Guest thermalman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hello All, So, is that what happens here? Someone comes up with an idea and the BFRO people that visit here take it and run with it? Doesn't really matter if that's the case as long as they tell all when they get results. Somehow though? I find it unlikely. Unfortunately, it's not just BFRO running with ideas from people. There are lots of other similar believers on the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hello gigantor, I believe it. And it's fine with me as long as the eventual outcome succeeds in putting an end to the circular dialogue. I'm all for solving a mystery or at least trying to being a part of that solution. I say it's all good. Get a type specimen to science...SOMEBODY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Here is the 2nd time the big tracks were found in January near the forestry trunk road. They were 18 inches and starting to blow in. that year the snow up there was near 4 feet deep and the tracks were close to 5 feet apart. where it ran up the road berm they went to 8 feet apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hello thermalman, My apologies, I short-circuited and addressed you as gigantor. D'OH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 All good hiflier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well before I even considered bf other than a myth, I was snowmobiling and just after I crossed a river, I saw a set of human like holes or punches in the snow parallel to the river (following it). I didn't stop to check them out closer but kept thinking to myself, that's a very strange place for a person to hike without snowshoes (deep snow, no trail and out of immediate cover). I don't get to spend as much time up there in the winter now, but I certainly look at all spoor much closer now and I really can't way what made that specific trackway. For quite a while, I also had a hard time with the idea of bf surviving long and extreme cold weather, but if you have the ability to do some winter hiking in very cold and snowy areas of the country, you will see not only the many different types of animals that survive harsh winters, but the areas that they travel. By my place, I used to sled for miles without seeing any trackways, but as soon as I came to an area that had running water ( stream, river, etc), it was like an animal highway. I once was following some very fresh moose tracks to see what they were eating. Here is an over 1000lb animal thriving on the small buds from different kinds of trees near marshy areas. Of course they eat more than that, but if you think about it, its pretty amazing. How does bf survive in the more extreme natural conditions is something we will never know unless we first collect a specimen, but this kind of trait points directly away from it being human, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 ^^^Bingo on the end of your post. I see way too much effort to brush the evidence aside with invalid assumptions, and am still trying to figure out why anyone would want to do that. They make it because the evidence says they do. How? We won't know short of confirming the animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Frankly, I take a 180 degree view, and find repetitive reports damning. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and most the reports flatter themselves. But this is the precise point. They are in no way repetitive. I tell people this often. It will be very hard for you to describe a wildlife encounter, of virtually any shade or variety conceivable, that someone hasn't had with a sasquatch. Authenticity marker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yes to that DWA. It gives me concern for the state of our public school system when the take-away conclusion to these reports is just....what? These are the zoological equivalent to the folk process that gave us 50 similar versions of "Frankie and Johnny?" Good reading comprehension is a learned skill, and that skill takes practice to maintain. If you just flat-out don't accept the reality they paint, fine. But! To say they are derivative, imitative or in anyway duplicative? Well, I wonder then if we are both reading the same body of evidence, and you probably lack sufficient time in the outdoors to make a discerning judgment. (People. Just. Aren't. That. Good.) The nuances of experience contained in these reports don't give themselves up to casual readers, or those without the context of personal experience to inform them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) ^^^ Bingo. Alldat. "Repetitive/derivative/just an ol' beloved campfire story/standard-issue hallucination caused by..." REALLY...!?!?!?! THAT's how I know someone isn't reading them. Or if they are reading, they simply are not reflecting on what they read. it's really wise to approach this with let's-see rather than: oh God not another... . It is so utterly impossible to describe just how nuanced these reports are to anyone who hasn't read them - or is taking the eyes-glazed-over approach - that the only thing I can say is: think of every experience - EVERY SINGLE ONE - you have had with: food; a lover; a pet; the sky; the woods; the...I mean, is this that hard to get? Was it really an endless experience of: sight burger/toss burger in mouth/URP...? Sight lover; toss lover in [you get this I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GET THIS] When the pattern of evidence is just what one would expect for something real, it's not the most rational of processes to go, um, but naaaaaaaah. [editied to drop unneeded quote box/URP] Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Now of course the most headshaking aspect of this whole thing is that a cavalcade of posts will follow committing the sins outlined in these previous two posts ad infinitum, as if these two posts hadn't occurred. You just have to wonder about some aspects of this plane of existence. And I'm not talking about people who are seeing a garden-variety temperate-zone terrestrial omnivore. They seem quite OK to me. Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yes to that DWA. It gives me concern for the state of our public school system when the take-away conclusion to these reports is just....what? These are the zoological equivalent to the folk process that gave us 50 similar versions of "Frankie and Johnny?" Good reading comprehension is a learned skill, and that skill takes practice to maintain. If you just flat-out don't accept the reality they paint, fine. Well, "fine" if one has read them and says, you gotta understand why I can't just swallow these and kinda need proof. Fine there. All of us waiting for that, and holding out the possibility that unicorns and the Comprehensive Sasquatch False Positive might, just might, be real. Not so fine if - "derivative" or "same story over and over" or "I just can't take the time to think" etc. aside - one's response to the whole thing is: Not a glimmer of a chance that this could be real and I could toss all kinds of horse dung at the wall I mean "swamp gas" worked for good ol'boy cops in the '50s so it should work here and what, me read? and what, me offer anything in the way of enlightenment concerning my stance? and what? me be WRONG... ...you know, that gets kinda problematical when it comes to issuing the 'fine' stamp. Winter accounts are just as compelling as any aspect of the sasquatch evidence. I'm not interested in someone telling me they couldn't be happening, unless one shows - and that would be proof - that they are not. Because in science, you can't just say "it could be so it must be." You have to show it is. Proponents, working on that. Skeptics? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Point to 45, 450, or 5,000 BFRO reports. In my opinion it does nothing to bolster your argument. In fact, as the number grows the absurdity of bigfoot being real becomes ever more clear. At what number does the whole idea get crushed under its own reporting weight? 100,000 reports? 200,000 reports? A million? At some point even ardent proponents must acknowledge that you cannot have a life and blood creature running around being seen by that many people yet leaving behind no verifiable evidence. It just doesn't happen. Well I can agree with you that, if someone wants to file false reports they can. But I would think that most folks don't like the poking and prodding that goes along with the report filing. And with the right propaganda machine, anything is possible, truths and facts can indeed be hidden. The Nazi Germans and German Jews both had/have excellent propaganda machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) [edited because you know what? doesn't matter] Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Umm, back on topic. It's obvious that if sasquatch could not survive in this recent cold snap, we would have found at least one squatchcicle by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts