Bigfoot Best Evidence

[AlterScape]

I've studied Bigfoot for a couple semesters in college and knew a couple Bigfoot growing up. 

[Carnoferox]

5 minutes ago, AlterScape said:

I've studied Bigfoot for a couple semesters in college and knew a couple Bigfoot growing up. 

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Carnoferox

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, AlterScape said:

Bigfeet bury their dead, they have very strong ceremonial beliefs of burial and afterlife.

Hmmm..... but no Bigfoot ghost sightings ?

[Gaden]

57 minutes ago, AlterScape said:

I've studied Bigfoot for a couple semesters in college and knew a couple Bigfoot growing up. 

  Let me guess... their religion does not allow you to photograph them.

 As an aside, how do they know when a bigfoot dies alone, how do they know where to go to get him? Since no villages have been found, we have to assume it is a solitary creature, like bears, so how do they know when another one dies?

[jmccr8]

21 hours ago, Piney said:

I remember seeing this thing in a Kansas mall in the 70s but I can't remember what it was called.

Back in the 60s I remember they had a bigfoot on display in a block of ice at the county fair.

Just wondering how they know the one in the pic is male, retractable junk or did they just fix him so as not to offend the religious folk?

jmccr8

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Back in the 60s I remember they had a bigfoot on display in a block of ice at the county fair.

Just wondering how they know the one in the pic is male, retractable junk or did they just fix him so as not to offend the religious folk?

jmccr8

Check again.  The bigfoot/yeti/almasty/wildman/iceman in the photo has a penis.  

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, AlterScape said:

Yes I am actually, it's why I am more inclined to be on the non hoax side, despite all of the rage and hate of the people who don't believe. I don't understand why people who don't believe have to be so aggressive and hateful. 

I understand....this is unexplained mysteries website topic.  But, it's the group norm for this section.  Aggressive skepticism.  I get it....when people post threads about faries and such, a rational person does find the topic mock-worthy.  But, it's also bad thinking to lump every unknown thing together for an out-right dismissal.  Additionally, you have plenty of weirdos in any of these types of fields....I get that.  But you also have a solid number of non-weirdo, professional, qualified observers....and plenty of evidence that is worthy of consideration, like toe prints on some casts, and other anatomical features.

It's why I claimed that some people in this section are guilty of confirmation bias.  

[Carnoferox]

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Check again.  The bigfoot/yeti/almasty/wildman/iceman in the photo has a penis.  

It was also an admitted hoax, so I guess that doesn't really matter.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Carnoferox

[stereologist]

There are plenty of unexplained mysteries in this world. I don't think BF is one of them unless the issue is why do humans imagine that a misidentification of another person is not a person. I find that interesting. Why are so many people afraid of snakes? Just as there are optical illusions there seems to be identification illusions.

People like to go back to folklore to support their arguments. So why isn't anyone supporting the idea that animals can talk? Lots of folklore for that. I've seen a lot of commercials as well showing talking animals. I know people are going to say those are the work of hoaxers, but there are genuine talking animals. So why do humans seem to casually accept a commercial or movie with talking animals? Is it because we all know that there are talking animals? Ever hear someone say that the whispering heard in the woods is just the wind blowing through the trees? Maybe it is us overhearing animals talk.

Sure there are stories across the globe of talking animals, and we seem to eagerly accept such stories, but animals do not talk. There might be stories of large people in folklore, but does that mean they are referring to a BF? No. Does it add support to the existence of BF? It lends as much support as talking animals.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

I understand....this is unexplained mysteries website topic.  But, it's the group norm for this section.  Aggressive skepticism.    

What is aggressive about challenging your assertions?  

Quote

I get it....when people post threads about faries and such, a rational person does find the topic mock-worthy. 

SO you mock people who claim to have seen a fairy rather than question their assertions?   

Quote

But, it's also bad thinking to lump every unknown thing together for an out-right dismissal. 

