Encounter: Alone in the Woods

[Night Walker]

While traversing a dense forest covered in the darkness of silhouettes with my father looking for a fishing spot, we both saw, for just a moment, a creature, shrouded in black, standing over seven feet tall with hands to its knees and entirely covered in hair, cross the road before us. Both of us, at a loss for words, quickly attempted to get a closer look at the beast, but it was gone as fast as it had appeared. I still do not know what it was that we saw that day…

Bigfoot? The mystery, as pondered by the author/witness, is not “What did I see?” but “Why did I see it?”

Why do we think we see Bigfoot in the shadows? Where does that idea come from? This thesis explores how the mind reacts in an instant to the unknown under duress in the dark…

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=bfa

 

Interesting points:

When we see something, we generally believe it, even if we know it to be quite in the contrary to our sense of reason… While our ears, sense of touch, smell, and taste can easily oscillate between truth and falsity (and we are quite willing to forgive those), our eyes are the sense that humans trust the most and give the most weight of importance to.
… and,
Fear plays a sizeable part in how we interpret what we do not understand; it changes the way we see the way we interpret the world and our thoughts for a moment of intense terror.
… and,
Seeing something that we do not understand can be vastly confusing for the mind. We jump to conclusions quickly, and cannot help but bring in previous cultural references that might have come our way in the past. Our minds go to horror stories and myths that under normal circumstances would never enter our train of thought. But when we are alone with our thoughts in darkness, in an unfamiliar place, and see something we do not recognize, the worst thoughts crowd our heads until shadows of nothing turn into the presence of danger.

Thoughts?

Was Finding Bigfoot more about demonstrating the Bigfoot experience?
 

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

Thoughts?
 

My thought is that this is too eager an attempt to explain away the Bigfoot phenomena. My thought is that there are too many longer period sightings, films, footprints, etc.. to think the explanations given in the OP explain more than perhaps some of the weaker cases.

[Scholar4Truth]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

My thought is that this is too eager an attempt to explain away the Bigfoot phenomena. My thought is that there are too many longer period sightings, films, footprints, etc.. to think the explanations given in the OP explain more than perhaps some of the weaker cases.

Plus these sightings go back centuries.from about 1847 to even before that time period. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Being in the forest does odd things to your brain, in my experience. It taps into the primal part of your brain that is designed to protect you from being eaten by bears. Heightens the hearing, sharpens the “fight or flight” part of the brain and consequentially you’re reacting to dangers that may not be there. 

Bigfoot is the modern form of “sheesh, we were lucky to avoid that bear!”

[the13bats]

22 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Thoughts?

Was Finding Bigfoot more about demonstrating the Bigfoot experience?

IMHO Finding Bigfoot was unadulterated claptrap produced for reasons of profit, attention and entertainment, they could have been looking for flying purple unicorns but not as many would have watched it "bigfoot" was selected because its the grand poobah of land based mythological chronological creatures that has a large following of dear true believers, 

if any actual research or science happed in FB it was purely by accident, with most of the cast looking more suited to grabbing a second tub of onion dip from the fridge than hiking through brush and roughing it, ( enter bling Hummer, huh, Piney )

The show wasnt about a living craater but rather a construct, a way to profit from the phenomenon or "experience" as you put it.

 

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My thought is that this is too eager an attempt to explain away the Bigfoot phenomena. My thought is that there are too many longer period sightings, films, footprints, etc.. to think the explanations given in the OP explain more than perhaps some of the weaker cases.

Of course you feel that way you are a blind faith dear true believer, ( like your support of the alien mummys being real shows how you blindly believe) its okay for you, not my path.

There is nothing eager about it to me, just logical pondering, the phenomenon of BF is just that a phenomenon its not proven and evidence is weak, too many people are biased, they want it to be bigfoot so they see bigfoot, and when a person is out there in the night woods, creatures scurrying, leaves crunching , sounds and shadows, its like watching a suspense thriller, it sets you up but your not safe in your home you bet the mind can and does play tricks, i saw a big dark shadow, i dont know what it was, it has to be otherwordly, that is fantasy based thinking.

Sure, we have had 100s, 1000s of years of unproven stories of wild hairy man beasts out there, we also have stories of santa clause and easter bunnies, mythology and folklore can be very rich,  after all that time of these stories of bf still zero proof and rather weak evidence,

No matter how much a true believer wants it to be, insists it is to them, "stories" are nothing more than stories, they are not evidence and not proof.

 "films" ? really? which one the ridiculously laughable work of Ivan Marx or the work of charlatan Patterson? or one of the countless blobsquatch videos hailed by their creators as smoking gun proof, ( only to them and bftbs ).

Sorry, we have zero as far as photographic evidence of bigfoot, but if i missed the pic you believe proves once and for all, closes the case bf is a living creature by all means post it.

We have great pictures even video of all kinds of of ultra rare creatures, not blurry out of focus tripe but imagines that anyone can see right off is a creature, and yet after all the years, all the people hunting not one good picture of bf, it doesnt make sense its not plausible.

Footprints, sounds very good and convincing at first, problem is a print isnt evidence like a bone, hair, scat, we have to assume and speculate what left the print and its been proven to me many times even the biggest of the chest pounding self proclaimed experts have been dead wrong, fooled by misidentification or hoaxes,

the bigfoot-prints man himself krantz was fooled many times, both by morphed tracks of known animals and even his students, fact is most of us could go dig a fake print in our yard with a soup spoon take pix and casts and it would fool many experts, how would they disprove it?

Chilcutt, blew his horn how he is a fingerprint expert, both in humans and primates, i saw him in a documentary waxing how he had to clue in meldrum what dermal ridges were and how they proved the creature was real, he staked his reputation on it, that bf is real when looked at by his expert eye, how can one be an expert on a creature unproven by science, there are no experts on an alleged creature that no one has studied first hand.

I read on another forum where he said john green told him he saw ridges before making a cast that again according to him had ridge proof, then green denied saying he saw any ridges, hum, then again, an artical was posted that john green for decades allowed known to him hoax prints to be used in books and documentaries as real, some say because he so wanted bf to be real yet lacked any evidence.

Then an artist steps up and fools chilcutt with faked dermal ridges, made from the casting process itself, in a couple others chilcutt mistook brush marks for actual ridges, my point? even ego driven "experts" can be mistaken or wrong,

I saw a weird footprint so it must be bf, no thats just speculation it isnt logical or scientific, you cant reach a conclusion from "i dont know?"  true believers refuse to except this simple fact.

Footprints are evidence but very weak because we do not have a foot to fit any print, we have to accept hoaxes and morphed real creature prints, but until we have the foot that made the print, a print isnt evidence.

Each day that passes the evidence, rather lack there of points away from bf being a flesh and blood living creature and just more folklore.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by the13bats
capt typo

[Grim Reaper 6]

18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My thought is that this is too eager an attempt to explain away the Bigfoot phenomena. My thought is that there are too many longer period sightings, films, footprints, etc.. to think the explanations given in the OP explain more than perhaps some of the weaker cases.

I suppose my biggest problem with Big Foot being real is where did it come from? There never were any great ape fossil skeletons found in the history of America or anywhere near the Euro-asian land bridge known as the Bering Strait. 

With that said did it just evolve in the Americas, because that would have to be the case. If so where is the fossil evidence.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

Of course you feel that way you are a blind faith dear true believer, 

Of course you feel that way as you are an anti-paranormal/alien/crypto type. You are on a rote pattern by now.

 

 

[Robotic Jew]

6 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I suppose my biggest problem with Big Foot being real is where did it come from? There never were any great ape fossil skeletons found in the history of America or anywhere near the Euro-asian land bridge known as the Bering Strait. 

With that said did it just evolve in the Americas, because that would have to be the case. If so where is the fossil evidence.

Haven't you heard? They're aliens from another dimension that only choose to appear in forests at random times and only around folks who don't possess the technology to document anything with real value.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Robotic Jew
See below...

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I suppose my biggest problem with Big Foot being real is where did it come from? There never were any great ape fossil skeletons found in the history of America or anywhere near the Euro-asian land bridge known as the Bering Strait. 

With that said did it just evolve in the Americas, because that would have to be the case. If so where is the fossil evidence.

I suspect that Bigfoot is not just another regular animal like a bear, gorilla, orangutan, etc. which is what your question is implying.

I believe it has features we would call paranormal and its origin is not like other creatures. I do not think it is even a full-time resident of our 'normal' physical plane. One theory is an ape/human hybrid created by an intelligent race for reasons that never saw fruition. Remember I said 'theory' and am not going to be able to argue that that 'IS' the case.

Of course you will hee and haw all together at any outside the mainstream thoughts, but you will in my opinion need to go on denying too much persistent evidence that this is not something easily explained away as overactive imagination. I feel the OP explanation is a weak attempt to discredit the reality of the subject although that explanation may work in a few weak cases only.

Meantime, I will go on with the assertion that the Bigfoot has no easy explanation as the OP suggests.

 

[the13bats]

27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I suspect that Bigfoot is not just another regular animal like a bear, gorilla, orangutan, etc. which is what your question is implying.

I believe it has features we would call paranormal and its origin is not like other creatures. I do not think it is even a full-time resident of our 'normal' physical plane. One theory is an ape/human hybrid created by an intelligent race for reasons that never saw fruition. Remember I said 'theory' and am not going to be able to argue that that 'IS' the case.

Of course you will hee and haw all together at any outside the mainstream thoughts, but you will in my opinion need to go on denying too much persistent evidence that this is not something easily explained away as overactive imagination. I feel the OP explanation is a weak attempt to discredit the reality of the subject although that explanation may work in a few weak cases only.

Meantime, I will go on with the assertion that the Bigfoot has no easy explanation as the OP suggests.

 

Theres basically zero evidence to support bigfoot is a living eartly creature but you raised that nothing burger a few rungs to suggest with even less evidence bf is paranormal, when you supported the alien mummy fraud i didnt believe you could up yourself but you proved me way, way wrong about you,

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I suspect that Bigfoot is not just another regular animal like a bear, gorilla, orangutan, etc. which is what your question is implying.

I believe it has features we would call paranormal and its origin is not like other creatures. I do not think it is even a full-time resident of our 'normal' physical plane. One theory is an ape/human hybrid created by an intelligent race for reasons that never saw fruition. Remember I said 'theory' and am not going to be able to argue that that 'IS' the case.

Of course you will hee and haw all together at any outside the mainstream thoughts, but you will in my opinion need to go on denying too much persistent evidence that this is not something easily explained away as overactive imagination. I feel the OP explanation is a weak attempt to discredit the reality of the subject although that explanation may work in a few weak cases only.

Meantime, I will go on with the assertion that the Bigfoot has no easy explanation as the OP suggests.

 

Thanks for your unique perspective it's very enlightening.

[+DieChecker]

On 8/25/2019 at 3:45 AM, Night Walker said:

When we see something, we generally believe it, even if we know it to be quite in the contrary to our sense of reason… While our ears, sense of touch, smell, and taste can easily oscillate between truth and falsity (and we are quite willing to forgive those), our eyes are the sense that humans trust the most and give the most weight of importance to.
… and,
Fear plays a sizeable part in how we interpret what we do not understand; it changes the way we see the way we interpret the world and our thoughts for a moment of intense terror.
… and,
Seeing something that we do not understand can be vastly confusing for the mind. We jump to conclusions quickly, and cannot help but bring in previous cultural references that might have come our way in the past. Our minds go to horror stories and myths that under normal circumstances would never enter our train of thought. But when we are alone with our thoughts in darkness, in an unfamiliar place, and see something we do not recognize, the worst thoughts crowd our heads until shadows of nothing turn into the presence of danger.

Thoughts?

I think people will often see what they expect to see. If the person who reported BF was a aliens believer, or ghost believer, they probably would have seen a ghost, or an alien, instead. 

I think this is just a holdover from when humans had to fear just about everything. And a quick decision for fight or flight was critical.

[Piney]

On 8/26/2019 at 6:13 AM, Manwon Lender said:

With that said did it just evolve in the Americas, because that would have to be the case. If so where is the fossil evidence.

When I was a avid Bigfoot hunter, I was hoping one day they would find it. But if it was a hominid, it would of crossed the Land Bridge. Not evolved here. New World monkeys would not of experienced the environmental stresses forcing bipedalism. 

No fossils. no bones, even though I have bones from every other animal and I no longer believe in Bigfoot. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Piney
**** Atlantis