Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

Drewbot said:
Not really... most people consider Bigfoot a myth. Bigfootry is laughed at, and mocked throughout mainstream America.
Click to expand...

Just because the majority mocks something, it does not make it right.
 
mikeyx said:
That could easily be taken as a large insult Kit, maybe you should clarify.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a large insult to John alone or John, Dr. Baddour, and the New York police officer I mentioned? I'll clarify further. Dr. Galen asked:

Dr. Galen said:
Are there really that many hallucinators/attention seekers/bipedal bears/people in costumes/stumps/shadows etc. to regularly fool cops, doctors, hunters and so many others- even sober in broad daylight? Isn't that amazing in and of itself?
Click to expand...

I was trying to convey an answer that illustrated that nothing particularly amazing was going on. I asked how many actual reports were made that were more than internet fluff. Then because he mentioned cops, doctors, and hunters, I made reference to a huckster cop who swindled serious money from haplessly gullible enthusiast(s), a mad doctor, a would-be hunter for whom we don't have anything beyond "I saw what I saw" to set in opposition against the far more probable answer that his memory in wrong. Also, I mentioned a policeman featured twice on MQ.

I might have clarified for the reader exactly the details pertaining to each example but my intention was to stress that just because they are presented by Bigfoot enthusiasts with an emphasis on their title (police, doctor, hunter), that in no way is any guarantee of the reliability of their testimony. The fact is that within the ranks of Bigfoot reports attributed to cops, doctors, and hunters, you have crooks, kooks, and like in John's case, heavy indicators of perceptual distortion.

IOW, "I saw what I saw" vs very groggy, disoriented, nauseous, and 27 years ago.

I hope that is sufficent in dispelling any notions that I think John is a hoaxer.
 
WGBH said:
Just because the majority mocks something, it does not make it right.
Click to expand...

Conversely, just because a tiny minority irrationly allocate belief in that for which there is no proof or even reliable evidence, it certainly does not make it right.

A better question is...

Is it reasonable to think that all across North America roams, runs, lives, feeds, locates and communicates with each other, breeds, bears and raises young, throws sticks, rocks, boulders, and pinecones, roars like beast, screams like dying lady, emits powerful, overwhelming stench, routinely enters human habitations, gets sick, gets hurt, gets old, and dies a population of truly massive wood apes that would have done so during thousands of years of human inhabitance and be in the top three for largest land mammals in North America and yet have no type specimen nor a shred of reliable evidence for its existence there?

No. No, it is not. It is not a matter of opinion. If you think it is reasonable, your logical faculties and understanding of science is in deep impairment.
 
WGBH said:
In your opinion...
Click to expand...

This discussion after this might better be continued in the appropriate thread, but no, it is not a matter of opinion in the following regard...

You actually having seen a 9 x 6ft behemoth wood ape in a small corridor of woods in North Carolina 27 years ago is highly implausible/improbable. Known human conditions regarding memory and perception are absolutely plausible/probable. You denying it in know makes the slightest impact on scientific reality.
 
kitakaze said:
I made reference to a huckster cop who swindled serious money from haplessly gullible enthusiast(s)
Click to expand...

If you are referring to retired Whitehall NY police officer Dan Gordon, please provide your proof of him being a "huckster".
 
WGBH said:
If you are referring to retired Whitehall NY police officer Dan Gordon, please provide your proof of him being a "huckster".
Click to expand...

While he may not be a Huckster, he was likely a victim of misidentification. You would assume that, since he's a police officer, he is more credible than other witnesses, right?

WRONG.


Even police officers can be mistaken. It was dark out. If his sighting occured in daylight, I would have given it more consideration, but since it occured at night, his ability to identify something drops considerably lower
 
WGBH said:
If you are referring to retired Whitehall NY police officer Dan Gordon, please provide your proof of him being a "huckster".
Click to expand...

Really? I can't imagine you couldn't realize I was referring to Matt Whitton as the huckster...

kitakaze said:
Do you mean a large insult to John alone or John, Dr. Baddour, and the New York police officer I mentioned? I'll clarify further. Dr. Galen asked:



I was trying to convey an answer that illustrated that nothing particularly amazing was going on. I asked how many actual reports were made that were more than internet fluff. Then because he mentioned cops, doctors, and hunters, I made reference to a huckster cop who swindled serious money from haplessly gullible enthusiast(s), a mad doctor, a would-be hunter for whom we don't have anything beyond "I saw what I saw" to set in opposition against the far more probable answer that his memory in wrong. Also, I mentioned a policeman featured twice on MQ.
Click to expand...
 
makaya wrote:
Even police officers can be mistaken. It was dark out.

If his sighting occured in daylight, I would have given it more consideration,
Click to expand...


WRONG. :)


If the sighting happened in daylight....the 'mundane explanation' would simply have shifted from 'misidentification' to.....'liar'....or, if talking directly with said person via internet...'hypnogogic thing-a-ma-jig'.

(Just thinking of the 'analysis' of John's sighting report. ;) )
 
SweatyYeti said:
WRONG. :)


If the sighting happened in daylight....the 'mundane explanation' would simply have shifted from 'misidentification' to.....'liar'....or, if talking directly with said person via internet...'hypnogogic thing-a-ma-jig'.

(Just thinking of the 'analysis' of John's sighting report. ;) )
Click to expand...

Peeeyew! :gasp:

Sweaty, your farts stink waaay worse than little mak's, which, you know, can be pretty bad. See, oh boy, did you just let one rip, because you just flatly stated that the factor of daylight diqualifies the element of misidentification. You obviously have zero knowledge of Bigfoot hoaxes which occured in broad daylight. There are a number of things that can factor in. Just because it is daytime doesn't mean that your perceptions can't altered or distorted. There's trees, there's foliage, there's light, shadow, distance - all sorts of factors. Your immediate assumption that daylight cancels misidentification is a stark reminder of your Bigfoot fanatic status and strong will to believe.

*BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT*

Footer fart.
 
Jungle Jim said:
As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango." The BFers would not be able to carry on multiple threads for numerous pages if people were not engaging them.
Click to expand...

Same with all the other subjects that are incessantly argued here in the forums:

AGW
Electric universe

etc....

Methinks that when a BFer does a drive by, or AGW deniers post a litany of links, the folks here can't, just can't let it go...they have to respond.
 
kitakaze said:
Really? I can't imagine you couldn't realize I was referring to Matt Whitton as the huckster...
Click to expand...

OK thanks for clarifying for me, sorry about that. Also, I was not implying that you were wrong, I was just interested in seeing any proof you may have had. Whitten is a scumbag for sure. When you said police officer and Monster quest I thought you meant Dan Gordon.
 
makaya325 said:
While he may not be a Huckster, he was likely a victim of misidentification. You would assume that, since he's a police officer, he is more credible than other witnesses, right?

WRONG.


Even police officers can be mistaken. It was dark out. If his sighting occured in daylight, I would have given it more consideration, but since it occured at night, his ability to identify something drops considerably lower
Click to expand...

WRONG, here's a dollar, buy a clue.

The encounter involved not one but TWO police officers. The creature was witnessed at close range in the headlights of the squad car. The creature was on TWO legs and walked across the road in only four steps and stepped over a guard railing and into the wood line. Dan Gordon got out of the car, but his partner was too frightened to follow. He pulled his revolver from the holster. He went to the tree line and could still here the creature walking away. This is one of the most credible encounter stories I have heard.
 
WGBH said:
OK thanks for clarifying for me, sorry about that. Also, I was not implying that you were wrong, I was just interested in seeing any proof you may have had. Whitten is a scumbag for sure. When you said police officer and Monster quest I thought you meant Dan Gordon.
Click to expand...

Right, but when I mentioned MQ and the police officer, I was talking about Gordon. His story has been re-enacted twice on two separate episodes of the show. One was the NY Bigfoot episode and the other I can't recall exactly and don't have time to find it but will link it if I can.
 
WGBH said:
WRONG, here's a dollar, buy a clue.

The encounter involved not one but TWO police officers. The creature was witnessed at close range in the headlights of the squad car. The creature was on TWO legs and walked across the road in only four steps and stepped over a guard railing and into the wood line. Dan Gordon got out of the car, but his partner was too frightened to follow. He pulled his revolver from the holster. He went to the tree line and could still here the creature walking away. This is one of the most credible encounter stories I have heard.
Click to expand...

Come meet me over in "Anybody Seen One?"

My question is two officers, OK. What does the other one think?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4895060#post4895060
 
Last edited:
Since there were two police officers involved and one of them attempted to engage what they saw and the other was too frightened to leave the vehicle - what further investigation was done by the authorities?

They must have made an official report immediately after the incident. After all - they were two police officers on duty on patrol - therefore it is a police incident.

Do they have copies of the offical incident report(s) done by BOTH officers complete with file number? (or whatever they call their official documentation and use as a tracking system).

Longtabber and I have posted on this type of thing before. If there is no offical paperwork signed by the police officer(s) - then it is nothing more than a story. Period.

There is a huge difference between a story and an official report. When a LEO generates an official report - he/she is putting his/her credibility and career on the line if he/she exagerating or lying.
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
Since there were two police officers involved and one of them attempted to engage what they saw and the other was too frightened to leave the vehicle - what further investigation was done by the authorities?

They must have made an official report immediately after the incident. After all - they were two police officers on duty on patrol - therefore it is a police incident.

Do they have copies of the offical incident report(s) done by BOTH officers complete with file number? (or whatever they call their official documentation and use as a tracking system).

Longtabber and I have posted on this type of thing before. If there is no offical paperwork signed by the police officer(s) - then it is nothing more than a story. Period.

There is a huge difference between a story and an official report. When a LEO generates an official report - he is putting his credibility and career on the line if he exagerating or lying.
Click to expand...

What triggers the need for a report? For example, does seeing something cross a road require such a report?
 
rockinkt said:
Since there were two police officers involved and one of them attempted to engage what they saw and the other was too frightened to leave the vehicle - what further investigation was done by the authorities?

They must have made an official report immediately after the incident. After all - they were two police officers on duty on patrol - therefore it is a police incident.

Do they have copies of the offical incident report(s) done by BOTH officers complete with file number? (or whatever they call their official documentation and use as a tracking system).

Longtabber and I have posted on this type of thing before. If there is no offical paperwork signed by the police officer(s) - then it is nothing more than a story. Period.

There is a huge difference between a story and an official report. When a LEO generates an official report - he/she is putting his/her credibility and career on the line if he/she exagerating or lying.
Click to expand...

They were told to keep their mouths shut by superiors . Gordon only talked about it after he retired. Not sure about the other officer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom