Damning For Skeptics

[Huntster]

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.

I agree. I'm quite confident that the majority of sighting reports are either manufactured or mis-identificattion. I just don't believe all of them are.

More, with footprint/trackway evidence, something is left, and I find it unreasonable to assume that the number of footprint hoaxers is any greater than the number of suit hoaxers.

[Huntster]

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.

C'mon. Really?

It appears to be one of the dumbest things to do that I can think of.

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).

And most of those activities are pretty stupid, too.

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?

How about the reality that science demands a dead sasquatch body in order to accept them, and the common perception that it might be profitable?

[southernyahoo]

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.

Well, it seems then that the concensus now among the skeptical is that hoaxing in suits is a small and minor issue among the reports. Whats your final quesstimate on that percentage?

[Guest]

It appears to be one of the dumbest things to do that I can think of.

You never dated any of the girls I did back in the 70's, did you?

[Drew]

Well, it seems then that the concensus now among the skeptical is that hoaxing in suits is a small and minor issue among the reports. Whats your final quesstimate on that percentage?

How many reports are we talking about?

Only Class A BFRO reports?

How about the MRP report for example? should we include that?

The number of reports based on a suit is VERY low. Because many of the sightings of a people in a suit, would also be sightings of a camera man, and maybe of the laughing, and possibly taking off the mask later, and would not result in a report.

I would venture to say the number of Class A reports based on someone in a suit is less than 1%

[Guest UPs]

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 hunter

In reference to your raccoon and possum hunting at night, I believe you are right that they can and are hunted at night.

As far as the above, a person walking by in a bigfoot costume on public land during hunting season is interfering with your hunt. No if ands or buts about it and the MDNR would not see it as something you have a right to do. Whether that person can be caught is a different story. I once was threatened to be reported for just riding my atv on a trail that a bear hunter was hunting off. I was hunting grouse. His claim I could refute easily, but the MDNR does take these complaints seriously. Another example is during rifle season, you cannot ride atv,s or snowmobiles on public land open to deer hunting during the hunting hours except 11am-1pm unless you are recovering/transporting the deer. I was stopped for that one too, but not ticketed. I would be interested if you know of any cases of someone in a bf suit (or similar) on public land during deer season and if they were reported and what happened (genuine interest here as the DNR has some leeway on interpreting the law, as far as I know). As you probably know, the CO,s have quite a bit of power in MI. UPs

To clarify the above in reference to snowmobiles....you cannot operate a snowmobile duing the firearm deer hunting season from 7am-11am and fron 2pm-5pm. Edited for this clarification and spelling.

Edited September 27, 2010 by UPs

[Huntster]

Most reported sightings are not men-in-suits.

Agreed.

A hoaxer in a suit, is not going onto State land to hoax Bigfooters during rifle season.

That is completely irrelevant. Hoaxers in suits are much more in danger simply hoaxing at the side of the road than in the woods during hunting season, as hunters are more disciplined to regulations which require shooting only legal game. At the side of the road, the hoaxer is subject to the gunfire of any and all who carry guns in their cars.

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.

I agree that a hoaxer in a suit is much more likely to be hoaxing for a friend with a video camera for UTube, however, we already have a poster on this very thread who claims to know others (plural) who have done this on the side of the road. Now is that a manufactured claim, or are you prepared to admit that idiots do this on the side of the road?

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.

Again, that is completely irrelevant. Hoaxers in suits are much more in danger simply hoaxing at the side of the road than in the woods during hunting season, as hunters are more disciplined to regulations which require shooting only legal game. At the side of the road, the hoaxer is subject to the gunfire of any and all who carry guns in their cars, and that is especially true today as concealed carry is much, much more prevalent than ever before.

[Huntster]

masterbarber, on 27 September 2010 - 05:17 AM, said:

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.

Your desperation shows. Just as there are idiots willing to wear ape suits for the cheap thrill of possibly fooling a motorist, there is the possibility of a motorist actually being fooled and shooting what he/she believes is a freaking bigfoot.

Hello? <knock, knock> Anybody home, Drew?

I think the dude in the suit is safe at most public areas.

I'm a skeptic. Please don an ape suit and show me.

Please.

[Drew]

In reference to your raccoon and possum hunting at night, I believe you are right that they can and are hunted at night.

As far as the above, a person walking by in a bigfoot costume on public land during hunting season is interfering with your hunt. No if ands or buts about it and the MDNR would not see it as something you have a right to do. Whether that person can be caught is a different story. I once was threatened to be reported for just riding my atv on a trail that a bear hunter was hunting off. I was hunting grouse. His claim I could refute easily, but the MDNR does take these complaints seriously. Another example is during rifle season, you cannot ride atv,s or snowmobiles on public land open to deer hunting during the hunting hours except 11am-1pm unless you are recovering/transporting the deer. I was stopped for that one too, but not ticketed. I would be interested if you know of any cases of someone in a bf suit (or similar) on public land during deer season and if they were reported and what happened (genuine interest here as the DNR has some leeway on interpreting the law, as far as I know). As you probably know, the CO,s have quite a bit of power in MI. UPs

I have had cross-country skiers and hikers, and people bird hunting pass within 100' of my tree stand before. This was during archery season however.

