Black bear walking upright generates false BF reports.

[Incorrigible1]

41 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

If that's the case, then, with all due respect, your conclusion doesn't flow from your premise. If a seasoned woods person has something dark and hairy in his or her cross hairs, that seasoned woods person is not going to squeeze the trigger until the subject in those cross hairs has been fully identified. A momentary glimpse doesn't rise to that level.

 

 

Did anyone mention rifles, or hunting?

[wiiawiwb]

The principle is the same.  A seasoned woods person is not going to draw a conclusion that a fleeting, and momentary, glimpse of something dark and hairy is a bigfoot. He, or she, will correctly determine that a conclusion is simply not possible. 

 

 

 

 

[David NC]

On 8/18/2020 at 7:26 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

The sightings seem to be most confined to Jellystone Park.

That I know was a joke, but a friend of the family told me about an experience she had at Jellystone campground. Her and her family camped there for a week at the tent site that was a little ways in the woods and near the river, so away from the other campsites. The third night they where there they had cooked hamburgers and wrapped the one left in saran wrap between 2 paper plates and forgot and left it on the pick nick table with some of their other drinks and things. Late that night she woke up to the sound of footsteps going by her tent. she could see a large shadow over her tent. She said it smelled like sewage and rotten fish. she was to scared to move. She heard it rummaging around in camp a few minutes and then it left. The next morning they found their coffee percolator, and  2 liter Sundrop thrown into the woods the hamburger was eaten but the plates and saran wrap were thrown down on the ground. none of the items that were disturbed had any teeth or claw marks on them. the hamburger was unwrapped by something that did not use claws or teeth.

[Twist]

19 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Did anyone mention rifles, or hunting?

Don’t you know that on the internet all goal posts can be moved and most people are incapable of mistake....it’s the internet, land of make belief.

[norseman]

On 8/22/2020 at 7:27 PM, wiiawiwb said:

The principle is the same.  A seasoned woods person is not going to draw a conclusion that a fleeting, and momentary, glimpse of something dark and hairy is a bigfoot. He, or she, will correctly determine that a conclusion is simply not possible. 

 

 

 

 

I would agree with that. My default setting is that it was a bear. 

[Twist]

People jump to conclusions all the time both experienced and inexperienced.   Seeing a dark furry obscured bear walking upright isn’t crazy to consider as BF if it’s on your brain or the right angle obscure certain features.   The person doesn’t have to come out of the woods declaring they definitively saw BF but coming out and saying hey I might have witnessed BF is very much in the realm of possibility in my opinion.  
 

Many reports come from people that aren’t certain exactly what they saw but what they did see does not fit into what they were expecting or prepared to see.   

[DaleyWoodbeater]

Any info on what bear/squatch interactions are like?

 

Aggressive towards each other? Ignore each other?

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

People jump to conclusions all the time both experienced and inexperienced.   Seeing a dark furry obscured bear walking upright isn’t crazy to consider as BF if it’s on your brain or the right angle obscure certain features.   The person doesn’t have to come out of the woods declaring they definitively saw BF but coming out and saying hey I might have witnessed BF is very much in the realm of possibility in my opinion.  
 

Many reports come from people that aren’t certain exactly what they saw but what they did see does not fit into what they were expecting or prepared to see.   

No doubt that many reports are misidentification. But I would question how experienced someone is that makes one of these reports.

 

Which is different than coming out of the woods and saying you saw something “odd”.

 

If your making a Bigfoot report on a Bigfoot Forum? Then what you saw should be definitive, preferably with collaborative evidence and not just a flash of fur in the brush.

 

I suppose it ends up with who is vetting the report.

 

[Twist]

How many BF reports period have collaborating evidence?  I’d venture to guess not many.  I just find it a rather silly of people who claim to be incapable of misidentification.   

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

How many BF reports period have collaborating evidence?  I’d venture to guess not many.  I just find it a rather silly of people who claim to be incapable of misidentification.   

Like footprints? Wood knocks? Howls?  I would say there are more of them than sightings? 
 

 

I don’t find it silly at all. Because in Washington state we have 3 species of deer and rules for each. Mule deer are three point or better. So in order to hunt deer one needs to observe species, gender and size BEFORE pulling the trigger. We have Elk, Moose and Caribou. Rules for each. Two species of Bear. Rules for each. Wolves vs Coyotes, Lynx vs Bobcat...one protected and the other allowed to be harvested. The list goes on. 

 

Are their dumb hunters that misidentify species and get the book thrown at them? Of course. Would I call them “experienced”? No. Either that or they are poachers who willfully harvest game animals who are out of season or don’t match the criteria for harvest. Or they are a protected species.

 

Patty and a Bear look nothing alike. I’ve never seen anything like Patty in the woods. But I’ve stopped a buddy from shooting a cinnamon phase black bear because at first I thought it might be a small Grizzly Bear. The Devil is in the details in today’s environment. Get it wrong and it could cost you prison time and big fines and loss of hunting rights.

 

So you go out year after year and navigate all these laws and successfully harvest lawful game animals? And then you see a Bear in the woods and turn it in as a Bigfoot report?🤨 Again I would question motives. Not likely.
 

 

 

 

[Twist]

That’s moving the goal post again.  We are not talking about hunting and killing an animal.   Talking about catching a fleeting glimpse of a bear walking bipedal.   Sure walking down a city sidewalk no one should misidentify a bear but seeing one walking upright in the bush,  I have no doubt some could mistake it for something other than a bear.  If Bf is in the mind then that may be the train of thought.  

[norseman]

18 minutes ago, Twist said:

That’s moving the goal post again.  We are not talking about hunting and killing an animal.   Talking about catching a fleeting glimpse of a bear walking bipedal.   Sure walking down a city sidewalk no one should misidentify a bear but seeing one walking upright in the bush,  I have no doubt some could mistake it for something other than a bear.  If Bf is in the mind then that may be the train of thought.  

Not sure why it’s moving the goal post. An “experienced outdoorsman” would be well versed in the animals of his area. Including Bears that sometimes are walking bipedal. It matters little if he is hunting or not. His eye is trained to viewing lots of game animals. I’ve never ever looked at a upright Bear and thought it was a Bigfoot. Which is why I find it hard to believe. 

 

But then again I don’t have any real desire to be on a Bigfoot TV show either. Which I feel is the ulterior motive. Or? It’s the truth.

 

Either way Twist? We are back to square one. Need a specimen and not stories.

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

In the years that I have gone up in northern Michigan. I have never spotted a black bear ut in those woods. Now I am not saying that they are not out there I have not seen one. But what reason would a bear have to be standing up on it's hind legs and be walking on then in the first place. It seems that it would be un-natural for a bear to be doing this act on it's own. The only reason that I can come up with that a bear would be doing this is to sniff the air for scent. Now a bear that is walking on it's back two feet is not going to leave 72" heel to heel tracks behind. 

 

But I can see how people can make the mistake of seeing a bear and calling it a Bigfoot. As long as the bear is not moving and standing behind some tree. This is possible and this mistake can take place in reporting of some witnesses. But most of the witnesses do know their species that live in the forest. But I would rule out some who only vacation in the forest. But this is only my take on this subject. 

[NCBFr]

23 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

The only reason that I can come up with that a bear would be doing this is to sniff the air for scent. Now a bear that is walking on it's back two feet is not going to leave 72" heel to heel tracks behind. 

 

 

 

The NJ case which I believe birthed the "BFs are nothing more than bears walking on 2 feet" narrative is a result of a poor bear that hurt its two front feet (I think fire) and it adapted by walking everywhere on 2 feet.   It really is insulting for people to say that the BF you say you saw was nothing more than a bear walking on 2 feet because they saw this story.  I understand that some people cannot wrap there mind around a living population of unknown 7+ ft creatures living in the US (and many other areas around the world).  However, it is the what I call the "professional deniers" that from time to time get under my skin. 

[7.62]

I think the key argument and word is experienced outdoorsman . Just speaking for my self I think it would be pretty much impossible for my self to make that mistake.

 

I know what a bear looks like and have spotted many many during my  years of hunting New England states  . It doesn't surprise me to see one at all. I get them in my back fence line 

roaming around every year until the dogs chase them off. I can see a person who hasn't experienced a lot of solo time in the forest see a  quick flash or a glimpse 

of a bear going up on it's hind legs and think it could be something bipedal covered in fur but if the sighting lasts more than a few seconds it's pretty obvious if he can get a look at the head that it's a bear.

 

I guess the other argument is the other side of the spectrum where there are people who see everything as bigfoot also . They hear a walnut fall and say something is throwing pebbles at us. They hear a beaver slap at night and right away it's bigfoot throwing rocks into a lake .