Anyone seen bigfoot?

[Sidhe]

The thread about ghosts got me wondering if another of our great human mysteries has touched any of us here.

As for myself, yes it has! I'm actually a bigfoot researcher with a well known International organization, and I could tell you a whole lot of stories..

In fact I'm writing a book about my experiences now. Wild stuff, most of which I would not have believed a few years ago. How about you? Where do you stand on the existence of a large, bipedal North American ape?

[GoldenEagle]

Did you know that in 2002 a major asteriod came in within 120,000 km of colliding with Earth?

I know that this has nothing to do with bigfoot but it seems to fit.

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

The thread about ghosts got me wondering if another of our great human mysteries has touched any of us here.

As for myself, yes it has! I'm actually a bigfoot researcher with a well known International organization, and I could tell you a whole lot of stories..

In fact I'm writing a book about my experiences now. Wild stuff, most of which I would not have believed a few years ago. How about you? Where do you stand on the existence of a large, bipedal North American ape?

I want to believe, but I have a hard time believing any report now because we just would have found something by now that was total proof. To my knowledge it hasn't happened.

[st.cronin]

I was talking with a biology professor a year or so ago, and he said less than 1% of existent species has been identified. There's a lot we don't know about life on earth.

[Sidhe]

If you go out into the woods with me, in the right places, I'll get you some proof.

The chance of seeing one is pretty small, becaues they are faster than us, they see better than us, and they know all our tricks. Still we do sometimes see them when we go looking. And we have photographs and video of them, most of it at a distance and therefore equivocal.

But we get all kinds of other evidence, including footprints, hair samples, scat samples, bedding areas, stick formations, recordings of vocalizations that show unique differences from humans and other ordinary mammals.. and more!

One reason many of you don't believe now is the guy who said he was in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967. Long story short -- no he wasn't!

That doesn't make the film legit, but there are some mighty intersting things to see in it when you can look at a very good copy. The muscle movement alone could not have been faked in 1967. The only way we could fake it now is with a digitally enhanced image.

The proof will be coming along eventually.. one day someone will run across a dead one in the woods and take some good pictures, maybe get some parts out.

We've *almost* done that several times already -- we've gotten the reports from people who have found a carcase in the course of their ordinary hiking or camping experiences. When we get there, however, the body is gone.

But these things are smarter than an ape. When they come across their own dead, they move them. I suspect they either bury them or put them somewhere we can't look.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If you go out into the woods with me, in the right places, I'll get you some proof.

The chance of seeing one is pretty small, becaues they are faster than us, they see better than us, and they know all our tricks. Still we do sometimes see them when we go looking. And we have photographs and video of them, most of it at a distance and therefore equivocal.

But we get all kinds of other evidence, including footprints, hair samples, scat samples, bedding areas, stick formations, recordings of vocalizations that show unique differences from humans and other ordinary mammals.. and more!

One reason many of you don't believe now is the guy who said he was in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967. Long story short -- no he wasn't!

That doesn't make the film legit, but there are some mighty intersting things to see in it when you can look at a very good copy. The muscle movement alone could not have been faked in 1967. The only way we could fake it now is with a digitally enhanced image.

The proof will be coming along eventually.. one day someone will run across a dead one in the woods and take some good pictures, maybe get some parts out.

We've *almost* done that several times already -- we've gotten the reports from people who have found a carcase in the course of their ordinary hiking or camping experiences. When we get there, however, the body is gone.

But these things are smarter than an ape. When they come across their own dead, they move them. I suspect they either bury them or put them somewhere we can't look.

please tell me you're kidding

[sovereignstar]

Bigfoot exists and so does good sex.

[JW]

When I was in high school, some buddies and I decided to drive to Foulke, Arkansas, one night to find 'the Foulke monster', a local version of bigfoot that had been popularized in a third-rate movie. We never made it to Foulke, but did do lots of drinking. So I can only say that the results of our expedition were inconclusive.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

But we get all kinds of other evidence, including footprints, hair samples, scat samples...

Honest question here.

If you get these hair sample and such... don't we now have technology that enables us to determine the precise source of living material? We can do DNA tests on it to rule out things such as bears, or whatever else might be out there. It seems to me that if researchers, as you suggest, can go out and routinely find such physical evidence, then it would be fairly straightforward to do an analysis on it to demonstrate that it does not match up with any of the other species that we know.

What's missing in this logic?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I was talking with a biology professor a year or so ago, and he said less than 1% of existent species has been identified. There's a lot we don't know about life on earth.

How about among species that have a total mass of at least, say, 1 gram? I suspect we're doing pretty well in that regard... especially those that inhabit overland regions, rather than, say, deep waters.

Even if that statement is true, I'm not sure what bearing it has on large bipedal creatures wandering woodlands across the world.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If you go out into the woods with me, in the right places, I'll get you some proof.

The chance of seeing one is pretty small, becaues they are faster than us, they see better than us, and they know all our tricks. Still we do sometimes see them when we go looking. And we have photographs and video of them, most of it at a distance and therefore equivocal.

But we get all kinds of other evidence, including footprints, hair samples, scat samples, bedding areas, stick formations, recordings of vocalizations that show unique differences from humans and other ordinary mammals.. and more!

One reason many of you don't believe now is the guy who said he was in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967. Long story short -- no he wasn't!

That doesn't make the film legit, but there are some mighty intersting things to see in it when you can look at a very good copy. The muscle movement alone could not have been faked in 1967. The only way we could fake it now is with a digitally enhanced image.

The proof will be coming along eventually.. one day someone will run across a dead one in the woods and take some good pictures, maybe get some parts out.

We've *almost* done that several times already -- we've gotten the reports from people who have found a carcase in the course of their ordinary hiking or camping experiences. When we get there, however, the body is gone.

But these things are smarter than an ape. When they come across their own dead, they move them. I suspect they either bury them or put them somewhere we can't look.

Definately, I think that its only a matter of time before one is killed/ran over by a truck et. ala. It'll take some time though. I mean the Silverback gorilla was a legend until one was shot.found in 1900-10, and same with the panda too.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Honest question here.

If you get these hair sample and such... don't we now have technology that enables us to determine the precise source of living material? We can do DNA tests on it to rule out things such as bears, or whatever else might be out there. It seems to me that if researchers, as you suggest, can go out and routinely find such physical evidence, then it would be fairly straightforward to do an analysis on it to demonstrate that it does not match up with any of the other species that we know.

What's missing in this logic?

going further, in keeping with my post in the ghost thread, where i said "just because you can't explain it doesn't make it the work of ghosts", if they were to do DNA testing on these samples and not be able to identify the source that wouldn't necessarily suggest it's "Bigfoot". i'm sure you have to leave room for the logic that suggests it could just be an animal we haven't come across yet.

[sabotai]

Aside from QS's question of which I was wondering myself...

Originally Posted by Sidhe

The chance of seeing one is pretty small, becaues they are faster than us, they see better than us, and they know all our tricks. Still we do sometimes see them when we go looking. And we have photographs and video of them, most of it at a distance and therefore equivocal.

Most? Or All? If not all, any chance of posting the few that are not equivocal?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

How about among species that have a total mass of at least, say, 1 gram? I suspect we're doing pretty well in that regard... especially those that inhabit overland regions, rather than, say, deep waters.

Even if that statement is true, I'm not sure what bearing it has on large bipedal creatures wandering woodlands across the world.

He was specifically talking about worms (his area of expertise), but it also came up that there is no official registry of identified species, and that it is assumed that there are massize numbers of unidentified species in all environments.

I'm not suggesting there is a bigfoot, just reminding us to be humble in our exploration of the question.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

He was specifically talking about worms (his area of expertise), but it also came up that there is no official registry of identified species, and that it is assumed that there are massize numbers of unidentified species in all environments.

I'm not suggesting there is a bigfoot, just reminding us to be humble in our exploration of the question.

Fair point. Massive numbers, I can buy... numbers of massive species, not so much.

I don't suggest that it's a closed case, but the likelihood of these things actually running around without leaving even the first tiny shred of meaningful evidence just seems remote. I don't claim any expertise in this regard, my assessment is just based on common sense and the lack of any compelling argument to the contrary.

[st.cronin]

The thing about Bigfoot is that even if a species were discovered, it's existence would become prosaic, requiring the invention of another mythical beast. Bigfoot's reality is more significant in the imagination than in the woods.

[Draft Dodger]

for any TechTV fans, Scott Herriot is a bigfoot hunter - saw him quite unexpectedly on a bigfoot documentary one day.

anyway, no, I don't think it exists, and quotes like "The muscle movement alone could not have been faked in 1967" make me laugh.

[TroyF]

I'd love to believe in bigfoot. The two things that struck me about your post was what QS said (if there are samples, it should be really easy to test with the technology we have now) and this:

Originally Posted by Sidhe
The chance of seeing one is pretty small, becaues they are faster than us, they see better than us, and they know all our tricks.

How do we know any of this? They are faster than us, they see better and they know all of our tricks? Is the fact we've never caught one the only reason you assume these things? Are all of these things this smart? I mean, over the last 100 years we haven't had one of them born that was brain damaged and ran out into an open field when someone happened to have a camera handy?

Sorry, but I'm not willing to put an intelligence, speed or sight rating on an animal we don't even know exists. If we ever catch one and we determine these things conclusively, I'll bow to your skills in this regard.

One last thing: I'm not a natural skeptic. I'm not sure about ghosts, but I could see it. I think there are plenty of things in the world we don't understand and I fully believe some of the things we think aren't possible or things we think cannot exist will be proven. My problem isn't with the belief in bigfoot. My problem is saying you have samples and giving this creature chatacteristics which can't possibly be proven. One thing at a time. . . prove the creature exists, then prove its intelligence level.

[Dutch]

What are they gonna say about him? What are they gonna say? That he was a kind bigfoot? That he was a wise bigfoot? That he had plans? That he had wisdom? Bullshit man! Hey, man, you don't talk to Bigfoot. You listen to him. Bigfoot's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll, uh, well, you'll say hello to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you, and he won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say do you know that if is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you - I mean I'm no, I can't - I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's, he's the great bigfoot. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas...

One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics-----There's mines over there, there's mines over there, and watch out those goddamn monkeys bite, I'll tell ya. This is the way the fucking world ends. Look at this fucking shit we're in man. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. And with a whimper, I'm fucking splitting, Jack.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I've seen someone who is so hairy I thought he was bigfoot. Does that count?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I've seen someone who is so hairy I thought he was bigfoot. Does that count?

Was it at a county fair? County fairs always seem to have overly hairy men in tank tops.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Honest question here.

If you get these hair sample and such... don't we now have technology that enables us to determine the precise source of living material? We can do DNA tests on it to rule out things such as bears, or whatever else might be out there. It seems to me that if researchers, as you suggest, can go out and routinely find such physical evidence, then it would be fairly straightforward to do an analysis on it to demonstrate that it does not match up with any of the other species that we know.

What's missing in this logic?

Yes and no. One reason we can precisely identify some animals is because we have an extensive database, and a baseline, for that animal.

In the case of unknown primates, of which there are many candidates btw, the best you can do is say that it LOOKS like primate hair, but does not match anything we have already.

In the case of the North American bigfoot, the hair comes back as "human". For quite some time we thought that meant that either we were getting hoax hairs, or there was human DNA contamination. Contamination is very likely because the kinds of people who go out to collect the evidence are not the most careful technicians using only sterile media. We are trying to get people educated, but the problem is of course the people who actually see these things, and then run across the hair, are people like you guys who have no previous knowledge about bigfoot. You would not believe how many times I've heard a witness say, "I never believed in this stuff, but I know what I saw couldn't have been anything else."

Well recently we've come to suspect that bigfoot DNA probably is very closely related to human DNA. That's not as outrageous as you might think. We share about 95% of our DNA with our dogs, after all.

So what is probably happening is that we do not know yet where the DNA is different, so we don't test the right sequences of DNA to get a clear idea of how different they are.

So there is nothing missing in your logic, what is missing is our baseline knowledge of the mystery DNA.

And if you ask me whether someone is trying to totally sequence the DNA from the hairs we find, I know that this is possible if we have enough material, but the cost isn't free. Right now we have some scientists who are interested enough in the question that they donate their time for the kinds of testing we get done, but it isn't this extensive full sequencing thing.

In terms of hair morphology, we have shown pretty conclusively that there are unique differences between bigfoot hairs and hairs of other primates, including our own.

Bigfoot hairs look quite a bit like human hairs but they are always much more pigmented, do not have cut ends, and chemically speaking, aren't as full of crap as ours is (due to our diet).

So the morphological differences have been demonstrated, but we have a ways to go before the DNA is convincingly done.

In the case of scat (that's a polite word for "poop") we've gotten very interesting results that show bat, dog, and human from the same pile. One of those animals ate the other two.. Only the human probably isn't really human, since that pile was found in a place with multiple bigfoot sightings, hair samples, footprints.. a lot of evidence.

We are pretty close to a case that would convince scientists and I don't think THIS part of it will take long at all. Of course it will not convince everyone, because what do we know about hair morphology and poo DNA? Only a body will really convince.

I'm against shooting one, btw, even with a dart. We'll just have to turn up some remains.

[Zippo]

Now I am not saying it one way or the other, but I find it highly doubtful that these animals have been able to hide from humans for the entirety of our history. If they exist, we must have been able to find a dead corpse somewhere over the last hundreds and thousands of years, but we don't even have one?

[Tom E]

I thought BigFoot was a truck...

[Sidhe]

How do we know any of this? They are faster than us, they see better and they know all of our tricks? Is the fact we've never caught one the only reason you assume these things? Are all of these things this smart? I mean, over the last 100 years we haven't had one of them born that was brain damaged and ran out into an open field when someone happened to have a camera handy?

We know most of this through consistent eyewitness testimony. Several eyewitnesses have seen a bigfoot while they were in their car, travelling at speed. We have a set of credible accounts that put them able to move at least 30mph. We've gotten a few reports that they can even move faster than that.

We don't move that fast without a vehicle, and you can't get many vehicles in the woods that will help you. Maybe one of those Speeders from The Return of the Jedi..

We have video of one reacting to infrared light. You and I can't see infrared without special equipment. Their eyes are physically much larger than ours, so they'd collect light better at night, suggesting that their night vision is superior to our unaided eye. When we do get our night-vision on them, they react by getting behind cover. So obviously, they are seeing as well as we are with NV.

Note, nobody thinks they know what NV is, but they know what direction our heads are pointed, and they like to keep out of sight.

As for the last bit, we do have some evidence along the lines you suggest, but you won't see it. We can't release a video to the public that doesn't look like what they already expect to see. It would do more harm than good.

Which answers another question from uplist also. If we were in the same room I could show you a lot of cool stuff, but I can't put it up for general consumption on the internet.

I really believe that something compelling is coming down the pike, though. So stay tuned..

[Anthony]

well, i'll tell you one thing, bigfoot or not, you do seem to come off looking/sounding sincere, and you're not playing a joke on the board. hope you can provide some more compelling information in the future.

[sabotai]

One reason many of you don't believe now is the guy who said he was in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967. Long story short -- no he wasn't!