I think the snowmobile reference is 11-2PM but only during rifle season Nov. 15 to Nov. 30th.

I don't believe there are rules regarding bikes, skis or hiking during rifle season.

In fact: Most hikers wear orange, and have bells on their dogs or on their person to warn hunters of their approach. This is not considered harassment. In fact MDNR says

To successfully prosecute any person for harassment of another, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person intentionally or knowingly committed the violation.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141-34924--,00.html

[Drew]

Your desperation shows. Just as there are idiots willing to wear ape suits for the cheap thrill of possibly fooling a motorist, there is the possibility of a motorist actually being fooled and shooting what he/she believes is a freaking bigfoot.

Hello? <knock, knock> Anybody home, Drew?

I'm a skeptic. Please don an ape suit and show me.

Please.

Youtube! I may be ugly, but I'm not stupid.

[Guest UPs]

Thanks for the reference Drew. I do not think anyone could reasonably argue that dressing in a bf costume and walking sound a hunters blind or stand would not be harassment, but stranger things have happened. In my opinion, the hoaxer would get reported and the DNR would get involved. I know that I would report him/her, unless I had an "accidental discharge". By knowing that you can get relief from harassment (through the legal system), makes it less likely that someone would take matters into their own hands, so to speak. UPs

[Will]

Okay I'll ask

If hoaxers in a suit are a small percentage.

What is being seen. A bear that learned to walk on two legs. An escaped gorilla, Andre the Giant come back to life with a little more hair, What?

[Guest River]

The thing that gets me about the whole "believer vs skeptic" debate is this:

Do you think the "skeptics" here would deny or be upset if bigfoot was proven to be a real living animal? I think they would be happy, and pretty excited about such a discovery. The term skoftic is thrown around, and the term skeptic is applied to people who would question any evidence that is presented. Isnt that what we should do? Shouldnt any evidence presented as bigfoot be put through the ringers?

To accept it without that is not responsible. For instance - what if an article such as this one turns out to be the "real deal"? Do you think saskeptic, kitakaze, myself or any of the other "known" skeptics here would be upset in any way? Or do you think we would be excited?

Genuine question.

The problem is, to date all of the "stories" have turned out to be just that. Plenty of people (on both "sides of the fence") would love for one bit of the "evidence" to turn out to be real, authentic biological proof of such an entity existing. I dont understand why anyone, especially when related to this topic - should accept less.

Edited September 27, 2010 by River

[Will]

River I've heard the skeptic's say that,(that you would be excited) and I believe you.

I think what the believers want is a serious investigation by the wildlife officials.

Why is it left to weekend warriors to solve this one way or another, and frankly the skeptic's don't want a serious investigation.

I say what do you have to lose, yes the ivorybilled woodpecker will have to take a backseat, but only for a little while.

Edited September 27, 2010 by will

[Huntster]

Do you think the "skeptics" here would deny or be upset if bigfoot was proven to be a real living animal?

Yes and yes, for some. As evidence, I present to you an obituary for Paul DuChaillu (published in The National Geographic Magazine in the July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285), the first man to shoot a gorilla and bring the carcass back to science. This occurred 2 years after On the Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, and 10 years before Darwin published The Descent of Man:

In the book he told of gorilla, of which he had brought back the first specimens and which he had been the first white man to see and hunt; of the fierce cannibal tribes, the Fans, who filed their teeth to keep them sharp; of the ravages of the Baskouay ants, which marched in dense columns miles in length, and who were marshalled by officers and generals; of hunting elephants with pitfalls; of a new variety of snake, less than four feet long and six and eight inches thick, which lies in the open places in the woods and whose bite is instantaneous death, and of many other equally wonderful sights.

The book was greeted with shouts of laughter and derision from one end of the American continent to the other. Mr and Mrs and Miss Gorilla was the common jest, and the name Du Chaillu became a byword for a fanciful storyteller. Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him, except Harper and Brothers in the United States and the Royal Geographical Society in England, both of whom valiantly and vigorously defended his truthfulness.

Plenty of people (on both "sides of the fence") would love for one bit of the "evidence" to turn out to be real, authentic biological proof of such an entity existing. I dont understand why anyone, especially when related to this topic - should accept less.

The real problem is when the "skeptic" opposes the appropriate wildlife management authorities from conducting their very first official look into the matter. That isn't skepticism. It's denial and obstructionism.