Do you Believe in Bigfoot ?

[bideau]

a Legendary Creature of RodeGrader lore, not to be confused with Magic the Gathering, that once existed in the hallow halls of the planet!! An image is said to exist but I have not located a copy yet... or have I?

The internet lives forever.

 

[Hawg73]

I was born and raised in the Fitchburg-Leominster area and spent a big chunk of my childhood at Leominster State Park. I have never heard it referred to as "Monsterland" or ever heard of any paranormal activities.

But perhaps I lived a sheltered life growing up.

:shrug:

I've never been, but after hearing some of Leominster native and author ("Monsterland") Ronnie LeBlanc's stories about the area I went to the LSP website to see if you can camp there. The park closes at dusk. No camping allowed. Might've been a fun night.

That guy hosts the podcast "Monsterland" with the aforementioned Matty Blake and skeptics would likely roll their eyes at their ready acceptance of things that seem whacky to most.

I happen to live just outside the edge of the fairly well-known "Bridgewater Triangle" which has been the subject of books and a documentary and I found some of those stories to be ludicrous to the point of being comical.

One guy, who lives near the notorious Hockomock swamp that is supposedly at the heart of the BT, tells a tale in the documentary of a frightening encounter he had while walking his dog at night. They ran across several "Pukwudgies" which are small, troll-like humanoid beings from Wampanoag indian lore that like to trick people into following them deeper into the swamp. And you are never seen again.

Anyhow, the guy apparently lived to tell the tale, but it was one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

I have an open mind, but some of this stuff is just hilarious.

 

[OJ's Glove]

I have an open mind, but some of this stuff is just hilarious.

Everyone likes to quote, "Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open." Which is true enough.


But the corollary saying which needs more exposure is: "Your mind shouldn't be so open that your brain falls out."

 

[PumpDee]

I gotta admit that this is a topic that's intrigued me for many years. There are now just so many videos relating to this that I find myself spending countless hours watching usually late at night when I'm bored but are so fascinating.

I'm wondering what your opinions are on if they exist or not. This guy has lots of great hunting stories to tell as he is a professional hunting guide and several Sasquatch encounters if you like this type of thing.

Here you go.

I'm glad you guys are finally sharing some real life experiences. I have a niece ,she's 43 now that is one of those people that can communicate with spirits and stuff and see's the dead. (So she claims). But anyway the only experience I can share is one that happened in November ,2009.

I'm in the panhandle of Texas and leaving a farm. The land to the left of me is nothing but a Huge ranch covering like 30 miles by 20 miles. It's getting dark just enough it's about time to turn on the headlights but not quite. I look to the left up in the sky and there's a huge light. It looks like a headlight but much bigger and brighter. It looked really odd to be a helicopter light and it was just sitting still.

I thought oh well just something different and I looked across to my right for an instance to look through the fields as I always like to look for wild shit moving around at dusk. I looked back over to the light and it was gone. I looked ahead and it was about a mile ahead of me just sitting there.
As I came down the highway ,when I got even to it ,it took off straight at about a 45 degree angle like it was headed to outer space. I watched in fucking amazement as the light grew smaller and disappeared. It was gone in all of 5-10 seconds.

Nothing I know of or have ever seen has the ability to move like that from standing still to warp 20. Our military doesn't have anything that could do what I saw.
I don't know what it was but I know what i saw.

So,....Big Foot, Aliens,....want to tell us what you think of Loch Ness for the Hat Trick?

 

[OJ's Glove]

So,....Big Foot, Aliens,....want to tell us what you think of Loch Ness for the Hat Trick?

The Hat Trick is actually belief in an upcoming Chiefs Super Bowl.

 

[patsRmyboys]

I'm sure an attitude like this is well-suited to actually ferreting out the truth.





Where. Are. The. Dead. Bodies. ???????

Since I'm not actively looking hope is about all it will be. Sorry if I like to think nature can get one over on us...

 

[Hawg73]

Since I'm not actively looking hope is about all it will be. Sorry if I like to think nature can get one over on us...

I'll say one thing about the possibility of Bigfoot existing.

If you're sitting in a house somewhere in the suburbs or any kind of populated area the notion of a creature like that seems pretty distant.

