Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Bigfoot sighting along Neches River?


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#31    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostFstop, on 20 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Sounds exactly as credible as any other Bigfoot story from any other human recounting a frightening experience that resulted in an emotional memory clouded by belief and pareidolia.  Supported by a blurry blobsquatch photo taken with a cell phone no less.  

I'm sure the guy telling the story is a good guy, probably honest too.  But he got scared and saw something else that his frightened mind interpreted as Bigfeet, a belief that has solidified as time has gone on.  Human senses are fallible and prone to error.  Eyewitness accounts are not evidence, not until someone actually proves these things exist with a flesh and blood specimen.  Sorry folks, these stories are a dime a dozen.


You don't say!!

So, now you're an expert on what he saw when he was there and you weren't. What an ego LOL!

The man said what he saw was eight feet high. you say he saw something else. what...?, a giraffe? LOL

I may be mistaken but I don't believe there are any bear where he is. sorry.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 21 February 2013 - 10:38 PM.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#32    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:25 PM

View Postscowl, on 20 February 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Disbelief? Bah! These people are probably local celebrities now. Around here your Bigfoot sighting will get you a good crowd around you in any bar.

Celebrities..? are you kidding?

they get treated just like you people in here treat them. Everyone that sees one is a dillusional liar.right?

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#33    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:30 PM

View PostTotah Dine, on 21 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have been a member of this site since 2010 and have held my peace due to the ridicule and derogatory remarks that plague these threads.......
I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone.  Nowhere did I say anything other than that I think the majority of BF sightings are misidentifications for the reasons I gave.  The minority of reports are hoaxes or people trying to make money or gain notoriety.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else.  Just because I think people reporting BF sightings actually saw something else, doesn't equal ridicule.  What it does mean is that logically, based on the actual evidence that exists to date, there is no animal.  In my mind this dearth of evidence is bolstered by the fact that bigfoot (as reported) is a huge bundle of contradictions.  Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured.  Its so stealthy that nobody can find it, yet apparently stupid enough that it allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency.  Its an animal that fails to leave evidence of itself in any meaningful, quantifiable way.....it doesn't observably participate in the food chain, it doesn't leave signs of habitation that are conclusive, it doesn't breed in a way that leaves any trace, and most importantly it does not leave ANY remains AT ALL.

When I look at all that, it seems vastly more likely (to me) that no creature exists than for a creature to exist that manages all those contradictions all at once.

All of that is compounded by the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses.

I will never say BF is impossible.  But I will say (until the day it is proven otherwise) that it is highly improbable that the thing is real.

If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine.  I state my points respectfully and logically.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#34    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:33 PM

View PostKing Cobra 1408, on 21 February 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

wow that's so cool!!!:)where was this at?like what state and city if its within the united states?or what country and state?I bet there's a lot of these creatures that science aleast mainstream science refuses to acknowledge because its too "out there"or just a myth.it all goes back to what I said before science is just a baby and limited and only designed to study certain things and matter.maybe there relatives these Bigfoot creatures and most likely there are.they are researching Bigfoot DNA and they discovered its not human or animal but a hybrid of some kind.and they are reported in many state as well.there's too much people talking about them,people researching them,people seeing them and etc to dismiss or even say all pictures and etc are a hoax.I noticed something for a long time people are quick to say "fake" and its a "hoax" without researching or even. taking the time to look right and properly and etc!!!poor ignorant and small minded people and skeptics lol:) lol


exactly.

People will say "it was a bear" or, "the guy is dillusional" - without backing up one word of their contention, like I am supposed to take *their* word for it.

what do they say when a BigFoot viewer passes a lie detector test, as has happened?

Then you'll see the total bull**** fly - in an 'expert' fashion, of course! they do want to be thought of as intelligent, knowledgable people.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#35    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:37 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 21 February 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

You don't say!!

So, now you're an ecpert on what he saw when he was there and you weren't. What an ego LOL!

The man said what he saw was eight feet high. you say he saw something else. what...?, a giraffe? LOL

I may be mistaken but I don't believe there are any bear where he is. sorry.

I don't claim o be an expert at anything EOT.  The line you highlighted is my opinion.  Which is all any of us can give regarding Bigfoot since there is no evidence to support its existence as a real creature.  The line you emphasized (to me) seems like the most plausible explanation.

