Leaderboard

At what point do you start asking for proof that it did happen? Is it just more fun to believe?

Something to consider is that just about any sound travels farther at night and will skip across water like lakes and rivers. You can get a good echo back when calling or knocking from places like boat ramps nestled in wooded environments at night. A sasquatch could probably use this like a telephone in certain places. I was part of an expedition executed by the TBRC back in 2007 using multiple call blasters on boats on a river. Using cell phones to announce the time of our calls and by counting the seconds it took for the call to reach our ears, we were calculating a distance of 7 miles if my memory serves.

^That logic is totally delusional. If the evidence was that solid then it would already be accepted, but it's not. There is no conspiracy, no laziness by science, or any other excuse for it. You're in such a state of denial that the field is at a dead end that you want to blame everyone else for it. Excuses seem to run rampant in every single aspect of this field- from the lack of fossils, bones, specimens, lack of DNA, hair, poop, the inability to capture them on game cams, government cover ups, forestry cover ups, other dimensions, the list goes on and on and on. Now there's excuses for why science won't accept it or the rest of the world for not seeing the light. It's all deflection and blame away from the obvious- that Bigfoot and reality are having a very poor relationship. If you're so confident that it's great evidence then take it to your local university, show the professors and get their opinion. Let us know what they actually tell you. If the believers don't have enough faith to be proactive towards their own cause then that should tell you how rock solid the evidence is right there.

Dr. M and Dr. B have no more proof than I have and your posts actually make cranky. Give us something DWA. Anything besides your opinion.

I am out of positive votes yet again but this is so spot on! First it was: If skeptics just got out in the woods they would see sasquatches because they are 3 to 4 subtypes all over North America... Then it was: Skeptic hunters don't see sasquatches because sasquatches avoid hunters (but what about those hunters who claim sightings on those podcasts? hmmm)... THEN it was skeptical hunters don't see sasquatches are super rare?? pretty hilarious mental gymnastics there by swwasasquatchproject - special pleadings doesn't seem enough to describe it. Keep 'em coming this is the funniest stuff on the net.

This thread is centered on interpretation of findings or events attributed to BF. I think confusion and disagreements about those things arise due to taking these things out of context and measuring them against some hypothetical standard of proof, It should be considered that without the context and experiencing events In situ there will always be questionable interpretations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ I'm just saying this is a factor in interpretation that is ignored conveniently by critics.

LT, If you feel that my post or anything in this thread is an attempt to embarrass anyone, that's unfortunate, but there was no intent to do so. The whole point of the original post, as I understood it, was simply to remind people not to jump to conclusions about things that happen while they are investigating. That should be no more remarkable than telling someone to read the questions carefully on a test. No one was slapping a label on anyone except people who are objecting to the original post, who appear to want to label the OP and those who have calmly tried explain the OP as big green meanies or something. Not sure at all where "embarrassment" comes into the discussion.

I'm not convinced they're always wood knocks. I believe after reading tonnes of reports and speaking with people that have experienced this "knocking" that it's a combination of different stuff such as clapping, possible chest beating, mouth pops, all of which could be mistaken to be a wood knock, no doubt. With a wood knock, we'd be talking about Sasquatches walking around with lumps of wood and in tell the reports I've read, and that runs into the thousands, I can't recall ever reading anyone seeing that. It can't be as simplistic as that.

in other words you accuse people of attacking other posters and when you are asked to back that claim up, you can'tAre you even aware of the level of personal attacks that M.k.Davis and his supporters did against John Green and a few others? If you are not then perhaps you need to research it to find out if the folks you are supporting are worthy of it You stated that they are good people, others pointed out reasons that make them believe otherwise You stated that people on this forum engage in the same behavior Myself and others disagree with you and stated as such, some by pointing out that the forum rules do not allow for it You made the accusations about members of this forum I may also point out that myself and others that are supporting John Green do so knowing full well that John is a believer and a pioneer researcher that deserves respect This may shock you As I stated before, I do not believe that sasquatch exist now or at any time in recorded history HOWEVER I have a tremendous amount of respect for the early researchers such as Green, Gimlin and others I have had the pleasure of meeting them and feel better for it. I may not agree with some of Bill Munns conclusions, but I do respect the work he does I don't respect the work of people that simply say this is what I know, believe me and it you question it you don't deserve to see the evidence I can understand how someone could look at the same evidence that I have and come to the conclusion that sasquatch exist, it is all based on how you weigh the evidence What I don't understand is why the same cannot be said for many of the believers