Leaderboard

Terry are you in possession of the failed biology test of all these "bigfooters" and "habituates" you speak of. You have no idea of the experience that another has with wildlife. You are just making false blanket statements about other people. we had a Zoologist that used to post here about what he has seen and experienced and was ridiculed just like any other "naturalist" would be. Multiple biologists with degrees have come forward with their sighting and where has that gone, nowhere. If you want to know the truth go look for it do not wait for someone to tell you what the truth is.

Ok, so the skeptics are chomping at the bit to evaluate our evidence. What do we offer up as "good" evidence. Not proof mind you, but evidence. Tracks, film, audio, reports, etc. And this includes all bipedal cryptid hominids in the world. From Sasquatch to Yowie to Almasty. List your top three pieces of evidence you like and write a short description why. I'll start... 1- The Hobbit Science was knocked on their kester with this one. Proving ancient myths of little people correct, skeletal remains were discovered on the island of Flores that were only 10,000 years old. At first there was a big brewhau as to what the bones were? Sickly dwarf humans? Or something more archaic. The question was answered.....it was something more archaic, Homo Erectus or below, and that debate continues. 2- The PGF Ya, its controversial....sometimes I think we need to rename the BFF the PGFF. Despite the debate that boils to this day? No one has found the zipper, no one has offered up the suit. And unlike most film sites this film site was known, measured and photographed along with corresponding trackway after the film was shot. Add Bill Munns analysis which supports the hypothesis of a real animal with no real scientific rebuttal. I still like it. 3- Big Tree Walker's Bone Analysis I'll be honest here I didnt think much of this when it first came out. But short of direct proof this is pretty cool stuff. I've seen some stuff there that I have not seen before. And actually got to participate in the study by submitting a femur bone of my own that had been cracked open and the bone marrow removed. I think its cool.

I usually don't have any problem stating what evidence I like, but when proof is asked for it demonstrates a lack of interest in the evidence and how it is obtained, and it simply becomes pointless to talk about the evidence if the point is to simply say you don't have proof. Good evidence often still depends on circumstance and how that is received along with the integrity of the person who collected it. All of which becomes another point contention. One should ask if there is any benefit of trying to put evidence forth for skeptics who don't likely have the credentials to give it it's due evaluation. One can hope however, that those that do have the credentials would happen upon the evidence, and the science would advance. Some of the most meaningful evidence to me is that which I've seen, collected, and recorded myself. Explaining why it is compelling to me could take a lot of space, but probably only compelling to those who know me or the science that would apply to it very well.

Twist Yes, this is what I mean. My area is small but theirs is far and wide and have never figured out their home turf. I just know that I have had interactions with them in my area in the past few years and they are very picky to who I bring. But you never know and they will let you know. SWW This is why I say if you act like you are hunting deer and place bait down if allowed and then place the camera you might get lucky. I am trying to find a way that I can hook a camera to a hard drive that could be solar powered while placed high on a tree , at the same time be able to dial into it with a prepaid simm card and watch it at home. At the same time I would like to have the camera motion sensored. The motion sensor would have to be run down the tree away from the camera so that if a creature was to walk into a bait pile it would be picked up. The times we placed cameras these creature knew they were there and would avoid them or play with them , but would always stay on the edge of the flash. But I never hid them either I left them in plain site and I was not thinking Bigfoot either I was thinking deer too. So you have to place all these factors in play, that it might be possible that these creatures can detect these systems of detection by observance. I am more in line to believe that they seem to detect our thoughts or intentions some how. Crow I have asked to go to some hab sites and have been refused, I have no problem with being refused. If I go to their home and stir the pot for them lets say, I get to leave but they still live there. I go to my area and if they are around I can start to test my theories and they seem to be ok with this. I understand where you are at and you want answers, but you are not going to find them here. You might think I am telling you stories but I am not every detail I have said is true, they are not stories and when I came out with this mind thing just like others have , it was because I had too. You try to deal with that and tell me how you would try to deal with some thing that just had read your thoughts. It is not easy and to come into the open with it knowing that it sounds crazy,( yea couple shooters for me please) But that was some thing that I needed to test with them and it is not a good feeling but acceptable. You know everyone have their reason why they want to keep these creatures a secret , yes it could be for their protection. I believe it is the protection of their land as well as their family and not as much as the creatures themselves. In my area I believe that I am their test rat as well as they are mine, it is a relationship that I cannot explain but has to be experienced. I hope that you find your peace with this Crowlogic I really do.

Thanks. Saved me a post.

Twist Yes, this is what I mean. My area is small but theirs is far and wide and have never figured out their home turf. I just know that I have had interactions with them in my area in the past few years and they are very picky to who I bring. But you never know and they will let you know. SWW This is why I say if you act like you are hunting deer and place bait down if allowed and then place the camera you might get lucky. I am trying to find a way that I can hook a camera to a hard drive that could be solar powered while placed high on a tree , at the same time be able to dial into it with a prepaid simm card and watch it at home. At the same time I would like to have the camera motion sensored. The motion sensor would have to be run down the tree away from the camera so that if a creature was to walk into a bait pile it would be picked up. The times we placed cameras these creature knew they were there and would avoid them or play with them , but would always stay on the edge of the flash. But I never hid them either I left them in plain site and I was not thinking Bigfoot either I was thinking deer too. So you have to place all these factors in play, that it might be possible that these creatures can detect these systems of detection by observance. I am more in line to believe that they seem to detect our thoughts or intentions some how. I see two things with researchers and cameras. Some think we are dealing with a dumb ape that cannot possibly even think a BF would be wary of a camera. Deer aren't so why would BF? These tend to be Finding Bigfoot "educated" types. So the need to hide the camera is just too much trouble because the BF cannot possibly know about or be wary of cameras. How do they know any of that? All the evidence points to a different conclusion. Then I hear people in this forum that categorically claim that some game cameras do not emit any sound or visible light. It is IR so how can BF see it? They cannot see the IR flash so therefore BF should not be able to see it either. Again, how do they know that? BF can move rapidly in deep woods in nothing more than star light. So they obviously see better at night than we do and that might mean they can see into the IR. We just don't know. So these people think there is no reason to hide their cameras either, as if that would make any difference when a flash goes off. If an IR camera flashes and BF can see IR, a bug, a squirrel, a deer, or anything moving will trip the camera and even if BF has yet to see the camera, it will know where it is now. Hide a visible light flash camera in the woods near your campground then pretend you will not notice when an animal trips it. So the second group does not think it necessary to hide cameras either. In this case with a flash in any wavelength, they might be right. In either case there is some laziness at play. In all fairness the typical game camera box is difficult to hide. Boxy, plastic which probably smells like plastic, and a lump that size on the side of a tree camouflaged with anything is hard to do. BTW posted a recent picture in another thread that looks pretty good to me. I had trouble finding the camera in the picture. Ideally, the camera should be hidden well enough, that you the person that deploys it, has trouble finding it again to check the SD card. That is optimum. Bears seem to be attracted to the plastic smell of game cameras. Is that the give away for BF too since they seem to be attracted to the same food sources? I can smell plastic so it is likely BF can too. On a warm day plastic in direct sunlight really outgases and releases molecules that we smell. You know that they cannot use much of any plastic in space? It outgasses very badly in a vacuum, just like it does in sunlight here on the ground.

No that's for some other rant thread. I doubt you would ignore those things you dislike when you are in the field though. Being blind and deaf is no way to find an acorn.

Thanks Norse, and yes just evidence. Here's another one they're not sure how old or where it fits yet. Homo naledi Seems to be modern human below the waist. Bipedal. And primitive above the waist; shoulders, hands and skull. Quite a mixture. Our family tree seems to be going through some overhauls.

I think most "habituators" remember the Erickson Project and how well that turned out.

The community does not need me to furnish mud. The community is stuck in it's own mud and it's beginning to show. It's beginning to show with threads like "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?" "Patty's Time Is Running Out", "Active Bigfooters Hunters What has Been Your Success?". I didn't create those threads. I'm leery of all steady/close/personal repeat accounts of anything dealing with things like UFO's and bigfoot. So far in my lifetime none of it has ever produced anything of substance. Neither community vettes itself to any reasonable degree. The bottom line I suspect is that nobody truly want's the puzzle to be solved. The game is too entrenched and vested interests, ego's and commerce are what likely gives licence to giving the habbers (the one's holding the best cards) a free pass so to speak. If they deliver the goods the game is over and if they're shown to be fantasists or worse the community acquires another smudge. I don't know what if any dialogue has been established between the bigfoot science elite (the Bibnder's and Meldrums) and some of the more potentially credible habbers but it seems as if this hasn't been established or even attempted. It's one thing to claim to be searching for the truth and it's another to actually employ every resource that might harbor the truth. I'm reminded of Enoch and Autumn Williams book how that portrayed a very vivid habitation portrayal. Yet it was kept entirely off of the real science radar and that is rather telling. The entire mess could have been, should have been vetted out before William ever put pen to paper. However then there would have been no book. Catch 22. I'm certain there are more than enough people who for one reason or another accept the habber line and passively accept the thin cover that keeps the potential of it from fruition or worse yet feeds into fantasy. Maybe it is more the game than the truth. But your signature says it all with the skeptics. You playing the odds.... you hit a wall, something really interesting and you cant find the zipper, so you wait around 50 years and because nobody has drug in a body? Well then it was a hoax. That's not science.....its betting at a horse track. The Bigfoot community is by and far away amatuers with day jobs, there is no chain of command and we do what we can. But for you Crow, I guess the fact that you ignore that there is a giant rift between habber and researcher says a lot. I' ll tell you what? If you wanna take Sasfooty and crew to the next Anthropologist convention and have Sasfooty commune telepathically with Sasquatch in front of hundreds of scientists? Be my guest. For most of the Bigfoot community we dont take that stuff seriously, so dont drag us through that mud pit.

