Leaderboard

Look in the mirror when you say that big fella. word salad?? Dmaker used to call it "word soup", maybe that made it more palatable, for him anyway.

I'd be delighted to see some of your original artwork but I’d be thrilled if you would just answer a question any professional ecologist should be able to answer...one put to you but never answered. How long should it take to definitively answer whether or not an apex predator exists? Say a bipedal ape weighing 300-800 lbs, standing 9 feet tall and who regularly visits the cabin you are staying in on a 10 acre parcel in OK? That seems to be what this is mainly about, hurt feelings over bipto leaving. Area X - 14 years of study, no evidence brought forward, just anecdotes. Drama punctuated occasionally by events like the Echo incident and a tree falling. Add a hateful farewell with potshots taken at the staff and volunteers who actually make the BFF work and a childish attempt to draw an analogy between skeptics and a parasitic river fluke with continued potshots toward the staff and moderators here. This is really something we want to fight about? If questions brought forward by skeptics and proponents are too hard we should limit them so Brian Brown can tell his story his way? Not just his way on his podcasts or his website or his blog but here? This isn't a children's squatch league where all participants get a ribbon solely for participation. It's a forum to talk about bigfoot and talk about possible evidence with pointed questions as per the guidelines we all supposedly read and agreed to before joining. There are plenty of parasites in the bigfoot world but they are all human and they’re usually proponents or knowers not skeptics. They prey upon other humans and take money and time away. They have names like Dyer, Carter, Coy, Patterson and Biscardi. They tell stories that get uncovered by questions asked here among other places. That’s why the ability to ask pointed questions was covered by the rules in the first place. Without that ability we might as well just listen to Tales of Enoch on audio and say, yup, that’s possible.

I just want to say first in this thread before posting further that Dmaker and I had a really long talk and remain friends, I used a quote of his earlier in this thread that he felt that I had taken out of context from the ISF. I apologize to Dmaker for that, he didnt ask me to make a public statement, but I felt compelled to do so here and now. Now what I want to say is that there is a evidence and then there is proof, big difference. Despite not having proof of existence this forum allows for the possibility that it does indeed exist. Evidence is what proponents use in order to find said proof if there is any to be found. I fully support a skeptic looking at evidence and recognizing mundane explanations for said evidence. Even if I'm on the opposing end of the argument (skookum cast = Elk lay vs. whatever). What I dont support is when a denialist argues that all evidence is a hoax or whatever based on their stalwart stance that in no way can Sasquatch, or any other cryptid hominiod on the planet exist because science would have found it by now. What if the denialist is wrong? If your constantly looking for the zipper is there a chance to overlook something? We proponents are laymen, we go out, we look (sometimes your horse cracks your ribs and you dont make it out) and I dont think its too much to ask from the skeptic side of the debate to show people some respect about this subject on a forum dedicated to the subject....... that's all I ask. I'm not suggesting you take my tree break find as proof of existence, I know that, I'm just looking for sign that possibly might lead me to proof. And if in the end, I'm wrong? That's OK too, it was my time, fuel, patience and enjoyment in being in the outdoors........and if you mock me for being a schmuck, I'd appreciate it if you did somewhere other than here. I do not need to be "saved", I get plenty of time in hunting and fishing and leading a normal life, thank you. Existence of the creature is a open question here, despite the fact that it is not an open question most anywhere else.

I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject... For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another. There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines: None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again. That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle. It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics. The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative. Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.

This is not the anti-Bigfoot Forum, check the rules, call it bias if you must, I think the proponent side of things is relatively free and clear from bias, but of course I'm biased, since I"m a knower.

Sorry but there is absolutely no proof of Bigfoot regardless of what anyone wants to believe. Hence one of the big problems we have here on the forum.

'tis interesting and perhaps instructive that a thread on derailing itself gets derailed by exactly the people and exactly the approaches to the topic under discussion. Hmmm. "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." MIB

Duly noted, but the problem lies not in the question itself, but the perpetual argument that is fed by both sides and the inevitable derailment of whatever discussion it was originally spawned from.

Hello Crowlogic, Of course, but when the demand is never met to one's satisfaction at what point does one simply walk away? Or should I say at what point would you walk away. Or maybe more to an inner, more personal point, CAN you walk away. It may be something you might want to consider? And if you haven't already, then why haven't you?

Oh goody. This thread is now becoming a debate about the existence of bigfoot. How novel. Awesome.

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

There are a tonne of other words better equipped to describe this Guy other than a "knower" and I don't know any rationalist in this field that accepts this guys claims. I'd go one further and say it doesn't bode well for the people he treats as a qualified doctor and the people who read his books on "positive parenting" more so than the community.

Hello Norseman, Yes, BF is an open question and a lot of what gets done here lies in finding ways to narrow down the search. To hash out methods that might be beneficial in laying that open question to rest. In that regard I think the Forum has helped spur people into getting more active in that quest as well- ribs and all Seriously though those that have taken to field work gained the confidence to do so by reading what and how the experienced folks do things. We learn about gear, cameras, wildlife like owls, coyotes, bears, and lots of other valuable data that we normally wouldn't know how to find out for ourselves except by trial and error. Many of us namely myself enjoy the woods so much more now that I observe and hear more things that I've learned about. The Sasquatch question is indeed an open one if NAWAC is to be believed and since this Forum is a place to learn about how to conduct research and learn about methods then it's a definite win situation. Is there a chance BF doesn't exist? Yes. Is it greater than the chance that it does? Only time and effort will tell. One thing I have noticed here on the Forum though. Rarely if ever do hardliners on either side of the fence initiate new threads. It seems that once there's an opening in a thread someone else started then the door gets opened and in walks the debaters to begin the dueling anew. IDK, just an MO I've noticed for a couple of years now.

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest? Unless he says "a woman claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet", don't use it to counter his point. Pretty simple concept really. Speaking of being respectful, how about you not telling someone if they could read they would know sasquatch exists.

That list demonstrates that conspiracies are usually busted open relatively quickly. Its a pretty weak list as well some not even really being conspiracies at all. How long do you think a list of all the unfounded popular government conspiracies in the last 50 years would look? If you take an unlikely, but possible, variable like bigfoots existence and combine it with another unlikely variable, the government purposfully supressing/hiding bigfoot for 50-100 years. Thats a crackpot theory. Again bigfoots existence combined with the evolutionary adaptation like mind speak or ir vision, not seen before in mammals, gets you on the crackpot scale. Could the government be covering up for an ir vision mind speaking undiscovered by the general public for 100 years. Sure its possible. Its also possible most of obamas policies come from the advice of Lincoln's ghost or aliens started the water fluoridation program to eliminate our psychic powers and make us weakened for their future invasion.

This is a sample of some of the audio I have captured of them near our cabin. If I hadn't heard the hooting before the other sounds my first thought would not have been "owl". Owls.mp3

Hello Bodhi, May I wade in here? We are Human. Sometimes when reading in a thread one may come across a post that triggers a thought and many simply have that need to get the thought out there so that it doesn't get forgotten. Sure, a question may cause some temporary drifting off the topic but it was either the topic itself or the post within that was on topic that created the question in the first place. That question may source from a new member in which case some leeway should be given. In that case it would be more gracious and welcoming to try to address the question. Maybe by mentioning the the question as well as the answer may be off topic. I still think that some tolerance and judgment is needed is cases where comments might tend to steer a topic in a different direction. I also still think that if the OP is on the ball and focused on the point that initiated the topic in the first place then steering things back on point can easily be done and done respectfully. I am of the opinion that all members have seen many threads devolve and throw up their hands and leave the discussion. What I haven't seen is much in the way of the OP requesting that the discussion move back to the thread's topic. I've started doing that and in the last two threads I've started there has been almost NO drifting off the subject. We all can do this and as soon as a real/not real head butt begins it's perfectly OK to remind the posters of what the topic is and ask that the discussion return to it. It may take more than one posted request but I was nicely surprised to see a fairly decent and quick realignment to the subject matter. In general I think members enjoy things more when discussions are narrower; mostly because threads may play out quicker and not go pages ad nauseam while posters try to stay on track amid a debate on existence. Really, we can all do this. I simple timely request sends the message that the circular hardline debates need to be shelved so that a topic can smoothly continue. It won't take long for the proponent/denialist camps to understand that every thread isn't just a fresh staging ground for sparring.

It's not always what you say but how you say it. I often qualify my doubt in BF by saying things like, "if bigfoot does exist" then offering my opinion on the subject at hand. I don't believe I have ever had a "true believer" jump me for saying that. But then, I am open to the idea. If I had made up my mind that Bigfoot can't possibly be real, I wouldn't waste my time on the subject. The problem seems to lie with those who are decided on both sides of the issue. If for whatever reason you are certain Bigfoot does exist, that is fine, but you have to understand many of us aren't and we question to help us determine what we personally feel is valid or not. Those who are convinced that Bigfoot does not exist in turn needs to realize those of us on the fence want to discuss certain topics without them devolving into an existence/non-existence war. Sometimes the existence/non-existence discussion has to be a part of the conversation, that's understandable; but it seems that whenever it is brought up from either side, the other side feels the need to interject. And while there is nothing wrong with offering a different opinion, that's what this is all about, those discussions seldom pertain to the subject at hand but instead take us off the rails into the existence/non-existence war. For those folks on both sides of that war, you should start a thread on that subject alone to fight it out. Keep it out of threads unless it pertains directly to the subject at hand please. Leave the other threads for honest discussion. The rest of us would greatly appreciate it.

The BFF is open to anyone who can follow the rules and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you feel a member(s) is personally annoying, use the ignore feature. If you feel someone is violating a rule, use the report feature at the bottom of each post. The staff on this forum do an outstanding job but they are not mind readers. And let me say this- If you are an individual who believes that Bigfoot does not and cannot exist, you log on for the sole purpose of reading the content and mocking the membership here and elsewhere....I can tell you that there is a growing intolerance to that mindset on this forum.

<why not ask others the same question?> Because you started it all here by quoting a three year old post that was in direct relation to loggers and game cams. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30966-loggers-and-bigfoot/?p=921164

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it. So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not. Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF. The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order.

Let's just have each member execute a pledge, as follows: I (your BFF name here) do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not submit any post for which the premise is my belief in the lack of existence of an animal known as Bigfoot, either stated directly in any said post, or as the underlying rationale for my skepticism in responding to any putative evidence. I further swear or affirm that I will address any such evidence only on its own relative merits, employing only sound scientific precepts, scientific precedents and relevant personal experiences that might explain my position. I will not state, infer or insinuate that my judgment of the evidence is in any way based on a personal belief that the animal is a scientific and biological impossibility, or only an imagined, mythical animal for which no rational individual need refute by analysis or examination of forensic, historic, biologic or anecdotal evidence. To all of our resident self-styled skeptics: Why would this not be a perfectly acceptable pledge to sign? These two sticking points crop up over and over: "I don't accept that BF is real or even possible", and; "I don't need to address your evidence because BF isn't real." This does tend to stifle civil discourse around here, don't you think?

Norseman, Great post and a good story. All cultures throughout history have their folklore. Some are myths some are a combination of half truths and myths. However with the native Americans... There are just to many similar descriptions of the "wild man of the woods" "boss of the woods" to outright dismiss them as "just folkloric". As is human nature some of the stories from native Americans is no doubt embellished; however the core story, of all the different tribes is essentially the same. IMO I lends major credibility to the existence of Sasquatch. Adam

Homo Elusus - Elusive Man From Wiktionary: "ēlūsus m ‎(feminine ēlūsa, neuter ēlūsum); first/second declension deceived, tricked, fooled, having been deceived escaped, avoided, evaded, eluded, having been evaded mocked, jeered, ridiculed, having been ridiculed" Bigfoot, by definition, are hominids. Hominids are intelligent. Logically, an extant hominid coexisting with mankind must have coexisted with mankind throughout our mutual development. Logically, an extant hominid that has coexisted with mankind for millennia, must develop survival strategies that enable it to either compete with or avoid us. Lack of success in doing so = extinction. If one were to define what characteristics a surviving megafauna hominid (assume a descendant of Homo Erectus/Homo Heidelbergensis) would require in order to successfully coexist with mankind, one would come close to building a bigfoot from scratch. Elusiveness would be essential. Technology would be a liability; providing hard, lasting, indisputable forensic evidence/artifacts of their presence. Physical power and prowess would be required to offset a lack of technology. Intelligence, applied within these boundary conditions, would be a prerequisite. Sticking with documented characteristics that are exhibited by known creatures in nature, including ourselves (such as the skills possessed by the best special operations soldiers, but applied full time to the point that they are innate, reflexive, and define the creature), one could assemble a set of natural skills that, collectively, are not supernatural, but do add up to a sum that is effectively preternatural. By this logic, a creature such as bigfoot can exist, and is less improbable than one might want to believe. Still, such a creature would inevitably come into contact with mankind, resulting in both modern reports and a body of folklore extending back into antiquity. These exist. Yet, as a species, we must also somehow prevent our species from collectively pursuing evidence and reports of bigfoot in order for bigfoot to coexist with us without interference and genocidal conflict. Enter the Subjective Skeptic: An objective skeptic analyzes facts without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of existence - a subjective skeptic acts upon prejudice, insisting that something cannot be, devoting himself primarily to the refutation of evidence and fact. Subjective skeptics, confronted with a mounting body of evidence, default to a Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil strategy. This is the role that subjective skeptics within our species fulfill. They enable bigfoot to survive in a world otherwise dominated by mankind by forestalling our species. Oddly, subjective skepticism, considered today by subjective skeptics to be based in the (mis)application of the scientific method, has its origins in religion over the millennia covering the mutual existence of mankind and bigfoot (I'm going to try to stay within the forum rules here by staying as objective and general as possible). In the competition between ideologies, if a deity (considered to be good) were to create mankind (perhaps in its own image), then a competing extant hominid must have been created by something else, something competing with and different from the accepted deity. Something evil. Dogmatically, acceptance of the existence of a competing hominid inherently confers the power of creation on the competing entity (defined as evil), potentially placing it on a equal footing with the accepted deity. Therefore, the acceptance of the existence of the competing hominid, and the competing hominid itself would, by necessity, be considered evil. So Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil, becomes the doctrine of Hear no Bigfoot, See no Bigfoot, Speak no Bigfoot that we observe over the centuries, and today (cloaked by dogma misrepresented as science) in subjective skeptics. This also explains the motivation of some subjective skeptics. To preserve their own belief systems by striving against others.

Ah, nice strawman from hyperbole. Well done. Sounds like you don't have much outdoor experience. Some of the answers are obvious to me but I'll point them out for your benefit. 1) Running water generates a lot of white noise which masks the sounds made around it. FWIW, that's why I don't camp creek-side, I back away a few hundred yards. I like to be able to hear. Still, I have to go to the creek for water so there is a period of vulnerability. 2) There is generally a breeze up or down canyons. Depending on which way the wind was blowing, all scent from the guys, horses, and gear may have been moving away from Patty. It is hard to smell that which is downwind of you. This factors into a debate I had with Henner Fahrenbach. It also factors into a puzzle in my own research area where 'whatever it is' remains upwind even when the wind changes. 3) Horses have a quadrupedal gait, they don't sound like humans moving, so it is very possible Patty knew they were there but mistook them for deer or elk until they rode out of the brush. There are probably more but that gives you a general idea how naive your assumptions are. Y' know, I've seen two at different times and probably a third. Whether they exist or not is a moot question for me .. duh, of course they exist. Discussion of whether they exist is like sitting around Monday morning rehashing how the football games should have gone. Should, shouldn't ... absolutely irrelevant. Even if I agreed, the score from Sunday stands. What matters to me is HOW. I'm not entirely convinced they have any special abilities. It is at least equally possible we vastly overestimate our own abilities. If you insist on underestimating your ... foe, enemy, competition, or whatever you choose to call them ... the chances of us achieving our goals (official discovery) rather than them achieving theirs (non-discovery) drops to nil. We are doing that by insisting we can only be chasing a dumb ape. MIB

One can insist that a cryptid is just a wishful manifestation of myth or folklore, but consider this: If a cryptid exists and has been encountered by mankind, then it must also exist in folklore.

Some say smell, some say sound, some say it is so aware of its surroundings that it knows when the smallest thing is out of place or has been disturbed. Whatever the reason, it seems that there are few, if any, decent trail cam pics of the big guy (or gal...). My personal belief is that while it does not know what a camera is, it does know that it was put there by humans and that is reason enough to steer clear of it.

Its probably just vagrants. I had a similar situation around where i live. A bunch of bizarre noises and bangs in the night. Odd occurrences and what not. Turns out it was just a pack of vagrants squatting in the local woods. Thankfully the cops rounded them up and took them god knows where.