Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest]

http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2012/12/urban-bigfoot-chico-ca-2446262.html

 

I live close to this town, on the banks of a very large river, with about 500 acres of US wildlife preserve surrounding us.

 

The creek in the story above runs thru an extremely large somewhat wild riparian municipal park that runs thru the whole small town...it flows down from the foothills  thru town, and on through acres of tree farms to the Sacramento River.  I think recently they banned fishing on this creek b/c of the salmon runs,  sometimes in the local paper they will post "Salmon seen at Bidwell Bridge" or such....so it's a kind of treasured creek and park and preserve. 

 

 I have wondered if BFs ever use the many water ways..and thousands of acres of nut tree orchards for forays down for salmon..b/c of course salmon can't get to ancestral grounds...like the time before dams.... (some rivers are having dams removed, or providing ways fro salmon to migrate)

 

I can imagine forays of a few days into the preserves along the waterways...b/c it is just so empty up here..and at night a BF could walk thru these orchards boldly and for miles really... its only thirty from the river to solid rugged Sierra foothills..  not to mention the abundant almonds, walnuts, turkeys and deer in the orchards

 

The summer of 2011 my daughter in law got spooked by wood knocks in the preserve (she had been with me in AZ on BF trips) just after sundown while walking a dog.  A few weeks later we also saw some distinctive flashes n the preserve, just two, and another night heard two odd whistles, from sources about 60 yards apart, across the river and assumed hunters.

 

But, just a few weeks later we were all fenced in and have two Anatolians that roam all night and bark all night, at coyotes, bobcat, and recently wild hogs. I don't listen or look for BFs.  But, have wondered, and the BFRO reports for the Valley are decades, back..but the foothills do have many current reports.

 

Maybe I should, it would save on gas....  I notice people up here don't talk about BF at all, even if plied.....but we do have Bigfoot Carpets, and Sierra Nevada's Bigfoot beer...

 

My big question...do you think BFs are affected by poison ivy?  It is everywhere in the riparian areas, and along with raspberries make a good deal of the water's banks and preserve inaccessible to humans.

Edited September 25, 2013 by apehuman

[Lake County Bigfooot]

As far as poison ivy affecting Sasquatch, I doubt it.  Most hairy mammals seem to go unaffected, and I realize that we are talking about a unique mammal.  Considering the types of cover that they prefer I doubt they give even thorns much thought.  I think that they have pretty tough exteriors so they can negotiate thick brush.  Maybe the outer layer of skin is less sensitive than ours, being somewhat thicker and more callous.  I think most animals that cover such terrain our equipped with the proper amour to deal with the stuff we softies cannot.  Regarding Sasquatch using greenways to access more urban areas, where the greenways are sufficient, count on it....

[sheri]

I agree LCB. Good post.

[norseman]

I spend a fair bit of time in the woods. In fact, got a few blisters from my 10 km hike yesterday in the woods. Though, I have to say, I see absolutely zero relevance in comments like that. As if simply spending time in the woods allows one to make claims without evidence and them carry more weight. 

 

Does that work both ways? A skeptic who spends more time in the woods than any ten proponents combined, does his/her skepticism carry more weight? And what about all of our fine members from the UK? They don't get to hold a valid opinion since they have,most likely, spent probably no time in a North American forest? 

 

I am sorry, but slinking around the woods looking for Bigfoot does not add weight to an opinion--be that skeptic or proponent.

 

 

Ummmm...........huh?

 

Sure it does.

 

If your seeing it, hearing it, looking at it's footprints that certainly adds weight to an opinion and same in the opposite. If you've hiked a million miles on the PCT and the CDT and never even got a glimpse of something strange in the hinterlands? That would add weight to an opinion as well.

 

It doesn't add to proof one way or another though..........

[dmaker]

I disagree Norse. The contention here is that people who spend no time in the woods have less right to their opinions on Sasquatch.  Anyone can use the Internet and form an opinion based on the witness reports, the documentaries, the books available, etc.  What is being in the woods going to add other than the possibility of mistaking something for a Bigfoot? 

 

I do spend time in the woods. I'm not arguing this point because I feel I need to defend my position. I am challenging this claim because it feels like a cheap shot and an easy way to try to dismiss someone's opinion.

[Guest]

Well you could say it almost doesn't count on account of how easy it is to freak out average hiker, etc by sitting back 10ft off the trail on a stump and saying "Hi" as they come past.... not everybody out there is "looking" ... and I don't mean for the big fella, I mean noticing anything much in general.

[norseman]

Nothing replaces hands on experience, in anything we task ourselves to do in life.

 

It's not a cheap shot..........it's reality. Reading and watching documentaries only get you so far.

 

Is everyone entitled to their opinion? Absolutely. But are all opinions of equal value? No.

 

If that were the case, I could read books and become an expert in everything from mountain climbing to piloting a 747.

 

Your opinion that Sasquatch is bogus IS strengthened by your blisters hiking the back country D...........as opposed to reading a book in your cozy den. That's my opinion.

[Guest]

if we follow that logic, why are the opinions of most scientist heavily disregarded on this board? Shouldn't they carry he most weight on the subject of Bigfoot?

[norseman]

They should and they do...........

 

Has Sasquatch been classified as a species? No.

 

Do some scientists advocate the existence of the species? Yes.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6cA4avGLYg

[Guest]

nope

Scientists who don't support bigfoot are routinely criticized here. Shouldn't we hold their opinions on the subject in higher regard?

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^

 

Did you watch Dr. Bindernagel's video? He explains it for you in spades.

 

Their opinions only carry as much weight as their knowledge into the subject. Most Scientists shun the whole thing.......

 

Proof requires a body, it really is that simple.

 

But I'm not a fan of bashing Academia because they for the most part do not get involved.

[Guest]

so a primatologist who hasn't read all the Bigfoot books has a lesser opinion than someone who does and walks in the woods?

I think this also assumes that the Bigfoot research is even accurate. Who really knows...

I'm not sure why you are mentioning the proff requires a body thing. My initial comment was based on the idea that those who spend more time in the woods have a better opinion. I don't even disagree with that but to me that also means scientists in related fields to this subject should have more sway here than they do.

And why do most scientists shun the subject? Have the looked into it and moved on due to lack of compelling evidence? Is it the supernatural stuff that keeps them away? The hoaxes?

Edited September 25, 2013 by mbh

[norseman]

Again that is apart of Bindernagel's beef........

 

Bigfoot research is filled full of amateurs, BECAUSE there is a vacuum there.

 

Evidently the primatologists that you so badly want a opinion from won't give one.......because it's a taboo subject. It's pseudo science. Apes don't walk upright. Apes don't exist in north America.

 

This is why I brought up a body, nobody can argue with a body or a portion there of..........nobody.

[Guest]

you have missed my point for some agenda I don't even care about.

I never said I desperately needed an opinion from a scientist. I have some theories why you choose that word though...

Is your new claim that no scientist has given a negative opinion about Bigfoot?

[roguefooter]

 

Your opinion that Sasquatch is bogus IS strengthened by your blisters hiking the back country D...........as opposed to reading a book in your cozy den. That's my opinion.

 

Going out looking for Bigfoot can also bolster false notions. Take a look at the Finding Bigfoot crew and how they think every noise and movement is a Sasquatch, and these are guys that spend a lot of time out in the woods. The same thing happens here all the time- every howl comes back as a Bigfoot howl, every movement in the bush comes back here as Bigfoot moving in the bush. Anything that resembles a coyote or a fox becomes bigfoot imitating a coyote and a fox. Did those blisters really amount to anything?

 

I think it's far better to go out in the woods NOT looking for Bigfoot, because the only thing people seem to be learning is how to fuel their imagination.

Edited September 25, 2013 by roguefooter