Leaderboard

So then, why did/do you jump to that conclusion above? People make all sorts of unsubstanciated claims. So, sure, you're going to get people to answer your question with "yes, they do and I've experienced it"... so then that will give you permission and freedom to assume you did too. Eventually, you'll tell people that "bigfoot definately imitates other sounds out in the woods because I've experienced it"... with nothing more than confirmation bias because someone else believes they have too. This is how the legends and myths associated with BF become larger than life. It's unfortunate. Stick to what is verifiable.

I used to hear one occasionally that didn't seem to care whether he was near the pond or in my back yard. In this recording he also seemed to be communicating with something that was making discreet knocks. Yes they do mimic animals, AND birds, insects, people, sirens, amphibians & anything else that they want to mimic. I have several recordings of one practicing to make the exact sound that a colt that we had for awhile made. He got it down to a fine art, & after Hubby sold the colt, his sounds lingered on here for months. Bullfrog.wav

Allow me to make a comment... unofficially, of course. Personally, I'm a skeptical proponent. I know that's sort of on the fence, but it's where I am. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I feel certain that they may exist. I base this opinion on my own review of the evidence that's been presented by others - anecdotal or otherwise, reports from creditable witnesses, and by my own ability to come up with my own conclusions based on my own cognitive reasoning skills. I know without a doubt that it is entirely possible that this creature can exist. My own mother claims to have seen one, and I certainly take her account as a creditable one. In fact, that claim is the reason I'm here on the BFF. I stumbled upon this forum in my effort to research the subject and I've been here ever since. My interest in the subject has led me to do investigation not only online, but in the field. I've researched some areas reputed to have activity. While I have no conclusive evidence that can be interpreted as proof, I have been privileged enough to stumble upon things that have bolstered my belief that the creature does indeed exist. I myself have heard wood knocks in the wee hours of the morning, had an experience with a "fluttering" sensation in my ear that I could not explain, and heard a scream that prompted me to brandish a .45 handgun as quickly as was possible. I have interviewed residents that lived around one of my research areas and listened to their accounts, many of those accounts over a period of years. These people were good folks with no reason to lie to anyone. In fact, many of them were reluctant to share their accounts with me initially. It was only after gaining their trust over time that they told me what they'd experienced. We're talking people that had good public standing, community leaders, civil servants and housewives. I found these accounts to be creditable and the people telling me these accounts to be sincere. Admittedly, being on this forum in my present capacity has some benefits. Sometimes folks I correspond with tell me things they've experienced. Sometimes they share things with me, such as photos and videos. I must say that some of it is quite impressive. Just recently, I had a researcher share a photo taken with a game camera that was very compelling. Is this evidence concrete proof? No, it isn't in and of itself, but when you compile the evidence presented it's obvious that there is something there that isn't considered "normal." Much of this photo and video evidence is taken by landowners and provided to researchers. Some of it is taken by the researchers themselves. I always have to promise confidentiality because these people don't want the evidence shown for any number of reasons, which leads me to my next statement. People are naturally skeptical for the most part. I find skepticism to be a healthy component in the attempt to discover the creature, so I personally don't mind it. However, skeptics are often dogmatic, and they can express their opinions in a manner that can present the allusion that anyone that doesn't agree with them is crazy. I find this attitude to be unhealthy for discussion, as opposed to a healthy skepticism that can lead to discussion that can be of benefit to all. I myself am skeptical to a degree, which sometimes makes it hard to discuss some of the attributes that proponents ascribe to the creature. I always try to be as respectful as I can regardless of the subject matter of the discussion, but there are those that, unfortunately, are not. Conversely, there are those proponents that are also as bad as the skeptics. EVERYTHING that happens in their environment is attributed to Bigfoot. A tree found leaning at a 45 degree angle in the forest? That's a Bigfoot territory marker, never mind that there was a line of severe windstorms that came through the area a few days ago. That crashing limb that was heard in the woods behind their house? That was a Bigfoot, not a dead limb falling from a tree. A deer kill? Bigfoot did it because they've never seen a bear or a cougar around here. Then there are the grandiose claims of some proponents. Such attributes as using Morse Code, smoking cigarettes, following humans home over extreme distances to leave items in their truck beds, and claims of the like do nothing to promote healthy discussion of the creature. When you start anthropomorphizing Bigfoot to such a degree, it tends to bring out the worst in skeptics. Then there are those that claim the extraordinary, like Bigfoot cracking lake ice with its roar, calling people by name, and such remarkable claims - presented without proof. Admittedly, these claims border on hoaxing, in my opinion. I've said all of that to say this - At this point NOBODY knows for sure unless they've had a personal experience with the creature. There's no way to substantiate a sighting without evidence. I get that, but that doesn't mean that the witness didn't see what they saw. You don't have to be a zoologist to know the difference between a bear and a seven foot tall bipedal ape. You also don't have to be a scientist to evaluate presented evidence or accounts. The same is true with skeptics and their ability to evaluate the claims of proponents. While accepted science is a useful tool to allow the skeptical to dismiss the claims of proponents, it's also going to be the very thing that vindicates these witnesses and proponents whenever proof of the creature is provided. As much as I hate to say this, I agree with norseman - A slab on a table doesn't lie. I believe that until one is provided by whatever means, this debate will continue, along with the posturing from both sides.