How many forum members believe in Bigfoot

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Takes care of that.

Stop trying to misrepresent other posters.

As explained the map is from 2008 and is not current, nor was it accurate at the time. I've already explained that. Just because you are incapable of understanding what the map represents does not change any of the facts of the case. I've already posted information that shows that the map is incorrect for the states that it does not show having bears.

All you post proves is that you are incapable of learning and would rather argue than learn. Ahh ... the clear proof of a closed mind.

You claimed there were 10 states without bears. I pointed out the failure of the map since it is old information and bears occur in states shown on the map as no bears.

Show us the 10 states without bears or admit that your original statement was another of your inept blatherings.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bears/parks-with-bears.htm

That site has a map that shows only where bears are found in National Parks and that list expands the area shown in the other map.

[stereologist]

The evidence is quite clear that bears are an excellent explanation for BF sightings and no amount of whining, lying, misrepresenting, and childishness changes the facts.

Bears appear across a good portion of the US and bears are expanding their range every year. Combine this with people seeing bear for possibly the first time could be a reason that people report BF and not bear.

What has been shown is that bears appear in 49 states. The claim of not appearing 10 states is ignorance.

Edited July 14, 2019 by stereologist

[the13bats]

what states bears are proven to live or not ?

IF  a state could support a bigfoot that is of course assuming bf is even real then that state without question could support a bear and a bear could have wandered in, no breeding pop necessary for it to be seen for years,

 

[Michelle]

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

what states bears are proven to live or not ?

https://geology.com/stories/13/bear-areas/

[the13bats]

51 minutes ago, Michelle said:

https://geology.com/stories/13/bear-areas/

ty, i just said that as meaning its kind of a moot point,

if a bigfoot was real and could live in a place so could a bear, so of course some bigfoot sightings are bears,

i also believe humans, living off the grid some sane some not so sane have been mistook for bigfoot too,

 

and eariler the talk of bigfoot being paranormal phasing in and out at will came up, if so why is the only thing it leaves behind is alleged tracks?

[Don Caesar]

I never did understand the malarkey about Bigfoot travelling between dimensions and the correlation with UFO sightings.

Bigfoot, by itself, is enough of a stretch.

[the13bats]

15 minutes ago, Don Caesar said:

I never did understand the malarkey about Bigfoot travelling between dimensions and the correlation with UFO sightings.

Bigfoot, by itself, is enough of a stretch.

ever heard of kecksburg ufo case? allegedly something fell hit the ground the military or guasi miltary retrieved it and the town had some who claimed to have witnessed it all others said bull.

i guess the biggest voice in it was Stan Gordon interested since he was 16 and listened to it first hand on his radio, through the years it waxed and waned, most didnt believe it was alien but likely Russian or our junk, top secret junk mind you falling back to earth, 

Gordon to me leaned to alien, and made a good living doing lectures, and a web site, then its pretty much explained one of our secret pieces of junk fell out of the sky, and the case is basically forgotten,

but what doesnt one do if it was generating income for them? i know, connect imaginary dots to ufo reports and alleged bigfoot sightings stir up new interest, hey, it works!

connecting bf to UFOs or just saying it must be some paranormal thing removes any need to prove anything to those noisy negitive skeptics, if DTBs couldnt prove bf why not give it a double whammy say its part or something else unproven like aliens and or interdiamential, again we have zero proof but it sure is convoluted and fun.

 

 

[Don Caesar]

Yes, I’ve heard of the Kecksburg UFO case - the giant acorn transported by a military flat-bed truck out of the crash site. Saw it on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries. 

 

[stereologist]

 

13 hours ago, Michelle said:

https://geology.com/stories/13/bear-areas/

That map is dated 2008 and is out of date as I have shown in this thread. It misses even areas with national parks reporting bear.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

17 hours ago, the13bats said:

ty, i just said that as meaning its kind of a moot point,

if a bigfoot was real and could live in a place so could a bear, so of course some bigfoot sightings are bears,

i also believe humans, living off the grid some sane some not so sane have been mistook for bigfoot too,

 

and eariler the talk of bigfoot being paranormal phasing in and out at will came up, if so why is the only thing it leaves behind is alleged tracks?

You gotta' take into consideration, too, 13bats, that if a state is listed as having bears, it does not mean they are *everywhere* within the state.
Examine Texas. you will note that they only have bear in the lower Southwest corner of the state, and takes up about 3% of the total area. 
That means, if a person from central, northern or eastern Texas says they saw a BF, it ain't a darn bear. 

There are many other states that you could say the same thing about. So the bottom line is, no, BF reporters are not seeing bear. Be prudent and just say they are spoofing. it's more realistic lol

[Robotic Jew]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You gotta' take into consideration, too, 13bats, that if a state is listed as having bears, it does not mean they are *everywhere* within the state.
Examine Texas. you will note that they only have bear in the lower Southwest corner of the state, and takes up about 3% of the total area. 
That means, if a person from central, northern or eastern Texas says they saw a BF, it ain't a darn bear. 

There are many other states that you could say the same thing about. So the bottom line is, no, BF reporters are not seeing bear. Be prudent and just say they are spoofing. it's more realistic lol

All you're saying is there are a few states in the US where Bears are not a LIKELY explanation for BF sightings. But it's still a more likely explanation than BF. Especially, when realizing that a lot of people make up stuff for attention and to ride the coat tails of more ridiculous  made up nonsense.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

15 hours ago, Don Caesar said:

I never did understand the malarkey about Bigfoot travelling between dimensions and the correlation with UFO sightings.

Bigfoot, by itself, is enough of a stretch.

I know very little about this.  What I can tell you is this, it is true, the correlation of BF sightings and UFO sightings exists.
Is that because both UFOs and BFs travel (interdimensionally?) via the same portals?

The people who gather UFO data (ie MUFON) and the people who gather BF data are *not* the same people. Some independent 3rd party collected both sets of data and did the correlation. Meaning, It is not a spoof..But proving why there is a correlation is a tough thing to do.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Just now, Robotic Jew said:

All you're saying is there are a few states in the US where Bears are not a LIKELY explanation for BF sightings. But it's still a more likely explanation than BF. Especially, when realizing that a lot of people make up stuff for attention and to ride the coat tails of more ridiculous  made up nonsense.

Yes, heavy on the "people make stuff up" - like saying that BF reporters see bears, when they have no evidence of that at all.

 

[Robotic Jew]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes, heavy on the "people make stuff up" - like saying that BF reporters see bears, when they have no evidence of that at all.

 

I've not seen anyone presenting that as FACT. But offering it up as a plausible and likely explanation to people presenting BF sightings as fact and "couldn't be anything else!" type of rantings.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You gotta' take into consideration, too, 13bats, that if a state is listed as having bears, it does not mean they are *everywhere* within the state.
Examine Texas. you will note that they only have bear in the lower Southwest corner of the state, and takes up about 3% of the total area. 
That means, if a person from central, northern or eastern Texas says they saw a BF, it ain't a darn bear. 

There are many other states that you could say the same thing about. So the bottom line is, no, BF reporters are not seeing bear. Be prudent and just say they are spoofing. it's more realistic lol

We've already established that bears also exist in the eastern portion of Texas. That information comes from the National Park Service showing that the map i s in error.

These maps only show where bears have a population. They do not cover areas that bears pass through.

Following up your mistakes with the following non sequitur is par for the course: "BF reporters are not seeing bear."

Nothing posted here, even your misleading and wrong statements lead to such a conclusion.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I know very little about this.  What I can tell you is this, it is true, the correlation of BF sightings and UFO sightings exists.
Is that because both UFOs and BFs travel (interdimensionally?) via the same portals?

The people who gather UFO data (ie MUFON) and the people who gather BF data are *not* the same people. Some independent 3rd party collected both sets of data and did the correlation. Meaning, It is not a spoof..But proving why there is a correlation is a tough thing to do.

Just as your bear claim was preposterous and shown to completely wrong, I do not believe your correlation claim either.

Please support your claim of correlation between BF and UFO sightings.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes, heavy on the "people make stuff up" - like saying that BF reporters see bears, when they have no evidence of that at all.

 

https://www.theconfessionalspodcast.com/the-blog/news-bear-opens-van-doors-like-a-person-in-tennessee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/07/05/is-bigfoot-just-an-upright-walking-bear-we-asked-the-experts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83319394a454

Quote

As we reported last week, a large, dark and very hairy beast has been seen walking on its hind legs through New Jersey neighborhoods for the third summer in a row. It’s clear that this being is no human. What could it be?

In this case, video captured by locals has shown that this particular furry walker is a black bear — one nicknamed Pedals for his bipedal gait, which he uses because his front paws are injured.

https://www.seeker.com/bear-tracks-spur-bigfoot-911-call-1767558728.html

Quote

So what did happen? Police investigated and concluded that in the end, there was no hunter, no shooting, no Bigfoot (alive or dead), and no Bigfoot tracks - only tracks of a mother bear and her cub that a man was so sure was from a Bigfoot that he needed to call 911 to report it.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/alleged-bigfoot-photo-michigans-u-p-surfaces-just-bear/

Quote

I had not yet begun my search for what I now call the Bigfoot Bear—referring to an upright-standing bear’s propensity to be mistaken for Bigfoot in general anatomy and coloration as well as behavior and geographic distribution (Nickell 2013). However, both my work and leisure put me in contact with many Yukon outdoorsmen—like riverboat captain Dick Stevenson, numerous salmon fishermen and gold miners, dog-sled-traveling trappers like Ed Wolfe and “Skipper” Mendelsohn, and many, many more, including old Joe Henry, a nationally famous Native American snowshoe maker and my favorite wintertime bar companion. I never heard mention of Bigfoot from any of these people, but they were all familiar with bears.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/the_yukons_bigfoot_bears/

https://evilutionarybiologist.blogspot.com/2009/07/bigfoot-or-mistaken-identity.html

Quote

Interestingly, Bigfoot's supposed range overlaps considerably with another large American mammal, Ursus americanus, the Black Bear. Naturally, it is quite possible that the Black Bear and Sasquatch could share similar habitat requirements, but perhaps a more parsimonious hypothesis is that Black Bears are being misidentified as Sasquatch.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

25 minutes ago, stereologist said:

We've already established that bears also exist in the eastern portion of Texas. That information comes from the National Park Service showing that the map i s in error.

These maps only show where bears have a population. They do not cover areas that bears pass through.

Following up your mistakes with the following non sequitur is par for the course: "BF reporters are not seeing bear."

Nothing posted here, even your misleading and wrong statements lead to such a conclusion.

 

I see. Mistakes.  well for one ,you already called me a liar

Now, you're saying that people in central or northern Texas that see BF are really seeing bears in eastern Texas.

you BS artist.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[stereologist]

There is plenty of evidence that BF falls in the range of the bears of North America.

There is plenty of evidence that bears are misidentified as BF. Finding those cases is fairly simple.

It is also simple to find scoffing from people making money off of BF such as MoneyMaker and his ilk.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

I see. Mistakes.  well for one ,you already called me a liar

Now, your saying that people in central or northern Texas that see BF are really seeing bears in eastern Texas.

you BS artist.

You do lie. If you didn't then you wouldn't be a liar. That's pretty simple to understand.

There you go again being a liar. Here is your next lie: "your saying that people in central or northern Texas that see BF are really seeing bears in eastern Texas."

Thanks for showing every reader of this thread that is what you do.

And to be correct where did I call you a liar? I guess that was lie too.

Edited July 15, 2019 by stereologist

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There is plenty of evidence that BF falls in the range of the bears of North America.

There is plenty of evidence that bears are misidentified as BF. Finding those cases is fairly simple.

And finding cases where BF sightings are claimed and bears DO NOT exist is really even simpler.

I cited already, central and northern Texas. Want more...?     Central parts of:  NDakota, SDakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Nevada.

Gee, that was tough. 

 

[Carnoferox]

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And finding cases where BF sightings are claimed and bears DO NOT exist is really even simpler.

I cited already, central and northern Texas. Want more...?     Central parts of:  NDakota, SDakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Nevada.

Gee, that was tough. 

 

Bears have been sighted in all of those states before if I'm not mistaken. Just because a state doesn't have an established population doesn't mean there can't be a wandering individual.

[stereologist]

21 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And finding cases where BF sightings are claimed and bears DO NOT exist is really even simpler.

I cited already, central and northern Texas. Want more...?     Central parts of:  NDakota, SDakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Nevada.

Gee, that was tough. 

 

Please substantiate your vacuous and usually false claims. Until then you are not to be believed

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Bears have been sighted in all of those states before if I'm not mistaken. Just because a state doesn't have an established population doesn't mean there can't be a wandering individual.

Agreed and I contend that a bear passing through an area where bears are not normally seen would be more likely to trigger a BF sighting than in an area where bears are seen often.  Bears are not normally seen on the Virginia Beach oceasnfront but every few months they'll have to tranquilize one there that had wandered in from the Great Dismal Swamp.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

43 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Bears have been sighted in all of those states before if I'm not mistaken. Just because a state doesn't have an established population doesn't mean there can't be a wandering individual.

Really, Carno…?  Well you do the stats on how incredibly low probability it would be to have all or - or even 30% of such sightings be justified as "wandering bear". Show me where the BF sightings in "no bear" zones have other witnesses that also see this alleged wandering bear. Come on, man, common sense should kick in at some point and when you people finally realize that your are taking the low probability case here, it may also finally kick in that you do so just to maintain a your crazy theory. What about the high probability case... it's NOT a bear?! Tell me these people are spoofing but please don't feed me this "they saw a bear" bogswada.

Known woodsmen and hunters who see bear all the time say that they *know* what a bear looks like and this was no bear. And yet many self proclaimed experts in here, many of whom are not real familiar with the woods,, step right it to say they know better than knowledgeable eye witness himself. Egomaniacal or what?

For gawd's sake, Carno. Let some common sense enter into the equation,