Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[William Parcher]

kinda/sorta/yes and no

I wouldnt use the word humanoid by my definition- there was nothing humanistic about it.

Maybe I should have said hominoid. Upright, bipedal locomotion with the same basic body form as a human.

So the entire time you watched it advance on you (50 yds to 30 yds) it didn't appear to be upright and bipedal? Only for the brief moment it was in profile?

 

[Correa Neto]

LT, do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you? Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed
b. Was a fabrication

I'm sure you know the message I'm trying to pass here...

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Maybe I should have said hominoid. Upright, bipedal locomotion with the same basic body form as a human.

So the entire time you watched it advance on you (50 yds to 30 yds) it didn't appear to be upright and bipedal? Only for the brief moment it was in profile?

No clear unobstructed field of view and the sun was just starting to rise as well as shadows and such.

I can tell you this- "IF" there had been a clear field of view from that distance advancing and it looked like a "monster" whatever- I would have been long gone before it got close enough for an altercation.

The brush and densly dead vineage etc is the main reason the incident played out like it did. I can only speak for myself but I knew the difference between shooting a person and an animal and it was drilled into me from day 1 about being sure of your target before you fire because you cant take a bullet back.

I was more hesitant about shooting that Robin was.

It was after the warning shot and challenge that things got "serious". At that point, i was certain it wasnt a deer and if it was a man- he intended harm.

I remember deciding that whatever happened, it if came after that- I was going to shoot to kill it.

 

[WGBH]

absolutely. If I was certain it was a BF, I would say so. Public opinion be damned.

Impressive LT, I wish I had your courage back then.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you? Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed
b. Was a fabrication

I'm sure you know the message I'm trying to pass here...

>>>do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you?

we dont have either native to coastal SC. Even tho they both exist, the odds of either being in that part of the world are about equal to it being a BF.

>>>Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

No but for this reason. I never got a clear waist down view forward so bi/quad/onelegged limp/pogo stick never even entered my mind or thought process. It was just a "large mass" moving closer making racket in the ice/water dunnage etc with the noises it was making. It was the inability to distinguish that made me hesitate as much as i did.

That "profile shot" ( eye view) was literally maybe as long as a good blink and then we was "moving".

Sorry I'm not more detailed but thats about all i remember that i feel is reliable. bear, Bigfoot, Werewolf or the boogie man- it was time to haul ass at that point and thats all i was concerned with

>>>Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed

No, I'm here arent I? I invite questions- the harder and more pointed the better. The rules dont change because its my day on the stand. Details DO change and memories do change over time- including mine.

>>>b. Was a fabrication

been there too and in all honesty, there is no "proof" ( physical) and i doubt I could locate witnesses so its perfectly normal and logical for the belief that this is a fabrication to be held by many. I dont take it personally because its reasonable and if the situation was reversed- thats the FIRST thing I would attempt to root out. Its illogical for me to hope/pray/wish anyone ( even if this wasnt a "skeptical" board) to take such an account at face value on the strength of my word. You were not there. I know what happened.

That said, again I try to be accurate and have to state it was NOT a confirmed "bigfoot".

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Impressive LT, I wish I had your courage back then.

Only if that were true LOL

Theres nothing impressive or courageous about it- its just being raised in the deep redneck "in your face" south. ( a country boy is gonna tell you like it is and if you dont like it or dont want to hear it- dont ask)

 

[William Parcher]

No, I'm here arent I? I invite questions- the harder and more pointed the better. The rules dont change because its my day on the stand. Details DO change and memories do change over time- including mine.

Its illogical for me to hope/pray/wish anyone ( even if this wasnt a "skeptical" board) to take such an account at face value on the strength of my word. You were not there. I know what happened.

Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you.

>>>Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

Agreed- thats valid, factual and reasonable. I see and understand ( and agree) with any who have or voice such reservations.

>>>1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

I cant say- I didnt experience that

>>>2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you

Yes, at the time- bear was the predominate thought. Now, he was big into monster movies like the rest of us were and I dont know where his thoughts were so I can only speak for myself.

At that time, neither of us had seen a bear in the wild so we were not exactly a Hunster.

It really didnt get to me until we went back in full daylight and walked around that a bear didnt fully "fit" ( for lack of a better description)

It was the first set of ice "holes" that really stood out. They were not "side by side" as one would expect for a 4 legged animal and the thickness of the ice.

Then there were those noises it make. I'm no bear expert by far but I've never heard that noise from one since in the wild,zoo or TV.

Its one of those things where you tell yourself "yeah it was a bear" but it just didnt all fit what little evidence of passage remained.

 

[William Parcher]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

 

[WGBH]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical? The investigation I went on last weekend had 3 witnesses.

If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

 

[Correa Neto]

Suppose Tom Biscardi, Ivan Marx, Moneymaker and the GA Boyz claimed to have shared a bigfoot sighting.

Would you consider their sighting report as being more credible than LT's or yours?

 

[William Parcher]

Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical? The investigation I went on last weekend had 3 witnesses.

Generally, multiple witnesses will support credibility. Exceptions are when the party has confirmation bias going on.

Did you guys see a Bigfoot last weekend?

If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

It's not about attitude. It's about the testimony of the other witnesses. The inquiry would change if these witnesses were available, but nothing said would guarantee that a Bigfoot was seen. The question of Bigfoot's existence cannot be boiled down to simply believing what somebody says, or even what a group of people say. But you already know that as you have agreed that biological material (body or parts) is necessary for confirmation.

 

[WGBH]

Generally, multiple witnesses will support credibility. Exceptions are when the party has confirmation bias going on.

Did you guys see a Bigfoot last weekend?

Nope, but the witness report was interesting and we will be investigating the area more. The mosquitos and tics were feasting on me too.

If I were ever to see a Bigfoot again. I am pretty sure I would not talk about it.


It's not about attitude. It's about the testimony of the other witnesses. The inquiry would change if these witnesses were available, but nothing said would guarantee that a Bigfoot was seen. The question of Bigfoot's existence cannot be boiled down to simply believing what somebody says, or even what a group of people say. But you already know that as you have agreed that biological material (body or parts) is necessary for confirmation.

I understand that William. To prove this animal to science we do need a specimen. But I was asking for a personal opinion. Are multiple witness sightings more credible?

 

[William Parcher]

To prove this animal to science we do need a specimen.

To prove this animal to the whole world, not just science.

But I was asking for a personal opinion. Are multiple witness sightings more credible?

Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

 

[WGBH]

To prove this animal to the whole world, not just science.




Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

What if the seven guys were 4 cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber?
Would that be credible? Just kidding, yeah I should have said interesting.

 

[William Parcher]

What if the seven guys were 4 cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber? Would that be credible?

Which one shoots the Bigfoot?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

4 Cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber are sitting in a bar ...


O.k., somebody else provide the rest of the joke ...

 

[William Parcher]

a Bigfoot walks in and orders a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

 

[Blackdog]

Father O’Malley gets up, walks past the cop’s table and falls flat on his face into Judge Yancy’s lap.
Judge Yancy jumps up and says, “OK which one of you guys tripped the poor Father?

“Not me”, says Officer Bob.
“Me neither”, says Officer Ken
“I didn’t do it”, says Officer Bill
“I didn’t do it, I was tying my shoe”, says Officer Simon

Longtabber looks down at Officer Simon’s feet and says to Judge Yancy,
“It’s obviously a case of (you guessed it) …………..Big Foot Si, Yance!”

***Ducks head, dodging rotten tomatoes****

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

In the most literal sense, you still wouldnt be able to "confirm" it because theres no way to know or differentiate between our mutual event or we just "got our stories straight".

What would serve better to confirm it would be the guys who saw what little "evidence" in the ice was left ( or if there was any forensic type evidence- but we were kids and this was like 72-ish)
Even then, all you could "literally" say was "something" occurred.

As far as the "weired out" ( 70's term LOL)- Thats what was told to me. I just noticed a few noted different behaviours.

From John
>>>Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical?

The answer to that is as long as it is wide. Any investigator will tell you the best and most accurate witness ( from a reliability and bias standpoint) is one who is disassociated from an event. Thats not always possible.

Regardless of 1 or 100 witnesses, evidenciary support trumps them all

>>>If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

Done properly, there should NOT be. The process never changes. The "attitude" should always be one of deliberate neutrality and a "just the facts" mindset and methodology. Anything short of that is setting the stage for a faulty investigation. Theres nothing personal attached to it- thats just the way its done.

From William

>>>Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

Well, you can say credible and not lose any horsepower. A lot of times, people group them together but in reality they are different.

Assuming you dont have a case of bias/agenda ( a major factor in and of itself) its normal to have multiple "credible" witnesses who are sincere and by all available observations are telling the truth as they BELIEVE it to be. ( that 1 word is the kicker)

Where a skilled investigator draws the line is that individual credibility and ACCURACY are 2 different things.

Its like a car wreck. Lots of people saw the gross ( accident/ perp speeding away etc) but the colors of the car/description of the perp often vary all over the place.

Credibility goes to the gross primarily ( the accident did in fact occur)- accuracy is much more difficult.