If you believe differently then please, carry on.  I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you what I believe.

Love the quote at the bottom of all your posts BTW.  Beer indeed.  :tu:

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#36    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:39 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 21 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

I also went by the article which stated he was "at a far distance".
We can all see the trees clearly in the photo, but a clear-as-day face? I live not far from there and I think I may check it out and see the distance for myself. It is the only way to judge fairly.

You live in the area...?

I already stuck my neck out and said I thought there were no bear in that area.

Am I right?

thanks

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#37    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:47 PM

View PostFstop, on 21 February 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

I don't claim o be an expert at anything EOT.  The line you highlighted is my opinion.  Which is all any of us can give regarding Bigfoot since there is no evidence to support its existence as a real creature.  The line you emphasized (to me) seems like the most plausible explanation.

If you believe differently then please, carry on.  I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you what I believe.

Love the quote at the bottom of all your posts BTW.  Beer indeed.  :tu:

I go by the evidences. And although people say that eyewitnesses cannot be relied on, you have to know that in North America, indigenous peoples have known about BigFoot for 50,000 years. but why take their word, right? How long have euro-african peoples been here, 400?

I told another poster in here, that the legend of the Vampire and Witches have made a long lasting mark on Western societies but there was just a very small window in time when both were thought to be real. The rest of that time, they were known by society to just be romantic legends.

that is not even close to what BigFoot has been throughout time.

I'm not saying that *all* reports are reliable, but all it takes is for one to be true and guess what.... BF exists.

I have seen witnesses tell very compelling stories and pass a lie detector test. what do you say to these people?

The treatment these people get - as do UFO witnesses, is what keeps a lot of them from ever saying anything about their encounters.

I think BF is real until someone can prove it otherwise to me.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#38    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:49 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 21 February 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:



what do they say when a BigFoot viewer passes a lie detector test, as has happened?



I'll say that the individual really believes they saw that they are reporting to have seen, but that they made a mistake.  I don't say that to degrade them, their character, or their knowledge.  I say it because most bigfoot sightings occur in areas where making a positive ID would be very difficult (because of foliage, amount of ambient light, ect) a fact that is compounded by the fact that thinkng you are viewing a Sasquatch would be rather unnerving (at least I would think so, which is supported by most eyewitnesses saying they were frightened at the time).

I don't think most BF eyewitnesses are liars OR delusional.  I just think they made an understandable mistake given the circumstances.  Could I be wrong?  Sure.  And just as soon as someone proves BF exists, I will be the first in line to enthusiastically admit I was the one who was wrong.  I'd love to be able to do that someday.  These things are fascinating to me.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#39    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:51 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 21 February 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:



I think BF is real until someone can prove it otherwise to me.

I respect that.  Its a safe position to take as well - as it is impossible to prove a negative.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#40    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:16 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 21 February 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

You live in the area...?

I already stuck my neck out and said I thought there were no bear in that area.

Am I right?

thanks

I don't live too near, but enough to possibly check it out one weekend, while still a "winter" landscape.

The OP sighting was near the Louisana border:
"The Louisiana Black Bear (subspeciesU. a. luteolus) is on the federal threatened species list. It is not known to be found in Texas, although potential habitat exists in the eastern part of the state."

http://www.tpwd.stat...cies/blackbear/

Edited by QuiteContrary, 21 February 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#41    Kipperphoenix

Kipperphoenix

    Expert Procrastinator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

  • I make blog entries with stupid jokes and post them to the internet.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:16 AM

I'll be honest, all I see in the photo is two trees that, from afar, look like two Bigfoots. There's nothing compelling or convincing about this sighting, it sounds like every other sighting to me. :/

Check out my paranormal news blog on Tumblr! TheParanormalBlog.Tumblr.com

#42    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:57 AM

They could have seen a bigfoot.how come when people say they saw a bigfoot people say they are full of it ..


#43    mace13

mace13

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM

View PostFstop, on 21 February 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone.  Nowhere did I say anything other than that I think the majority of BF sightings are misidentifications for the reasons I gave.  The minority of reports are hoaxes or people trying to make money or gain notoriety.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else.  Just because I think people reporting BF sightings actually saw something else, doesn't equal ridicule.  What it does mean is that logically, based on the actual evidence that exists to date, there is no animal.  In my mind this dearth of evidence is bolstered by the fact that bigfoot (as reported) is a huge bundle of contradictions.  Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured.  Its so stealthy that nobody can find it, yet apparently stupid enough that it allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency.  Its an animal that fails to leave evidence of itself in any meaningful, quantifiable way.....it doesn't observably participate in the food chain, it doesn't leave signs of habitation that are conclusive, it doesn't breed in a way that leaves any trace, and most importantly it does not leave ANY remains AT ALL.

When I look at all that, it seems vastly more likely (to me) that no creature exists than for a creature to exist that manages all those contradictions all at once.

All of that is compounded by the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses.

I will never say BF is impossible.  But I will say (until the day it is proven otherwise) that it is highly improbable that the thing is real.

If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine.  I state my points respectfully and logically.


I don't feel ridiculed by your post. But I do feel that you are a perfect candidate of someone who is somewhat ignorant of the history of such creatures as Bigfoot or Yeti or Yowies or etc., and coming to a premature conclusion about the subject before actually doing any research on them. Which is exactly the problem with most people. Most people hear about a few reported incidents or sightings and think it's all either the misidentification of another animal or someone pulling off a hoax. Or the witness is dellusional and it was all in their head. That's as far as most people look into these types of things. They think it's all a bunch of made up crap because they don't actually know anything about them other than what they saw on the local news. They have the attitude that since they themselves haven't seen one then they obviously must not exist. People are that way about any type of unexplained phenomenon. And i'm sorry, but that is how you are coming off as.

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains?  It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured.  Its so stealthy that nobody can find it".  Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

You're entitled to make you're own opinion about things just like everyone. I respect that. But I believe you are not making an informed or fair opinion. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that you want while either disputing or flat out ignoring other evidence to the contrary. Every reason you have argued supports this. Especially by stating this and I quote,"the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses." end quote. That right there has got to be one of the most assinine statements that I have ever read. I think you just cracked the internet. :tu:

Edited by mace13, 22 February 2013 - 07:26 AM.


#44    Clobhair-cean

Clobhair-cean

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM

View Postmace13, on 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

Because Native Americans have not been encountering them for hundreds of years. There is no evidence of that. Native Americans have all kinds of Wild Man legends that are very divergent and there is nothing that points to the directions that they are about an actual biological creature as opposed to a spirit or a bogeyman from mythology. Bigfoot stories in the United States started in the late 19th century. We recently had a thread about this It was interesting to see that all the reports came from small-town newspapers that reported events from the other side of the country. This was also the era when journalists were just making stuff up to fill the pages. There aren't really any bigfoot reports from before that time. Then, as the bigfoot craze go, all kinds of vaguely human-like mythological beings started to be branded as bigfoot and we arrive to today's cryptozoology media empire, where a lot of money make a living out of perpetuating myths.

View Postmace13, on 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

Why are we not seeing any images of bigfoot? People have been actively searching for them for over fifty years. The BBC Natural History Unit can find any obscure animal, no matter how few of them are left in the wild in about two years of searching and provide high definition video footage of it. How come thousands of people could not take a single clear photograph of a large animal in the United States?

View Postmace13, on 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains?  It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.


This is actually not true. Just google "bear carcass" and you'll be treated to plenty of photographs of bears that died from natural causes.

Also, how do you explain that bigfoot is the only animal (including humans) in North America that never gets hit by cars? That never has been hit by a car since cars exist?

View Postmace13, on 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured.  Its so stealthy that nobody can find it".  Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

Umm, we can capture humans with ease. Even if they are hiding in a forest. Is bigfoot smarter than humans? Is bigfoot, a primate (a group of animals not really famous for stealthiness, quite the opposite) stealthier than a leopard? Because people are still capturing and killing Amur leopards even though less then thirty of them live in the forests around the Russian-Chinese-North Korean border. Talk about remote area.


#45    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM

View Postmace13, on 22 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

I don't feel ridiculed by your post. But I do feel that you are a perfect candidate of someone who is somewhat ignorant of the history of such creatures as Bigfoot or Yeti or Yowies or etc., and coming to a premature conclusion about the subject before actually doing any research on them. Which is exactly the problem with most people. Most people hear about a few reported incidents or sightings and think it's all either the misidentification of another animal or someone pulling off a hoax. Or the witness is dellusional and it was all in their head. That's as far as most people look into these types of things. They think it's all a bunch of made up crap because they don't actually know anything about them other than what they saw on the local news. They have the attitude that since they themselves haven't seen one then they obviously must not exist. People are that way about any type of unexplained phenomenon. And i'm sorry, but that is how you are coming off as.