Claiming to be a habituator without any proof is the lowest of the low in my book. If a bigfoot family is living in your backyard? You should have ample ample evidence in the form of hair, saliva or scat. Not to mention incredible film footage that would surely make some of us stand up and take notice. All we ever get are excuses. Either the person has some beef with science or the forest people have let them know they dont want to be documented. Either way it is a claim without proof. I suggest if your a habber with bigfeets living in your backyard and they told you they dont want to be documented? Probably best to keep the secret to yourself.......just sayin. (And no I do not think this is truly happening) I think Crow is just trying to drag the community through the mud here. But what evidence we do have did not come from habbers. It came from field researchers pounding the bush, and responding to reports. Which I think is a more plausible scenario as to why we do not have hard evidence(few animals and lots of forest) Than families of bigfeets hiding out at "nice people" home steads, and the evidence is just 86'd.

Crow: But, you saw no water in the photo. Dr. Meldrum has hundreds (I think) of photos and casts of BF tracks. Is that not a little more convincing evidence that BF exists than that of a parched desert providing convincing evidence of water somewhere at some time in the past.? The whole concept of habituators is a false concept anyway. Humans don't habituate BF; BF simply continues to hunt and forage in areas they have used for tens of thousands of years. After "we" moved in a very short time ago, and after "we" didn't try to harm them or disrespect them, they simply accepted our presence on the land they "owned" but which "we" owned the title. If anything, "we" became habituated, not them. I think any "habituators" on this forum will tell you the same thing. Bigfoot sure as heck "habituated" me in the Ouachita Mountains, and it was done on their terms, not mine.

I snorted at the notion one can communicate telepathically with another species.

Just to explain why I will NEVER try to kill one of these animals. Until 2010, I had never seen but two of them clearly. The first was a huge male that came to the back of my pickup camper shell. He was completely benign, and was talking to himself before he stopped within two feet of the back of the pick-up. Just nosey, curious and neat as he picked up my cooking gear and put it back in place.. The next was a noticeably pregnant female that stepped out in plain view just outside a holly thicket. She was listening to the Sierra Sounds from the CD I was playing. She was completely benign and curious. About 3 PM on July 27, 2010 another one was apparently watching me put up a game camera in a deep, hollow that had a spring fed stream running through it. When I finished, it responded to some light wood knocks by breaking fairly large green tree limbs. When I clapped two rocks together once, it hit a dead tree with what sounded like a rock. After an hour or so I started walking out. It was standing and waiting on me beside the trail. It deliberately let me see him eye-to-eye for a few seconds, then ran off like a bat out of Hades and jumped off into the stream bed. He was a teenager in excellent physical shape. Had the light coating of black hair on his body been shaved off, he would have looked like a high school fullback. No sane and rational human would ever shoot one of these creatures after seeing him. There are aggressive BF which are dangerous. Some grown animals have been shot and wounded for no reason other than being what they are; huge, hairy and fearsome looking beings. Unprecedented destruction of their homelands - especially in the Southeast - - has, without a doubt, caused them to be more hostile toward humans who encroach on their ever dwindling foraging areas.

Yowie as above stated several have been shot and a lot have been "drawn down" on and the people decided not to shoot. A hunter here in my state was in that position. He was a State trooper out hunting and never even pointed the gun at the Sasquatch and stated that it was to human looking. You have already figured out the gun ownership is a touchy subject. If you get your info from mainstream media in the US then there probably is nothing to talk about because you have fallen for the propaganda. They keep trying to ban what they call "assault" weapons. The semiautomatic "assault weapon" (fully auto is illegal without the right permit and very few are given) is classed as a rifle in the FBI tracking of shootings. Rifles are second up from the bottom (above shotguns) for number of people killed. On average there are almost 2 times the people killed with knives, 2 times the number of people killed with blunt objects (hammer, ballbat), almost 3 times the number of people killed each year using no weapon other than hands, feet, pushing. now the most people in at almost 30 times the number killed with rifles are killed with handguns! Why is the government trying to get rid of the "assault" weapon because if you had one of them it would not be near as easy to take you in a tactical assault type of situation. They should be going after what kills almost 16 times as many Americans every year than all murders combined and that is medical malpractice at 225,000 per year. I would feel less afraid of running into gun owner than I am going to the doctor.