Claims on Monsterquest last evening that everyone in upstate New York who sees a bigfoot is having an illusionary event. Some people might be "seeing things". Some people might also be misidentifying what they are seeing, it might be a bear. (As suggested by that lcoal wildlife expert.) But, not everyone is seeing things or seeing something that is actually something else.

I thought Dr. Phillips Stevens was full of some of that turd we've been talking about on the other thread.

Maybe he should be shaking his pant leg.

JonZ

Claims of Bigfoot sightings in Upstate NY are hardly worth taking the time to research. I spent 2 years doing environmental field research in some of the wildest parts of upper NY State without a hint of Bigfoot. Not a track, sighting or sound. Saw just about everything else there is to be seen in the woods. And this was better than 20 years ago when there was even less encroachment from people. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but Bigfoot isn't there.

It may or may not be there, I'm not one to say...I for one am highly skeptical that this critter occurs in every state, I just can't reconcile that.

I do know that you walking around in the woods for 2 years and not seeing it is neither here nor there though, especially when it decides whether you see or hear it.

People have lived their ENTIRE LIVES on a tract of land and never seen it, until one day it pays them a visit or runs across their driveway.

I've spent more time in the woods than most...I grew up in the Sierras...I've seen ONE Mountain Lion.

It may not be in Upstate New York - but with respect, even if I was leaning towards no, you or anyone else's 2 years out there doesn't mean much.

Edited for grammar

Gambit

Two years anywhere depends on the nature of the where. My field research was centered around acid rain and its effects on lakes and streams and the effects on fish and wildlife. Since water is an essential for life all animals must seek out water sources. I was on a daily basis surveying lake shores as well as ponds. I found tracks and spore of every land animal in the region from fox to bear to bobcat to deer to human beings. Two years is a very long time if you're speciffically observing the environment. Bigfoot may be adept at hiding when we're around but so are bobcat yet it is not uncommon to find evidence of a bobcat's presence in the form of its spoor. Soft lake and pond shores are excellent mediums for spore imprints. I consider it an unreasonable assumption that Bigfoot/Sasquatch possess super stealth capabilities.

Crow
I respect your time spent in the field. Just curious though..
What do you make of the hundreds or thousands of sightings that have occurred over the last few hundred years? Indians who had absolutley nothing to gain from a sighting made claims to have seen them. Are ALL the people who claim to have seen BF lying?

The thread isn't necessarily about is there or isn't there Bigfoot in NY. Or whether someone has or hasn't seen evidence. It is more about skeptics and the blanket statements they make concerning the phenomena. Usually it comes down to two things: 1. misidentification and 2) a "dream" moment in which the person having the sighting is "seeing things". I have noticed that not very often does the topic of "hoax" come up from them, which might be a more plausible explanation since I doubt people are mistaking black bear for Bigfoot (sorry, they do not look alike), or that everyone who sees a BF is coming off percocet. (SP)

I don't necessarily believe that every state has to have its bigfoot either. But I do think that most of these skeptics use the same old, tired, explanation to argue their point. The guy on the show that gave the best explanation was the game warden/forester. "They just aren't out here." Is what he basically said.

JonZ

That Doctor was just saying the same thing I have said, Bigfoot is a product of our minds, basically.

And his reasoning is that Hairy Beast sightings inhabit every pristine environment around the world.

So search your soul and think 'what is more likely?' that humans have a propensity to 'see' hairy beasts in the forest?, or that an actual Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal, Swimming, Glowing Eyed, Primate is roaming the woods, just outside of our major cities?

I actually found the Game Warden's comment to be more offensive. He said something like (paraphrase) "... environmentally, its impossible for them to exist..." - which I think is an incredibly naive and sophomoric thing to say, and I believe totally erroneous.

However, holding a degree in Cultural Anthropology myself, I was intrigued with the notion put forth by the Anthropologist, and it is one that is familiar to me. Believe Systems are very powerful constructs, and the mind is likewise, with aspects that are not fully understood yet. I find the folklore that surrounds the sasquatch phenomenon to be just as intriguing as the zoological pursuit of its possible biological characteristics and taxonomy.

Fair enough.

Upstate New York native here (Herkimer Co.), and no, I've never seen any bigfoots in my own stomping grounds there. I did, however, enjoy pretending there were bigfoots in the woods with me as a boy, which usually resulted in me running back home at breakneck speed.

Perhaps paradoxically, the type of encounters that intrigue me the most are the detailed eyewitness encounters - the ones for which there is basically zero chance of any kind of misidentification. Either the person saw what they reported or they are lying.

One of my favorites is the story from the Adirondacks of a guy who claims to have witnessed a bigfoot smashing a tree with a good solid stick in an effort to scare a raccoon out of its den (or something like that). Once the bigfoot had its prey isolated and really freaked out, it eventually took hold of the raccoon and dispatched it in short order. These little glimpses of potential behavior - especially odd behaviors that upon reflection make a lot of sense (in this case, raccoon would be an abundant and valuable food source for a big animal, and the hunting technique sounds kind of plausible) - make me say "hmmm" even more than something like a footprint off in the sticks somewhere.

So if bigfoots are anywhere, I see no reason why they couldn't be in the Adirondacks. The region is huge, and the seasonal influx of city people tends to be concentrated in certain areas, making them relatively easy to avoid.

But I digress.

I don't have a problem with Dr. Stevens' statement. He's just presenting the mainstream science view of the bigfoot phenomenon, and there's no reason for folks to mobilize and go egg his house or anything like that. If one holds the opinion (as I do) that there is no flesh and blood bigfoot, then a significant number of reports need to be chalked up to psychological phenomena for which we have little understanding. But just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the discussion. This is the heart of mystery, isn't it? WHY do people all over the world keep reporting encounters with creatures that fit this general description, but these creatures cannot be reliably photographed or killed? Either there are populations of said creatures all over the world and they keep eluding us, or there is something deeper and psychological going on. My money is on the latter.

But, the part that makes this SO intriguing to me is that there is no good reason why such creatures COULD NOT exist. They are entirely plausible. Any supposed "expert" who spouts things like "there's no food for them" is a moron.

All I can add is that I have interviewed a very credible witness in person, former US Miltary Police who was part of a multiple witness sighting in Upstate New York in the 1970s. The meeting with this witness was by chance.

I have been unable to find any of the other witnesses, however I did immediately telephone the witness' elderly mother who still lived in New York to ask her about it, since she was with him at the time. She confirmed the details (as best she could remember anyway). The telephone call to the mother took place before the witness would have had time to speak to her.

Sure, they could have concucted this story in advance, or it could have been a man in a red furry suit, but why would they?


I've done a fair amount of hiking in New York along the Appalachian Trail, and yet have only once seen a deer, but I'm pretty sure they do exist.


It is worth mentioning for the sake of completeness that I have relatives who live in Upstate New York on the edge of a forest and mountainess area who have never heard of anyone in the area having an encounter.

And, let us not forget, two now retired police officers had sightings of something they could not explain, those being Brian Gosselin and Dan Gordon. These are men who are trained in observation, so even if you throw out the reports of other witnesses, it is a bit difficult to dismiss two trained observers' encounters. Plus there is a good deal of history of reports in that area of New York State, so these are things that are not quite so easy to dismiss.

One thing I'm trying to stress with reports like this is to consider the encounter on its own merit, and not let the source influence one's interpretation of its veracity. In the "Cryptozoology" thread, there's a link to video of a mangy coyote taken from a deputy's squad car in Texas. The subject is being billed as a possible chupacabra. That's right, a sheriff's deputy in Texas who follows a coyote at close range, videos the experience, and can't recognize that it's just a funny looking coyote. So much for "trained in observation."

Also, there was recently a story from a "now retired police officer" in Georgia that he and a buddy had a bigfoot in their freezer, but that story didn't pan out too well in the end.

Given that Matt Whitton was a *serving* police officer, I'm not sure any of us can point to a report from a police officer again and highlight their occupation to add credibility to the sighting report

Mistaking a mangy coyote for a chupacabra is one thing, but what are the police officers mistaking a tall hairy covered bipedal animal with? My point is that I can more easily see the mangy coyote-chupacabra mistake since they are so "close" in what is the accepted appearance nowadays, at least in Texas (although I DO NOT think there is any validity to the chupacabra stories. I think they are just mangy dogs/coyotes/etc.). But what did the police officers mistake the "Bigfoot" with? A tall hairy human walking around? Sure it's possible, but less so (IMO) than a mangy coyote. A figment of their imagination? Sure, it could have been... but both officers at the same time? The only other possibility for me is that they both lied about it. I don't know the answer, but I don't think the mangy coyote-chupacabra comparison is quite a fair one.

(just gimme a second here for a little sarcasm)

Two police officers lying about a bigfoot encounter? That could never happen!

(OK, I'm done.)


I'm not questioning that report (the one from NY); I actually find it rather intriguing. My point is that we shouldn't interpret encounters like this as any more or less valid because of some interpretation we place on the people who are making the claim. Now that should include a "within reason" caveat, of course. Kids under 12, drug addicts, city slickers - I might not place their encounters on par with those of say a Jane Goodall. But unless someone is not otherwise "impaired" or keenly suited to make snap identifications of wildlife in the field, I don't let the person's background influence my acceptance of the report.

My point about the Texas coyote/chupacabra thing was that police officers are trained in law enforcement, not wildlife ID. Their training shouldn't be interpreted as lending any credibility to a report over and above what we might extend to any sober adult.

Gambit, Only one mountain lion? That does not suprise me at all being in the Seirras they have a huge amount of open space. I live in the full urban setting but it borders on some foothills and I have seen four Mountain lions, one was way too close, and two Bobcats. Same with BF, go 150 miles into the woods and you probably won't see anything but go two miles into a compressed by development wooded area your chances go up. I'm wondering if you only saw one how many saw you? I agree that if BF is real I don't believe for a minute that they are in every state but upper NY is close to Canada so it opens the door to the possibility. But I agree just because a person has not seen something does not mean it's not there.

OK. That's the second time you've used the GA incident. Isn't there a limit on how many times something like that can be used in an argument?


I agree with you for the most part. I was just making the point that I don't think it was completely a fair comparison.

It's been too much fun to resist milking it a bit. I guess it's starting to lose its luster now . . .



To make it more "apples and apples" . . . If someone reports a 7' tall, 400 lb, hairy creature running on two legs in the woods, then I wouldn't place any more credence in the report if it was made by a police officer than if it was made by a cashier at RadioShack. The officer might be in a better position to describe fine details of the encounter such as "the subject appeared agitated" or "there was a patch of lighter-colored hair on the nape." But the basic gist of a two-legged, hairy, giant running through the forest would hold equal weight with me from both hypothetical witnesses.

That's a fascinating story, Saskeptic, a Bigfoot in a freezer in Georgia you say? Who would have thought of such a thing? Someone needs to start a thread about this, so we can go into it in a bit more detail.



Amen to that!

As a former LE officer - I have always held that no-one should be given a pass on credibility because of their current or former occupation.

That an unclassified, hairy, bipedal species of primate roams the woods outside of only some major cities that have significant woodlands nearby that are mostly desolate, but usually outside of smaller towns with low human population density's and adjacent forests and mountainous terrain-------- only because I saw one and know that there's no way in hell I could be mistaken, due to the subject's distinct appearance, agile movements, positioning and time I witnessed it (2 minutes) and either would you if you were standing next to me---but you weren't, so I don't expect you to believe me, but I figured, what the hell, I'd answer the question.

Can't say that they swim great or have glowing eyes however Drew, as I've never seen that

I also firmly believe that it's more likely for humans to have the "propensity" to see something intially appearing strange or unknown and relate that to a known animal their mind can comprehend, then for a person to see something they do know (a bear for instance) and all of a sudden have the "propensity" to turn that into what they likely previously believed was some mythical creature-------then have the "propensity" to run around and brag about it to many people they care about who either could care less or they could obviously anticipate them not being openly receptive (for lack of a better word)

But hey that's me........