That doesn't make the film legit, but there are some mighty intersting things to see in it when you can look at a very good copy

Where could I find a very good copy of the film?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Zippo

Now I am not saying it one way or the other, but I find it highly doubtful that these animals have been able to hide from humans for the entirety of our history. If they exist, we must have been able to find a dead corpse somewhere over the last hundreds and thousands of years, but we don't even have one?

There have been anomalous finds over the short history of the US including bodies up to twelve feet tall. At the time of their being reported (all of these finds are from the 19th century) they were considered to be a race of giant Indians. These specimen have all been lost over the course of time. The interest in them lapsed for about a hundred years so this is not too difficult to understand.

Europeans and their decendants have many stories about Hairy Wild Men. One tale you probably had to read in high school was Beowulf. What's Grendel? A large, bipedal, hairy humanoid. And there are many historical reports of people having encounters with Wild Men of the Woods. At the time it was thought that these were people who had gotten lost in the woods and who had completely reverted to animal behavior. And grown a lot of body hair.

So there is a historical basis for creatures akin to what we are talking about speaking from the European side of America's anscestors. There continue to be some contemporary reports from Eastern Europe. Russian science, in particular, takes the question seriously enough, a little more so than we do in the West.

If you look to the far east, there are contemporary reports of strange bipedal creatures. The most interesting of these is probably the Orang Pendek. This is a creature that walks in the woods of Sumatra. It was long historically attested by the natives. When zoologists would ask them about Orangutans, they would answer, "Which ones do you mean? The small ones with the puffed out faces, the larger ones, or the really big ones who walk like men?"

Oftentimes what we consider to be mythical is well known to native inhabitants.

Which brings me to native North Americans. The belief in bigfoot as a real living creature was widespread and crossed the continent. They've tried to tell us, but we haven't listened. Many of them considered bigfoot to be a race of large hairy Indians who have language and culture and who can be reasoned with, but who were too unpredictable and strong to be trusted.

If we do have bigfoot here, it didn't come from Europe with us. It probably travelled across the bering strait with many of the first human inhabitants of this continent. Bigfoot does share some similarities with a known extinct primate, gigantopithecus. There are physical remains of this ancient relative of the orangutan -- a creature that could stand 8' or more tall, and is nearly universally thought to have been bipedal.

Ok, that's enough of that. I don't need to change anyone's mind -- it doesn't matter whether people believe or not after all, it will either be found, or it will turn out to be something other than a real animal. I only wanted a good survey of belief here. And I did wonder if anyone would admit to having seen one..

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

well, i'll tell you one thing, bigfoot or not, you do seem to come off looking/sounding sincere, and you're not playing a joke on the board. hope you can provide some more compelling information in the future.

Thanks. When I get something good that I can share, I'll be sure to post a link to it here.

[sovereignstar]

Look! I found him!!

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Thanks. When I get something good that I can share, I'll be sure to post a link to it here.

I enjoy reading any information about this topic, so any other links you could provide would be sweet. Bigfoot has intrigued me since I was a kid..

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

I enjoy reading any information about this topic, so any other links you could provide would be sweet. Bigfoot has intrigued me since I was a kid..

Here's a bunch of links I just pulled from my bookmarks. Have a look around and you may find some interesting things. Not all of them are exclusively about bigfoot though..

http://www.bfro.net/
http://www.cryptozoology.com/
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/
http://paranormal.about.com/od/bigfo...?terms=bigfoot
http://www.bigfoottimes.net/
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/cb/1978.html
http://s9.invisionfree.com/sasquatchwatch/index.php?

[LoneStarGirl]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Bigfoot exists and so does good sex.

Good sex exists? Surely you jest!

[condors]

I thought it was a hoax but while visting my high school friend in Florida we saw what they call the Flordia Skunk Ape. He said its a version or relative of Bigfoot. What we saw wasn't as big as i would have thought but it was fast and i am sure strong was around 5 feet tall but it was bipedal hairy and smelly.

[Solecismic]

When you find him, I hope you make him return Dodger's remote.

I'm quite skeptical about magical phenomena that requires statements like "they don't want to be seen." I'm sure there are plenty of species out there that remain unstudied and relatively unknown. Not so sure any of those species are all that much bigger than a bowl of corn flakes or live out of water.

[QuikSand]

Your explanations above, I'll admit, get beyond any degree of understanding of DNA testing and the like that I may possess... so I can neither criticize nor truly accept it on my own.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

We are pretty close to a case that would convince scientists and I don't think THIS part of it will take long at all. Of course it will not convince everyone, because what do we know about hair morphology and poo DNA? Only a body will really convince.

I will, however, be very interested to see if this actually happens. I wouldn't claim to have the knowledge to assess these things, but it seems to me that if a respected team of disinterested scientists reach the conclusion that the evidence really is there ... I'm open to changing my mind on the matter.

As for this:

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You would not believe how many times I've heard a witness say, "I never believed in this stuff, but I know what I saw couldn't have been anything else."

And, of course, there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff.

For now... still not convinced. But thanks for taking my question seriously.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And, of course, there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff.

For now... still not convinced. But thanks for taking my question seriously.

Just want to point out that you accept the theory "there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff" without the same kind of proof that this is indeed the case as you expect for the theory you regard as less likely.

What you probably meant is that you have read that there are legions of these easily deluded folk. But do you know whose interpretation of events you've gotten?

I don't bother with that anymore.. I go out and look for evidence myself.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Just want to point out that you accept the theory "there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff" without the same kind of proof that this is indeed the case as you expect for the theory you regard as less likely.

Well now this is simply not true. Not speaking for QS, but I have seen people recreate "paranormal activity" or other kings of sightings demostrating that it is likely that people were seeing the kinds of things QS listed. People have shown how a heat mirage, light from Venus, bear cubs, weather baloons, etc. can look like what they are not and that they have accounted for many sightings of various things.

[Sidhe]

That's quite a leap from a limited demonstration to a general truth, isn't it?

"I have seen people recreate "paranormal activity" or other kings of sightings demostrating that it is likely that people were seeing the kinds of things QS listed."

What about your seeing a plausible recreation demonstrates "that it is likely that people were seeing" what it is more comfortable for you to believe they saw?

That is to put the theory before the facts. In fact, that's to make a theory that rules out a priori that these paranormal things might actually happen.

But I don't want to convince you. Carry on!

[NoMyths]

I honestly believe I have a better chance of running into Walt Whitman in the woods than Bigfoot.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Just want to point out that you accept the theory "there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff" without the same kind of proof that this is indeed the case as you expect for the theory you regard as less likely.

What you probably meant is that you have read that there are legions of these easily deluded folk. But do you know whose interpretation of events you've gotten?

I don't bother with that anymore.. I go out and look for evidence myself.

Well, I don't have the inclination to dedicate my own time to the search for bigfoot... so you'll always have that one on me, for what it's worth.


As for the rest of it -- I subscribe to Occam's razor here. When people in a certain area claim to have seen a UFO, and then upon further study there turns out to have been an errant low-flying weather balloon in the very same area at the very same time... I am not really at a loss. Sure, there's still some chance that the people saw a bona fide extra-terrestrial object and are victims of a weird coincidence. I am very comfortable, however, judging that one as a closed case in the "fully explained" category.

Is that a bias on my part? Perhaps it is. I think it's really just properly assigning the burden of proof. If someone wants to assert that there are little green men flying around and probing people's anuses... it's on him to demonstrate it to be so, not on me to demonstrate otherwise. Same goes for titanic-sized bipedal creatures who have cunningly escaped every verifiable sort of detection and verification at every turn for time immemorial. Burden of proof is in those claiming they exist, and I think that's fair.


All this, incidentally, comes from a guy who has a blow-up of Frame 352 on his computer desktop. Honestly, I do, and have for years.

[Sidhe]

Tell me that *you* are sure there was an errant low flying weather balloon and you'll see what I'm getting at. You'll accept one authority and not another (the witness, which often enough is someone whose credibility is as impeccable as you could ever want).

In the case of UFOs government coverup is part of the story. But that's a red herring anyway because we aren't talking about UFOs.

Bigfoot has not cunningly escaped every sort of verification. Not even close! It's very good at staying hidden, true, but after all, its best ally in that effort is the human mind.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Tell me that *you* are sure there was an errant low flying weather balloon and you'll see what I'm getting at. You'll accept one authority and not another (the witness, which often enough is someone whose credibility is as impeccable as you could ever want).

Not really. It's not about taking the word of one authority over another (which is what you seem to be doing, always beleiving the word of the witness).

The issue is that two people are offering two explainations for what happened. One says he saw a UFO and another, who works for...whoever it is who deals and manages the weather balloons, says it was a weather balloon.

Now, the guy who says it is just a weather balloon could show us radar images, maps showing the locations of their weather balloons relative to the location of the witness, etc. The guy who says it was a UFO, at best, has a really blurry photo. Now, most people seeing all of the evidence that the weather balloon guys is offering and seeing a blurry photo of something in the distance is probably going to come to the conclusion that it was most likely a weather balloon. Unless, of course, the person already fully believes there's some massive government cover up...

And then of course, you could just have one witness, with no evidence, saying "I saw a UFO" and another, with no evidence, saying "It was a weather balloon." Who do you believe? The answer is neither. The burden of proof does work both ways. Someone saying "No, what they saw was a weather balloon" has the same burden of proof as the UFO guy.

But, you see, simply because the weather balloon guy can't meet his burden of proof does not, in any way, prove or even support the UFO guy's statement. The UFO guy still has his own burden of proof to meet, and they never do.

However, it's been shown enough that many UFO sightings are actually weather balloons (with much more than just a guy saying so) or flares or blimps that when one guys says UFO and another says balloon, I'll lean to the balloon guy. Bias? Yeah, but not without merit or rationality behind it. I won't go so far as to believe him, but I'll lean a bit more his way. I don't put one person's word over another, I expect BOTH to prove their side. Inability for one to prove their side does not effect, IMO, the other's. But you can't completely discount history either.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Sidhe is really serious isnt he? I just dont understand how we have never even found a dead bigfoot, what are they fast, know all our tricks, have intelligence, and bury their dead? What about Big foot bones, a skull, anything? Its just nonsense.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Not even close! It's very good at staying hidden, true, but after all, its best ally in that effort is the human mind.

I read this (a couple of times), and I understand what you're saying.

I find it quite intriguing -- I don't think I have ever heard the argument of "gullibility" used by the believers rather than the skeptics. Ordinarily, I'd expect someone to be arguing against the existence of [insert supposedly unexplained phenomenon here] to be pointing toward human weakness in believing stories without airtight or even compelling evidence. Instead, I see you criticizing me (and others) for being too willing to believe the "alternative explanations" that offer a more ordinary source for the phenomenon.

I'm at a loss.

[SFL Cat]

I have a friend who is a wildlife artist who is also into cryptozoology. A few years ago, he was investigating a bigfoot type creature that has been seen in Eastern Oklahoma near the Arkansas border. He talked to a lot of people who claimed to have seen it, but none of them said they would go public because they didn't want to be be labeled as kooks. He also talked to a pair of good 'ol boy brothers who lived with their families out in the woods. They say they have seen several different creatures while hunting. They also claim to have shot one, but were driven away from the carcass by the others, who they said made God-awful noises and threw large stones at them. When they returned later, they said the body of the thing was gone. They said for several weeks following the incident, the things would come during the night and throw large rocks at their houses and one apparently threw a large tree branch through the windshield of their pickup truck. They would grab their guns and run out on the porch with flashlights, and the things would disappear into the woods. Things would settle down, but a few hours later they would return and begin the harrassment again. Needless to say, they didn't get much sleep during that time. After a few weeks, they say the incidents stopped and they say they haven't seen any of the things since. However, they can still hear them "hooting" in the deep woods every now and then.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I have a friend who is a wildlife artist who is also into cryptozoology. A few years ago, he was investigating a bigfoot type creature that has been seen in Eastern Oklahoma near the Arkansas border. He talked to a lot of people who claimed to have seen it, but none of them said they would go public because they didn't want to be be labeled as kooks. He also talked to a pair of good 'ol boy brothers who lived with their families out in the woods. They say they have seen several different creatures while hunting. They also claim to have shot one, but were driven away from the carcass by the others, who they said made God-awful noises and threw large stones at them. When they returned later, they said the body of the thing was gone. They said for several weeks following the incident, the things would come during the night and throw large rocks at their houses. They said the things busted out the windshield on one of their pickup trucks. They would grab their guns and run out on the porch with flashlights, and the things would disappear into the woods. Things would settle down, but a few hours later they would return and begin the harrassment again. Needless to say, they said they didn't get much sleep during that time. After a few weeks, the incidents stopped and they say they haven't seen any since. However, they can still hear them "hooting" in the deep woods every now and then.

As an innate skeptic, I don't have a particularly clear way to discount stories like this. To me, I just have a hard time understanding why someone would just "make up" such a tale, with all that detail. And there's really no way that the people could have just been mistaken, right? So, what's left? That this is a tale many times told, like many urban legends -- where the intermediate steps just get left out? (It wasn't really your friend who talked to the two guys, but rather he talked to someone who claimed he talked to the two guys, and so forth...)

I dunno. I suppose there are people who make up stories about this kind of experiences... but I can't realy understand why they would do so, especially when they are then reluctant to talk about them publicly.

[cartman]

I can understand how a body could not be recovered. If there is a small population density, say 1 bigfoot for every 100 square miles, then the odds of finding a recognizable body are quite small.

Think about how much wildlife you see. Not just the small stuff like rabbits and chipmunks, but also the bigger stuff like deer and bear. How often have you run across an intact body or complete skeleton in the wilderness? Sure you can see one that was hit by a car, but how many have you seen on a trail? My guess is not that many. Think of the population density of these creatures. For the small animals, it is in the multiple dozens per square mile, and the bigger ones like deer, it is 20 to 50 per mile, and the large animals like bear, it is one every 5 or more square miles. To run across a complete body, it would have to be fresh, before scavengers got to it. Once the bones are scattered about, the layman's eye wouldn't be able to tell the leg bone of a deer apart from the rib of a bear, especially if there aren't a cluster of bones to get a better idea of what animal they came from. If there just aren't many bigfoot creatures out there at all, then the odds of running across a freshly deceased body are quite small.

And also look to the many victims of serial killers whose remains are never found. They are smaller than the assumed size of a bigfoot. So the absence of a body is not necessarily an indicator of the non-existence of these creatures.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As an innate skeptic, I don't have a particularly clear way to discount stories like this. To me, I just have a hard time understanding why someone would just "make up" such a tale, with all that detail. And there's really no way that the people could have just been mistaken, right? So, what's left? That this is a tale many times told, like many urban legends -- where the intermediate steps just get left out? (It wasn't really your friend who talked to the two guys, but rather he talked to someone who claimed he talked to the two guys, and so forth...)

I dunno. I suppose there are people who make up stories about this kind of experiences... but I can't realy understand why they would do so, especially when they are then reluctant to talk about them publicly.

My friend has said that authorities often discount most bigfoot reports as people misidentifying bears.

[mrsimperless]

No I will not eat bigfoot poop.