Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Spektator]

MSN has a (skeptical) item here about Barnes's and Meldrum's plan to search for bigfoot from a blimp: http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/scientist-wants-to-search-for-bigfoot-using-blimp

Of course you can foresee the headlines that will be blazoned across the tabloids next year if they actually do get this thing off the ground, so to speak:

BIGFOOT REPORTS UFO SIGHTING!

 

[StankApe]

BWAHAHAHA!!!

well played sir, well played!!

 

[Drewbot]

A guy named Toejam at BFF is claiming a new attribute to Bigfoot.

Bigfoot has LIGHT-EMITTING EYES, not a REFLECTIVE tapedum lucidum.

There is a slight rift building between those who think Bigfoot has Light-emitting eyes, and those who don't. If you have had a BF sighting, and didn't get to see the eye-shine, then your sighting was not pristine type of thing.

 

[DennyT]

^this!

 

[StankApe]

i find the concept of light emitting eyes evolving in an animal that doesn't live in the abyssal realm of the ocean to be patently ridiculous.

 

[calwaterbear]

i find the concept of light emitting eyes evolving in an animal that doesn't live in the abyssal realm of the ocean to be patently ridiculous.

Im not an eye physiologist, but it seems to me if your eyes are emitting light, they probably cannot recieve light when you are emitting it, right? I mean other than godzilla, who can shoot light out their eyeballs?

wouldnt the light being emitted blind your receptors, or drown out the external light waves coming into the eyeball?

i guess i should have paid more attention in Physics class!

 

[StankApe]

Indeed, in fact I just did some research and no benthic fish even has a light emitting eye. They have photophore cells full of bioluminescent bacteria below or above the eye, but not in the eye itself.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A guy named Toejam at BFF is claiming a new attribute to Bigfoot.

Bigfoot has LIGHT-EMITTING EYES, not a REFLECTIVE tapedum lucidum.

There is a slight rift building between those who think Bigfoot has Light-emitting eyes, and those who don't. If you have had a BF sighting, and didn't get to see the eye-shine, then your sighting was not pristine type of thing.

When you make stuff up about an imaginary animal, nothing is off limits..

Who's to say that Bigfeets haven't evolved to look like they are wearing furry pajamas and clown feet ?

 

[Jodie]

I figured they were misidentifying bigfoot eyebrows for bigfoot eyeballs....

 

[Castro]

A guy named Toejam at BFF is claiming a new attribute to Bigfoot.

Bigfoot has LIGHT-EMITTING EYES, not a REFLECTIVE tapedum lucidum.

There is a slight rift building between those who think Bigfoot has Light-emitting eyes, and those who don't. If you have had a BF sighting, and didn't get to see the eye-shine, then your sighting was not pristine type of thing.

Light-emitting eyes? So maybe this one was a Cyclops-bigfoot?

 

[CORed]

One of fascinating things about the Barred Owl (although several other owls can do it, too) is that it is one of the few birds capable of making a noise that sounds very much indeed like a monkey.

In fact, if you type 'Owl sounds like' into google (minus quotes) the first suggestion it comes back with 'Owl sounds like monkey'; and if you click on that, you're greeted with several references to barred owls.

I can't post links (being a 'noob') but several of the first few urls you find with that search will go to archives of some of the sounds.

It's been my conjecture for a while that many people are (willingly) misidentifying owl sounds, not least because I've done it myself. The range of vocalizations owls can make is quite staggering. I've heard Tawny Owls (in the UK), Barred Owls (in the US) and Snowy Owls (in both + Scandinavia) all make vocalizations that you would never naturally associate with an owl.

The fascinating thing for me was that, with several of the sounds I've heard these creatures make, I've never heard a recording of them from typical 'these are the sounds a $so-and-so owl makes' sources -- and yet I know they made them because I was looking at them when they did it.

Yes, but how do you know you didn't hear a bigfoot mimicking an owl?

 

[DennyT]

An interesting post at BFF by willinyc on Nov. 6, on this page, beginning with "I really can't buy into..." in a thread about sightings. The poster gives his experience and that of others in investigating sighting reports and discusses the relative absence of valid tracks.

 

[DennyT]

one paragraph from the linked post by willinyc, who is a reformed bleever who investigated numerous sighting reports:

Everything that walks the earth leaves evidence of its passing in the form of foot impressions and aerial sign. Footprints typically last for months or at least weeks and can last for years under the right conditions. Known to exist animals leave thousands of foot impressions each day. I can take anyone out for a summer’s day to look for whatever verified target species you want to find (deer, bear, cats, yotes, etc) common in NW California. We might see a deer, bear, cat or yote, but probably won’t. I can guarantee we will find dozens if not hundreds of distinct footprints of the target species. Yet you look at any database of bigfoot encounters (BFRO, TBRC, Oregon bigfoot, etc.) the actual visual sightings of the supposedly elusive bigfoot vastly outnumber the footprint reports. Is that more likely the result of bigfoot spending 15 hours a day consciously attempting to hide it’s sign, or because faking footprints requires significantly more effort on the part of the hoaxer than does making up a “I just saw bigfoot story”? If bigfoot is real, the footprint finds should outnumber the visual sightings significantly. That simply is not the case with bigfoot.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Excellent citation there parn.

Not only that, but why is it the footprints we DO find are so spectacularly obvious, standing out so brightly, most recently at Elbe for example. All those thousands of signtings without any prints - and the prints we do find are almost as if someone staged them to stand out in a way to make them easy to find.

 

[Jodie]

Not just prints, but the absence of broken vegetation as something that large passes through the brush, it's simply not there, and when it is, no hair is ever found. This is one of the main points that have bugged me from the beginning that will irritate the snot out of a researcher should be so bold to ask.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Not only that, but why is it the footprints we DO find are so spectacularly obvious, standing out so brightly, most recently at Elbe for example. All those thousands of signtings without any prints - and the prints we do find are almost as if someone staged them to stand out in a way to make them easy to find.

Convenient isn't it ~

 

[William Parcher]

one paragraph from the linked post by willinyc, who is a reformed bleever who investigated numerous sighting reports:

Everything that walks the earth leaves evidence of its passing in the form of foot impressions and aerial sign. Footprints typically last for months or at least weeks and can last for years under the right conditions. Known to exist animals leave thousands of foot impressions each day.

We need to look at the okapi and saola. They left hoofprints everywhere they went. Thousands of footprints each day. Millions and billions or trillions of footprints over the expanse of time. But look how long it took before we were able to say that they existed.

Why did it take so long for them to become known? Each dark-skinned native that cried out "we have a new species right here to share with the world" was met with skeptical scorn. People called that man deluded or profit-seeking. Now we say he is woo. But that man is right.

Think about it. If JREF existed 150 years ago you might have had a guy arguing that he saw an okapi. Then some asswipe skeptic says he has to show proof of okapi. But he doesn't have it. Any yet, the okapi is out there. The guy saw it. Like the truth. The truth is out there. The skeptic doesn't know what the hell is out there.

The skeptic doesn't know what the hell is out there.

 

[Sonny2]

Guys, that's not a new atrribute. I recall reading it on the BFF or somesuchwheres some time ago, followed by all kinds of wild speculations.

 

[GT/CS]

What's not a new attribute?

 

[Castro]

We need to look at the okapi and saola. They left hoofprints everywhere they went. Thousands of footprints each day. Millions and billions or trillions of footprints over the expanse of time. But look how long it took before we were able to say that they existed.

Why did it take so long for them to become known? Each dark-skinned native that cried out "we have a new species right here to share with the world" was met with skeptical scorn. People called that man deluded or profit-seeking. Now we say he is woo. But that man is right.

Think about it. If JREF existed 150 years ago you might have had a guy arguing that he saw an okapi. Then some asswipe skeptic says he has to show proof of okapi. But he doesn't have it. Any yet, the okapi is out there. The guy saw it. Like the truth. The truth is out there. The skeptic doesn't know what the hell is out there.

The skeptic doesn't know what the hell is out there.

Are you taken hostage by you avatar?