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 -

How many forum members believe in Bigfoot


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

please go... 

Please substantiate any of your claims. You have been making up all sorts of demonstrably false claims.

The simple fact of the matter is that nothing has been provided that negates the claim that bears are responsible for many of the BF sightings.

Arguments of personal ignorance and arguments of incredulity matter little when ample evidence has been provided to show your statements are dead wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Carno, sorry but this study is only concentrating on western US where there are many bear, of course. Not what I have in mind.

But check this out. Wiki

You will see that the black bear is located mostly in southern Canada, norther and western US. And you will see that there are many states with NO BEAR. Now there can be a lot said for conflicting links but I'm still saying there are large regions with no bear, and wiki backs that and further shows many states, most noticeably, Central US - top to bottom, with no bears.

don't know where else to take this without doing a study of our own. and that's not going to happen.

This is a bald faced lie. " there are many states with NO BEAR"

I've already shown that bears exist in 49 states. Please read the links and fix your ignorance.

It really matters little if there are areas with no bear. That has nothing at all to do with bears being misidentified as BF.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said BF hops rides on UFOs, only that there is a correlation between BF reports and UFO reports. That is all I ever said about the two. It is not my fault that that is what the data says.

As far as BF travelling thru dimensions goes, that's just my personal theory, of course. I try to think of ways - other than non existence, to explain why this alleged creature cannot be captured. that's all. I still am not 100% sold on anything. It's a mystery, that's why it is in UM.

EoT, the fact that you offer either explanation speaks volumes.

Quote

As far as mistaking a bear for a BF... sorry, not in general. Say that the person is hoaxing or the BF was a "man in a monkey's suit", but that "bear" excuse grows old. How many reports speak of a creature that ran very fast on two feet, or ran down a mountain - neither of which can be a bear? How many sightings have BF prints? How many reports of BF later find bear tracks? you have to think about these things in adjudicating it properly.

Disagree. I would say that many of sightings are bears, not all certainly but many,  no way to prove that, however, but appearing out of another dimension is as close to impossible as one can possibly get. I don't think you fully understand what you are proposing.

Quote

I know what study I would like to see done... I want to see what the difference in BF reports you get when comparing a "bear" zone to a neighboring "no bear" zone.  And of course, I would accept the results. I'm am trying to get to the truth, not make myself happy with my own type of story.

The bear reports seem to be ridiculously outdated, I know that is the case for my little area of the world.  I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you, until a new study is done

Quote

I just may poke around and see exactly what kind of task I will be up against in comparing - say, southwestern Texas (bear zone) to Central Texas (no bear zone) - or some such comparison.

Good luck but garbage in, garbage out.   No one seems to be worrying about black bears so no one seems to be  studying them but would like to see anything you uncover.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said BF hops rides on UFOs, only that there is a correlation between BF reports and UFO reports. That is all I ever said about the two. It is not my fault that that is what the data says.

As far as BF travelling thru dimensions goes, that's just my personal theory, of course. I try to think of ways - other than non existence, to explain why this alleged creature cannot be captured. that's all. I still am not 100% sold on anything. It's a mystery, that's why it is in UM.

As far as mistaking a bear for a BF... sorry, not in general. Say that the person is hoaxing or the BF was a "man in a monkey's suit", but that "bear" excuse grows old. How many reports speak of a creature that ran very fast on two feet, or ran down a mountain - neither of which can be a bear? How many sightings have BF prints? How many reports of BF later find bear tracks? you have to think about these things in adjudicating it properly.

I know what study I would like to see done... I want to see what the difference in BF reports you get when comparing a "bear" zone to a neighboring "no bear" zone.  And of course, I would accept the results. I'm am trying to get to the truth, not make myself happy with my own type of story.

I just may poke around and see exactly what kind of task I will be up against in comparing - say, southwestern Texas (bear zone) to Central Texas (no bear zone) - or some such comparison.

 

Please provide evidence for " that there is a correlation between BF reports and UFO reports"

You are not believable.

The fact that you do not post this simply tells me that this is likely to something you made up just like the lie that " there are many states with NO BEAR "

Your only argument here is an argument of personal ignorance and an appeal to incredulity. I've already posted a number of cases in which bears were mistaken for BF. It happens.That has been deomstrated

I already posted a link to show that bear territory is the same as BF reports. That correlation has been posted.

You've supported none of your claims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't desertrat, but that is not the only map I found that showed the same thing.

Here's another from Wiki, but a different page link

Here the original placed in here link

I've already posted a map from the national park service showing parks with bear not covered y these out of date maps.

