LeafTalker Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I think it is naïve to expect bigfoot to be more neighborly to humans than humans are to humans. You have never had a positive experience with another human being? I am so sorry. Many people (and I am one of them) can testify -- and have testified -- to having had joyful, positive ongoing interactions with Sasquatch people. So your observation -- that it's naive to expect that people can have "neighborly" experiences with Sasquatch people -- is itself naive, and shows a lack of familiarity with the literature and a strange contempt for people who post about their positive experiences on this very forum on a regular basis! Everyone who has an experience with a Sasquatch person has a piece of the puzzle. (You have had very valuable things to add to the puzzle, in my opinion.) To extrapolate the whole from that tiny piece, however, is not advisable. Edited January 13, 2014 by LeafTalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 13, 2014 Admin Share Posted January 13, 2014 ^ 85 yr old 2nd and 3rd hand stories are not evidence. Muchalat Harry's story was a 3rd hand story relayed by a chatholic missionary who claimed to have heard it. And while NA stories and legends are fun, IMO, if you choose to beleive the BF stuff you also have to believe all the other stuff we know is superstitious legend. No I don't.......but I understand this to be the skeptical "all or nothing mindset". I can also find a pacnw loggers account credible while I find grannies backyard story from New Jersey ludicrous. Of course if I had giant birds flying over my house? Then I might take those legends more seriously as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 13, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted January 13, 2014 Then why is the unofficial bigfoot community so quick to do that 'for him' and then conclude something he never said is in fact the reality? This is nearly the singular thing about "bigfooting" that frustrates and disgusts me the most. Probably because the only other books he has written are about Sasquatch and because of that, it only natural to assume what he is alluding at ? Paulides gives the facts, it's up to you or anyone else how you wish to determine them and what you think are the reasons for them. I know what I think, like I'm sure you know what you think about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 ^Ok, so why is it ok to believe the BF legends but not all the other legends? Is it right to pick and choose? What about picking and choosing what legend you want to support your own views? there are a lot of NA legends that give BF amazing paranormal abilities, do we believe them? What about skin walkers and witches? In for a penny, in for a pound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Paulides gives the facts, it's up to you or anyone else how you wish to determine them and what you think are the reasons for them. I think he ignores or embelishes the facts as needed to sensationalize his agenda and to sell books. There is discussion on his books in the Media sub forum and IMO that discussion shows he either doesnt care about facts or changes them as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Hello Doc Holiday, Unless of course you're packin' heat like your avatar. lol, hello hiflier...indeed, but some would have us believe if we unleashed the heat on BF the rest of the clan would rip us to shreds. not sure I buy into that since ol' BF seems to specialize in avoidance .however in this field there seem to be more questions than answers so a guy can't be too careful. i'll pack heat all the same, just in case......... but more for the regular bipedal scoundrels than the mysterious hairy ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 LT, I was simply saying that there are a range of experiences in dealing with other people and with bigfoot, good to bad. Some are friendly, most are neutral, some are bad. Interactions are usually defined by the local social construct. With bigfoot, I'm sure some do have pleasant encounters. My encounters have been thrilling, but none have been joyful, and there have been times when I felt threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry your experiences haven't been so pleasant, JDL. Hopefully they will be more so in the future. Edited January 14, 2014 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 14, 2014 Admin Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) ^Ok, so why is it ok to believe the BF legends but not all the other legends? Is it right to pick and choose? What about picking and choosing what legend you want to support your own views? there are a lot of NA legends that give BF amazing paranormal abilities, do we believe them? What about skin walkers and witches? In for a penny, in for a pound?It's simple really.......Seeing is believing. When a green chick on a broom buzzes me? I'll reconsider my opinion. Also, coyotes talk and trick people in Indian legends. And they are good at tricks but not talking........so I guess I do some deductive reasoning in my head and go from there concerning their stories. Stealing people is one thing, shape shifting another. On to paulides, I've seen some geographical errors in his book, but I've fact checked some of his stuff and it's not fiction. Google Dennis Martin some time Edited January 14, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Hello Doc Holiday, Yep, hear ya on that one. There are members here, one in particular, that claim from experience that the large males never hunt alone with encirclement being their common MO. So if you see one step out? Watch your six. Passive retreat would appear to be the best method for one's exit from the area..........But only if they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 ............... but I can remember only one instance of actual violent attacks, which was the Ape Canyon story. So I guess your question still remains, in one form or another, and I just don't know why they apparently don't kill humans when certain other animals who are capable of such actions might actually go through with it. IF we take the Ape Canyon account as being accurate, then it seems sasquatch are able to understand retaliation, and seem to be capable of it, and this could imply that they might have a sense of right and wrong, as well as a sense of action tailored to the circumstances when dealing with humans and each other. Do bigfoots have a sense of right-and-wrong as Jiggly suggests? If humans harm them do they need to make it right and retaliate? Bigfoots are very capable of harming humans. They seem to become enraged when we invade their territory, but they don’t follow through with mortal actions. Why? Many large animals have no qualms with eating humans. Seems like we need to use 85-year-old Native American reports of bigfoot harming us because these attacks seem rare. We simply don’t have many documented bigfoot attacks on humans. If attacks aren’t rare, then they are well covered up. Which is it? Have the rogue, killer bigfoots been eliminated from the gene pool by bands of human hunters over the last 100k years? Are bigfoots more human like and have a moral code, which includes murder as being wrong? Maybe BFs kill rogue BFs since they murder humans. Are they smart enough to know humans are dangerous and will retaliate, so they have a hands off policy and avoid us. We have many BF reports and a pattern begins to form so we can speculate on answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2014 In my opinion, any one of them is capable of violence under the right circumstances and is built to be devastating. Sure. How is that different from us? Every one of us has the potential if the circumstances are extreme enough to outweigh whatever personal aversions we have. There's nothing more vicious than a scared human animal, scared for themselves, scared for their kid, details don't matter. What we lack in built for devastation we make up for with tools which we use to even more devastating effect. Everything from pointy sticks and big rocks to mushroom clouds. THEY are not the scary thing in the woods, WE are. IMHO, of course. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2014 They will not kill since they know that they are the dominant creature that live within our forest. A behavior that has been learned through out the ages, yet the Native American Indians had once fought with them and had come to a truth. with these creatures. Boundaries were made clear and accepted and this knowledge has now been passed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Am i to assue that you, as a researcher and investigato,r recieved the names of the deseased and verified via public records they are actually deseased and the cause of death? Thats relatively easy to do. Did you do that? You gotta be kiddin' me... You think anybody would be able to produce any evidence as solid as actual NAMES??? "Oh no, the name wasn't released. It was all kept very hush hush. The park service didn't want to scare away all the campers and tourists.... blah.. blah.....blah......." Yeah, right... Of the two folks I talked to at LBL about one lone camper that was supposedly killed (not the family of four that has been widely written about), my opinion is that one guy was more full of stuff than a Christmas turkey, and the other - a LEO (now retired) that I've known since I was in the fourth grade and we grew up in the same area - I don't know what to think about him and what he told me. Concerning the accounts I was told about incidents in and around an old Indian boarding school in OK (that's been closed for several decades). I talked to some very sincere NA's - some that actually attended the school and some that had immediate family at the school. Yes, there were actual names given. No, I was not able to track down any info on them. But, based on what was still going on at and around the old abandoned school site, I'm inclined to believe at least some of the stories. This remains one investigation that I would REALLY like to reopen. With records computerization that has become much more widespread since I was there, and I know that some of the folks I talked to are still around, I feel that further investigation would have a better chance of turning up some solid evidence. This has been on my "bucket list" for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 14, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted January 14, 2014 I think he ignores or embelishes the facts as needed to sensationalize his agenda and to sell books. There is discussion on his books in the Media sub forum and IMO that discussion shows he either doesnt care about facts or changes them as needed. The first two words of your post are the key.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts