Guest magnum peditum Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 This gives an idea of how massive Bigfoot is thought to be. At 8 1/2 feet I almost think 9 1/2 or even 10 feet. Simply a huge animal that defies any comparison in the same habitat except maybe the largest of bears. The size and distinct bipedal-ism is very extraordinary. It challenges me on the concept that when I go into the woods to camp/hike I am possibly in the company of something that huge and walks on 2 feet. It's easy to throw the idea of 8 feet tall out there. But even a theoretical skeleton of something 8.5 feet tall and with so much size to it, it's really hard to not be impressed/challenged with the idea.
Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) I think you maybe should reconsider that bet. I have taken a picture of one of your 4 animals (BF) and should have gotten a picture of the second animal on your list. The second one was a very close cougar and I had an instant on camera right in front of me. But the shock of a cougar jumping down right in front of me sort of made me worry more about if I was lunch than taking its picture. OK, I will admit I did teach a photography class in college as a teaching assistant but don't think that makes me a profession photographer. I would however bet that a single person getting a picture of all 4 creatures would be a million in one chance. I think a wolverine is actually more difficult than BF. We don't have many blurry wolverine pictures. The only thing I can credit for my luck with any encounter is a lot of time in the field, trying to be unpredictable, and solo field work. I think in both cases if I had been with anyone else I would not gotten close enough to have contact. Groups of humans in the woods have to be seen as very dangerous by most woodland creatures. Speaking of that, how many hunters hunt solo? How common is that? Does hunting solo make any difference in finding a deer? Not being a hunter, I really do not know. OK. Now, I am not gonna ask for the sasquatch pic because of the reaction it...shoot, because of the reaction PG got. But PG; in my opinion one or two other records; and the virtual certainty that one or more people have something they aren't sharing - because of the idiotic reaction they know they will get - say enough to the "why don't we have photos?" people. Never mind something that one sees very often with other animals: the "there's a bear in this shot but it's really bad, the bear is right...here..." phenomenon, which, if there really is a BF in the alleged BF shot, then it's a pic of one. Your cougar example is really enough by itself. THAT'S why, skeptics. OK, full disclosure. You show me a photo of one of those animals: (1) if it was a captive or taken in, say, Yellowstone, I will know. Disqualified. (2) If I can't tell...I will presume (1). If you are a bigfoot skeptic I will KNOW it's (1), because you have shown me how you operate and I can't trust you. (3) It was Photoshopped, or stolen online, so ferget it, buster. (4) You need to give me ten witnesses, signed; they pay me $200 apiece and they all need to be Ph.D's and each one's dissertation mentor, or whatever that guy/gal is called, needs to vouch for them *in person*...and give me $300. Hey, this is trouble I am going to. (5) Oh hell, I'm not gonna bother. Here's the short form: I will treat you the way you treat people who know this animal's real, and see how you like it. You ain't collecting. Edited December 23, 2015 by DWA
Squatchy McSquatch Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 And that's how goalposts are moved. 2
Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Goalposts have always been where they always are. Bigfoot skeptics always hate the game when it's played on them. Sorry about the way it is. It's real, dude. Goalposts never move when the facts plant them. Thousands who will never see that skeleton saw that animal.
Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Been proven. See, this isn't about what you think vs. what I think. It's about what is known, and who knows it. No one can pitch a remotely persuasive scenario how all this could be a false positive; every such attempt is contradicted by the very evidence the person making the attempt hasn't looked at. Every such attempt relies, completely, on whitewashing as delusional and liars thousands of people the slanderer has not ever met. Every such attempt relies, wholly, on unproven and unprovable assumptions. Every such attempt relies on painting a...well, a delusional picture of people,animals and the world that would not be painted were the person talking about anything - ANYTHING - else. Mounds of forensic evidence, dovetailing very neatly with the reports of expert primatologists...oh, wait, everyday Joes and Jills, almost none of them scientists, describing, over and over and over and over (I count five to ten in every report), features of morphology and behavior only known to be characteristics of higher primates by primatologists. Proven. And the cool thing? Before I even read any of the proponent scientists, I knew what they knew...just from careful reading, thinking, and a lifetime spent in wild places and learning about animals. It is the coolest of experiences. Wish I could share it with more people. But that is up to them. Not me. (****, besides being true, this is so good I'm saving it. Why duplicate those keystrokes, man.)
dmaker Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) Anecdotes are unprovable. " features of morphology and behavior only known to be characteristics of higher primates by primatologists." How about you list some of these that you feel are only known to primatologists? That way, we all can play along too. But you won't, will you? Because you know that it is much easier to just make an assertion and not actually support it. Edited December 23, 2015 by dmaker 2
Squatchy McSquatch Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Been proven. See, this isn't about what you think vs. what I think. It's about what is known, and who knows it. No one can pitch a remotely persuasive scenario how all this could be a false positive; every such attempt is contradicted by the very evidence the person making the attempt hasn't looked at. Every such attempt relies, completely, on whitewashing as delusional and liars thousands of people the slanderer has not ever met. Every such attempt relies, wholly, on unproven and unprovable assumptions. Every such attempt relies on painting a...well, a delusional picture of people,animals and the world that would not be painted were the person talking about anything - ANYTHING - else. Mounds of forensic evidence, dovetailing very neatly with the reports of expert primatologists...oh, wait, everyday Joes and Jills, almost none of them scientists, describing, over and over and over and over (I count five to ten in every report), features of morphology and behavior only known to be characteristics of higher primates by primatologists. Proven. And the cool thing? Before I even read any of the proponent scientists, I knew what they knew...just from careful reading, thinking, and a lifetime spent in wild places and learning about animals. It is the coolest of experiences. Wish I could share it with more people. But that is up to them. Not me. (****, besides being true, this is so good I'm saving it. Why duplicate those keystrokes, man.) 1
Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Cool stories, bros. This is about who knows. And who doesn't. Ever seen a Nessie skeleton? A fairy skeleton, a Jersey Devil skeleton? If you have...you've seen bogus; because one can't even get a consistent appearance out of those people! This skeleton came from...thousands of accounts, and thousands of footprints, and a film that neatly brings 'em both together. Hope you saw the Great Pumpkin, finally, and good luck staying up for Santa.
dmaker Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) ProTip: DWA, this is not an actual skeleton that you are talking about. "Ever seen a Nessie skeleton? A fairy skeleton, a Jersey Devil skeleton? " Tooth Fairy: And because it's Christmas, here is one for free. Werewolf: So, how about those traits that are only known to primatologists? Care to elaborate on that one? Edited December 23, 2015 by dmaker 1
SWWASAS Posted December 23, 2015 BFF Patron Posted December 23, 2015 MIB sounds like your daytime experience is similar to mine. My turn to think out loud. I reread your response twice and started thinking of the "why" with solo field work. While I think I am more stealthy solo than with someone, I really do not think it that significant a factor. I cannot help but wonder if solo I am more interesting or perceived as more vulnerable too. Certainly that situation exists with regard to encountering other humans so the same must apply to contact with BF. Quite frankly in several ways I think I am safer alone around a BF than some unknown human. Humans have a known bad history doing bad things to other humans. Is that solo vulnerability what interests BF in some cases and will draw it in to have a look at a solo human? While I would like to think I am still around because of some BF code of ethics, I have to admit that that might not exist and the reason might be that I am older, on several prescription meds, and might be considered to taste bad. Perhaps they know what happens when they yank a human of the trail. In a few days the woods are full of humans searching. Not a good thing if you want to avoid humans. A well armed solo hunter has to be perceived differently than an unarmed female hiker, or in the case two years ago of the naked female hiker who disappeared. Was she entirely too vulnerable to resist? I don't even feel like camo makes any difference (has not in my case) and wonder if it might actually seem threatening to BF because that is what well armed hunters wear. I guess what I am saying is that no patterns are obvious to me at this point. Perhaps one of our data crunchers can make some sense of it, I cannot.
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Ir's a big skeleton made but it's still just plastic.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 A fairy skeleton, a Jersey Devil skeleton? 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 If you can't attach it with the text editor's file attachment feature. You can take a fullscreen, screenshot. Those will post. That's an interesting comparison Cryptic Megafauna. SWWSP, I agree with the single person method of research. However, being a hunter, a team of two can be just as effective. From my experience the preferred method for hunting in the PNW is road hunting. Sure your going to chance upon things now and then, but the best way to experience what is going on out in the forest is to get out into it. Away from the roads and trails. I have seen some very unusual species, but very remote and pristine environments is where I would expect to have the most prolonged experience. The most unusual was in an area that did not have a trail. Another fact overlooked is that evening is a good time because you can still use your human eyesight to advantage but the large creatures that move around at night may be beginning to come out.
norseman Posted December 30, 2015 Admin Posted December 30, 2015 A jersey devil skeleton is not on par with a proposed undiscovered ape skeleton. But point taken.....we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves.
Recommended Posts