Hiker is stalked for several days by 'Bigfoot' in Oregon

[Guyver]

15 hours ago, Resume said:

How did you document your discovery so others may duplicate?  You know, science.

What sort of follow up did you do since you had success?  Did you share your findings with other bigfoot enthusiasts so they might replicate your findings?  Why didn't you follow up on the sounds?  Because it sounds to me like a typical "ghost hunt" where the only spooks are the ones who are spooked.

Do you see why anecdotes are such poor evidence?  The only thing we can learn from yours is that though there are myriad bigfoot stories, there is no way to verify or falsify them.

See, that’s the thing.  I’m an educated man, but I am not a scientist.  My interest in the phenomenon was just personal.  I felt it was worth investigating so I researched it as best I could.  I wasn’t attempting to prove to science or the world the species exists, I was just trying to answer the question for myself.

And the answer is, that after everything I said, I don’t “believe in bigfoot.” I believe in the possibility that it exists, but require the same scientific proof everyone else does.  I didn’t see it with my own two eyes, but if I did, I would believe my own two eyes and acknowledge the creature, animal, primal human, who knows what it is to be called does exist. In my case I experienced something and there’s only two possibilities that could explain it, and that would be grizzly bear or sasquatch.

[Guyver]

The problem for me is that I’ve researched grizzly bear sounds, along with elk, moose, cougar, coyote, wolf, and deer, and nothing sounds like what I heard.  So, that’s it.  That’s all I got.

[Trelane]

20 hours ago, Guyver said:

There are and have been some interesting video captures to consider since the Patterson/Gimlin film footage, including recent ones.  The problem with video or picture evidence these days is that is almost instantly dismissed by so many people because footage can be manipulated, and a single picture doesn’t usually convince people.

But, let’s just say for sake of argument, that this new technology you speak of captures film evidence of a sasquatch. Would you believe it?

If it can be independently verified, yes. 

Not sure what you mean by "new" technology.

[Resume]

15 minutes ago, Guyver said:

In my case I experienced something and there’s only two possibilities that could explain it, and that would be grizzly bear or sasquatch.

Actually, there are more than two possibilities; you've limited yourself, intentionally or not.  You can't possibly know every vocalization of every creature, and you've totally overlooked the possibility of human beings having one on.  I too have been in "wilderness" across North America and beyond and let me tell you, I've run into other human beings in nearly all of them.  

[Guyver]

48 minutes ago, Resume said:

Actually, there are more than two possibilities; you've limited yourself, intentionally or not.  You can't possibly know every vocalization of every creature, and you've totally overlooked the possibility of human beings having one on.  I too have been in "wilderness" across North America and beyond and let me tell you, I've run into other human beings in nearly all of them.  

I will have to disagree.  I’ve never heard anything like what I heard aside from a mature African lion in the zoo.

[Resume]

14 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I will have to disagree.  I’ve never heard anything like what I heard aside from a mature African lion in the zoo.

You can disagree all you want but you haven't heard every vocalization.  You're attempting to force the evidence to fit your hypothesis.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Resume

[Guyver]

9 minutes ago, Resume said:

You can disagree all you want but you haven't heard every vocalization.  You're attempting to force the evidence to fit your hypothesis.

Maybe.  But it’s because of the evidence.  You would have had to hear for yourself what I heard to understand what I’m talking about.  There was a level of volume and power that could only come from a very large animal.  But, it’s fine, I don’t need to argue it.  I’ve stated my position.  You are entitled to your opinions, and that’s fine.  Namaste.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't know about you but I don't go to UM expecting to find proof of anything

I sadly do not any more because i see countless blind true believers make this or that grandious claim about evidence ( forget proof ) then when asked to share it go into tantrum smoke and mirrors lame excuse mode.

Look at a person in this thread as example, they claim to have heard a sound and seen tracks that can only be ( according to them ) that of bigfoot, that absolute conclusion is not at all based in science or even good research its based in ego driven personal opinion and guessing.

When asked to share pictures of said tracks and casts made of tracks as no researcher would be so very derelict as to not document their alleged discovery we are greated with insult and hand waving and can only assume they have zero , zip, zlitch.

 

[stereologist]

It's interesting to characterize a sound as a vocalization. There are many ways sounds are created that are not vocalizations. I tracked down a strange groaning sound and found it was a tree rub. I heard strange sounds crossing glaciers. An unexpected strange sound is not necessarily a vocalization.

An example of this is the big bloop.

https://anomalien.com/bloop-a-deep-sea-mysterious-monster/

It was presented as a vocalization for years and years.

Quote

Cryptozoologists love the Bloop, because to them it is evidence pointing to the existence of a gigantic unknown creature. Virtually every web page about the Bloop (and there are a lot of them) repeats this same quote, word for word:

 

Though it matches the audio profile of a living creature, there is no known animal that could have produced the sound. If it is an animal it would have to be huge — much larger than even a Blue whale, according to scientists who have studied the phenomenon.

 

[Guyver]

21 hours ago, the13bats said:

I sadly do not any more because i see countless blind true believers make this or that grandious claim about evidence ( forget proof ) then when asked to share it go into tantrum smoke and mirrors lame excuse mode.

Look at a person in this thread as example, they claim to have heard a sound and seen tracks that can only be ( according to them ) that of bigfoot, that absolute conclusion is not at all based in science or even good research its based in ego driven personal opinion and guessing.

When asked to share pictures of said tracks and casts made of tracks as no researcher would be so very derelict as to not document their alleged discovery we are greated with insult and hand waving and can only assume they have zero , zip, zlitch.

 

I have a video of the tracks.  It’s just on old technology.  But, it doesn’t matter if I posted that evidence or not, you wouldn’t accept it.  There is plenty of data available online including 3D scans of sasquatch tracks that provide good evidence for the existence of a living animal that leaves those tracks.  Reports by scientists describing the unique characteristics of these tracks that are consistent and nearly impossible to fake have been done and are available In Books, should you care to read. Recent enhancements to the Patterson/Gimlin film using advanced computer technology have been completed that offer additional proof that the film is genuine.  
 

You are entitled to your opinions but your criticism of me as a poster is unwarranted and a deliberate and often used tactic by extreme skeptics such as yourself. So, I reject it.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Guyver

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I have a video of the tracks.  It’s just on old technology.  But, it doesn’t matter if I posted that evidence or not, you wouldn’t accept it.  There is plenty of data available online including 3D scans of sasquatch tracks that provide good evidence for the existence of a living animal that leaves those tracks.  Reports by scientists describing the unique characteristics of these tracks that are consistent and nearly impossible to fake have been done and are available In Books, should you care to read. Recent enhancements to the Patterson/Gimlin film using advanced computer technology have been completed that offer additional proof that the film is genuine.  
 

You are entitled to your opinions but your criticism of me as a poster is unwarranted and a deliberate and often used tactic by extreme skeptics such as yourself. So, I reject it.

The new enhancements of the PG film show that it's a guy in a suit. Thanks for the purposeful misrepresentation of these new enhancements.

The tracks are marks which would indicate that a BF were there if BF were real. They are not good evidence for a living animal. They show  that something left a mark and that is more likely to be a prankster or a con game since we know that many tracks have been faked and there is no known animal to connect to those tracks. The idea that tracks are as claim "nearly impossible to fake" is a joke. Let's not forget Meldrum getting tricked and claiming tracks were not fake when they were in fact faked.

Please stop making up silly claims such as these. Your extreme devotion to BF is well known but you don't have to veer off into the deception zone.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

I have a video of the tracks.  It’s just on old technology.  But, it doesn’t matter if I posted that evidence or not, you wouldn’t accept it.  There is plenty of data available online including 3D scans of sasquatch tracks that provide good evidence for the existence of a living animal that leaves those tracks.  Reports by scientists describing the unique characteristics of these tracks that are consistent and nearly impossible to fake have been done and are available In Books, should you care to read. Recent enhancements to the Patterson/Gimlin film using advanced computer technology have been completed that offer additional proof that the film is genuine.  
 

You are entitled to your opinions but your criticism of me as a poster is unwarranted and a deliberate and often used tactic by extreme skeptics such as yourself. So, I reject it.

This is an open discussion forum my opinion of your alleged research is warranted.

You have proven to me that you will only except that the sound you claim to have heard and the track you allegedly saw ( didnt you make casts? ) can only be bigfoot.

To reach an absolute definitive conclusion like that isnt good science its just a true believer go to.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The new enhancements of the PG film show that it's a guy in a suit. Thanks for the purposeful misrepresentation of these new enhancements.

No, they don’t, but you think they do, I suppose - and that is your right.  Have you actually seen the enhancements?

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

This is an open discussion forum my opinion of your alleged research is warranted.

You have proven to me that you will only except that the sound you claim to have heard and the track you allegedly saw ( didnt you make casts? ) can only be bigfoot.

To reach an absolute definitive conclusion like that isnt good science its just a true believer go to.

Provide a better explanation.  Perhaps you thought I heard a mallard in heat?

[the13bats]

28 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Provide a better explanation.  Perhaps you thought I heard a mallard in heat?

Another typical true believer blunder, its not at all the skeptics job to disprove your already unproven claim, its your job to back up your claim with evidence,

But i agree that a duck in heat is far more likely than it being Bigfoot bcause ducks are proven to exist but their is no evidence to support Bigfoot exists.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

No, they don’t, but you think they do, I suppose - and that is your right.  Have you actually seen the enhancements?

I have seen more than one which is why I know they show a man in a suit.

[CryptoGirl]

Bigfoot talk

On 12/23/2021 at 12:54 PM, Trelane said:

I've done some considerable hiking and camping in Oregon. Not once have I experienced or observed anything. I feel like 'ol Footie is gaslighting me, for more attractive hikers.

How to hunt doesn't feel the same way but even reads e-mails from many hunters with their encounters on youtube. They send in audio of their encounters some sounding like a Walrus, some sounding like the "Bloodless Howler". I like listening to the Mortal Combat Chatter from a Bigfoot encounter will try and find the link. The link is above quote.

Edited January 21, 2022 by CryptoGirl

[Resume]

1 hour ago, CryptoGirl said:

Bigfoot talk

How to hunt doesn't feel the same way but even reads e-mails from many hunters with their encounters on youtube. They send in audio of their encounters some sounding like a Walrus, some sounding like the "Bloodless Howler". I like listening to the Mortal Combat Chatter from a Bigfoot encounter will try and find the link. The link is above quote.

I stopped watching that guy when he became a bigfoot entrepreneur.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 1/19/2022 at 11:05 PM, Guyver said:

Maybe.  But it’s because of the evidence.  You would have had to hear for yourself what I heard to understand what I’m talking about.  There was a level of volume and power that could only come from a very large animal.  But, it’s fine, I don’t need to argue it.  I’ve stated my position.  You are entitled to your opinions, and that’s fine.  Namaste.

Unfortunately, Guyver, there are egotists in here that actually think that their opinion, that they formulate on-the-fly in here, 
is of more value than the testimony of an actual witness. That is life in UM, so sorry

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

18 hours ago, the13bats said:

Another typical true believer blunder, its not at all the skeptics job to disprove your already unproven claim, its your job to back up your claim with evidence,

Bull crap.

Anybody can express opinions any time they want. Who the hell died and left you king

[Resume]

7 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Unfortunately, Guyver, there are egotists in here that actually think that their opinion, that they formulate on-the-fly in here, 
is of more value than the testimony of an actual witness. That is life in UM, so sorry

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Quote

IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

 

[Resume]

Memory too.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032010-700-memory-special-can-you-trust-your-memories/

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/memory-distortions/

Quote

Memories are fallible. They are reconstructions of reality filtered through people’s minds, not perfect snapshots of events. Because memories are reconstructed, they are susceptible to being manipulated with false information. Memory errors occur when memories are recalled incorrectly; a memory gap is the complete loss of a memory.

 

[Resume]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Bull crap.

Anybody can express opinions any time they want. Who the hell died and left you king

Truth claims require evidence.  Bull **** stories are just that.  If you're telling a campfire story, just own it; if you're making a truth claim about the physical world, own that.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[stereologist]

35 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Unfortunately, Guyver, there are egotists in here that actually think that their opinion, that they formulate on-the-fly in here, 
is of more value than the testimony of an actual witness. That is life in UM, so sorry

And there are people that pretend that witnesses are without error which as those with a brain know is a joke.

Fortunately most posters with a brain follow up their arguments with a rational explanation which is lost toa few unteachables

Edited January 22, 2022 by stereologist

[Resume]

20 hours ago, Guyver said:

Provide a better explanation.  Perhaps you thought I heard a mallard in heat?

You know, I don't know what you heard, and apparently you don't either.  Was it Griz?  Was it footie?  Was it a lion?  How did you eliminate all the other possibilities and come up with a conclusion that it was a creature that has never been reliably observed, much less formally documented?  How it the world can a mythical creature be offered up as an explanation when said creature has not left one iota of concrete evidence in the fossil record and natural history of this contintent.? No ****, no bones, no furs, no body, not a single thing beyond stories.  You, nor anyone else can demonstrate a bigfoot vocalization.  You nor anyone else can demonstrate a footie-foo-foo trackway because neither of those things have ever been reliably observed and documented.  

I'm sorry but the burden for explanation lies with you; again, if you're just telling a campfire story, that's fine and dandy but if you're making a truth claim about bigfoot's baritone, it's all on you.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume