norseman Posted July 3, 2013 Admin Posted July 3, 2013 Well I hear what your saying, just like any hobby there are skill levels involved. But I can tell the difference between a bull elk track way and a cow elk track way. Elk are like Humans, bulls are broader in the shoulder, cows are broader at the hips. So with a quadruped when their tracks overlap, the cow will have a hind foot overlap that is offset to the outside of the track way and a bull will be opposite. I know that if I'm following a blood trail and there are air bubbles in the blood, then I've struck the lungs. I mean I'm not the world's greatest tracker, but I'm certainly not a complete fool either. Nor are most of my friends. But Elk do not hide their tracks or back walk in their tracks, so on and so forth........it's a different discipline all together. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-sas-guide-to-tracking-new-and-revised-bob-carss/1009272376?ean=9781599214375 I have this book, but would still like a hands on class
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Posted July 3, 2013 ^^^Here's something hands-on. Heck I was even thinking about going: http://www.tracknature.com/x/product.php?productid=17616&cat=9&page=1
norseman Posted July 3, 2013 Admin Posted July 3, 2013 Yah I m trying to get my son and I registered into the Scott donelan tracking class but you should go DWA absolutely!
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 4, 2013 Posted July 4, 2013 Anglers and hunters of various forums in Washington state have sometimes claimed to have found tracks out of nowhere and have sometimes even claimed to have had visual encounters. This to me is interesting because outdoor forums that are centered in other places generally don't get reports at all. The myth of Bigfoot would have to be running pretty strong there in my opinion.
clubbedfoot Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 Lone, barefoot, bipedal tracks in snow with large gait and in line step are interesting.....
Guest Robert2 Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 What about this idea. BF does not really exist. There are a plethora of reasons to believe it is a combination of hoaxes, misidentifications, and crazy liars. There is also the possibility of mass cultural mythology and psychological phenomenon that somehow creates the illusion of Bigfoot, alien grey abductions, crazy stuff like that.
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 ^^^^Non-starter. Frequently tried here, but not by folks with considerable experience with the evidence. Let alone people who have seen them, to which that conclusion sounds vaguely (or not) like an insult to their intelligence.
Guest Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 What about this idea. BF does not really exist. There are a plethora of reasons to believe it is a combination of hoaxes, misidentifications, and crazy liars. There is also the possibility of mass cultural mythology and psychological phenomenon that somehow creates the illusion of Bigfoot, alien grey abductions, crazy stuff like that. Ding ding ding ding ding. If bigfoot was real, there'd by a body by now. No body, no monkey.
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) ^^^^Non-starter. Frequently tried here, but not by folks with considerable experience with the evidence. Let alone people who have seen them, to which that conclusion sounds vaguely (or not) like an insult to their intelligence. That "no body no proof so not real" thing just gets tiresome. It's a veritable Trump Tower of cards, assumption upon assumption. While we're on that, the title of this thread has pretty much been bombed into the Stone Age. Just sayin'. Evidence is evidence, and not understanding what that is will not help one comprehend what's going on here. Edited July 19, 2013 by DWA
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I see a lot of excuses on here for not having any hard evidence. The thing is most people aren't even open to the idea that Bigfoot doesn't exist. The evidence for Bigfoot is compelling. But the lack of anything substantial that could have no other explanation other than bigfoot is as well. If a new continent was discovered and there was evidence for a bipedal primate that was equivalent to what there is for Bigfoot that would be one thing. But we have been here for a long time.
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 ^^^^I see lots of excuses for not having an open mind. I see lots of open minds considered closed by people with closed minds. I see lots of apologists for a mainstream that simply isn't paying attention, and uses the same arguments-against that ignorant laymen use. That's what I'm seeing. I like to share perspectives on this. If you stop after the first sentence of your second paragraph, we're good. The second sentence of that paragraph, in light of the first, is irrelevant. The lack of something is never compelling when the presence of something is. And you need to correct the last sentence in your first paragraph. The thing is most people aren't even open to the idea that Bigfoot doesn't exist might possibly be real. There, fixed.
Guest Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I see a lot of excuses on here for not having any hard evidence. The thing is most people aren't even open to the idea that Bigfoot doesn't exist. The evidence for Bigfoot is compelling. But the lack of anything substantial that could have no other explanation other than bigfoot is as well. If a new continent was discovered and there was evidence for a bipedal primate that was equivalent to what there is for Bigfoot that would be one thing. But we have been here for a long time. What compelling evidence? I keep hearing these claims that there's all this evidence, but what it amounts to are a collection of sightings on a website "vetted" by people with a financial interest in bigfoot's existence, blurry photos, and a short film by a guy who was looking to make a movie about bigfoot. The BFRO's "investigators" profit from bigfoot sightings and bigfoot tourism. The PGF? Interesting, but hardly compelling, especially given Patterson's history. Despite 500 years of western exploration, we have not so much as a single bigfoot body. No bones, no furs, no skins. Contrast that with the mountain gorilla - first European expedition into their range? BANG! Dead mountain gorilla as proof. Lowland gorilla? Didn't even need to go looking - a native brought in a skull. Bigfoot? Nothing. Edited July 19, 2013 by leisureclass
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 As I said: tiresome. Read up. I can wait. If one doesn't want to do that, little I can say. I'm not sure I have seen anything funnier than a financial stake in sasquatch existence. Give me your list of rich bigfooters any time you're ready. Non-starter (I love spoiler alerts).
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Anyone who tries to think about this for any length of time, and sets incredulity aside for rational thought, realizes that it's much easier to understand why we don't have proof yet than it is to explain how all this societal smoke is based on something that isn't real. Stone denial, readable here every single day. There. I just explained why we don't have proof. Now, you explain how a society of mainly non-biologists is having an absolutely biologically correct hallucination. I can wait.
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 And I should really add [digression: having to say this as many times as I have is ample proof of a Wall of Denial sufficient to block realization of a bigfoot in one's closet] that scientists agree with me on this, and the ones that don't sound about as scientific - just on this topic, mind you - as garbagemen, no insult to that extremely necessary fraternity who just happen not to be scientists. If you can't prove to me that the scientists who agree with me are wrong....why am I listening to you again...?
Recommended Posts