Leaderboard

Your tactic of trying to point to every claimed encounter wouldn't work. It hasn't worked in this public forum and never will since, as you know, the reports aren't evidence. Repeatedly braying otherwise hasn't gotten sassy any closer to classification. Debating anecdotal reports will never provide proof. Proof will come with dissection. It isn't critical reading skills that are important - it's critical thinking skills. It wasn't reading fairy tales as children that was important - the important part was developing critical thinking skills and learning important life lessons. When believers will believe sassy reports but not UFO reports, Chupacabra reports, Fairy reports, Dogmen reports or Skinwalker reports critical thinking should make you wonder why not? When folks will adamantly point to First Nation tribal lore as evidence of sassy but refuse to believe in Skinwalkers critical thinking should make you question the difference. When members here won't answer whether or not they would accept being banned from this forum solely on the basis of an anonymous claim of hoaxing or whether they would object to their child being suspended from school on the basis of an anonymous report critical thinking will provide the answer as to why they won't answer and why they don't truly believe anonymous reports. When a member who claims to have read more info about sassy than anyone else here lies and states that calling 911 won't get a response if sassy is involved critical thinking will provide an answer as to why they resorted to lying. Reading fairy tales and looking under the bed just leads to monsters if you don't apply critical thinking.

You know what I really conclude on reading most all of the more outlandish arguments/suppositions, both pro and con? Too many folks on both sides are waaaaaay to eager to claim something they "know" about BF. Very unscientific on both sides of it. You don't know. I don't know. Until definitive proof is offered, I'm not even willing to concede anyone who has an encounter truly "knows" anything about this subject. What I DO have is a probability, and a thirst to stay curious about it. It would seem that would be a small thing to ask of science and proponents too, but I'm often surprised. Re: Sighting reports. Not proof. They don't tell me I know anything on this subject for certain. Do they keep me thirsty and curious? Oh yeah, got that in spades. You too, if you choose. G'on....won't hurt a bit.

Here are some articles and papers: Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence Article Ben Radford Volume 26.2, March / April 2002 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence Bigfoot or Baloney? Confessions of a Bigfoot Hunter by Jonathan Blais http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-01-15/ Bigfoot DNA? It’s Playing Possum! BY DONALD R. PROTHERO http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-07-24/ “You are Not Entitled to Your Own Bigfoot Facts†Sounds Sciencey Sharon Hill April 25, 2012 http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/you_are_not_entitled_to_your_own_bigfoot_facts/ Science and Footprints Article Michael Dennett Volume 32.6, November / December 2008 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_footprints Bigfoot Files: Science, Skepticism and the True Believers Sounds Sciencey Sharon Hill November 22, 2013 http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/bigfoot_files_science_skepticism_and_the_true_believers Cognition and belief in paranormal phenomena: gestalt/feature-intensive processing theory and tendencies toward ADHD, depression, and dissociation. Sharps MJ, Matthews J, Asten J. http://graduatestudent.ucmerced.edu/jmatthews/media/Papers/paranormal_2006.pdf

I don't think there are any sites who's information you can take to the bank. Best to talk personally to a quiet, respected researcher if you're that interested in knowing the real possibilities. Going to online sasquatch sites is mostly like reading the Entertainment Section in the local newspaper. t.

I caught one once in the open Northwest of Pyramid Lake. I was standing still on a knoll just below a small ridge behind me as it crested another parallel small ridge a short distance in front of me. It was in full stride in the middle of a sunny afternoon in the middle of nowhere, and the last thing it was expecting was to run into people, otherwise it wouldn't have been walking along in the open like it was. A few seconds after it appeared, my brother walked up to the top of the knoll from behind me, the bigfoot saw his movement, turned its head and saw us both. It had a clearly startled expression which it quickly suppressed. It didn't immediately jackrabbit away. It turned its head back forward and accelerated its stride perhaps 20% for a step or two. It was clearly searching for a hide position. I'd already noticed that directly in its path there was an eroded cut down the side of the ridge he was on. The cut was narrow enough that he could step over it easily, and I couldn't tell from my angle whether or not it was deep enough to conceal him. He saw it and decided to use it almost immediately. You could tell because after the two slightly accelerated strides he slowed to his previous pace and continued in a direct line which would take him over the cut. He didn't dash for it or dive into it. He simply continued to walk as if he'd never seen us, and did not look back at us again. I expected him to walk up to the cut and get into it, but as he neared the cut, he did not vary his stride at all, and for a second I thought that he was not going to use it, but simply step over it and keep on going in a straight line. Then, as he was stepping over it, he did not place his forward foot on the opposite side. He just lifted his back foot, and then dropped into the cut, allowing his body to go limp and fold into it as he did so. A few seconds later we could see him peeking at us from the cut, with just the top of his head and eyes visible. In this short bit of time I observed the following sequence of behaviors: 1. Total relaxed travel unaware of my presence. 2. Startlement upon noticing myself and my brother. 3. Suppression of its facial expression to appear unconcerned. 4. A decision not to run to its left back over the crest of the ridge it had just crossed. 5. A decision instead to look for a covered position along its path of travel. 6. A slight acceleration of its pace for two strides as it searched for cover. 7. Identification of cover in the form of the eroded cut to its front. 8. Immediate slowing to its original pace. 9. A decision, apparently, to act as if it were unconcerned with our presence. 10. An attempt to make us think that it was not going to use the eroded cut, but simply keep walking away. 11. Three intentional acts of deception in 3, 9, and 10 above. It didn't simply behave in an elusive manner. It attempted to manage our perception regarding how it felt and regarding what it had decided to do, and what it was about to do.

I can assure you with 100% confidence nobody has seen a real BF that looks anything like what Standing has shared.

I for one would like to see this thread back on topic instead of the bickering back and forth

I would hate to throw a wet rag on Scott's analysis after reading through it but I must because of several questions I have. As depicted on his website, much of his recording spectra was in the audible range and he should have been hearing something. The graphics traces he presented shows that quite clearly. Unless he had pack and other objects on his person resonating, as I did, I am not sure what he was recording but most of it was in the audible range by looking at the graphics traces he showed. His camera is unlikely to be able to record infra sound directly as was my recorder. Most audio recording equipment just does not have much capability below 20hz. Even if it did, what was all the audible range sound in the graphics traces he showed that were several orders of magnitude of DB higher than what he says was the infra sound component?. There is nothing in my recording that is even audible when you listen to the recording other than a bird chirping now and then. On his video he was talking when he got zapped. Is that what he analyzed? That really complicates any analysis. In the segments of my audio recording where I was moving and making foot and pack noises, I cannot even see what I think is graphic evidence of IS because the noise I was making was masking it. In the segments where I talked the waveforms totally masked everything else because of the efficiencies of the recorder in the audible range and the fact it is mounted on my pack right behind my head. While audio analysis software can do much with filtering and enhancement, you have to have some explanation how a recorder or video camera can record something outside of its operating specifications. I am not saying he did not have an IS component but question the audible frequency component in the graphics displays he shows. If it is his voice then he has to eliminate harmonics in his own voice as the source of the IS spectrum component he presents. His own voice could have IS components or harmonics several orders of magnitude below the audible frequency range like displayed in his graphics traces. I would love to talk to him about this but me might not welcome my questions.