Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
VulcanWay wrote:
I'd indeed be willing to lend at least some credence to a sighting if another person witnessed it - it goes on my "worth investigating to find more substantial corroborative evidence" pile.
Wow...what a refreshing change from the Super-Skeptics that INFEST this place!! :D

Mr. Vulcan, it's nice to see you're willing to give some weight to a sighting report...under some circumstances.

Most skeptics here can't deal with, discuss, or acknowledge anything in-between 'proof' and 'nothing'.

ETA: For a wonderful example...please read my signa-chore line. ;)
 
Last edited:
Responses which almost always contain insults, accusations, and hostility, are definitely abnormal behavior for a DISCUSSION board...and indicate that there's a problem with the person responding in that manner.

I strongly disagree. They are unacceptable behaviour for a discussion board, but they are quite normal human behaviour.

Debating an issue on a discussion board requires LOTS of back-and-forth posts, lots of questions, and lots of in-depth explanations to get to some kind of an understanding between two opposing sides.

We agree on this, however.

I don't agree that a person's sincerity means absolutely nothing.

And now we disagree again. Funny how things work out, yes ?

Sincerity doesn't tell you if the person remembers correctly. In fact, appearance of sincerity can also be misleading. Only the facts matter.
 
If one person comes to me and tells me that they saw Bigfoot at a specific place, just off a road while they were hiking through the forest for example, and I find that another person who happened to be driving by in a car past this specific place saw something as well at the same time. Now I'm willing to put that in my pile of potential evidence. Still doesn't prove either saw Bigfoot, just that they both saw "something." Now add onto that other things like one of them taking a picture or video, a pile of feces at that site sitting between two huge footprint tracks, the tracks leading to a cave that has signs of habitation, etc. Now we have something to examine!

Unfortunately with bigfoot sightings, we only ever get ONE of these elements, like tracks that appear and dissapear out of and into nowhere.
 
Yes, except....don't forget that a strong influence on interpretation is our own evolving culture. Your above example, in America today, would be interpreted as being an evil cartoonish character, promoted by cigarette companies, to influence our kids to smoke...ie., Joe Camel. ;)
Well, that's probably the major issue when it comes to interpreting a mythical creature as a real being. We are rationalizating (this word exists in English?) the myth according to our personal backgrounds. We quite probably will turn it in to something completely different from what it was within its original context.

You touched a subject I have mixed feelings. Myths are not static (unless they are written). If, for one side I know its an inevitable proccess, sometimes I become really sad (p!ssed off actually) when I see them being twisted - even when its a natural phenomena within a living culture. I saw it happen here in Brazil more than once. Inevitable but still, sometimes a sad thing. I could post examples, but it would be OT.

Well, back on track, I think current USA lore (actually Western lore, given the widespread influence of USA in Western countries) adopted elements of the Sasquatch myths (yes, I know its not an original Native America word, etc., but I'll keep using it aniway for the lack of a better alternative) and incorporated it in to bigfoot myth.


Very good point (evidence vs. reliable evidence)
Thanks. I bet 10 beers that most of the skeptic posters here acknoweledge that when it comes to bigfoot, myths may be evidence, but they are not reliable evidence and by no means proof. It would be really nice if other "pro" posters understood the difference...

Speaking of human/animal barriers. You may find it interesting that stories from the south tend to be more "sexual" in nature. There are several stories of ceremonies being conducted to turn the bigfoot into a human so that he could marry a woman and have legitimate children (vs. most of the rest of the U.S. where any "relationship" is forced and any children produced shunned).
Interesting. The same basic theme may have different local interpretations or role, depending on the local culture.

Again, here we have a similarities with other myths from other places. Kitakaze posted a Wiki link on Kapres. Here's a piece of the article:
Kapres make contact with people to offer friendship or if attracted to a woman. If a Kapre befriends any human, especially because of a love interest, it will consistently follow them throughout life.

Northern Brazil has the Boto or Encantado, a shapeshifter that takes the form of a handsome stranger and seduces pretty young ladies at festivities (convenient myth, eh?). This one has a real animal as a template, since "boto" is a Portuguese word for dolphin (fluvial dolphins Inia geoffrensisin in this case).

Note also the Greek myths of Leda and the Swan, Europa and the Bull...

Bottomline: deep down we're all the same...

Note that one could interpretate the bigfoot/human hybrid you cited as an individual with hypertrichosis.

Does the above lends more credibility to an interpretation of sasquatch -and other mythical creatures- as real animals? Some will say yes, others will say no. I'm at the second field.
 
Where are the pictures?

More people than ever are probably carrying digital cameras in the last several years. Those cameras have gotten cheaper and better, too. They are smaller than ever, too.

Video cameras are now mostly digital and often have a still photo capability as well. They are also better than ever of late and smaller than ever.

Game cameras as well. Much better than they used to be.
 
Where are the pictures?

More people than ever are probably carrying digital cameras in the last several years. Those cameras have gotten cheaper and better, too. They are smaller than ever, too.

Video cameras are now mostly digital and often have a still photo capability as well. They are also better than ever of late and smaller than ever.

Game cameras as well. Much better than they used to be.
Oh, man, don't you read the thread?

-Bigfeet are alarmed by the noisy game cams (other animals are not, but bigfeet are bigfeet, you know).
-It takes time to grab a digital cam, turn it on, point it to the critter, set focus, apperture and press the trigger, bigfoot is gone by then.
-Digital cameras are heavy and cumbersome to carry.
 
Correa Neto wrote:

I don't agree that a person's sincerity means absolutely nothing.
Can you really know if the person is actually being sincere or just seems to be sincere?

People who are rational and sane always have some motivation behind their actions. People just don't do things due to purely random thoughts......if they're mentally well....snip...
While it's true that we can't "probe someone's mind" to determine their motivations...
But if we can't probe someone's mind, we can't know their real motivations. Or if they are actually being sincere or if they are just pretending to be sincere. Kooks, politicians, criminals, executives, actors and many of the standard run-of-the-mill humans we meet every day are able tell lies that are not being detected. You'll say they are being sincere.

I know abductees and conctactees who look sincere... One of them makes money from UFO buffs, making field trips to see "alien spacecrafts" (Iridum satelite flares and some guys with torchlights at the top of a hill). He looks sincere.

the fact that there IS some motivation behind every sincere person's story, lends some credence to them as a whole....and also individually, in cases where there's no apparant reason for them to be making it up.
Note there is no way to actually know what is the motivation. Add to this that you can just suppose there's not "apparent reason" for a lie, hoax, etc.

What's the motivation for a hoax/lie? Attention need, some psichological pathology or deviation, profit, an attempt to "spice up" your favorite fringe subject if things are running low these days, nothing but a good laugh, etc.

Not to mention that witness may actually have seen what he/she thinks was a bigfoot or experienced what he/she actually thinks was a bigfoot encounter. He/she may actually belive on the experience. But the person may not have seen a real bigfoot.

The options are not just real sighting x lie. Its false dicothomy, since there are other options.

A longer encounter would be more "reliable"....meaning less likely to be a misidentification of a bear.....or a reptile. :boggled:
Therefore...a longer encounter carries more weight as evidence, than does a shorter encounter.
Nope. A longer encounter may be a longer lie, a longer false memory, a longer daydream, etc.

Actually, given the alleged shyness/elusiveness of bigfeet, longer sightings may be taken as less reliable, possibly more likley to be hoaxes.

Longer abduction reports are more reliable than a short glimpse of a grey alien? I don't think so.

Bottomline: Sighting reports are not reliable evidence. They could be taken as reliable if there are reliable evidence to back them, but in bigfoot's case, AFAIK, there's no such thing.
 
Just a thought on bigfoot proposed 'conservation efforts'.

One thing that I think is unfortunate for bigfootery's strive for legitimacy is that they can't quite seem to sort themselves out in terms of what they are trying to get people to accept. First, they ask us to accept something like this:

(BTW, yes, I do enjoy posting this very much and will continue to occasionally do so until such time as bigfoot turns up in Iowa.)

Alaska 19
Arizona 38
Arkansas 64
California 347
Colorado 84
Connecticut 4
Delaware 2
Florida 106
Georgia 37
Hawaii
Idaho 49
Illinois 55
Indiana 47
Iowa 35
Kansas 26
Kentucky 46
Louisiana 32
Maine 13
Maryland 25
Massachusetts 10
Michigan 69
Minnesota 27
Mississippi 17
Missouri 52
Montana 23
Nebraska 7
Nevada 7
New Hampshire 9
New Jersey 35
New Mexico 30
New York 84
North Carolina 45
North Dakota 5
Ohio 190
Oklahoma 62
Oregon 197
Pennsylvania 78
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 31
South Dakota 13
Tennessee 51
Texas 160
Utah 38
Vermont 6
Virginia 21
Washington 402
West Virginia 45
Wisconsin 41
Wyoming 24

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/#usa

Yet, at the same time they will ask us to consider the following (from AIBR's mission statement):
Another mission of this organization is to act as an advocate for conservation of the species of Sasquatch. Much of the prime habitat of this species has already been lost due to urban and rural development, as well as many other reasons. It is the hope of this organization that with collaboration of the scientific community, with the cooperation of independent researchers worldwide, and with adequate and appropriate public education, this process may be hedged. ...

(a few paragraphs down)
... The species of Sasquatch is believed by this organization to be real and valid, and it is the hope of this organization to bring this magnificent species into the public eye through responsible and cooperative research and conservation methods.
Is bigfoot in danger? Are poachers bringing them down? Is the loss of habitat causing human/sasquatch conflict as one might encounter with bears in New Jersey? If we are to accept the sightings as valid this certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Why, statistically speaking, bigfoot is doing better in such places as Iowa and Louisiana than black bears. Right then, maybe we should check in with bigfoot's verified, oft-studied, and far more numerous (currently approx. 800,000, up from a low of around 200,000) ecological niche buddy, the American Black Bear. Let's see, legal status should do the trick: (bolding mine.)
Legal Status

Today, a major threat to the American black bear is poaching, or illegal killing, to supply Asian markets with bear galls and paws, considered to have medicinal value in China, Japan, and Korea. The demand for these parts also affects grizzly and polar bears. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a treaty among more than 120 nations, provides measures to curb illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products across international boundaries, helping to protect the black bear from poaching.

Black bears are abundant in much of the West, in portions of the Midwest, and in most of Canada. For example, Ontario is home to about 100,000 bears, with at least as many in neighboring Quebec, while Minnesota has a very healthy population of 30,000 bears. In contrast, Iowa, where land is heavily used for agriculture, has virtually none. Most eastern populations in the United States are seeing a marked, steady increase in population: bears are moving back into places where they may not have been present for over a century as suitable habitat has come back. In eastern states with heavily wooded areas, populations are growing very quickly; in North Carolina there were 11,000 bears at last count in 2004, Pennsylvania estimates 15,000 bears currently, New Jersey (one of the urbanized states) 1,500, and even tiny Rhode Island has seen evidence of bears moving into areas where they haven't been in decades. The Florida black bear has also seen increases in numbers in recent decades, in 2004 the Florida Fish & Wildlfie Commission estimated over 2,400 bears were in the state. Unfortunately, not all is well. Continued development may reduce connectivity between the already separated populations in Florida. Numbers of bears in the Louisiana subspecies continue to be at critically low levels, although several reintroduction projects have added bears to new areas of the state. In Mexico, the indigenous black bear population is listed as endangered and is mostly limited to increasingly fragmented habitat in the mountainous northern parts of the country. Individuals from this area seem to have naturally recolonized parts of southern Texas.

In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Louisiana black bear subspecies as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, meaning it could be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the near future. The American black bear is also protected by legislation in the affected states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), owing to its close resemblance to this subspecies. The Florida black bear was denied protection under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 and 2004 due to its adequate protection and management by the State of Florida.
You see, I'm having a hard time in light of this to understand why a creature that seems to be doing quite fine over much of the NA continent is in need of conservation. Indeed, if the great apes are to serve as any model sasquatches might be better off to continue their jaw-droppingly marvelous evasion of identification. If the purpose is to identify and begin to study this purported species than by what reliable evidence should we endeavour to do so?
 
Last edited:
Responses which almost always contain insults, accusations, and hostility, are definitely abnormal behavior for a DISCUSSION board...and indicate that there's a problem with the person responding in that manner.

Debating an issue on a discussion board requires LOTS of back-and-forth posts, lots of questions, and lots of in-depth explanations to get to some kind of an understanding between two opposing sides.
kitakaze has way too much going in the way of hostility, false accusations, and insults for all to be well :rolleyes: inside his head. :)

NOW...where'd I leave my helmet......:boxedin:
First, Sweaty, I can only offer my sincere testimony that I have a wonderfully interesting, fulfilling, and well-balanced life devoid of anything in the way of anger/hostility problems or major personal problems (does a keen interest in the bigfoot phenomenom count?).

I certainly agree that much dialogue is required in debate for opposing sides to gain a better understanding of their perspective positions. It was in just such a spirit that I invited Huntster, LAL, and Hairy Man to one on one Q&A, which proved to generate much in the way of further understanding. I wish Huntster was stiil here to do so. If LAL is willing, I'll continue to do so. And, if Hairy Man would accept a proposal to forget prior matters, I would like to continue to do so with her. Or at the very least, ask her to continue with another member in my place if that would make her more comfortable.

Do you know why no such invitation was extended to you? Two simple reasons. First, as you continually demonstrate you are not interested in such focused dialogue or anything much more than trying to get skeptics to accept sightings as reliable evidence or simple antagonism. Second, by your own admission, you are not interested in becoming informed on matters relating to such.

Now as for the behaviours you accuse me of, I will readily admit to having insulted you, been hostile to you, and accused you of various things. What I would like for you to do is to first provide evidence to support the first statement of the above post or retract it. But, second and most importantly, state and provide evidence to support it that you have never engaged in those exact same behaviours you above mention here on this board. Please keep in mind if you try a 'they started it' argument, I have a long memory and no qualms about digging up the posts myself. If you are not willing to do so then I thoroughly suggest that you drop this line of implication as it will most certainly backfire on you.

Finally, in an unrelated matter, you have been suspiciously silent on the matter since submitting the anecdote of the married couple for us to consider as evidence. I confronted you and asked if you were referring to Hairy Man and that if you were not to supply us with a link to the post and board to prove it. I have more than once since brought it up. Why so silent?

(BTW, Hairy Man, I apologize if you construe this as being more about you. I assure you, it's not. This is simply about calling SweatyYeti on his submissions of 'evidence' and him typically dodging tough questions.)

Sweaty, we're waiting.
 
Last edited:
It is only somewhat analogous (in the sense that more than one witness exists) but deviates from it in that the two observers were at different vantage points and (infered though it was) were strangers.

I'd indeed be willing to lend at least some credence to a sighting if another person witnessed it - it goes on my "worth investigating to find more substantial corroborative evidence" pile. I'd be more comfortable if it wasn't the observer's daugher or if that other person saw the thing from a different angle, though. So they did see "something" (or they're lying). Was it Bigfoot, a bear, a guy in a poncho, a tree? Again, without something else to corroborate this story that I can look at and test all I can say is that they did indeed see something (or again, they could be lying).

The question that I would ask the Bigfoot Believers is, do you assume that all reported sightings of Bigfoot are genuine? Are the numbers for sightings representing every report that's ever come in to you, or is there a "no way they're being honest" pile? And how many sightings are follow up on to see if you can find other corroborating evidence? In the witnessed sighting above, did anyone go to the site and look for tracks, et al?
Vulcan, I agree with much of what you say and you make some good points. Just for your consideration. In the Joyce matter, Sweaty has already admitted that he never spoke to the claimed second witness and has no intention ever to do so to hear her testimony on the matter. Telling behaviour for one so adamant about trying persuade us that this is evidence that 'isn't paltry'. It is my continuing contention that it is in every way paltry.
 
You see, I'm having a hard time in light of this to understand why a creature that seems to be doing quite fine over much of the NA continent is in need of conservation.

Since there's no way to keep track of the number of bigfooties roaming NA, anything and everything can be speculated.

Is bigfoot facing extinction? Why, of course, man is aggressively expanding into wilderness areas and competing directly with the big hairy fellow.

Is the bigfoot population exploding? But of course. In California the number of bigfoot encounters reported in ALL the years prior to 1957 was 11. In 2001 alone there were 35, so obviously bigfoot are more plentiful now than they were 50 years ago. Of the 40 California counties reporting bigfoot activities on the BFRO, ALL show recent reports, falling on a timeline somewhere between June 2000, and February 2007.

If bigfoot is so tough to track, difficult to photorgraph, impossible to classify/catalogue, and facing impending extinction, how come they've been spotted in 40 counties in California over the past seven years?

RayG
 
If bigfoot is so tough to track, difficult to photorgraph, impossible to classify/catalogue, and facing impending extinction, how come they've been spotted in 40 counties in California over the past seven years?

Because Bigfoot is a religion, not a real animal. I think some skeptics and believers haven't fully come to terms with this. Bigfootery deserves to be granted the same respect and legitimacy as any other religion. Skeptics and believers should realize that their domains do not overlap any more than science does with religion.
 
I agree kitakaze. Why don't we all agree to start over with a fresh slate and try hard to keep our tempers in check (myself included).

As for the married couple, I don't know if Sweaty was speaking about me or not (maybe he read about my husband's sighting in the recent newspaper article?). However, for the record, my husband talked about his sighting on the BFF long before we met (which you can visit and discuss if you want), and yes, I believe he saw what he saw. However, since it was a long distance sighting, there is always the possibility it was a bear walking upright across a shale-covered slope or a human wearing all black during hunting season (which he admits himself).
 
If bigfoot is so tough to track, difficult to photorgraph, impossible to classify/catalogue, and facing impending extinction, how come they've been spotted in 40 counties in California over the past seven years?

RayG
Let's ask Dr.Scoftic. Doctor?

Dr.S: In a word... 'duuuuude'.:D
 
Hummm...in response to the conservation question, I guess I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with the goal of any organization being responsible and ethical conservation. Habitat loss is an issue for many species - and the species doesn't have to be endangered (right now) in order for a concern to be shown.

I do not feel any need to defend this clearly responsible position.
 
I agree kitakaze. Why don't we all agree to start over with a fresh slate and try hard to keep our tempers in check (myself included).
I whole-heartedly agree. I confess the whole 'k' matter has left a rather sour taste in my mouth and I'd much rather forget the whole thing. I'm much more interested in continuing a friendly and civil dialogue on sasquatch related matters with a person who has much to share from their experiences in ongoing attempts to research the subject.
As for the married couple, I don't know if Sweaty was speaking about me or not (maybe he read about my husband's sighting in the recent newspaper article?). However, for the record, my husband talked about his sighting on the BFF long before we met (which you can visit and discuss if you want), and yes, I believe he saw what he saw. However, since it was a long distance sighting, there is always the possibility it was a bear walking upright across a shale-covered slope or a human wearing all black during hunting season (which he admits himself).
For the record, in response to Sweaty's mention of the matter I made the implication that the account was shared prior to and not after you were married which was in contradiction with Sweaty's presenting it here. I also indirectly made the implication that he may have embellished the account on your first meeting to impress you which I admit was sheer speculation. I apologize if you find such a line of questioning inappropriate but such things do occur. Congratulations on your recent wedding and I wish all happiness to you and your husband. If you wouldn't think it intrusive, what is his handle at the BFF and where can I find his discussion of it prior to your meeting? Also, while you may doubt the sincerity, I would humbly extend an invitation for your husband to discuss his sighting here. You might be surprised but I think you'd find a rather different treatment than what is typical for people claiming sightings at the BFF.

Thank you for accepting an invitation to reboot on a good foot.:)
 
Hummm...in response to the conservation question, I guess I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with the goal of any organization being responsible and ethical conservation. Habitat loss is an issue for many species - and the species doesn't have to be endangered (right now) in order for a concern to be shown.

I do not feel any need to defend this clearly responsible position.
I don't and I think others here have any issue with AIBR's efforts at being responsible. I think once one takes a look at the organization they can quickly see that efforts at being held responsible are one of the, if not the, central goals. This is quite admirable IMO. I tend to think of the AIBR in some sense to basically have it's genesis as the anti-BFRO if you get my meaning.

I would appreciate if you could expand on the idea of ethical conservation where it relates to bigfoot. For example, given bigfoot's well reported presence in Iowa, how should one seek to contribute to ethical conservation and study of the species there?
 
About Kitakaze's list in post #2848:

I live in Michigan, not that far from Ohio, and yet I've never seen a Footsie that I know of. Why so many sightings in two densely-populated and throughly timbered-off states? 190 in Ohio alone!

Well, the answer is simple: The same few Squatches are seen repeatedly! They're flaunting themselves! Teasing! Flashing! Waving yoohoo from the edge of the woods! "Betcha can't catch me, nyah-nyah NYAH nyah!" and they're off into the brush.

Talk about attention whores! And here we're told that they're Wise Ones!

Oh, and Kitakaze? You're just an old spoilsport meanie.
 
For the record, in response to Sweaty's mention of the matter I made the implication that the account was shared prior to and not after you were married which was in contradiction with Sweaty's presenting it here. I also indirectly made the implication that he may have embellished the account on your first meeting to impress you which I admit was sheer speculation. I apologize if you find such a line of questioning inappropriate but such things do occur. Congratulations on your recent wedding and I wish all happiness to you and your husband. If you wouldn't think it intrusive, what is his handle at the BFF and where can I find his discussion of it prior to your meeting? Also, while you may doubt the sincerity, I would humbly extend an invitation for your husband to discuss his sighting here. You might be surprised but I think you'd find a rather different treatment than what is typical for people claiming sightings at the BFF.

Here is the thread (dated May, 2002). We didn't talk about his sighting when we first met, but he was impressive none-the-less! Thank you for the well-wishes, we've been married for almost two wonderful years! Bob doesn't post much anywhere anymore...too much else going on.

Thank you for accepting an invitation to reboot on a good foot.:)

Thank you for the offer.
 
For example, given bigfoot's well reported presence in Iowa, how should one seek to contribute to ethical conservation and study of the species there?

Publicly denounce bigfoot-tipping by the youth of Iowa?

Ask the public not to feed him corn, due to allergies?

Place bigfoot crossing on all farms to avoid death by corn thrashers? :p

I don't have an answer because I haven't given Iowa much thought (nor do I plan to in the future).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom