Bigfoot And Trees

[JDL]

I understand your frustration with casual misuse and misclassification of data. From my perspective, a "fact" is something that is empirically true whether the fact is observed and widely acknowledged or not. If something exists, it is a fact that it exists, whether anyone knows about it or not. Stating that their existence is not fact, does not make them cease to exist.

You bring up a good point with global warming and I completely agree with you on this subject. Two months ago, NASA released a decade of satellite data that shows the models used to support global warming projections are wildly inaccurate. But the models have been broadly accepted, so contradictory data is not welcome.

Most public information regarding the Greenhouse Effect focuses only on carbon dioxide, methane, and chloroflourocarbons. Each of these compounds captures and holds a certain amount of radiant energy (contributes to the Greenhouse effect). About 5% of these compunds are anthropogenic, or man-made, an amount considered significant.

The public information, however, omits the contribution of water vapor to the Greenhouse Effect. Water vapor has a broader absorption spectrum than carbon dioxide and water molecules have a higher heat capacity than carbon dioxide. This means that water vapor is much more efficient at capturing and holding heat in our atmosphere. There is also vastly more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. This planet is approximately two thirds ocean, so there's a lot of exposed water to evaporate. More importantly, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is only 0.001% anthropogenic. The human contribution is insignificant. When you include the contribution of water vapor in the total Greenhouse Effect, the total amount of Greenhouse gasses that can be attributed to humans drops to about a quarter of a percent. This means that if mankind and everything mankind does to contribute to the Greenhouse Effect ceased to exist, 99.7% of the effect would persist.

Some point to the rise of carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere over the years and insist that this is evidence that mankind's contribution is increasing. The fail to take into account, however, that seawater contains carbonate ions(dissolved carbon dioxide) and that when seawater evaporates a certain amount of the dissolved carbon dioxide is re-emitted to the atmosphere. This effect accounts for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But this information is omitted from EPA publications, therefore it is not publicly understood as fact.

Whether or not this is "known", however, the increase in carbon dioxide is good for trees and what's good for trees is good for bigfoot. Just don't blame man for doing anything that is good for bigfoot.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

+1, JDL.

[Guest Biggie]

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.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/catt-7/BFintree3.jpg

Looks like it could be shade from a gap in the tree. Have you taken another picture there afterward at the same time of day to see if it looks the same? If it doesn't look the same then do you have porcupines there? It could be a bird too it's just impossible to tell.

The brown blob in the tall grass near the dirt path could look more like a bf(on it's hands and knees crawling away from you) if you wanted it to than the spot you pointed out. My mind can picture a head, arm, back, rump, leg and foot there.

[Guest]

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?

Are you suggesting that you find stories such as this credible?

edit

I doubt there are even accounts that fanciful. (not counting clearly insane/delusional people claiming to get raped by a bigfoot, etc.)

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.

What lead you to think that this was possibly a Bigfoot?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Interdasting

[Sasfooty]

What lead you to think that this was possibly a Bigfoot?

I don't think it's "possibly" a bigfoot. I know it is because of the fact that they used that tree to sit in & watch the house for at least 4 years that I know of. It's directly in front of my house & I have seen them there & not there many times.

And, no, Biggy, it's not a porcupine. There's not one in the wild within 500 miles of here. No bears here, either. And the bird theory is ridiculous. It would have to have been bigger than an ostrich to appear to be that big in a 80' high tree that is 300 yards away.

And then people wonder why we don't post our pictures & tell things that we know. We're criticized & accused of being selfish if we don't & laughed at & accused of trying to get attention if we do.

[Guest]

I don't think it's "possibly" a bigfoot. I know it is because of the fact that they used that tree to sit in & watch the house for at least 4 years that I know of. It's directly in front of my house & I have seen them there & not there many times.

Can you describe them for us?

[Sasfooty]

Can you describe them for us?

Do you mean the ones in the trees?

They are big brown, black, white, or orangish spots with arms & legs, that hide when they think they are seen.

[JDL]

Are you suggesting that you find stories such as this credible?

This one was pure fiction. Thought that was apparent.

I have heard of bigfoot tossing people (specifically someone who was climbing through a barbed wire fence butt first into the bushes where the bigfoot was hiding - he reportedly grabbed her and tossed her back over the fence), and of bigfoot getting confrontational over someone urinating in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither behavior seems wildly unreasonable, so I take them as data points for consideration.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I found David Claerr's observations about their ambush behavior very interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/bigfoot-ambush-tactics-8927213.html

"From this evidence, I arrived at the logical premise that the Bigfoot or Sasquatch had developed a strategy of raiding the trash can, mainly to use the picnic scraps as bait. The bags were ripped apart, and the contents scattered below the trees. At night, the primarily nocturnal Bigfoot lay in wait on the overhanging tree limbs. They would then pounce on whatever animal arrived, attracted by the bait they had set out."

... this is at a rest area in Texas during this recent drought.

Note the use of trees as ambush opportunities, spreading bait (garbage) to lure in their dinner.

I'm going to think twice before going to pick up the garbage at a rest area anymore...

Edited December 1, 2011 by BFSleuth

[Guest]

I found David Claerr's observations about their ambush behavior very interesting:

http://voices.yahoo....cs-8927213.html

"From this evidence, I arrived at the logical premise that the Bigfoot or Sasquatch had developed a strategy of raiding the trash can, mainly to use the picnic scraps as bait. The bags were ripped apart, and the contents scattered below the trees. At night, the primarily nocturnal Bigfoot lay in wait on the overhanging tree limbs. They would then pounce on whatever animal arrived, attracted by the bait they had set out."

]

... this is at a rest area in Texas during this recent drought.

Note the use of trees as ambush opportunities, spreading bait (garbage) to lure in their dinner.

I'm going to think twice before going to pick up the garbage at a rest area anymore...

Rest areas? (shudders) Be careful out there.

More than a Sasquatch might drop in on you.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest Biggie]

And, no, Biggy, it's not a porcupine. There's not one in the wild within 500 miles of here. No bears here, either. And the bird theory is ridiculous. It would have to have been bigger than an ostrich to appear to be that big in a 80' high tree that is 300 yards away.

And then people wonder why we don't post our pictures & tell things that we know. We're criticized & accused of being selfish if we don't & laughed at & accused of trying to get attention if we do.

In a picture of that quality it's hard to tell the tree height and distance. As for me I wasn't telling you that was not a bf I was asking questions about possible alternatives and there is nothing wrong in doing so especially pertaining to blurry pictures. I hope you didn't expect everyone to immediately believe that's a bf in your tree after seeing the small blurry picture that you originally posted because from the quality of that picture and the subsequent larger one that you added the blob in that tree could be anything. If it was a bf in the tree then good for you but a big favor to everyone here in the future would be to take better pictures and post large versions of them but to post a small blurry picture and expect everyone not to be suspicious is unrealistic and an insult to our intelligence.

[Sasfooty]

I hope you didn't expect everyone to immediately believe that's a bf in your tree after seeing the small blurry picture that you originally posted because from the quality of that picture and the subsequent larger one that you added the blob in that tree could be anything. If it was a bf in the tree then good for you but a big favor to everyone here in the future would be to take better pictures and post large versions of them but to post a small blurry picture and expect everyone not to be suspicious is unrealistic and an insult to our intelligence.

I wouldn't expect most here to believe it if it was "Patty quality". I SAID the camera was focused on something much, much closer, I didn't even notice that they were in the tree at the time, & that I realize it's a blobsquatch. I didn't ask for or expect applause or belief. All I ask is the courtesy of not being called a liar.

If you're suspicious, that's fine, but it's an insult to my intelligence & character to insinuate that I don't know what is in that picture or that I would post something here, "claiming" that it's something that it isn't.

I have other pictures that possibly have BFs in them, but I don't know for sure, so I don't try to insult your intelligence with them.

[Guest Luckyfoot]

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.

I would like to thank-you for posting your picture. I have a respect for folks that will post what they have, even if it is somewhat blobby.

Now how about a pic of that critter with the funky hat ?

[Guest Biggie]

I wouldn't expect most here to believe it if it was "Patty quality". I SAID the camera was focused on something much, much closer, I didn't even notice that they were in the tree at the time, & that I realize it's a blobsquatch. I didn't ask for or expect applause or belief. All I ask is the courtesy of not being called a liar.

If you're suspicious, that's fine, but it's an insult to my intelligence & character to insinuate that I don't know what is in that picture or that I would post something here, "claiming" that it's something that it isn't.

I have other pictures that possibly have BFs in them, but I don't know for sure, so I don't try to insult your intelligence with them.

You're quite defensive and you could relax a little. I didn't insunuate anything I was asking questions in the interest of logical critical thinking which is wise to do. You know that you have bf around and you see them often. I wish more people could be that fortunate. More power to you. I don't have a problem with you. Go head on wicho bad self but there's nothing wrong in questioning what you or anyone else posts though.

[Guest Primate]

I'm glad you posted your picture . I like it alot..