Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DieChecker

Best States for a chance to see bigfoot

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stardrive
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

If such creatures do exist it is obvious that we could not get close enough to them to capture them. Personally, I think that since BF sticks out like a sore thumb, it is the one we know the best. Evidences such as foot prints. voice prints, ongoing and systemic sightings, DNA of Yeti in Bhutan, all add up to strong evidence of existence.  But, capturing one... hmmmmm

There's plenty of evidence for something, but what that something is remains unclear. Inconclusive at best. A friend cast a sweet print on High Knob Va. It kinda creeped me out when I looked at it close. The toes were bent and splayed and whatever made it had a divergent little toe. It was about 18" in length. I've heard things, seen manipulation of the environment, footprints etc. but nothing concrete or verifiable. Even the fun I had isn't verifiable lol

The latest is the discovery of Denisovan fossils in a cave in Tibet. It's also interesting to note that scientist mistook the molars of Denisovan, found in Siberia, as those of a cave bear at first. Cave bears tipped the scales at 500lbs for females, 1000lbs for males. So either the Denisovans where larger than our species, or they had oversized heads. Or maybe just oversized teeth? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
the13bats

i recall the late stanton friedmen rip saying to the effect, most ufos are not alien craft and it would be ridiculous to say they are but the real question that should be asked, are any?

here lies my little hold out not enough to jump to believing bf exists due to the evidence and research i have done for over 40 years its a weak chance its a real creature and i dont waste time with theories bf is a shape shifting dimension hopping alien spirit whatever, ill leave that to the more fantasy minded, i sadly need proof.

when someone like krantz can examine a track do this do that hail it as from a real creature and can not be a fake then the guy who faked it says not so fast, heres me faking it,

i dont believe anyone isnt up to being fooled or mistaken, but if even 1 percent of tracks are from something unknown,  that doesnt mean its what people call bigfoot but yeah, i want to know what did leave the track that doesnt fit known creatures of the area.

but this question just isnt enough for me to jump to being a believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
On 5/19/2019 at 12:01 AM, DieChecker said:

Myself, I tend to like a couple of theories...

1. Guy in a suit. OR... Just a guy... Most videos of BF are so blurry that the "BF" could be just a guy in a dark outfit wandering the woods.

2. Mutant Human. Basically just a very recessive genetic defect like gigantism. Remains/Evidence comes back as "Human".

3. Mutant Bear. That stands upright and with short muzzle. Remains/Evidence comes back as "Bear".

4. Alien construct. Drone? Pet? Don't need food or breeding populations!!

5. Undiscovered Ape. Possible, but unlikely. Probably less likely then BF being aliens...

6. Demon/Spirit/Cain. Apparently the LDS think BF is Cain from the Bible??

 

Not favorites:

7. Cross Dimensional/Teleporting. At least the above creatures are conceivable. Is there any proof at all of a cross universal anything? A spirit might be some kind of energy at least, and aliens are at least possible...

8. Gigantopithicus. Actual creature, but adapted for somewhere else, and not likely to travel. About as likely as finding a lost tribe of dwarf pygmy Pandas hiding in Montana.

Any other favorites or (dis)honorable mentions?

How about:

9. Anomalous Experience. Encounters with Bigfoot are experienced as real even though the biological creature is not. Pareidolia, false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrications (unintentional and otherwise), etc. Fits the data: Lots of compelling subjective reports, zero objective evidence. A uniquely human experience (there is no evidence Bigfoot is impacting upon other species)...

???

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
41 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

How about:

9. Anomalous Experience. Encounters with Bigfoot are experienced as real even though the biological creature is not. Pareidolia, false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrications (unintentional and otherwise), etc. Fits the data: Lots of compelling subjective reports, zero objective evidence. A uniquely human experience (there is no evidence Bigfoot is impacting upon other species)...

???

 

There certainly is some truth to what you say, NW, especially for single person sightings. But things like a man in Michigan coming across BF footprints in the middle of the woods, or an army platoon from India that found Yeti prints at high altitude in the Himalayas. one cannot make that claim. These were both topics here at UM. Also, voiceprints that cannot be matched with any known creature or DNA from a pond in the highlands of Bhutan that was 99% human.

These things cannot be so whimsically dismissed so saying "false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrications"  surely does not apply in many cases. And anopther way to explain sightings of BF by people is...  they actually saw BF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

How about:

9. Anomalous Experience. Encounters with Bigfoot are experienced as real even though the biological creature is not. Pareidolia, false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrications (unintentional and otherwise), etc. Fits the data: Lots of compelling subjective reports, zero objective evidence. A uniquely human experience (there is no evidence Bigfoot is impacting upon other species)...

???

Yeah, I forgot misidentification. That should be the #1 actually, as I think it is the primary reason behind people "seeing" bigfoot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, I forgot misidentification. That should be the #1 actually, as I think it is the primary reason behind people "seeing" bigfoot.

I agree.   People tend to morph what the see and hear into what they either want to see or hear or what they don't want to see or hear.   

I'm too lazy to search them out, but I remember reading studies where they put different people in a certain house.    Some people were told the house was haunted while others were not.   The ones who were told it was haunted reported a far greater amount of occurrences.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, I forgot misidentification. That should be the #1 actually, as I think it is the primary reason behind people "seeing" bigfoot.

Everything should be so easy, Diechecker!  There are so many people that are trained woodsmen, Indians that live in the woods etc that that option seems highly unlikely for *all* of them.  That's all seems to be a bit of "wishful thinking". And I know ppl in here swear up and down that pro BFers are only dreaming up BF out of wishful thinking but that is not true in my case for sure. I go by the facts and I would say that BF stands about a 70% chance of being real, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Myles  - but what if the house was  really haunted?  :D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
31 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Everything should be so easy, Diechecker!  There are so many people that are trained woodsmen, Indians that live in the woods etc that that option seems highly unlikely for *all* of them.  That's all seems to be a bit of "wishful thinking". And I know ppl in here swear up and down that pro BFers are only dreaming up BF out of wishful thinking but that is not true in my case for sure. I go by the facts and I would say that BF stands about a 70% chance of being real, IMO.

nope, it is hard to accept that 100% of collective bigfoot evidence ends with the creature does exist,

however, each type of evidence has to be weighted on its own integrity and by each person, thats how in the end EoT sees 70% chance its a real creature and i see 99.9% its not, and others are all over with their opinions,

my .1% is enough for me to say it warrants scientific investagation, not claptrap TV shows with geeks who appear better suited to finding the french oinion dip in their refrigerator that hiking about the woods.

and there have been decades of sciencific investagations and still zip, zero, zlitch, so i rest with my .1% bf exists....prove me wrong :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
15 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Myles  - but what if the house was  really haunted?  :D

Could have been, but I doubt it.   I believe they just chose an average home and put a different person in it each night.   They told every other one that the house was supposedly haunted.   It greatly affected the next mornings report out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

nope, it is hard to accept that 100% of collective bigfoot evidence ends with the creature does exist,

however, each type of evidence has to be weighted on its own integrity and by each person, thats how in the end EoT sees 70% chance its a real creature and i see 99.9% its not, and others are all over with their opinions,

my .1% is enough for me to say it warrants scientific investagation, not claptrap TV shows with geeks who appear better suited to finding the french oinion dip in their refrigerator that hiking about the woods.

and there have been decades of sciencific investagations and still zip, zero, zlitch, so i rest with my .1% bf exists....prove me wrong :tu:

I'm at the same .1%.

I wonder if Earls 70% mark has decreased with every year that passes without definitive proof.    

I may have been around 5% 15 years ago, but with the amount of cameras, searches and increased population, it has deflated quite a bit.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
22 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm at the same .1%.

I wonder if Earls 70% mark has decreased with every year that passes without definitive proof.    

I may have been around 5% 15 years ago, but with the amount of cameras, searches and increased population, it has deflated quite a bit.   

sure, its been a downward slope for me, im 54 as a kid in the 70s i would wonder could bf be real i only had the books and documentries and my knownlage of that era to go by, so i thought sure, its possible, i was a solid 50/50.

but geez when i got on the net and really researched it, so much of what i thought went right into the trashcan.

you hit a nail on the head, in the last 10 perhaps 15 years there has been more focus on finding bigfoot than the 50 plus years before it, countless people, money and man hours and my 3 Zs apply, 

i do see more and more people follow that slope and even suggest that if it was there it would have been proven by now, but lets not forget some down want it proven they like the mystery the chase, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Earl.Of.Trumps
7 hours ago, Myles said:

I'm at the same .1%.

I wonder if Earls 70% mark has decreased with every year that passes without definitive proof.    

I may have been around 5% 15 years ago, but with the amount of cameras, searches and increased population, it has deflated quite a bit.   

 

Actually, no. When I started posting here at UM I, like most, didn't give BF any chance to exist.

But physical evidences that are hard to dismiss and a theory as to why this creature could be so elusive have altered my opinion some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Actually, no. When I started posting here at UM I, like most, didn't give BF any chance to exist.

But physical evidences that are hard to dismiss and a theory as to why this creature could be so elusive have altered my opinion some.

by defination there is zero physical evidence of bigfoot,

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

There certainly is some truth to what you say, NW, especially for single person sightings. But things like a man in Michigan coming across BF footprints in the middle of the woods, or an army platoon from India that found Yeti prints at high altitude in the Himalayas. one cannot make that claim. These were both topics here at UM. Also, voiceprints that cannot be matched with any known creature or DNA from a pond in the highlands of Bhutan that was 99% human.

These things cannot be so whimsically dismissed so saying "false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrications"  surely does not apply in many cases. And anopther way to explain sightings of BF by people is...  they actually saw BF!

Group sightings are rare (at least much rarer than individual reports) but these, too, are influenced/affected by something as simple as how the event was discussed amongst themselves and how they were questioned afterwards. Even how we think of things alters our memory of what actually happened. I didn't see the thread about Michigan tracks but there was a similar one from Washington. The only thing linking these tracks to Bigfoot (and/or linking the recent Himalayan tracks to Yeti) is that they have been prematurely labelled as such without any objective evidence or even a sighting - thereby influencing how others perceive them. Just because someone says it does not make it so...

Ambiguity gives rise to imagination and interpretation. Unidentified audio recordings are also suitably ambiguous. Can you provide a link about the DNA from a pond in Bhutan? I would like to follow up on that one...

I don't like the term "misidentification" as it is an ambiguous term itself that doesn't explain how or why it happened. Bigfoot as an anomalous human experience, however, is not a dismissal - it is a valid explanation that draws upon our understanding of perception, cognition, and memory. I agree with you in that people ARE actually seeing/hearing/smelling Bigfoot and these experiences ARE real as anything else they can relate to. Often, these experiences are highly significant and life-changing for the individual. Such experiences inspire countless men and women to search years for a real biological creature yet 0.00% of such encounters and subsequent searches provide objective confirmation. Yet they never lose faith - they know what they saw. It is significant that these experiences/encounters cannot be objectively validated... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Group sightings are rare (at least much rarer than individual reports) but these, too, are influenced/affected by something as simple as how the event was discussed amongst themselves and how they were questioned afterwards. Even how we think of things alters our memory of what actually happened. I didn't see the thread about Michigan tracks but there was a similar one from Washington. The only thing linking these tracks to Bigfoot (and/or linking the recent Himalayan tracks to Yeti) is that they have been prematurely labelled as such without any objective evidence or even a sighting - thereby influencing how others perceive them. Just because someone says it does not make it so...

True, NW. But by the same token, there are people that believe that since BF tracks *can* be faked, then any suspect BF tracks you find in situ *are* fake.  And of course just because they say so does not make that so, either.

6 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Ambiguity gives rise to imagination and interpretation. Unidentified audio recordings are also suitably ambiguous. Can you provide a link about the DNA from a pond in Bhutan? I would like to follow up on that one...

Well, there is little ambiguity when they find no known creature with such a voice print and, the closest known VPs is from the hominids. And I don't have the link for the Bhutan eDNA find, I saw the story of the expedition on Discovery, I believe.

6 hours ago, Night Walker said:

I don't like the term "misidentification" as it is an ambiguous term itself that doesn't explain how or why it happened. Bigfoot as an anomalous human experience, however, is not a dismissal - it is a valid explanation that draws upon our understanding of perception, cognition, and memory. I agree with you in that people ARE actually seeing/hearing/smelling Bigfoot and these experiences ARE real as anything else they can relate to. Often, these experiences are highly significant and life-changing for the individual. Such experiences inspire countless men and women to search years for a real biological creature yet 0.00% of such encounters and subsequent searches provide objective confirmation. Yet they never lose faith - they know what they saw. It is significant that these experiences/encounters cannot be objectively validated... 

I do agree with above^^.  Visual contact is never enough - even photos don't really cut it.  DNA is needed or a body, dead or alive. that's the only way to settle it, IMO

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Everything should be so easy, Diechecker!  There are so many people that are trained woodsmen, Indians that live in the woods etc that that option seems highly unlikely for *all* of them.  That's all seems to be a bit of "wishful thinking". And I know ppl in here swear up and down that pro BFers are only dreaming up BF out of wishful thinking but that is not true in my case for sure. I go by the facts and I would say that BF stands about a 70% chance of being real, IMO.

I'm with Myles and Bats... the chance is less then 1% in my opinion. I don't mean to dismiss, but to suggest what I think is the more likely theory. 

I think the phenomena, if not a actual ape, is worth investigating.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

i recall a documentary i saw, and as i describe what was said keep in mind there was zero to back up these claims, and i didnt go research the integrity. ill grab his name and location later so we can see if anything is on the net about it.

the fellow was saying they were in traffic at night on a highway a creature matching bigfoot jumps a guard rail and is running along side cars down the highway, and stops and looks down at him, he says it was an expression of fear,

he said at first he thought it was a person who got in a wreck and was now gonna get hit by a car, he also said when he called the sheriff they told him others sighted it too including LEOs.

i have no idea if any happed, perhaps he made up the whole thing but if not it describes a group sighting including people trained to be cool under stress, not one picture, no one took a shot at it nothing, so if this encounter happened the way the witness claims then lack of everything except story bugs me,

i can assure you where i live if a bigfoot or silly man in bigfoot suit ran down a roadway in traffic, he would have his picture taken,  videos takens but around here he would get shot, no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@the13bats -  I agree that there is nothing to PROVE said claims but do some claims have evidence? Of course they do.  There are many cases where there are some outstanding footprints.  Now you can *claim* all day long that those prints are phony. the question is, can you prove it? Saying that it is proven that fake prints *CAN* be made does not prove that to be the case universally,  only that it is possible. So  If you cannot prove your claim then your claim is just as worthless as making the claim that the footprint is proof of BF. 

evidence is evidence, proof is proof. Let us not get confused.

PS: What do you think of the footprints of Yeti found by the Indian army at high altitude?  Do you really think the army or some other person laid down fake prints way up there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@the13bats -  I agree that there is nothing to PROVE said claims but do some claims have evidence? Of course they do.  There are many cases where there are some outstanding footprints.  Now you can *claim* all day long that those prints are phony. the question is, can you prove it? Saying that it is proven that fake prints *CAN* be made does not prove that to be the case universally,  only that it is possible. So  If you cannot prove your claim then your claim is just as worthless as making the claim that the footprint is proof of BF. 

evidence is evidence, proof is proof. Let us not get confused.

PS: What do you think of the footprints of Yeti found by the Indian army at high altitude?  Do you really think the army or some other person laid down fake prints way up there?

thanks for being very close to civil,

i have no idea what the indian army tracks were, nope, i doubt they faked them but i doubt even more so they are of yeti if yeti is that countries version of what some call bigfoot in the usa, for me yeti was solved, for 100s of years monks said type of bear, then dna done on a lot of hair that was hailed " yeti" it all came back type of bear, so im good on that. and dont want to mix yeti and bigfoot. for me yeti is solved.

 

many hailed real couldnt possibly be hoaxed alleged bigfoot prints not by me but have been proven fakes, even krantz admitted he was duped a few times, jimmy chilcutt who based his rep on dermal ridges was also duped and no, this doesnt prove that a bigfoot like creature exists and until you fit a foot to a print it doesnt prove what made the print, saying its bigfoot is specutive at best.

however, remember my holdout on bigfoot existing, my .01% that comes from the fact i do have an issue saying 100% of tracks are faked or misidentified known creatures, of course that leads me to other issues like no droppings found, no hair, no nothing,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

True, NW. But by the same token, there are people that believe that since BF tracks *can* be faked, then any suspect BF tracks you find in situ *are* fake.  And of course just because they say so does not make that so, either.

Well, there is little ambiguity when they find no known creature with such a voice print and, the closest known VPs is from the hominids. And I don't have the link for the Bhutan eDNA find, I saw the story of the expedition on Discovery, I believe.

I do agree with above^^.  Visual contact is never enough - even photos don't really cut it.  DNA is needed or a body, dead or alive. that's the only way to settle it, IMO

Suspected Bigfoot tracks can be biologically sampled for eDNA. That would remove ambiguity. No-one is doing that, though - go figure...

The Bhutan eDNA claim was made on a TV show. No documentation. No follow-up. Sounds exciting and suspicious at the same time but that's TV for you. No clarification = ambiguous...

