Jump to content

What About Bf That Totally Gets To You?


Recommended Posts

Admin
Posted

Not where I was going with it.

Posted

My mistake. Please continue.

Guest OntarioSquatch
Posted (edited)

One of the biggest flaws I often see in the reasoning of denialists is they fill in the blanks with pre-conceived assumptions instead of using the phenomenon itself to get an idea of what's actually occurring. For instance, they claim that if Sasquatch are real, then we would have a type specimen by now. 

 

In reality, the entities we're discussing are supposedly extremely elusive. This is something that can be inferred from sighting frequency (reports per year) combined with with the behaviour described in the reports themselves. If you're not using the evidence at hand, then you're out of touch with the phenomenon.

 

 

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Posted

But there are other explanations.  I don't think, in truth, that sasquatch is really any more elsusive than any species we know about.  I would bet that *far fewer* people see several animals we know about in the wild annually (lynx; marten; wolverine; cougar).  Reports, count on it, are the tip of the iceberg of encounters.  Logic just dictates that; there is no presumption that 100% of people seeing one "would have reported by now" (while we're on that fallacy).

 

And the guy that killed and closely examined one in Manitoba (and the one doing the same in western Washington) sure didn't bring 'em in for taxonomy. In fact they aren't the only two records of killing one (and there is no reason not to believe the others, other than you know Justin Smeja.  *That* didn't happen).

 

 

Posted
9 hours ago, DWA said:

But there are other explanations.  I don't think, in truth, that sasquatch is really any more elsusive than any species we know about.  I would bet that *far fewer* people see several animals we know about in the wild annually (lynx; marten; wolverine; cougar).  Reports, count on it, are the tip of the iceberg of encounters.  Logic just dictates that; there is no presumption that 100% of people seeing one "would have reported by now" (while we're on that fallacy).

 

And the guy that killed and closely examined one in Manitoba (and the one doing the same in western Washington) sure didn't bring 'em in for taxonomy. In fact they aren't the only two records of killing one (and there is no reason not to believe the others, other than you know Justin Smeja.  *That* didn't happen).

 

 

I agree the animals you mentioned are rarely seen or filmed or photographed. The major difference  they have been and been documented. Sasquatch has not been. One awesome film and nothing else to see. There is enough anecdotal evidence that certainly warrants further research .

 

I have read the Minnesota report from the 1941 incident. I enjoyed it.  Don't recall the Western Washington one.

Posted

I don't know why Grover Krantz (who got the man's story) didn't publicize it.  Of course he was more into footprints than stories, and considered the footprints alone to be proof even if there'd never been a sighting report, so...um...there you go.  But he mentions the guy here, and the brief mention is enough to see what makes the report compelling even without the additional details:

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

 

The rest is worth the read.  The relevant paragraph is near the end.

Posted

Thank you for sharing. All and all it was a nice read. I appreciate it. I wish there were more details on the supposed shot creature .

the Manitoba one was great with the interview and other information.

  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...