Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[desertgal]

Nessie is shaped like a long log, which could be mistaken for tons of things.

Source? Has the identity of Nessie been discovered? Where is the proof that a creature in Loch Ness is shaped like a long log?

 

[makaya325]

Source? Has the identity of Nessie been discovered? Where is the proof that a creature in Loch Ness is shaped like a long log?

Nessie is seen resembling a long neck creature, which could be logs, otters, seals, waves, etc. Since we dont see what is under the water, we only see a small part of the object in the water surfacing. That is not the case with bigfoot, Which is seen (sometimes up close) as a towering bipedal behemoth. Is there any animal on earth that resembles the description? Nope. At the same time, that does not make it more real than lake monsters.

 

[desertgal]

Nessie is seen resembling a long neck creature, which could be logs, otters, seals, waves, etc.

There's a difference between a long log vs. seals, waves, otters, and long necked creatures.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The fence post seemed comical. I would like to test that with trained biologists instead of tourists who were probably PAID to act.

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean they were paid off. Do you have any evidence to support this?

No, it is because people think it is ok to say everyone is a horrible witness.

You're getting it wrong. The point is that people can make mistakes and that estimates regarding fantasic things must not be taken at face value.

Some of the passengers may have thought "5ft, 6ft, 5ft, etc. They asked one honkie instead on his opinion and closed it.

The man is question is the one who reported the sighting. Remember, he thought it was a man in a suit until someone (later revealed to be one of the hoaxers) started making a ruckus about it being real.

Too much time has passed. Besides, even if things played out the way you think they would, they'd still be saying the guy in the suit was taller than he really was.

Maybe, maybe not.

Go back and reread the height given for the guy in the suit. He was in the 5 foot range. Your original example had people saying he was in the 6 foot range. 6 is greater than 5.

There are a few reports of hoaxes,

You might want to rework your definition of "few," as there are many, many cases of hoaxing.

but not 100's after 100's of consistent reports.

If a hoax fools someone and isn't found out, then it's going to be treated as a "real" report. Hell, sometimes it can be found out and still be treated as the real deal.

It seems hard to imagine people mistaking a bobbing stick up close to have teeth and scales.

The mind can play tricks on people, especially if they only get a quick glimpse at something. Let's not forget what happened to that guy who was misidentified as a terrorist and got gunned down in the UK a few years back.

I think the producers told then what to say.

This reminds me of the people who say (or at least imply) that Greg Long bribed everyone he interviewed in Yakima to badmouth Roger Patterson.

 

[makaya325]

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean they were paid off. Do you have any evidence to support this?

No, its just a real possibility.

You're getting it wrong. The point is that people can make mistakes and that estimates regarding fantasic things must not be taken at face value.

I agree.

The man is question is the one who reported the sighting. Remember, he thought it was a man in a suit until someone (later revealed to be one of the hoaxers) started making a ruckus about it being real.

So he was RIGHT. The hoaxer was trying to throw him off. This is a perfect case of the 1st witness being CORRECT.

Go back and reread the height given for the guy in the suit. He was in the 5 foot range. Your original example had people saying he was in the 6 foot range. 6 is greater than 5.

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".


You might want to rework your definition of "few," as there are many, many cases of hoaxing.

If a hoax fools someone and isn't found out, then it's going to be treated as a "real" report. Hell, sometimes it can be found out and still be treated as the real deal.

Such as?

The mind can play tricks on people, especially if they only get a quick glimpse at something. Let's not forget what happened to that guy who was misidentified as a terrorist and got gunned down in the UK a few years back.

That is only ONE case though. Repeat the experiment 1000's of times in different areas, and you would get different results.

This reminds me of the people who say (or at least imply) that Greg Long bribed everyone he interviewed in Yakima to badmouth Roger Patterson.[/

QUOTE]

Long was out to make a quick buck and had an agenda. Bob was the man in the suit, no doubt, but long made it look like a big deal about patterson being a bad man

 

[makaya325]

There's a difference between a long log vs. seals, waves, otters, and long necked creatures.

A submerged twisted log bobbing up and down, while only some of it is exposed above water, can be mistaken for a monster easily.

 

[desertgal]

A submerged twisted log bobbing up and down, while only some of it is exposed above water, can be mistaken for a monster easily.

You have proof to support this statement, I'm sure? Many sightings that were proven to be logs and not seals, otters, waves, etc.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

So he was RIGHT. The hoaxer was trying to throw him off.

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting.

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".

You said, and I quote (bolding by me):

The "It looked like 7ft tall" quote is bs: To prove that those people were way off, you would have to ask each individual to say how tall they thought the man was, and i would bet on it being in the lower 6's.

In other words, you'd lose that bet.

Such as?

The Freeman tracks, various material by Ivan Marx, and the Wallace tracks spring to mind.

That is only ONE case though. Repeat the experiment 1000's of times in different areas, and you would get different results.

Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers, the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

 

[ElectricVoodoo]

You have proof to support this statement, I'm sure? Many sightings that were proven to be logs and not seals, otters, waves, etc.

Isn't pure conjecture proof enough?

ETA: Quote

 

[desertgal]

Isn't pure conjecture proof enough?

I like my conjecture corrupted by evidence.

 

[makaya325]

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting.

I said some people may say "He was 5 foot something, maybe close to 6ft".

You said, and I quote (bolding by me):



In other words, you'd lose that bet.



The Freeman tracks, various material by Ivan Marx, and the Wallace tracks spring to mind.

Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers, the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

Yes, please, go on.

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.

 

[makaya325]

Emphasis on "was." The hoaxer wildly succeeded in throwing him off, a few shouts made a 5 foot something guy in a suit turn into a 7 footish smelly monster. However, that wasn't the case in this sighting.

Before the hoaxer threw him off, how tall did he say it was? 5ft 10? So what if he was sidetracked by a prankster? He was correct in his first report.




Says you. I've got two cases of a guys in gorilla suits being mistaken for giant monsters, a guy in a gorilla mask being reported as Bigfoot over the course of two summers, the BBC fence post experiment, the aforementioned London subway victim, the fake giant bird/kite experiment from Monster Quest...need I go on?

The gorilla mask incident gave no mention of height, only smell.

 

[EHocking]

Yes, please, go on.

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.

Cite?

As I've been a birdwatcher for most of my life, anecdotally, I "know" this not to be the case.

 

[makaya325]

Cite?

As I've been a birdwatcher for most of my life, anecdotally, I "know" this not to be the case.

Birds are rather quick and tiny. There being may species of birds displaying different colors doesnt help your case. I can see how a person could mistake one bird for the 1000 other species, but not mistaking a bipedal hairy monster for some other species, due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.

 

[desertgal]

Birds are rather quick and tiny.

Source?

due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.

Source?

 

[makaya325]

Source?

Robbins, cardinals, blue jay, etc. Do i have to name ALL?

Source?

It is kind of obvious that bigfoot doesnt exist, but if it did, its identity would be found somewhere in the fossil record.

 

[Apology]

Bigfoot burglarized my garage last summer. He stole a set of combat fatigues, a Flowbee, a frozen tri-tip, and a mountain bike. Now that he has a disguise and transportation, I fear we'll never find him

I hope he enjoyed the tri-tip

 

[desertgal]

Robbins, cardinals, blue jay, etc. Do i have to name ALL?

Proof that all birds are quick and tiny?

It is kind of obvious that bigfoot doesnt exist, but if it did, its identity would be found somewhere in the fossil record.

Flip-flop.

 

[desertyeti]

Proof that all birds are quick and tiny?



Flip-flop.

Ostriches are little bitty things, only about 8' tall at best. Hardly visible!

 

[EHocking]

Birds are rather quick and tiny.

Don't get out in the bush much, do you... But nice attempt at dodging the issue you raised, towhit (towhoo?)

A person is more likely to be correct in identifying a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight.

Evidence that a person is more likely to correctly identify a terrestrial animal than an animal in flight?

Sightings of "Hummingbirds" in Europe is a classic case. Lookup Hummingbird Hawk Moth.
Similarly, when in East Africa for 4 weeks, we were all so keen to spot things that a few new animals were discovered by our group. Notably the Stump Leopard and the Boulder Cheetah.

There being may species of birds displaying different colors doesnt help your case.

Non sequitur.

I can see how a person could mistake one bird for the 1000 other species,

2048

but not mistaking a bipedal hairy monster for some other species,

The quote was "terrestrial animal", way to backpedal.

due to the fact that the only identity's lie in the fossil record.

Besides not parsing, "you what?"