MIB Posted May 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2014 Silly question: what is a territorial display if not an intended communication? I think territorial display has been reasonably ruled out with fairly high confidence based on context and content of reports. So has cracking open a deer's skull. Unless it is something other than bigfoot, nope, it's communications of some sort. What sort ... definitely open for debate as to who the audiences is and what the message is. (It seems rather silly to automatically assume there could only be one audience or one message.) MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Sometimes due to the sun shining on a tree and expanding the tree will crack ,sometimes rather loudly, and could be mistaken for a wood knock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 It's even sillier to assume it's a form of communication with an intended audience. I would argue that it's even sillier to assume it's Bigfoot making this noise with no confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) And when the witness has personal visual confirmation, then what? Are you asking that they pretend it away so it doesn't contradict the 'religion' of denialists? If that isn't what you're asking, please clarify. MIB Edited May 5, 2014 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 5, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) MIB good point. Even if we see one knocking, how do we understand what the intent was? Maybe that particular BF just likes to do it? Maybe is frustrated with it's mate and is just letting off steam? Maybe it is letting others know where it is? The possibilities are numerous, and just because a human sees it done will tell us nothing other that in that case the BF was observed doing it. Perhaps it is conditional, in one situation means one thing and in another situation something else. Until a tribe of BF is under observation for an extended period of time and a pattern emerges to the behavior it can never be understood. Even then that behavior may only apply to that particular tribe and mean something else some distance away. Somehow I don't think BF in Washington and Ohio communicate or have the same customs and behaviors. RR Edited May 5, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) And when the witness has personal visual confirmation, then what? Are you asking that they pretend it away so it doesn't contradict the 'religion' of denialists? If that isn't what you're asking, please clarify. MIB Personal visual confirmation is just that--personal. It only means something to the person making the observation. Some people may even be skeptical that the person even saw a bigfoot, and by extension will seek possible alternative explanations to the wood knock that do not involve animals that are unknown to science. Edited May 5, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 So.... There are no Bigfoot because there is no evidence and all evidence must have an alternate explanation because there is no Bigfoot? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 ^^ That is not what I was saying at that moment, but yes I do completely agree with what you wrote above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Bigfoot, if they are primates as believed, would certainly possess the ability to produce wood knocks and are likely to do them as known primates do. This is precisely why they are so interesting to those who have heard them live, in person, and under circumstances that would rule out other nearby people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCBFr Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 humm..............next on the menu doesn't sound too good. Two knocks we eat him now, three knocks we eat him at dawn, four knocks...............? If you got that feeling, then go with it. Being up at 3 with BFs hunting would make me want to have something better than a tent to return to. Actually it was a house with a sick dog. The first knock kinda woke me up, the second knock got me thinking is this really happening to me. The third knock was all I needed to conclude I should grab the dog and get back in the house....NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I don't think (having heard the sound in the OP more than once) that that sound is getting mistaken, consistently, with a bang of a good-size stick on a tree. Particularly given the distances frequently involved. I sure wouldn't, and I doubt most would. Then there are the reports from those who have seen the animal doing it (at least three of which I am aware of). So.... There are no Bigfoot because there is no evidence and all evidence must have an alternate explanation because there is no Bigfoot? Yes. Now you're beginning to understand the bigfoot-skeptic spin cycle. Which includes never changing the way one thinks about anything...unless it maintains the thing one never wants to change one's mind about. It's complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 7, 2014 It's complicated. IMHO it is being artificially and deliberately complicated by people who do not wish an answer found and by people not willing to accept the answer that seems to be appearing. In other words, by definition, denialists. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 ^^^Wouldn't say no to that. In fact, it's way obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 7, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 7, 2014 I really worry about such die hard skeptics if they spend any time in the woods. If they are such a skeptic that they cannot even look or consider evidence, what happens to them emotionally if they have an up close and personal encounter? Time spent on the shrink couch having the shrink help you deal with your hallucination? Seems skepticism could be inherently dangerous if you do spend time in the woods and have any potential for an encounter. But probably many skeptics don't spend time in the woods so they are probably safe in their own version of reality. Anyway I keep wondering, why are skeptics here? RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 ^^^Read reports and you see what happens to those people: they get so badly freaked out that they stop doing things that gave them major pleasure in life. The benefits of an open mind are many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts