Guest Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Golly!? Kershaw makes switch blades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 There's not a lot of faith left in Bigfoot belief I guess. As with everything in this life a person has to say at some point "If it were going to happen it would have happened by now". That's how I feel about Bigfoot. If it was out there once it ain't no more and it departed before modern western science/culture ever got the chance to know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Golly!? Kershaw makes switch blades? A friend showed me his Kershaw today that was an "assisted" folder. It has a spring loaded blade, but does not open all by itself by a switch. You start it, and the spring takes over and finishes the opening. I don't have any need for that, though. Like a true switchblade, you have to have a safety on it to avoid accidents. I'd just as soon flick it open all by myself without fumbling with a safety......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 It's like the lotto's, you need to play to win. The more you invest the better your odds are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 On 11/17/2010 at 1:54 PM, Guest shelley7950 said: Well, first of all let me say that I desperately want to believe in Bigfoot, and of all the cryptids I think BF is the most likely to turn out to be a real animal... But...the more I lurk on various forums and watch various reality TV shows, the more I find my belief wavering. Last night, for example, I watched a PBS show on wolverines, called "Woverines: Chasing Phantoms"...it was fascinating and showed how a tiny group of dedicated researchers were able to track this relatively small (30-40#) carnivore through some of the most remote and challenging wilderness in the world...these animals are spread thin in the landscape (with territories of 500 miles or more) and are constantly on the move, travelling miles every day. One researcher admitted that in 20 years of study she'd actually only seen living wolverines 4 times...And yet, there was still plenty of evidence to base studies on---there were footprints, scat and hair samples for DNA, kill/scavenge sites, game cam photos, den sites, etc. etc. So why is it that a tiny group of researchers are able to find plenty of evidence for such a small, scarce, and elusive animal in thousands of miles of remote and difficult terrain, and yet no one seems to be able to come up with a shred of solid physical evidence (DNA, confirmed hair or scat sample, clear photo)of a huge North American ape that, according to reports, is spread across most of the lower 48 States and is allegedly frequently seen strolling through people's back yards and along the roadside??? Anyone? Seriously, I'm getting depressed... And thanks for any response...enjoy this site. 1. Don't desperately want anything in the natural world. Examine evidence. 2. Forums and reality TV shows are not NOT the places to look. The places to look are on the websites that collate reports. (getting depressed. Man, I hope he/she is still alive to read this...) If you are that desperate, you should be examining the evidence and not waiting for someone else. Yes, reports are evidence; they possess the volume (frequency) and coherence (consistency) that scientists always look for. But you'll only find out how compelling they are by reading them. (Again, THAT DESPERATE? God, hope you're still alive.) Read them and think about them. Note how five to 10 guidebook descriptors happen in every report. Note how the characteristics of a hominid primate are repeatedly reported by people who have NO IDEA that those are the characteristics of a hominid primate. Have you - if you are, um, still alive - read anything by the scientific proponents? 3. Too many people in the world think that science is here to confirm the humdrum. It's not; we know lots of stuff compared to which sasquatch itself is pretty humdrum. Stop listening to pessimists who don't know what the hell they're talking about, OK? 4. NO ONE IS LOOKING FOR SASQUATCH on any serious level. You shouldn't expect proof, at the current rate, for a LONG time. 5. Doesn't mean they're not real though; the evidence says they are. (If you want to know who NOT to pay attention to, message me and I'll share my Ignore list.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts