Scientist proposes conventional explanation for sightings of Bigfoot

[UM-Bot]

Data scientist Floe Foxon has put forward a theory that could explain the majority of alleged Bigfoot sightings.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/363736/scientist-proposes-conventional-explanation-for-sightings-of-bigfoot

[Davros of Skaro]

Don't forget liars. 

[Jon the frog]

I would say that states with low bear populations are more prone to sighting because people are not accustomed to see them...

The same with all the video with Elk calling when people say it's bigfoot. It's happening a lot in the periphery of breeding populations.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Jon the frog

[OpenMindedSceptic]

Wow, that sounds like a very lame explanation. 

[+OverSword]

Does that also explain the sightings in Australia, Vietnam, China, Tibet, etc.? People are focused on the sightings in the USA’s Pacific Northwest but these hairy hominids are a global phenomenon.  Most certainly some are bears but there are others from reliable witnesses such as police or rugged mountain men like trappers and lumber jacks who know what a bear looks like that defy that explanation. 

[MysteryMike]

Something that people haven't taken into account.

Hermits living out in the woods. You'd probably be very surprised just how many is out there living in the woods that decided to cut ties from civilization.

This and black bears are most likely the case for all if not most sightings.

Edited February 5, 2023 by MysteryMike

[Jon the frog]

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Does that also explain the sightings in Australia, Vietnam, China, Tibet, etc.? People are focused on the sightings in the USA’s Pacific Northwest but these hairy hominids are a global phenomenon.  Most certainly some are bears but there are others from reliable witnesses such as police or rugged mountain men like trappers and lumber jacks who know what a bear looks like that defy that explanation. 

 

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Does that also explain the sightings in Australia, Vietnam, China, Tibet, etc.? People are focused on the sightings in the USA’s Pacific Northwest but these hairy hominids are a global phenomenon.  Most certainly some are bears but there are others from reliable witnesses such as police or rugged mountain men like trappers and lumber jacks who know what a bear looks like that defy that explanation. 

No, those have been explained by other real and mundane items. 

[Alchopwn]

4 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

Data scientist Floe Foxon has put forward a theory that could explain the majority of alleged Bigfoot sightings.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/363736/scientist-proposes-conventional-explanation-for-sightings-of-bigfoot

You don't have to be all that skilled as a naturalist to tell the difference between an 8 foot tall hominid and a black bear.  Most BFs aren't black for a start, they're brown or russet.

I'd actually find it more plausible if the accusation was that every BF witness was actually hallucinating due to contact with environmental toxins or having a schizophrenic episode.

The fact is, for every person who comes forwards with a BF sighting, there are a half dozen others who are keeping quiet about what they saw because they fear ridicule.

1 hour ago, MysteryMike said:

Something that people haven't taken into account.

Hermits living out in the woods. You'd probably be very surprised just how many is out there living in the woods that decided to cut ties from civilization.

This and black bears are most likely the case for all if not most sightings.

I personally often take to the woods in a ghillie suit and howl and bang on  trees to see if I can sneak up on an unsuspecting sasquatch.  Apparently I am ever so close to catching sight of one from witnesses who have seen a BF almost literally where I was standing minutes before.

[+OverSword]

24 minutes ago, Trelane said:

No, those have been explained by other real and mundane items. 

Yes there are all kinds of explanations. To say all of them have been explained is a very arrogant thing to say. You and anyone may have your own explanation that satisfies you, ranging from a hoax, a bear, a lie, an actual cryptid , or whatever. That is not proof. Reliable people that have experience in nature like a cop, a forest ranger, etc. seeing what they believes is a Sasquatch and not a bear or a shadow or what have you, can’t be said to be explained by other or real and mundane items, that is simply what you, who was not there, care to accept or believe. The truth is you have as much proof as they do combined with your preconceived bias.

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I personally often take to the woods in a ghillie suit and howl and bang on  trees to see if I can sneak up on an unsuspecting sasquatch.  Apparently I am ever so close to catching sight of one from witnesses who have seen a BF almost literally where I was standing minutes before.

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Yes there are all kinds of explanations. To say all of them have been explained is a very arrogant thing to say. You and anyone may have your own explanation that satisfies you, ranging from a hoax, a bear, a lie, an actual cryptid , or whatever. That is not proof. Reliable people that have experience in nature like a cop, a forest ranger, etc. seeing what they believes is a Sasquatch and not a bear or a shadow or what have you, can’t be said to be explained by other or real and mundane items, that is simply what you, who was not there, care to accept or believe. The truth is you have as much proof as they do combined with your preconceived bias.

To say that the explanations you dismiss can be attributed to a mythical creature is silly and rather childish. Whether you decide to accept logical, reasonable and real world explanations or not is a "you" problem.

Post after post in thread after thread about this sort of alleged creature, and yet no one who believes in the animal (as described) dares touch the questions I have forwarded. Curious don't you think? Nah, it's much easier to blather on about "we just don't know".

I have no bias, I simply look at things objectively. I actually do the reading and research on the topic and associated topics. Based off of these items and my own time out in the deep woods and I draw conclusions. That's all.

[+OverSword]

38 minutes ago, Trelane said:

To say that the explanations you dismiss can be attributed to a mythical creature is silly and rather childish. Whether you decide to accept logical, reasonable and real world explanations or not is a "you" problem.

Way to put words in my mouth. Read more carefully I never made claims that this was definitively explained by bears or mythological animals, you did. You said it was all explained. It is not. It is at best explained to your own personal satisfaction. It’s not a tough concept but over different threads one you don’t seem capable of understanding 

Edited February 5, 2023 by OverSword

[Carnoferox]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Does that also explain the sightings in Australia, Vietnam, China, Tibet, etc.?

Certainly not in Australia, but there are multiple species of bears in Asia including the Asian black bear, sun bear, and sloth bear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_black_bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth_bear

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

You don't have to be all that skilled as a naturalist to tell the difference between an 8 foot tall hominid and a black bear.  Most BFs aren't black for a start, they're brown or russet.

Not all black bears are black despite their name, with the cinnamon bear subspecies being brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon_bear

I definitely don't think all cryptohominid sightings are explainable by bears, but there is probably a good portion of them that are. Bears can appear much more human-like than many bigfoot proponents are willing to admit, especially when they are walking bipedally and only seen with a fleeting glimpse.

[Abramelin]

6 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Certainly not in Australia, but there are multiple species of bears in Asia including the Asian black bear, sun bear, and sloth bear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_black_bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth_bear

Not all black bears are black despite their name, with the cinnamon bear subspecies being brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon_bear

I definitely don't think all cryptohominid sightings are explainable by bears, but there is probably a good portion of them that are. Bears can appear much more human-like than many bigfoot proponents are willing to admit, especially when they are walking bipedally and only seen with a fleeting glimpse.

The big, unhuman-like head, the ears and the snout would be even noticed by the near-blind. Not to mention the short 'arms'.

[Trelane]

57 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Way to put words in my mouth. Read more carefully I never made claims that this was definitively explained by bears or mythological animals, you did. You said it was all explained. It is not. It is at best explained to your own personal satisfaction. It’s not a tough concept but over different threads one you don’t seem capable of understanding 

Talk about putting words in people's mouths.    

I have never stated that anything has been "all explained". I simply dismiss the existence of a mythical creature of which there's been zero evidence of ever existing.

I understand far more than you attempt to discredit me for. My understanding comes from a place of rational, adult thinking. Not smarminess towards opinions that are different and present credible facts that support those opinions. 

[+OverSword]

21 minutes ago, Trelane said:

mythical creature of which there's been zero evidence of ever existing.

But that is not true. There is zero evidence which you accept. There is evidence that academic experts have accepted. See Jeff Meldrun 

I look at statements like the one this thread is based on akin to saying all ufo sightings can be attributed to swamp gas or Venus.  Swamp gas and Venus may account for some but certainly not all ufo sightings. Saying that bears account for all or even most reports of Sasquatch is just a stupid thing to say. You don’t have to believe in Sasquatch to agree with that. 

I have seen bears in the wild multiple times, but have seen them walking on two legs exactly zero times.

Edited February 5, 2023 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

23 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I have never stated that anything has been "all explained".

 

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

No, those have been explained by other real and mundane items. 

Yeah, you didn’t use the word “all” but said it anyway.

Edited February 5, 2023 by OverSword

[Carnoferox]

32 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

The big, unhuman-like head, the ears and the snout would be even noticed by the near-blind. Not to mention the short 'arms'.

A person wouldn't see the face if the bear was turned away from them and walking or running away. The ears could be laid flat against the head or hard to distinguish against background foliage. The arms only appear short when they are held up and out, if they are held down on its sides then they appear longer or might not be visible at all. Many bigfoot sightings are brief and from a distance where distinct features are much more difficult to make out. I really don't understand why believers have such trouble conceding that some sightings, but of course not all, could be bears.

[Abramelin]

14 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

A person wouldn't see the face if the bear was turned away from them and walking or running away. The ears could be laid flat against the head or hard to distinguish against background foliage. The arms only appear short when they are held up and out, if they are held down on its sides then they appear longer or might not be visible at all. Many bigfoot sightings are brief and from a distance where distinct features are much more difficult to make out. I really don't understand why believers have such trouble conceding that some sightings, but of course not all, could be bears.

I am not a believer, but I don't buy the bear explanation.

None of the posted videos or photos show anything resembling a bear. Not by its movements, not by its looks.

And a bear doesn't walk like a human, or a human-like bipedal ape.

[Carnoferox]

10 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

None of the posted videos or photos show anything resembling a bear. Not by its movements, not by its looks.

Hence why I said sightings could be explained by bears, not videos or photos.

10 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

And a bear doesn't walk like a human, or a human-like bipedal ape.

It doesn't if it is observed clearly at a close distance and for an extended time. If it is only seen briefly and at a further distance, it could easily be mistaken for moving like a human or ape.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Carnoferox

[Abramelin]

Well, you should be able to show us a video of a bear that moves like and looks like a bipedal ape.

 

[Trelane]

I forgot to bring my tongs to this edition of "clutching at straws".

Evidence that I refuse to accept? Ah yes, the stuff that has been debunked. I know I should still consider that which has been disproven, so silly of me. Sheesh.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

I forgot to bring my tongs to this edition of "clutching at straws".

Evidence that I refuse to accept? Ah yes, the stuff that has been debunked. I know I should still consider that which has been disproven, so silly of me. Sheesh.

In the first place 'scientists' deal with proofs and evidences.  There are no proofs or evidences of a Big Foot type creature...myth, legend, and people who have no clue.

[Occupational Hubris]

The non divergent big toe alone means that any hypothetical bigfoot (They're not real. They're just not. I really wish they were, but they just aren't) woul dhave to be of a human lineage.