WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hey...there I am. Had to change my avatar as I'd put on a bit of weight since that last photo. Plus, I was afraid nobody would believe I hadn't been to Yosemite if no camera caught me, so there! O.K., O.K., I just like looking all heroic and crap, standing out on a windswept promontory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If I had my Red Marker, I'd point out the bigfoot on the ridgeline to your right, but hey you saw him right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 "However, I can tell you unequivocally that BF does exist and the reason they have not been captured on any trail cams (that we know of) is because they don't want to be captured on trail cams. There is nothing theoretical or non-conclusive about that reality." LarryP So, Larry, Bigfeets don't want to be captured on trail cams? That is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Dang it DWA, you spoiled the whole deal now. When are you going to catch a shave anyway? Edited January 8, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So can't actually find a specific flaw in the various probabilities considered. You can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Dang it DWA, you spoiled the whole deal now. When are you going to catch a shave anyway? Soon's I finish this deer haunch wait a minute here [TREEKNOCK] [TREEKNOCK] gotta invite the fam, sheesh, fatherhood. So, Larry, Bigfeets don't want to be captured on trail cams? Neither do alpha coyotes, which is why they aren't. Pays to stay informed. Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 I find the explanation for that easy and substantiated by many reports: people in general are not ready to photograph elusive wild animals. Period. Huge numbers of remote cameras with no need for human readiness in the heart of Bigfoot country negate the need for readiness. That and pretending as if the sightings accounts don't consistently feature Bigfoot coming onto contact with human civilization with countless opportunities to be recorded, killed, and any number of ways to be no longer a mystery. All that follow are excuses. Period."The lack of any bit or piece of Bigfoot after so many hundreds of years is extremely powerful and meaningful evidence of its nonexistence. A kind of evidence that trumps. It's like a big hammer that pounds on all the stuff that the believers put forth." - William Parcher P and G went in ready....and look what they got. Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film. You could look it up. Look what they got. A week, one camera, and a film with an impossible timeline, a secret development, and zero provenance from a place that had been a hoaxer gong show for ten years. "Bob Gimlin, a friend of mine, and myself had been in the area a little over a week." - Roger PattersonLast Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night. - Roger Patterson interview, October 20th, 1967.http://www.bigfooten...es/firstpgf.htm The Slick expeditions were at Bluff Creek full time a lot longer than a week. Robert Morgan was at Mt. St. Helens for an entire summer. The Olympic Project, Forest Vigil, Bluff Creek Trail Camera Project have all be going far longer than one camera, one week/three weeks, toss a coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well, everything's wrong about that, particularly the Parcher guy. But I've explained why, all over this site. Happy hunting. Anyone who thinks trail cams have just solved this whole problem for us deserves never to find out what's up about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Ok my head is starting to hurt. I understand that to the advocate bigfoot avoiding anything that can capture its image makes perfect sense. If Im correct the reasoning is that if we cant take a picture it is because it doesnt want us to, if we cant find tracks, its because it doesnt want us to, and if it cant be killed its because it doesnt want to be. So yes bigfoot is so intelligent that it it can choose to not be photographed, seen, or killed. Yet not so intelligent that it routinely places itself close to people who can see them, eats garbage, makes all kinds of noise you can record, and mind speaks to some. So to answer the question, the reason the bigfoots didnt get their picture taken is because maybe they were not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 "This is like all those folks who say their models show there's not enough food for bigfoot when the models presume bigfoot doesn't exist." DWA No, the models presume that Bigfoot, if it exists, has to eat to survive. Like all other real animals, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Nope, gotta read up and show me you're retaining what I've already told you many times over. (The bigfoot-skeptic approach to reading posts again. Do I win?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well yes DWA, but the problem is you say things and then you don't back them up with evidence.I'm not interested in retaining your whimsical thoughts. I'd rather you support them with evidence. For example, wildlife officials suppress Bigfoot evidence. You say something about tantamount to proof, or common sense, etc, but offer zero evidence whatsoever. Or your claim that it has been proven that the PGF cost more to make than it ever earned. When asked to support that, you ignore the question. Why would I want to retain your unsupported musings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well, then there's that. But I think the gradual accumulation of a massive tumulus of evidence has put a hematoma on that one. BIG TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I like turtle soup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Not if the extrapolation involves ...well, deer and elk being considered, you know, bigfoots. But again, we're just so SWAAAAAAAAAAMPED with evidence to review here that the alleged (oh there's a few MB of these in the regional office count on it) absence of photo evidence matters not a jot. Nor a tittle (Metric). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts