Some Things About Bf That I Think Are Nonsense

[Guest]

I am trying to remember.... I think maybe he just got zilch. Anybody recall?

[Guest]

Ya, sorry for the double post. Mods, can you merge please?

Done and Done...sorry for any inconvience this caused anyone, whoever posted to the second duplicate topic, can now find their replies here.

Thanks , Grayjay

[Guest]

You guys don't believe the Ostman story? Hmmm. Even though I know they're real, I'm still pretty skeptical when it comes to out of the norm accounts, but something about this story seems like he's retelling a truthful account. So many minute details that don't seem to follow the tall tale m.o. Who knows, though.

As far as the OP is concerned, I'm pretty much on board with everything HF said. I think we underestimate how smart they are, but at the same time, I don't think they'd know what all of our gadgets and gizmos do. They may just avoid them, if they even do, because they are technology that doesn't belong in the woods, and they may attribute them to us. As far as guns....I don't know. I doubt they see too many kill shots. Animals probably fear them simply because when you point the gun towards them, they can tell they are being engaged by the shooter. If you're just passing by on a trail, you're not as much as a threat as if you are staring right at it, and leveling some sort of weapon.

As far as being killed by gunfire goes, I'd imagine their kill-zone is relatively small compared to their mass, and people who have allegedly shot them just didn't put it in the right spot for an immediate kill. They still probably run off, and bleed out, or die from infection. I have a buddy who was shot 5 times, and still has the .45 slug in his bicep, and he is only 200 lbs.

I also have a tough time with the infrasound thing.

Edited November 26, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

Maybe they can look transparent, but that isn't the same as invisible. I am not saying the stuff on the right that you cannot see on the left are BFs, but it's something. I didn't add a thing, only twiddled what was there.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest StankApe]

You obviously did something to the pictures, and they are all obviously NOT Bigfoots. I kinda don't understand what the point of that posting was... To point out that photographs can be manipulated to show something that isn't there? Or are you suggesting that aside from being rare and elusive that Bigfoot also happens to be the only mammal in the world that has magical abilities? It seems so unlikely as to be pretty much as impossible as my quantum leaping to the 60's...

[Guest]

The point is that you can't see it in the picture but it must be there or you couldn't bring it out. So we don't see all what's there. That is all. I don't know WHAT it is, but it's something. In person you can't see it at ALL, in pictures, it's all blurry, and autoleveled or whatever, it's ...something. I don't get the same weird things in indoor pictures or in all outdoor natural setting pics. Something is there we cannot see. You try it.

Pick a picture of the forest or something like that, with a bright sunshine, that looks kind of blurry in spots....not all blurry, as in out of focus, but just wavy or weird looking in the sunny parts. Autolevel it, play with contrast, brightness, whatever. Don't insert anything, just play with it. See if you get something similar. I would be intersted to hear if anyone else got similar strange stuff. I am not kidding, I am not crazy, I don't think BF are paranormal, and I don't think they are invisible. I think they have some kind of optical properties to their hair or something like that, probably....

If you think I am full of malarkey, don't like to think about it, or refuse to even consider it, just ignore it. Problem solved. Sorry. I didn't think it was that big a deal or I wouldn't' have posted it.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest StankApe]

Ahhh, I misconstrued your point. entirely my fault! No harm intended I was just completely befuddled what the point you were tyrying to make was!

Just to ad something, i doubt that there is anything fuzzying their image. I think that it's the fact that most people are lousy at taking photos. (especially when they are hurrying or stressed) Taking action photos clearly is very difficult so there's that. Not to mention that when one encounters something like this, it often takes a sec to get your bearings and go "crap! I have a camera!!" and take a picture.

Eventually I think we will get a view of some of the better footage though.

Edited November 26, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest TooRisky]

Maybe they can look transparent, but that isn't the same as invisible. I am not saying the stuff on the right that you cannot see on the left are BFs, but it's something. I didn't add a thing, only twiddled what was there.

Oh yeah they are clearly there after your expert eye points them out... I see one doing laundry, other starting a BBQ, 3 of them are playing poker, while the last is, well entertaining himself... best to remove the last, not really family oriented....

You have to really think we are all morons...

[Guest]

^ Thanks. When I said you were my favorite youtube researcher....and I did, see the thread called "who's your favorite youtube researcher" or some such thing...I take it back.

And THAT, ladies and gentleman, is why a great deal of significant evidence is not shared.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

I don't know how accurate the following excerpt is, or if/how it might apply to Sasquatch. But if there is a corresponding innate mechanism to the Sasquatch then that might explain why they avoid us munchkins.

From the book Them+Us by Danny Vendramini, in chapter 13 (Telling Friend From Fiend):

In addition, over time each prey species builds up an innate description of its predators to help identify them—even those they’ve never seen before. Although little understood by scientists, this instinctive knowledge of a predator’s characteristics is thought to include visual, auditory and other sensory cues that trigger an adaptive response, usually an escape strategy. For example, in 1951 Dutch ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen devised an ingenious experiment to show that new-born turkey chicks, fresh from their shells, will run for cover when they see a hawk, but will not respond to pigeons, gulls, ducks or herons.406 So, too, birds like the great kiskadee that have never seen a coral snake before, can instantly recognise its distinctive stripes, comprehend that it is dangerous and make their escape.407 Similar experiments with other animals confirm that animals that have never seen their natural predator can recognise and respond to its predatory markings.

[Guest wudewasa]

LOL I can hardly wait for the 'gay" BF to resurface...

Are those the ones with black noses?!

[Guest MonkeyStomp]

20 minutes well spent, IMNSHO

That is probably the coolest video I have ever seen. A++ Great post!

[Guest BuzzardEater]

I don't know how accurate the following excerpt is, or if/how it might apply to Sasquatch. But if there is a corresponding innate mechanism to the Sasquatch then that might explain why they avoid us munchkins.

From the book Them+Us by Danny Vendramini, in chapter 13 (Telling Friend From Fiend):

In addition, over time each prey species builds up an innate description of its predators to help identify them—even those they’ve never seen before. Although little understood by scientists, this instinctive knowledge of a predator’s characteristics is thought to include visual, auditory and other sensory cues that trigger an adaptive response, usually an escape strategy. For example, in 1951 Dutch ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen devised an ingenious experiment to show that new-born turkey chicks, fresh from their shells, will run for cover when they see a hawk, but will not respond to pigeons, gulls, ducks or herons.406 So, too, birds like the great kiskadee that have never seen a coral snake before, can instantly recognise its distinctive stripes, comprehend that it is dangerous and make their escape.407 Similar experiments with other animals confirm that animals that have never seen their natural predator can recognise and respond to its predatory markings.

That is so interesting! I am going to do the reading on this. It seems to directly address people's reactions to sighting a BF.

[Guest Jodie]

Maybe they can look transparent, but that isn't the same as invisible. I am not saying the stuff on the right that you cannot see on the left are BFs, but it's something. I didn't add a thing, only twiddled what was there.

KC, I sent you a PM.

[Guest]

I wanna believe that squatches are real. I've never seen one, but I buy into most of the stories and evidence. There are some aspects that seem like they are thrown in for an excuse or to enhance the legend. Just my opinion, see if y'all agree.

1. Bigfoot knows what a camera is and can avoid them. It is absurd to believe this. It is an excuse for someone's failure to capture them. There are reports of trail cams being turned around. Easy fix- put 2 out facing each other, you'll be sure to catch something.

2. Shapeshifters. I am part Cherokee, and even I don't lend an ounce if belief toward this theory.

3. Bigfoot knows what firearms are. I don't think they have a clue what that thing in your hand is unless it gets shot first.

4. Kinda goes with 3. Bigfoot can get shot and still survive unharmed. Bull. If it bleeds, you can kill it.

5. Bigfoot doesnt use fire because it doesn't need it/ doesn't want to be detected. I believe they are unable to harness and use it, not that they dont want it.

6. Bigfoot interacting with humans. The Carter story. The Ostamn story. Some accounts on BFF of "friendly" associations with the creatures. I don't buy it.

Only my opinion. You think I am off?

I think you are right on target.