Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Guest]

Why is that so true of Prince of Wales Island in Alaska, and completely not true of Kodiak Island in Alaska?

Because for some reason the people who settled Kodiak lost that part of their cultural heritage at some point?

Then why do we have mothman reports in New Jersey, and not in Elko, Nevada?

Because of exactly what I wrote: "bigfoot" is a culture- and continent-spanning icon while others like lizardmen and mothmen are confined to more discrete regions.

[Guest]

One species, one animal. Nobody read from any 'script'.

Sure they did, but I never insinuated that the phenomenon started with television or with the PGF. It is claimed that native peoples from many parts of North America have among their traditions stories of giant, hairy people living in remote places. I don't doubt that tradition at all. It makes sense to me that the bigfoot meme in modern culture was born when the first European explorers made contact with North American natives and began to absorb and transmit their traditions. Didn't Henry Hudson have some kind of bigfoot connection, like he reported that the natives told stories of wildmen in the woods? I'm not sure about that but if so, we're talking a 400-year tradition of cultural transmission about bigfoot from natives to explorers and American settlers. Of course, those Europeans had their own traditions of hairy wild men in the woods of the Old World, so the cultural image really goes back much deeper than we generally appreciate.

[Guest]

Okay, so did anyone ever find out what kind of car he used to transport the dead sasquatch?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 14 October 2010 - 07:28 AM, said:

Why is that so true of Prince of Wales Island in Alaska, and completely not true of Kodiak Island in Alaska?

Because for some reason the people who settled Kodiak lost that part of their cultural heritage at some point?

So some cultures need psychological "boogermen", and some don't? Why would that be?

Or, maybe (and more likely), the aboriginal peoples of Kodiak Island had giant brown bears to deal with and didn't need boogermen?

Or, maybe (and even more likely, especially since biological realities support it), the giant bears and open, brushy terrain isn't as ideal a habitat for a bipedal ape like the giant, old growth rainforest habitat (devoid of brown bears) of Prince of Wales Island?

Oh, that brings up another interesting question, doesn't it, Professor? Why are there thousands of giant brown bears on Kodiak Island (and no black bears), and thousands of giant black bears (and no brown bears) on Prince of Wales Island?

See the proven biological pattern yet? Or are we going to deny that, too?

Huntster, on 14 October 2010 - 07:28 AM, said:

Then why do we have mothman reports in New Jersey, and not in Elko, Nevada?

Because of exactly what I wrote: "bigfoot" is a culture- and continent-spanning icon while others like lizardmen and mothmen are confined to more discrete regions.

Professor, you are avoiding the obvious:

Why is "bigfoot" a culture and continent-spanning icon, while others like lizardman and mothmen are confined to more discrete regions?

And, btw, bigfoot reports are NOT evenly distributed continent wide. The BFRO database shows 0 reports in Hawaii, 7 in Iowa, and Washington state boasts 492 reports.

Glickman has offered a theory that appears to fit this report distribution that you condemn, but you have offered nothing reasonable or feasible to address this.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest RayG]

Yeah. "I don't know" tends not to answer questions.

Sorry, I thought you meant you and I didn't KNOW because we hadn't seen one, not that you lacked the knowledge to answer the question.

You're just going to have to be satisfied with my lack of *knowledge*, and my satisfaction with *belief*.

And you're just going to have to put up with my skepticism.

All I can tell you is how I do it:

If it sounds like sewage to me, I flush it down my believability stool. If it is believable, I'll consider it. If it is loaded with various and supportive bits of evidence, I might believe it.

And how do you determine the difference?

You are bound in an ideology that eats your soul.

Nope. There's no creed I need to adhere to, no weekly meetings, no sing-songs, and no demand I believe or have faith in something. The buffet is open, and I don't waste one second worrying about my soul being consumed.

Faith is on my side. My bulb may burn out, but the light just gets brighter.

You hope.

RayG

[Guest Lesmore]

Here we go again. Same old...same old.

[Guest BCCryptid]

BC, I don't think you could prove that. I mean, big feet and hairy would be about it as far a consistency goes, don't you think? The stories don't agree on whether its a human or an ape, how many toes, glowing eyes, foot shape, size, what kind of vocalizations, color, habitat, paranormal characteristics, speed of travel, stink/no stink, diet, bipedal, partly quadripedal....Bigfoot is anything or everything that people want to see.

I guess your reading the reports with different rose coloured glasses than me then, Parnassus.

I see an absolutely consistent description. Overly long arms. Large hands. Large feet. Very often a conical head is reported. Deep set eyes, no whites typically showing. Some bare skin on facial area. Flexible feet.

In the overwhelming majority of reports, the eyewitness is careful not to put too much into their interpretation, ie, "it was an ape man" or "it was a giant king kong like gorilla". I have read a few reports in the overall reports where either the eyewitness, or more often than not the bigfoot author of the book it is in, attempts to draw some comparison to support their theory.

This consistent reporting of physical description, AND behavior btw, is a cornerstone of the evidence, and supported by all of the actual scientists who have taken the time to look at this, like Dr. John Bindernagel. I concur with their conclusions, not an amateur skeptic's.

[Guest BCCryptid]

Would you agree that those who claim to KNOW that bigfoot exists, are guilty of a similar attitude?

You can either show me a sasquatch or you can't. No squatch? I can wait, but I ain't getting any younger.

Where's the fun in that?

My take/stance is this:

YOU can believe (or have faith) in any thing you wish, but it has no bearing on whether that thing is true or not, and the minute that belief is presented to me or the general public as evidence for that thing, I will don my skeptical hat (<-- see my avatar), and question the validity or authenticity of that belief.

RayG

I do not accept anyone's belief unless they have actually seen one, and a good sighting.

I choose to accept I am looking for an actual living animal, that I can track, guess the behavior of, logically determine patterns, ect.

[Guest BCCryptid]

So some cultures need psychological "boogermen", and some don't? Why would that be?

Or, maybe (and more likely), the aboriginal peoples of Kodiak Island had giant brown bears to deal with and didn't need boogermen?

Or, maybe (and even more likely, especially since biological realities support it), the giant bears and open, brushy terrain isn't as ideal a habitat for a bipedal ape like the giant, old growth rainforest habitat (devoid of brown bears) of Prince of Wales Island?

Oh, that brings up another interesting question, doesn't it, Professor? Why are there thousands of giant brown bears on Kodiak Island (and no black bears), and thousands of giant black bears (and no brown bears) on Prince of Wales Island?

See the proven biological pattern yet? Or are we going to deny that, too?

Professor, you are avoiding the obvious:

Why is "bigfoot" a culture and continent-spanning icon, while others like lizardman and mothmen are confined to more discrete regions?

And, btw, bigfoot reports are NOT evenly distributed continent wide. The BFRO database shows 0 reports in Hawaii, 7 in Iowa, and Washington state boasts 492 reports.

Glickman has offered a theory that appears to fit this report distribution that you condemn, but you have offered nothing reasonable or feasible to address this.

The expression is 'bogeyman'. Please explain why you think any culture 'needs' a 'bogeyman'. Please explain the difference between telling a child:

- If you go in the woods a cougar might leap on your back and bite through your skull

- If you go in the woods a bear might eat you

- If you go in the woods a mommy sasquatch might grab you and make you her adopted kid

[Guest BCCryptid]

Okay, so did anyone ever find out what kind of car he used to transport the dead sasquatch?

Excellent point, I'm not enjoying the thread hijack either. I think we need someone to purchase the full book, I thought I was reading the story in it's entirety until someone posted that Kong also had sex with the guy's ex-wife.

So dwelling on the car is pointless if there are far more bizarre claims in the story.

Can someone purchase the book and post quotes on what the missing parts are?

[Huntster]

All I can tell you is how I do it:

If it sounds like sewage to me, I flush it down my believability stool. If it is believable, I'll consider it. If it is loaded with various and supportive bits of evidence, I might believe it.

And how do you determine the difference?

If the sasquatch was reported to hover in the air, then board a spaceship for the planet Fooot, I figure that's sewage. If the sasquatch was reported saving a woman from a rapist in New York's Central Park, that is also fodder for the sewage dump. If the sasquatch was reported walking through a cornfield in Kansas by a pair of teenage boys, I won't likely believe it. If a sasquatch is reportedly glimpsed by a police officer in a wooded area near the Olympic National Park boundry, I might believe it. If a sasquatch is reported by a bus load of people, the driver (thinking it's a hoax) jumps out and chases the creature into the woods and gets a real, good, close look at it, the police show up, find a dozen or so footprints with various degrees of toe splay and other variations and make casts of them and file an official report, I'm going to give that one a real good markup on my believability scale.

Then if a few teens immediately afterwards claim that they hoaxed that sighting, and there is no suit or sandal produced with good explanation of how they hoaxed it, I'll figure that a few lying skeptics/denialists (so desperate to kill the sasquatch phenomenon) are just playing their same, old, tired game.

Hows that?

You are bound in an ideology that eats your soul.

Nope. There's no creed I need to adhere to, no weekly meetings, no sing-songs, and no demand I believe or have faith in something.

There may not be a creed, but there certainly are principles or doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a skeptic:

(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;

( the doctrine that true knowledge or certainty in a particular area is impossible; or

© the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

(a) an inquiry,

( a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,

© the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,

(d) the limitations of knowledge,

(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment

More:

A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.[6] As a result, a number of claims are considered Pseudoscience if they are found to improperly apply (or else completely ignore) the scientific method.

I suggest that a "systematic investigation" that doesn't include the "investigation" (IE, sitting on one's ass demanding others to produce a sasquatch) may not truly be "skepticism". It might just be denial.

The buffet is open, and I don't waste one second worrying about my soul being consumed.

Same here. A very proficient sinner, I have nothing to fear. Forgiveness is guaranteed.

Faith is on my side. My bulb may burn out, but the light just gets brighter.

You hope.

Nope. I believe. Faith is much more powerful than hope.

[Huntster]

The expression is 'bogeyman'. Please explain why you think any culture 'needs' a 'bogeyman'.

I don't. The cultural "boogerman" is one of the tools skeptics/denialists use to dismiss sasquatchery. They claim that all societies have them, and that they're used by parents to keep their children out of the woods, or some such silliness. I was just starting my point off with the boogerman, and leading up to what is much more biologically likely: Kodiak Island (with no known sasquatch reports) has thousands of huge brown bears, and much treeless terrain, and is not good sasquatch habitat. Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska (boasting many, many sasquatch reports) has no brown bears at all, lots of black bears, lots of old growth, dense, evergreen forest and high rainfall, and is excellent sasquatch habitat.

Saskeptic doesn't like me to bring up that comparison or ask him to explain it.

Please explain the difference between telling a child:

- If you go in the woods a cougar might leap on your back and bite through your skull

- If you go in the woods a bear might eat you

- If you go in the woods a mommy sasquatch might grab you and make you her adopted kid

It's all just like telling a child not to talk to strangers. No scary animals needed. Danger lurks everywhere, and since sasquatches are much more rare than cougars, bears, or pedophiles, it is a lousy tactic to scare kids by using them as a threat.

[Branco]

Here we go again. Same old...same old.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Some folks on this forum forget that it is simply a place for people to discuss the subject of Bigfoot. We have on this forum many people who know for a fact that the creatures exist, and who have spent the time to learn a little about their traits and habits. Some of those folks continue to attempt to share that knowledge with those on the forum who really would like to obtain that information. Then there of those who know absolutely nothing about the subject, absolutely refuse to accept the possibility the creatures exist, and think they are being intelligently cute when they post degrading remarks about those trying to share real information. Those folks will never actually know anything because they will never do what it takes to learn the truth for themselves.

This forum is not, and will never be the place for the presentation of conclusive evidence of the existence of these animals. If there was such conclusive evidence, this forum would not exist. There are those on this forum, i.e., RayG, Saskeptic, et al, that apparently monitor the forum with the expectation that someone is going to electronically forward them conclusive physical evidence of the existence of these unclassified reclusive forest primates. It has always been a mystery to me why and how these people attained the egotistical gall to think that anyone gives a rat's behind what they actually think or expect. They can either get in the field and find the truth for themselves, or they can wait for the headlines - which may not be that far off in the future. They have got to see a body to believe. And one, who knows nothing about the subject, is giving talks on the subject. (I for one would like to see a copy of his prepared remarks.)

So, if this forum is for those who have absolute proof of the existence of these animals, it is meaningless. If it is actually a forum for all who are interested, there is no reason for anyone to expect physical evidence to fall out of the screen onto their keyboard.

Huntster: Hang it there, "The Rest Of the Story" is being written. Wait fot it.

[Guest RayG]

Hows that?

Better.

There may not be a creed, but there certainly are principles or doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a skeptic:

Must adhere to? I doubt it. I will question the validity of an unproven claim, but there's no checklist I must go through, nor mentor I must check in with, nor am I chastised by anyone for not doing something a certain way. Like I said, I don't go to weekly meetings, I'm not required to hand over money to anyone, no creed to recite, no book to refer to or tote around, nothing. It's like total intellectual freedom.

Same here. A very proficient sinner, I have nothing to fear. Forgiveness is guaranteed.

I have nothing to fear either.

I believe. Faith is much more powerful than hope.

I'm skeptical of your claim.

Boy, it's a good thing we get along with each other.

RayG

[georgerm]

Yes, you are absolutely right. Some folks on this forum forget that it is simply a place for people to discuss the subject of Bigfoot. We have on this forum many people who know for a fact that the creatures exist, and who have spent the time to learn a little about their traits and habits. Some of those folks continue to attempt to share that knowledge with those on the forum who really would like to obtain that information. Then there of those who know absolutely nothing about the subject, absolutely refuse to accept the possibility the creatures exist, and think they are being intelligently cute when they post degrading remarks about those trying to share real information. Those folks will never actually know anything because they will never do what it takes to learn the truth for themselves.

This forum is not, and will never be the place for the presentation of conclusive evidence of the existence of these animals. If there was such conclusive evidence, this forum would not exist. There are those on this forum, i.e., RayG, Saskeptic, et al, that apparently monitor the forum with the expectation that someone is going to electronically forward them conclusive physical evidence of the existence of these unclassified reclusive forest primates. It has always been a mystery to me why and how these people attained the egotistical gall to think that anyone gives a rat's behind what they actually think or expect. They can either get in the field and find the truth for themselves, or they can wait for the headlines - which may not be that far off in the future. They have got to see a body to believe. And one, who knows nothing about the subject, is giving talks on the subject. (I for one would like to see a copy of his prepared remarks.)

So, if this forum is for those who have absolute proof of the existence of these animals, it is meaningless. If it is actually a forum for all who are interested, there is no reason for anyone to expect physical evidence to fall out of the screen onto their keyboard.

Huntster: Hang it there, "The Rest Of the Story" is being written. Wait fot it.

A good scientist is a skeptic and carefully looks over evidence. We have denialist on the forum and they are the extreme skeptics. If they don't believe witness accounts then so what. Just ignore their comments. The ones who use ridicule and scarcasm needs to be booted off the forum since they add nothing but are detractors.