Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

[William Parcher]

A secondary point of that paper was to illustrate that the "bigfoots" people report are actually bears...

This doesn't make sense. When we look at Bigfoot films and videos taken by eyewitnesses we do not see bears. When we look at the plaster casts in Meldrum's collection we don't see bear tracks.

Bigfootery is not about honest people who just happened to see a bear that looked to them like a walking apeman. It's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's mainly people who are mistaken.

 

[The Shrike]

Right - there again the vulnerability of ENM is illustrated. Lozier et al. used a sample of alleged bigfoot sighting locations in the Pacific Northwest. Just going by what was reported where, they were able to develop a model and apply it to predict a distribution. This says nothing about the veracity of the claims or the integrity of the claimants. All we can say from their data is that people reported bigfoots from places that also support bears. In other words, most people didn't claim to see bigfoots in downtown Portland. They reported bigfoots from places that looked "squatchy" which will invariably be places likely to support black bears.

 

[William Parcher]

We have no idea how many people have reported Bigfoot in downtown areas and had their reports rejected. That's one of the things I keep saying about how the database is fully biased. Data gets thrown away and you can no longer understand Bigfootery.

The people who assemble encounter databases automatically throw out reports coming in from obviously "non-Squatchy" areas.

 

[ScottV]

I haven't really used the program Presence but messed around with it at workshop a few years ago. It gives the probability that the site is occupied by whatever it is you're trying to document. It looks like people are also using it to estimate population density but I'm not sure how that works. Shrike explained the possibility for misuse/fudging on this very well. If you are quite liberal with what constitutes a "detection" then you can come up with all sorts of things and not just bigfoot. Dragons, fairies, unicorns etc.

Coonbo seems to be quite the character. If I thought bigfoot were a real animal then I would agree with him that there are alot of them. However if there were that many then there would be no mystery about it. Individuals can hide but populations cannot.

 

[Resume]

Coonbo seems to be quite the character. If I thought bigfoot were a real animal then I would agree with him that there are alot of them. However if there were that many then there would be no mystery about it. Individuals can hide but populations cannot.

I quite agree with the term character, and the ineluctable conclusion that if real, bigfoot would have been captured and catalogued long ago.

 

[The Shrike]

The people who assemble encounter databases automatically throw out reports coming in from obviously "non-Squatchy" areas.

Of course, but how would this negate Lozier et al.'s analysis?

 

[William Parcher]

Of course, but how would this negate Lozier et al.'s analysis?

He has no idea where people are claiming to see Bigfoot because he has only been shown a fraction of the data.

 

[The Shrike]

^Not that different from any number of other spatially-explicit databases on species' distributions. Millions of birds end up dead in urban areas every year but those places they actually were are not captured in databases used to model the habitat of those species.

Lozier et al. massaged the bigfoot data to remove "spurious" locations - which they don't explain - but they also used a very restrictive sample of bear locations, including only those from the study area that produced a specimen. I'd argue that they were more biased in their restriction of the bear distribution than they were in their restriction of bigfoot distribution, even with the filters that the BFRO investigators applied before Lozier et al. got ahold of the raw data.

 

[William Parcher]

The conclusion of "people are seeing bears and then reporting Bigfoot" is unsupported and seems naive to the realities of Bigfootery.

IMO, if there is any misidentification justified and likely (no matter how remote the wilderness may be) it would be "people are seeing people and then reporting Bigfoot".

 

[The Shrike]

The conclusion of "people are seeing bears and then reporting Bigfoot" is unsupported and seems naive to the realities of Bigfootery.

Agreed, I just wouldn't expect folks who aren't daily monitoring the World of Bigfoot to understand this nuance.

 

[jerrywayne]

This doesn't make sense. When we look at Bigfoot films and videos taken by eyewitnesses we do not see bears. When we look at the plaster casts in Meldrum's collection we don't see bear tracks.

Bigfootery is not about honest people who just happened to see a bear that looked to them like a walking apeman. It's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's mainly people who are mistaken.

Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal. I take the contrary position: it's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's basically people lying about their experiences.

Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"

It seems that the skeptical divide concerning Bigfoot phenomena ("they're all lying" vs. "mistaken perceptions") is due to the fault line between former "believers" and those who never thought Bigfoot was possible or plausible. Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years, I can say that the Bigfoot story and its "evidences" created an emotional response in me that shut down a purely reasonable, objective viewing of the evidence. I can still remember when someone would say to me -- "but if such a thing really existed, it would have been proven a long time ago." To me that response was soooo boring! People are seeing it now! - I would declare. Looking back, I can see that the Belief was emotionally satisfying (for whatever reason) and the idea Bigfoot was not real was not. Emotional satisfaction won out -- back then.

Those who think the whole Bigfoot phenomena is purposefully manufactured seem to be the ones who never gave the phenomena any credence from day one. If they didn't fall for it, then how could anyone else seriously fall for it? They ignore the whole issue of belief. It is belief that clouds reason and bends it to a willful blindness. We have countless religions, paranormal beliefs, political beliefs, and just everyday mistakes in judgment that serve as reminders of our common emotional desire to believe.

I do not mean to suggest that the Bigfoot story is all innocent, emotional error and has no knowing dishonesty attached to it. WP, imho, your view certainly has some validity when we consider today's Bigfoot scene, with the Dyer and Smeja "killings," Todd Standing's adventures, the Kentucky habituation films, Moneymaker making money, etc. And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too? Does this mean that no one(or practically no one) actually honestly believes they saw a sasquatch?

You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot. We do have a photo, or two, that is probably bear photographed at an fortunate angle, and we have at least one "sasquatch" track tracing that was identified as a bear track, as well as other Bigfoot tracks that have been bear tracks (overlapping.) I recall a recent video where a mountain biker, with a mounted camera, rounded a bend on a mountain road to film a retreating Bigfoot. He excitedly posted the video with comments like "see it drop that limb as it fled -- must have a grasping hand." The problem is -- he filmed a retreating moose (!) and the "dropped limb" was kicked up debris. (Of coarse, the video itself might be a hoax to make the idea of Bigfoot even more ridiculous.)

The real problem with your analysis about bears and Bigfoot is that it is on the same plane as Bigfoot sightings or bear as Bigfoot explanations; it cannot be proven. If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.) If we just ignore such a sighting altogether, then what do we contribute to the understanding of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

 

[Iamme]

A: 1. The devil, screwing with our minds. He might be doing that with flying saucer sightings also.
2. Someone in a gorilla suit.
3. A gorilla.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Agreed, I just wouldn't expect folks who aren't daily monitoring the World of Bigfoot peculiar JREF members to understand this nuance.

FTFY

Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal...<brevity snip>...of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

Excellent post jerrywayne. And I have to agree with you. On a practical level, I don't think it's possible for (pretty much) anything in the universe to be 100% of just one thing. Literally or figuratively. And while I'll admit to not knowing exactly why "serious belief" in Bigfoot still exists in the present day, I know the Bigfoot we talk about here on a daily basis is, yes, absolutely fictional yet absolutely not just lies. It couldn't be. John Cartwright (WGBH) anyone? Or maybe more timely, Northern Lights? Just lies?

Maybe William Parcher can expound on his meaning?

 

[The Shrike]

Of all the people in the world whom I'd hesitate to speak for, Parcher might top the list. That said, I think his main point is spot-on: What we know as "bigfoot" is an amalgam of anecdotes that have been pretty carefully vetted to fit the profile before ever making it into a database of alleged sightings. With respect to Lozier et al. he thinks that's a big enough problem to nullify their analysis comparing bigfoot and black bear distributions; I think it's a minor problem and their analysis is relevant.

 

[William Parcher]

Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal. I take the contrary position: it's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's basically people lying about their experiences.

Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"

It seems that the skeptical divide concerning Bigfoot phenomena ("they're all lying" vs. "mistaken perceptions") is due to the fault line between former "believers" and those who never thought Bigfoot was possible or plausible. Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years, I can say that the Bigfoot story and its "evidences" created an emotional response in me that shut down a purely reasonable, objective viewing of the evidence. I can still remember when someone would say to me -- "but if such a thing really existed, it would have been proven a long time ago." To me that response was soooo boring! People are seeing it now! - I would declare. Looking back, I can see that the Belief was emotionally satisfying (for whatever reason) and the idea Bigfoot was not real was not. Emotional satisfaction won out -- back then.

Those who think the whole Bigfoot phenomena is purposefully manufactured seem to be the ones who never gave the phenomena any credence from day one. If they didn't fall for it, then how could anyone else seriously fall for it? They ignore the whole issue of belief. It is belief that clouds reason and bends it to a willful blindness. We have countless religions, paranormal beliefs, political beliefs, and just everyday mistakes in judgment that serve as reminders of our common emotional desire to believe.

I do not mean to suggest that the Bigfoot story is all innocent, emotional error and has no knowing dishonesty attached to it. WP, imho, your view certainly has some validity when we consider today's Bigfoot scene, with the Dyer and Smeja "killings," Todd Standing's adventures, the Kentucky habituation films, Moneymaker making money, etc. And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too? Does this mean that no one(or practically no one) actually honestly believes they saw a sasquatch?

You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot. We do have a photo, or two, that is probably bear photographed at an fortunate angle, and we have at least one "sasquatch" track tracing that was identified as a bear track, as well as other Bigfoot tracks that have been bear tracks (overlapping.) I recall a recent video where a mountain biker, with a mounted camera, rounded a bend on a mountain road to film a retreating Bigfoot. He excitedly posted the video with comments like "see it drop that limb as it fled -- must have a grasping hand." The problem is -- he filmed a retreating moose (!) and the "dropped limb" was kicked up debris. (Of coarse, the video itself might be a hoax to make the idea of Bigfoot even more ridiculous.)

The real problem with your analysis about bears and Bigfoot is that it is on the same plane as Bigfoot sightings or bear as Bigfoot explanations; it cannot be proven. If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.) If we just ignore such a sighting altogether, then what do we contribute to the understanding of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

This might be a strawman criticism of my position and opinions.

I don't think Bigfootery is always reducible to lying. But liars cannot be put aside as not being fundamental to the birth and perpetuation of Bigfoot belief.

With genuine eyewitness misidentifications I personally doubt that bears are responsible for a significant percentage of errors. The Jacobs Creature represents a bear misidentified as a Bigfoot but that is a single still image and not an eyewitness encounter. We can imagine that a person standing where that camera was would easily see that it is a bear cub walking in front of them.

My opinion is that some people see other people in the wilds (or not so wild areas) and come to believe that they are seeing (or saw) a Bigfoot. This kind of misidentification constitutes more than 90% of all genuine mis-IDs, in my opinion. It also makes more sense because they are seeing an actual bipedal primate but the error is that it's the wrong species.

Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"

This may not be a good comparison. You can look at the same fencepost and see what looks like "the Virgin" (figure or face or whatever) represented on it and therefore have evidence that they are not lying. I've seen pictures of Jesus et al represented on various objects and foods. Often it really does look like what they say. But Bigfooters don't offer anything like a fencepost when they give you the remembered story of their Bigfoot encounter.

Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years,

Did you ever see one?

And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too?

Rene Dahinden may have done that with the PGF. He may have had good reasons (or knew) that the film was a fake but he promoted it because he had financial stakes and saw that people would pay to see it regardless of its authenticity. But there still is a certain kind of honesty that he had because he never ever claimed to see a Bigfoot and he certainly had the opportunity to lie about that if he had wanted.

You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot.

No, I just think it is overrepresented and especially when compared to mistakes involving fellow humans for Bigfoot.

If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.)

I don't think she saw a bear. She may have seen some guy. But anyway she may have outright lied. Her reasoning may have been to get attention and/or because she desperately wanted to leave and needed a working excuse other than "I just don't like it here". She may have seen a bear, knew it was a bear, but then lied and said it was a Bigfoot thing. It's even possible that what she really had to say is nothing like what we have been told.

 

[William Parcher]

There are places and regions of the USA and Canada that do not have any bears. Yet Bigfoot sightings are still reported from these areas. Bear presence is certainly not a necessary setting for Bigfoot claims. Further, there are many wild areas where bears have been (long ago) extirpated but the environment could support bears again. These places would be "very Squatchy" but have no bears. You can bet that there are Bigfoot stories from these places.

 

[Drewbot]

I think many of the cases are a Bigfooter version of the 'Noble Lie'.

They have 'seen' something that they could not explain. They lie to themselves that they saw a Bigfoot. They tell people they saw a Bigfoot. In their mind, it is a much better explanation than telling someone that they hallucinated something. They are invested in this lie to the point where they actually believe that they saw a Bigfoot.

I think that the population in the Footer community of people prone to hallucination is disproportionately high compared to the general population. People say a large number of sightings cannot be explained by hallucination. I am tending to disagree, as the more time I spend trying to communicate with Footers, the more convinced I become that a significant percentage of Footers are suffering from Sleep Disorders, or mental conditions that should require medication, in which case, both taking meds, and not taking meds could lead to these hallucinations.

They make up the Noble Lie to prevent others from knowing they had a hallucination.
They are paranoid about people knowing that they had a hallucination.

 

[William Parcher]

????

If you feel that you had a Bigfoot hallucination you don't have to tell anyone that you had a hallucination if that sort of thing embarrasses you.

If you feel that you had a genuine non-hallucinated Bigfoot encounter you don't have to tell anyone if that sort of thing embarrasses you.

In either case, you can report your Bigfoot encounter anonymously. The world won't know that it's you telling the story.

 

[Drewbot]

Yes, but can people pat you on the back and tell you they saw the same thing?

 

[William Parcher]

Hallucinations can happen anywhere. Do you think many of these people hallucinate Bigfoot inside their home or at the office? Do they have hallucinations of Bigfoot giving their wife a bath and scrubbing her back?

Or do the visions only present themselves as a stealthy ape hiding in the woods?