hiflier

Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

249 posts in this topic

In response to MIB's question:

 

1) Charles Darwin is one example of a naturalist.

 

nat·u·ral·ist

  (năch′ər-ə-lĭst, năch′rə-)

n.

1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany.

2. One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism.

 

2) I cite the Cascades Carnivore Project as an example of naturalists doing in depth studies in an alledgedly squatch rich environment

In response to MIB's question:

 

1) Charles Darwin is one example of a naturalist. Steve Irwin is another example.

 

nat·u·ral·ist

  (năch′ər-ə-lĭst, năch′rə-)

n.

1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany.

2. One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism.

 

Here is a link to the NW Naturalist Journal. http://www.bioone.org/loi/nwnt 

 

2) I cite the Cascades Carnivore Project as an example of naturalists doing in depth studies in an alledgedly squatch rich environment

.

 

Edited by Martin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Conversely, it's silly to be hurt and defensive when one's uncorroborated report isn't accepted. 

 

 

I can really believe you think it's silly.  If your word was worth snot, you'd automatically understand how offensive such a suggestion is.  But you're not.  

 

(I act surprised.)

 

I had scores of lives and multi-millions of dollars spooled up and put in danger - based on my word - on just one report.  Accuracy and credibility were everything.  

 

Over here, someone's word is nothing. 

 

Other places - it's life or death.

 

You suggest a man is untruthful in those places, it's a shooting matter.

Edited by FarArcher
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Once again I enjoyed your detailed response. I really do appreciate it. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain it in detail to me. Also thanks for not being rude about it this time. 

Please try and understand my position. I have a scientific mind and that is my approach based on my education. 

I certainly never meant to offend you. 

I of course can't accept your sighting as nothing more than a great campfire story. You have nothing to offer but your testimony. Which means absolutely nothing in the scientific world. 

No documented specimen carrys a lot more weight. .

 

 

Actually, to me, the scientific community has falsified so many findings and made so many mistakes on other "scientific truths," that the scientific community conventional wisdom mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

The "scientific community" can't hold their own evidence of something to the same standards - and won't - in an area they for some reason want to avoid - or where they've made up their minds of how evidence should be interpreted solely to reinforce a simple postulation they find convenient.

 

You see, if a BF is collected, the so-called "experts" are suddenly all wrong.  Their story of mankind is completely wrong, their story of migrations is completely wrong, their narratives of hominids is suddenly completely wrong, likely their postulations of anthropology are completely wrong - and guess what?

 

Now there are NO experts - certainly not scientifically trained experts - as everyone has to start over.

 

To suggest in the face of thousands of eyewitness report - related over the millennia, on almost every continent of the world, by separated peoples and cultures, in turn separated by oceans - and to tell the same stories, and common descriptions - and still ignore the preponderance of evidence?  That's not scientific.  That's just retarded.

 

The only sanitized, approved, and accepted "evidence" in the scientific community - is that which can be fit into the narrative already predetermined.

 

I was asked what I would do if I got one, and some were astounded that I wouldn't turn it over to the "scientific community."  There's no way.  It would likely just disappear like so many other skulls and bodies of giant critters that were handed over to the scientific authorities.  Which have oddly, all disappeared.  

 

Now why would the "scientific community," holding to "scientific methodology," in the interest of "scientific pursuits" resort to such dishonest treachery?  Like I said, they have a narrative, they like their narrative, they don't want anything changing the narrative, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

 

And it's not just in this field.  It's rampant in the "scientific community."   

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds most unreasonable. The scientific community acknowledges many undiscovered species. When they are proven and documented. 

Many are very small and of the insect variety. 

 

It seems very illogical that giant man apes could remain undiscovered in the modern world when much smaller varietals cannot. 

So you see the problem. If there are so many as you proclaim. Certainly there would be proof positive by now. 

I love the mystery. I love the camp fire stories .Yours is a good one. However,without positive proof that is  all it is. I continue to hold out hope for the slight chance that I am wrong. 

I really and truly want to be. I am such a big fan of the Patterson film. Notice my moniker. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

I can really believe you think it's silly.  If your word was worth snot, you'd automatically understand how offensive such a suggestion is.  But you're not.  

 

(I act surprised.)

 

I had scores of lives and multi-millions of dollars spooled up and put in danger - based on my word - on just one report.  Accuracy and credibility were everything.  

 

Over here, someone's word is nothing. 

 

Other places - it's life or death.

 

You suggest a man is untruthful in those places, it's a shooting matter.

 

Your right.....it IS a shooting matter!

 

(You shoot it in the head and drag the bloody thing home)

 

Then no one has to take any one's word for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Sounds most unreasonable. The scientific community acknowledges many undiscovered species. When they are proven and documented. 

Many are very small and of the insect variety. 

 

It seems very illogical that giant man apes could remain undiscovered in the modern world when much smaller varietals cannot. 

So you see the problem. If there are so many as you proclaim. Certainly there would be proof positive by now. 

I love the mystery. I love the camp fire stories .Yours is a good one. However,without positive proof that is  all it is. I continue to hold out hope for the slight chance that I am wrong. 

I really and truly want to be. I am such a big fan of the Patterson film. Notice my moniker. 

 

 

Oh yeah, when you drag something in, they'll acknowledge the new little mouse, a new species of deer, or a new bug.

 

I'd argue that logic has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of these critters.  I believe the basis for this logic is that smaller things can on occasion be found, and if the small things can on occasion be found, certainly something of immense size and mass would be found.

 

A good, scientific mind, would use "logic" to figure out that smaller animals may be in greater multiples and more plentiful, lending discovery a hand in the matter.  But this large animal, with higher intelligence, would likely be fewer, and by holding to more difficult terrain, discovery would be more difficult.  

 

I'm at the max, less than twenty feet from a huge thing growling at me, and while I was looking for a cat, I couldn't see anything in the shadows.  Twenty feet.  I have no idea if it was standing behind one of the trees, it could have been crouching, or it could have been flat on its stomach.  Just a small cluster of six to eight inch diameter trees.

 

Then, my unscientific mind, tells me, "considering how these things have a natural ghillie suit, and how one can avoid detection often by simply not moving, and how it's likely that the intelligence of these things enables them when pursued to take active measures to hide - how much more difficult would it be to find these things in the millions of acres of difficult terrain, when I had a problem seeing a critter some 20 feet away, concealing itself in a very small cluster of trees?"

 

One of the first things noted by man or animal is movement.  It doesn't move, it's hard to see.  Color and or brightness/reflectivity is next - if you have a flat, drab color, you can blend in to surroundings, and it gives one a better chance of also concealing your shadow - which is another method of detection.  Finally, shape is readily recognizable and more instantly determined.  For example, if I'm caught in the open, by merely bending at the waist and remaining still, I'm ten times more difficult to see, as I'm not in a recognizable shape.

 

So.  We have a BF.  Wears a full-time, non-reflective ghillie suit, black, tan, or cinammon reddish.  Black - really blends in with dark shadows, and you can blend in with a tree fairly well, IF you don't move.  Same with the other colors that enable crypsis.

 

I think most folks go looking for an eight foot bigfoot - and expect to see one in that shape, silhouetted against a contrasting background.  And they're never going to see one.

 

I've had an enemy soldier step between my head and extended forearm, never detecting me.  We've been peed on.  My forearm, another between the shoulder blades, and never detected.  Trick is, don't move.  (And don't take it personal)

 

Now, add to that, that these are predators, and as predators, use these abilities to ambush their prey.  

 

And they're also supposed to be easy to find by HUMANS?

 

 

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....so Bigfoot has mastered the 5 S's of camo......awesome.

 

Where does it eat, sleep, poop, breed, give birth, grow old, die? We are not talking about the SAS behind enemy lines here. We are talking about a whole population. From crying babies, to the sick and crippled to the very old. In other words..... Non Patrol members who are noisy, slow you down and need constant care.

 

Forget sightings.....where is the sign of this population? I see very little. One set of tracks a long time ago and a few twisted saplings that are supposedly attributed to them recently. 800 lbs creatures should be leaving a lot of sign behind. They are not being resupplied by helo. They are eating berries, digging tubers and killing game. We have a few bones with odd tooth marks, but nothing nation wide.

 

Something is not right here. I'm convinced there are not many and in most areas are gone all together.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you don't find them isn't difficult to believe.

 

We were only 120 men, five man teams, and our opponent used two entire divisions along a narrow corridor to try to intercept us.

 

Didn't work.  And we had good bounties on our heads, so it's not like they weren't motivated.

 

Now why wouldn't 8,000 men be successful against so few in such small teams?  

 

You answer that, and you've answered your own questions.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No!

 

I have no idea what Organization you were apart of....but I'm assuming it was professional and contained superb fighting men. Right? I'm also going to guess that they did NOT have their families with them? Right?

 

How would your exfil had gone if you had to drag grandma along? Or stop and feed the baby? Boiled down to brass tacks your military career is not based off of this template.

 

The Apache were some of the baddest guerilla fighters in the history of mankind..... And their women and children lived on BIA reservations. And was ultimately their Achilles heel.

 

You say you encountered giant stealth bigfoots, awesome. Does Patty from the PGF match that description? Would it not make sense that there would be a large variance in the species?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

The fact that you don't find them isn't difficult to believe.

 

We were only 120 men, five man teams, and our opponent used two entire divisions along a narrow corridor to try to intercept us.

 

Didn't work.  And we had good bounties on our heads, so it's not like they weren't motivated.

 

Now why wouldn't 8,000 men be successful against so few in such small teams?  

 

You answer that, and you've answered your own questions.

 

 

Farcher

Those small groups would split that division up I tell you ! But thats not how I have encountered them in my area to a argressive nature. I would say that if they did get that way it would be at the same times of hunting and me being on their turf. At first  I realy thought that they could realy kill the crap out of me and still know they can.  Alot of researchers walk into the woods and most of them come back alive.  I go out with my son and he has encounters with them and he stays calm. See what I am trying to get is at the agression and where they draw the line . I mean we are humans but they live wild so does that make them manimal (you know man/animal).

 

My first encounter with this thing my dog tracked it's movement while it snuck around the camp. I trusted that dog with my life so when that dog barked there was some thing there. But it also scared the crap out of that dog as well as us on my first encounter.

 

Faracher

I to heard this low growl that hit us hard while we were going to walk into these thick pines up in Huron National Forest Michigan. We thought it was from A-10 flying over but there were none that day. We felt our chest like vibrate from the growl or moan. It was like what ever was in there did not want us in there so we backed out back wards.

 

But this site realy hammered me hard with the evidence I had and said it was pipe being blown by air. But they were not there and we were. I have seen them and know them and still learning. Still not sure what I will do if one decides to cross my path. If it's meant to be it's meant to be. Thats how i see it. No one will know though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, norseman said:

No!

 

I have no idea what Organization you were apart of....but I'm assuming it was professional and contained superb fighting men. Right? I'm also going to guess that they did NOT have their families with them? Right?

 

How would your exfil had gone if you had to drag grandma along? Or stop and feed the baby? Boiled down to brass tacks your military career is not based off of this template.

 

The Apache were some of the baddest guerilla fighters in the history of mankind..... And their women and children lived on BIA reservations. And was ultimately their Achilles heel.

 

You say you encountered giant stealth bigfoots, awesome. Does Patty from the PGF match that description? Would it not make sense that there would be a large variance in the species?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Superb fighting men?  Since they were the ones that specialized in long range recon, and had a documented kill ratio of 150:1,  I suppose you could make that connection - except your tone makes it sound almost derogatory.  

 

No, we didn't have our families with us.  

 

No, we didn't have to drag Grandma along, but frequently enough, we had to drag an injured or wounded man along, plus his water, his weapon, and his pack.  Does that count?

 

"Giant, stealth bigfoots"  The sarcastic venom is just dripping today, huh?  

 

I never fully appreciated just how emotional you are.

 

The Apache - the last thirty to fifty to be taken by Crook's 5,000 troops - had women and children with them when they were taken in 1886.  Try again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they were lead off to a reservation.....thank you for making my point.

 

So back on topic, Sasquatch is a complete species, and not a hand selection of its finest young males. So how do you hide the old, crippled and very young? How do they fit into the giant stealth forest ninjas your seeing?

 

Wounded and injured in combat do not count really.....because they are going to be medevac'd at some point. Sasquatch doesn't have that luxury. They are not patched up at a hospital nor are they medically discharged from service with a pension.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites