See-Te-Cah NC

Steering Committee
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,459 Mythical

About See-Te-Cah NC

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/01/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

9,624 profile views
  1. Hey Gary!

    Congrats on your new position on SC!! How have things been going for you?


    1. See-Te-Cah NC

      See-Te-Cah NC


      Thanks, Aaron. Things are going well... lots of changes in life. I hope you're doing well.


    2. AaronD


      Same here! Movie taking up most of my time. I'll email you a short clip we shot's a rough edit so voices aren't balanced out with ambient noise, no music scored yet etc but you can get the jist

    3. See-Te-Cah NC

      See-Te-Cah NC

      I look forward to it. Thanks.


  2. I voted that it doesn't exist. That's because it really doesn't, technically speaking, of course. My interest in the subject was inspired by a sighting by my own mother. Really, if your mother says she saw one you believe her. I do believe her, although I'm beginning to wain a bit. Zero proof, negligible evidence, and a subculture that claims that they do everything from pilot UFOs to communicate telepathically. Unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim is all we ever seem to get. The subject has become a joke to many in the mainstream. I want it to exist, but as of now it doesn't. Everything else is speculative.
  3. Agreed, but that plan needs to encompass a myriad of possibilities for dealing with the unexpected. After all, you're not dealing with just one entity. It's possible you could have to contend with "players" that would render the concerns about government statutes and hunting laws as insignificant after a body is taken. You must consider that it's possible the creatures are intelligent enough to defend themselves and retaliate if a troop member is taken. That's not fact, you understand. It's a possibility, even if it's not a probability. Since we have no way to know without definitive evidence or concrete proof it's prudent to, as you say, have a plan. You'd need to be able to defend yourself and the specimen for as long as is necessary. Ape Canyon, if true, is an indication of this possibility. It would be a shame to plan for anything else if you can't get the specimen out without dying.
  4. Why would it be a problem to shoot an undocumented, unproven creature? Heck, we can't even get a clear video of the creature as of late. Every previous claim that someone has shot the creature remains unfounded. Why is that? Maybe it's because the creature doesn't exist. Actually, it doesn't exist, scientifically speaking, anyway. Put one on a slab and let the chips fall where they may. If not, all we have are unfounded claims of Bigfoot begging for garlic and other silliness, such as cloaking. I do agree that caution should be used if/when one were to be taken. Who knows what pathogens they have that could cross contaminate humans.
  5. Nah, we all know the government would never cover up anything! LOL! As for taking a specimen, that's not for the faint of heart, nor the foolish. Of course, the same could be said of anyone that's willing to don a suit and traipse around in the woods. I hear MANY accounts of the creatures being as thick as hair on a dog's back all over the place. They steal all of the fruit out of orchards, communicate with humans by using telepathy, put pine cones on top of cars to convey a special message... heck, there are some that can't even step off of their back porch without stumbling over the entire lot of the creatures that are there to gift crystals, etc., as well as to collect the gifts that they receive from the human "sages." Couldn't one of these "Squatch Whisperers" at least take a clear photo of one of the many in the troupe? If we can't even get a clear photo or any genetic evidence when these things appear to be all over the place, we'll never obtain a body (harvested or already dead) unless we take a chance on shooting a fool in a suit, or unless someone is lucky enough to find a body. Wait - Is that a black van in the driveway? LOL!
  6. No, I don't imagine they do, although it would be great if the people telling of them ravaging their fruit crops did give a flip. Right, right... but Roger Patterson got lucky with one camera. Just a thought. One camera might be enough if there are multiple creatures stealing all of the fruit in a large orchard.
  7. Obviously, a trail camera would prevent such theft, or it would prove what's stealing the fruit. Perhaps those making such claims could give it a try. What have they got to lose? If the creatures are hungry enough they just might risk being photographed.
  8. I hate to say this, but I'll go ahead and put it out there - Evidence is paramount, and the Squatching equivalent to "The Three Stooges" is only further distancing those that are earnestly searching for evidence from the comically-saddening, doltish sitcoms that never show anything but how ignorant Bigfooters are. Therefore, we need to put one on a slab and do away with the nonsense.
  9. How can you argue when you know nothing about what the forum staff does? The bottom line is that I won't stand such assertions of unfair treatment of our members by the staff. By the way, if we were dead set against habbers and their claims, why is there a user-friendly subforum where habbers are free to discuss their supposed daily interactions with the forest people? You've made some pretty bizarre claims in that thread, yet you've not been banned, or even threatened with such. This fact alone shows that your claims of malfeasance are without merit.
  10. No, your assertion is incorrect yet again. Besides, no matter how often they were goaded they have the responsibility to react within the rules. There's a report button at the bottom of each post, and these members could simply report any inappropriate goading. At that point, the forum staff could deal with it appropriately. Many of the members you speak of chose to deal with their doubters by posting responses that were outside the forum's rules. As you know, responding to a post inappropriately, or responding to inappropriate content instead of reporting it, can lead to the responding member being assessed warning points, which can lead to an eventual ban, Again, you're asserting that these poor, innocent members (that happen to hold your viewpoint) were ushered out for their beliefs. Yet again, I'm telling you that this isn't true. While you're certainly welcome to your own opinions and beliefs, you're not entitled to your own facts. They weren't victims, no matter how you attempt to preset them in that light. Nobody on the staff is singling out these poor habbers for their claims.
  11. They were banned for what, for telling others of their experiences? I think not. Like all of our members, they're expected to post according to the rules. If they don't, like any other member, they could be banned. It's behavior that will eventually lead to a ban, not what they believe or the claims they make. We work with all members regardless of their stance on the matter. We have bent over backwards to help unruly members, which is something the membership never gets to see. Yet if they still refuse to comply with the rules, they are eventually banned. Nobody is or was ever banned for claiming that they were habituating with Bigfoot. It just didn't, nor will it ever happen. Your assertion is simply incorrect. The forum staff won't be blamed for anyone's exit. Your assertion that they were banned because they claimed habituation isn't fair. It's not accurate, either.
  12. Moderator's Note: The topic "New Study Shows Gigantopithecus Was Strict Vegetarian" was merged into this existing topic.
  13. Perhaps they weren't looking for the ceolacanth because they "knew" that they were right... empirically. While the two may not be comparable, the science aspect can certainly be compared. Science was wrong in that instance regardless of whether you feel it was a correct comparison. It can be wrong in this instance, too, although science isn't claiming the creature can't be real. The denialists are using the lack of scientifically-accepted evidence to show "proof" that the creature can't (or doesn't) exist, while science simply refuses to recognize the creature's existence until proper proof is brought forward to substantiate it. It seems that science is more open minded than you appear to be. Present your evidence according to our rules and guidelines. Respect the presence of those with a differing opinion without continually degrading their opinions. Is it really that hard? As you know, I myself am skeptical of most of the evidence presented regarding the phenomenon. However, I can simply choose to overlook what I don't believe without pounding my point of view relentlessly over and over again.
  14. Well, so be it, then. If you choose to take one for the team based on a complete misrepresentation of what I said, then there's little I can, or will, do to prevent your departure. If science can't even present a logical argument based on fossilized remains of an extant fish species, then perhaps your opinion is without merit. Maybe they made up their findings? You've completely glossed over the fact that the imperial science you continually tout was in great error. Why is that? Nobody's asking you to believe in Bigfoot. However, I'm asking that you, and others that share your belief, refrain from presenting your "facts" in such a manner as to disrupt the forum and its participants.
  15. Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. I believe you mean to say that not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim as of yet. I'd like to point out another fact - Science has misinterpreted physical evidence in the past. Anthropologists may well have evidence of Sasquatch in the form of ancient hominid remains. However, they, in an attempt to keep their consensus viewpoint of human evolution tidy, they've determined that the remains of the creatures found are "human ancestors." After all, I know that they've claimed that the remains of the coelacanth was presented by the scientific community as being extinct some 65 million years ago, and that it had evolved, its bony fins changing into limbs, and the creature developing lungs. Someone forgot to tell the fishermen off of the coast of Madagascar those "facts" because they'd been catching and eating them for years! Ooopsie! With this said, I'd be careful touting scientific fact, especially when you seem to enjoy handling this scientific fact like an 8 year old playing with a loaded firearm. Your intent isn't with keeping our rules insofar as this being a Bigfoot forum, and that for your viewpoint to be considered you must also be considerate of the viewpoint of those that believe that the creature can, might, or does exist. While you're welcome to your opinion, it's not the standard that our forum members ascribe to, nor is it anymore factual that those you appear to hold a hard line against regarding their claims, as well as the belief they've formed based on these claims. You weren't there, and for you to appoint yourself as qualified to evaluate claims, evidence, and facts is the height of closed-mindedness. Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. For this statement to be accurate, you must also concede that science, as in the example of the coelacanth above, was proven to be wrong, and that those "facts" were the result of some of the "best in the business" not only being fooled, but presenting their incorrect evaluation of "forensic evidence" as fact. If bigfoot proponents and their "best" can be fooled, and therefore wrong, then so can you and those you consider to be experts in the factual evaluation of forensic evidence. If anecdotes are simply stories, what would you call the incorrect analysis, evaluation and presentation of incorrect interpretation of the forensic evidence regarding the coelacanth? A fabrication? It appears that they fabricated, and presented, a story completely lacking in facts, wouldn't you say? You can tout science all you want, but their interpretation of evidence has been wrong before. What's to say that ample forensic evidence won't be found to support the existence of the creature? Just because you find the evidence lacking doesn't mean that it's non-existent, nor does it mean evidence presented already has been interpreted correctly. I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot. That's your right. However, I don't believe that he didn't. After all, I wasn't present when he claimed to see what he saw, and neither were you. Personally, I'm betting that he did see what he saw. There are no experts regarding the phenomenon. Admittedly, it's a huge climb to prove the existence of the creature. However, that's not to say that it won't happen, or that it doesn't exist. Your opinion, based on your facts, is beginning to wax old. Anyone can claim to have facts while waiting for others to prove them wrong. What I wonder is if you can respect the opinions and claims of others without wielding the air of superiority based on science. Put your claim out as it is above, but with "coelacanth" in the place of "bigfoot" and read it to yourself. Maybe you'll see what I mean. I doubt it, but just maybe you will.