211 replies to this topic

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 17 December 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

I think those can rule out some 95% of claims, but there is still just that very small percentage that makes me wonder at times. Understand that isn't an endorsement of Bigfoot being real just that every now and then I can't just write off a report as one of the above.

My exact thought there is some intresting reports that aren't easy explained away like the ones made by police officers this reports are made by trained observers.

[keninsc]

There is an arguement that says that no matter how well you investigate some things there will always be a certain percentage of "unknowns" and that's a reality, but just because something can't be explained or debunked doesn't make it real and by that same token it doesn't make it any less real. It's just in that grey area where it's not possible to explain.

[QuiteContrary]

Night Walker, on 17 December 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

How do you define "hoaxes" and "hallucinations"? Were do "lies" fit in? Are they the same as "stories"?

How would you categorize Roosevelt's Bigfoot story or the Ape canyon incident?

I can’t give either of TR's stories the benefit of a bigfoot encounter. There is nothing at all to suggest one. Neither saw it or could describe it.

“Bauman utterly unnerved, and believing the creature with which he had to deal was something either half human or half devil, some great goblin-beast”
Could he have killed his partner himself? Could it have been a bear? Native Americans? Why would I leap to bigfoot from such a limited account?

“Roosevelt made a point of mentioning the very strange noises he heard at night while camping there. He did not recognize nor describe the noises, but he did give the distinct impression that they were unusual in his learned experience and found them to be unsettling.”
Again, could the sounds have been from Native Americans? An animal he was obviously unfamiliar with? Nothing suggests a bigfoot. I would have to give equal credence to a “goblin-beast” as his trapper friend did.Was he so learned he knew every animal sound? Carefully chosen words help to bias the reader “he did give the distinct impression”.

How could anyone, other than those involved in each incident, accurately label each story either:
-a flat out lie spun as a tall tale?  
-or imaginings at the time?
-or just an "unidentified at the time" yet real, animal or human?
-or Native American hoax or warning or another trapper violently defending his territory?
-Bauman having killed his partner? or the other man was never killed and he was scaring others from his trapping/hunting grounds
-the greatly embellished encounter with bits of truth to it?

But if I am unable to label his stories with certainty ( I wasn't there), does that mean I must entertain them as some true  "monster" "cryptid" "bigfoot" encounter by default?

Has anyone read these stories in this particular book of TR's? And not just as retellings on footer/cryptid/paranormal sites.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 17 December 2012 - 02:12 AM.

[keninsc]

QuiteContrary, on 17 December 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

I can’t give either of TR's stories the benefit of a bigfoot encounter. There is nothing at all to suggest one. Neither saw it or could describe it.

“Bauman utterly unnerved, and believing the creature with which he had to deal was something either half human or half devil, some great goblin-beast”
Could he have killed his partner himself? Could it have been a bear? Native Americans? Why would I leap to bigfoot from such a limited account?

“Roosevelt made a point of mentioning the very strange noises he heard at night while camping there. He did not recognize nor describe the noises, but he did give the distinct impression that they were unusual in his learned experience and found them to be unsettling.”
Again, could the sounds have been from Native Americans? An animal he was obviously unfamiliar with? Nothing suggests a bigfoot. I would have to give equal credence to a “goblin-beast” as his trapper friend did.Was he so learned he knew every animal sound? Carefully chosen words help to bias the reader “he did give the distinct impression”.

How could anyone, other than those involved in each incident, accurately label each story either:
-a flat out lie spun as a tall tale?  
-or imaginings at the time?
-or just an "unidentified at the time" yet real, animal or human?
-or Native American hoax or warning or another trapper violently defending his territory?
-Bauman having killed his partner? or the other man was never killed and he was scaring others from his trapping/hunting grounds
-the greatly embellished encounter with bits of truth to it?

But if I am unable to label his stories with certainty ( I wasn't there), does that mean I must entertain them as some true  "monster" "cryptid" "bigfoot" encounter by default?

Has anyone read these stories in this particular book of TR's? And not just as retellings on footer/cryptid/paranormal sites.

I have read his account and it's pretty vague to say the least. However in his book, "The Wilderness Hunter" written in 1892 he speaks of encounters made by others as well.

[Night Walker]

Jeff Albertson, on 17 December 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

My exact thought there is some intresting reports that aren't easy explained away like the ones made by police officers this reports are made by trained observers.

Matt Whitton was a police officer - Sensational Bigfoot Hoax Lands Georgia Police Officer in Trouble

I know of a police officer from Gympie, Australia who is deeply involved in Yowie fakery. Police and trained observers are also complex and flawed humans - mere mortals just like the rest of us...

[flareobox]

The problem is we would have already found all cryptids or proved they don't exist by now if we had funding from governments rather than being completely independant. Another problem is the fact that even if Bigfoot isn't real and we have proved it, people will still believe and hunt for it so therefore I don't think the case will ever close.

[keninsc]

Thing is you can't prove something doesn't exist, not matter what you do you can't cover everything.

I've often said what I'd like to do is win a lottery so I could mount up a real investigation and do a proper job of checking out sighting reports, especially those concentrated in a relatively close area. Yeah, but it would fun anyway since I enjoy being out in the woods anyway.

[FinnYellow]

scowl, on 14 December 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Bigfoot sighting here do not decrease during the winter. Even if they did, we now have hundreds of Bigfoots invisibly migrating across America across rivers and freeways every autumn.



Are you serious??? Have you ever tried to kill a deer with a rock??? I know of no hunters who hunt with rocks! Do Bigfoots build slingshots?



Hell yes I would! That means that some person has left a dangerous trap to purposely injure someone. If you come across these here, most likely you are getting near someone's marijuana crop which unfortunately are common on public lands around here. The Forest Service requests that hikers report traps like this since it's likely that more dangerous traps are around.



I've seen rocks all the time. How do these kill animals for Bigfoot again?



I've seen animals (mostly bobcat) try to hunt rabbits and squirrels and fail more often than succeed. Whenever I try to imagine a nine foot biped creature trying to grab a squirrel or dig a rabbit out of the ground, it sounds like comedy to me.

When im talking about a trap, i dont mean a big dear trap, i mean a rabbit or rat trap. We use them all the time here. It involves using a rock about the size of an analog clock propped up on a couple of sticks, one with a notch in it. Now say that the trap was sprung but with no animal in it. I dont think anyone would take notice of a rock on the side of a trail, even a larger one, if it was a normal rock. These types of traps would only injure someone if they tripped over them, but this would mean that they were set in the middle of the trail. This is unlikely, however because the traps wouldn't be set in the middle of a trail because the best place to catch a rat or rabbit or other small rodent, is in the deeper brush of the forest. At least that is the case where i live.

Well in the case of the small rocks, let me go and sharpen a rock by grinding it against another rock, and then throw it at you. Or even a dull rock. Last time i checked, rocks aren't exactly down feathers. Nut no, i don't think that Bigfoot kills deer with them, that would be strange.

I think that traps would be the best bet for a 'nine foot biped creature' to get any meat. However, here in North Carolina, there are many other food sources for such creatures. Nuts and fungi, and many roots are available in the winter and many other things are available in the summer where I live.

[orangepeaceful79]

Night Walker, on 17 December 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

How do you define "hoaxes" and "hallucinations"? Were do "lies" fit in? Are they the same as "stories"?

How would you categorize Roosevelt's Bigfoot story or the Ape canyon incident?

I prefer to use the Merriam Webster dictionary to define the words i use.  Here you go.  

Hoax :  to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

Hallucination:  perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)

b : the object so perceived

2

: an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion

I think lies and hoaxes are one and the same.  A story is a simple recounting of an experience.  To me, whether it crosses the line into hoaxville depends entirely on the intent of the storyteller.  If the storyteller believes the account and genuinely feels they are passing along truth, then its a story and in my mind would somehow, someway have to fall into the misidentification category.  If there is any element of deception or truth stretching in the account then it is by definition a lie or hoax.  

As far as the stories you mention - again, they are eyewitness accounts.  To me - the status or qualifications of an individual making an eyewitness account have no bearing on the fact that they are also human, with fallible senses given the right circumstances of environment or mental/emotional state at the time.  Noen of us record information objectively with our senses, much as we'd like to think we do.  Everything we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel passes through our vast array of mental filters, fears, hopes, preconceptions, and biases in a split second before we decide what we are seeing.  

NW you have been around here enough to know that I'd love to be a believer.  There just isn't the evidence to date, that will allow that to happen for me.  Until that time I have to take every eyewitness account for what it is - a story of unverifiable veracity, based on events recorded by that most subjective of recording devices - the human mind.  Someday if real evidence is brought to bear and Bigfoots are proven to exist, then all of those eyewitness accounts will mean a good deal more.  Until then, they are just stories.

[FinnYellow]

orangepeaceful79, on 15 December 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Its my opinion personally that ALL bigfoot sightings fall into these categories:
1. Misidentifications of known fauna.
2. Hoaxes
3. Hallucinations.

Let me say clearly that I don't think all bigfoot sightings are lies.  A person can easily be telling the truth but simply incorrect.

My point in the previous post is that IF bigfoots were real, they can't be sighted everywhere on every damn continent yet be so elusive nobody would ever catch one.  To state otherwise is illogical.

That makes sense. A lot of people could just as easily be tricked. I really don't know... I just entertain the idea that it could be real given the circumstances...

[scowl]

Night Walker, on 17 December 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

How do you define "hoaxes" and "hallucinations"? Were do "lies" fit in? Are they the same as "stories"?

How would you categorize Roosevelt's Bigfoot story or the Ape canyon incident?

Roosevelt's second hand story was probably a bear attack that was embellished over the years. The Ape Canyon incident was probably youths throwing rocks down the ledge at night not realizing that miners had built a small cabin down there. There wasn't a lot for kids to do around here back in 1924 and it's cool how large volcanic rocks break up into small pieces.

[Insanity]

scowl, on 18 December 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Roosevelt's second hand story was probably a bear attack that was embellished over the years. The Ape Canyon incident was probably youths throwing rocks down the ledge at night not realizing that miners had built a small cabin down there. There wasn't a lot for kids to do around here back in 1924 and it's cool how large volcanic rocks break up into small pieces.

Considering those in the cabin had opened fire with their rifles, it be foolish for any kids to keep up with the prank afterwards, which reportedly the attacks did.  There were more to the attacks then just rocks against the wall, whomever was responsible had also climbed on the roof, and attempted to push in the door and the walls, each time provoking gunfire from those inside.  Getting shot at repeatedly in the middle of the night is not most people's idea of fun.

[keninsc]

Dude, when I was in the Marine Corps we had to give sentries empty rifles when they were guarding ammo dumps because there were rats and the guys would freak out and shoot at them. Most of us didn't want to die because some girlly Marine took a shot at a rat and blew up the damn fire base.

[evancj]

  jar heads

[docyabut2]

Listen guys there are no bigfoots, a hominid could not have made it the Americas, or there would be bones to be found.Big foots are all a hoax