Guest LarryP Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Without going through the thread. Where is there evidence that proves BF have harmed humans, I don't need details of stories or tales Actual facts Define "actual facts" or go "through the thread".
JDL Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 If someone views our time as less valuable than his, then I'm not inclined to respond when attitude is involved.
hiflier Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Hello JDL, Could be a veiled viewpoint for having the "Bigfoot doesn't harm anyone" position. IOW, no facts equals no harm. So yeah, read and learn. Internet searches are easy.
Guest LarryP Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 If someone views our time as less valuable than his, then I'm not inclined to respond when attitude is involved. Agree. But whenever someone uses the term "actual facts", without providing a defininition of what they consider these "actual facts" to be, I feel compelled to ask. Or (as already stated) they can just go through the thread......
Guest Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Hmmmmm.....Although I know better than to believe that every newspaper account is completely accurate,...I do believe that, of the near 600 article/accounts I've found so far,.....at least SOME are factual eye-witness accounts...with factual basis. If all these accounts were to be considered questionable and not worthy of consideration...for whatever reason....then I must question every newsworthy historical account......that was taught to me since about....I dunno,....say day #1825 of my life (picked just as a starting point)....essentially, whatever time I started to retain what we call "history"....there's a lot of information to be "proven" as facts.....I'm guessing...because I didn't personally witness or experience any selected actual event(s). Until the advent of radio, television and now the internet,..as we all know,....newspapers were the bloodstream of information, usually considered factual. So,...I guess I need to know specifically,.....how do we ascertain just what IS a "recorded fact"? IMO,.....it all boils down to....what does one choose to believe.....only their own eyes? Just as I choose to believe that there are folks here at BFF who have "facts" concerned with the reality of such creatures......I choose to believe that there were folks, in our recorded past (call it history,,,or whatever),....who had "facts" about the same creature....different places, different times.....here in North America....certainly worldwide. I base my beliefs on my own experience......choosing to believe that not everyone is a liar....trusting my own intellect and instinct.....and yes, I've been fooled before. Why do the vast majority of other species of animals that are aware of us......usually avoid us....fear us? I choose to believe that, ultimately, these large, bipedal creatures can't trust us, in general,....and maybe fear us to some degree,....individually or collectively........things have changed......they adapted to survive.....MHO only. HWM
JDL Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Information regarding bigfoot needs to be approached with the same algorithm as battlefield intelligence. We have a lot of spot reports. It requires analysis to develop the situation. When you are up against something that is either attempting to hide from you, or to create a misdirection, the fact that you see something in one area requires additional data to eliminate the possibility of deception. Also, the fact that you don't see something may simply indicate that forces are successfully concealed in that area. If bigfoot preys successfully on lone humans in remote locations, then we get no information other than that person went missing. That's a fact, but the reason for the disappearance remains in question. So anyone looking for just the facts is missing out on the analysis.
SWWASAS Posted March 7, 2014 BFF Patron Posted March 7, 2014 If you want to look for a reason why BF choose not to harm humans, one reason could be that by observing the hostile interaction between European settlers and Native American tribes BF could have perceived that the least dangerous tactic for them is to avoid contact as much as possible. It would be pretty obvious to a sentient being that we are dangerous and became more so when packing weapons. Most in early contacts with European settlers the historical reports often talk of shooting the monsters on sight. Attack a human and a crowd of angry settlers show up with guns. The Native Americans did not fare much better. Nearly every one of the adult male settlers carried a weapon.
hiflier Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Hello All, I still say that the simpler reason is that we are the size of their juveniles. Any Sasquatch attacking a juvenile of another Sasquatch would see wrath visited upon them if Nature is true to it's character throughout species. Do we approach bear cubs? No. And why do you think that is? Bigfoot watches (defensive freeze?) to see if perhaps if there is an "adult" around. Not seeing one just might mean they think our stealth is better than there's and they feel vulnerable when they can't see "Daddy Human" in the vicinity of the "juveniles" and so exits the scene. An animal i the woods has an intelligent but simple logic apropos for the environment. Their knowledge of themselfes and thier attributal characteristincs in the wild are transfered to their sightings of Humans. I just don't think the Creature is at all complicated. Intelligent yes. Complicated no. Just lobbing in my two rocks worth. Edited March 7, 2014 by hiflier
hiflier Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Hello HairyWildMan, Thanks, and WELCOME to the Forum
Xion Comrade Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 My answer to the topic question comes quick to me and is to the point...Because if something like a sasquatch decides to kill you, you are toast, gun or no gun, and may not even have much time to realize what is happening I would venture to imagine. I remember some tribe/group of natives back when had a name for the sasquatch that when translated said something to the effect of "He that can kill with one punch", couple that with the notion that they kill larger prey with rocks and set up ambushes as well and well...what can you do?
Guest Scout1959 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 My answer to the topic question comes quick to me and is to the point...Because if something like a sasquatch decides to kill you, you are toast, gun or no gun, and may not even have much time to realize what is happening I would venture to imagine. I remember some tribe/group of natives back when had a name for the sasquatch that when translated said something to the effect of "He that can kill with one punch", couple that with the notion that they kill larger prey with rocks and set up ambushes as well and well...what can you do? Well it would seem that if they are there and they are remotely as capable physically as thought, then yes they can kill you before you know what's going on. But perhaps the reason they haven't killed anyone is because they simply aren't....
Recommended Posts