Leaderboard

http://bnatural-muddyvalley.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-weeks-game-cam-photos.html There is a bear in almost the same pose (4th pic down)

Wow, I thought this had even been debunked by the Finding Bigfoot people. I'm really surprised this still has any life in it at all. I can only posit that there REALLY not much new under the sun sasquatch-wise if this old chestnut has come around again.

Looks very much like a mangy bear to me. The feet, in particular, are very bear looking.

While we're critiquing people's character. For someone that has yet to attain a FTF encounter with the subject of this entire forum, yet proceeds to demonize it via your pet website whilst basically totally ignorant of the actual subject, and make herculean leaps in logic about what others say that is in contrast to your own opinions, speaks volumes. Per Martin (post #26) my opinion of Lansdale/GCBRO is not an isolate. Since when has a cable TV production company who's primary objective certainly appears to be entertainment value, become such an authority on the subject of this forum?

Oh? Its a camera trap photo you guys all rail about not having.....but now quality is an issue? Its not a Bear.

It may be a bear, but it doesn't look like one to me. If I saw only the photo with it on all fours I'd be less certain, but the upright photo is compelling to me. Other than a lack of hair, what other observable conditions go along with mange? The earlier photo of the mangy bear shows an animal in pathetic condition. The upright photo doesn't show an animal with patches of fur missing. It shows what looks to me like uniform short sleek hair. I would assume that mange would be more patchy, and only uniform if the hair is completely missing.

It was a bear.

Scratching at straws isn't middle ground.

Lay this to rest. Grasping at straws. It's a bear.

Hello southernyahoo, Last month four of us went wilderness camping beside a small pond that was three miles in off the access road. We hiked in with about 35 lbs. each and spent three days there. Just before dark I ran a continuous line of thread a bit thinner than button thread about 75 ft. out starting at the pond on one side of the campsite. I tied a cowbell in the end of it and draped it over a branch by the water about 3-4 ft. off the ground. Maintaining the same distance more or less from camp I took off through the woods and ran the thread at the same height from the ground on the outside of trees in a semi-circle until I again reached the edge of the pond on the other side of the camp. There I tied on another cowbell and again just passed the thread over a branch and let it dangle. Presto! the team had a perimeter alarm to alert us to any animal like a deer, Moose, bear, or Sasquatch that wanted to approach our camp. Nothing came through. In the morning I lifted the cowbells off of their branches where they crossed the trail that went along the water through the camp and we could come and go all day unhindered. At night I simply slipped the ends with the bells back on their branches and for three nights we slept well. Of course had the thread been parted and the bells came down I would have another story to tell LOL. Cheap poor man's intruder alert and you heard it here first from ol' hiflier. Hello Norseman, Because Humans have learned not to shoot the money maybe?

I'm new to the forum and I have no experiences of my own to share, but given the great discussion in this thread, I'm curious about what you all think of the Bigfoot edition of Newsweek magazine. Although it doesn't contain a tremendous amount of new information, it's point-of-view comes across as if Bigfoot has already been acknowledged. I find that very odd.

DWA, could you please link to some of these reports where people claim to witness a bigfoot doing the wood knock? Thanks.

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

I struggle to understand why you would offer anything even resembling personal details or credentials that might lead to further questioning when you have already claimed an issue with this in the past? Given your previous experience with EB, would you, especially you,not strive for absolute anonymity? But no, here you are again making statements that are bound to raise questions. It makes no sense. Sorry, but I don't believe you. You have investors lining up to give you more money than you need (so you say), and yet you only offer a CEO 275K? Your story does not add up to me. Now, you can continue to push what looks like a fantasy, or drop it and focus solely on your childhood bigfoot claims, minus fallacious support from your alleged career. Were I you, I know which choice I would make. But I know that I am not about to give your bigfoot claim any more credence due to an unverifiable background that sounds fishy to begin with.

JDL, I don't understand how you can keep waiving the objectivity flag after using your supposed career to support your bigfoot claims. All pretense to objectivity was lost at that point. Especially after claiming how busy you are and then continuing to participate in the discussion and even further offering to spend time with multiple moderators on a bigfoot forum to spend even more of your precious time confirming your identity. Added to which, a 275k salary is really not terribly impressive. It almost sounds like a figure that someone would make up who knows very little about how much CEOs actually make. Almost as if it came from someone living in their parents basement, I think was the term you used? Sorry, but it really doesn't add up. Arguments to authority are never going to be taken lightly. Imagine if I said, well I'm a phd in biology, so take what I say more seriously. And then accused anyone who questioned my anonymous credentials of "character assassination"? It's been my experience that people with actual credentials do not throw them around anonymously expecting extra support or respect. Unless you are prepared to verify those credentials, it's best to not mention them in the first place. And those that do mention them are often the ones who end up being exposed as elaborate role players. That has certainly happened here before. Were I you, I would stop playing the victim card and never mention my credentials or background ever again. At least not in an attempt to support a bigfoot claim. But we all can see how well you take "unsolicited advice".

JDL, it's very simple. If you don't want your background questioned or wondered at, then don't bring it up. Particularly in an attempt to use it to add support to your childhood bigfoot claims. You do that and then rail about objectivity, ironically, and then also question people for questioning you. That's ridiculous. I'm not about to take anything you say at face value. In fact, the more you rail about it, the less I believe you. No one who was truly as busy with those tasks as you claimed, would then continue to post and argue on a bigfoot board. And, seriously, who reveals the salary of their CEO on a bigfoot forum? That is beyond bizarre and makes your claims quite unbelievable, in my opinion.

I have never seen that GIF before. I find it interesting that the first shot of the creature, before sniffing the bait, shows the pointed head / sagittal crest attributed to Sasquatch. I may have to rethink this sighting. I had always passed it off as a mangy bear before.

I think this thread is just another opportunity for you to tell us what folly the subject matter is. Maybe you should save us all the trouble and answer your own questions. To stay on topic... The Giants are in New York and San Francisco

" If you're going to argue from the position that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist, you'll be banned from the topic. " But I don't, and never have. I believe that bigfoot does not exist, not that it cannot possibly exist. No one has been able to bring evidence to establish existence as a fact or to even give reasonable cause to think that bigfoot exists. Therefore I believe bigfoot does not now, or ever at any point the past, exist in North America. I do not believe evidence will ever be forthcoming to establish the existence of bigfoot as a fact. Bigfoot is not an overlooked species of fish. Bigfoot is a 9ft ape that roams around peoples backyards of semi-rural Chicago. It bangs on trailers and wanders around farms to twist branches. This is no fish. The coelacanth comparison is very weak. How many amateur research organizations were donning scuba gear and scouring the ocean for the coelacanth? How many amateur research orgs exist today for the sole purpose of finding bigfoot? In the U.S alone, I would wager at least 65. How you can compare this to the coelacanth is beyond me. I'm not claiming to know what someone saw. I believe that many people here that claim sightings did not see anything at all. Dishonesty is rampant within this subject and I'm sure this forum is no different. Why would it be? If a belief in bigfoot is required to participate in threads here, then you might as well ban me now. I simply cannot with a straight face, and maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, say that I can accept the premise that bigfoot just might be real. Sorry, can't do it.