Do Bf's Mimic Sounds Other Animals Make?

[Gotta Know]

I'm doubting your contributions to this thread. If your intent is to stop the flow of earnest conversation by people genuinely interested in explorring the BF phenomenon, then congrats. You're neat-o.

[roguefooter]

Just because I don't swallow the nonsense doesn't mean it has to meet your approval. I see this kind of completely unfounded "earnest conversation" as being more damaging than helpful to the BF phenomenon.

 

But then again those are just opinions and we all have them. When yours become more superior to mine then you let me know, okay?

[NathanFooter]

roguefooter , lets say that for a moment someone else could ,, verify ,, your  ,, account ,,.

 

Two people do not hold much water , but when you have a collection of objective researchers who are well versed in the outdoors noticing the odd things independently then getting together and comparing notes and other data  you very well may have something.

 

The point is that the data and patterns more often than not reveal the truth.

[roguefooter]

"when you have a collection of objective researchers"

 

Sorry but I just don't see any truth in that statement.

 

A group of Bigfoot researchers that did NOT see Bigfoot make these sounds, coming to the conclusion that Bigfoot made these sounds. That's not being objective- it's a common bias. 

 

It's wishful thinking that manages to transform into what you're calling "the truth" here.

Edited October 4, 2013 by roguefooter

[NathanFooter]

So you do not think that there are objective researchers here ?    To further this , what is not objective about me and my efforts ?

 

I am being genuine here.

Edited October 4, 2013 by NathanFooter

[roguefooter]

^Any researcher who claims that Bigfoot mimics other animals but has never seen Bigfoot do this or has any evidence to support the claim, is being purely biased. There is no objectivity to that line of thinking, it's trying to fabricate more reality for Bigfoot by associating it with common sounds.

 

Have you actually seen a Bigfoot mimicking other animals, Nathan? Anything substantial to back up your claims other than a 'feeling'?

Edited October 4, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest Urkelbot]

If a real objective researcher was in the woods and heard a frog, dog, or bird they wouldn't think bigfoot.

[NathanFooter]

That there is not a fair evaluation , I for example do not state ,, that was bigfoot ,, as if a fact.

 

I take the other wildlife sounds and line them up to see if I get a match , if I do , discounted.

 

If I get something strange when compared to other sounds, then I go back over the nights events and dissect everything I can to try and find out what I experienced.

 

Bigfoot only falls into consideration if a something like tracks or a sighting took place during the time of the event.

 

Just because someone considers something does not mean they are not objective. 

 

I have heard whoops that where later followed by massively deep owl calls that in mid call transformed into a deep coyote like howls.

 

I have had several events like this and in the morning after investigation of one of the events found possible tracks and impressions. 

 

Sadly I have to add that these main events I have described took place before I started recording anything , I was about 15 or so and had no idea that the information was of value if recorded so all I am left with is an empty story.

 

I consider that the sounds I have described may have come from a sasquatch due to what was going on before, in the middle or after the events in witch the sounds took place and because the sounds considered do not match other known wildlife.

 

Though I can see I used the word feel in my first post to this matter , that was a poor choice of words on my part.  

Edited October 4, 2013 by NathanFooter

[roguefooter]

"Just because someone considers something does not mean they are not objective."

 

When you claim that these 'considerations' become "data and patterns that more often than not reveal the truth" then you are not being objective, you are leaning in a biased direction.

 

It doesn't matter how much Bigfoot evidence that you find nearby when you hear the animal sounds, there is nothing that even suggests that a regular animal didn't make the noise. It is entirely possible that other animals are also in the area.

 

To say that those sounds "don't match other known wildlife" is a real stretch considering that even the experts don't know every sound that every known animal makes. Are Bigfoot researchers special in that way? Or just making these claims to bolster the reality of Bigfoot? Now if you actually witnessed Bigfoot making these sounds then there would be a little more substance to the claim, but as it stands it's nothing but an assumption, and assumptions do not equal truth.

 

There is a video online of a cat mimicking a dog barking. How do we know this? Because we witness it. There would be no reason otherwise to even suspect the sound of a dog bark to be a cat. It doesn't matter how many cat prints we find in the area.

Edited October 4, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

If a real objective researcher was in the woods and heard a frog, dog, or bird they wouldn't think bigfoot.

 

I guess I'll pass on being called a "researcher" , although bigfootery has labeled me as such. To "research" , something .. would I first not have to be able to find it, and study it consistently ? I'll go by amateur investigator, which is much more accurate. 

Now that that's cleared up.. I will say, that when I'm out there investigating and recording.. I would first put frog, dog and bird sounds.. as just that.. known sources. If I heard a frog, dog, or bird, in a location out of the ordinary.. and then had a rock thrown in my direction, or had other strange activity associated.. that did not constitute a frog, dog , or bird.. I would have to reconsider, and keep an open mind to alternatives. Problem is.. I neither can see, nor yet understand the capabilities, of the alternative unknowns.

In addition, I have to listen to multiple witnesses, who have told me.. that hairy bipedal unknowns, can produce sounds similar to frogs, dogs, and birds. I have to take it All, into consideration. I believe.. That, is being truly objective.

Edited October 4, 2013 by imonacan

[southernyahoo]

"when you have a collection of objective researchers"

 

Sorry but I just don't see any truth in that statement.

 

A group of Bigfoot researchers that did NOT see Bigfoot make these sounds, coming to the conclusion that Bigfoot made these sounds. That's not being objective- it's a common bias. 

 

It's wishful thinking that manages to transform into what you're calling "the truth" here.

 

 

There are sounds that can be objectively evaluated and determined to only be from a human.  And, you don't have to see a human make the sound to know. Ever listen to the radio?

 

You might be aware that many people regard these recordings as a hoax, and obviously of human origin. How do they know that if they did not see what made the sound?

 

http://mivocals.moonfruit.com/#/july-2-2007/4534431313

 

Is it wishful thinking?

[Guest]

 bbf members-about the peacock call. To start with NO peacock is that loud ever! I guess you had to have been there. In conjunction with the call the BF's (two of them)  is when my aunt had her encounter) next to a dumpster just outside the shower/restroom bldg. It was when I had my 2nd ear encounter of them running past my sleeping bag covered by a tarp. Possibly it would behove me to write-out all of the episodes   we all had so that folks would understand. That write up is called "family experiences" in the old BFF sightings section. 

[NathanFooter]

In anything unknown you must consider all the options,  and the fact that these sounds have only taken place { in my experience } during and or after an event that indicates that the target species may be a sasquatch, I then begin taking down the data points what ever they maybe. 

 

Do not confuse this, I align all of the points and make a judgment as to what they are likely leading to, it is all one can do when dealing in something not yet proven.  Now it also does not mean I tossed a 100 % approval stance on it either, conclusions may change when better data is acquired.

 

It would be the same for any other animal being researched that is not fully understood.

 

Considerations can lead to uncovering what is not yet understood.

 

That is the point of research is to find out what they do and don't do and why.   If one presents a question about what is going on half way through in an investigation you can only give the amount of information you have received and what the picture looks like at this point in time.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Only way to look at it.

 

All I can say is that I've read reports in which the sounds described seemed unusual.  If they do, they do.  I've never read a report where a sasquatch is seen making one of these unusual noises.  But I can't rule it out.  That said:  when I hear a red-shouldered hawk it's a red-shouldered hawk.

 

(Except for the one time I watched a blue jay imitating one.  Known behavior.)

[Guest]

Blah, Blah,Blah. Likeisaid you eeded to of been there, I can't make you experience something that you haven't experienced. The sheer volume of the cry has stuck with me and that nights visit and account of my aunt at the breckfast table. In my mind there was alot that drew our conclutions. Iagree that ordainarially you can't convict on curcumstantial evidence. Without re-writing the long reinactment of my families encounters in the late 50's and early 60's you opinion is arrived by your own MO. Mine was derived my my own experience(s).