Do Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous?

[Backdoc]

12 hours ago, NorCalWitness said:

I take most fantastic old stories with a major grain of salt. Many of these legends were published in a small newspaper first, in order to sell more papers. 

 

 

YEP

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Backdoc

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

.........What best evidence? Is there some kind of best evidence I have been missing here that strongly points to Bigfoot 1) being a very high order human/animal AND 2) Operating in organized societies who are so higher order they bury their dead?  Evidence? .......

Ah , the old <adjective> evidence game! I know how to play!

 

Quote

.........Because bigfoot is not a human.  That's why.........

Got any <adjective> evidence to back up that definitive pronouncement? How about defining "human" for us, please?

[NorCalWitness]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

A kidnapping by a Sasquatch is truly a fantastic story, but none of the three stories that I've mentioned had a basis of origin in a small newspaper at all, which has now become widely believed in the story of Jocko. 

 

In the Ostman story, Ostman was a known personage who did report his story to his local newspaper (The Province) in 1957, 33 years after the kidnapping, but he had no motivation to "sell more papers". He remained alive for years after he told his story and was well interviewed, unlike the persons in the Jocko story.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ostman

 

The Muchalat Harry story was told to Bigfoot author and investigator Peter Byrne by Father Anthony Terhaar of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon, who was a missionary priest who traveled the west coast of Vancouver Island for many years, and was living at Nootka at the time of the story and who knew Muchalat Harry very well.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm

 

The third story has never made the newspapers. I found it posted to an Internet forum of Alaskan outdoorsmen in 2010. It has all the hallmarks of a scary campfire story, but it has some very intestine features (poop smearing) that I've never heard or read of before (but which goes quite a ways toward explaining some of the stench reports involving sasquatches), and I've come to recognize that poster from later posts, and who appears to be a pretty cogent guy.

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/28150-a-coast-range-bigfoot-story/#comment-544030

 

 

 

 

great post. thanks 

[Backdoc]

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Ah , the old <adjective> evidence game! I know how to play!

 

Got any <adjective> evidence to back up that definitive pronouncement? How about defining "human" for us, please?

 

(When best evidence is claimed) instead of a discussion or presentation of this best evidence I get a "How about defining "Human" challenge.   Not sure I understand the response really.  Isn't the best response just to show be this best evidence.   

 

I could define human.  I would suggest it is better to define the capabilities of humans.  Some say bigfoot has many of those capabilities.  I don't happen to be one of them for what I feel is good reason.  One good reason is this Best Evidence is not being presented here.  Somehow this turns into me being ask to define "humans".    In what world is that a reasonable response? 

 

I would say if I was presented with the Best Evidence, I would gladly look at it.   

 

There is a quality of humans I hope bigfoot doesn't possess.  That is the quality of holding a belief so dearly that anyone who has any disagreement with that belief- even in a small degree- is seen as attacking the belief if not the person who holds it.   It's going to take time and a step back to understand that is not what I have done here.

 

I will look forward to the best evidence.