• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,089 Mythical

About Huntster

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, exploring, and all things outdoors.................including sasquatchery.............

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Not sure

Recent Profile Visitors

4,053 profile views
  1. Wolves are different. They are even more different than other canines. Their sense of smell is even beyond our imagination. They read our body language better than other humans. I've had intimate moments with wolves. Wild wolves. Several times. I consider those moments among my most special in life, but in reality, I've had similar moments with our household dogs. As far as I'm concerned, canines are at the threshold of "creation": I have to say that orcas and porpoises are like canines. They are in a class above other creatures. They are social, pack mammals. Had a couple pods of Dall's porpoises hanging around us for a week or so. It was darned good company. They made my boat look like flotsam. I don't know if it's the smell of the hydrocarbons or if it's just the material that they can crush/eat/chew/bounce that's the attractant. But it's clear; inflatable boats and ATV seats are irresistable............... There's a thesis for a biology graduate: which is superior? The sense of smell of a bear, or that of a canine? My bet?: The bear's is better. "Passing the knowledge on" is the key. It's difficult to say that animals don't do that. Any trapper can attest to the fact that furbearers do it.
  2. And, again, it's not necessary to obtain such obscene amounts of money for the first official inquiry into sasquatchery. You are, of course, quite correct in that statement. Perhaps you can now understand my "sour grapes" with regard to Sagan, who IMO was one of those who had great influence over scientific investment, and who invested poorly, to say the least. Not to me. AFAIC, he was just another silver tongued huckster with credentials. "Nuggets" like Sagan's smooth talk? Sagan had no scientific or evidentiary "nuggets". He had pure BS. Screw Washington DC. I'm more interested in Washington state. That's where a sasquatch might be found. I won't be buying any of their cookies. Never did. They were selling cow pies disquised as cookies all along.
  3. Well, it appears that you'll have to be considered irritated. Being skeptical is (by definition) non-belief. No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method. You're proselytising.
  4. So should we send hunters into the forests on the unsubstantiated hope that somebody will bring back a squatch? Not particularly, but if you refuse to send your official wildlife managers, sending Billy Bob might still get the job done. Not nearly as whimsical as hoping for Billy Bob to do it for you while it's illegal to do. In fact, that's a bit different than "fantasy" or "whimsical". It's...............well, rather than get in trouble with the mods again, I'll just say it's typical of the skeptical/denialist community.
  5. The key words being, "all in recent years". And his message is one of belief, too. That is a good sign. Hopefully it will bear some fruit.
  6. Yes, exactly where the claimant said it was supposed to be. Given the complete lack of evidence, Sagan asked, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" The difference, obviously, is that one dragon is invisible, incorporeal, and floating, and the other doesn't exist. But, then, I wouldn't know. It wasn't my garage, and I didn't look for a dragon in anybody else's garage. I'm not into dragons. I'm into sasquatches. Nowhere does Sagan say anything about a dragon in everyone's garage. The original claimant never says, a fire-breathing dragon lives in everyone's garage, he says, "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage." Sagan is under no obligation to check every garage on the planet for this dragon, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Yet he looked into the claimant's garage? Don't dragons fly? Crawl? Walk? Isn't it possible that the claimant's dragon left before Sagan got there? One, quick look, and Sagan, the great scientist, dismissed it all? So why did we need a radio that will blast a signal across the galaxy looking for his ETs? Why not an inexpensive model to radio a signal to Venus if only looking into one garage for a dragon will offer a solution to the question?
  7. 1) You don't need an expensive radio antennae array to detect evidence of bigfoot. All the more disheartening, since it wouldn't take $60 million in funding to conduct an honest sasquatch survey. Sorry, the camera isn't going to cut it. The PG film is proof enough of that. It has to be a carcass. Denial is just too powerful. The station wagon is a lame excuse for the complete absence of official wildlife management agencies to look into this matter. Imagine the DoD wishing for a herd of camels to run over Osama Bin Laden because they're having a difficult time finding him. The rifle? Now you're talking. Make it legal to shoot a sasquatch, and make it mandatory to turn in the carcass for a $250K bounty, and maybe you'll get a carcass the easy way (which is clearly what you're demanding). There is no *adjective* evidence to indicate even a remote possibility of getting an answer, so why was so much public money invested in it in the first place? (Not my's yours...........substitute "advanced civilizations light years away" with "sasquatch"). And rotten core within your industry ignored. So exactly what line of BS did Sagan use to extract $60 million from the U.S. government to get ET to phone Earth? Wrong. Investments like the space race, cancer research, biolfuels, etc all offer tangible returns, even if just spinoffs. Sending radio messages to outer space on the fully unsubstantiated hope that somebody will call back borders on fantasy. And investing just a few million on trying to determine if reports and trace evidence of bipedal apes or primitive hominids still exist (because we know they existed in the past) are true (especially since we have layers of agencies responsible to manage wildlife, and especially endangered or rare wildlife) is simply living up to their responsibility. Sasquatch money not invested, sasquatches still reported, money not forthcoming.
  8. Carl Sagan has never been to my garage, nor millions of other garages. His "confirmation" is limited to the garages he investigated, isn't it? No, thanks. After his nuclear winter fiasco, I wouldn't read a newspaper column of his. It's the same sort of deal as Ray Wallace and other hoaxers. Once you try to trick me with falsehoods, your word no longer has value.
  9. Yet none have gone to the extent of Sagan and his allies in securing government funding and support in a first ever official investigation like SETI. Why is that? Some are. Too bad none have gone to the extent of Sagan and his allies in securing government funding and support in a first ever official investigation like SETI. So why did SETI get funded to the tune of at least $60 million by government after pressure to do so by scientists like and including Sagan? There is actually much more evidence that sasquatches exist than extraterrestrials. He was also a scientist caught red handed manipulating science for ideological and political reasons.
  10. Huntster, do you know if they were ever officially notified at the time? Or are you assuming they would have read the newspaper reports and acted proactively? I do not know if they were notified by anyone. If I was an independent researcher investing money into an effort to find such a creature, the last person I'd notify would be the area biologist for the department. That's somebody who can put you in straits with regard to your efforts. That would be like a vigilante notifying the police of a crime before going after the killer himself. I suspect department area biologists read newspapers. I did at that time. If I knew about it at the time, living 700 miles away and a mere teenager, I suspect the area biologist did. The Jerry Crew story and the Patterson story went around the world in short order. To fail to act in any capacity whatsoever (interview witnesses, check out the scene, talk with independent investigators, etc) is a clear indication of either individual negligence (I doubt this, since it is a pattern throughout the industry), or group negligence, or maybe even official discouragement.
  11. Law enforcement investigate crimes. If there was a hoax involving financial enrichment, there should have been an arrest. There wasn't. Wildlife management agencies manage wildlife species, of which the footprints indicated existed. Get a logging truck with a Bigfoot in the grill and they'd have some wild death to wake their sorry a$$e$ up with, and had they been managing all along, we might have more of them to hit with trucks. This choir appreciates good music.
  12. You were quite clear in going beyond CA Fish and Game biologists only... You were quite clear in going beyond CA Fish and Game biologists only... There most certainly was investigation by biologists from the area, the ones Abbott called. 1) Yet again, I will be "quite clear": "the ones Abbott called" weren't official wildlife managers from the California Dept. of Fish and Game 2) We are not simply discussing the Patterson film. This thread specifically discusses more than a decade and dozens of reports from the well publicized Jerry Crew event until after the monumentally well published Patterson film. 3) "Official wildlife managers" need no "invitation" from Abbott (or anybody else) to investigate a wildlife issue 4) Several scientists from around the world as well as at least one movie studio analyzed the Patterson film within 4 years of it's filming and wrote reviews. Yet again, there was not a single reference by anybody involved regarding any interest whatsoever by the state department of fish and game. I will not quibble. I will sing it in soprano at every opportunity, and the more you dislike it, the more I love it.
  13. Are you trying to use the fact that he had an interest in UFOs to discredit a very logical point he made regarding scientific study (what he devoted his life to)? 1) I will quite happily do so if others deny similar "logical points" with regard to sasquatchery 2) His fetish for extraterrestrials (and the massive funding for calling them) simply makes his comments regarding "dragons" in "garages" the most hilarious kind of hypocrisy 1) It most certainly does 2) Continue to make a god out of him, and I'll take great joy in "ad homineming" him right back down to Earth. In the same way that official wildlife biologists appear to have no interest in sasquatches. He sure "believed" in massive funding to call them with a very expensive radio. He appeared to reject dragons in garages out of hand. I sure wish more biologists thought that way with regard to sasquatchery.
  14. You simply haven't done your homework. Don Abbott contacted several zoologists from Humboldt State University in Arcata to examine prints claimed to from Bigfoot at the end of August 1967 which they did and concluded were fake. You either aren't wearing your reading glasses, or you're well beyond "homework". Zoologists from Humboldt State University are not California Dept. of Fish and Game biologists, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity. The local sheriff's office is not the California Dept. of Fish and Game, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity. And hired hunters (as in "paid money") to hunt the creature down, too, because he claimed that he was losing money on his contract. They even claimed to have seen it. Yup. As in "decades later, his family suddenly produces stompers".
  15. That is certainly my answer. I've got my own life to live and have plenty of other priorities. However, I fail to see why that answer works for the official wildlife management agencies. For example, with a decade of so many reports, and culminating in the PG film, one would think that the California Dept. of Fish and Game would be interested enough to send a delegate to interview Patterson/Gimlin, or even to review the film after D.W. Grieve, Dmitri Donskoy, or Ken Peterson analyzed it, or talk to them about their reviews.