Two local Bigfoot reports near me this past week

[enyawd72]

I've been on vacation this week so I haven't been listening to the morning radio news on my way to work, but I found out tonight they were talking about it on Thursday mornings broadcast.

Apparently there was a roadside sighting by a female driver on Route 84 in Geneva, a heavily wooded area with many orchards and vineyards, and prior to that a sighting in the heavy woods behind the radio station itself.

The radio station encounter was really interesting...apparently a local hunter had his dog with him when the dog began to act very uneasy and frightened. The man reported hearing large branches being broken and hearing strange human-like animal sounds he was unable to identify. Later investigation discovered freshly twisted and broken branches too large and high up to have been made by a person or bear.

The two reports are less than ten miles apart from each other and both witnesses wished to remain anonymous.

[wayne foundation 07]

That so cool ! How about I head up and we go looking for him. Thats some big empty space around there like he needs.

[enyawd72]

Don't forget to bring bacon and donuts for bait! LOL

Seriously...I enjoy watching that show just to hear some of the eyewitness accounts, but their methods are about as unscientific as you can get. I find Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz much more credible in their approach.

[Brazoo]

Bigfoot research certainly needs more serious science if that research is going to move forward.

I personally like Grover Krantz a lot! I think he was a cool scientist and an interesting guy. The trouble with his analysis, unfortunately, is trouble ALL great scientists are subject to when the refer to their expertise as oppose to remaining critical thinkers and following the scientific method. He examined foot casts and claimed that dermal ridges authenticated them. then he examined the Patterson-Gimlin film very closely and determined that movements he saw about the walk made it impossible to fake. He never tested either of these methods further in a scientific way though. He depended on his knowledge without setting up some kind of test to weed out variables for his methods. In other words, he didn't test his theory that he couldn't be fooled; he never set up a way to TRY and fool himself to prove it further.

People who study critical thinking can easily identify what he was doing as anomaly hunting. scientists are just as subject to thinking non-critically as anyone else. ESPECIALLY if they think they can just depend on their own expertise to verify claims.

It's the reason Newton chased alchemy for most of his life, and the reason Einsien predicted the existance of the universe wasn't finite. So, I think he's in great company, but I think this is the reason his theories never gained much traction outside of Bigfoot enthusiasts.

[MIB41]

I think their mistaking Bigfoot for his naughty cousin, appropriately named the "Claw". He goes through the backyards of North America breaking branches and upsetting pooches while leaving behind little to no footprints, unlike his more heavyset sidekick. He cleverly hides as an activist in Washington fighting against deforestation that is wiping out his cousins gig out west. God love ya enyawd72!