Guest MikeG Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Well, if it is of any use in relation to purported BF behaviour, the above is EXACTLY the situation with animals in Africa. Most game viewing vehicles are open, and many many lion & leopard sightings are from very close range.......say 15 or 20 feet, or closer. So how is it that the lion doesn't see all this nice juicy meat sitting perched on seats on the vehicle with absolutely nothing but fresh air between the predator & the possible prey? Well, provided that you don't stand up or talk too much, the lions, leopards etc don't seem to recognise a vehicle as something that carries people......they just recognise it as a vehicle, a single entity. Tens of thousands of generations of lions have never seen a motor vehicle, so their brain doesn't compute it very well, I guess. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 On 1/22/2012 at 4:52 PM, bipedalist said: http://www.huliq.com/10473/finding-bigfoot-bfro-insists-evidence-exists-nonexistent-remains-easily-explained-video BFRO claims no credible reports of BF being hit by motor vehicle? All I will say is this: I have read more than a couple I have no significant reason to doubt. Again, to a scientist, "reason to doubt" means evidence that the incident did not happen as described. (Say, the hairs in the bumper test out deer.) Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) I'd forgotten to add that if not all of them several (or most) WERE ON THE BFRO SITE. Sometimes "credible" is misused (like "evidence" is.) BFRO frequently uses "sounds/seems credible" of witness reports. Any report that, given what one knows, seems like it could have happened is perforce credible. If BFRO posted it, ...it's credible. If it reads that way to me, now. Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts