norseman Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ^^^^ Agreed. Right up until you experience something contrary to conventional wisdom. I'm not blaming you, your mindset is certainly the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I'm about 20 episodes into Finding Bigfoot and have more than learned the format for the show. More than ever I am convinced that bigfoot is a construct of the mind, or misidentification when not a or outright hoax. It's kind of our imaginary friend that because of our brain wiring kicks us back to our wild hardwired early ancestry. Nothing with a physical presence can remain that elusive in such a universal range and not be brought in. I will give every bigfoot sighting it's place in the world but it's as they say theater of the mind. It's ancient parts of us tapping us on the shoulder from within in ways that make some believe it comes from without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ^^^^ Agreed. Right up until you experience something contrary to conventional wisdom. I'm not blaming you, your mindset is certainly the majority. Like so... I actually lived in a haunted house for a very short period of time, witnessed 3 UFOs so far, and saw a Dogman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) You give us U-mans waaaay too much credit Kit. We aren't really that good at making s*** up, and our imaginations really aren't that fertile. Mainly, we just muck along looking at the tops of our shoes and it typically takes a 2X4 to the slats to even get us to notice the obvious. If you have any facial hair, shave it off some day and see how long it takes somebody to even notice. Days, typically. We wouldn't know a BF in our backyards (or any other medium to large mammal) even if it sent us a certified letter. Have you ever walked with others in the woods? I'm guessing you have. Count how many times somebody either looks behind them or above them into the trees. Unless that person is a hunter (Surprise! Hunters see BF, a lot) that number won't be that hard to tally. Edited March 13, 2015 by WSA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ^^^This. Never mind that scientists are gobsmacked stunned, daily, by stuff that when I read it I go: Well if you hadn't made all those silly assumptions...and already they're making more silly assumptions based on the latest gobsmack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 You give us U-mans waaaay too much credit Kit. We aren't really that good at making s*** up, and our imaginations really aren't that fertile. Mainly, we just muck along looking at the tops of our shoes and it typically takes a 2X4 to the slats to even get us to notice the obvious. If you have any facial hair, shave it off some day and see how long it takes somebody to even notice. Days, typically. We wouldn't know a BF in our backyards (or any other medium to large mammal) even if it sent us a certified letter. Have you ever walked with others in the woods? I'm guessing you have. Count how many times somebody either looks behind them or above them into the trees. Unless that person is a hunter (Surprise! Hunters see BF, a lot) that number won't be that hard to tally. The Cascades Carnivore Project does not have a short attention span. "We aren't really that good at making s*** up, and our imaginations really aren't that fertile." This happened today in Bigfootery. Missed the part about Dogman, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ^ Personally, I wouldn't waste my time on 'empty pockets'. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I ask these questions to myself, why would they continue to hang around area X after being shot at several times by the NAWAC. Or for that matter others too many to mention who have claimed to shoot them at close range, and the creature just gets out of dodge. I am puzzled at this, and it does not fit with the retribution scenario that I too think could follow. Maybe it is just the fear that is produced at the time, they fear the gun and steer clear. In the absence of guns they eventually return, as in area X, so maybe they do not see the humans as so dangerous, just the gun. It is odd that they also would come around hunters and steal their deer, incidence where they are attracted to the gunfire to obtain easy food. It is a puzzling picture. It suggests a slightly different notion of their intelligence then some want to believe, or could it be that they just don't get that we are trying to harm them? If they have thick skin like an elephant it's possible that the guns aren't a real threat. Like you said they might associate guns with the hunter's kill as an easy meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Yes, like so... http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.jp/ Smack in the middle of Bigfoot country. When something goes hundreds of years without a stitch of reliable evidence, it rightly becomes considered as such. You need not ever actually look for Bigfoot. Build two of the largest industrial nations in the world and if there's something there, it will be found just like every other actual living large mammal. Well that’s not factually true is it? … by one agency’s best estimate there are over 2.7 million active fugitives (warrants) according to a quasi-governmental agency funded by U.S. Justice Department, says the National Crime Information Center, (NCIC). Millions of large mammals being sought, not found, in one of the largest most technologically advanced countries in the world. The numbers are staggering! Realistically though, the figures presented above are only as accurate as the agencies reporting not including those who don’t for reasons they only know. Like Sasquatch, some wanted persons live and die off the grid and are never found. You take other third world countries for example and their numbers of large mammals on the lamb are much greater, then multiply that times every mammal fugitive across the world and you get the picture. This animal is an extraordinary creature in the sense that it shocks the senses and disturbs people emotionally; its mere existence is one rife with untold unknowns stirring more questions and controversy than answers some would rather be left alone. It’s very much like if I look under the bed, I will determine with certainty that dust either exists or doesn't exist. Therefore, it's best I don't look there. That’s an example of objective self-fulfilling opinion. While some may fret over this animal or plant facing extinction, others will argue 86 percent of the earth’s species are still unknown … Then other science claims 20,000 new species are discovered in just one year alone. That is thousands of plants or animals previously unknown when you or I were born are just being discovered … I enjoy reading your posts Kit, we don't always agree but I do find myself nodding in agreement with you from time to time. - Just saying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 14, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) The Cascades Carnivore Project does not have a short attention span. "We aren't really that good at making s*** up, and our imaginations really aren't that fertile." This happened today in Bigfootery. Missed the part about Dogman, yes? Maybe BF is smarter than the guy that stole all the WFG wildlife cameras except the one that took his picture? Just saying. Edited March 14, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 The beauty of such endeavors is that we keep on undertaking them, blind as we might be, the need for discovery, the drive for protection. These endeavors of 2015 The NAWAC , The GRENDALPROJECT, The Falcon Project, and others of many kinds of smaller groups. I think that we shall take a large step closer this year, unless the creatures decide to boycott our efforts, a perfect storm of technology and the sasquatch are bearing down upon each other, that is my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 This past hunting season I observed our powers of observation first hand. I was walking up a logging road to the area I chose to hunt that day, when I heard some motorcycles coming down the road toward me. I stepped off the road 10' between a couple 8" trees about 20 feet apart. There was no concealing brush around me, I was just out of their straight ahead line of sight. I counted 14 riders as they went by me. Not a one of them glanced to their left just slightly enough to notice me standing there! I wondered to myself as I stepped back into the road behind them if any of them would see anything besides trees, trails and other riders that day. I felt it was a good example of the average person's powers of observation. But, then maybe I also missed seeing something that day as well. ☺ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The beauty of such endeavors is that we keep on undertaking them, blind as we might be, the need for discovery, the drive for protection. These endeavors of 2015 The NAWAC , The GRENDALPROJECT, The Falcon Project, and others of many kinds of smaller groups. I think that we shall take a large step closer this year, unless the creatures decide to boycott our efforts, a perfect storm of technology and the sasquatch are bearing down upon each other, that is my opinion. The real beauty is that it, the Bigfoot hunt has evolved from a handful of individuals (Green, Dehinden, Patterson et. al ) walking us through the 60s and 70s into hundreds of organized groups with technologies far beyond what most could only dream of in the early to mid-1800s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) All sounds good...but you're making it sound too good. Which means, not good at all. The skeptics really don't get how science works...and that science is not working here. All the above does is give them more ammunition to emptily spout no proof no proof no proof. No one should expect proof by now. Why? Nobody is looking for the sasquatch. This must always be remembered. NAWAC - the people who are doing the most looking - are the first to tell you this. Here's the bigfoot search, since 1967: Patterson/Gimlin. Tracks and the best photographic record of a sasquatch. 1997 NCal expedition (Meldrum/Greenwell). Tracks and lots of other evidence traceable to no known animal...but very much in line with other evidence noted in direct conjunction with sasquatch encounters NAWAC's operations in Area X. Tracks and lots of other evidence traceable to no known animal...but very much in line with other evidence noted in direct conjunction with sasquatch encounters, including many sightings So. A bare three expeditions have virtually proven sasquatch. Then there are a bunch of weekenders, many of whom have gotten their own compelling evidence, but none of whom should have been expected to bring back proof; ...and all the people that have had encounters, the evidence for which dovetails neatly with the organized searches. My point is that no one should expect the society to have its proof until the mainstream puts its weight behind this. Which the mainstream should, given that the animal has been virtually proven, to anyone paying attention, by only three expedtions in 47 years. (Anyone who disagrees is not paying attention.) Edited March 14, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 14, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I'm about 20 episodes into Finding Bigfoot and have more than learned the format for the show. More than ever I am convinced that bigfoot is a construct of the mind, or misidentification when not a or outright hoax. It's kind of our imaginary friend that because of our brain wiring kicks us back to our wild hardwired early ancestry. Nothing with a physical presence can remain that elusive in such a universal range and not be brought in. I will give every bigfoot sighting it's place in the world but it's as they say theater of the mind. It's ancient parts of us tapping us on the shoulder from within in ways that make some believe it comes from without. So you are more inclined to believe that the mind can construct physical manifestations that can make recorded sounds, leave footprints, be photographed, and be heard breaking branches than a physical object creature exists. In other words you will embrace telekinesis but dismiss some large creature exists on the woods. I wonder who is more into imagination, you or me? Finding Bigfoot is about the worst source of information about existence because 90% of the show is "You hear that" and their own theatrics. To my knowledge they have only found one poor footprint in all the episodes and other than some questionable wood knocks in return to theirs that could have been made by anyone, and some also questionable vocalizations, they have presented little evidence. It is like watching Walking with the Dinosaurs to prove existence of dinosaurs. The show is theatre. Edited March 14, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts