'Very reliable' Bigfoot sighting reported in Illinois

[UM-Bot]

A recent report has detailed an encounter with a large, hairy hominid near Illinois' Sangamon River.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/354155/very-reliable-bigfoot-sighting-reported-in-illinois

[HandsomeGorilla]

'BFRO investigator Matt Moneymaker' 

lol

[godnodog]

I guess the definition of "reliable" will be on the 2022 online wars list.

[the13bats]

Well, while i do believe matts interest in the bigfoot phenomena is reflected in his last name,

I read the link and i agree the driver very well might have saw something hence "reliable" but where i stray is the driver didnt see a creature that doesnt exist unless it was hallucination.

[papageorge1]

Papameter Reading

80% Bigfoot    15% Other Creature/Object       5% Hoax

 

Factors:

 The man later spoke to his co-workers who explained that the area was well known for Bigfoot sightings.

He was not particularly interested in the Bigfoot subject 

but I could see it clearly

Edited January 5, 2022 by papageorge1

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Papameter Reading

80% Bigfoot    15% Other Creature/Object       5% Hoax

 

Factors:

 The man later spoke to his co-workers who explained that the area was well known for Bigfoot sightings.

He was not particularly interested in the Bigfoot subject 

but I could see it clearly

80%?  Seems pretty high.  Black bear in Illinois get big, the record a 500 pound specimen with a 22 inch head.  The man says he got a good two second look which is actually pretty long so who can say?

[Myles]

What makes this "Very reliable"?

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

What makes this "Very reliable"?

I would say what makes it more reliable is the person who sighted it has no real interest in the subject.  A bit more credibility than someone who goes out looking for it and then reports it.  Maybe not "very" but maybe "more"

Edited January 5, 2022 by OverSword

[Abramelin]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

What makes this "Very reliable"?

The man had a good look for a couple of seconds, and was even able to tell where it came from: some place in China called "Fu Qing".

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

80%?  Seems pretty high.  Black bear in Illinois get big, the record a 500 pound specimen with a 22 inch head.  The man says he got a good two second look which is actually pretty long so who can say?

Certainly I considered bear but didn't go that high all things considered like:

"I saw a large animal jump into the road about 40 yards ahead," he wrote.

"When it hit the road I could see very large legs spread wide in a dead run with large swinging hairy arms. The arms switched back and forth close to the ground as its body was leaning forward."

"It leaped across the road in two jumps. When it hit the shoulder it looked back at me."

 

And I addition this is so reminiscent of other sighting claims of Bigfoot and even the Patty video.

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Certainly I considered bear but didn't go that high all things considered like:

"I saw a large animal jump into the road about 40 yards ahead," he wrote.

"When it hit the road I could see very large legs spread wide in a dead run with large swinging hairy arms. The arms switched back and forth close to the ground as its body was leaning forward."

"It leaped across the road in two jumps. When it hit the shoulder it looked back at me."

 

And I addition this is so reminiscent of other sighting claims of Bigfoot and even the Patty video.

Really?   The Patty video had a slow lumbering creature with arms nowhere near the ground.

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

Really?   The Patty video had a slow lumbering creature with arms nowhere near the ground.

Now imagine bent over in dead rapid run. The swinging arms are already reminiscent just walking casually.

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now imagine bent over in dead rapid run. The swinging arms are already reminiscent just walking casually.

I cannot see Bob running that fast in the suit he wore.  

 

 

[jethrofloyd]

A big wild boar? 

[Abramelin]

14 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

A big wild boar? 

Yeah, but only those raised in a circus, and learnt to walk on only its hindlegs.

[simplybill]

The witness says he was driving 70 mph  (112 kph)  when the creature jumped into the road about 40 yards  (37 meters) ahead of him. At that speed, and in the two seconds of time the driver says the sighting occurred, his car should have been directly alongside the creature, or well past it, when the creature stopped and looked back at him. 
Being it was 10:30 PM, perhaps the car’s headlights cast a shadow of the creature in a way that distorted the driver’s perception. 
I’m thinking he saw a bear, but I wasn’t there to see it myself so I’ll reserve judgment. Maybe some curious Bigfoot hunters will go to that area and search for footprints. A bipedal creature the size of a car (according to the driver’s report) would probably leave some fairly deep impressions in the ground.

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, simplybill said:

The witness says he was driving 70 mph  (112 kph)  when the creature jumped into the road about 40 yards  (37 meters) ahead of him. At that speed, and in the two seconds of time the driver says the sighting occurred, his car should have been directly alongside the creature, or well past it, when the creature stopped and looked back at him. 
Being it was 10:30 PM, perhaps the car’s headlights cast a shadow of the creature in a way that distorted the driver’s perception. 
I’m thinking he saw a bear, but I wasn’t there to see it myself so I’ll reserve judgment. Maybe some curious Bigfoot hunters will go to that area and search for footprints. A bipedal creature the size of a car (according to the driver’s report) would probably leave some fairly deep impressions in the ground.

I tend to agree.   In the dark, going 70 mph, it is hard for anyone to be certain what they saw.  

 

[Tom1200]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Papameter Reading    80% Bigfoot    15% Other Creature/Object       5% Hoax

Damn!  Beaten again!  We only need one satirical, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-paranormality-parameters reading per thread so I won't give the full Papasmurf-o-meter reading here.  But I should mention that Ser Gregor scored very highly this time, and when I phoned the Iceland embassy to check they couldn't tell me where Hafþór was.  So there's every chance he was in Illinois, and try proving me wrong.

1 hour ago, Myles said:

What makes this "Very reliable"?

Please refer to this highly accurate chart based on lots of very scientific studies.

Duration of hallucination / ms	Quality of sighting
0-10	Good enough for Papa-G
11-100	Good enough for experienced Bigfoot / alien / France / ghost hunters
101-999	Good enough for the sort of people who get most of their information from TikTock
1000	One second: legal threshold* for ‘more than quite reliable’
1001-1500	Fairly reliable
1501-1999	Reliable
2000	Two seconds: threshold for ‘very reliable’

* Thresholds may vary according to region and gullibility of legislators.  These are the data for Narnia in 1946.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Now imagine bent over in dead rapid run. The swinging arms are already reminiscent just walking casually.

Hold on a second now, how many bipedal creatures bend over until their arms are nearly touching the ground when they are in a dead run?  

[papageorge1]

27 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Hold on a second now, how many bipedal creatures bend over until their arms are nearly touching the ground when they are in a dead run?  

From reports of the running speed and style and extrapolating from the Patty video arms it sounds very reasonable.

Edited January 5, 2022 by papageorge1

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, simplybill said:

The witness says he was driving 70 mph  (112 kph)  when the creature jumped into the road about 40 yards  (37 meters) ahead of him. At that speed, and in the two seconds of time the driver says the sighting occurred, his car should have been directly alongside the creature, or well past it, when the creature stopped and looked back at him. 

whoa, that is what I thought too. but read again. He *drove away* at 70 because he was scared witless. it did not say how fast he was going before the encounter

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

From reports of the running speed and style and extrapolating from the Patty video arms it sounds very reasonable.

Not from a biped it doesn't, which Bigfoot clearly is from the same Patty video.  Why don't humans run this way? 

It's really weird how you seem to think that "The arms switched back and forth close to the ground as its body was leaning forward." is a reason to think this is a Bigfoot when to everyone else it logically suggests that the sighting was actually of another well-documented quadriped animal.  If this sighting was instead of it running straight up like a human and not bent over you would of course be trumpeting that as evidence it's Bigfoot.  Seems like you need to get the meter tuned - furry animal running on two legs - Bigfoot! ; furry animal running on four legs - Bigfoot!

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

From reports of the running speed and style and extrapolating from the Patty video arms it sounds very reasonable.

Some primates do this, chimpanzees, gorillas, and baboons.  Human anatomy does not lend itself to that.  If it is true, Bigfoot must be more closely related to primates like the great apes. Take it for what it is worth, a knuckle walking dark primate might be easily misidentified as a bear with only a quick glance, hence they are around more than we identify them to be.

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

whoa, that is what I thought too. but read again. He *drove away* at 70 because he was scared witless. it did not say how fast he was going before the encounter

Where does it say he 'drove away', I don't see that.  " "He was driving 70 miles per hour and didn't slow down much until he reached the next town.".  It's ambiguous but 'was driving' implies it was before the encounter. Regardless, if he's on a road you can go 70 on then it's reasonable to assume he was still driving at least 50 or so, which still leaves little time for an identification.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not from a biped it doesn't, which Bigfoot clearly is from the same Patty video.  Why don't humans run this way? 

It's really weird how you seem to think that "The arms switched back and forth close to the ground as its body was leaning forward." is a reason to think this is a Bigfoot when to everyone else it logically suggests that the sighting was actually of another well-documented quadriped animal.  If this sighting was instead of it running straight up like a human and not bent over you would of course be trumpeting that as evidence it's Bigfoot.  Seems like you need to get the meter tuned - furry animal running on two legs - Bigfoot! ; furry animal running on four legs - Bigfoot!

This case starts with the person's claim to have clearly seen it. And all I said is what he claims falls in the range of reasonableness from what we know. Covering massive grounds in single strides is commonly reported. Such a creature leaning forwards is quite reasonable. Also this person knows what a bear looks like (not that he can't be mistaken as I allowed in the meter reading). I do not think I have ever heard of a bear running at amazing speeds with long strides on two legs.