Leaderboard

No, sasquatch is detectable is NOT a fact. First of all, for it to be detectable it would have to exist as a real animal. That is not a proven fact. Abstract ideas exist, yes, but they are hardly detectable or objectively observable. Which is what you were getting at, I assume during a conversation about game cams.

But that is surely not what you meant with your earlier post? When you said: "And lets remember that Sasquatch is detectable, otherwise we wouldnt be talking about it here. " You were not talking about a coyote or a peyote, were you? No, you were stating sasquatch as if it were a fact. The discussion was around game cameras. If you care not whether sasquatch is detectable as a coyote or a peyote trip, then that makes no sense with your contribution to the discussion. Otherwise, you would be saying that a coyote could be a sasquatch. Also, if it was a peyote induced hallucination, how is that going to be captured on a game camera?

Norse, not every myth is founded in a real creature. You can keep insisting that this one is, but it is not a fact. It's great for you if your world view absolutely has to include room for bigfoot both in its present reality and its history. But, again, that does not make it factual.

No.Grizzly bear are rare.......period. Because their home ranges are huge. And with loss of habitat its very hard to expand their population through conservation efforts. This has nothing to do with bullets and everything to do with bulldozers. I would expect this level of impact with any large north American omnivore.

Not like either interested, active nor disinterested, non-active parties have produced much of anything tangible......

For those who lament an investment of time with no result...I'm inclined to just ask: Do you mean time waiting for others to deliver the goods to you, or time actively and actually frequenting those locales where activity is reported to occur? If some think it is their due to have "them" solve their mystery for them, I have no wonder they are disappointed. If some have done that, at least they might have the decency to not second guess those who are doing more than they, and give deference where and when it is due. To do otherwise, they run the risk of merely sounding bitter and malcontented. That those so described feel they have wasted their time seems inescapable to me, and completely predictable as well. How could it not be so ?

Kind of like when someone claims to have proof of a suit isn't it. Heh, that's what most topics are anymore. I've noticed this in the short time I've been a member. It seems to me that in the absence of tangible evidence or real excitement in the field people start to rehash old sightings, claims. As an interested skeptic, I find it remarkable that this lack of progress doesn't cause at least a percentage of believers to re-evaluate their positions. Instead, I see that folks some folks are ready to accept supernatural remedies (aka portals, cloaking, etc.) as a way of reducing what I suppose is their considerable cognitive dissonance regarding the state of the things. That's sad to me as a rationalist as it feels as though critical thinking is falling by the wayside as people, who have vested so much time/ energy and their identity into this field, struggle for anything that might justify their viewpoint. Thus the thread asking in a humorous way: When is enough, enough?

We don't know the animal has been seen making them, we know people claim to have seen the animal making wood knocks. These are not the same thing. Actually, I don't recall any reports that claim to have seen a bigfoot performing a tree knock. Would you care to link some, DWA? I can't find any mention of a report where the person claimed to see a bigfoot actually making the wood knock. I did find comments like the below: "No Bigfoot has ever actually been seen beating a tree or creating such a sound, but there has been reports of people hearing the sounds of distant wood knocking throughout forests." http://www.bigfoothunting.com/hunting/bigfoot_wood_knocking.shtml

IMO, "believing in BF" is where the fatal flaw (disillusionment) is germinated. It clouds pragmatic thinking and sows the seeds for expectations that manifest themselves in blurry photographs, dubious footcasts, audio misrepresentations, and piles of cash and time wasted on "expeditions" and/or affiliation with most all the so-called BF Research groups. A FTF observation is likely 99.44% the luck of being in the right time at the right place and 99.9999% of the time when not on a so-called BF Expedition. Instead, go hiking, camping, fishing or hunting sans any BF expectations as that's when the FTF will likely occur. Need any substantiation of such? Read 99.9999% of the BF sighting reports submitted. If you are then fortunate enough to have that observation of something that defies all previously accepted paradigms, count yourself among the few, the proud, the knowers.

As a fence sitter I've always had a problem with hardcore proponents that come up with excuses or reasons to account for Bigfoots elusiveness. Such as BF willingness to approach homes, dumpsters, camps, roads with cars, and such biut deathly afraid of trail cams. There are always excuses as to why BF always eludes exposure. The only reason I can reason that this thing is dang tootin impossible to find is because the population is rather small and limited to the PNW area or possibly extinct since the PGF. Do I believe it exists in darn near every state in the U.S., nope.

Am I the only one here that finds it acutely interesting that a behavior trait of a creature that has not been proven to exist now has branching theories as to alternative method? A method, that at least for me, seems to want to account for why even more common forest noises can be attributed to bigfoot? I'm not trying to be deliberately combative. I honestly find things like this to be fascinating. An alleged bigfoot wood knock sounds too flat? No problem. Bigfoot now use their hands to create flat sounding wood knocks. Of course, why wouldn't they? Urban legends and myths morph to resist the intrusion of reality. Awesome, I love stuff like this. I think, in science, this is called special pleading. I do believe that there is some sort of relationship between skeptical commentary and bigfoot morphing traits. For example, a proponent says bigfoot did X, and then a skeptic explains X as a common phenomenon and then goes on to explain that phenomenon. Shortly thereafter, bigfoot lore has been adjusted to account for X. In an absurd way, skeptics are helping to sharpen and hone the bigfoot myth. Fascinating. (that was supposed to be my Spock voice)

My apologies. I thought I had read where you found tracks in your backyard, but it was a sound in your backyard that you could not identify? I'm a bit confused, LCB. Are you a believer, or not? " I am here simply out of a compulsion to find answers to something I thought could not exist, and honestly in many ways wish it did not." "Now factually I have never found any prints to substantiate anything, so until I do, and I know they are beyond hoaxing, until then I remain skeptical of any conclusions I may be tempted to believe." Those two statements don't strike me as clearly congruent. Again, correct me if I'm mistaken, but you reside in semi-rural, semi-suburban Chicago. You heard a noise in your backyard that you cannot ascribe to a known animal, in your experience. You jump from that to bigfoot, yet somehow think this is the rational part of your mind that keeps dragging you back to bigfoot as an explanation?