Leaderboard

I'm pretty certain that were BF to have infrasonic capacity *which I believe it does* it would not disparagingly be using it for defensive purposes only. Seems to me the most parsimonious reason for an individual such as Sasquatch to have such capacity would be for long distance communication *just like elephants*. Not to say that it has not refined the utilitarian function of such if it becomes aware that it can be used defensively. With the variety of other Sasquatch vocal capacities in it's repertoire, by report, one has to wonder exactly why it has such an armamentarium though? As for ultrasound in BF, even if that was a typo, I have not heard of such investigations. I do know however that mice or shrew families have been recently found to have such capacity (yes, the world is a strange place) and I believe it was previously unknown to science up to that point. http://www.metris.nl/media/documents/TypesandFunctionsofUSVinLabRatsandMice.pdf Of course, we all know of the bat ultrasonics as part of echolocation.

As to the red highlighted conclusion, patently not true, this shrimp produces light through a plasma arc...... http://www.nrgnair.com/MPT/02AIR/pistol.shrimp.htm If something this small can generate temps of 18,000 deg. F (and even loud sounds) then to me the sky is the limit for light emission capability among all living things. There is a whole scientific field called biophotonics: cellular light communication processes I have seen bigfoot light emission, or "eyelights" as Henry Franzoni refers to them. In my case there were visible white light emissions which were not coherent light but graduated such as brightening and dimming in the form of a rheostatic process almost. They were unmistakable at six feet. There was no missing what was happening as I was dark adapted and attuned to the situation at hand and it was unrelated to the red and green eyeshine or eyeglow which was notable from a distance (green in my case). from the same individual. Whether this is a sparingly used phenomenon I couldn't tell you, but the night of my sighting it seemed to be precipitated by a desire to determine what was in it's immediate pathway on the ground (and no they weren't sta-puff marshmallows, just roasted peanuts in the shell, lol).

Unless you SAW the bigfoot beating it's chest, this is an interpretation, not an observation. The observation is hearing a thumping noise. Same for those other people. I don't believe shared interpretation has the same validity as shared observation. MIB

Sure Keninsc, I know. "Sounding all cool" is equally a bad a reason for adopting a position, I'd agree. If you've experienced something like what Randy has posted here (I have not), but I read about it here and many other places (and I have) and I gave it plausible currency for his consistency, natural history knowledge and backing data (I do)...well, coolness ain't a motivator at all for me, and probably not for a lot of us. It sounds bizarre and far-fetched, but there it is. If I do keep that possibility bobbing in front of me for later consideration, I risk nothing in the least. So many of the rushes to judgment I see on this board are just the kind of attitude you condemn, and me too: Being the first kid on the block to show how worldly and "real" we all are....when really and truly, we are all mostly throwing crap at the wall, waiting on some hard proof to land. If there is any collaborative value in these discussions, it probably would be wise to try and avoid that. That's just according to me...one loser stumbling my way along.

^^^Right, so right there, is the germ of many an important discovery. The next step? Let's see if we can find an explanation. And right there, at that intersection of the admission of ignorance and the profession of curiosity, stand the members of the NAWAC. It is not so difficult a path to trace, is it? But yet, we burn up our days avoiding this truth. I want explanations that make sense(And video clips of non-native wildlife picking up and dropping rocks ain't even close to what was described)I don't want to snipe at folks who are doing this work for the benefit of all of us. If they are failing to deliver on what I proclaim to be my timetable, I'm to blame, not them. Sure, rigor in analysis is essential (NOT requiring their process be perfect, but reasonably so) and we've seen them deliver on that requirement often, but rigorous analysis does not include just merely responding to what they report with an: "I don't believe you."