Leaderboard

I think that's about the sorriest assumption I've ever heard. So everyone is mistaken, fabricating their narrative, or seeing things not there? Why do folks testify in court? Obviously, a crime didn't even happen according to your logic, as everything witnessed, observed, heard and experienced was all mistaken identity, fabrication, hallucination, etc. Who's payroll are you on? You don't believe in these things, yet you live here. You find nothing acceptable, and go to great lengths to explain your position - we've all heard variations of - hundreds of times. The only possible reason to hold that position, and yet so enthusiastically reiterate your position - you must be paid by someone. Why does this site not have an 'ignore?' Everyone could put this guy on ignore, and he'd have to come up with another hoodoo.

I'm real curious. I don't believe in leprechauns. I don't believe they exist, and I don't believe they have a pot of gold. But I don't hang around leprechaun sites, and regurgitate hundreds of times in many different forms - my disbelief and the reasons for my disbelief. I don't state anything about those who have reported seeing them being guilty of mistaken identities, errors in identification, delusions, errors in perception, etc., etc. I just don't go there. There's no upside. Nothing to be accomplished. You don't believe, you say there's no scientific evidence, and suggest hallucinations or outright dishonesty - none of which really matters one way or the other. So. What's your game here?

Three to five species of critters world-wide are certainly possible, based on the different descriptions of those that have been sighted. Even little people - possibly related to the Hobbit - and also found in native American narratives. In North America, there have been tracks found of large critters with five toes. Some found in Texas were found to have six toes. Some in Louisiana with three toes, a bit webbed. Some may attribute these differences to genetic mutations from interbreeding - but that's just another assumption. In the Western US, most here are familiar with the common physical descriptions, but even in the West, we have two types of faces described. Some, viewing the face through a rifle scope find it impossible to shoot, as it's too human looking. Others see a more primitive, ape-like face. In speaking with someone who I think has a lot of personal experiences - it would appear that the critters in the SE Arkansas/Texas/Louisiana corners are way more aggressive than those just two hundred miles away - so it's possible that they're not all alike. South Florida - swamp ape - seems much different that Pacific Northwestern critters. Which are different than Eastern Yahoos. Mine was butt-ugly, with more of a ape face than a human face. Then again, if you put hair on some of those "recreations" at the Smithsonian, and make it larger - it could look like one of them, too. In fact, it's my personal opinion that these things are men. Not human - but a primitive man - some kind of cave man that didn't go extinct. Primitive, but canny - and out-hiding, and out-smarting those who actively hunt them. Hunters body language is telegraphed perpetually - and they're easy enough to pick out and avoid. Fact is, I believe these things are smarter in the forests and mountains than those actively hunting for them - with rifles.

Many sightings, narratives, and reports of the mountain gorilla were made, and made known. Those that had seen them, and described them - were correct. There's a world of knowledge that science is as yet unaware of. Biological species included. Accepted? Personally - I don't give a crap - and am comfortable knowing for a fact - that the real ignorance is with the scientists, anthropologists, etc. The ignorance is not mine.

Well I saw a gnome and a leprechaun......so that makes 4.

My comment was that folks know tire tracks from catapillar tracks. You suggest that folks can mistake a certain track from another type of track. The folks that make mistakes - only have a limited set of choices - and they may make a mistake without realizing some other track source may lie outside their limited set of options. I could tell you if the guys were carrying packs or traveling light. And I didn't rely on just one or two indications/tracks. You may would be mistaken on tracks - others can read tracks like you can read a book.

What is the point of DWA repeating himself over and over and over again every day? You don't seem to have a problem with that.

I'm pretty good at tracking - men. Used to make a living tracking down men. I've tracked them down for several miles, even crossing international boundaries, just to find them. You apparently don't understand the elements that come with that skill. In fact, you clearly show a complete ignorance by your garden comment. First, no one would look at an impression in a garden or other location and make any determination - unless it were well define. Rather, tracking is about reading sign, and tracking is something that takes an entire body of work - not just one impression. Give me a few minutes and a map - and I can tell you where my prey is headed - and on occasion, I could take another route, force march it, and be there waiting on them to show up.

Yet there is a difference among species that is not based on human observation. The difference comes in regions of human observation. In other words depending on where it has been spotted ,whether it be in the Pacific Northwest or the East coast. There are differences in the character of the creature behavior toward us humans. Certain creature features have been observed with longer hair while other creatures have been observed as being aggressive. While others may be very tamed compared to those of the south. I might be talking out of my a** but there is a difference among these creatures and not one is the same.

^^^^ fear. MIB

That's funny, but I don't think that's what it really is. Remember on the playground during recess? Different groups started different games - basketball, four-square, touch football, maybe some softball? Everyone would be having fun and then this one snot-nosed kid would wander up, and start calling fouls, making up rules, telling everyone what was allowed, what wasn't, and just dictating from their self-perceived, elevated position? Finally, you'd go over and kick his a **, rather butt, he'd run to teacher? That's what we got here. Another intolerant know-it-all, who can't use simple principles of science, understand simple principles of evidence, and wants to make up his own rules. Pitiful.

Yes Sir, I Know the bed was made by a Bigfoot. Anyone with and ounce of common sense, normal eyesight, an inquiring mind, but without an pompous, ego driven belief that he/she knows everything, would have concluded the same thing. Your disagreement with the facts are as immaterial and pointless as a buffalo gnat 's attempt to copulate with a turkey buzzard. Let me clue you in; there was in fact supporting physical evidence that a Bigfoot had not only carefully made the pile of duff shown in the photo, but had also lain on the original duff under it at some time in the past. The foot print sizes and shape, and the indentations left in the ground by the animal's weight is physical evidence that no human or other animals made those tracks. The sizes of the parcels of duff that were lifted from the ground by something with two forearms and hands that were slid along the ground's surface were generally two feet long and nearly that wide in some cases. It was obvious that the length of the forearms plus the hands that lifted the duff parcels were not those of typical humans. The fact that the ground and rotted duff left exposed when the top layers of the duff had been lifted were later carefully covered by duff gathered in hands-full from nearby high-ground, absolutely shows the entire actions were performed by a highly intelligent animal. It may have been impossible for you to make these determinations, but no surprise there.

I'm sorry...one of the funnier things I'm likely to read all the rest of today. So, follow this...the only place on the planet we can call remote is somewhere humans can't reach, which at this stage of our history is where, exactly? I guess only some reaches of the Pacific trench? Too bad it won't also be remote anymore once a submersible reaches it. The problem here is the inability to assess probabilities. Seems to be a terminal case.

Nice work, DWA! And good post, 7.62. That attitude bothers me, too. You don't have to worry about the "frauds", though. The people who want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot love, love, love for us to get distracted by the "frauds". Stand firm against those people and ignore any temptation to bad-mouth anybody, no matter how "bad" they may seem. That frenzy of finger-pointing and "fraud-hunting" only feeds into the agenda of those who want to obscure the truth. Those people WANT you to finger-point, so that you will help to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust, so that everyone will be afraid to speak -- including people who know the truth (or at least, a piece of it). If we want the truth, we have to learn to stop shouting people down. We don't need the Crusaders Against Fraud to "protect" us from harm. We need to do our own due diligence and our own research, and everything will be fine. And by "do our own research", I mean, trust our own instincts about what other people say. If you like someone, like them! If you don't like them, don't like them. And if you're still not sure, keep reading and watching until you ARE sure. Or, best of all, go out in the woods and find out for yourself.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Bigfoot may not exist precisely as we expect because our image is a compilation of data points describing two DIFFERENT things. This may account for some of the difficulty in finding them ... we're not looking for precisely what either one is. What we're doing is akin to a duck hunter shooting between two birds hoping to get both but if they're too far apart, we get neither. The difference between what we're after and what we imagine we're after may be tripping us up. MIB

Anyone who really wants a taste of what it's like to go through trail cam pics of unfamiliar territory should go to www.zooniverse.org and spend some time searching for elephants! You'd think they'd be so easy to spot - and sometimes they are - but until you've seen a few shots of the same scene, it can be near impossible to spot them because they blend in so well. But searching for elephants is kinda fun. Or work on one of the identify the wildlife projects and see how many pics show something, but you can't really be sure what it is. After going through hundreds of pics, I do know the animals 'see' or 'sense' the cameras because they look right at them. And even though the projects usually take 3 successive shots, sometimes the camera 'fires' before the subject comes in view and sometimes you're lucky to get one shot before the subject disappears if it's running. I looked at one animal tonight that was a turkey-bear-pig. I'm still not sure what I was looking at, but just guessed it was a bear based on the size and shape. It could have been a bigfoot for all I know. I'm sure all these reasons and more are how the CCP misses the bigfoot too.

I wanna know where they go in mid winter. If a person could flush something then? It would be easy to track. You should try bow hunting MIB, it's very close and personal, challenging and rewarding.

Why are you necroing all these 6 year old threads?

Dmaker Yes, I have it with hunting deer. I mean public land big bucks. Since those are hard to hunt unless you know how to look for them. They know hunters and can out wit us for their doe's.. The other animal that I have a great relationship with is the turkey. Being able to call them in is not an easy task and calling in a old tom on public land takes work. But I love it and have never shot at them when they came in. Just watching them fluff out is fantastic. This is how I see the Bigfoot. They might not be documented but I know that they are real. Like you said anecdotal is just stories but when there is evidence to back it up then what do we call it?