If a "voice print" cannot be identified the source is unclear or unknown. That is ambiguous by definition but see how your mind flips that uncertainty into something tangible and more than it is. Pretty cool, huh? Besides, voice recognition technology is still in its infancy and is hardly infallible...

A body will settle the issue only if Bigfoot is a real unknown biological entity. If Bigfoot is, instead, an anomalous experience then people will continue to experience (see, hear, smell) Bigfoot even though there is no body for the slab, no DNA to collect, and no clear footage is possible without fakery. This is exactly where we are at after 50+ years of active searching. Everything points to Bigfoot being a real human-centred phenomenon rather than a biological one. For me, that is just as (if not more) fascinating. It also means that everybody has been looking in the wrong place for Bigfoot and there is still much to be discovered...

Objective evidence - a body or DNA or even clear images with verified provenance would disprove "anomalous experience" as the ultimate Bigfoot explanation for me. But what would it take to disprove your own position on Bigfoot (ie that it is a real creature) to you, EoT? 

Edited by Night Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Suspected Bigfoot tracks can be biologically sampled for eDNA. That would remove ambiguity. No-one is doing that, though - go figure...

The Bhutan eDNA claim was made on a TV show. No documentation. No follow-up. Sounds exciting and suspicious at the same time but that's TV for you. No clarification = ambiguous...

I can only tell you what I saw, NW. you don't have to believe it.

4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

If a "voice print" cannot be identified the source is unclear or unknown. That is ambiguous by definition but see how your mind flips that uncertainty into something tangible and more than it is. Pretty cool, huh? Besides, voice recognition technology is still in its infancy and is hardly infallible...

My mind did not flip it into whagt I wanted. Their claim was the voice print matched nothing they had and they supposedly had voice prints of every animal known. Now, they said the closest the print came to was the hominids. And if you heard the voice print you would sat it had to be a very large animal. If you choose to believe this is not BF, that's OK. Here is what you are left with: an unknow 2 legged creature that rivals BF. That is as startling as BF, so what's the diff?

4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

A body will settle the issue only if Bigfoot is a real unknown biological entity. If Bigfoot is, instead, an anomalous experience then people will continue to experience (see, hear, smell) Bigfoot even though there is no body for the slab, no DNA to collect, and no clear footage is possible without fakery. This is exactly where we are at after 50+ years of active searching. Everything points to Bigfoot being a real human-centred phenomenon rather than a biological one. For me, that is just as (if not more) fascinating. It also means that everybody has been looking in the wrong place for Bigfoot and there is still much to be discovered...

I am in agreement here. 

4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Objective evidence - a body or DNA or even clear images with verified provenance would disprove "anomalous experience" as the ultimate Bigfoot explanation for me. But what would it take to disprove your own position on Bigfoot (ie that it is a real creature) to you, EoT? 

Good question. I would need to see many many eyewitnesses recant, have many people say they faked the footprints. It depends. My belief in BF is weighed heavily by the many eyewitnesses that go way back in time. Something is not right here, to call all those people fakers. Something is not right.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
On 5/23/2019 at 9:21 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I can only tell you what I saw, NW. you don't have to believe it.

With little to no information about it I have formed no opinion on the matter one way or the other. Could you explain why you consider it to be significant?

My mind did not flip it into what I wanted. Their claim was the voice print matched nothing they had and they supposedly had voice prints of every animal known. Now, they said the closest the print came to was the hominids. And if you heard the voice print you would sat it had to be a very large animal. If you choose to believe this is not BF, that's OK. Here is what you are left with: an unknow 2 legged creature that rivals BF. That is as startling as BF, so what's the diff?

Not only did your mind fill in gaps and make links that are not supported but so did "they". Link? Who are "they"? How do they/you know a creature was two-legged from a "voice print"? What is a "voice print" by the way? How is it possible to have every possible vocalisation from every known creature in their data-base? This claim is very ambiguous and the human mind is wonderful for filling in the gaps and in this instance there are many more gaps than data...

Good question. I would need to see many many eyewitnesses recant, have many people say they faked the footprints. It depends. My belief in BF is weighed heavily by the many eyewitnesses that go way back in time. Something is not right here, to call all those people fakers. Something is not right.

Why should witnesses recant what they saw? If Bigfoot is a human-centred phenomenon rather than a biological one then how would witnesses know that what they saw (Bigfoot) was not objectively there when it most certainly was according to what they experienced or what they remembered? I wouldn't know the difference unless I had some objective data to compare it to. How would you know if it happened to you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

Have any been spotted in Kansas/Missouri? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.