Guest Cervelo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 SY, Not really but hey that's your opnion, but you couldn't be more wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 good to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Cervelo, Say for the sake of discussion there are 5000 sighting reports, that would roughly 1 per 50 thousand adults in North America over that period of time. If not let's pretend it's right. Now how many field biologists are there? Let's say 50,000 for fun, so we would expect 1 of them to meet the national average and report a BF sighting. If there were 3, that would be 3 times the national average for field biologists, which would probably be expected. How many loggers are there and how many of them have made a report? Get my drift? Since we don't know how many of your group of specialties have actually made reports, we don't know whether the number is high or low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Indie, I have no idea if your point is good or not, the minute someone starts using #s I check out, you can make them say whatever you want. First someone's got to be there to see it and be willing to report it and with that comes all the blah blah I'm afraid to get laughed at, lose my job,lose my reputation I get that. My point is simple, the people that are out there alot and very familar with the local critters aren't reporting biggie to the degree one would expect. But realize if biggie exsit, I wouldn't expect anyone to see him any more often than a mountain lion, hence my skepticism of most reports by people who arent familar with the outdoors, or hoax/lying or attention getting, ect, sorry that's the gauntlet biggies got to run with me unless of course I see one for myself.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's possible your experts are reporting sightings at a rate that fits their exposure. How would we know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I get the professional in a position of authority angle for sure. I was thinking more along the lines of long distance hikers/campers, farmers, loggers, field biologist, ect I frequent some of the hiking, camping fourms and it's effectively laughed out of the room when it's brought up, people with lifetimes of remote camping and hiking with hardly any reports. One would think if Bigfoot where to ever see a kindered spirit in the woods, it would be this group of people. This has always been an issue for me too. I'm a long distance hiker and spent a lot of time talking to other hikers on the long trails on both coasts. It's amazing how seldom the subject of Sasquatch is ever mentioned. Similarly, on hiking forums you might get one or two jokey references to the phenomenon, but nothing serious and it's mostly conspicuous by it's absence. I'd also challenge the idea that many of the locals in purported hotspots are 'in the know', but keeping stumm on the subject. When I hiked the PCT in 2009, I put this to the test when the trail passed through Norcal and the PNW, especially in high activity areas like Gifford Pinchot and the Klamath. I asked around widely from both local people in town and those working professionally in the various forest services. Unfortunately, the reaction was largely one of uncontrolled mirth, rather than tacit acceptance or shifty-eyed evasiveness, which is the impression I had anticipated from believing what I read on this forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Indie, I have no idea if your point is good or not, the minute someone starts using #s I check out, you can make them say whatever you want. First someone's got to be there to see it and be willing to report it and with that comes all the blah blah I'm afraid to get laughed at, lose my job,lose my reputation I get that. My point is simple, the people that are out there alot and very familar with the local critters aren't reporting biggie to the degree one would expect. You can't dismiss statistics then turn around and rely on a statistical argument, Cervelo. Which is it going to be? But realize if biggie exsit, I wouldn't expect anyone to see him any more often than amountain lion, hence my skepticism of most reports by people who arent familar with the outdoors, So people are too stupid to know what it is they are seeing? or hoax/lying or attention getting, ect, Proof? sorry that's the gauntlet biggies got to run with me unless of course I see one for myself.... And that is why I give your non-arguments virtually no weight whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Indie, I completely get what your saying, there really isn't an answer. But here's another reason why I'm such a skeptic about Bigfoot, maybe a tad off topic but hopefully relevant. As this country was "discovered" and developed over the past hundreds of years, I would have expected by now biggies existence would have been firmly established. During that time people lived in direct contact and off the land and where well aware of the local critters (as in for real) except one, it just doesn't make sense to me, I could be wrong no doubt. Quite frankly I think most of the NA stories are our version of the boogie man (not KC) or even possibly a misinterpretation of a derogatory term for competitive tribes ie they are not human they are wildmen, racism as an issue of color is a pretty recent development. Bigfoots story has two trajectories to follow one would be similar to lets say giant squid, rumored for centuries, some wash ashore walla it's real or something like dragons, unicorns, ect rumored for centuries and remain as such until further notice pretty much a social construct. I'm out looking not just for biggie, but all things that are great about the outdoors and my limited optimism about biggie is based on some very personal experiences but that also have very mundane explanations as well. Not sure if I've clarified anything or just muddied the water more Mudler, But you always feel the need to respond, I would suggest you just ignore me as I do you Strick, Man I'll bet you got some good stories, very much hope that when or if I get to retire I get to do some of that type of walkabout!! Edited April 20, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Cervelo, the first contact Bigfoot had with with us were probably settlers, armed settlers who also ate off the land which included shooting their food, something they probably observed. If they realized we were dangerous to deal with I'm sure it was before we even had a hint of their existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I might add that settlers also reported contact with fearsome wild hairy men. Here is one of many references: http://www.texasbigfoot.com/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/141-wild-man-of-the-woods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 What I don't get is that your talking about an argument as if it's already been established as correct. The idea that we don't hear enough reports from hunting guides, hikers, loggers, etc. is plain inaccurate. Stan Courtney shared the writings of Keith Foster on this forum and most of the compelling evidence he has comes from hunting guides who have spoken up (very interesting stuff by the way). That is just one isolated example, but that can be applied everywhere. I've read countless witness accounts from loggers, hunters, guides. . . all the same people you're talking about. Where does the idea that most witnesses are just mistaken travelers not used to seeing animals even come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Guys obviously there are all kinds of reports that we can come up with to address my concerns, and I hate to be so blunt, but great so show me the body already, that's really the bottom line prove it, after all this time sooner or later one would think by now...... As far as eyewitness reports I think it's pretty well established they can be highly unreliable, a little goggling should clear that up for you or because I say so if that helps LOL Edited April 21, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 We were simply addressing the concerns you raised regarding lack of historical reference to sightings. Sorry to have responded to that concern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) BFS, Yea you nailed it great job, I had know idea Edited April 21, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Hey I agree with you. A body would be extremely helpful. I really can't tell anyone what to do about that though. I had my chance and didn't squeeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts