Guest alex Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 I think the #of people in bigfoot suits is an outlier on a chart of the cause of a bigfoot report. It is far outweighed by people just making up stories about seeing Bigfoot. So people must either be lieing, being hoaxed, or misidentifying things? There is little margin for error concerning up close encounters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 While Drew is a known skeptic, he didn't say what you paraphrased him saying. He said that the hoaxing issue is responsible for a statistically small number of the reports. And that liars represent a much larger percentage. That statement, I agree with. Close proximity encounters, as you pointed out, are a different story. And ditto to what Incorrigible said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 While Drew is a known skeptic, he didn't say what you paraphrased him saying. He said that the hoaxing issue is responsible for a statistically small number of the reports. And that liars represent a much larger percentage. That statement, I agree with. And what if actual bona fide real life sasquatches are also responsible for a statistically small number of the reports? Wouldn't there then be rough equilibrium? Small number of hoaxers and no dead hoaxer v small number of sasquatch and no dead sasquatch? Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 And what if actual bona fide real life sasquatches are also responsible for a statistically small number of the reports? Wouldn't there then be rough equilibrium? Small number of hoaxers and no dead hoaxer v small number of sasquatch and no dead sasquatch? Makes sense to me. How about: Small number of hoaxers and plenty of live hoaxers vs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Otherwise, all those people who are positive about what they saw are either lying or delusional, correct? If you're a pseudo-Saskeptic you can't dodge that one. I'm the actual Saskeptic and there's nothing to dodge. I never claimed that people in bigfoot costumes make up a significant proportion of eyewitness accounts. As Bullfrog described, it's easy to control the risk of being shot when hoaxing in a bigfoot costume. I don't see why it's automatically "stupid" to do that. Lots of people do risky things everyday that you or I might not do (e.g., I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but lots of people do). People calculate risks and do things they want to do all the time. When you decide the when and where of how your bigfoot masquerade will take place, you can effectively eliminate the probability of being shot. . . . Which begs the question of why folks think there is a danger of being shot while hoaxing. On what is that perception based, all the examples of hunters shooting "real" bigfoots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 . . . Which begs the question of why folks think there is a danger of being shot while hoaxing. On what is that perception based, all the examples of hunters shooting "real" bigfoots? It's based on the skeptical argument the we would have shot and drug in a real bigfoot by now. The same would hold true for guys in suits if it is a fact that hoaxing in suits is prevalant and that bigfoots are at risk of being shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted September 27, 2010 Admin Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) On what is that perception based, all the examples of hunters shooting "real" bigfoots? Or possibly, on all the examples of hunters shooting other hunters... efc. Edited September 27, 2010 by masterbarber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 It's based on the skeptical argument the we would have shot and drug in a real bigfoot by now. The same would hold true for guys in suits if it is a fact that hoaxing in suits is prevalant and that bigfoots are at risk of being shot. Most reported sightings are not men-in-suits. A hoaxer in a suit, is not going onto State land to hoax Bigfooters during rifle season. A hoaxer in a suit, is going to hoax on areas he is comfortable with. On his farm, where he knows the Bigfooters he let's in are not carrying weapons., or in his backyard making a movie for youtube. If he is going on public land to fool passersby, it might be a park, or a rest area, or on the side of a road, all places where hunters are not going to be prevalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted September 27, 2010 Admin Share Posted September 27, 2010 You do realize of course that hunters are a very small percentage of the armed public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) You do realize of course that hunters are a very small percentage of the armed public... Any responsible armed person, isn't going to open up on a dude in a suit, let alone an furry animal in a Rest Area, Public Park, Cider Mill, or From a moving vehicle on a road. Of course, an ILLEGAL gun carrier isn't going to do it either, he'll end up with a Felony Firearm charge. So either way, I think the dude in the suit is safe at most public areas. Edited September 27, 2010 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted September 27, 2010 Admin Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) Girl gets acosted/startled/spooked by moron in a BF suit, runs to Dad/boyfriend/husband, Dad/boyfriend/husband locates said moron and promptly ventilates him for the "attack". Happens to folks who don't even have BF suits.... Or of course the girl may be armed and could just start plugging away due to fear of life and limb... efc. Edited September 27, 2010 by masterbarber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 For those of you that are not experienced hunters, keep the following in mind. These are not absolutes as there are always exceptions to behaviors. - Experienced hunters must be able to identify their target game. They do not mistake a deer for a moose. - With the exception of predator hunting, all hunting takes place in daylight hours. - Buck fever is a real behavior and can cause the hunter to miss a target at very close range. - There are hunter harassment laws that are strictly enforced in many states (a hoaxer would be reported in most instances). - There are very few hunters that give bf any consideration (thanks to the media and science). - The number of licensed hunters afield has declined year after year. - Hunters do not shoot at just any animal they see. - Big game hunting is expensive and a lot of work. Much of the work is after the shot is taken. The argument that a hunter should have killed one and brought a body back for science proves they do not exist is not realistic in my opinion. You have the media and science promoting bf as a myth and when a hunter or anyone reports a sighting, they are scoffed at. Had science taken a different approach early on, your argument may have more merit. The idea that the sighting reports that have been reported by hunters are instead, hoaxers, is just silly. UPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 The idea that the sighting reports that have been reported by hunters are instead, hoaxers, is just silly. UPs I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) - Experienced hunters must be able to identify their target game. They do not mistake a deer for a moose. Agree - With the exception of predator hunting, all hunting takes place in daylight hours. Raccoon and possum hunting with dogs is legal at night in Michigan - Buck fever is a real behavior and can cause the hunter to miss a target at very close range. Agree - There are hunter harassment laws that are strictly enforced in many states (a hoaxer would be reported in most instances). On public land, a person has as much right to be there as a hunter. A person walking by in a Bigfoot suit, while stupid, is not breaking the law unless they are specifically trying to interfere with the hunt. - There are very few hunters that give bf any consideration (thanks to the media and science).- The number of licensed hunters afield has declined year after year. - Hunters do not shoot at just any animal they see. - Big game hunting is expensive and a lot of work. Much of the work is after the shot is taken. Agree (except for the 'thanks to media and science' part) The argument that a hunter should have killed one and brought a body back for science proves they do not exist is not realistic in my opinion. You have the media and science promoting bf as a myth and when a hunter or anyone reports a sighting, they are scoffed at. Had science taken a different approach early on, your argument may have more merit. The idea that the sighting reports that have been reported by hunters are instead, hoaxers, is just silly. UPs The argument that one should have been collected when people were hunting for food, or bounty, and collected for science is realistic. Audobon killed, or his parties killed almost every land mammal in N. America, paid shooters killed all but 52 Bison, Loggers and bounty hunters wiped out every mountain lion, wolf, and elk in Michigan, it seems that during these times, is when the Bigfoot should have fallen. I truly don't think that hunters nowadays are responsible for not killing one, but the argument that todays hunters should catch one on camera is realistic. With all the game-cams, and video cameras in the tree stands that are out there now. I think most hunter reports are a combination of mis-interpretation of sensory inputs and hynagogic hallucinations. I would think a hunter report that is based on a hoaxer is rare if not non-existent. Edited September 27, 2010 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 I don't see why not. If they're stupid enough to don an ape suit in order to trick random people along a roadway (who might very well have a rifle behind the pickup seat), how are we supposed to attribute enough intelligence to them to know the hunting regs and put two and two together? They're stupid. That's already established. We just don't know the depths of their stupidity. Those people who I know who have willfully faked bigfoot sightings with suits were/are hard core hunters and their intended victims were usually city slickers with little or no outdoors experience. I will admit that is a very interesting post. I highlighted the words I thought significant, note that the location you attribute to yourself is Florida, and will reassert my position: They're stupid. That's already established. We just don't know the depths of their stupidity. I will also note that "hard core hunters" are not immune from stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts