what is a "scientist" ?

[norseman]

Your making my point.

 

How many Lycan movies or Lycan vs. Vampire movies are out there versus Bigfoot movies? I would say a lot more. So logically speaking as a more popular TV myth we should have more groups hunting Dogman than Bigfoot. If a person is simply picking a popular myth and just LARPing around in the forest.

 

I think most Bigfooters have had some unusual experience that plants the seed of Bigfoot in their mind. And as they share experiences with other Bigfooters it builds. I don't think they are on par with the people chanting spells and hitting each other with foam swords dressed as an Orc in a park somewhere.

 

I think I'm going the opposite way. I had a unusual experience, but have never repeated the experience. Science is repeatable..... So logically speaking from my own experience either it is no longer there or never was there. Although I cannot rectify in my own mind what mundane animal it was.

 

But I enjoy the outdoors, and I live in Grizzly country so I'm armed when I go out. It's not a big deal. In the off chance that science has missed its mark.

 

 

 

 

[dmaker]

There are many factors at play. That is one of the reasons I remain interested in the subject. Perhaps people are engaging in bigfoot role playing because of the popularity of things like Finding Bigfoot? What makes it gameplay is not so much the physical trappings--although they are there with things such as camo outfits, military sounding operational names, night cameras, etc--, but more the tacit understanding that the whole thing unravels if you admit bigfoot does not, or more likely does not, exist. 

 

 

Anyway, I'm probably steering the thread off topic with this line of commentary.  I'd start another thread dealing with bigfoot as a form of recreational pretend for adults, but I don't think it would go over very well. It would be meant objectively and not meant to be ridicule, but I don't think it would be taken that way, so I'll just leave it at that. 

 

[Twist]

3 hours ago, DWA said:

And so too often it goes here.  Yawn.  When you have something of substance to say, let me know.  While we're on NOT comedic value.

 

Sorry I do not have the "substance" to post 9,000 times that by reading every report BF is a lock.  All the while changing what science is to fit your narrative. 

 

I believe in BF and hope eventually science does get on board but changing what science is about is not the right means to get it proven.  I will leave alone all the disparaging comments you have made about other BF enthusiasts and women, not even worth addressing more than I already have.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Not confirmed since 1967 speaks volumes to the harsh reality that the creature simply does not exist. 

Of course you know that, but it is all in fun to pretend otherwise. 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

There are many factors at play. That is one of the reasons I remain interested in the subject. Perhaps people are engaging in bigfoot role playing because of the popularity of things like Finding Bigfoot? What makes it gameplay is not so much the physical trappings--although they are there with things such as camo outfits, military sounding operational names, night cameras, etc--, but more the tacit understanding that the whole thing unravels if you admit bigfoot does not, or more likely does not, exist. 

 

 

Anyway, I'm probably steering the thread off topic with this line of commentary.  I'd start another thread dealing with bigfoot as a form of recreational pretend for adults, but I don't think it would go over very well. It would be meant objectively and not meant to be ridicule, but I don't think it would be taken that way, so I'll just leave it at that. 

 

 

Project Grendel has members (one comes to mind in particular) that is just as stalwart as you are that no such creature exists. And yet wears camo, has night cameras, and goes out with buddies searching for the creature on a regular basis. He does it simply because he likes the outdoors, buddies, camping and wildlife and there is a slight chance that he could be wrong.

 

I think Kitikaze's LARP theory is a really really bad comparison. I don't think the motivations are remotely the same. In fact a civil war reenactor has more in common with LARPing than a Bigfooter does. 

 

Thats my .02 cents.

I will add though that people like Todd Standing who fabricate evidence could be construed as LARPing.....although I would call it something much much worse. 

[dmaker]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that gaming theory fits well for bigfooting. At least for me it does. I've always struggled with the notion that someone could truly believe that bigfoot exists. Given all the time and the lack of evidence, etc, it just creates a sense of puzzlement to me that I cannot get around.  Game theory has helped with that one. Bigfooting and enthusiast behavior make more sense when looked at from a gaming point of view. They don't truly believe, they are just pretending, mostly. Or some other version like, they are fooling themselves and deep down know it, but never really think about it or voice it. Denial in other words. 

 

This also helps explain what I've always seen as an incongruency of action with proponents, particularly witnesses. Here you have someone that claims that without a doubt they have witnessed a hulking, 8 foot ape-man near to populated areas (many, many reports are nearby populated areas), yet they do nothing about it. There is not often a call to emergency services or anything. Maybe they will talk about how they examined the footprints or something. That does not sound like someone who just witnessed what they claim. If you saw a grizzly near to a picnic area, would you not alert the authorities? Nevermind a giant ape. 

 

Also, discovering bigfoot would be a sure fire way to fame and fortune. We have many enthusiasts who claim regular contact with bigfoots. No effort whatsoever is made to collect evidence and be responsible for the discovery of the century. Nope. Let's just visit small web forums and talk about it there instead. That does not seem congruent to me. 

 

Game playing helps to explain those things that I've always found odd about this subject. If people truly believed, it seems they would behave a certain way. They do not, they behave the opposite most of the time. Why? Because it's all really just a game of sorts. It's a past time. You're not really meant to find bigfoot. Ever. You even have people like DWA who regularly twist the basic tenets of evidence in an attempt to distract and add legitimacy to the hobby.   Anything to keep the game going and make it seem legit. Just never, ever, ever talk about the game. 

 

Remember, the first rule of fight club, is that you don't talk about fight club.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

But people do talk about the fight club.

 

You can believe that people are making this up in their own minds. But I do not believe this is the case with most. They are either seeing something unknown to science or they are seeing a mundane animal they misconstrue as a animal unknown to science. Remember it's not just "bigfooters" that have sightings.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by norseman

[Martin]

^ I would like to see any supporting evidence to go along with the recording.

 

Tracks? Pictures? Vet reports regarding the dog? Police report? Other witnesses? Actual 911 report?

 

On the surface, if it is a real 911 call, it seems like the call was edited. Is the entire call available somewhere?

 

The police report, some quality tracks, picture ( even a blobsquatch) and the full 911 recording would make for a compelling case.

Otherwise.... it's nothing other than it.... it's nothing as far as evidence goes.

 

[dmaker]

I did not say there are no calls to emergency services. I realize there are a small number. Very small compared to the number of reports. 

 

People could also be seeing nothing at all outside their head. Almost 3 million people in North America suffer from schizophrenia. Hallucinations and delusional thoughts are a common symptom of that disease. That is just the diagnosed cases. Of course I am not saying that all sightings could fall under that diagnosis. Not at all. I am sure that many of the fleeting glances type reports are just mistaking a common animal for something else. But it is hard not to wonder about other sources with some of the up close, prolonged, and regular contact claimed with some proponents. People can live highly functional lives with a diagnosis such as that. I'm not trying to portray a raving lunatic or anything. 

[Guest DWA]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Not confirmed since 1967 speaks volumes to the harsh reality that the creature simply does not exist. 

Of course you know that, but it is all in fun to pretend otherwise. 

That's so wrong it could be considered disqualifying of anyone's claim to be a scientist.  I can't go into how wrong, on how many levels, that is.

But of course you know that.  It's not even worth pointing out how wrong it is, it's so obviously wrong.  To a scientist, at least.  But of course you know that.

(And I have explained this, hundreds of times, right here. Including, in fact, right here on this very thread.)

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Martin said:

^ I would like to see any supporting evidence to go along with the recording.

 

Tracks? Pictures? Vet reports regarding the dog? Police report? Other witnesses? Actual 911 report?

 

On the surface, if it is a real 911 call, it seems like the call was edited. Is the entire call available somewhere?

 

The police report, some quality tracks, picture ( even a blobsquatch) and the full 911 recording would make for a compelling case.

Otherwise.... it's nothing other than it.... it's nothing as far as evidence goes.

 

 

Its nothing no matter if the Police Chief himself came out and said the call was real. 

 

But it certainly illustrates my point that not everyone is LARPing.....the caller would not call it anything other than a big person. I believe the caller was seeing something, even if it was a tall black bear. But maybe it was Bigfoot and he could not or would not call it thus. Either because he knew nothing about the subject or knew there was a stigma attached to it.

 

This lady took pictures of this thing in her backyard.

 

http://www.lorencoleman.com/myakka.html

 

Some people claim it's an Orangutan...... regardless I think in the pitch black you would never walk out on your back porch at night ever again. This person wasn't LARPing either.

[dmaker]

How do you know the picture is from her backyard? How do you know if she was playing games or not? I don't think she was identified, was she? They were anonymously mailed to the Sheriff's Department. 

 

You take much on faith, my friend. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by dmaker

[7.62]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

How do you know the picture is from her backyard? How do you know if she was playing games or not? I don't think she was identified, was she? They were anonymously mailed to the Sheriff's Department. 

 

You take much on faith, my friend. 

I can understand on an anonymous forum you can question motives or claims that other members here have seen one .

Can I just ask you a hypothetical question ? Other than seeing one with your own eyes is there anyone in your circle of friends or family if they told you they saw one

would it convince you  they exist ?

 

Only reason I'm asking is I never thought much of the subject before this year until I talked to a person who is about as honest as honest can be.

It was just a off hand comment I made to him that got me interested in the subject . I won't go into detail about it now but the photos he showed me at his home

made me a believer .

[Trogluddite]

21 hours ago, Cricket said:

Hello again to those on this thread!  Here's something I was thinking about recently after seeing many descriptions of the eyeshine of Bigfoot at night.  If we are talking about primates, then that feature is attributable to the tapetum lucidum, which is characteristic of Strepsirrhine primates.  The Strepsirrhines include lemurs, lorises, and bush babies.  Thus if Bigfoot has a tapetum lucidum, then it is either an ancestral trait shared with the Strepsirrhines, or a derived trait in Bigfoot, something it developed independently, and how that happened should be elaborated upon.  Anthropoids do not have a tapetum lucidum, so this characteristic would distinguish Bigfoot from Haplorhines (tarsiers, NW monkeys, OW monkeys, apes & humans).  I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on this.  If the reports from those who have seen Bigfoot are to be taken seriously, then implications such as this should be taken into account.   

Cricket, 

If you do a search for tapetum lucidum, I'm confident that you'll find several threads on this topic.  Don't think your question will get much traction here.  Cheers. 

[PBeaton]

dmaker,

 

Have you ever talked to folks who claim to have had a sightin' ?

 

Maybe some folks are into this larpin' stuff, I can't say for sure. But myself, nope. I've talked to a elderly couple, who simply claimed to see a road crossin', nothin' fancy, just a quick road crossin'. It was funny, cause he said this grey upright thing crossed the road, his wife smacked him in the arm, looked at me an said it was brownish, he's colour blind. All she said was it looked big, harry an bent over, an it crossed the road.

I've talked to a Native guy my sister-in-law knows, only reason he talked to me about his sightin' is because she asked him to, he didn't like talkin' bout it.

I've talked to a few who have told me of sightin's by folks they wouldn't question their honesty. Nothin' grand or excitin', simple non extraordinary sightin's if it wasn't for the subject matter.

 

"This also helps explain what I've always seen as an incongruency of action with proponents, particularly witnesses. Here you have someone that claims that without a doubt they have witnessed a hulking, 8 foot ape-man near to populated areas (many, many reports are nearby populated areas), yet they do nothing about it."  Just my opinion, but I don't think folks are big on talkin' bout somethin' most don't believe. If you had a sightin', say a road crossin' at night, big as, hair covered, say a massive stride to cross road in two steps. Would you stop to investigate ? Would you tell folks ?

 

Pat...