Leaderboard

Then why keep posting on a BIGFOOT forum???? If your not going to take ANYTHING we say with any level of seriousness? What possible level of discourse are we going to have with you?

MagniAesir: It is not up to me to decide in which category you place yourself, but on reading your entire post above I don't see anything there of which you are skeptical. You might better describe yourself as an "un-accepter." When people you trust bring you those kinds of accounts, and you have ruled out every other reasonable possibility of an alternative explanation, you have arrived at your answer... you just don't wish to accept what the evidence tells you is all. This is something entirely different from a skeptic. Don't feel alone though. We've got many here of that kind.

Can you clarify what you mean by "whether or not anything was there"? And if something did occur why all the opposition, by opposition do you mean why do I not take B.G.'s word without any of the evidence which should be readily available? Because to do so would be irrational. OK,let's try a bit of a mind experiment: If I tell you that a monster attacked campers in the woods and that I found the torn up camp and that I called 911 and that there were shell casings/great big footprints all over the place and that the next day everything was all set right because of a conspiracy between state and federal authorities and lastly I tell you I have ZERO evidence of any of it - if I tell you this story, with no evidence/evidence is conveniently destroyed by the "G", you'd buy that yarn? Seriously? Setting aside the fact that B.G. had a year to request the 911 tapes and didn't. Allowing that for this event, the tx rangers/sheriff would conspire with the feds and cover this up. Why? And....What about the families of the missing/murdered campers? Are they too, part of the grand conspiracy? Isn't it much more plausible that B.G. pulled a Standing (without thinking things all the way through) and it got a little more attention than B.G. expected? Isn't that a LOT more likely?

True story, happened about 1978 on a deer lease around 5 miles from Fouke Arkansas. I was actually hoping to find the Fouke Monster (though I honestly figured what I was hearing was racoons or hogs) so technically, I was squatchin'. That means I was squatchin' when squatchin' wasn't cool.

I'd be most interested in talking to the vet who treated that dog and see what tooth patterns/bite radius information it might yield.

DWA is the self-appointed authority on what is science and what is not. If it agrees with what he thinks, it's science. If it doesn't agree with what he thinks, it's junk.

There are three class A sightings ranging from 30 to 60 miles around Iroquois Falls, Ontario: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=10611 on 10/4/92 by a veteran police officer on a moose hunting trip - http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23171 on 9/2006 by forest growth and yield technician, he and partner had 50 lb. plus “boomerang shaped†wet root thrown at them as well as smaller stick. Reporting individual back-tracked projectile's trajectory and encountered creature. He was so profoundly affected by the encounter that he suffered from anxiety attacks for weeks and months afterward, for which he received treatment. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=16807 on 10/11/2006 by husband and wife driving on highway in daylight. Husband spends some three months per year in bush and has returned to the site for further research and photos/video. All three encounters took place in September or October, the latter two in 2006 and roughly thirty miles apart. There is a power substation off of Monteith Road just south of Iroquois Falls; one set of lines runs out of it southward and parallels Monteith Road for about five miles some 850 yards to the west.

Sasquatch is an enigmatic animal that a lot of people have heard about, and one that relatively few of the world’s population have seen. While most of the citizens in the US and Canada have heard of them, and many of them hope that they actually do exist, the majority of the population doesn’t care whether they exist or not simply because they have never set foot on lands reportedly inhabited by Sasquatch nor do they expect to do so. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a segment of the public to be totally skeptical concerning the existence of Sasquatch if questioned about the subject. On the other hand, many people – some who live, hunt, hike, fish, camp, prospect or routinely drive through areas which have a long history of Sasquatch sightings and encounters – vehemently dismiss the idea that the animals could exist on the American Continent. Some of these skeptics spend an inordinate amount of time on various interactive internet web sites in which Sasquatch is the primary subject and on general social media boards or forums where the subject is occasionally mentioned. Their participation in such discussions is limited solely to constantly reiterating their opinion that such creatures could not and do not exist. Curiously, they feel it is their duty or obligation to convince those that have seen these animals - sometimes more than once and in some cases more than one at a time – that those witnesses did not actual see a Sasquatch, but simply saw a another animal and mistakenly identified it (or them). If the skeptic fails in that endeavor, some go the extra keyboard mile by challenging the reporting witness’s veracity, medication intake, alcohol consumption levels and “motivesâ€. If those “stirring the pot†tactics fail to convince the witnesses (and other readers) that the skeptic is so intelligently enlightened and all-knowing that they must be right, the skeptics are forced to revert to their last few dribbles of sputtering, nonsensical and pretentious rhetoric. (Mind you, the skeptic’s responses to the reports of sightings of Sasquatch are the primary subjects here.) The skeptic’s “fall back†questions are usually: (1) Where is your proof? (2) Do you have good clear photographs? (3) Can you provide the names of the people who have been involved in the reports you have published or mentioned on line. Of course the answer to their first question is so asinine no reply is warranted. If the witness had obtained biological “proofâ€, confirmed by science, the entire world would know about it. The answer to number 2 would be a simple “Noâ€, if directed at most folks who have seen Sasquatches. The animals’ brief visual observations of humans, whether accidentally or deliberately, can usually be likened to a kid’s examination of a horse shoe recently pulled from a blacksmith’s forge; it don’t take but a second to satisfy their curiosity. The answer to number 3 from any credible researcher/investigator would be a flat-footed “Yes I can, but no, I will notâ€. Sasquatch field research/investigative organizations do not and will not disclose the names, addresses or phone number of the witnesses that send reports to them, unless the witnesses specifically requests it. Seldom do witnesses request or permit the disclosure of personal information or locations of sightings or encounters.The reason should be obvious. Why is it that some of the most vehement Sasquatch skeptics are residents (self declared) of areas of North America that are deemed prime Sasquatch locations by Sasquatch “hunters’, and which generate an unusually high number of reports from apparently credible witnesses? On the surface, the answer seems as enigmatic as the subject animal itself. There are two adjoining counties in a state in the Pacific Northwest that have - based on the number of Sasquatch sightings and/or encounters reported to multiple research groups, law enforcement agencies and the news media - an impressive population of the subject animals.The overall area of these counties also provides excellent habitat and food sources for the animals. The total number of Sasquatch sightings/encounters from that state reported to and published by only one (of many in the PNW) prominent research groups is about two hundred forty-two. That same research group has received several hundred more reports from witnesses in the state that have not yet been published. One of the two specific counties mentioned has generated twenty one reports that have been published by the same research organization. One witness from that group of witnesses is a psychologist and another is an ex-military policeman. The research group’s unpublished reports list show there are at least two dozen more sightings/encounters reports from that county. The adjoining county to the east of the first has generated only six sightings/encounters reports that have been published by that same research group, although the group has received more than thirty additional reports which have not been published. It would be reasonable to conclude these two very scenic counties would be ideal areas for anyone with any real interest in knowing the truth about the existence of Sasquatch. A person need not be concerned about bringing back good photos or biological proof of one; a person only has to see one clearly to know they exist. So how could any intelligent, open minded resident of such an area arrive at a concrete conclusion that Sasquatch does not exist there, or in other areas far removed from their own? Does that person base their opinion on a belief that the thousands of his peers in his own state who have come forward with descriptions of their sightings or encounters are liars, hoaxers or mentally impaired? Along the Applegate River in the southern part of the Eastern County is the location of the historical Bigfoot Trap monument on federal land. The trap was built with a permit from the federal government by the NAWRT in 1974. Located in the town of Ashland in that county is the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service’s Animal Forensic Lab, reportedly the only such lab in the world. The Western County is the home of the Oregon Cave National Monument. That county has a rich history of Bigfoot sighting and encounters. A local group erected a giant figure of a “Prehistoric Caveman†at the I-5 exit to Grant’s Pass. Any nay-saying skeptic from that area wishing to convince rational people that Sasquatch does not exist has, as folks down this way are prone to say, a hard row to hoe. Might it be that the opinions expressed by some of the skeptics are not really their own, but those of others that have strongly suggested those are the appropriate ones for public consumption? But that would suggest skullduggery, cover-up or conspiracy wouldn’t it? Well, such things are becoming fairly common during the past few years, aren’t they? Even the most hardened skeptic will admit that. It is well known and documented that those with questionable agendas routinely use gullible and willing stooges to assist by posting untrue, vicious and demeaning statement about those who know the agendas being promoted are deceitful. (More about that later.)

Apparently tracks can be left of less than five toes when all five are intact. I am re-reading "Legend Meets Science" and examples are mentioned of BF climbing muddy banks with only three toes digging in despite lower elevation tracks leading to these of five toes IIRC.

Maybe not, but a lesson in dental forensics wouldn't hurt.

Those are noble words but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to speak to the vitriol which has been documented. You took the time to take skeptics to task for our supposed tone in this discussion, why not take the time to do the same for the adherents?

Trying to catch up on this thread. Funny but BF hardly seems pertinent to me today when I am trying to figure out what growled in my back yard last night so long and loud that it woke me up. Whatever it was, it was not something I would like to meet in the dark. I have large growling things in my yard, there are African looking lions with cubs in Milwaukie Wisconsin, and the Russians just unearthed a skeleton with an elongated alien looking skull. Can't we at least agree that sometimes this earth is a strange place?