Guest StankApe Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Ya know, this is one of the problems of Bigfootery people. Every little theory that comes along you all jump on it with poor science and bad examples. IF Bigfoot is real he may hop into trees every once in a while, but to suggest he is a tree dweller is to overlook EVERY BIT OF LOGICAL ANATOMICAL EVIDENCE! It's bad science and doesn't further the search and/or study of Bigfoot. Oh and stop saying this or that is a "fact" it isn't a fact. The existence of Bigfoot isn't even a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Even though there are not a lot of fruit in the PNW up in trees, there are bird nests with eggs, and protection from humans, if not most predators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Really? That's not a primate is it? No it's not, but then it wouldn't need to be because you said "animals" IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmartin Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I dont think anybody in this thread was suggesting that they live in the trees or spend most of there time in trees. Just that they do use the trees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Oh and stop saying this or that is a "fact" it isn't a fact. The existence of Bigfoot isn't even a fact. Isn't this a subjective statement? Wouldn't you say that, to one who has faced a bigfoot, the existence of bigfoot is fact? To me, what I wrote is factual. I did, however, preface it with "Based on reports..." simply to avoid this sort of criticism. There is a fundamental dichotomy within this forum. There are those who have had encounters and are past the question of their existence. They've moved on to subjects predicated by their existence. Others on the forum are skeptical, and view such discussions as unfounded extrapolation. Makes for some interesting interactions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 To me it's not a question if they can or not? It's a question of why? Chimps climb trees for food and protection. The tree fruit as well as the predators in Africa are not similar to the PNW. Bears will climb to the top of pine trees and fir trees in the PNW to get at the seeds in the cones, a very high calorie source of food. Add birds nests and squirrel nests to that list of tree bound food sources. Beyond food sources trees offer safety from predators, comfort on a hot day above most biting insects, great ambush locations for hunting game on the ground, and are just plain fun to climb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Good points BFSleuth. Thumbs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 There is a fundamental dichotomy within this forum. There are those who have had encounters and are past the question of their existence. They've moved on to subjects predicated by their existence. Others on the forum are skeptical, and view such discussions as unfounded extrapolation. Makes for some interesting interactions. Well stated. It is good to have threads develop along the lines of exploring BF behaviors and habitats rather than have them drag into the tedium of debating whether or not they exist. But healthy and well reasoned skepticism does help hone our conversations... as long as it is healthy and well reasoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I'm not an out and out skeptic. I find the sheer size and amount of sightings and footprints compelling. But sometimes it seems to me people kinda get a little carried away with things..... I think of the word FACT to mean "universally understood to be true" Not "true to me". Like 3X3=9 is a fact. Bigfoot , though witnessed by you at some point, is still just a possibility at this point.... I do realize it came out kinda jerky though.... things haven't been too well lately and it's making me grouchy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Bigfoot , though witnessed by you at some point, is still just a possibility at this point.... Everybody's got a right to be grouchy. Been there recently too and had to rein myself back. Gotta disagree with the above quote, though. Here's why (keep in mind that I am a scientist myself). Let's say two scientists are camping in the woods. One feels the call of nature and walks to the edge of the firelight to unrinate in the woods. He has the misfortune of urinating on a fallen log behind which a prone male bigfoot is hiding to watch the scientists. The bigfoot, enraged, stands, picks him up bodily, brings the shocked scientist's face within an inch of its own, and snarls. Then the bigfoot tosses him bodily twenty feet back into the firelight. At the completion of his extended tumble, the understandably shaken scientist rises to his hands and knees, scrambles over to his colleague, stands with his trousers bunched around his ankles, and exclaims: "Oh my Big Bang! I was just tossed by a Bigfoot!". At this point, his seated colleague regards him casually, removes his unlit pipe from his mouth, and observes: "That is just a possibility." Stupified, the erstwhile Einstein stands there speechless with both his mouth and fly open attempting to grapple both with his experience and his colleague's attitude as the bigfoot begins to urinate on the pair in return from a point hidden in the dark canopy overhead. Given this scenario, is the existence of the bigfoot a fact or a possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToTheBatCave Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 ^^^ Great illustration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Yes. I knew you wouldn't. Apparently a lot of others don't as well or they would have posted about it. You ought to at least post a larger picture where it would be easier to see the background. It's hard to detect anything out of a tiny picture, especially one that is blurry to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I've been working at documenting Bigfoots' use of trees for 5 years and have been able to get a few pictures that I conclude are younger individuals in trees, mostly Cottonwoods. I have surmised that they are after the flowers in May and early June although I have found scat with leaf fibers. I have seen what I believe are larger females up on sturdier branches, never the larger male though. I have observed through field glasses and through the camera lens, but these are 150 to 250 yard distances and a lot depends on viewing conditions. I have a number of photos but they are not conclusive and seem to cause more trouble here than they are worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 You ought to at least post a larger picture where it would be easier to see the background. It's hard to detect anything out of a tiny picture, especially one that is blurry to boot. Here's a bigger one. And, yes I realize it's blurry. Sorry I can't make it less blurry. I was taking a picture of something else at the time, & the camera was focused on it. That tree is at least 300 yards from the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Everybody's got a right to be grouchy. Been there recently too and had to rein myself back. Gotta disagree with the above quote, though. Here's why (keep in mind that I am a scientist myself). Let's say two scientists are camping in the woods. One feels the call of nature and walks to the edge of the firelight to unrinate in the woods. He has the misfortune of urinating on a fallen log behind which a prone male bigfoot is hiding to watch the scientists. The bigfoot, enraged, stands, picks him up bodily, brings the shocked scientist's face within an inch of its own, and snarls. Then the bigfoot tosses him bodily twenty feet back into the firelight. At the completion of his extended tumble, the understandably shaken scientist rises to his hands and knees, scrambles over to his colleague, stands with his trousers bunched around his ankles, and exclaims: "Oh my Big Bang! I was just tossed by a Bigfoot!". At this point, his seated colleague regards him casually, removes his unlit pipe from his mouth, and observes: "That is just a possibility." Stupified, the erstwhile Einstein stands there speechless with both his mouth and fly open attempting to grapple both with his experience and his colleague's attitude as the bigfoot begins to urinate on the pair in return from a point hidden in the dark canopy overhead. Given this scenario, is the existence of the bigfoot a fact or a possibility? I would say that when the two scientists discussed it with each other they would refer to it as an "event". (I also think they would now become dedicated squatchers and attempt to end the debate once and for all). I'm still not so sure that Bigfoot himself would be referred to as a fact (nor any behaviors) just because it's not universally believed to be true yet. I can experience something, relate it to you, but if it's not a known ,repeatable discovery, it's not really a "fact". It's just an event, evidence leading towards acceptance as fact. In other words, I don't see the word "fact" as meaning "something happened that is true" but rather " something that we can all agree is real" . Kinda like how anthropomorphic global warming is technically a theory and not a fact. Lots of evidence of a warming of the climate to an extent, not much evidence that" proves" what the direct cause is... Maybe it's the astrophysics nerd in me, but I think the word "fact" gets thrown around a bit haphazardly these days. (along with genius and artist) ymmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts