Guest Crowlogic Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yes, the logical mind always finds a way to explain things within the parameters of what we know as fact. For most people anyways. I have yet to see a structure or suspected manipulation that I couldn't figure out a way to replicate myself. Good luck to anyone who wishes to put a lot of time and effort into a YT vid about it for financial gain or noteriety. How many hits does it take before a YT vid starts paying out? Well then you are saying the logical mind will by any means necessary find the answer in a known mundane way. So then are bigfooters without a logical mind since you say logical minds seek mundane known answers? My logic say they are fakes and fabrications so if I suspend my logic then they are by bigfoot.............. not a promising or healthy avenue I'd say. Yes, the logical mind always finds a way to explain things within the parameters of what we know as fact. For most people anyways. I have yet to see a structure or suspected manipulation that I couldn't figure out a way to replicate myself. Good luck to anyone who wishes to put a lot of time and effort into a YT vid about it for financial gain or noteriety. How many hits does it take before a YT vid starts paying out? It's not just YT. If you have Podcast or vidieo cast and are making a splash then the commercial media is more apt to take notice. The podsacters I mentioned are well in the pockets of commercial media now. Although lots of things associated with Sasquatch studies can, and are, hoaxed, I'm not in the least convinced these random stacks of trees and limbs in places without roads or motorized access are candidates for being hoaxes. These are things nobody would do casually, given the mass of some of the objects involved. Sure, you could build a wiki-up made from branches and brush, and although I've seen photos of some that make me go, "Hmmmm...", for the most part those are discounted as being within the scope of unassisted human abilities. (Overlooking the fact the branches in those show no evidence of being cut). It is the bigger assemblages that are begging for an explanation. These are on the remote edge of things people hoax to get attention...mainly because the vast majority of people who would come across them would have no inkling they are anything remarkable, and the effort it takes. Most people just lack the experience to know what they are looking at, or the curiosity to look closely at them. As hoaxes go, these would be remarkably subtle things, and a subtlety is not a hoaxer's long suit. Roads and machines are unimportant. when researchers find these things the researchers themselves are on foot way way out out so they say. If they got there others can get there the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) The remoteness is really only a side observation. (Although a performer needs an audience. Dam few attendees in the audience in most of the places these turn up) Fact is, unless somebody comes up with a plausible explanation as to how weights and bulks of these kinds and dimensions are made to take the positions where they are found, the question is open. No way around that, no matter the hand waving. Edited January 7, 2016 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Well then you are saying the logical mind will by any means necessary find the answer in a known mundane way. So then are bigfooters without a logical mind since you say logical minds seek mundane known answers? My logic say they are fakes and fabrications so if I suspend my logic then they are by bigfoot.............. not a promising or healthy avenue I'd say. It's not just YT. If you have Podcast or vidieo cast and are making a splash then the commercial media is more apt to take notice. The podsacters I mentioned are well in the pockets of commercial media now. Well I certainly don't see a chance of you suspending your confirmation bias to look at the evidence, that's for sure. Next time I need a paint job I know who to go to. I asked how many hits does it take to generate an income from a YT vid. If you don't know that's ok. The rest is just blah blah blah to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 A well known research group just released an entire podcast on structures. They focus on huge pieces of timber. But still nothing that couldn't be done by some dedicated pranksters or even the researchers themselves. I don't trust anybody in the bigfoot community and the more it gets to giving some a bit of an income from YT scripts bet there's more incentive to fakery.Crow,Which podcast please? Bohdi, I think Crow is talking about this one: https://youtu.be/yOugI4KWZmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Well then you are saying the logical mind will by any means necessary find the answer in a known mundane way. So then are bigfooters without a logical mind since you say logical minds seek mundane known answers? My logic say they are fakes and fabrications so if I suspend my logic then they are by bigfoot.............. not a promising or healthy avenue I'd say. It's not just YT. If you have Podcast or vidieo cast and are making a splash then the commercial media is more apt to take notice. The podsacters I mentioned are well in the pockets of commercial media now. Well I certainly don't see a chance of you suspending your confirmation bias to look at the evidence, that's for sure. Next time I need a paint job I know who to go to. I asked how many hits does it take to generate an income from a YT vid. If you don't know that's ok. The rest is just blah blah blah to me. Well I started out as a dyed in the wool believer. I jumped through all of the hoops believers jump through to maintain belief. But the door only swings one way. Once the issue is seen for what it is there is no going back. Gee I don't know how many hits it takes to make money on youtube. But here this very well known podcast is suggesting to footers that yes they too can generate income for bigfoot finding toys. Start around 6:25 and you'll get to hear it for yourself. Edited January 8, 2016 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I understand and appreciate the input. Myself, I'm not so much a dyed in wool "believer" either. I'm one of those that don't belong to any bf research organization nor do I have a YT channel and I don't listen to podcasts etc. You are far more versed in those things than I. I'm just an average everyday person who went to go have a look for himself, got lucky, and as a result got took to church. There's no doubt in my mind now that there's something out there in woods that can manipulate the environment to accommodate a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 I'd like it better if we all stayed on topic, and not digress into another argue-yes, argue-no discussion please. Maybe we have taken this as far as it will go without going to that, but I'm still hoping somebody has some insight to give on the origins of some of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) I agree WSA. This isn't the thread for background noise. No amount of huffing and puffing and hand waiving is going to change what I experienced. Thanks for link BTW. I'll have to check that out this weekend. Edited January 8, 2016 by WesT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I asked how many hits does it take to generate an income from a YT vid. If you don't know that's ok. The rest is just blah blah blah to me. Here's a good website explaining it. It's not so much hits as it is advertising views. http://videopower.org/how-many-views-to-make-money-on-youtube/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Well then you are saying the logical mind will by any means necessary find the answer in a known mundane way. So then are bigfooters without a logical mind since you say logical minds seek mundane known answers? My logic say they are fakes and fabrications so if I suspend my logic then they are by bigfoot.............. not a promising or healthy avenue I'd say. It's not just YT. If you have Podcast or vidieo cast and are making a splash then the commercial media is more apt to take notice. The podsacters I mentioned are well in the pockets of commercial media now. Well I certainly don't see a chance of you suspending your confirmation bias to look at the evidence, that's for sure. Next time I need a paint job I know who to go to. I asked how many hits does it take to generate an income from a YT vid. If you don't know that's ok. The rest is just blah blah blah to me. Well I started out as a dyed in the wool believer. I jumped through all of the hoops believers jump through to maintain belief. But the door only swings one way. Once the issue is seen for what it is there is no going back. Gee I don't know how many hits it takes to make money on youtube. But here this very well known podcast is suggesting to footers that yes they too can generate income for bigfoot finding toys. Start around 6:25 and you'll get to hear it for yourself. this was a great episode crow and yeah, Jeff stated pretty clearly that getting enough hits to get that new FLIR is obtainable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Some thoughts to add in the quest to know about bigfoot. Bodhi: The hosts of that show, one who claims to have had at least one up close sighting and the other who is a researcher, couldn't imagine any logical reason for a sasquatch to make such a structure. My feeble mind can come up with reasons if bigfoot made these structures: bigfoot kids at play, do not enter sign since BF clan owns this land, go up hill sign to find us, we left the area sign. Bodhi: So is your idea that they, sasquatches, hide within the stucture at some point whilst hunting? If so, for the things you've found, did you go over them looking for hair, bones, scat? Assuming so, what were the results? If all this is discussed by you up thread, just let me know. Thanks. Now we get into cold boring science. Someone needs to look at the sticks or logs in detail to find hair. If bigfoot made the structure, hair should to be present and more so in elaborate structures built with heavy trees. Hair will stick on bark and should be present in many cases. It may take all day to look with a hand lense. If hair is found, get a good microscope and learn to identify BF hair. It's already posted on the net. How about a trained dog that sniffs out bigfoot scents that would be ideal but would take time to train. Get some hounds and start training. WesT: Never saw any bones. Deer, bear, and Bobcat scat, but nothing out of the ordinary. Hair, my opinion of finding hair in the forest is it could have come from anywhere and from many different animals. Take more people with hand lenses and spend more time looking. The sniffer dog is out of most researcher's means and knowledge. Oregon hound hunters are experts at training these dogs on specific scents. WSA: These are on the remote edge of things people hoax to get attention...mainly because the vast majority of people who would come across them would have no inkling they are anything remarkable, and the effort it takes. This is sometimes a problem, so do they carry hair around with them to plant? Were limbs rotten and broken at ground level? Did limbs break off at 20' feet up that probably means wind breaks, and natural structures. Were stout limbs broken down low and were too big for humans? happy hunting....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Hey George, hair, footprints, and scat are ambiguous evidences that will never prove a thing. Therefore I opted to focus on it's function, as opposed to it's creator, at the time. I'm glad I did because I learned some new things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 hmmmmmm................. if evidence of the creator is present are you going to ignore it? The more evidence you can collect from the structure will help make your function theories realistic................... or do we not care about evidence? Lot's of evidence shows who made the structure but really knowing the function requires lots of guessing and mind reading. have fun out there.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) I'll chime in to say that WesT's original analysis up-thread was very short on guesses and speculation, in my opinion. To the contrary, he made a very reasoned analysis of the function of the structure he saw, based almost entirely on what he was seeing. (Of course, we've all got to acknowledge that most everything about what a Sasquatch does with his/her time is a matter of a high degree of speculation anyway, yes) I can't speak for him, but I considered his proposal to be a fairly well reasoned hypothesis. I would also presume to say he would be the first to tell you he is not certain if what he thinks is the correct interpretation, but it did fit the evidence on the ground. As is true with most things on this subject, I believe the hypothesis has to stand until somebody comes with a better one. That, and many here are not interested in the agenda of "proof", as they are well beyond that need for it, personally, and care not to get involved in the politics that come with it. When you have an obviously constructed structure of this kind in the middle of a remote area, and it bears no obvious indicators of human work (e.g., sawn or cut limbs, cordage, litter, shoe prints, etc.) you are left with a very short list of possible builders. They have to have had opposable thumbs. The improbabilities of this being of human construction approach that of it being the handiwork of an unknown hominoid. So here we are. Edited January 13, 2016 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 hmmmmmm................. if evidence of the creator is present are you going to ignore it? The more evidence you can collect from the structure will help make your function theories realistic................... or do we not care about evidence? Lot's of evidence shows who made the structure but really knowing the function requires lots of guessing and mind reading. have fun out there.............. The only evidence I was interested in was evidence that pertained to it's function. Even if I did find hair for example, and it turned out to be bear, am I to believe a bear constructed the entire set-up? I only went where the evidence led me as to it's intended purpose. I would have never shared what I guessed and I'm certainly not a clairvoyant. I've heard some interesting theories as to why a Sas reveals itself purposely and ends with the witness being chased or escorted out of an area. My theory is the person came to close to a hunting set up. A hunting set up, similar to the one I studied, is stationary and cannot be moved. And whatever it is out there using them absolutely does not want a human, or another human if it is of human origin, near it. Once discovered, or approached by a human, it is quickly semi-dismantled leaving behind only a skeleton of it's former self for us to ponder. Now that's a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts