Leaderboard

News Bulletin: People lie sometimes. It's shocking, I know. WSA, If you were a prosecuting attorney then no one in your county would ever go to jail. They would just have to say "bigfoot did it" and you would drop the charges. Your deputies might have a hard time finding all the criminal bigfeets running around though.

Yes, the idea that an animal has been caught in a container, rope, fencing, or plastic 6 pack rings ( all actually having happened) is as "grasping" as portals, telepathic communication, and UFO origins ( none of which has been proven to happen ) /sarcasm. I get your point JDL, but to make that comment does nothing but invite debate. Rogue footer gave his opinion of what he sees, pointing a finger and saying that a skeptics view ( that has basis of happening in the past regarding wildlife ) is grasping does nothing to further the discussion.

I think I may have read that they also used Patty as a model. Not very scientific as there is more than a very good chance the Patterson creature is a hoax. t.

BTW - Personal opinion here .. small sample size, shouldn't draw too strong a conclusion, but I've had the most daytime activity when I was out alone and the most night time activity when I was camping with 1-2 other people. I think it's a matter of balance, the amount of ruckus we make to attract attention vs the number of eyeballs "witnesses out there" have to avoid being seen by. A group of 2-3 around a campfire seems to hit the "sweet spot" making enough noise through conversation, chopping wood, and firelight filtering through the forest, without seeming much of a threat. On the other hand when I'm hunting, alone, I don't have others chaos to distract me from noticing subtle things going on around me. Just thinking out loud. MIB

Don't make wild claims like that unless you want them challenged. There is NO chance the Patterson "creature" was a hoax. If it was, by now someone would have shown how it was done in a believable way rather than resorting to feeble excuses why they didn't match it exactly. Instead, every attempt to debunk it fails so horribly that it adds credibility rather than taking it away. MIB

I am surprised that a mangy bear would be so well received. The Patterson creature would be insulted.

This is an opinion based upon your belief system, nothing more.

If you can't attach it with the text editor's file attachment feature. You can take a fullscreen, screenshot. Those will post. That's an interesting comparison Cryptic Megafauna. SWWSP, I agree with the single person method of research. However, being a hunter, a team of two can be just as effective. From my experience the preferred method for hunting in the PNW is road hunting. Sure your going to chance upon things now and then, but the best way to experience what is going on out in the forest is to get out into it. Away from the roads and trails.

Behold 3D printed skeletons of a unicorn and the easter bunny, respectively.

I disagree. The more reports pile up without any proof of bigoot, the more this emphasizes that bigfoot is a product of the mind, not flesh and blood. You have it backwards.

I got to get me some snow shoes and get into the winter back country. Pretty hard to get around without leaving footprints in the winter. Better yet maybe cross country skis. I used to do that a lot in California. My gear is all so old that they don't even make boots with bindings like that any more.

IMO, "science" has periodically been used by various individuals, groups & organizations in a veiled attempt to give themselves a degree of credibility. However, when you peel away the layers of those onions, there is rarely any real science in play. Now that the entertainment value of BF has largely been exploited by the tsunami of cable TV shows, et. al, and as those circuses appear to be leaving town, pause is being given to all things BF until the oxygen returns to the room. Opportune time to reflect upon what this is all about sans the buzz and hysteria seemingly incumbent in this endeavour. Sincerity, will however continue to plow forward and those few practitioners will eventually prevail as the circus barkers fade into the abyss of oblivion.

Well MIB, every single life form on this planet that has ever been photographed/filmed once has been photographed/filmed again. All we have other than this one good clip is blurry, hoaxed or misidentified stumps, animals or shadows. That's not very scientific either. That being said, I know you think you've had an encounter so you know better than I. In any case, all the arguments have been made as to whether Patty is real or not. We're all just waiting for the next capture on film that can't be disputed. t.

Hello LakeCountyBigfooot, I'm curious. That looks like a very expensive skeleton project. If Dr. Melsrum didn't pat for it out of his own pocket how in the heck did he convince whoever it was that footed the bill? Was it the Idaho State University? I guess I don't understand how he accomplished the financing and where the money came from. Just the research and design to get it to the 3D state it's in now must have cost a small fortune. And if it was the university here I thought his superiors in the past just rolled there eyes, tolerated him, and just looked the other way when he started talking about Sasquatch. It's obvious to me that someone else might be thinking Sasquatch is real? There has to be some story there and I sure would like to know what it is.

Reliability of identifying individual people the witness is not familiar with in a lineup of similar people is very different than reliability of identifying a particular species when the witness is familiar with all but one. Think about it. I think it would be hard to pick the right individual from a lineup of similar humans, similarly dressed, with similar features. Line up 6 cops in uniform and identify the one that stole your donut. On the other hand, a person who is familiar with 5 of 6 species being asked to identify the one that doesn't fit? If you line up a badger, a deer, a bear, a bigfoot, a possum, and a raccoon, I think it would be reasonable to expect a high percentage of people who were outdoor people to pick the bigfoot from the lineup. Suggesting that there's a connection between witness inability to identify a suspect and witness inability to identify a SPECIES lacks rational credibility. Nobody should be disingenuous enough to suggest it and nobody should be foolish enough to fall for it. MIB

Those that care and fly off the handle because no one believes them are hoaxers, unstable or mostly disfunctional. At least in my opinion. If you've ever taken a known liar to task you'll know what I mean. t.

^^^ That is all well and good, DWA, but you thought the shag carpet walking by the camera in an April Fools joke was a really, real bigfoot. Your powers of evidence sussing do not impress me. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50874-wellhmmmm-what-have-we-here/