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains?  It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured.  Its so stealthy that nobody can find it".  Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

You're entitled to make you're own opinion about things just like everyone. I respect that. But I believe you are not making an informed or fair opinion. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that you want while either disputing or flat out ignoring other evidence to the contrary. Every reason you have argued supports this. Especially by stating this and I quote,"the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses." end quote. That right there has got to be one of the most assinine statements that I have ever read. I think you just cracked the internet. :tu:

A well written and passionate rebuttal.  Thank you for that.  

I assume (perhaps incorrectly, and if so please forgive me) that since you are in a position to judge my knowledge of Bigfoot puny and insignificant, you must be some sort of expert in the field of Sasquatchery.  I am in fact quite well versed in the history of the legend of bigfoot and its roots in the storytelling traditions of our Native peoples.  At an earlier time in my life I read everything I could get my hands on that referenced Bigfoot.  I was a stalwart believer.  Really quite obsessed for a time with Cryptozoology in general, but with Bigfoot in particular.  I've changed my position on Bigfoot's existence however, for the reasons (silly though you might think them) listed in the post you so generously quoted.  

I think you are missing my point, though.  Bigfoot, if bigfoot exists, is an animal.  Just like you and I are (again forgive my assumption).  Whether you like it or not, bigfoot - being an animal is going to have to be verified and vetted by biologists and zoologists - by scientists - in order for it to ever come out of the shadows of crypto-land and take its rightful place among the other real creatures of our world.  Maybe that will happen some day, if one is ever caught alive, killed, or a bigfoot carcass is happened-upon......and maybe it won't.  When that happens, all the stories, all the blurry blobsquatch photos, all the audio recordings of something yelling and howling in the woods,  all the footprints, will THEN become evidence that supports the existence of the creature.  Until then, these things are just documentation of a something.  What that something is, we don't know, because the something has never been proven to exist. All of those things I mentioned - you have to have a verified animal to tie them to before they are anything but just unattached information.  

If or when that happens, I will be thrilled because then I can believe in Bigfoot again.  I'll be first in line to admit I interpreted the signs wrong.  Under what circumstances will YOU admit you are wrong?  None, I'll wager.  Yet you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion I want and ignoring evidence.  There is no evidence - yet.  All those things you mentioned - not evidence until a damn bigfoot turns up and gets studied, classified, dissected, etc like ALL OTHER ANIMALS.  

You mention bears.  Know what the difference between a bear and a bigfoot is?  We KNOW bears are REAL. We have studied live and dead ones, we have taken bears apart and put them back together.  We proved bears exist.  Not so much with Bigfoot.  

You mention Native Americans and their history with Bigfoot.  Last i checked, Native Americans were humans, no better or worse than the rest of us.  Living in the forest doesn't make you immune to mistakes or misidentifications ESPECIALLY if your Native American belief system tells you that Bigfoot is a real critter running around out there somewhere.  I don't say this to denigrate or disrespect NA culture.  Just sayin that they are people, prone to people-mistakes.  

Obviously you and I are going to have irreconcilable differences here.  Which is cool - because this is a discussion board.  Things would be pretty dull if we all agreed with each other.  I'm willing to consider the possibility that I could be wrong.  I'll change my tune when a Bigfoot is found and studied.  What about your tune?  Is it flexible?  Maybe Meldrum will find some Bigfoots with his photo-blimpie thing.  But what if he doesn't?  What will it take to sway you?  Be honest with yourself.  If the answer is that nothing will sway your opinion...then who are you to call others and their beliefs stubborn and intractible?  Most of us skeptics would be thrilled if Bigfoot were proven some day.  That'd be big big news.  Just because we have our doubts doesn't mean we don't care about it, you know.  

Thanks for your post.  I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin






Recent blog entries on this topic

Photo

From: Bigfoot sighting along Neches River?

By ufonuts in I believe, on 21 February 2013 - 09:10 PM


Silly People, it was BoBo from BRFO Big Foot Hunters Show!


Yes, science is close-minded and refuses to acknowledge anything weird or...

Read Full Entry →

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users