But, if you are deep in a wilderness, somewhere where the cell signals don't reach, the trees and mountains stretch on for many miles and help is a long way away then you might suddenly start to believe that maybe modern man doesn't really rule his environment quite as much as you thought before you left home.

Primitive cultures all over the world have for ages passed on stories about a huge, hairy ape man that lives where men seldom go. Russia, Australia, Indochina, All over North America and many other places. Stories that originated when these cultures could not communicate.

Maybe there is something in the human brain that deceives, that wants to believe that such, fairly specific creatures are real. That makes us see things that aren't there. Something in our DNA. Could be some protective instincts left over from primitive man-- who had to survive real monsters -- that evolution has left intact.

I find that notion damned interesting, but not as interesting as if there is actually an incredibly cunning, unknown species that desperately wants to steer clear of us and possesses extraordinary sensory capabilities that allow it to, just barely, accomplish that by living in places that makes contact very rare and all on their terms. Typically, the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.

Either possibility is on the table to me. Science finds previously unknown species fairly regularly these days and this one could be a great deal smarter than any of those because they are part human.

I just like a good story. Either way.

 

[OJ's Glove]

If you're sitting in a house somewhere in the suburbs or any kind of populated area the notion of a creature like that seems pretty distant.

But, if you are deep in a wilderness, somewhere where the cell signals don't reach, the trees and mountains stretch on for many miles and help is a long way away then you might suddenly start to believe that maybe modern man doesn't really rule his environment quite as much as you thought before you left home.

This is true, but it's not really an argument in favor of Bigfoot. it basically boils down to "It's a big world out there. Sometimes strange unexpected things are real. Who knows?" The problem is you can use that as a response to anything, real or imaginary. At some point you either have compelling physical evidence or you don't.

In the Middle Ages, seaman and explorers came home with stories about strange creatures from distant lands. Some of them corresponded to real things (like giraffes), but many of them were completely made up and are obviously bullshit to modern readers (like headless people with faces in their chests).

The world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and the chances of an unknown mammal larger than a human close enough to populated areas is really pushing it.

Maybe there is something in the human brain that deceives, that wants to believe that such, fairly specific creatures are real. That makes us see things that aren't there. Something in our DNA. Could be some protective instincts left over from primitive man-- who had to survive real monsters -- that evolution has left intact.

This is a possibility that actually fits the evidence better than Bigfoot being real.

I find that notion damned interesting, but not as interesting as if there is actually an incredibly cunning, unknown species that desperately wants to steer clear of us and possesses extraordinary sensory capabilities that allow it to, just barely, accomplish that by living in places that makes contact very rare and all on their terms. Typically, the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.

Either possibility is on the table to me. Science finds previously unknown species fairly regularly these days and this one could be a great deal smarter than any of those because they are part human.

This returns to the problem of evidence. When you have a theory about something, you don't just look at what evidence you have. You also need to ask what evidence you should expect to find if your theory is true, and if that evidence isn't there, it's a strike against you and you have to think of a plausible - not possible, but plausible - reason why you don't have it. Occam's Razor kicks in, and you need to ask, "Is this creature imaginary? Or is it supernaturally efficient and effective at hiding?" The former is WAY more plausible than the latter.

That's why I keep returning to the idea of corpses. Bigfoot enthusiasts want us to believe the following: There is a breeding population of at least thousands of these things in North America (ignoring the rest of the world for the sake of argument). Not a single one has died by accident (like falling from a height or into a ravine) and been found by a human. Not a single one has ever been killed by a bear and found by a human. Not a single one in thousands of years was killed by a Native American and the remains/bones kept as a trophy or heirloom to be passed down to us. Not a single one has ever been killed - accidentally or on purpose - by a human with a firearm, even though humans are often armed in remote areas, are hunting other animals regularly, and supposedly have "encounters" with them. Think of how many hunters stupidly shoot and sometimes kill other hunters by mistake, thinking they were a deer. Some people are dumb, and shoot first and ask questions later. More so in the middle of the night. No backwoods flunky ever shot one? Not one Bigfoot roadkill?

All that just strains credibility to the breaking point.

Do we have to say all other cryptids with a similar lack of evidence are real too? Like Nessie, Chupacabra, Wendigo and Mokele Mbembe?

Is "you never know!" a good response?

I just like a good story. Either way.

Me too. The world would be cooler if it was real. I'd be pretty excited if it was real. But you need to be doubly skeptical when investigating something you want to be true. That way lies self-deception.

To do good science, you need imagination and skepticism both. If certain Bigfoot enthusiasts "like a good story" to the point where Occam's Razor is ignored, then they're engaged in motivated reasoning and their conclusions are justifiably suspect.






.

 

[Hawg73]

This is true, but it's not really an argument in favor of Bigfoot. it basically boils down to "It's a big world out there. Sometimes strange unexpected things are real. Who knows?" The problem is you can use that as a response to anything, real or imaginary. At some point you either have compelling physical evidence or you don't.

You do if you happen to feel the need to prove that something unknown to science exists. I could mention that current science changes almost every day, but no need to overstate the obvious.

I don't need to prove that to be interested in the topic. I use my entirely non-scientific bullshit detector to determine if a story sounds legit or made up. I've heard plenty of both kinds of stories and not everybody that tells them stands to benefit from doing so.

In the Middle Ages, seaman and explorers came home with stories about strange creatures from distant lands. Some of them corresponded to real things (like giraffes), but many of them were completely made up and are obviously bullshit to modern readers (like headless people with faces in their chests).

Sure they did. Pliny the Elder wrote about giant squids in the 1st century, but we didn't prove they were real until a few years ago. BTW, Pliny estimated them to be 30 feet long, but some turn out bigger than that.

Still, people believe in all sorts of crazy shit. I used to work with a woman from the island of Nevus who believed in "headless horseman smoking cigarettes". She put the evil eye on me once when I pissed her off and it didn't work.

The world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and the chances of an unknown mammal larger than a human close enough to populated areas is really pushing it.

Agree with the former and am iffy on the latter. :shrug_n: However, "populated" is ambigous. The vast majority of sightings take place way off the grid. The stories that set off my bullshit detector tend to take place elsewhere and involve people that seem to have issues.

This returns to the problem of evidence. When you have a theory about something, you don't just look at what evidence you have. You also need to ask what evidence you should expect to find if your theory is true, and if that evidence isn't there, it's a strike against you and you have to think of a plausible - not possible, but plausible - reason why you don't have it. Occam's Razor kicks in, and you need to ask, "Is this creature imaginary? Or is it supernaturally efficient and effective at hiding?" The former is WAY more plausible than the latter.

It probably is, but I've heard people smarter than I (and possibly you) rationally discuss the possibility that Bigfoot could be a hybrid species comprised of early humans who mated with Gigantopithecus. And that latter species may have existed a lot more recently than was once believed.

But, science is about proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt. No argument. I just don't feel science is all-knowing and needs me to kneel at it's altar in all cases because I've seen it do too many radical revisions over the years. Scientists tend to be a strange lot who get quite defensive when their entrenched positions are threatened with fresh views and evidence. They want to be right and are frequently proved dead wrong.

That's why I keep returning to the idea of corpses. Bigfoot enthusiasts want us to believe the following: There is a breeding population of at least thousands of these things in North America (ignoring the rest of the world for the sake of argument). Not a single one has died by accident (like falling from a height or into a ravine) and been found by a human. Not a single one has ever been killed by a bear and found by a human. Not a single one in thousands of years was killed by a Native American and the remains/bones kept as a trophy or heirloom to be passed down to us. Not a single one has ever been killed - accidentally or on purpose - by a human with a firearm, even though humans are often armed in remote areas, are hunting other animals regularly, and supposedly have "encounters" with them. Think of how many hunters stupidly shoot and sometimes kill other hunters by mistake, thinking they were a deer. Some people are dumb, and shoot first and ask questions later. More so in the middle of the night. No backwoods flunky ever shot one? Not one Bigfoot roadkill?

All that just strains credibility to the breaking point.

That pretty well sums up the best possible argument against. No skeletons. I have a problem with that aspect as well. My cop out on the topic is the same answer I used to try to get from the Priest when I would cleverly stump him with a gaping hole in Catholic dogma he was presenting. "It's a mystery".

Do we have to say all other cryptids with a similar lack of evidence are real too? Like Nessie, Chupacabra, Wendigo and Mokele Mbembe?

Is "you never know!" a good response?

Me too. The world would be cooler if it was real. I'd be pretty excited if it was real. But you need to be doubly skeptical when investigating something you want to be true. That way lies self-deception.

To do good science, you need imagination and skepticism both. If certain Bigfoot enthusiasts "like a good story" to the point where Occam's Razor is ignored, then they're engaged in motivated reasoning and their conclusions are justifiably suspect.

I already said I didn't believe in Pukwudgies, so what do you want from me?

Good post.

Perhaps my "self-deception" is my enduring belief in my ability to ferret out deception using my BS detector. It ain't always perfect, but it's served me quite well over the years. I've heard too many detailed stories by folks that seemed entirely, absolutely truthful for me to worry that much about Occam's Razor.

That's how I roll.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

This is true, but it's not really an argument in favor of Bigfoot. it basically boils down to "It's a big world out there. Sometimes strange unexpected things are real. Who knows?" The problem is you can use that as a response to anything, real or imaginary. At some point you either have compelling physical evidence or you don't.

In the Middle Ages, seaman and explorers came home with stories about strange creatures from distant lands. Some of them corresponded to real things (like giraffes), but many of them were completely made up and are obviously bullshit to modern readers (like headless people with faces in their chests).

The world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and the chances of an unknown mammal larger than a human close enough to populated areas is really pushing it.

This is a possibility that actually fits the evidence better than Bigfoot being real.

This returns to the problem of evidence. When you have a theory about something, you don't just look at what evidence you have. You also need to ask what evidence you should expect to find if your theory is true, and if that evidence isn't there, it's a strike against you and you have to think of a plausible - not possible, but plausible - reason why you don't have it. Occam's Razor kicks in, and you need to ask, "Is this creature imaginary? Or is it supernaturally efficient and effective at hiding?" The former is WAY more plausible than the latter.

That's why I keep returning to the idea of corpses. Bigfoot enthusiasts want us to believe the following: There is a breeding population of at least thousands of these things in North America (ignoring the rest of the world for the sake of argument). Not a single one has died by accident (like falling from a height or into a ravine) and been found by a human. Not a single one has ever been killed by a bear and found by a human. Not a single one in thousands of years was killed by a Native American and the remains/bones kept as a trophy or heirloom to be passed down to us. Not a single one has ever been killed - accidentally or on purpose - by a human with a firearm, even though humans are often armed in remote areas, are hunting other animals regularly, and supposedly have "encounters" with them. Think of how many hunters stupidly shoot and sometimes kill other hunters by mistake, thinking they were a deer. Some people are dumb, and shoot first and ask questions later. More so in the middle of the night. No backwoods flunky ever shot one? Not one Bigfoot roadkill?

All that just strains credibility to the breaking point.

Do we have to say all other cryptids with a similar lack of evidence are real too? Like Nessie, Chupacabra, Wendigo and Mokele Mbembe?

Is "you never know!" a good response?

Me too. The world would be cooler if it was real. I'd be pretty excited if it was real. But you need to be doubly skeptical when investigating something you want to be true. That way lies self-deception.

To do good science, you need imagination and skepticism both. If certain Bigfoot enthusiasts "like a good story" to the point where Occam's Razor is ignored, then they're engaged in motivated reasoning and their conclusions are justifiably suspect.






.

Science is theory...so, prove science is real.

You can literally do this for most every subject.

/my.point.

 

[OJ's Glove]

I've heard too many detailed stories by folks that seemed entirely, absolutely truthful for me to worry that much about Occam's Razor.

That's how I roll.

To each his own.

I would argue science can't exist without Occam's Razor, and the average person uses it instinctively and unconsciously every day.

Sincere, truthful people can be honestly mistaken about all sorts of things. Not just the fact that they saw "something", but more often a mistaken interpretation of what they think it was.


I'm very open-minded and can change my mind tomorrow. One dead body would do it.

 

[Hogfarmer]

Never tried Occam's . Pretty much stick with Gillette's.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Never tried Occam's . Pretty much stick with Gillette's.

Occam is the most simple, straight forward razor that you can get...

Gillette is getting weird these days... :quad/espresso:

 

[Hogfarmer]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hN-DVx3-nWY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BY1401]

I don't, but I do like to hear the stories.

For the longest time, Indiana DNR brushed off reports of mountain lions in the state. "It couldn't have been a mountain lion because there are no mountain lions in Indiana" seemed to be their official position. Even after two confirmed sightings from trail cams were publicized, DNR officials said that didn't change their minds...it could have been someone's escaped pet.

Four years ago I heard a mountain lion scream while I was walking with my stepson on my dad's farm. Regardless of DNR's position at the time, I know what I heard, and I made him walk right next to me, and we stayed in the open fields.

I checked their website today, and it looks like DNR now accepts that there could be mountain lions here, but they claim that we don't have a breeding population.

Point is, it is entirely possible for a large animal to exist undetected in areas populated by humans. That still doesn't make me believe in Bigfoot, but if one were to ever be discovered, I can't say that I would be completely surprised.

 

[OJ's Glove]

Point is, it is entirely possible for a large animal to exist undetected in areas populated by humans.

Not indefinitely. How long did it take for Indiana mountain lions to be verified and acknowledged to be a real thing? A few years? By your own admission the authorities agreed what it was, but that maybe it was someone's pet. Maybe the authorities are right that there's only a handful of them so far, which helps in their ability to avoid human contact.

The difference also is that a mountain lion is an already known species that is simply spotted spreading into a new area (for whatever reason). They already have known populations elsewhere which are large enough to breed successfully. They've been unequivocally known to exist for centuries, with plenty of live specimens and remains already catalogued. People have routinely shot and killed them, and had the carcass to prove it.

The "Bigfoot" situation has too many differences from the mountain lion situation. I know you're not claiming they're the same, and I'm not challenging you directly or anything - I'm just putting my own thoughts out on the matter for comparison. I totally get your point.

I agree if an animal wants to hide in a remote area and be invisible to humans, it can be very successful in doing so. Just not 100% successful, and not permanently. Certainly not to the point of nobody ever seeing or preserving a dead specimen for several centuries.

 

[mikiemo83]

Not indefinitely. How long did it take for Indiana mountain lions to be verified and acknowledged to be a real thing? A few years? By your own admission the authorities agreed what it was, but that maybe it was someone's pet. Maybe the authorities are right that there's only a handful of them so far, which helps in their ability to avoid human contact.

The difference also is that a mountain lion is an already known species that is simply spotted spreading into a new area (for whatever reason). They already have known populations elsewhere which are large enough to breed successfully. They've been unequivocally known to exist for centuries, with plenty of live specimens and remains already catalogued. People have routinely shot and killed them, and had the carcass to prove it.

The "Bigfoot" situation has too many differences from the mountain lion situation. I know you're not claiming they're the same, and I'm not challenging you directly or anything - I'm just putting my own thoughts out on the matter for comparison. I totally get your point.

I agree if an animal wants to hide in a remote area and be invisible to humans, it can be very successful in doing so. Just not 100% successful, and not permanently. Certainly not to the point of nobody ever seeing or preserving a dead specimen for several centuries.

it real... the 6 million dollar man fought him!!!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't, but I do like to hear the stories.

For the longest time, Indiana DNR brushed off reports of mountain lions in the state. "It couldn't have been a mountain lion because there are no mountain lions in Indiana" seemed to be their official position. Even after two confirmed sightings from trail cams were publicized, DNR officials said that didn't change their minds...it could have been someone's escaped pet.

Four years ago I heard a mountain lion scream while I was walking with my stepson on my dad's farm. Regardless of DNR's position at the time, I know what I heard, and I made him walk right next to me, and we stayed in the open fields.

I checked their website today, and it looks like DNR now accepts that there could be mountain lions here, but they claim that we don't have a breeding population.

Point is, it is entirely possible for a large animal to exist undetected in areas populated by humans. That still doesn't make me believe in Bigfoot, but if one were to ever be discovered, I can't say that I would be completely surprised.

Couple all that with the very real possibility they could be nocturnal and sightings would be even less likely.

 

[OJ's Glove]

Couple all that with the very real possibility they could be nocturnal and sightings would be even less likely.

Where does a nocturnal biped larger than a human sleep all day? Are there enough caves to hide them all?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Where does a nocturnal biped larger than a human sleep all day? Are there enough caves to hide them all?

Depends on how many you think there are.

I’d put the number very low. And in the uber-wilderness, who knows. This still extreme vast spaces in the north virtually untouched.