A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

Nankani does spend a lot of time in the woods. And shoots and eats much of what he sees there. Do you suppose that a reasonably sentient creature like BF would avoid contact with such a prolific hunter who is most likely armed most of the time? I would think so, since it does not want to end up being dinner or a rug. Personal note: my friendly encounter I was not visibly armed, the gun was in my pack out of sight. Every encounter since when I have been visibly armed has not been friendly. Cooincidence? Probably, but it has me wondering.

Those flower eating, tambourine playing, hippy Vegansquatch must run in terror when the bloodthirsty Nakani walks through the forest.

When I say "always hunting" that doesn't mean I'm constantly walking around shooting stuff. A lot of it is just being observant, noticing where animals are hanging out, figuring out patterns, etc. The killing is just a small part of it.

[SWWASAS]

All you have to do is read about 4 posts in any thread from the resident skeptics before you catch them repeating themselves. So why in the world would I need to read the entire thread before commenting on something they write. They cannot introduce anything new into their arguments. You can only say no way Jose in so many ways. Proof that something does not exist is a very difficult thing to provide. Because if you look for evidence of non existence, you also have to consider evidence for it. Then to use the argument that hunters report a lot of BF sightings as some kind of evidence to support their case and challenge my statement, boarders on logical absurdity and shows the extent they will go to just conjure up an argument.

And you suppose that BF observes you walking around, observing nature, and it does not change their behavior? Walking around observing Moose and deer changes their behavior, why not BF? BF is an omnivore, and a skilled hunter. Watching any human using hunting skills, it would be very obvious to a fellow hunter what you are doing whether you have a gun with you or not. Just the act of examining footprints identifies you as a tracker and hunter.

Edited July 19, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

Both of Crowlggic and Bodhi should realize that someone predictable like Nankani who lives out in the woods is easier to avoid that some random hunter walking through the area. Local BF would know what his habit patterns are, where he goes, when he normally does it etc. When BF has a human contact with some random hunter, it has made a mistake, or the wind or background noise has masked the humans arrival. Hunters know what I am talking about with deer and other relatively dumb animals. Human scent is a very big factor in detection and avoidance by woodland animals. With the woods masking vision, scent and sound becomes ever more important for an animal to avoid humans.

Cherry picking?. You pick the name of one person (Nankani) and claim that since he spends a lot of time in the woods, and has not seen BF, therefore BF must not be there. That is cherry picking. Hunters and hikers see most of the BF? Ummm I thought there were no BF to see, yet you chastise me for not knowing that? Which is it? Or are you part of a disinformaton program and really do know how many BF hunters see? Or perhaps the hunters are so stupid they are just seeing a bear instead of BF? If a hunter makes the mistake of misidentifying bears in Grizzly country, he don't last long. I can guarantee with a great degree of probability you will not have a BF walk through the room where you keep your computer.

Well then I'll add another name.  Me myself and I,  been there, done that.  

Good.  Proof is in.  You can start reading any time you're ready.

 

Each and every bigfooter who is telling the skeptics to read up and determine this for themselves understands science...because they are doing it, and demand it of anyone discussing the topic with them.  Maybe the most conspicuous feature of bigfoot skepticism is its fetishism of science...while not understanding at the most basic level what science even is.

 

ANY belief unbacked by evidence is foolhardy; and it looks like some are trying out the water at both ends of the pool, huh. 

Ahhhh well gee golly gosh I posted the list of books I've read and it zoomed right over your head.  Now then obviously you don't think much of my reading list yet you can't/won't offer suggested reading.  Oh I tried reading Enoch but it was way too silly to believe.  

[Guest]

Both of Crowlggic and Bodhi should realize that someone predictable like Nankani who lives out in the woods is easier to avoid that some random hunter walking through the area. Local BF would know what his habit patterns are, where he goes, when he normally does it etc. When BF has a human contact with some random hunter, it has made a mistake, or the wind or background noise has masked the humans arrival. Hunters know what I am talking about with deer and other relatively dumb animals. Human scent is a very big factor in detection and avoidance by woodland animals. With the woods masking vision, scent and sound becomes ever more important for an animal to avoid humans.

I live in a small hamlet surrounded by the bush. I don't live in a hollow log. I highly doubt the local Bigfoots have been able to figure out my patterns. We don't follow much of a schedule up here, things are pretty relaxed. So guess again why I haven't seen any Bigfoot.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's also important to be in the right area. Going out into random forested areas probably isn't going to pay off. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

It's also important to be in the right area. Going out into random forested areas probably isn't going to pay off. 

Bigfoot is practically everywhere.  All lower 48 states have sightings.  This is exactly what bigfooters do.  When people are in a potentially good spot and nothing happens then they're not really in a good spot.  What do you have to say to my scientist friend who was up essentially living in Six Rivers National Forest for six months doing soil research and saw nothing, heard nothing and had nothing thrown at him.  I suppose he was in the wrong forest.  No man that don't fly too well, not when every Tom, Jake and Wanda that goes footin' with a fat grin and two thumbs up for the myth hears them tree knocks and stone clattering no matter where they are.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Sightings have occurred in most states and provinces, but most areas within them don't seen to have any activity at all. Hoaxes and misidentifications also need to be taken into account. Another thing is that sightings in general are extremely rare. Many witnesses have lived in active areas their entire life and have only had one or two sightings. The elusiveness and rarity of Sasquatch needs to be taken into account. 

[southernyahoo]

Bigfoot is practically everywhere.  All lower 48 states have sightings.  This is exactly what bigfooters do.  When people are in a potentially good spot and nothing happens then they're not really in a good spot.  What do you have to say to my scientist friend who was up essentially living in Six Rivers National Forest for six months doing soil research and saw nothing, heard nothing and had nothing thrown at him.  I suppose he was in the wrong forest.  No man that don't fly too well, not when every Tom, Jake and Wanda that goes footin' with a fat grin and two thumbs up for the myth hears them tree knocks and stone clattering no matter where they are.

 

He had to have heard things, the question is, did he know the source of everything he heard and did he ignore those sounds when he didn't.. Lots of recordings are made of sounds that are beyond a persons hearing distance. (too far away).  A person out there just digging in the soil during the day is not such a vigilant listener of what sounds occur at night, it's not what they are there for, and collecting the sounds on recordings would be a distraction from their primary job. 

 

While BF researchers can record such sounds with frequency, they can be subtle, distant and rarely is there a barrage of objects thrown them.

[Guest]

Sightings have occurred in most states and provinces, but most areas within them don't seen to have any activity at all. Hoaxes and misidentifications also need to be taken into account. Another thing is that sightings in general are extremely rare. Many witnesses have lived in active areas their entire life and have only had one or two sightings. The elusiveness and rarity of Sasquatch needs to be taken into account.

Isn't there thousands of reported sightings and thousands more which go unreported that proponents wave around as proof of Bigfoot? Now suddenly skeptics that spend a lot of time outdoors can't see one because sightings are extremely rare. Edited July 19, 2015 by Nakani

[LeafTalker]

He had to have heard things, the question is, did he know the source of everything he heard and did he ignore those sounds when he didn't.. 

Spot on.

 

I will never forget the interview with the hunter (I think it was Mike Wooley) who saw a BF whistle to another BF. He had been in the woods all his life and thought he knew everything there was to know about the woods. But when he saw that BF make that whistling noise, he suddenly realized he’d been hearing that sound all his life, but thought he was hearing a bird.

 

 

People who spend all their time in the woods apparently know as little as everybody else. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Isn't there thousands of reported sightings and thousands more which go unreported that proponents wave around as proof of Bigfoot? Now suddenly skeptics that spend a lot of time outdoors can't see one because sightings are extremely rare.

 

There's thousands of reports from the last 100 years, but there's also millions of people that use forests every year. From what I can tell, sightings are a lot rarer than most researchers would like to believe.

[Guest Crowlogic]

He had to have heard things, the question is, did he know the source of everything he heard and did he ignore those sounds when he didn't.. Lots of recordings are made of sounds that are beyond a persons hearing distance. (too far away).  A person out there just digging in the soil during the day is not such a vigilant listener of what sounds occur at night, it's not what they are there for, and collecting the sounds on recordings would be a distraction from their primary job. 

 

While BF researchers can record such sounds with frequency, they can be subtle, distant and rarely is there a barrage of objects thrown them.

I beg to differ.  When I was doing acid lake research part of my itinerary was to monitor the signs of wild life in and around the body of water.  Also I hiked sometimes miles into the forest to get to the standing body of water.  What do you think I did while I hiked?  Didn't have ipads back then....So being up in SRNF is an automatic bigfoot sure thing?  Well it isn't and it's naive to even say that, of course it's equally naive to think there would be anything there in the first place.  However when a researcher has been in the  field and another member of the fraternity (in this case environmental research) engages them in a specific conversation you can bet the details are understood and many are universal.  Consider if you're doing soil research what are you doing?  Looking at the ground.  What's in the ground?  Footprints, bones, etc.  I've lost count of the number of animal tracks I found around the bodies of water I surveyed.  

There's thousands of reports from the last 100 years, but there's also millions of people that use forests every year. From what I can tell, sightings are a lot rarer than most researchers would like to believe.

At least you have one tiny grasp on the potential reality of the thing.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Crowlogic

[ShadowBorn]

I beg to differ.  When I was doing acid lake research part of my itinerary was to monitor the signs of wild life in and around the body of water.  Also I hiked sometimes miles into the forest to get to the standing body of water.  What do you think I did while I hiked?  Didn't have ipads back then....So being up in SRNF is an automatic bigfoot sure thing?  Well it isn't and it's naive to even say that, of course it's equally naive to think there would be anything there in the first place.  However when a researcher has been in the  field and another member of the fraternity (in this case environmental research) engages them in a specific conversation you can bet the details are understood and many are universal.  Consider if you're doing soil research what are you doing?  Looking at the ground.  What's in the ground?  Footprints, bones, etc.  I've lost count of the number of animal tracks I found around the bodies of water I surveyed.  .

Crowlogic

Now you think that there would be tracks surrounding bodies of water. But there are not and on occasion there would be a track or two near the body of water. Most track find are up on ridges or in places where you would not expect to find a track. Some times the track would be in plain site like it was placed intentionally so that it would be found. Could it be hoaxed not sure because these tracks that I would find would be off trail and were done with intent to be found.

 

So water intake for them has to be taken in a different way. A way that is stealthy that it does not give themselves away. Underground springs is my best guess to how they may be consuming their water. I have seen holes in the ground where I have heard streams of water under ground. Under ground dwellers where it may be cool or may be extremely hot. But this is my hypothesis that I think is happening with these creatures. I really do not believe that there are that many of them or there would be more massive sightings and Crowlogic would not be here doubting their existence. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crowlogic

Now you think that there would be tracks surrounding bodies of water. But there are not and on occasion there would be a track or two near the body of water. Most track find are up on ridges or in places where you would not expect to find a track. Some times the track would be in plain site like it was placed intentionally so that it would be found. Could it be hoaxed not sure because these tracks that I would find would be off trail and were done with intent to be found.

 

So water intake for them has to be taken in a different way. A way that is stealthy that it does not give themselves away. Underground springs is my best guess to how they may be consuming their water. I have seen holes in the ground where I have heard streams of water under ground. Under ground dwellers where it may be cool or may be extremely hot. But this is my hypothesis that I think is happening with these creatures. I really do not believe that there are that many of them or there would be more massive sightings and Crowlogic would not be here doubting their existence. 

Then there is the London Trackway one of the longesrt on record that was a body of water shoreline affair.  But was London even real? Then the most famous tracks/film in history are body of water connected.  What about the old saying they always follow the creeks?  

Edited July 19, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Bodhi]

Isn't there thousands of reported sightings and thousands more which go unreported that proponents wave around as proof of Bigfoot? Now suddenly skeptics that spend a lot of time outdoors can't see one because sightings are extremely rare.

I am out of positive votes yet again but this is so spot on!

First it was: If skeptics just got out in the woods they would see sasquatches because they are 3 to 4 subtypes all over North America...

Then it was: Skeptic hunters don't see sasquatches because sasquatches avoid hunters (but what about those hunters who claim sightings on those podcasts? hmmm)...

THEN it was skeptical hunters don't see sasquatches are super rare??

 

pretty hilarious mental gymnastics there by swwasasquatchproject - special pleadings doesn't seem enough to describe it. Keep 'em coming this is the funniest stuff on the net.