Leaderboard

I asked McS to clarify his post, seems simple enough.

As I've mentioned, I've talked to a multitude of Natives...who claim to have actually seen one...not a matter of belief or not, but claim to have actually seen one. I'm not Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca or Tuscarora...I am Six Nations Mohawk...an I take it for real.

More likely, given the behavior you've shown here, they simply say what you want to hear so they don't face your ridicule. MIB

Twist, Where were his words twisted ? What do you think he was implyin' by his "Shoot at that." ? I read it as a dig at norseman, who would shoot one for scientific verification, the implication he was goin' for was you can't shoot a myth. Your own analogy suggests what indiefoot was suggestin'/inquirin' I believe...variation. It's what Squatchy McSquatch was implyin'... Pat...

Here's a ol' report thanks to John Bindernagel, pg 36, The Discovery of the Sasquatch. Natives wouldn't go into the area knowin' what was there. Also as noted, the track find.

MIB, I'm curious what may have happened had you turned around and headed directly at the herding sounds/location behind you rather than continue to move away from it. Easier to say than do, no question about it. It was also the chance of a lifetime to see one however fleeting the moment may have been. I would be hesitant to do that alone even with a 454 Casull in hand. I'd be very tempted to move toward it with the benefit of a second person. Thoughts?

Then why did he comment in the first place? Does his claim that his native buddies don't believe in Bigfoot negate the dance on the video? Of course not. He is just a JREF troll running around our website stirring the pot.... if he gets a nut he immediately runs back to the JREF tree and shows them his catch, in which hopefully they give him atta boys and back slaps. I can tell you what the point of conversation is over there just by the subject of the threads he starts here. Its best just to ignore him. He is no friend of any of us here, nor our website. Very cool! This account of Sasquatch comes from a missionary staying with the Spokane tribe in 1840. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/walker.htm

Twist, He said non of his friends considered bigfoot real, indiefoot simply asked if that is the same response he got from all the Natives he asked. Your response reminds me to check the expiry date on my jar of sauerkraut in the fridge, haha, but...clearly you're suggestin' exactly what indiefoot was leadin' at I believe. Some of my Native friends do...some don't, some of my non Native friends do...some don't. norseman, Here's a dancer from Alert Bay last summer at Aboriginal Day here in Nanaimo, the Dzunukwa. Pat...

I can make such judgments because I have personal experience with BF. Some of the claims by habituators are hard to believe, even for proponents. Those claims include English speaking BF, BF being impossible to photograph, winking in and out of existence, and the ability remotely to disable electronic devices. All stuff you likely think are bunk. Well so do I, because I have experienced none of it even though I have a limited history of BF encounters. Some of these might be possible, like speaking English, but the other claims I have not experienced. Until I do, I am as skeptical as you are. As a I often mention, I came into BF research very skeptical about the whole thing. Only when something rings true based on my own experience, do I give it much credence. But I do not dismiss everything out of hand. That is not science but a dogmatic belief system, which skeptics and proponents both can be guilty of doing.

dmaker, you are not paying attention. You have remembered nothing that would support my endeavors. You post is glaringly evident of that. There certainly IS good reason for examination. A side benefit to this is finding scientists who SAY there is no good reason for close examination because it tells me that they put the cart before the horse- same as you if I may respectfully say so. And to be clear, I am not titillated by endless strings of unverifiable anecdotes either. Which is why I think I am well suited for this task. To address this: And you think I do not understand that why exactly? After all, I fully understand that you have allowed yourself two safety valves by using the words "most" instead of its definitive cousin "all" and skipping the "likely " thing altogether. It tells me you are not entirely sure and kind of leaves you a seat on the bandwagon should a bandwagon come along. A small amount of veiled prodding perhaps? Or a bit of fishing? I will not inform you of what is in my correspondence dialogues. You seem to be busy enough without me adding potential ideas to your current skeptic's repertoire.

Right. And failure to control via inadequate vetting likely comes with liability. When those issues have been addressed, the result looks just like every other bigfoot research group's web site and investigation "team". Rather than reinventing the wheel and starting with zero reports, it's more productive to join one of the groups and assist them. They've likely got mounds of reports needing investigating, mounds of raw data you may access as an investigator for deriving trends, and so on, plus having access to people with experience investigating and probably subject matter experts in various investigation / documentation techniques like track casting, finger printing, tracking, and so on. MIB