Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
masterbarber

Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots? (2)

106 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, Twist said:

It's easier to accept odd creatures in the oceans given the depths and lack of exploration.  The idea of an 8' primate potentially living along side us all this time is disturbing if true to some. Lol

 

It's even more disturbing when you don't believe in them and are suddenly thrust into a meeting engagement - up close - and for a while.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Twist said:

It's easier to accept odd creatures in the oceans given the depths and lack of exploration.  The idea of an 8' primate potentially living along side us all this time is disturbing if true to some. Lol

I agree    but  if and I hope when that clear zoomed in  close  HD video is ever captured it's going to blow the scientific communities mind.

 

:D

 

 

16 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

It's even more disturbing when you don't believe in them and are suddenly thrust into a meeting engagement - up close - and for a while.

 

I only know of one person that happened to , by himself at night and looked right into it's face.

 

I 'm not sure how I would handle something like that.

:mellow:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7.62 said:

My belief is that just a HD clear video of one that can't be disputed as a fake would be enough . 

I agree.

0

Share this post


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

 

It's even more disturbing when you don't believe in them and are suddenly thrust into a meeting engagement - up close - and for a while.

 

And still no photos that are worth a sausage? Now who's being silly? Bigfoot are apparently so elusive catching half a glimpse of one is rare and far between. On the other hand, people can be thrust into a meeting? What around a bigfoot conference table with one of the big guys taking shorthand and reading out the minutes? The logical flaw with this is as large as when Big Foot Hunter insists that Patty's footprints were so deep no human being could possibly have made/hoaxed them...and then, logically, requires us to conclude that footy is so twinkle toes light on his feet at times he's impossible to track. 

 

The contortions required to be a Bigfoot proponent make the knot in my drawers look perfectly comfortable in comparison. 

 

 

10 hours ago, WSA said:

Starling, there's actually much better than that out there. It is 50 years old. Really... you can look it up!  

 

Definition of unambiguous
:  not ambiguous :  clear, precise unambiguous evidence

 

Sorry, no coconut.

6 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Do you believe everyone here is just making it up or mistaken in what they saw?

 

I would have to go with Dmaker on this. Without being more rude than I have to be the answer to this has to be in the positive. There's far more documented evidence that people tell stories and get things wrong than there is for a massive ape that is both everywhere and nowhere that is both real and biological but possesses an apparently supernatural capacity to evade photographic documentation, especially when people like Far Archer claim extended contact. Now you could argue that the giant squid was only recently photographed but no one denied that creature was real as we had the remains. 

9 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

What contrived, nano-deep arrogance is required to know better than the thousands and thousands of people over the millennia who've actually witnessed these things - and you got your drawers in a bunch because - you haven't?

 

 

 

No arrogance required at all. It takes thousands of yarns to create a myth. Who do you think is spinning them? Unclassified hominids? 

 

No. Human beings are the teller of tales for a vast spectrum of reasons. Your unwillingness to recognise this and the simple, undeniable fact that human beings are at the the epicentre of this phenomenon shows that arrogance and ignorance are interchangeable. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How well tracks are left behind? Depends a lot on the substrate..... And in the PacNW often times the only place that will hold a track is along waterways. Such as in the case of the PGF. Or chewed up ground in the case of new roads or logging or construction sights.

 

Normally either the ground is too rocky and hard. Or it's a foot of pine duff which is like a sponge, any where else.

 

10 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I've said before that a hair sample with DNA  in my humble opinion won't convince everyone in the scientific community because there's always going to be variables even with DNA

that we haven't classified before . If you think about it the scientific community has classified and documented many species of fish without ever having a body of one.

Just videos of deep sea fish that never see the light of day.

 

My belief is that just a HD clear video of one that can't be disputed as a fake would be enough .  If the animal is real and I believe it is we don't need a body or a piece of one.

That's the biggest problem . Every time we see a video of one it's easy to call it a fake because it's grainy or far away  etc..

 

When we watch a high quality nature video made by National Geographic the colors and the vivid close up  of the animals they are filming is amazing .

 

In my humble opinion that would do it. 

 

 

It wont. You will never be able to rule out a hoax 100 percent.

 

 

IMG_0615.JPG

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2017 at 7:39 AM, Starling said:

 

Absolutely...thousands of them. Because when someone catches something they can't immediately identify out of the corner of their eye and there's a go-to ready made archetype that the average person has a psychological pre-disposition towards (as most, even the most rational, of us do) when it comes to folklore...then yes...that absolutely could explain many thousands of sincere bigfoot sightings. You add a natural eye witness capacity to subconsciously add details to an experience and then emotionally invest in these new memories and bingo...you've got thousands of apparently genuine hairy giant sightings. Add some individuals prone to even greater exaggeration and invention...and now we're really off to the races.

 

 

OK- I had a sighting back in 1990. It was really close up- about 8 feet. It was not from the corner of my eye. I was confronted with a creature so large that seated on its rear it effectivly blocked my lane on the road I was driving. It had no obvious snout like an elk, bison, bear, etc. I had a good view of it in the brights of my headlights. At first I thought a truck had lost its load of reddish dirt until I got closer. It turned out to be not only alive, but enormous and not any creature that I had ever seen before (and I've seen most of them in the lower 48).

Does this encounter fit into your thumbnail above? What do you personally think I saw?

 

 

20 hours ago, dmaker said:

That is about the weakest reason to think bigfoot is real.

 

It was pretty strong for me, but you kinda had to be there...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 1:39 AM, Starling said:

 

And still no photos that are worth a sausage? Now who's being silly? Bigfoot are apparently so elusive catching half a glimpse of one is rare and far between. On the other hand, people can be thrust into a meeting? What around a bigfoot conference table with one of the big guys taking shorthand and reading out the minutes? The logical flaw with this is as large as when Big Foot Hunter insists that Patty's footprints were so deep no human being could possibly have made/hoaxed them...and then, logically, requires us to conclude that footy is so twinkle toes light on his feet at times he's impossible to track. 

 

The contortions required to be a Bigfoot proponent make the knot in my drawers look perfectly comfortable in comparison. 

 

 

 

Definition of unambiguous
:  not ambiguous :  clear, precise unambiguous evidence

 

Sorry, no coconut.

 

I would have to go with Dmaker on this. Without being more rude than I have to be the answer to this has to be in the positive. There's far more documented evidence that people tell stories and get things wrong than there is for a massive ape that is both everywhere and nowhere that is both real and biological but possesses an apparently supernatural capacity to evade photographic documentation, especially when people like Far Archer claim extended contact. Now you could argue that the giant squid was only recently photographed but no one denied that creature was real as we had the remains. 

 

No arrogance required at all. It takes thousands of yarns to create a myth. Who do you think is spinning them? Unclassified hominids? 

 

No. Human beings are the teller of tales for a vast spectrum of reasons. Your unwillingness to recognise this and the simple, undeniable fact that human beings are at the the epicentre of this phenomenon shows that arrogance and ignorance are interchangeable. 

 

You skeptics seem to picture the wild outdoors from the perspective of a walk in a nice, groomed, city park, walking along sidewalks and landscaped paths suitable for a leisure walk.  Remote areas - it's just a bit different.

 

There are three ways and only three ways for one to encounter either wildlife or enemy opponents in rough terrain.  Overwatch, ambush, or meeting engagements.  The first two are planned, the last is largely inadvertent.  A meeting engagement is when two or more parties cross paths by chance. 

 

So.  You are walking - say in your city park - and a rabid/crazy pit bull and you run into each other, and he bows up and starts growling.  Are you that one that becomes a brief mention on the 6:00 local news that reports your tragic death?  Because your first instinct was to start taking pictures?   I'd bet money you'd have your ears laid back trying to clear the area, and your phone would stay right in your fanny pack - that's what you guys carry your "incidentals" in, right?

 

There's a difference living at 8,000 feet on a very remote mountain for months - under very primitive conditions, among big cats, wolves, and bears - and your city park. 

 

SOME humans tell tales.  Most are regular folks who would never make up something like seeing a large BF, as it even strains their belief.  If your assumption were true, every year, we'd have thousands and thousands of sightings of vampires, dragons, gnomes, fairies - well in San Francisco that might be true - hundreds of Loch Ness sightings PER YEAR, lizard men, and a plethora of other critters.  But we don't.

 

Just lots of normal people, doing normal things, but witnessing an extraordinary sight.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if anyone else reported seeing a giant ape sitting in the middle of the road that day?

1 hour ago, salubrious said:

What do you personally think I saw?

This is the problem with anecdotes: I cannot say for certain that you saw anything at all.

 

 

That is an objective statement, not meant to be a direct insult. It would apply to anyone with a sighting claim, not just you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dmaker I get it- no offense taken! I was not asking you about that though, as I have already done that and you gave me the same answer. Nice to know you're consistent over the years, huh?

 

No other reports of anything unusual that day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/28/2017 at 2:29 PM, salubrious said:

@dmaker I get it- no offense taken! I was not asking you about that though, as I have already done that and you gave me the same answer. Nice to know you're consistent of the years, huh?

 

No other reports of anything unusual that day.

The more salient point might be that YOU are consistent after these many years. That objective piece of data is overlooked and ignored (consistently, I might add) by our resident scoftics. 

Edited by AaronD
Removed condescending remark
0

Share this post


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

 

You skeptics, far from being outdoorsmen, seem to picture the wild outdoors from the perspective of a walk in a nice, groomed, city park, walking along sidewalks and landscaped paths suitable for a leisure walk.  Remote areas - it's just a bit different.

 

There are three ways and only three ways for one to encounter either wildlife or enemy opponents in rough terrain.  Overwatch, ambush, or meeting engagements.  The first two are planned, the last is largely inadvertent.  A meeting engagement is when two or more parties cross paths by chance.  You need to take good notes on this so at some point in the future - you won't show total ignorance on the subject - which could be embarrassing.  

 

So.  You are walking - say in your city park - and a rabid/crazy pit bull and you run into each other, and he bows up and starts growling.  Are you that one that becomes a brief mention on the 6:00 local news that reports your tragic death?  Because your first instinct was to start taking pictures?   I'd bet money you'd have your ears laid back trying to clear the area, and your phone would stay right in your fanny pack - that's what you guys carry your "incidentals" in, right?

 

There's a difference living at 8,000 feet on a very remote mountain for months - under very primitive conditions, among big cats, wolves, and bears - and your city park.  Your unknowing comments define your own personal framework for reference which is clearly insufficient for any understanding whatsoever.  This demonstrated ignorance of yours disqualifies you to make any sane, rational, or prudent comment.

 

I've met people like that - just are not comfortable and have never spent extended times in harsh outdoor environments.  

 

You have zero outdoor experience.  It's clearly demonstrated by your incapacity to understand a very common event.  If you don't know your subject matter, and remain quiet on those matters - you will not prove your ignorance to the rest of us.  We'd never know your level of inexperience - if you stuck only with what you know.

 

SOME humans tell tales.  Most are regular folks who would never make up something like seeing a large BF, as it even strains their belief.  If your assumption were true, every year, we'd have thousands and thousands of sightings of vampires, dragons, gnomes, fairies - well in San Francisco that might be true - hundreds of Loch Ness sightings PER YEAR, lizard men, and a plethora of other critters.  But we don't.

 

Just lots of normal people, doing normal things, but witnessing an extraordinary sight.

 

For me, few things are more tedious or vapid than the outdoorsman who believes that because he's spent time in a wilderness that he has some kind of proprietorial claim to both the wilds and any experience of it. This is just another flaw in your logic...you make huge assumptions based on no other knowledge of me other than the fact I disagree with you. You think that anyone who sees through the artifice and posture of your stance must somehow be painted a city boy who don't understand your manly lumberjack ways (cue Monty Python song which culminates satisfyingly in reference to panties and a bra).

 

You know, someone once said conspiracy theorists like their theories as they see them as a shortcut to erudition. I'd apply the same thought to bigfoot knowers...only they see their special knowledge as a shortcut to a kind of self-esteem related social elevation. How's that for a dose of psycho-social for us?  The majority of the world can mock, but to that crucial strata of credulous believers, they become a superior breed of man altogether; the kind that know how to start a fire using only wet tissues, can navigate using their sense of smell and, if push comes to shove, can stare a nine foot Mystery Hominid down with one icy glance. Now that's the kind of story that makes a dim-witted city slicker tremble.

 

The thing is, if you're labouring under the misapprehension that logic and common sense don't apply to the world beyond a tree-line then you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

 

Bigfoot are, to all intents and purposes, invisible. That's the whole point of this thread. And no amount of chest puffing and, for all I know, stolen valour-style posturing seems to able to bring the critter sharper into focus for those who ask the completely reasonable question: habeas corpus? 

 

Dang, this thing can block an entire road lane? But it eludes the camera lens better than the coyest of coy engenues? 

 

I don't think so.

 

Quote

"SOME humans tell tales.  Most are regular folks who would never make up something like seeing a large BF, as it even strains their belief.  If your assumption were true, every year, we'd have thousands and thousands of sightings of vampires, dragons, gnomes, fairies - well in San Francisco that might be true - hundreds of Loch Ness sightings PER YEAR, lizard men, and a plethora of other critters.  But we don't.

 

 

All of these things are reported every year. The numbers we can dispute I'm sure. What's your point? Mythologies wax and wane depending on the vagaries of the feedback loop created by popular culture. No mystery there. Nessie was very in vogue for decades from the 1930s on. The plethora of other critters you mention have all had their ups and downs for sure. You want to give me some actual figures to back up your claim that there aren't the reports in each categories hey day to rival bigfoot? What about those perennials of the paranormal...ghosts and aliens? Still willing to stand by your statement?

 

As far as I can tell the main thrust of your argument is ' I know the wilderness and you don't. ' 

 

When all you've got to back that up is the usual human contaminated evidence and no actual hard data....hardly a very persuasive argument. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You are a random anonymous person telling stories on the internet. How can you be offended? 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dmaker said:

I agree.

I disagree. Without a body to examine ,test and study science will not accept it. Even their DNA  has remained controversial and like the creature elusive . No HD picture will ever suffice . I have spoke to scientists about this very subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I disagree. Without a body to examine ,test and study science will not accept it. Even their DNA  has remained controversial and like the creature elusive . No HD picture will ever suffice . I have spoke to scientists about this very subject.

I disagree

 

I watched the video norseman posted but that's exactly what I mean by a video that too far away to see the creature clearly .

I mean a video like this if it's ever captured of a Bigfoot .

Skip and start at 2.10 or so

 

Something this clear and zoomed in would be impossible to fake.

 

https://youtu.be/ODyB9i6bGwQ

 

 

Any wildlife biologist by viewing something like this of a bigfoot would know they are looking at a real creature and not a suit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream science is going to want two things

 

1) Replicable field observations

2) Type specimen with DNA coming from that same source

 

If it's a new species, then you don't even need a type specimen, you just need viable DNA.

 

A video that's clear enough may grab the attention of a few scientists, but unless they can replicate the observation themselves, the situation won't be much different than what we already have with the PGF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0