Leaderboard

Agreed, else you might get fooled by an April's Fool video. What color is the sky in your world? Are there two suns? Two moons? Is everyone else there as smart as you? Obviously you do or you wouldn't carry on this incessant babbling about how everyone else is stupid and you're smart. Yes, you are the only one here who does that. You realize it was a scientist who informed you about those 125,000 gorillas, don't you, or had you already got out there and discovered them yourself?

^^^This is getting ridiculous, guys.^^^

I'll be there. I'm going to nail some ribs to a tree, slather them with Ketchum sauce and BBQ them. We know all about your plan to shoot one, so we've "recruited" one of your mules too. We "know something" on him. We don't call it blackmail, or extortion. Not when it involves mules anyway. We call him "suitably motivated".

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/spokanes.htm cut from article: "... I suppose you will beat with me [sic] if I trouble you with a little of their (the Spokane Indians) superstition, which has recently come to my knowledge." "They believe in the existence of a race of giants which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west of us. This mountain is covered with perpetual snow. They inhabit its top. They may be classed with Goldsmith's nocturnal class, as they cannot see in the daytime. They hunt and do all their work: in the night." "They are men stealers. They come to the people's lodges in the night, when the people are asleep, and put them under their skins and take them to their place of abode without their even walking. When they awake in the morning they are wholly lost, not knowing in what direction their home is. The account the Indians give of these giants will in some measure correspond with the Bible account of such a race of beings. They say their track is about a foot and a half long. They will carry two or three beams upon their back at once." "They frequently come in the night, steal their salmon from the nets, and eat them raw. If the people are away they always know when they are coming very near by their strong smell, which most intolerable. It is not uncommon for them to come in the night and give three whistles. Then the stones will begin to hit the houses. The people are troubled with their nocturnal visits." ////////////////////////////////// i would say the Spokane tribes description of the myth that we now call Bigfoot is not at all at odds with what people describe today. yes? no? im not asking anyone to believe in something without tangible proof, on the contrary i think ive been a pretty strong proponent of securing physical proof. But i do not think it is fair to say that the attributes of the myth we call bigfoot is some modern invention.

After reading media reports and posts on numerous internet sites, watching TV documentaries and listening to radio talk shows about Justin Smeja’s reported killing and burying of a juvenile Sasquatch, I’m very puzzled about many of aspects of the case, and really would like for those familiar with the case to help me make sense of them. From what I understand Justin shot and then buried the BF after he looked very closely at the dying animal’s face and saw that what he had shot was a human-like primate. While examining the animal, blood from the gunshot wounds dripped onto his boot(s). Reportedly, after suffering deep remorse for killing such a human-like creature, and fearing that authorities might find the body in the vehicle he was in, he buried it in the area. His later statements indicate the body was not actually buried underground, but placed in a natural depression and covered with limbs and duff. (I seriously ask that I be corrected by anyone who knows differently if anything that I “understand†is erroneous.) Reportedly the “burial site†was not examined again until the snow that fell sometime after the event melted months (?) later. During that examination by Justin and ‘B C’(?), all the biological remains that were found and collected from the depression was a piece of flesh with hair attached. At this point, I will post this as a start to a new thread but pause to ask that those who know will confirm or correct just this small part of the whole affair. Please note, I am not trying to rehash the whole affair, I just want to discuss parts of it that are apparently incompletely addressed, explained or possibly omitted to conceal some very pertinent facts. I will greatly appreciate your knowledgeable input and patience on this continuing thread.

I agree with the DNA approach as I'm not prokill, not just because I think they are a hominin but also that I don't believe anyone would be able to retain possession of the specimen. I often hear the argument that without a body, you wouldn't be able to tell what the DNA is from. This is born from a lack of understanding how DNA is studied / matched to knowns or it's similarity to knowns. So far the problem seems to be that it is too close to human. Below is a link to how it would be done at a minimal expense provided it's NOT human. http://ibarcode.org/hajibabaei/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/benchmarking-dna-barcodes-an-assessment-using-available-primate-sequences.pdf

No Sir, it's not a camp fire story to everyone else. If he/she and the tens of thousands of others who have seen the things - some more than once and more one at a time - were sworn and placed on the witness stand in a judicial hearing, their testimonies would convince a judge or jury that there would be a credible reason to believe the creatures exist. Such a hearing could be obtained if requested under specific circumstances and for for appropriate reasons. The good part would be that skeptics, nay-sayers and such would not be able spout off their ill-founded opinions to disrupt such a hearing as they continually do on this and other forums. The would have absolutely no standing in such a hearing.

No. Not on vacation. I just can't tell who is saying what so I gave up. (I told them I need a color key).

There is no score to keep. We need a body or a chunk of it, and until that happens people are gonna sling mud in your face for looking, discussing or even remotely taking this subject seriously.

Crowlogic: "Why not have me banned from the forum, it's that easy just do it." Crowlogic, are you challenging the authority of the moderators or perhaps you are tired of arguing.? If that stance is not indicative of trolling, I have no idea what trolling is.

Oh, we had fun with the Fouke word. I told everyone back in camp I found the Fouke monster, he's out in the woods Fouking. My brother was known as the Fouke monster for awhile.

Does he always take me in the wrong direction? Or is he trained to kick and spoil the shot?

Why would BF proponents waste time arguing with the likes of me or my ilk?? Oh yes, it's a Bigfoot forum. What better place to discuss BF than a Bigfoot forum? This should'nt be hard to comprehend. [Fwiw I have a LOT of people on ignore.]

People here constantly and erroneously refer to skeptics as scofftics/denialists and vice versa.

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.

Why DON'T we disperse though? Probably the better suggestion at this point.

It's a difficult situation to give science something they won't touch, it just sort of falls on the floor.

Gumshoe and Squatchy, I too am sorry for the loss you have both experienced. I just lost my Mother this past May, so I know how you both feel. If you have been around as long as I have I'm sure that you now realize that time doesn't necessarily heal all wounds, but it does temper the pain. Hang in there my friends, and I hope this causes no offense but I will keep you in my prayers.

I just love these posts that start with something like, "Aside from Patty....". So let's, shall we, just acknowledge the most astounding piece of film in the last 100 years, and then dismiss it in the next breath? So that, ummmm, ain't bat guano crazy to you? 'kay. It has got folks like Crow so twisted up it results in bizarre statements like, "They've gone extinct." (Talk about a baseless leap of non-logic if ever there was one) Do you guys practice this nonsense in front of a mirror or in chat sessions? It seriously gives rational people the urge to sidle away from you and spin a finger around one ear. Really.

While this is true, the original post that Crowlogic refers to was asking why denialists come to a forum that clearly supports the possible existence of the creature known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch or any of the myriad names associated with it. This isn't a "There's no way a creature like this could exit" site, it is a "This creature could possibly exist" site. There are sites for those who deny the possibility, the JREF come to mind, and they could have posted over there, but then the discussion wouldn't go beyond the usual backslapping and atta boys that always go on over there. Some who post on this forum as a denialist are treated like heroes on that site, and maybe that is part of the allure in coming here and trying to stir the pot. They even go so far as to boast about what they are planning to do over on this forum. I just look at it as they are very bored and lacking attention in their personal lives, and seek it from any source they can. Some who lean towards the "non-believer" end of the spectrum ( I actually consider them what a true skeptic is ) come here to discuss things and gain a better perspective on the subject, but they actually do have an somewhat open mind. The denialist comes here for one purpose only, that is to stir up the natives, plain and simple. Sadly, a lot of members here fall for it and that is what keeps them coming back, post after post. Personally, I'm a skeptic who leans on the side of the possibility of existence. I have had a couple of experiences that make me want to know more. I want the proof, but I acknowledge the possibility, They deny ANY possibility, regardless of that evidences strength or origin. There are somethings that are out and out BS, but some of the things offed are not so easily dismissed, yet they won't even entertain the possibility that it could be genuine. But hey, that's just my take.

Crowlogic - There are a number of reasons. First and foremost, I've seen two for certain and very most likely a third. All the logic in the world about why one thing or another is a hoax is ab-so-lutely IRRELEVANT in the face of that. You might as well try to convince me the moon doesn't exist. It's not a problem with ME, it's a problem with YOU. Your feeble protests have been weighed and rejected as inadequate "special pleading". Beyond that ... well, frankly there's no point in "beyond that" unless I'm pretending denial of my own observations and experiences and I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to delve down that path. Bigfoots are real. Deal with it. There is no "waste of time" in trying to understand what you know to be true. The waste of time is sitting around arguing, as you do, with people who already have a thing figure out that is beyond your personal comprehension. Project and protest all you want but it's you, not me, that's wasting time. MIB