It’s because a hoax “admitter” helps explain the relative dearth of physical evidence in the average cryptid case, supporting their suspicious regarding cryptozoology as a valid field of study. The inverse is true with bigfoot reporters, alien abductees, etc. Pretty easy to explain. I’ll leave it to you to decide if it’s fair or not. But for those who make amazing claims…

The first goes unnoticed by him because he explains away his sudden spasm of irrational fear as being down to him being a ‘scaredy-cat’ (though if he were really that jumpy he wouldn’t be able to concentrate on his own fishing never mind teaching others).

The second is that grab for the handle at the last moment because but for the claw marks and fish scales he’d've driven off able to convince himself his attacker’d been human (no matter how odd ‘it’ might’ve subsequently looked in the ‘rearview mirror’ of memory).

To be precise the whole thing looks engineered to create mental ripples in far wider audiences than just its experiencer (which’s why I’m slightly bemused by PoeticsOfBigfoot’s attitude because the name implies an awareness of the more surreal if not supposedly ‘absurd’ aspects of the whole Bigfoot – and ‘monsters’ in general – extravaganza).

Even the name of the ‘lake”s symptomatic of that ‘engineering’ because no one seems quite sure where ‘Thetis’ sprang from other than to attribute it to a ship which turned up there circa the 1850s.

Yet Thetis of course’s the EXTREMELY ancient Greek goddess who not only ‘transformed’ her son Achilles via the extremely torrid experience of dipping him in the fiery WATERS of the Styx (which sounds like the very ‘sticks’ the event took place) but is herself a water goddess who in between shape changing episodes (especially as her alter ego Metis) demiurgically presides over the path through primoridal chaos and the primeval darkness one plunges into by stepping off that path.

Personally the whole thing smacks of a boundary event ie the border created by the ‘lake’ and the land disrupting each other’s continuity facilitating the intervention of ‘non-normal’ possibilities.

In the days of the Ancient Greeks for instance individuals who underwent experiences like Jesse’s often felt themselves compelled to take up bronze swords to protect golden boughs and the likes.

So if he doesn’t fancy a career on the borders of the Twilight Zone he’d be wise to keep staying away from Thetis.

but! i still am leary of using the absolutes that only near-humans and birds can be amongst the culprits of observed bipedal behaviour simply because I do not feel that we _know_ everything just yet.
yes, statistically your reasoning is sound and dictates a probability, but not an absolute.

for the record, my gut instinct reading the report was that it was a human, crazy or mugger or other, running at his car. I cannot explain the fish scale smear on the door, but it is not necessarily the result of the antagonist bumping the car, just coincidental placement perhaps. The person reporting the incident was a very active fisherman and perhaps had left a scaly residue that day or a previous day when opening the door with dirty hands after an excursion. it is all just conjecture.

although it is not habitual, it is great to hear about other quirks of nature inducing (limited) bipedalism, especially in the cockroaches- thanks, Loren!

habitually, adv. by habit; regularly; custimarily.

So, Basiliscus does not qualify. Nor do apes, bears or even cockroaches. And no dinosaur has existed in 65 million years. What I’m saying is that whenever anyone describes a creature as running after them or walking bipedally for any extended period of time, we can be certain of four things; the witness account was in error, it was a hoax or the creature described was either a human or it’s close kin, or it was a bird. And nothing else.

Unless you think accepted zoological science is wrong. And can prove it.

On a different note. The museum looks absolutely wonderful, Loren. Need to figure out some excuse to come to Maine so I can see it.

I am deeply skeptical. I won’t rule out such possible beasts entirely, but I would like a body before I give it credence.

Hello. Yes, humans, birds, fossilized bipedal primates, they all indeed walked upright. But so did some Dinosaurs (T-Rex). However, it could be debated as to what we mean by bipedal walking to “walking upright”. T Rex did habitually walk in a bipedal fashion, but not fully erect. Therizinosaurus, however, walked in a bipedal fashion and upright, along with its kin (See “The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life” by Paul Chambers and Tim Haines, pages 122-23 (Notice the more upright stance depicted on page 122, in upper right part of the page), and also look at “The World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures, pages 312-313, to see Therizinosaurus and other Therizinosaurids).
And then you get into the tricky Dinosaur/Reptile/Bird situation (some see birds as “avian Dinosaurs” as opposed to the “Non-Avian Dinosaurs” that are now extinct. Others might say that Birds are descended from Dinosaurs but are not dinosaurs, just as mammals are not the same as Proto-mammals/Mammal-like Reptiles but are said to have descended from them.)
But I think Mr Coleman and Thylo have brought up other wild bidepal walkers/hoppers/runners to show that humans and birds/Avian Dinosaurs are not the only kings of Bipedal walking.

Another odd (though unnatural) example: dogs who have lost or were not born with forelimbs; they learn to walk upright. An odd, sad sight.