Backdoc Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 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 5 hours ago by Backdoc
Huntster Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 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 Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 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 1
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 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.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 32 minutes ago, Backdoc said: (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......... My take on MIB's use of the phrase "best evidence" isn't meant to mean "the best evidence possible", which is often the game played by denialists, wordsmiths, scientists, and pseudo-scientists, but "the best evidence we have to go by". I hope MIB will correct me if I understood incorrectly. Yes, I do hereby challenge you to "define human", because if you don't, we'll be playing different games alongside each other, and this particular game goes way, way deep. Quote ........I could define human. I would suggest it is better to define the capabilities of humans.......... No, it wouldn't. Some humans aren't capable of wiping their own backside after defecating, and some humans culturally don't do it on a social basis. Let's not expand the game, please. Just define "human". Like this: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/human Quote BIOLOGY specialized a member of a species of the genus (= group of species)Homo: archaic human Extinct species of the genus (collectively called archaichumans) include H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis. modern human H. heidelbergensis has sometimes been regarded as the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. ^^^^^ That's a dictionary query. That's the "best evidence" we have for the definition of "human", but you can still play. There are several definitions on that dictionary entry. For example, you can choose this one: Quote being, relating to, or belonging to a person or to people as opposedto animals: Or this one: Quote having the qualities, faults, and feelings that people have, as opposed to gods, animals, or machines: There are other dictionaries, as well. Please choose your "best evidence", either in "best in quality" or the "best you have". Quote ......... Some say bigfoot has many of those capabilities. I don't happen to be one of them for what I feel is good reason.......... Science (big "S") says that Homo rudolfensis (lived 2 million years ago) was "human" (of the genus homo). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis Their "best evidence" are a few bones. But they know nothing about their habits, "capabilities", or even if they were covered with feathers or scales. They can take educated guesses, but they can't prove it. They go on the "best evidence" they have, and they argue their positions amongst each other like lawyers. Like we do............... Quote .........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.......... I think that the "best evidence" indicates that a sasquatch would likely "attack" a person by clubbing them to death with a stick instead of debating like a lawyer, but I can't prove it. Why is that the "best evidence"? Because there is no testimony whatsoever of any lawyer-like behavior exhibited by sasquatches, but there is plenty of testimony claiming violent behavior. Maybe you can define "attack" for me, please?
MIB Posted 18 minutes ago Moderator Posted 18 minutes ago 4 hours ago, Backdoc said: Obviously this results in my answering the question differently based on my different viewpoint. And a total lack of personal experience.
FLY Posted 17 minutes ago Posted 17 minutes ago Quote When daylight came he was able to see that he was in a sort of camp, under a high rock shelf I wonder if this place could be found
Recommended Posts