What have we lumped BFwith or are you simply making this up?

Quote

Additionally, you have plenty of weirdos in any of these types of fields....I get that.  But you also have a solid number of non-weirdo, professional, qualified observers....and plenty of evidence that is worthy of consideration, like toe prints on some casts, and other anatomical features.

Yeah you need to start a thread on BF footprints.

Quote

It's why I claimed that some people in this section are guilty of confirmation bias.

The only one here presenting evidence and justifying it is you, Guyver, so accusing others of confirmation bias is incredibly hypocritical.  You don't like being challenged and react to it by complaining and insulting others.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by Merc14

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

It was also an admitted hoax, so I guess that doesn't really matter.

No, it matters.  If it's an admitted hoax, I want to hear about it because I think it's a damn good one.  I don't think I could have done any better myself.  

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

What is aggressive about challenging your assertions?  

Absolutely nothing, and assertions should be challenged if truth matters.  And it does to me.  

Quote

SO you mock people who claim to have seen a fairy rather than question their assertions?   

No, I think it's comical so I don't mock them.  I was stating that I understand why people think the topic mock-worthy.  I don't understand how so many people can misconstrue such straightforward statements.  

Quote

What have we lumped BFwith or are you simply making this up?

I don't think my assessment was far off, but yeah.....I could have made it up - maybe.  

Quote

Yeah you need to start a thread on BF footprints.

Eh....I just tested the waters.  I'll pass.  But not a bad suggestion though.  

Quote

The only one here presenting evidence and justifying it is you, Guyver, so accusing others of confirmation bias is incredibly hypocritical.  You don't like being challenged and react to it by complaining and insulting others.  

Right.  Well, knowing myself as i do, I don't do much insulting......unless I spot stupidity.  Then I might.  I disagree with the confirmation bias comment here because i've seen it right here in this thread.  But whatever.....like I said.....people have opinions and I really don't have a dog in this fight.  If there is such a thing as sasquatch, yeah....I think that's kinda cool....but no....I"m not going to invest much time in it.  I need to find a new interest.  But that's just me.  Carry on.  

[Carnoferox]

11 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No, it matters.  If it's an admitted hoax, I want to hear about it because I think it's a damn good one.  I don't think I could have done any better myself.  

The sculptors have come forward, and it was actually created as a sort of homage to the Minnesota Iceman:

http://the-lost-world.livejournal.com/4271.html

http://cryptozoo.pagesperso-orange.fr/actualit/1998/bourgane.htm

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/eyesjohor/

Edited October 26, 2017 by Carnoferox

[Merc14]

 

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Absolutely nothing, and assertions should be challenged if truth matters.  And it does to me.  

Then I wonder why you takes so offense in so many posts.so may attacks against people who question you?

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No, I think it's comical so I don't mock them.  I was stating that I understand why people think the topic mock-worthy.  I don't understand how so many people can misconstrue such straightforward statements.  

Fine. You called them mock worthy, not me.  Personally I think most think they saw something and just need to be guided towards using rational thought, you, on the other hand, find them mock-worthy.  Just sayin'.

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Eh....I just tested the waters.  I'll pass.  But not a bad suggestion though.  

Yes, you tested the waters and found it far to challenging to offer anything approaching physical evidence.   Seriously, do you think you could scurry out of this challenge? I have asked yo several times and so have others and guess what, usually, after the challenge is offered people react like you and they resort to insults.  You are NOT unique, you are actually not even good at this as you are afraid to declare a position and then cower from presenting some actual evidence to debate.  

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right.  Well, knowing myself as i do, I don't do much insulting......unless I spot stupidity.  Then I might. 

Well, you don't know yourself then as you have made MANY insulting attacks on your challengers here.  

Quote

I disagree with the confirmation bias comment here because i've seen it right here in this thread. 

Go read up on what confirmation bias is then offer your examples of it and we will offer examples of you doing confirmation bias.

Quote

But whatever.....like I said.....people have opinions and I really don't have a dog in this fight. 

 

For someone who is neutral you behave strangely as you have been defending this fantasy for many, many pages and congratulating some truly hard core believers along the way. In fact you have not challenged a single believer for their truly bizarre statements of fact.  Stop lying to yourself. 

Quote

If there is such a thing as sasquatch, yeah....I think that's kinda cool....but no....I"m not going to invest much time in it.  I need to find a new interest.  But that's just me.  Carry on.

You have, by your own admissions, invested YEARS in it so WTH are you talking about?

[Guyver]

15 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Go read up on what confirmation bias is then offer your examples of it and we will offer examples of you doing confirmation bias.

 

Dude.  No thank you.  I am well acquainted with confirmation bias.  In fact, I think I wish I were more so, because I could see myself wishing I were a bit more into psychology, as I do find it a topic of interest.  

Quote

For someone who is neutral you behave strangely as you have been defending this fantasy for many, many pages and congratulating some truly hard core believers along the way. In fact you have not challenged a single believer for their truly bizarre statements of fact.  Stop lying to yourself. 

Nice try.  Uh....no.  The difference between me and you is that i understand probabilty theory and possibilities.....so i don't automatically rule out improbable things.  The reason I don't stop believers is because I want to hear all the evidence.  And believers look into it alot more than you do.  

Quote

You have, by your own admissions, invested YEARS in it so WTH are you talking about?

Interestingly, I think it's what brought me to this site in the first place.  And after that, I had some good expereinces here.  I met some cool people.  At least one I wish I would have kept in touch with because he's a master.  IMO.  Anyway....yeah....so....here's my story.

As a kid I read alot.  The patterson footage and the entire phenomenon I read up on.  So....I admit I was predisposed.  But, after seeing the legend meets science, I decided to go into research (the real kind) for myself.  And that took me all through northern cali....with not much success.  Then I discovered Indian Heaven Wilderness.  Good place to go, so I went there.  Didn't have any success there, but it led me to skookum meadows where I did in fact have an experience.  Now, since I don't want to hear all the yayhoos poo poo about it, I'm not going to break it down.  The outcome is that I did in fact find prints that I know for a fact no hoaxer made, and I heard the creature that made those tracks.

So, with that comment.....I'm out....and I don't want to talk about it anymore....but I wish you all well.  

Edited October 26, 2017 by Guyver
typo

[ChrLzs]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

The outcome is that I did in fact find prints that I know for a fact no hoaxer made, and I heard the creature that made those tracks.

Seriously?  This, right at the end... but no photos of course...?    What a superb flounce!

We are not worthy, and that's the reason he won't post any evidence for this new last-second claim... 

 

He's right though ... I am 'poo-poo'-ing it.

[stereologist]

59 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 The outcome is that I did in fact find prints that I know for a fact no hoaxer made, and I heard the creature that made those tracks.

So, with that comment.....I'm out....and I don't want to talk about it anymore....but I wish you all well.  

When all else fails make up a tall tale. Yawn, got another person that wants to join the likes of P&G and Freeman and the rest of the hoaxers.

[Merc14]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Dude.  No thank you.  I am well acquainted with confirmation bias.  In fact, I think I wish I were more so, because I could see myself wishing I were a bit more into psychology, as I do find it a topic of interest.  

Nice try.  Uh....no.  The difference between me and you is that i understand probabilty theory and possibilities.....so i don't automatically rule out improbable things.  The reason I don't stop believers is because I want to hear all the evidence.  And believers look into it alot more than you do.  

You obviously do NOT understand probabilities as the odds this beast really exists after so many years of zero evidence is very very small indeed and that is what most here say about the subject, and have said countless times although you seem to ignore it.

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Interestingly, I think it's what brought me to this site in the first place.  And after that, I had some good expereinces here.  I met some cool people.  At least one I wish I would have kept in touch with because he's a master.  IMO.  Anyway....yeah....so....here's my story.

As a kid I read alot.  The patterson footage and the entire phenomenon I read up on.  So....I admit I was predisposed.  But, after seeing the legend meets science, I decided to go into research (the real kind) for myself.  And that took me all through northern cali....with not much success.  Then I discovered Indian Heaven Wilderness.  Good place to go, so I went there.  Didn't have any success there, but it led me to skookum meadows where I did in fact have an experience.  Now, since I don't want to hear all the yayhoos poo poo about it, I'm not going to break it down.  The outcome is that I did in fact find prints that I know for a fact no hoaxer made, and I heard the creature that made those tracks.

So, with that comment.....I'm out....and I don't want to talk about it anymore....but I wish you all well.  

So you saw actual footprints that you can prove were not man made yet you aren't sure of the he beast's existence?   

[Dejarma]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

The outcome is that I did in fact find prints that I know for a fact no hoaxer made, and I heard the creature that made those tracks.

so you do believe it exists then make your mind up zzzzzzzzzzzz

[+DieChecker]

On 10/15/2017 at 9:36 AM, Sakari said:

Logging all around bluff creek. Just look at aerial/satellite views of the area. Logging roads, old growth, new growth. Pretty much touched everywhere around it.If someone got lost in that area, the have never stepped foot out side of their subdivision.

Not many places in the US where you can say people have not been. Really none. Alaska would be the least tread on. But the Pacific Northwest, heart of the " Bigfoot " has been trampled, hunted, logged, hiked, etc. everywhere. Now add in pipelines, electrical lines, phone, cable, internet, etc. And, those things need maintained.

All areas being Trod upon does not equal everyone watched at all times. What is the human per acre density of Oregon? What if you took out the Portland Metro?

Oregon = 4.1 million people. Portland Metro = 2.4 of those.

Oregon = 100,000 sq mi. Portland Metro = 6,500 sq mi

So we have 1.7 million people in 93.5 thousand sq miles. Or 18 people per sq mile. 

640 acres per square mile, so that's 35 acres per Single Person. 

I find that hard to believe that every trail, and every thicket is observed enough to garuntee BF would have been spotted.

Now, that's not to say that BF must then be real. It is to say that it is impossible to say that we can eliminate BF, because we would HAVE to have seen him. That's not logical.

Edited October 27, 2017 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

On 10/17/2017 at 9:15 AM, Guyver said:

IDK.....I guess I don't understand why people ask what the point of a post is.  Is it really that unclear?  Here's the point.  Animals exist that we don't know about.  

You have to understand that you are talking to people who ONLY would believe BF is real if they saw Bill Nye (The Science Guy), Neals DeGrassi, or Brian Cox, tell them it was true. Even seeing a living BF on TV, they'd be skeptical, even seeing one on the hood of some local hunter's car, they'd dismiss it initially as a hoax. Even if they got to touch it and prod it.

When you make good points, that fill in the picture, that would ALLOW for BF to exist... They DON'T like that. Even if you're point is entirely valid, they MUST poo-poo it, or their handle of skepticm on the subject might be shaken, or appear to be shaken. Any allowance must not be allowed, or they feel it undermines their 100% certainty. And that can NOT be allowed.

I've argued this with many here for over a decade. And it doesn't matter to them that the number of bears in, say, Wisconsin, was under estimated by 20%... That doesn't mean that there would be food enough for 1/10th that number of bigfoot. They can't allow that logical deduction to stand, or it is seen as a threat.

I, myself, do continue to discuss, because it is so very, very entertaining... 

 

[Myles]

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You have to understand that you are talking to people who ONLY would believe BF is real if they saw Bill Nye (The Science Guy), Neals DeGrassi, or Brian Cox, tell them it was true. Even seeing a living BF on TV, they'd be skeptical, even seeing one on the hood of some local hunter's car, they'd dismiss it initially as a hoax. Even if they got to touch it and prod it.

 

 

To be fair, there are also believers who will believe every single photo or claim.  Sometimes after it has been proven to be a hoax or misidentification.  

I wouldn't believe if Bill Nye said he has a body.   Of course I would be excited and look forward to the studies to come out.  

What we know for certain:

Many hoaxes have been proven.

No physical evidence has been found. 

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

All areas being Trod upon does not equal everyone watched at all times. What is the human per acre density of Oregon? What if you took out the Portland Metro?

Oregon = 4.1 million people. Portland Metro = 2.4 of those.

Oregon = 100,000 sq mi. Portland Metro = 6,500 sq mi

So we have 1.7 million people in 93.5 thousand sq miles. Or 18 people per sq mile. 

640 acres per square mile, so that's 35 acres per Single Person. 

I find that hard to believe that every trail, and every thicket is observed enough to garuntee BF would have been spotted.

Now, that's not to say that BF must then be real. It is to say that it is impossible to say that we can eliminate BF, because we would HAVE to have seen him. That's not logical.

You are correct, that is a lot of space.    You must also factor in trail cams and such.  

I've always left a % that I thought it could exist.   That % has trended lower and lower each year.   Lots of people with cameras.   Bigger populations to spot it.  More frequently traveled roads.   Still no bodies or bones.  

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

You have to understand that you are talking to people who ONLY would believe BF is real if they saw Bill Nye (The Science Guy), Neals DeGrassi, or Brian Cox, tell them it was true. Even seeing a living BF on TV, they'd be skeptical, even seeing one on the hood of some local hunter's car, they'd dismiss it initially as a hoax. Even if they got to touch it and prod it.

When you make good points, that fill in the picture, that would ALLOW for BF to exist... They DON'T like that. Even if you're point is entirely valid, they MUST poo-poo it, or their handle of skepticm on the subject might be shaken, or appear to be shaken. Any allowance must not be allowed, or they feel it undermines their 100% certainty. And that can NOT be allowed.

I've argued this with many here for over a decade. And it doesn't matter to them that the number of bears in, say, Wisconsin, was under estimated by 20%... That doesn't mean that there would be food enough for 1/10th that number of bigfoot. They can't allow that logical deduction to stand, or it is seen as a threat.

I, myself, do continue to discuss, because it is so very, very entertaining... 

 

Oh BS Diechecker, pure, unadulterated, bitter, BS.  All we are asking is that after 100 years of searching for this creature on the now heavily populated NA continent that you provide one, tiny, itsy, bitsy, bit of physical proof the thing exists.  It roams far and wide enough that you folks see it all the time, it breeds, it presumably dies and it presumably feeds and yet leaves nothing of itself behind but footprints, the vast majority of which were admitted hoaxes (the rest likely hoaxes that weren't admitted to).  How is that so unreasonable?   Show us one piece of physical evidence and we can have a discussion but you can't, can you?

Edited October 27, 2017 by Merc14

[stereologist]

So what density of people do we need to be certain? Do we need to have people shoulder to shoulder? Do we have to have one person per acre, o r 2 or 3 or 10 or 100?

The issue is not a 100% visualization of an area. If the number of people is dense enough then BF is forced to not go out, to eat, to poop, and can't hide the dead.

If people are so sure that BF exists why not do what was used to hunt tigers? You set a line of people across a terrain and have them move forward with no room for any animal to escape notice. Ahead of them is a line of people closing off the terrain.The line moves forward collapsing the area until the area has been completely scanned.

The problem is that BF appears in many crowded areas where doing a search is much easier. That's because the density of people is much greater. There are many roads chopping up the terrain. Woods are in pockets and not unbroken vast areas. If there are so many BF sightings without people actively searching for BF then a purposeful exhaustive search should turn up something.

Not all areas need to be considered equally. The 35 acres per person of Oregon does not take into account the extensive open areas of high desert such as seen in central Oregon and eastern Oregon.