeur, they (scientist) corroborated the conclusion you HAD ALREADY COME TO?  Really, so you beat them to the punch?  You already figured out what took these scientist time to discover??  Then why are you not publishing your own books, why are you not already a famous scientist?  Why have you not already given definitive proof of BF by putting one on the slab???  

 

I'm not sure to laugh at you and keep you off ignore for the comedic value, or just ignore you and save myself from the gut ache induced by your nonsense.  

[Guest DWA]

DAG, BABY!  profile, even back of the head, you got it all down!  [puts down mirror]

 

Do what you want, dood. 

 

(Of course I didn't beat them to the punch, didn't they write their books first?  Some people, I tell ya, they just don't read.)

 

I know they're real, dude, and here YOU HAD AN EXPERIENCE and are still befuddled.  You go man.

 

(Didn't I just tell dood that science isn't about proof?  Some people, I tell ya, they just don't read.)

 

[in the tradition of the hardboiled bigfoot skeptic he'll notice two spellings of doo/ude and use this to discredit all my works!  oh alas!]

Edited August 23, 2016 by DWA
Cuz

[Twist]

Resort to nonsense post = no leg to stand on.