Using out dated information is pointless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I already said that I am well aware of rogue bears that roam outside their normal range but as one poster already posted, females gerneally are in a range of some 10 sq miles, and males are in around 60 sq miles (or sq kilmoeters? can't recall). In either case that is a small area and bears outside their range are most likely empty at any given point Yes the rogue bear exists, of course.

I will repeat...

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"On Long Island off the coast of Washington, ranges average 5 sq mi (13 km2), whereas on the Ungava Peninsula in Canada ranges can average up to 1,000 sq mi (2,600 km2), with some male bears traveling as far as 4,349 sq mi (11,260 km2) in times of food shortages.[4][65]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear

Bold by me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is really interesting about bear studies which are carried out across the US is that bears are counted by collecting their DNA.

This establishes the number of bears and the breeding patterns of the populations out there.

Not once has once one of these DNA sampling systems found a primate DNA. Not once.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

What is really interesting about bear studies which are carried out across the US is that bears are counted by collecting their DNA.

This establishes the number of bears and the breeding patterns of the populations out there.

Not once has once one of these DNA sampling systems found a primate DNA. Not once.

Well they disappear into another dimension to urinate, defecate, eat or die.  Honestly, I am not sure  why they bother to pop into this dimension just to get rednecks to shoot at them, almost get hit by cars or howl at Moneymaker and his boys.  The energy it would require to accomplish this improbable action doesn't seem to justify the mission.  Color me confused.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This is a bald faced lie. " there are many states with NO BEAR"

...

Sorry, I'm going off-topic.

Should this discussion start using neologism "bear-faced lie"?

Quote

Someone bare-faced originally had the face uncovered, and hence was figuratively acting in an unconcealed or open way (Shakespeare is the first known user of both literal and figurative senses). From the latter part of the seventeenth century onwards, it took on a sense of something or someone who was audacious, shameless or impudent, so that a barefaced lie was one in which the speaker made no attempt to disguise it as truth.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bal2.htm

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2019 at 1:34 AM, Piney said:

Then you had "mystics" who lived like wildmen in every culture.

Indeed!  To me bigfoot is more folkloric in nature.  There's quite a number of countries in the world where they've reported sightings over many generations of these big hairy bi-pedal creatures that are often shy and wandering about the countryside.  Here in Australia some people believe in the Yowie.  I believe something similar is called the Abominable Snowman near Nepal.  I used to love reading about these creatures when I was a child, although as I grew older I just felt that the evidence presented wasn't strong enough to make me believe I guess. :)  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pixiii said:

Indeed!  To me bigfoot is more folkloric in nature.  There's quite a number of countries in the world where they've reported sightings over many generations of these big hairy bi-pedal creatures that are often shy and wandering about the countryside.  Here in Australia some people believe in the Yowie.  I believe something similar is called the Abominable Snowman near Nepal.  I used to love reading about these creatures when I was a child, although as I grew older I just felt that the evidence presented wasn't strong enough to make me believe I guess. :)  

I thought I saw it through the window at my grandpop's cabin in Chatsworth. These 2 crazy woodjins use to talk about spotting it and many people in my tribe believe in it. 

So when I had time I looked. It was more about stumpjumping and I did find and see some cool things. Hooked up with Mary Green when I joined a online Paltalk group. She died believing it. 

I followed up every report in the Pine Barrens. They all turned up bears or BS. Stumpjumped every inch then finally gave up. 

nada.....

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Suggested thread title change.

How many forum members believe in bears?

NJBEEgoliath_320x480.jpg

LARGEST BEAR IN THE WORLD

Goliath — 2000 pounds, 12 ft. tall 
Guinness World Records 
Lived at Space Farms 1967 – 1991
 
I got to meet this fella when I was a kid.
He currently resides, stuffed mind you, a few miles from where I live.
 
I believe the record is for largest bear ever in captivity. 
 
I would rather deal with bigfoot any day of the week as opposed to this monstrosity. 
 
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

i try to give everyone a chance and you just cant help but revert to being a troll, thats fine you cant help it but i dont need to keep feeding it.

Seriously you need to get a grip. I am NOT trolling. I am writing to you just like you and I are talking at the bar over a couple of beers. SERIOUSLY

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

good, then we agree bears are a very likely candidate for just one of the many prosaic explanations for alleged bigfoot sightings.

It's possible, of course, but it is not the majority of solutions (MO)

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

only your opinion, far from fact, without skirting forum rules to use words they dont want used by silly spelling of them, i find bears a far, far better explanation for some alleged bigfoot sightings than paranormal.

What's wrong with opinions here. You know it has never been proven, so I don't know what is wrong with opinions and I especially don't know why you think it is wrongful for me but Ok for you and everyone in here to use opinions, so long as their opinion is "they saw bear"!?

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

you ignored all i posted on that subject, typical.

you just cherry picked and misinterpreted what i posted either out of ignorance or to suit your agenda, my remark was to give you an out so you could save face for your being so silly in your reply, you just made yourself look worse, im fine with how you look to others on here.

You are reverting back to strangefellow again. Why the hostilites???  I thought we talked about this?? Show me ONE time in this thread that I body slammed you. It really is you that is out of line

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

um, you are one if the most close minded on here,

That does it.   Post me again when you can act NORMAL

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

only your opinion counts to you, im not at all flipping out nor was my reply at all rude i guess you are too sensative ahem, sensitive.

i dont tear into anyone and my reply sure didnt tear into you, we established you are hyper sensitive but are you making up stuff again or honestly schizophrenic too?

um, very odd, if you were being hinest in your feeling your wouldnt have replied at all but we all know how important that ladt babbling word is for you, you believe people are out of control rude when there is nothing to support it, kind of like most of your beliefs. You are accusing me of what you do over and over in basically every thread you are in.

you are just trolling i dont feed trolls.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep it civil folks - enough with the derogatory personal remarks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Suggested thread title change.

How many forum members believe in bears?

I'm worried that we probably would end up less than 100% in favor somehow....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the false ideas being presented in this thread is the notion that bears and bigfoot do not overlap in territory. In fact BF sightings and bear territory are very nearly the same.

https://www.livescience.com/39785-bigfoot-map-sasquatch-sightings-gis.html

Taking a look at that map we see how close the two zones are. Only a minuscule portion of the BF reports come from areas with bears.

No one is suggesting that bear misidentification is the sole reason for BF reports, but it is a likely reason for many reports - possibly most reports. Although one poster has falsely claimed that bears do not occur in 10 states it has already been shown that bears occur in 49 of the 50 states. It has been shown that some reports have been bear misidentification. Although one poster has falsely claimed that never happens it does happen and that has happened across the US.

Misidentification of bears is simply another reason I do not believe BF exists.

Misidentification of other people is another possible explanation for reports. One of the funny ones I recall is man in a self made raccoon suit.

https://nypost.com/2017/08/10/i-dont-want-any-trouble-how-i-was-mistaken-for-bigfoot/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, stereologist said:

No one is suggesting that bear misidentification is the sole reason for BF reports,

Perhaps not but nobody *quantified* it either. And the allusion clearly as I read it is, that virtually all BF sightings are bear. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I will repeat...

Bold by me.

and your point is...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Perhaps not but nobody *quantified* it either. And the allusion clearly as I read it is, that virtually all BF sightings are bear. 

You've quantified nothing except to falsely claim that bear misidentification is not possible. You played the appeal to incredulity and that logical fallacy is a failure.

You make the following claim despite evidence showing that does happen: "Yes, heavy on the "people make stuff up" - like saying that BF reporters see bears, when they have no evidence of that at all."

You went on to make up tall tales such as mentioned here:

Quote

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. 

Maps of reports show that only around 20 cases in over 3000 were from the areas you mentioned - basically less than 0.1% of cases. Those are outliers and not the overwhelming bulk of the cases. Over 99% of cases overlap with bear population zones. 

You need to read posts and understand posts, not misrepresent posts. There is no claim "that virtually all BF sightings are bear. " That's just bizarre to make such a statement.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

ec6737b84743598eac075c6c0c125cfb.jpg

Yogi bear is gonna beat ya down.

One of the better Bigfoot pictures I've seen in some time.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

and your point is...?

My point is that you suck at comprehending what you read.

Some bears are known to be found hundreds of miles from their known habitats. 

You used the smaller range and glossed over the fact that bears can and have been sighted hundreds of miles from what you think are the only places with bears.

@stereologist has provided ample information that it is much more likely that people are mistaking bear for bigfoot.

Being incredulous about that fact is disheartening. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is astonishingly clear is that areas which do not have breeding bear populations are the same areas in which there are less than 0.1% of the BF reports. These are the same areas which have been offered as speculation that bears cannot be the cause of the BF sightings.

Still leaves 99.9% of the BF reports in bear populations areas, i.e. places where bears breed and are not traveling through those areas.

This shows that the misidentification of bears as BF is probably the main cause of BF sightings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier I posted a link to the man in the raccoon suit that was mistaken for a BF.

Now for the rest of the story.

Not only were the folks reporting the BF out there as a group of experienced BF searchers they were also testing a product. They went out testing a for sale product to lure in BF. The video of them finding raccoon man was on the BF lure product website till it was discovered that they had not seen a BF.

I wanted to put a link to that product here but it seems that the lure sales went belly up - raccoon style.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.