Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Guest]

First, how do you generally perceive or describe "habituation" as it applies to BF.

My understanding of habituations is that, foremost, they involve regular contact with the same bigfoot individual(s) over some extended period of time. This contact could be physical, involve "parallel play," or simply be the bigfoot allowing itself to be seen. I consider a habituation to be different from a situation in which someone simply claims to have seen the same bigfoot multiple times. A "true" habituation should occur on the bigfoot's terms.

Second, If you happened to be alone in remote part of some rugged river bottoms or mountains in broad daylight, and you had an unobstructed view of, and closley approached by 8 to 9 foot tall, hair-covered hominid that appeared to weigh in excess of 400 pounds, and the thing roared and screamed at you before it turned and walked out of sight into the woods, would you report that encounter on this board or in any public format?

Absolutely, and I'd expect to be grilled by the resident skeptics - including myself!

[Huntster]

Didn't Green and Dahinden speak to Beck long before he wrote his book? I believe they did.

Again, that is why Coleman wrote:

It's worthy of noting, however, that Fred Beck never mentioned the paranormal when Bigfooters interviewed him about his experiences in the early 1960's. The paranormal elements appear to be merely reflections of Beck's temperament when he or his son would retell or write down teh story that resultined in their 1967 book. The news articles from the 1920's seem to be closer to the actual details of the event.

Perhaps later in life Beck, as many people do, might have started getting a bit more spiritual as the time to pass on was creeping closer and perhaps Beck looked back on his Ape Canyon encounter in a different way to how he viewed it when it happened in 1924.

I don't believe that. I believe he was genuinely impressed with the aboriginal spiritualism (remember the name of Spirit Lake), and was so confused and upset with the creatures, that he attributed spiritual aspects to it.

Today's world, of course, is ready to use that as a weapon to discredit him, just like yet another political manueuver. We see it numerous times each day during this election season.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest RayG]

Regardless of WHY Beck decided to attribute paranormal abilities to himself and the sasquatches in his story, the fact is, he did, and the major bigfoot researchers who themselves published bigfoot books after Beck did so, make no mention of the paranormal aspects he discussed.

I suspect it's because it would diminish his story, lessen its impact in the bigfoot community, turn Beck into another Beckjord. If not, why keep it out? What is the reasoning?

Huntster, I don't think it would only be skeptics that would wince at Beck's paranormal mindframe, I know of many bigfoot proponents, who winced when Beckjord was mentioned as a viable source of bigfoot information.

Maybe you didn't know Beckjord, but do you really not see any similarities between Beck and Beckjord?

RayG

[Huntster]

Regardless of WHY Beck decided to attribute paranormal abilities to himself and the sasquatches in his story, the fact is, he did, and the major bigfoot researchers who themselves published bigfoot books after Beck did so, make no mention of the paranormal aspects he discussed.

I suspect it's because it would diminish his story, lessen its impact in the bigfoot community, turn Beck into another Beckjord.

Evidence, please.

If not, why keep it out? What is the reasoning?

It's meaningless, especially since he didn't discuss it when interviewed several years earlier?

Huntster, I don't think it would only be skeptics that would wince at Beck's paranormal mindframe, I know of many bigfoot proponents, who winced when Beckjord was mentioned as a viable source of bigfoot information.

Just because Beckjord was a kook doesn't mean he didn't have a lot of bigfoot information.

Maybe you didn't know Beckjord, but do you really not see any similarities between Beck and Beckjord?

Did Beck attack any skeptics at their homes?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest RayG]

Evidence, please.

Evidence of which, the lack of paranormal aspects to Beck's story in bigfooter books, or my opinion that the inclusion of such info would lessen the impact of Beck's story?

Read some of the bigfoot books from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, all published after Beck's book, all conveniently missing paranormal aspects of his story.

Green, Byrne, Krantz, Dahinden, Napier, none of the classic bigfooters that mention Beck's story even hint at any paranormal aspects of it. To see what Beck wrote himself, try this link to see the contents of his book.

It's meaningless, especially since he didn't discuss it when interviewed several years earlier?

But why would bigfoot researchers like John Green leave out that portion? Was he not aware of it? He didn't realize Beck had written the book? I doubt it. Why then, would he leave out specific portions? Was it because it was an undesirable aspect of the story? I suspect it was, and that's exactly why Green and others left it out. That's not the first time stories have been watered down to eliminate paranormal aspects either, and anyone who has compared some of the older stories is fully aware of that.

Just because Beckjord was a kook doesn't mean he didn't have a lot of bigfoot information.

I'm talking about his psychic/paranormal manifestations of bigfoot. That was stuff he truly believed in.

Did Beck attack any skeptics at their homes?

Did I suggest he did?

RayG

[Guest BCCryptid]

I still don't get it. If native cultures in North America described these giant, hairy, wild people living in deep, dark forests, then I would expect people who make claims of having encountered such creatures to describe what they saw as something like a giant, hairy, wild person. Ergo, participation in the mythology would lead to a common bigfoot meme whether or not people are encountering real bigfoots.

Of course you must be familiar with the many reports that do report some variability in bigfoot appearance: gray ones, skinny ones, etc. There are non-conformist bigfoot reports. Then there are those that are so different that they don't get reported as "bigfoot", e.g., the "dogmen", "lizardmen", or "mothmen" stories.

There is ample 'participation in the mythology' as you say, or as I would put it, continuing sighting evidence to this day re-enforcing native traditions and stories on similar animals, but please, don't go there here, that thread was locked.

Report descriptions are consistent overall (we can debate the sub-species skunk ape another time) with a single species of tall bipedal ape, with normal and natural colour variations from predominant dark brown and reddish hair. Weight and physical descriptions match well with a living biological species that grows considerably from small fuzzy newborns, to athletic, slim adolescents, to large heavy set adults. Differences in males and females also noted and apparent.

The few and extremely sparse reports of 'other' types such as reptillian, mothmen, ape men, ect, are consistent with either poor identification of known animal or hoaxing. If we had a concerted effort N.A.-wide to hoax bipedal boogy men in general we would have a normal statistical variation spectrum of reports, ie, 20% lizard men, 20% flying mothmen, 20% ape men and 20% king kongs, ect... but we don't.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 13 October 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Evidence, please.

Evidence of which, the lack of paranormal aspects to Beck's story in bigfooter books, or my opinion that the inclusion of such info would lessen the impact of Beck's story?

Your opinion that the inclusion of such info would lessen the impact of Beck's story.

Read some of the bigfoot books from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, all published after Beck's book, all conveniently missing paranormal aspects of his story.

Why was it convenient? Fewer words, thus less publishing costs?

Green, Byrne, Krantz, Dahinden, Napier, none of the classic bigfooters that mention Beck's story even hint at any paranormal aspects of it. To see what Beck wrote himself, try this link to see the contents of his book.

No, thanks.

It's meaningless, especially since he didn't discuss it when interviewed several years earlier?

But why would bigfoot researchers like John Green leave out that portion?

Because when Green talked with him, he didn't mention any of it?

Was he not aware of it?

Dunno. Didn't care?

He didn't realize Beck had written the book? I doubt it.

Me too, because Beck didn't write the book. His son did.

[Huntster]

Why then, would he leave out specific portions?

They were "new" aspects missing from earlier interviews?

Was it because it was an undesirable aspect of the story?

Is it "undesirable" when a court witness adds testimony later that was missing from earlier interviews and grand jury testimony?

I suspect it was, and that's exactly why Green and others left it out.

And that might be especially so if they could truthfully say that, "He didn't say any of that s**t when we talked to him several years ago."

That's not the first time stories have been watered down to eliminate paranormal aspects either

Nor has it been the first time people have gone crazy after they got old and were recounting a stressful story from years before.

Nor has it been the first time that a lawyer............err............skeptic...........used such changes in testimony to inject doubt into the entire account in order to satisfy their needs.

Just because Beckjord was a kook doesn't mean he didn't have a lot of bigfoot information.

I'm talking about his psychic/paranormal manifestations of bigfoot. That was stuff he truly believed in.

I don't share his beliefs. If I remember, they were much more paranormal than what Coleman pointed out with Beck. More, Beck's "paranormal" beliefs were centered on phenomenon that he claimed he witnessed, like the prints a long distance out on a sandbar, that he couldn't explain, and the aboriginal spiritual beliefs permeating that area with place names like "Spirit Lake", which was a common aboriginal trait regarding sasquatches.

Did Beck attack any skeptics at their homes?

Did I suggest he did?

No, but you're likening him to Beckjord, who was aggressive toward you in your private life, wasn't he? Beck wasn't aggressive, was he? Beckjord surely was.

[Huntster]

Saskeptic, on 10 October 2010 - 10:58 AM, said:

I still don't get it. If native cultures in North America described these giant, hairy, wild people living in deep, dark forests, then I would expect people who make claims of having encountered such creatures to describe what they saw as something like a giant, hairy, wild person. Ergo, participation in the mythology would lead to a common bigfoot meme whether or not people are encountering real bigfoots.

Of course you must be familiar with the many reports that do report some variability in bigfoot appearance: gray ones, skinny ones, etc. There are non-conformist bigfoot reports. Then there are those that are so different that they don't get reported as "bigfoot", e.g., the "dogmen", "lizardmen", or "mothmen" stories.

There is ample 'participation in the mythology' as you say, or as I would put it, continuing sighting evidence to this day re-enforcing native traditions and stories on similar animals

That very fact was addressed by Glickman:

The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population density and frequency: the Group A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B correlation of +0.1244.

A second relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population and frequency. When Group A is separated from the dataset, its correlation to population rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664.

Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation to population density. This is consistent with the model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1).

Let's assume that manufactured reports will be uniformly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot, which may influence the density of manufacturing. The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to population, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green's data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result.

[Guest RayG]

Your opinion that the inclusion of such info would lessen the impact of Beck's story.

Why was it convenient? Fewer words, thus less publishing costs?

Well, it never helps to use a second unsolved mystery to explain the first. Better to leave out anything that tends to draw criticism or question the validity of the events.

No, thanks.

No? You're missing quite the tale.

Because when Green talked with him, he didn't mention any of it?

Only Green could answer why he didn't include anything, but given his penchant for investigating and recording, it seems strange that he would be ignorant of Beck's book.

Me too, because Beck didn't write the book. His son did.

So his son made it all up? What evidence do you have of that? Given that logic, how do we know bigfoot sightings aren't just similar embellishments?

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

I don't believe that. I believe he was genuinely impressed with the aboriginal spiritualism (remember the name of Spirit Lake), and was so confused and upset with the creatures, that he attributed spiritual aspects to it.

Yes Huntster that is basically the same as what I wrote. But that came later. It doesn't appear that Beck had those thoughts at the time of the alleged encounter or even at the time he spoke to Green and Dahinden though. He didn't mention any of that to them.

I personally know people who have started to get more spiritual the older they get. It does happen so it's not out of the realms of possibility that as Beck neared the end of his life he looked back on certain things through different colored spectacles.

[Guest Kerchak]

Regardless of WHY Beck decided to attribute paranormal abilities to himself and the sasquatches in his story, the fact is, he did, and the major bigfoot researchers who themselves published bigfoot books after Beck did so, make no mention of the paranormal aspects he discussed.

If he didn't discuss it with THEM then why should they?

Maybe they weren't even aware of his later claims?

This is what Green wrote later:

"I got the impression that Fred Beck had told his story so often that he had established a set pattern of things to say and there wasn't much use asking further questions. To my understanding there was a difficulty in fitting all of the elements of his story in logical order, but I was not able to clear that up."

In Green's books he mostly just repeats the Roger Patterson recorded interview with Beck (which also doesn't mention any paranormal aspect).

In his Sasquatch:The Apes Amongs Us, Green certainly doesn't appear to have engaged in any further interviews with Beck beyond what he did in the early 1960s or whenever it was.

In Dahinden's book he also doesn't dwell on the Ape Canyon story too much either and just related what Beck told him when he spoke to him. That's about it, then the narrative of Rene's book moves on to other accounts and I don't believe it mentions Fred Beck again.

I really don't think this needs to be equated to some sort of cover up.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest]

but please, don't go there here, that thread was locked.

?

Report descriptions are consistent overall . . .

If we had a concerted effort N.A.-wide to hoax bipedal boogy men in general we would have a normal statistical variation spectrum of reports, ie, 20% lizard men, 20% flying mothmen, 20% ape men and 20% king kongs, ect... but we don't.

Why expect equal numbers of reports among those different mythological creatures? Bigfoot the myth is fully ingrained into North American culture to an extent that far exceeds lizardmen, mothmen, etc. If you want to hoax something in the woods in North America, you hoax a bigfoot, not a moth man. A few minutes on You Tube will confirm that.

[Guest]

Wow this thread is so monstrously derailed it's not even funny.

[Huntster]

No, thanks.

No? You're missing quite the tale.

I believe you, but in all honesty, most "story" type sasquatch reports don't do much for me, especially older ones. All they seem to do is give skeptics/denialists fodder for denigrating the subject. The Beck story, while a great campfire story with great roots and a sasquatch classic, does nothing to help come to a resolution, and gives people like yourself and Saskeptic all kinds of material to inject doubt.

Me too, because Beck didn't write the book. His son did.

So his son made it all up?

I don't know. If I investigated his son and found that he smoked marijuana, could I then claim that he made it all up?

That's how politics, debate, and mass media propaganda works, isn't it?

What evidence do you have of that?

None. But if I really gave a rip, I'd bet I could find some: his son smoked weed, or beat his wife, or got a speeding ticket several years before, or has foot fungus, etc.

Inject doubt. Inject BS. Inject problems. It's easy..........

Given that logic, how do we know bigfoot sightings aren't just similar embellishments?

We don't. Indeed, that's what skeptics and denialists do all the time; suggest that very thing.

I'm learning that such truck works both ways. Get ready for more..........