Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Ray, your slothful reasoning seems a bit calculated to me, so perhaps it's better to simply let you be, but I can't help but leave the discussion with this parting observation: a plausible physical BF must be considerably more acquainted with woodcraft, camouflage, and out and out stealth than virtually any human. Otherwise, how have they stayed hidden to this point, if they in fact exist? Thus it seems extremely unlikely that BF would run an equivalent risk of being accidentally shot as that of your average weekend warrior stumbling through the brush with an orange hat on his head. Edited February 21, 2012 by exnihilo
indiefoot Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 RayG says, The only point I was trying to make was that every year humans are mistakenly killed by hunters, but bigfoot are never mistakenly killed by hunters. That seems illogical to me. One was mistaken for a moose's hind end in Canada back in the 40's. It wasn't reported for years, IIRC. Do we know with any certainty there haven't been others that weren't reported? Poachers, trespassers, and such. If it was not dead and left the scene do you think you would pursue the matter?
georgerm Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 Cotter, you make some very good points, but you can't do much about the mistakes of other hunters. The only point I was trying to make was that every year humans are mistakenly killed by hunters, but bigfoot are never mistakenly killed by hunters. That seems illogical to me. Even if hunters are wearing orange, they aren't bullet proof. And here's a couple of interesting quotes from the Hunter Safety Lab webpage: If buck fever and scenario fulfillment can turn humans into deer, is it possible that bigfoot fever and scenario fulfillment might turn a bear/deer/elk/moose into a bigfoot? That means in three years, about 580 people were shot even though they were wearing orange clothing. RayG So you are saying that most reports are mistaken idenity. I'll agree that some reports observation errors, but there are many that are factual reports. So where do we go from here? What evidence strikes home with you Ray? One was mistaken for a moose's hind end in Canada back in the 40's. It wasn't reported for years, IIRC. Do we know with any certainty there haven't been others that weren't reported? Poachers, trespassers, and such. If it was not dead and left the scene do you think you would pursue the matter? I read that report and it was a good one. The hunter downed a BF, freaked out, and left the area never to return. Yes, some eye witness reports are mistaken idenity but not all or I'm going the open vision center and sell glasses! What evidence do you cling to that make you believe or not believe BF exist?
southernyahoo Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Sure, but there seems to be no instance of a hunter killing a bigfoot that they mistook for a bear, RayG It is reported with evidence collected, though the bear sorta morphed into a monster before being indentified as bigfoot. That would follow the situational fulfillment hypothesis. I think it's not about what people want to see, but what they expect to see, that affects perception, and ofcoarse magicians use this all the time too.
georgerm Posted February 23, 2012 Author Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Don't get it? What about our favorite evidence. I like the foot prints that go on and on and the stride is too long for humans. Edited February 25, 2012 by Biggie -Removed needless quote of user immediately above.
Guest RayG Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 So you are saying that most reports are mistaken idenity. I'll agree that some reports observation errors, but there are many that are factual reports. No, I'm saying that human perception isn't infallible, and that every year humans are mistakenly killed by hunters, but bigfoot are never mistakenly killed by hunters. What evidence strikes home with you Ray? A few decades ago all the evidence struck home. Now, not so much, although Dr. Ketchum's DNA paper has the best chance of changing that. What evidence do you cling to that make you believe or not believe BF exist? It's more the lack of an actual squatch or part of a squatch that has me skeptical, but then I've only been following this mystery for about 40 years. RayG
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Ray plz respond I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the majority of educated people are very familiar with the appearance of your average bear. I still stand by my statement that most witnesses don't go out there under the impression that they are going to encounter a BF, it is however my personal belief that most persons do go out into these habitats under the impression that they may see a bear. In my opinion there are more bigfoot sightings mistaken for bear sightings, than there are bear sightings mistaken for BF sightings. I think in the cases where a witness believes they have seen a bigfoot, they actually have the majority of the time, rather then the minority, but as i've said a thousand times these are my personal beliefs, i live with a very open mind so if you can throw any information my way that would change my point of view it would be much appreciated.. You got to understand that there are a lot of hoaxes out there but there are so many factors and variables that come into play when it comes to this subject, i'm pretty sure we can all agree that every supposed sighting is not reported. I can draw that conclusion just due to the fact that the general public is as sceptical as it is of there being an undiscovered species out there. Everyone needs to forget this mythical creature we picture in our heads and understand that this creature fits into the order of this world. Everyone agrees that new species are discovered all over the world all the time, whether they be subspecies or new species all together. Can someone answer why its so hard to believe that there is some kind of undiscovered species of ape or something else living in the high altitude dense forest areas, i've heard of quite a few sightings in swamp habitats also. Is that really so hard to consider? British columbia alone has over 65 million acres of mostly unlogged forest. Does anyone understand how much land that is? and that's just one province in Canada, let's not mention the other hotspots all over the world. If these things are living in the forest that gives a lot of good reasons why no bones or corpses have ever been found. Corpses decompose and are scavenged quickly in a forest, fossils don't form, bones decompose and their nutrients are released back into the soil. For all we know these things could use their dead as a food source. I don't personally believe this but some people have said BF actually burry their dead.
Guest RayG Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Caesar, I'm not exactly sure what it is you want me to respond to. RayG
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Whether you agree or disagree with my point of view, and danm that was fast
Guest exnihilo Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Ray, there are anecdotal accounts of mistaken identity shootings. FWIW
georgerm Posted February 23, 2012 Author Posted February 23, 2012 Ray, I can see how you feel now since you've been following BF for 40 years and still we have no body. I'm with you and feel the frustration and sometimes out of anger, feel like throwing the whole concept into the trash can. The animal is too darn illusive or some kind of forest illusion. My first knowledge of BF began around 1965 when photographs of wandering huge foot prints through the snow were published in the Medford papers. Later in 1978 my boss saw a group of BFs on the side on Mt. McLaughlin. In my opinion there are more bigfoot sightings mistaken for bear sightings, than there are bear sightings mistaken for BF sightings. totally agree why is this confusing?....................When people see a real BF they mistakenly identify it as a bear since they only saw it for a few seconds and it was brown and hairy. This may have happened to me on night while sleeping out in the open by Butte Falls, Oregon.
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 It comes down to where these things are living, i have first hand experience traversing dense forest, I know first hand how difficult it is. Picture trekking through dense forest on the side of a mountain, at altitude and try to catch this thing while your at it, and let me no how well you do! We don't even have vehicles that can master this terrain, and from most reports i've heard of the way this creature moves, it has. I don't think it's that weird we've found no body or concrete evidence considering the habitats the creature is said to be living in. From the small amount of research i've done, it seems to me that most sightings do occur during the day, so why are most searches conducted at night?
georgerm Posted February 23, 2012 Author Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) BF are believed to more nocturnal but they do wander around at dawn and dusk according to biological theory. What evidence convnices you of BFs existence? Edited February 23, 2012 by georgerm
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 . . . it seems to me that most sightings do occur during the day, so why are most searches conducted at night? Beats me. Folks like Moneymaker at the BFRO treat bigfoots like something that can't be encountered during the day, and this makes no sense. I do a lot of owl survey work. I get some more interesting vocalizations at night (some), but my clearest observations occur during the day. All but one of my owl photos have been taken in daylight too.
Guest RayG Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Whether you agree or disagree with my point of view... Caesar, you presented several points of view in post #97. I wasn't sure which one you wanted me to address. Was it in direct response to a point of view that I had expressed, or was it a different point of view altogether? Ray, there are anecdotal accounts of mistaken identity shootings. FWIW To be honest I don't think those anecdotal accounts amount to much. Every year humans are mistakenly killed in the forests of North America by hunters. We have evidence of that happening. We have no similar evidence of that happening to bigfoot. BF are believed to more nocturnal but they do wander around at dawn and dusk according to biological theory. And yet Patty was wandering around sometime between noon and mid-afternoon. People can hypothesize almost anything regarding bigfoot, we presently have no way of determining whether or not it's true. Bigfoot: the smartest, fastest, most elusive, luckiest, safest critter on the planet that nobody can produce, no matter how many people look for him, or how advanced our technology gets. Hence my increased skepticism as the years pass by. RayG
Recommended Posts