Possible Bigfoot sighting shocks & excites

[Swede]

23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And yet even though  you are unable to tell us who said "the creature went into the woods on all fours" -  you have no problem using it to "prove" it is not a BF.

Talk about gullible. You're an incurable romantic, Swede

Even after a known Bigfoot proponent (and huckster) attributes the tracks to a large quadruped, you persist. Amazing.

.

[Shylow]

On 1/17/2021 at 5:52 PM, the13bats said:

And in 25 years how many bigfoot did you see?

 

                 0

[Guyver]

On 1/17/2021 at 10:49 PM, qxcontinuum said:

There is no big foot! If it was, if would have been captured, filmed for real or found death... things that are not revealed dont exist in never ending shrinkage of forests.

Since you believe there is no such thing as sasquatch, would it be fair to say that you believe every alleged sasquatch track is a fake or misidentification with something else?  And if it is something else, would you mind explaining what that other thing is that is responsible for the phenomenon?

[the13bats]

It doesnt work like that, i dont believe bigfoot exist its not my burden to somehow prove to a dear believer it doesnt exist, its already "unproven" no more work needed there unless you are trying to prove it does too exist then that burden is on you slick.

So then a statement like..

42 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Since you believe there is no such thing as sasquatch, would it be fair to say that you believe every alleged sasquatch track is a fake or misidentification with something else?  And if it is something else, would you mind explaining what that other thing is that is responsible for the phenomenon?

Why does that sound like pointless busy work a lazy teacher gives her toddlers?

Since i dont believe bigfoot exists and i do believe all the alleged tracks are fakes or "other" other being wide range which im not going to list due to nature of some peoples poor attitudes towards anything that doesnt agree with them,  my work is done.

To prove a track was in fact made by a bigfoot is to also prove bigfoot exists because we need the foot that made the print to prove anything conclusive.

Or prove to me without the foot that made the track a bigfoot made the track.

 

[Resume]

Reversal of burden of proof.  

[Tom1200]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Since you believe there is no such thing as sasquatch, would it be fair to say that you believe every alleged sasquatch track is a fake or misidentification with something else?  And if it is something else, would you mind explaining what that other thing is that is responsible for the phenomenon?

Hi!  I've just seen the most AMAZING creature in the woods behind my house!  It was really foggy this morning but I swear it was a brontosaurus!  

I grabbed my hunting rifle (joke - British, we don't believe in guns) and chased it.  There's literally EVIDENCE and stuff - trees at funny angles where bronto probably pushed them, broken branches where bronto probably tried to eat them, funny smells in places - probably bronto poo.  I can't find any footprints which is brilliant!  That proves it was a bronto 'cos they have huge feet to spread their weight so they don't mark the floor.  There are strange round recesses full of muddy water, probably gauged out by bronto rolling around.  There are even burned-out motorbikes suggesting that bronto is responsible for the recent surge in bike thefts round here.

Quick - jump on a plane and get here NOW before it goes extinct.  

On 1/18/2021 at 12:52 AM, the13bats said:

And in 25 years how many bigfoot did you see?

Prob'ly thousands.  But them thar Bigfoots is cunning varmints, wot disguise themselves as grizzlies.

[Guyver]

Right.  Ok then, nevermind.

[Robotic Jew]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

Since you believe there is no such thing as sasquatch, would it be fair to say that you believe every alleged sasquatch track is a fake or misidentification with something else?  And if it is something else, would you mind explaining what that other thing is that is responsible for the phenomenon?

Bears, Deer, Bushes....trees.....other humans standing in the shade...a plastic cutout of bigfoot...a butterfly...it could really be anything...other than the fictional creature you speak of 

[Tom1200]

1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

Bears, Deer, Bushes....trees.....other humans standing in the shade...a plastic cutout of bigfoot...a butterfly...it could really be anything...other than the fictional creature you speak of 

I think you're getting your imaginary friends mixed up...

Based on true events.  Like those long, loooooong films set in New Zealand... The Bloke with the Bling trilogy?  All true, cos Cladking told me.

[+DieChecker]

The pic of the trackway was way not convincing. How do we know how far apart the tracks are, or how deep? Its just tracks made by some guy walking into the snow. 

If it was standing by the road, then there would have been excellent humanoid type prints right there by the road.

And the "runs off on all fours" doesn't help with eliminating bear at all...

Moose? I dont know what their tracks in snow look like.

EDIT: Quick Google pics search shows moose to indeed walk very much like the tracks pictured. Linear with a slight offset. And often even with a little drag mark across the surface. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by DieChecker

[glorybebe]

So, in the Kootenays, there are a LOT of pot growers...just saying 

[Shylow]

[Matt221]

Over here in the Uk we don't have any Bigfoots i'm guessing it pretty much the same everywhere ...... just a guess 

[jmccr8]

What big foot has to say about this

jmccr8

[+DieChecker]

On 1/21/2021 at 9:50 AM, Shylow said:

Nah... Weed is a town in Northern California, not Canada.

 

[Abramelin]

On 1/19/2021 at 2:18 AM, Brandy333 said:

Well haven't you ever gone hunting like many of us has?  DUH!   It means to train eyes and ears to watch and listen.

And then shoot your mate because you thought you saw a bear.

[Abramelin]

On 1/21/2021 at 7:20 PM, Matt221 said:

Over here in the Uk we don't have any Bigfoots i'm guessing it pretty much the same everywhere ...... just a guess 

You also do not have any bears in the UK.

That's probably it.

[Abramelin]

On 1/21/2021 at 7:20 AM, DieChecker said:

EDIT: Quick Google pics search shows moose to indeed walk very much like the tracks pictured. Linear with a slight offset. And often even with a little drag mark across the surface. 

Do they also walk upright, now and then?

 

Edit:

Damn, they do:

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Abramelin

[Myles]

On 1/20/2021 at 12:22 AM, the13bats said:

It doesnt work like that, i dont believe bigfoot exist its not my burden to somehow prove to a dear believer it doesnt exist, its already "unproven" no more work needed there unless you are trying to prove it does too exist then that burden is on you slick.

So then a statement like..

Why does that sound like pointless busy work a lazy teacher gives her toddlers?

Since i dont believe bigfoot exists and i do believe all the alleged tracks are fakes or "other" other being wide range which im not going to list due to nature of some peoples poor attitudes towards anything that doesnt agree with them,  my work is done.

To prove a track was in fact made by a bigfoot is to also prove bigfoot exists because we need the foot that made the print to prove anything conclusive.

Or prove to me without the foot that made the track a bigfoot made the track.

 

We have already found proof of people faking tracks, so we know that it is a real thing.  

Most are fakes and some are misidentifications.  

[the13bats]

10 hours ago, Myles said:

We have already found proof of people faking tracks, so we know that it is a real thing.  

Most are fakes and some are misidentifications.  

Thats right, there are several cases that stand out, krantz who wrote whole books about tracks and preached they were hard to fake had students who would fake prints and fool him,  krantz also made claims to have "reconstructed" the foot that made the cripplefoot track,  since krantz doesnt have a normal much less cripppled bigfoot to go by anything he came up with was speculative, and of course cripplefoot was connected to a well known charlatan ivan marx and credibility ends right there.

John Greene one of the grand pooh-bahs of bigfootery knowing allowed pictures of tracks he knew where fakes to be used in books, documentaries etc supporting the existence of a real creature.

Chillcutt did big big chest pounding that his "technical eye" proved bigfoot had to be real because he allegedly discovered dermal ridges that were not human and not known primate  but he insisted were made by a living creature.

not so fast, an artist showed that these pseudo dermal ridges could be part of the cast making process, and how mud for example wont likely copy fine details like real dermal rudges in addition it was pointed out some tracked were "brushed" clean before cast making the brushes making lines that chilchutt jumped were dermal ridges,

I also read a piece stating that chilchutt made claims john green told him he saw the ridges before making the cadting yet when an investagator asked green about this green denied saying he saw ridges. Credibility comes into question.

It goes on endlessly but then there are cases of tracks found where its unlikely a hoaxer would have been, a random print here or there isnt really anything so how about track waves,

We have to weed out things like snow melting , morphing and reforming, mud can also change, its also well known bears might double step into their own print making it look longer and weird.

Then i have the cases like the person who will claim 20-30-+ years ago while camping, hiking whatever they discovered what could only be bigfoot tracks, they dont know what really made the track so jump to a conclusion from unknown, its not very good evidence to me,  in these cases it doesnt matter what the person believes or desires its what can be proven so tracks are very weak and do not prove anything.

I had a buddy try to rebuttle me on this he said a bloody shoe print put a person in prison for murder, thats very different to an alleged BF track,

The evidence in the murder case was a shoe print in blood that matched a specific shoe, so like i say show me the foot that made the track and then you might just prove BF exists.

 

[Myles]

10 hours ago, the13bats said:

Thats right, there are several cases that stand out, krantz who wrote whole books about tracks and preached they were hard to fake had students who would fake prints and fool him,  krantz also made claims to have "reconstructed" the foot that made the cripplefoot track,  since krantz doesnt have a normal much less cripppled bigfoot to go by anything he came up with was speculative, and of course cripplefoot was connected to a well known charlatan ivan marx and credibility ends right there.

John Greene one of the grand pooh-bahs of bigfootery knowing allowed pictures of tracks he knew where fakes to be used in books, documentaries etc supporting the existence of a real creature.

Chillcutt did big big chest pounding that his "technical eye" proved bigfoot had to be real because he allegedly discovered dermal ridges that were not human and not known primate  but he insisted were made by a living creature.

not so fast, an artist showed that these pseudo dermal ridges could be part of the cast making process, and how mud for example wont likely copy fine details like real dermal rudges in addition it was pointed out some tracked were "brushed" clean before cast making the brushes making lines that chilchutt jumped were dermal ridges,

I also read a piece stating that chilchutt made claims john green told him he saw the ridges before making the cadting yet when an investagator asked green about this green denied saying he saw ridges. Credibility comes into question.

It goes on endlessly but then there are cases of tracks found where its unlikely a hoaxer would have been, a random print here or there isnt really anything so how about track waves,

We have to weed out things like snow melting , morphing and reforming, mud can also change, its also well known bears might double step into their own print making it look longer and weird.

Then i have the cases like the person who will claim 20-30-+ years ago while camping, hiking whatever they discovered what could only be bigfoot tracks, they dont know what really made the track so jump to a conclusion from unknown, its not very good evidence to me,  in these cases it doesnt matter what the person believes or desires its what can be proven so tracks are very weak and do not prove anything.

I had a buddy try to rebuttle me on this he said a bloody shoe print put a person in prison for murder, thats very different to an alleged BF track,

The evidence in the murder case was a shoe print in blood that matched a specific shoe, so like i say show me the foot that made the track and then you might just prove BF exists.

 

Yep.

People faking tracks - Known

So assuming tracks are fake initially is not a bad move.

[MrBene]

I appreciate the effort, there are so many bugs and small creatures we didn't know until we went deep in the ocean or deep in the Amazonia. Those were discovered because people went there. Now a large mammal is another story, sadly, like many others have pointed out there is no evidence of such claim and just keep saying that this large mammal is "magical" or "vanishes" or "lives in another dimension" it is just too convenient and not-scientific at all. I am big fan of Les Stroud, I've been watching his YT channel during the pandemic because the guy knows how to entertain and I like his approach of "it there's something there I'll find it" but so far, no luck. Even as a skeptic as I am I would love to go into one of those campaigns, just for the adrenaline rush or just to go deep into the woods but honestly I don't think such creature exists.    

[the13bats]

12 hours ago, Myles said:

Yep.

People faking tracks - Known

So assuming tracks are fake initially is not a bad move.

Right, imnsho back in the late 60s early 70s after the PGF spring boarded BF people heard an "expert" like krantz etc say the tracks must be real and from a BF so that was fine for that era.

as time passed and it did show that a lot of BF tracks were fakes and even fooled a lot of these experts those interested placed a more careful eye on tracks, and more was done to show that one had to rule out fakes and misinterpreted  tracks,

So now when tracks are presented the first tbought is fake or misidentified and the burden of proof as it always should falls on the person saying no, these tracks arent fakes they arent being mistaken they are tracks of a BF to prove the claim or accept tracks are very weak evidence and and a track doesnt prove what made it.

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, MrBene said:

I appreciate the effort, there are so many bugs and small creatures we didn't know until we went deep in the ocean or deep in the Amazonia. Those were discovered because people went there. Now a large mammal is another story, sadly, like many others have pointed out there is no evidence of such claim and just keep saying that this large mammal is "magical" or "vanishes" or "lives in another dimension" it is just too convenient and not-scientific at all. I am big fan of Les Stroud, I've been watching his YT channel during the pandemic because the guy knows how to entertain and I like his approach of "it there's something there I'll find it" but so far, no luck. Even as a skeptic as I am I would love to go into one of those campaigns, just for the adrenaline rush or just to go deep into the woods but honestly I don't think such creature exists.    

Once getting past the initial fear or shock some might experience ( i know i would )  i do not believe they is anyone who wouldn't be delighted if like in this case bigfoot was discoved to be real same goes for ghosts, hauntings,  aliens, lake monsters etc.

as a skeptic ive always said i might not have as much fun as a true believer but i need the proof to see it myself, believers are faced with the fact that just because they claim an experence real to them and that they "know" its still unproven and just a story to the rest of us. i wasnt at all surprised when your very die hard blind true belivers said bigfoot was

4 hours ago, MrBene said:

 "magical" or "vanishes" or "lives in another dimension"

You are right it is just too convenient.

Afterall thats all they have to fall back on its the same type smoke and mirror games people play on other subjects like for example a person claims of having special powers, seeing ghosts, hauntings, we say, "show me" and we are greeted with an avalanche of excuses like "it doesnt work like that" or they blame us for not being enlightened, we are called close minded to the experence.

Same idea when some alien hunters claim ET knows we are about to grab a pix and blurred our camera, or how dare us suggest they grab a picture of their repeating alleged experences.

I do not really blame believers for trying to pull this its got to be tough to have zero to prove their extraordinary claims but the problem i see is it does muddy the waters,

when a person comes off as an angry excuse making loon its not going to help their cause, people will walk away thinking what a nutball, anyone who believes xxxxx is crazy, some believers attitudes hurt legitimate research.

In the case of BF over the last 2 decades or so it has blown up with self proclaimed hunters and TV claptrap trying to prove it exists and still zip, zero, zlitch and my opinion is thats because there is nothing there to find because BF is folklore myth not because BF can tap his chest and grumble, "Scotty, beam me up".

 

[openozy]

4 hours ago, MrBene said:

Even as a skeptic as I am I would love to go into one of those campaigns, just for the adrenaline rush or just to go deep into the woods but honestly I don't think such creature exists

You should do it, it's just good to be out in the bush checking out the known wildlife if nothing else.