Sasquatch Chronicles- Question For Listeners!

[1980squatch]

I don't know why Will has thrown in with Wes and Woody on this.  As far as the occasional host/topic/story that cannot quite be swallowed, that just goes with the territory of all these BF podcast shows, heck go a couple years back on any of them and it is the same folks and topics in each of them.  At least 25% of the content on any of them is not believable, but they are not in the evaluative role they need content people will tune in for.  SC is more limiting than most as BobbyO has pointed out - the BF on their shows need to behave badly for the most part.

 

Also, they are monetizing, which means they could use some crossover from the BF community, which means they need to stay scary.

[Guest]

I've stated the specifics of why I didn't like episode 45. And still no comments. Frustrating.

[BobbyO]

In all fairness Wag I highly dobt people would just recollect " Episode 45 " or then spend the best part of 2 hours listening to it just to answer your questions about it, so don't feel frustrated..

[Guest]

Why not? People listen to BF stuff all the time. Its something to 'do' instead of just being a pumpkin on a log. You so BAAAAAD! Don't get snarky with the Waggs.

 

 

Anyways, I already posted what bothered me, and I withheld some good stuff because there is no action on this thread.

 

The 3 1/2 inch canines are my main issue, and BF looking in the window (hint: problem) guy shinning flashlight when its right there, cab being physically crushed.

 

I mean, possible, but questionable, to me anyway.

 

You have to also remember, I am Waggo, not just your average BF bumpkin. As stated before, endlessly, it does make a difference, even if I am more gullible here and there.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Wag

[BobbyO]

3.5 inches, 3.25 inches, 2.5 inches, whatever.

I have no idea why people attempt to guess the size of things where this subject is concerned as the likelihood is they'd be wrong most of the time anyway due to a number of reasons.

Tooth size, height, weight, even colour, take it all with a pinch of salt and most certainly don't get frustrated by it..

For proof of what I mean, watch the out takes of the Harry and the Hendersons movie and listen to how people describe that subject in a fleeting glimpse scene that they done in Seattle.

You'd be amazed how badly wrong so many were.

[Guest]

I listed specifics, and now the dogman deal is congruent with what I have listed. In other words, blatent physical violence directed at humans for (unknown) reasons, being 2 feet away, behind a door, camper window etc...showing canines etc.

 

 

Can't believe this thread has so little attention, given all the critics here. Anyway, I just drew a comparative that should draw attention for sceptics. The overly dramatic personal interactions.

 

Again, amazing analysis, but for what? Snarky remarks?

[Guest]

I really like the show. Been listening for about a year now.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I listen to Sasquatch Chronicles. I think we have to determine the purpose of the show before critiquing it.

 

If SC is an academic/research oriented program where the latest BF research is reviewed, analysed and discussed, then it fails.

 

If SC is a 'share your experience' program, then it succeeds. I could be mistaken, but I don't think SC presents itself in a manner other than a 'share your experience' program.

 

As for the issue of the 3.5 inch teeth......Unless the eye witness pulled out a tape measure and measured those teeth, that measurement and every other measurement (ex: "it was 50 feet away", "It was 7 feet tall" ) is an estimate determined by that person comparing it to a known thing in order to quantify it better than saying "The teeth were the length of my wife's middle finger."

[Guest]

He said the Squatch was right up against the window. Thats how he saw the teeth, so, maybe 2-3 feet away through glass at night. But there is a problemo with that scenario that I won't go into because I'm the only one having a discussion on this topic here. GRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrr..

[BobbyO]

I listen to Sasquatch Chronicles. I think we have to determine the purpose of the show before critiquing it.

 

If SC is an academic/research oriented program where the latest BF research is reviewed, analysed and discussed, then it fails.

 

If SC is a 'share your experience' program, then it succeeds. I could be mistaken, but I don't think SC presents itself in a manner other than a 'share your experience' program.

 

As for the issue of the 3.5 inch teeth......Unless the eye witness pulled out a tape measure and measured those teeth, that measurement and every other measurement (ex: "it was 50 feet away", "It was 7 feet tall" ) is an estimate determined by that person comparing it to a known thing in order to quantify it better than saying "The teeth were the length of my wife's middle finger."

Bang on, with everything.

[Guest]

Bang on? These are not random issues, they were quite specific, for specific reasons. But again, there is no one posting any useful info on this thread, except me, so.....

 

I was looking for specific cases, no one here can be specific, just random babble-booby. I was specific about what I did not like about that particular show. The BF was 2-3 feet away, so a good determination of canine length would not be difficult, its just that a BF would do more stuff before it showed itself, and a BF would have to be pushed pretty hard to attack and destroy a camper shell with humans inside of it. Does not fit BF parameters, according to me I guess, because no one posting can single out specific troubling issues with particular shows.

 

There are not enough people posting to deduce the smart-crowd theory, sorry, I just read an article on that and I don't remember where, so there is no reference for people here.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Wag

[BobbyO]

Yes bang on.

He, like I did, explained that you shouldn't take the 3.5 inch canines as fact because they're not going to be absolutely accurate.

Yet you've took it as fact down to even the .5 of an inch which you shouldn't do, no matter if that was how it's explained in the episode in question.

People get things wrong and I don't know why but it seems that people who see this animal for some reason seem to feel that they need to describe certain aspects of their sighting with specific, measured details that can be deemed as exaggeration, it leaves them wide open for criticism when they needn't do it as they don't actually have anything to really compare to, hence why you've started this thread.

This may be a cultural thing with Americans, I don't know, but I've never given even an estimation of anything I saw because I couldn't be sure what size it actually was as I'd only be "guessing" ( key word right here ).

The closest I've ever said to a size estimation of what is as would be "big" because that's what it was. I don't know if it "was 7.5 FT high and weighed 700lb" for example like I often read in reports.

How anyone can judge this with any real accuracy isn't beyond me because in truth, they highly likely can't.

You're man in the episode you're talking about is doing just that IMO.

He also, like I did, explained that the show isn't a research show but a story telling show.

He was bang on the money with both.

[Guest]

He said they were "pronounced" and 'large', 3.5 gives us some indication. Thats all you need, because it was 'right outside its window'.

 

This is a problem. Or maybe it isnt, are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Repeat:are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Repeat just so you get the question you need to answer: are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Can't wait for your spot on answer.

 

No one has figured out what else is wrong with the "BF in the Window 2 feet away from me scenario either". If your going to be 'spot on', then tell me what is wrong with that scenario from the show.

 

ANSWER: YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.

 

So, not sure why, if you don't know something, you keep yapping on this dead-thread.

 

We are looking at specifics here, not random issues.

 

Yes, they are stories, and this story did not fly, for very specific reasons, all in a row, all bunched up.

 

Not sure why BobbyO keeps commenting when you stated you don't or didn't listen to that show.

 

But again, its a dead thread.

 

No one has even listed other shows or parts of shows THEY did not like, just to make it interesting.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Wag

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

The BF was 2-3 feet away, so a good determination of canine length would not be difficult,

 

Whether or not a BF is 2-3 feet away or 2-3 inches away, best determination of canine teeth length is measurement with a standard measuring tool, like a ruler. Anything else is an estimate and should be considered as such. I work in a medical office. The doctors have rulers for measuring moles, cuts, and masses on their patients and a measuring devices to measure their patient's height/length. They don't estimate: they measure.

 

 

He said they were "pronounced" and 'large', 3.5 gives us some indication. Thats all you need, because it was 'right outside its window'.

 

This is a problem. Or maybe it isnt, are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Repeat:are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Repeat just so you get the question you need to answer: are BF known to have ''large canines''?

 

Can't wait for your spot on answer.

 

No one has figured out what else is wrong with the "BF in the Window 2 feet away from me scenario either". If your going to be 'spot on', then tell me what is wrong with that scenario from the show.

 

ANSWER: YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.

 

So, not sure why, if you don't know something, you keep yapping on this dead-thread.

 

We are looking at specifics here, not random issues.

 

Yes, they are stories, and this story did not fly, for very specific reasons, all in a row, all bunched up.

 

Not sure why BobbyO keeps commenting when you stated you don't or didn't listen to that show.

 

But again, its a dead thread.

 

No one has even listed other shows or parts of shows THEY did not like, just to make it interesting.

 

Perhaps no one else has "figured out what else is wrong with the "BF in the Window 2 feet away from me scenario either" because no one else believes the accounts on SC are field observations using the same protocol as the primate field research done at Gombe in Tanzania. As I previously wrote, if the purpose of SC is to be a discussion/analysis/review of the latest BF findings, then it fails.

 

I'm not sure why you obsess over the possibility of BF having "large canine" teeth, when almost all mammals possess canine teeth (unless BF isn't a mammal, then that would be a "problem"). Additionally, the size of teeth usually is proportional to the size of the individual animals within a species (human babies have smaller teeth than human adults) and animals of other genera/species . In fact, tooth size is used to determine the body mass of extinct primates. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/37615/1330580110_ftp.pdf?sequence=1

 

Anyhow, I googled "bigfoot, canine teeth" and found these links.

 

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kybf-tooth/

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-bigfoot-have-fangs.html

[BobbyO]

Wow.