Huntster Posted yesterday at 10:20 PM Posted yesterday at 10:20 PM 16 minutes ago, georgerm said: What are you saying? Are you saying the Sasquatch family encounters a human being walking along a trail, and the Sasquatch's capture this person who later escaped. They don't watch the person very well and the human being escapes from captivity. I think this story that you're telling sounds like what happened to a man In the 1800s in British Columbia? You probably heard of a guy by the name of Osterman......... Albert Ostman. It was in the 1920's. Another similar story was Muchalat Harry, also in the 1930's: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story of kidnapping was not widely known. It was posted by a rural guy from the Copper River Valley of Alaska on an Alaskan outdoorsman forum about an event he was involved with in the 1970's. Here's a link to it: 1
norseman Posted 22 hours ago Admin Posted 22 hours ago 3 hours ago, georgerm said: Don't put yourself down because with enough practice and messing around with new technology we can eventually make progress. I hope the Starlink technology is not too hard to figure out so we all can use it when we need it. I have made a little progress running this place! But I am not Gigantor. Thanks!
norseman Posted 22 hours ago Admin Posted 22 hours ago 3 hours ago, Huntster said: My problem is that I'm a death sentence to everything I bring out there with me. An iridium satellite phone was among the gizmos that were vaporized on my moose hunt last year. No more of it. I need to transcend all that silliness and go like my old buddy Don. Just go out there and disappear in The Land of the Lost. Who knows? Maybe being kidnapped into sexual slavery by a female sasquatch might not be as bad as driving to the bottom of a frozen lake? It’s all fun and games until Mr. Squatch comes home to the cave! 🤣 1
MIB Posted 21 hours ago Moderator Posted 21 hours ago 11 hours ago, Backdoc said: It is easy to imagine elaborate scenarios to explain all things Bigfoot. When Bigfoot is not able to meet its needs, it dies. It will live so long as it can. We don't have to imagine much beyond that .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. Your view only works for dumb animals. Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB 1
norseman Posted 20 hours ago Admin Posted 20 hours ago 27 minutes ago, MIB said: .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. Your view only works for dumb animals. Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB We have been burying our dead for a long time. 👍
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 17 hours ago, MIB said: .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. I'm open to consider other thoughts. Thankfully we have the BFF and its posters for that very purpose. 17 hours ago, MIB said: Your view only works for dumb animals. I'd say it works for dumb animals as well as smart animals. An injured human will still eat what's around them. I am giving an injured Bigfoot the exact same consideration as an injured human. Say I was convinced Bigfoot was a strict plant eater. I still say they would eat a fish in a stream if they were starving. I just don't feel a need to attribute qualities into bigfoot that are far from proven. (Yes, this does include the ability to teleport which we humans have yet to achieve. There are some on the BFF who believe Bigfoot can do this). 17 hours ago, MIB said: Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Just looking at what is more likely in my view. I still contend the foolishness would come in attributing things to bigfoot which to me seem to be a stretch. Sure, bigfoot could be highly smart at an animal level. I am sure if we had one in a zoo, they might be able to teach it at a level of Coco. It's also possible Bigfoot isn't even that smart. Some say Bigfoot is a form of a human. It could be. I just doubt it. Patty wasn't carrying a spear and left no tools at the creek when they first saw her. 17 hours ago, MIB said: Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Yes, WE do. lion cubs and birds and various animals feed their young. I don't really see they feed them once out of the nest. Isn't that really the more common trait? 17 hours ago, MIB said: Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? I see this as a bit of a backward thinking. Humans are fairly high on the food chain in that we can grow food, go to the moon, and do math problems, and operate on heart patients. Yes, in our society we happen to have a social norm of burying our dead. If we want to attribute this to bigfoot it has the same chance as Bigfoot getting married and giving away the bride. Those are human behaviors. We attribute human behaviors to Bigfoot the same way we attribute things about our dogs like they know it's their birthday. In reality, dogs only know you decided to put steak in their bowl instead of hamburger, They have no idea why. 17 hours ago, MIB said: While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB They are not outsmarting us. They are just so few in number and operate in a tough terrain. Even IF Bigfoot was more human than ape that still doesn't make Bigfoot human. An animal or a person who survives in the woods would have to be at least smart enough to achieve consistent basic survival skills. A lost dog might find water, food, and shelter. Some people might be equally lost in those same woods and die in days due to lacking the survival skills. This doesn't make the dog smarter than the person. The essential skill in this case favored the dog and not Kim Kardashian if she was lost in the woods.
Recommended Posts