Guest Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Yea, I know...unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) How does someone's description of a bf canines make the show or the episode not worth listening? Edited November 20, 2014 by simplyskyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) 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. So all the reports them looking into windows of homes and parked cars in wooded areas to watch people have been false? Maybe the booger was having a bad hair day... Now the guy telling that story sounded to be selling a BS tale to the host of the show, hint they supposedly kicked out the back glass of a destroyed crushed camper shell(@ about 09:18 in the program), like that type of glass would withstand the nights abuse. And why were they not deaf due to a empty .44 mag?? Edited November 20, 2014 by crabshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 How does someone's description of a bf canines make the show or the episode not worth listening? It's only not worth listening to if SC is presumed to be a research oriented analytical show. BTW, it's clear that it's not that kind of show. Some people are sharing experiences that happened as short as a week earlier (such as the Brown family's experiences in episode 42) to as long as 40 years ago (the Spottsville Monster episodes 51 and 55) or somewhere in between such as the camper incident in episode 45. Another thing worth noting is that the camper incident is not a eyewitness account: it's second hand. As I posted above, almost all mammals have canine teeth. The size of teeth are proportional to the size of the animal. Teeth size varies from individual to individual within a species. It also varies between species, between genera, between family, and so forth. Unless BF are not mammals, I don't understand the issue of having canine teeth regardless of the size. Additionally I re-listened to episode 45. The canines were described to be similar to a "gorilla or a chimpanzee" in that they were longer than the other teeth. Here's a link about gorilla tooth size. http://animals.pawnation.com/size-gorilla-teeth-8064.html "Notably, the gorilla is equipped with canine teeth proportionately larger than a humans -- they can grow up to 2 inches long each, giving the appearance of fearsome fangs." Anyhow, I'm looking forward to this Sunday's show with the Pennsylvania hunter who came "face to face" with a BF. It's a shame that Charlie Ritchie of the Backwoodsman Magazine doesn't want to talk about his BF encounter(s). He's been publishing reader's BF stories for the last year in the magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Well, this is a BF site, I would think people would be coming forward with other descriptions of large canine teeth, but the behavior, as I already stated, seems a bit 'dramatic''. A scream from a BF is all it would take to get things moving, literally. The episode seemed contrived, even if it was second hand knowledge. Pretty simple, pretty specific. Maybe one species is known to have large canines. Of course, maybe that story is totally BS also. No one has posted anything to make me think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 It could be total BS. It could be a fish tale where the fish gets larger and larger with each subsequent retelling. Whatever it is, it isn't field research using accepted scientific documentation protocols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Episode 62 around the 52 minute mark, they discuss the 4 types of BF. Will Jevning says Type 2 and Type 3 have large canines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Ok, thanks for that info. Still, it seems overdramatic for a BF to behave that way. I did listen to the whole thing. I guess I was just on the fence, and only one other person on this thread raised a red-flag. Also, no one is comming out with issues from other stories. Just looking for a pattern to spot BS, because Bigfoot is becoming pop-culture. The Bigfoot Show guy, they aren't on anymore, was 'fooled' by his friends, but I could not get him to discuss it. Fake BF reports would be a great topic, but how can you tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) I listen to Sasquatch Chronicles. I think we have to determine the purpose of the show before critiquing it. 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. First off, I do not think"we" (whoever that is) needs to determine anything other than: 1) If they enjoy listening 2) If the Encounter Reports appear to be credible 3) If you learn anything from listening. Next; you are mistaken, it is NOT just a "share your experience" show as the co-host William Jevning is an author and BF researcher who has (4) books out, has studied BF's for nearly 40 years, had had multiple sightings of his own, studied with and learned from Rene Dehindren & John Green and is CONSTANTLY comparing his research to the Encounter Stories. I personally have learned many, many things from listening to every show 2-4 times... The only people who may not like the show are Flute Players and Skeptics... Edited November 26, 2014 by Mythos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Wag i dont think the dogman people are seeing is a dire wolf. even on two legs, thats too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 So Wag, I assume you don't believe in vampire BF's? Ironically I have canine teeth that come to a point. I use to open the sides of beer cans with them ( got me free beer when I was a young man). My teeth are no where near 3.5" long tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 First off, I do not think"we" (whoever that is) needs to determine anything other than: 1) If they enjoy listening 2) If the Encounter Reports appear to be credible 3) If you learn anything from listening. Next; you are mistaken, it is NOT just a "share your experience" show as the co-host William Jevning is an author and BF researcher who has (4) books out, has studied BF's for nearly 40 years, had had multiple sightings of his own, studied with and learned from Rene Dehindren & John Green and is CONSTANTLY comparing his research to the Encounter Stories. I personally have learned many, many things from listening to every show 2-4 times... The only people who may not like the show are Flute Players and Skeptics... By "we" I mean the listeners. You've voluntarily outlined your expectations for the show. Kindly allow others the ability to do that for themselves. And kindly allow people to share their opinions as freely as you have without denigrating/disparaging characterizations should their opinions conflict with your own. As Wes says in the introduction "Welcome to Sasquatch Chronicles. A place where people share their encounters". While Will shares his BF knowledge, it's a far cry from dissecting and analyzing every single aspect of an encounter. Going back to Wag's posts about 3.5 inch canine teeth, if SC is an analytical program, that fact would have been discussed and compared to known primate tooth size and they even would have use those nive calculations in that one article I linked to estimate the size of the BF. But they don't, because it's not an in-depth, analytical show. So for me, SC a great show. But I view it more as an experience sharing show than an in-depth, analytical show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Well, he said the face was 'human', whatever that means. I would think the monkey types have the big canines. That it was in the window, then it smashed the top of the camper while they were still in it. This monkey is out of control, it sounds too extreem. You see it, has huge canines, smashes camper. They were not being antagonistic, maybe it would be territorial if it just got kicked out of a clan, and reacted in a territorial manor, as a young inexperienced male. I think the rest of the story sounded usual BF stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 By "we" I mean the listeners. You've voluntarily outlined your expectations for the show. Kindly allow others the ability to do that for themselves. And kindly allow people to share their opinions as freely as you have without denigrating/disparaging characterizations should their opinions conflict with your own. As Wes says in the introduction "Welcome to Sasquatch Chronicles. A place where people share their encounters". While Will shares his BF knowledge, it's a far cry from dissecting and analyzing every single aspect of an encounter. Going back to Wag's posts about 3.5 inch canine teeth, if SC is an analytical program, that fact would have been discussed and compared to known primate tooth size and they even would have use those nive calculations in that one article I linked to estimate the size of the BF. But they don't, because it's not an in-depth, analytical show. So for me, SC a great show. But I view it more as an experience sharing show than an in-depth, analytical show. Fair enough, are you going to subscribe (pay) when they expand into a website next week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) How does someone's description of a bf canines make the show or the episode not worth listening? I agree Sskyla, I like the Sasquatch Chronicles too. I join the chorus of support in saying the Sasquatch Chronicles is one of the best formatted shows available to date. The Bigfoot types that I have included here are exactly from Will Jvening, co-host of Sasquatch Chronicles. I never met this gentleman but I respect what he has to offer and what he brings to dinner to the table in so far as Bigfoot learning is concerned. Bigfoot with large canine teeth? Check the list down below. Type 1 Big Patterson “Patti†type specie with square teeth as in the photo Type 2 Big as t1 but with large canine teeth Type 3 Ape-like with protruding face, canine teeth, as big as t1, often referred to as dogman Type 4 Big with more human facial features without as much hair as those above That said, king cons (cons as in shills and petty criminals) and carnival hawkers who made a living of judging peoples age and weight and other unique physical attributes developed that skill over years and years try and fail attempts. It is a skill that few others can ever attain but then again, does it really matter outside realm of carnival acts and shows? Every day people describe what they observe based on their personal abilities and experiences limited only by their ability to articulate what they see and their command of English language. Hello and Welcome to BFF Mythos, Chasing Rabbits and Beer Hunter! Edited December 1, 2014 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts