jayjeti Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I can recall several stories............ Therein lies a major issue. What is a report, other than a story? Therein lies an unhealthy skepticism that anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much weight. Multiple witness reports does carry weight. And beyond the issue of reports of sasquatches being shot, which are many, as far as the existence of bigfoot, there are tens of thousands of reports (stories) by tens of thousands of different people. So, in that respect its "more" than just a story, and its odd to me how anyone could doubt the existence of sasquatches in light of the sheer volume of reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 As a hunter, I've noticed that my "desire" to kill has been reduced from when I was younger. I still love hunting but the killing portion of the hunt has lost its appeal. In my younger days I'd pull the trigger without a second thought. I guess "blood lust" is a younger persons game. I still hunt and occasionally will kill an animal but I'm very selective about what I kill. I've thought about what I would do if I ever saw a Sasquatch and I was armed with enough gun to kill one. If I had enough gun, if I had enough people with me, also armed, and I had the ability to take the body, I would consider it. However, by myself, in deep cover, I'd never do it. I think most hunters would consider their personal safety as well as the ethics of killing something they can't identify. It's not easy to kill anything indiscriminately and much less an animal that looks so much like us. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 A story that is reported, with substantial evidence, is the truth. Not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) We won our freedom from Britain and traded it for the royal family of England, being that 42 of our 43 presidents' lineage can be traced back to King John of England. Edited March 13, 2016 by David NC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Huh? Hadn't heard that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 A story that is reported, with substantial evidence, is the truth. Not always. Not not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DonD Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 As a hunter, I've noticed that my "desire" to kill has been reduced from when I was younger. I still love hunting but the killing portion of the hunt has lost its appeal. In my younger days I'd pull the trigger without a second thought. I guess "blood lust" is a younger persons game. I still hunt and occasionally will kill an animal but I'm very selective about what I kill. I've thought about what I would do if I ever saw a Sasquatch and I was armed with enough gun to kill one. If I had enough gun, if I had enough people with me, also armed, and I had the ability to take the body, I would consider it. However, by myself, in deep cover, I'd never do it. I think most hunters would consider their personal safety as well as the ethics of killing something they can't identify. It's not easy to kill anything indiscriminately and much less an animal that looks so much like us. I agree with this sentiment. Ever hear the phrase buck fever? It's when a young hunter sees a game animal and gets so nervous he either misses or gets over zealous and shoots an animal out of season. I think the same principle applies. I think that the shock of the encounter coupled with the Adrenalin bump would completely throw even most seasoned hunters off their game completely. This is probably why we hear stories about guys who are avid outdoors men that have an experience and say that the last thing they thought about was shooting it. Also, guys who have spent time in combat relate that motor skills go out the window the first time you experience combat. This is why they train so hard, to be able to instinctively fire their weapons at a threat. This is for an experience that can be simulated in the real world for training. We all know it doesn't happen that way for things of this nature and most encounters when they are related there is always an element of surprise initially at least at encountering something so out of the ordinary in the woods. I am not young and like what was stated earlier I think I'd have issue with firing at anything resembling a man unless my life was threatened or I was protecting another person. Hopefully I am never in that situation, I can't imagine how ineffective I would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I can recall several stories............ Therein lies a major issue. What is a report, other than a story? Therein lies an unhealthy skepticism that anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much weight. Multiple witness reports does carry weight. And beyond the issue of reports of sasquatches being shot, which are many, as far as the existence of bigfoot, there are tens of thousands of reports (stories) by tens of thousands of different people. So, in that respect its "more" than just a story, and its odd to me how anyone could doubt the existence of sasquatches in light of the sheer volume of reports. All of which have amounted to a hill of beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jayjeti Posted March 13, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 13, 2016 Incorrigible 1, you say tens of thousands of reports by tens of thousands of different witnesses amounts to a hill of beans, a phrase that means amounts to nothing. That's what I meant by unhealthy skepticism. The sheer volume of reports, many by credible people such as those in law enforcement, should give pause to any kind of reasonable skeptic. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 In the middle ages it was taken as fact that demons and imps caused illness. I actually believe they exist. Unfortunately people stopped reporting them with the advent of the age of enlightenment and the decline of churches. So can you hold two beliefs at the same time, scientific and intuitive supernatural? and is that unscientific or enlightened to think thusly? It is all pure opinion influenced by speculative logic (or illogic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) Heh heh ... I used to tell my daughter there really are monsters under the bed, that's why I slept on my mattress on the floor: it meant the monsters had to be veeeerrrryyyy small. I'm not so sure I was joking. Some, yet some-not. Science and intuition are not opposites, they're complements. Same as science and religion. The dichotomy is artificial. Science, by itself, does nothing. No impetus, no motion. Curiosity is based in intuition. You have to "feel" the presence of a question, "feel" the possibility of something to study first, then drag out science and apply it. Intuition and non-science provide the materials for science to operate on. They complement each other. Neither works at all well alone. I solve puzzles of various sorts. Neurotically so perhaps. I "feel" connections in large data sets, trends, commonalities. I form ideas about what they might be. It's not 'til those intuitive things are complete that I can begin to apply science to the details. They HAVE to work together. Have to. MIB Edited March 14, 2016 by MIB 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Without intuition you would not know where to begin or end. Without the supernatural you would never escape from the reductionist materialist logicians that insist the parts is greater than the division of the whole. Without the irrational we would not be on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BDK Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 There was a list years ago that had many shootings from the 1700s on down. If any of those reports are true or not is speculative, but some seemed fairly compelling. Besides that point is the usual that the Federal Gov't is trying to suppress knowledge of tall dark and hairy, I would imagine most deer caliber weapons not strong enough to actually get an instant kill on a Sasquatch due to muscle mass and bone density. The majority of reports that state "the bullet had no effect" I tend to either accept as a miss or just the it hit and the bullet was not strong enough to get very deep or hit vitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Perhaps all that is needed is the correct calibre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Here's a story of a man emptying his rifle into a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts