Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[154]

2nd try.

Actually - you could have backed up and re-driven the last 150 feet or so of your route and tried to see if there was a shadow effect that caused you to think you saw a mythical creature.

What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.

You could have stopped your vehicle and turned off the engine and tried to hear it move through the foliage.

I absolutely could have and in the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since, I certainly wish I would have done so. More than that, I wish I would have gotten out to look for the at-least slight tracks that surely would have been there. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and there are no do-overs.

You could have looked for hair or scat using your car headlights as illumination if you had no flashlight.

Immediately searching for possible bigfoot scat or fallen or snagged hairs in the vicinity for forensic substantiation, corroboration and confirmation did not occur to me at the time. That's simply all there is to it. In addition, while I was not and had no reason to be particularly fearful as a result, I had no desire to remain in the immediate area.

Of course - doing nothing is the easiest way to confirm your own story in your own mind.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

I also echo Kitakaze's point about these animals always seeming to cross the road just ahead of cars. That makes them no smarter than your average (i.e. very stupid) mule deer and completely eliminates the idea that they are super stealthy and smart at avoiding human detection.
Can't have it both ways.

I disagree. People walk across the road in front of cars for any number of reasons and even get hit sometimes. Most people are also smarter than mule deer. This notion completely eliminates nothing and is even readily understandable if we were to discuss the matter more in-depth, to which even you would agree.

 

[GT/CS]

<snip>
I'm now aware of a few reported but unpublicized incidents that, if true, indicate that specimens have been hit, killed and recovered.
<snip>

This sentence completely discredits your entire post.

If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.

 

[rockinkt]

What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.

Nope. I know from a professional and personal standpoint how the eyes and mind can fool a person into conjuring visions and memories about things that did not happen or never existed.
People see things that are not there. People generate memories based on non-factual input or preconceived notions.
People also exaggerate, fabricate, and simply lie about seeing mythical creatures for many reasons.
I would have had to have some very strong corroborating physical evidence to convince me that I was not mistaken about what I saw. Therefore, I would have looked long and hard for it if I was so certain I had seen what I thought I had seen.
The only thing that would have stopped me from driving on would have been my belief that I had not seen anything of worth.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

People unconsciously mislead themselves and then convince themselves that the new memories are the old, original memories.
Your statement "the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since..." make me wonder about such happening in your case.

I disagree. People walk across the road in front of cars for any number of reasons and even get hit sometimes. Most people are also smarter than mule deer. This notion completely eliminates nothing and is even readily understandable if we were to discuss the matter more in-depth, to which even you would agree.

I have discussed such things in depth and understand that it is an apples and oranges argument that you put forward.
How many of the French Underground were accidentally hit by cars while they were secretly moving about the French countryside in WW2?

People generally get hit by cars because there is no fear and avoidance factor working at that moment. Why? Because they are so much a part of the daily fabric of life in North America. We know and understand cars and the noise they make becomes background noise. It is lack of attention or deliberately doing something dangerous that accounts for people getting hit by vehicles. (the preceeding refers to the pedestrian being at fault - not the driver)
If a person was under the impression that they must avoid vehicles at all costs or something bad was certainly going to befall him - he wouldn't even go near a road - much less cross immediately in front of a vehicle when he could hear and see the lights from a distance.

 

[rockinkt]

This sentence completely discredits your entire post.

If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.

Good point.

I'm also more than a little concerned about this...

<snip> I do not lie. <snip>

 

[154]

I'm well aware there is absolutely no way that I can satisfy this objection. I don't care. I have zero need to convince you or anyone and am well aware that, for all practical purposes, I am wasting my time here, but I share freely and am more than experienced with the skepticism and mockery that usually follows. I now know. I did not care previously. I know as well as you that nothing I could say will make you sure.

As I said.

 

[William Parcher]

I have zero need to convince you or anyone...

I am wasting my time here...

How long do you think you will be making the Bigfoot talk at JREF? Are you feeling like a new permanent?

 

[154]

This sentence completely discredits your entire post. If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.

I said "if true" twice. I didn't say I accepted it unconditionally. But if you say so, as you wish.

Nope. I know from a professional and personal standpoint how the eyes and mind can fool a person into conjuring visions and memories about things that did not happen or never existed.
People see things that are not there. People generate memories based on non-factual input or preconceived notions.
People also exaggerate, fabricate, and simply lie about seeing mythical creatures for many reasons.
I would have had to have some very strong corroborating physical evidence to convince me that I was not mistaken about what I saw. Therefore, I would have looked long and hard for it if I was so certain I had seen what I thought I had seen.
The only thing that would have stopped me from driving on would have been my belief that I had not seen anything of worth.

People unconsciously mislead themselves and then convince themselves that the new memories are the old, original memories.
Your statement "the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since..." make me wonder about such happening in your case.

I have discussed such things in depth and understand that it is an apples and oranges argument that you put forward.
How many of the French Underground were accidentally hit by cars while they were secretly moving about the French countryside in WW2?

People generally get hit by cars because there is no fear and avoidance factor working at that moment. Why? Because they are so much a part of the daily fabric of life in North America. We know and understand cars and the noise they make becomes background noise. It is lack of attention or deliberately doing something dangerous that accounts for people getting hit by vehicles. (the preceeding refers to the pedestrian being at fault - not the driver)
If a person was under the impression that they must avoid vehicles at all costs or something bad was certainly going to befall him - he wouldn't even go near a road - much less cross immediately in front of a vehicle when he could hear and see the lights from a distance.

I understand your points, generally agree with them, and while I could make some additional points in speculation, I also understand that I can do nothing to sufficiently counter them to your satisfaction.

I'm also more than a little concerned about this...

Okay, I understand this also. To be precisely correct, I wouldn't say that I have never, ever lied, of course. As a personal standard I try to maintain for reasons that would also be mocked and dismissed on this forum, I will speak truthfully, or perhaps partially, or not speak, but I will not intentionally mislead myself or others. But I am not lying about this. I have not devoted an inordinate amount of my time and limited resources in further study and research efforts regarding this subject because of self-delusion but because of my certainty as a result. But, again, I understand that I cannot necessarily convince anyone of this. So be it.

How long do you think you will be making the Bigfoot talk at JREF? Are you feeling like a new permanent?

"Making the bigfoot talk," LOL.

I don't know, we'll see. Bigfoot talk could get much more prominent here sometime soon. Who knows? How long will it keep your attention?

 

[WGBH]

2nd try.

What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.

Well said.

I absolutely could have and in the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since, I certainly wish I would have done so. More than that, I wish I would have gotten out to look for the at-least slight tracks that surely would have been there. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and there are no do-overs.

They have no way of knowing of how they would react if they witnessed what you did. We all react differently to each situation.


Immediately searching for possible bigfoot scat or fallen or snagged hairs in the vicinity for forensic substantiation, corroboration and confirmation did not occur to me at the time. That's simply all there is to it. In addition, while I was not and had no reason to be particularly fearful as a result, I had no desire to remain in the immediate area.

If you would have found scat or hair it would not have made a difference here at the JREF, they would have torn that apart also.


I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

They have also tried to get me to admit I hallucinated what I heard, smelled and stared at for 5 mins. Not going to happen. I don't know you 154, you could be lying to us. But, I would not make leaps like that about your character. I do not know you. Thank you for sharing your encounter with me.

 

[Vortigern99]

If you would have found scat or hair it would not have made a difference here at the JREF, they would have torn that apart also.

This is absolutely incorrect. Scat or hair that have been analyzed by a team of biologists, anthropologists and/or zoologists, and determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate, would constitute hard evidence in support of the contention that bigfoot exists. Since no such evidence is forthcoming, after decades (some say centuries) of investigation, the scientific and skeptical position must logically be that the animal does not exist.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

They have also tried to get me to admit I hallucinated what I heard, smelled and stared at for 5 mins. Not going to happen.

Your refusal to allow that hallucination is a known, documented phenomenon that happens to normal, sane, healthy people (including several JREF members, as recorded in the earlier pages of this very thread), and often consists of seemingly real and actual sensory perceptions including sight, sound and smell, does nothing to dispel the conclusion that you and 154 are True Believers for whom no amount of scientific analysis, or evidence to the contrary, will ever convince you that what you saw was not real.

Skeptics and scientists, on the other hand, only require evidence to convince us.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot talk could get much more prominent here sometime soon. Who knows?

I see you are branching out to discussion of dead cattle (so-called mutilation) now.

At best, all that can be assumed or presumed is that unusual occurrences have been noted here.

"We do not know" is a simple and valid conclusion at this point. I believe something has been happening in this regard, but do not believe that it is by "extraterrestrial aliens that travelled millions of light years to get here."

Bigfoot exists: Check.
Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation: Check.

Looks like you will bring the woo for more than one topic.

I don't know you 154...

I do not know you.

You might, unless you have privately confirmed that 154 is not a Bigfooter that you already know (of).

 

[154]

I see you are branching out to discussion of dead cattle (so-called mutilation) now.

Bigfoot exists: Check.
Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation: Check.

Looks like you will bring the woo for more than one topic.

What "woo" did I bring? Did I say anything there that you find unreasonable or unacceptable in any way? Point it out there. Like most people, and certainly like most people here, I have a wide range of interests and attentions. Of course, skepticism should always be a guiding principle in objective analysis- I have no problem with that- but skeptics often leap to unjustified conclusions themselves, but I'm sure you don't think that you ever do.

 

[William Parcher]

What "woo" did I bring?

1) Bigfoot exists.
2) Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation.

 

[WGBH]

This is absolutely incorrect. Scat or hair that have been analyzed by a team of biologists, anthropologists and/or zoologists, and determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate, would constitute hard evidence in support of the contention that bigfoot exists. Since no such evidence is forthcoming, after decades (some say centuries) of investigation, the scientific and skeptical position must logically be that the animal does not exist.

It is my understanding that hairs have been found, examined and been determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate. Such as the ones on a recent episode of destination truth. Not much has occurred as a result.

Your refusal to allow that hallucination is a known, documented phenomenon that happens to normal, sane, healthy people (including several JREF members, as recorded in the earlier pages of this very thread), and often consists of seemingly real and actual sensory perceptions including sight, sound and smell, does nothing to dispel the conclusion that you and 154 are True Believers for whom no amount of scientific analysis, or evidence to the contrary, will ever convince you that what you saw was not real.

I never refused that hallucinations happen. I refused to let it be pidgeon-holed into my encounter. You take issue with that, get over it.

Skeptics and scientists, on the other hand, only require evidence to convince us.

As I mentioned, the body on a slab.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

Not for true scientists.

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.

Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin.

 

[WGBH]

You might, unless you have privately confirmed that 154 is not a Bigfooter that you already know (of).

I have not confirmed anything about 154. If he is someone I would be familiar with, he has not revealed that.

 

[Vortigern99]

It is my understanding that hairs have been found, examined and been determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate. Such as the ones on a recent episode of destination truth.

Please provide a link so I can avail myself of this exciting new revelation in primatology.

I never refused that hallucinations happen. I refused to let it be pidgeon-holed into my encounter. You take issue with that, get over it.

Translation: "Hallucination happens to millions of people, under a variety of sleep-deprived and/or stress-related circumstances, but not to me during my sleep-deprived, stess-related circumstance, because I'm special and what I saw was real. Other people throughout history and right up to the present moment hallucinate; my mind, however, perceives only actual, objectively real, existing objects and beings, because I am special and deserve special consideration."

In other words, please take your own advice and "get over it."

As I mentioned, the body on a slab.

I don't know what you're referencing, but if you mean that scientific methodology requires a dead body before it will recognize the existence of bigfoot, you're mistaken. A live one will suffice.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

Not for true scientists.

Nor for true skeptics.

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.

Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin. Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin.

"Amusement" and "chagrin" are opposite terms, so it may interest you to know that your statement is nonsense. Meanwhile, as an amateur anthropologist I would love for bigfoot to be real, so when and if you discover some evidence of its existence apart from your over-active imagination, please bring it forward.

 

[154]

1) Bigfoot exists.

Yes.

2) Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation.

No. I say "may have" and "I do not know."

 

[WGBH]

Meanwhile, as an amateur anthropologist I would love for bigfoot to be real, so when and if you discover some evidence of its existence apart from your over-active imagination, please bring it forward.

Amateur anthropologist huh? I guess you want to dabble in amateur psychology also? Let's discuss this shall we? What is it that made you think I would imagine a Bigfoot?

 

[kitakaze]

I really hate when I take the time to write an in-depth response to several other posters... and then find that I timed out or whatever and it's all gone...

154, always before submitting a post that took some time to compose, highlight and right click copy the entire post so that should you get timed out, you can simply go back to the thread, go down and hit reply, and then paste the whole thing in a fresh post.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Amateur anthropologist huh? I guess you want to dabble in amateur psychology also? Let's discuss this shall we? What is it that made you think I would imagine a Bigfoot?

May I try ?


Because there are no Bigfoots ?


That said, mis-identification isn't necessarily imagination ...

 

[kitakaze]

You may feel strongly that I did not see see a bigfoot crossing the road in front of me but you cannot know that and regardless of how sure you think you are, you do not know that.

154, I am absolutely willing to consider that you actually saw what you claim you saw, so let's get into it. I am going to ask you a series of simple questions regarding your alleged sighting and I will assume your answers to be truthful.

1) Where did your sighting occur? What province or state and county?

2) What time of night was it? What year was it? About what date was it?

3) Where were you coming from?

4) Please describe in detail the creature you say you saw.

5) You described yourself as a Bigfoot researcher. Do you belong to any Bigfoot enthusiast organization? if so, which one?

6) In what province or state and county do you normally do you search for Bigfoot?

I'm now aware of a few reported but unpublicized incidents that, if true, indicate that specimens have been hit, killed and recovered. If true, that only opens inquiry to other questions.

Secret dead Bigfoots obtained, unsubmitted to scientific examination. How unfortunate for science and mankind. Where did these claims come from?

I couldn't care less about possible sociological reasons for claiming to see a bigfoot myself, but understand and have personally dealt with and dismissed accounts of others for such reasons. I am not lying. I do not lie. Truth is always my priority. I have zero interest in misleading or deceiving myself or others. Your questioning of me cannot exceed my own.Okay, I know and do not disagree.

The unfortunate thing, 154, is that we've had a number of liars, hoaxer, and nuts come here and make various claims regarding seeing Bigfoot. All of them protested at the notion they were lying. We can only try and submit your tale to critical scrutiny to establish how plausible it might be. For myself, I am starting from the position that you were either hoaxed or are yourself lying about or embellishing something you saw.