Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 My forest friends prefer to frolic at night & it's raining today anyway. So I guess I'll just stick around here if it doesn't exasperate you too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No you wouldn't. You'd say that humans cook food too, & it probably found some cooked food that a human threw out or gave it or it had been dumpster diving. You would NOT say it was because BF cooks his food. And for the record, I don't think they cook their food. That's not the only reason to have a fire. So if bigfoot uses fire where is the evidence? Where are the fire pits and ashes left from those fires? It's usually pretty obvious where humans have made fires. Also why don't we see smoke emanating from bigfoot hot spots that would lead a researcher to the fire making bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Crow? The evidence is whatever she wants it to be.......,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 So if bigfoot uses fire where is the evidence? Where are the fire pits and ashes left from those fires? It's usually pretty obvious where humans have made fires. Also why don't we see smoke emanating from bigfoot hot spots that would lead a researcher to the fire making bigfoot? I think those questions have already been covered, but here is a quote in case you don't want to go back & actually read the previous page: I don't think BFs regularly have fires because they don't often need or want them. But IF they had a need for it, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't make one. Nowhere did I say that BF definitely uses fire. I asked how he knows that they don't. Even if one was stupid enough to make one in a hotspot, it would be the rare researcher that would think "BIGFOOT!!!" & go running to catch him at it. So that is pretty irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 How bout the US Forest Service lookouts for smoke? It's their job to go running to smoke! Or does Squatch observe burning bans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Don't you know how to build a fire that doesn't smoke up the whole forest? I would think that with all your outdoors experience that would have been one of the first things you learned. Edited April 23, 2015 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Norse, you are wasting your time here dude. Bottom line is that whoever brings in robust, scientifically valid proof of sasquatch (a body or part thereof) will not be lynched but rather will be supported by scientific consensus. Those who claim intimate knowledge or definitive proof yet yield or proffer nothing will, understandably, receive due criticism for that navel gazing stance. The collection of any animal is not something to be gleeful of but, as you and any scientifically minded person will say, it is essential for conservation. Maintain your position because it is right. A lot of emotional investment seems to come with every position in this field. Science may be driven by our deepest emotion - the burning desire to know - but it is about knowing, us not just me or they. Our very nature plus our relative ubiquitousness and acquisitiveness pretty much ensures ignorance = extermination, one way or another, sooner or later. For that reason alone, whatever harm could accrue, it nonetheless cannot but help a species in trouble for the society to know it exists. However that happens. (And knowing nothing, we cannot presume that *any* species - particularly a forest-dependent keystone species in North America - is not in trouble. Just as the taxonomy is not a task for the amateur, neither is that pronouncement.) Edited April 23, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Does bigfoot's pet dog wee on his fire? Edited April 23, 2015 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) What do you know about burning pitchy evergreen trees? Or do they pack dry oak out west from your farm??? Forest service spotting forest fires is what they do Edited April 23, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 What do you know about it was the question. If you don't know how, there are probably instructions somewhere on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 You should become a politician! Avoid the question games. Larch burns hotter with less smoke than Fir, so does Lodgepole, Ponderosa Pine is very creosote.... Burning wetter wood creates more smoke, biut often cannot help it if dead has been laying on the ground. I burn about 10 cord every year Sasfooty how bout you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Apparently I live in a warmer climate than you. We only burn about 5. We burn mostly red oak from standing dead trees, although elm is fantastic if you can get it split. Hickory is nice for really cold weather, but it can get too hot & pops all over the place unless you keep the door on the stove closed. The only use I have for pitchy pine is a little chunk to get the fire going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 23, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 23, 2015 How bout the US Forest Service lookouts for smoke? It's their job to go running to smoke! Or does Squatch observe burning bans? What forest service lookouts? I thought all the towers had been deactivated and were now rented out to campers for a price. The last wild fire I found, I had to go call to get anyone to come put it out. A campfire sized fire would probably be assumed in most cases to be a human camp fire. I don't think BF use fire as there seems to be no witness evidence of that. There are some reports I have read of BF messing with human fires after they go to bed. Making them flare up and things like that. That does not mean that they use fire, only that they like to play with it when they can. Just like a curious child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 You are correct that they do not use lookout towers anymore. But they do use lookouts, and satellites. My home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts