Guest zenmonkey Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Maybe the tree was already in a weakened state and an ape then did the deed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) ^^^And your evidence for that would be. (Not expecting much here.) My evidence is precisely the same as yours: Biptos anecdote. What other evidence is there here? None. All we have is biptos description. My explanation fits and does not include any undocumented species. It's almost as if subjective interpretation poses a challenge to anecdotal evidence. Can it be possible that anecdotes involving vague description like " large and dark" and "grayish" could lead to different conclusions? That would be strange since anecdotes are a bigfooters favorite brand of evidence. Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) ^^^No. You have concocted stuff in your head that bipto's anecdote doesn't include. Huge major diff there. The only animal in X for which documentation exists that is a possible candidate is the black bear which I have demonstrated it wasn't. Edited June 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) LOL. You haven't demonstrated anything other than a stark refusal to consider anything here other than bigfoot. This is a classic example. No photo, no audio, just a story and you're doubling down on bigfoot as the only possible explanation. That is not rational. What did I concoct that biptos anecdote does not include? Oh and "...only animal in X for which documentation exists " are potential candidates here? Nice one. Doesn't that sort of rule out the putative " wood ape"? In your own words even...priceless. Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^Dude. SCARIN' me, dude. You are kiddin', right? Your post ...let's see...hasn't demonstrated anything other than a stark refusal to consider anything other than what is going on inside your own head. What did you concoct? Have you examined the tree? What's your catalog of possible large animals and what were they doing? Are my questions enough? Just nod? Three thousand nine hundred eighty-nine. smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Have you examined the tree? Black bears climb trees. This is a common fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 dmaker, your scenario would be more plausible if the same phenomenon hadn't happened several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted June 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2014 This year is the first time that I have heard large tree's that have fallen while hunting. No wind while I was sitting in my tree stand,yet the sound of these falling tree's were loud. Now were they done by the big guy I have no idea, but I choose to believe they were done by them. Now in my opinion it seem like they were trying to get me out of this area with out actually approaching me. It has also been the first time that I possibly saw one in a tree. The reason I am saying this, after to talking or pming with members here and reading what people have said " about these creatures climbing trees ". I tend to believe that Bibto did see what he seen. These creatures are observers and what a better way to observe then in a tree high up on it. How else can they be so good at knowing when some one enters their domain. Call them scouts for the group and it does make sense that they would do this sort of behavior. I just do not believe that they are apes, but more human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Yes, indiefoot, his scenario would be more plausible if he didn't consider everything in utter isolation. But long acquaintance with bigfoot skepticism tells me, that's how it works. Nothing can be conceded; no patterns must be detected; no information is allowed to be connected to any other information Unless It Demonstrates What I Say. An odd way of looking at the world. But like sasquatch, evidence impossible to ignore says it's real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 dmaker, your scenario would be more plausible if the same phenomenon hadn't happened several times. why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^^And voila, indiefoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 As with the evidence you've gleaned by reading reports on the internets, it appears online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) I have never seen a BF, nor have I ever seen a tree whip wildly with no wind around, after having rocks lobbed from the same vicinity and watched the tree snap off and something large hit the ground and scamper off...all things Bipto related in his interview. Not only have I never experienced that, I've never heard of any known wildlife species that could do that, or seen anything like it in any video or film. or read about it either. This is remarkable even morey for the fact that so many who are doing everything they can to keep from admitting that too, see this as unremarkable. Just say it: "I don't know what this was, and neither do you." I gawd, the lengths some of y'all will go to avoid stating the obvious. Edited June 21, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Incor1: either answer WSA or confirm what I know. If you don't know that the online reports are, by themselves, compelling in the extreme, I am afraid you have nothing to contribute to this thread. If you don't know that an equally impressive suite of evidence corroborates the reports: um, don't you need to be out and about contributing to ornithology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 You're droning on, posting after posting, your belief "science is to blame for not realizing the evidence proves existence of unnamed North American primate." We get it. You've made abundantly clear your thought on the matter. That you continue to make hundreds of postings stating the same thing doesn't bolster your opinion. In fact, it certainly makes many of us dread seeing your postings, as we've read the same one, hundreds of times. We get it. You claim to speak for "science." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts