Doc Holliday Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I guess for plants/minerals I would think there would be other, better places to go to find them. But the other items you listed, not so much. terrestrial anomaly - do you know of certain anomalies they would target? well cotter, you asked for it ,lol....... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7913-does-bigfoot-get-high/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ^tasty.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Read Dan Jackson's account of the time he ambushed a very large hairy guy behind a strip mall by the dumpsters in a Florida town......those of you who think that they don't visit populated areas might be surprised. There are way too many links about this report but a google search using "Dan Jackson,bigfoot,Florida,strip mall" will give more than enough information. He was featured on Monster Quest in an episode which I'm sure is online, however I haven't seen it. Dan Jackson is a serious guy about this and hired a helicopter to search for game trails and he found what he called the "Mother of all game trails" from that copter which lead him to the strip mall. Hairy people are thinking, calculating beings trying to make a living just like the rest of us. They don't particularly want us in their home, I suspect, just like we wouldn't want them in our living rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Well, I for one am not surprised. There are more than a few reports of bigfoot doing what, surprise, bears and coyotes and raccoons and opossums and, well, keep going, do as well. Rule One of Being a Wild Animal: if you find a pile of easily-accessible food, act. And apes, known ones, do it too. Surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I agree that Bigfoots would probably do this if they existed. Most people who don't believe Bigfoot exists would agree they would do it, and this is one reason they don't think Bigfoot exists. If they existed and did it, we would have evidence (more than unsubstantiated stories) of them doing it, as we do with bears, coyotes, raccoons and oppossums, in huge quantities. I can see why someone who thinks Bigfoot does exist would deny that they do it, as the untenable position is that Bigfoot exists and often comes in to populated areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Well, it's not untenable. People are reporting it. It's actually not hard to understand at all. if numerous people report something, and nobody does anything with the reports, then as far as the society is concerned the thing isn't real. Whether it is or not. Reports say it's happening. So it likely is. Unless an alternative explanation for the reports exists (and of course it must be proven, not just alleged). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Went to the area today, was reminded how dense the Deer population is there because of the abundance of different sized Deer tracks as well as scat. And we heard a Great Horned Owl! No sign of the big guy though. Edited February 1, 2014 by ForestTone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 ForestTone Obviously the thing to do is to take some decent recording apparatus with you to record the sound if you can and present some real data that can be analysed. What were the 'objects' that you have encountered crashing through the trees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 It was dark, but I believe they were either branches or rocks. I'm not sure that I believe a Bigfoot could live there undetected. But it was a thought that crossed my mind, and it's definitely an interesting thing to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Well, it's not untenable. People are reporting it. It's actually not hard to understand at all. if numerous people report something, and nobody does anything with the reports, then as far as the society is concerned the thing isn't real. Whether it is or not. Reports say it's happening. So it likely is. Unless an alternative explanation for the reports exists (and of course it must be proven, not just alleged). Why must alternatives to your unproved opinion be proved before you will consider them alternatives? Do you really not see the absurdity of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No more than you see the absurdity of what you are doing. And no more than what I am doing is absurd, which it isn't. I'm just doing what scientists do when they have their scientist hat on (which they don't on this topic). I allow no entrant to a scientific discussion that cannot back its thesis with evidence. Here is your position: this isn't real. I know it isn't, I accept no evidence that it is because I know it isn't, which I base on nothing other than that it hasn't been proven. You have to prove what you are saying. I have to do nothing but sit here and pretend I am right, in total ignorance of a large and consistent body of evidence which says that I am wrong. I can allege anything I want, because I don't have to prove anything. Wrong. Your position is backed by nothing. Which means, prima facie, that it is utterly absurd to hold it. Mine's backed by evidence. See how this works? it's that old science thing. When science backs you, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, not even scientists, if they've put their ignoramus hats on for the discussion. They can be in denial; they can dillydally and delay and hope this doesn't blow up in their faces. They're still wrong, like, well, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 And no more than what I am doing is absurd, which it isn't. I'm just doing what scientists do when they have their scientist hat on (which they don't on this topic). I allow no entrant to a scientific discussion that cannot back its thesis with evidence. But you don't. You take the position that the eyewitness reports are factual. You have no evidence of that. You can't prove one to be factual. It is just your opinion that they are factual. yet you do not just present this opinion as fact, you demand proof before you will even accept any other possibility as a competing alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No I don't. That's silly. Of course I don't. But I've expended too many posts on that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer102492 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Sounds like Squatch to me. You know when you know. Your reaction rings true to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No I don't. That's silly. Of course I don't. But I've expended too many posts on that here. Yes you do. Here you are, doing it. Just on the last page. Reports say it's happening. So it likely is. Unless an alternative explanation for the reports exists (and of course it must be proven, not just alleged). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts