Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 As the evening draws near across North America, John T. muses as to why nobody has shot a bigfoot: "Hmmm, another day draws to a close, and country stores, gas stations, and taverns across the land have no hunter arriving with a recently expired bigfoot/sasquatch carcass, telling tales of adventure, bravery and hunting prowess." "Perhaps it is due to ol' biggie using psychic abilities to determine the intent of the hunters, and then employing infrasound to cause fear, disorientation and if need be unconsciousness in the wanna be bigfoot bagger." The Native American/First Nations Peoples attributed psychic abilities including hypnotism to bigfoot/sasquatch. That might explain the lack of them showing up. Naturally, this musing is based on the assumption they exist, at least for the sake of discussion. Well,I explain that as being *frozen in fear*, which I think is an appropriate reaction when facing a BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 i would take a chance at shooting a bigfoot, even if it wasnt alone. you only have one life to live right? lol I guess it depends on how *long* you wish to live that only life you have.... Being torn apart sounds like bad way to die... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Were there Sasquatch sightings before 1958? Parnassus is right, though, the First Nations accounts do describe a type of human, IMO. I've seen them, up close and personal, and they are not BFs! Grayjay's posts are as legitimate as anyone else's and given the absolute dearth of information on this board, perhaps more useful. A responsible person studies an issue before making statements. To suggest otherwise is insulting. If someone on the baord comes down on one side of the issue, I think thanks is owed because it isn't easy to stand up and say what you think. So, I commend you! Dismiss the mantle of reports, if you like. Dismissing the people who report them is a different thing. I know the skeptics are wrong, but I won't argue with them because it is so important to them to be right. Why? What are they afraid of, really? What harm is there in some people knowing something you don't? Closed minds can't lose an arguement, though, so I will toil no further. BuzzardEater said: Parnassus is right, though, the First Nations accounts do describe a type of human, IMO. I've seen them, up close and personal, and they are not BFs! Susi asks: What is this creature that you are talking about? Are there other types of creatures who are *not* BF? I've not heard about this before, and I'm excited to hear about it. Can you tell me what this creature/animal/human thing is? Thanks... I really appreciate your new to me info.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 BuzzardEater said: Parnassus is right, though, the First Nations accounts do describe a type of human, IMO. I've seen them, up close and personal, and they are not BFs! Susi asks: What is this creature that you are talking about? Are there other types of creatures who are *not* BF? I've not heard about this before, and I'm excited to hear about it. Can you tell me what this creature/animal/human thing is? Thanks... I really appreciate your new to me info.. I think Sasquatch have to be seperated from Bigfoot. They do not even resemble each other. Swamp apes resemble niether. There is clearly more than one variation. They are clearly adapted to different environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Stories are stories. I suppose if you are looking for pure science, they don't hold up. But most of the world is not pure science. Sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, linguistics, all the soft sciences, we mostly just rely on whatever people tell us. They could all be making up everything all the time, and we would never know. All of these sciences rely heavily on interviews and individual reports, that's how it's done. The is no such thing as a "soft" science. Science is science, and everything that can be considered a science is held to the same standard of evidence. Every field you listed is made up of actual evidence and theories based on that evidence. Sociologists study societies and present their theories based on what the observe. Their findings can also be replicated. A sociologists couldn't just state that Americans are cannibals and act like its a fact, even if he heard from somebody that we were. Psychologists study people and make theories about how their minds work based on their behavior and what they say. What they notice can also be replicated, and if it can't, it isn't taken seriously. Lots of people like to act like psychology isn't real and use things like ADD as an example, but guess what? A lot of people do have a hard time focusing. The same goes for something like depression - a lot of people do feel really sad/hopeless no matter what they do. Things like that aren't externally visible, but that doesn't make them not real. Anthropologists also rely on evidence. Someone could say that Neanderthals lived in Europe 3 million years ago and build giant structures and guess what? They would be wrong, because no evidence supports such a claim. History is based on things that have happened and can be proven. The American Revolution happened, there are records for it. World War I happened, there are also records for it; if you said either didn't happen, you would be wrong. Analysis of history also relies on fact. Did aliens cause WWII to happen? Maybe, but evidence shows that it was Hitler. The same line of thinking goes for linguistics. Dutch a germanic language. You can see similarities to other germanic languages, like German and English. Those things are measurable and clearly demonstrative. English has the word address, in Dutch that word is adres, in German it's adresse; there's a clear link there. The same word in Mandarin is dizhi, which is very different. Just because you don't understand, or won't accept, something, doesn't mean that it was made up. And just because most average people don't understand science doesn't mean that it isn't needed to prove something. Anyway, anecdotal evidence (stories, rumors, bla bla) is sufficient to get a man convicted of murder in a court of law. So obviously individual reports do carry some weight. No, they don't. Walk into a police station right now and tell someone you just committed a murder. See if you get arrested. Tell a cop your neighbor killed his wife and everyone in the neighborhood knows it, and see if he get sent to jail with no evidence. In criminal cases, evidence is always required for conviction, especially in the case of murder. Since forensics has come about, the standard of evidence has gotten even higher; no one gets convicted of murder just because of anecdotes, it usually requires DNA evidence. Best we can say, scientifically, here, is "There have been a lot of stories." Now, I'm one who believes where there's smoke, there's fire. The stories are not sufficient to prove BF's existence, but once it's existence is proven, eyewitness testimony of BF behavior will be scientifically adequate when scientists write up behavioral descriptions of BF's. Ever read a biology document of a species' behavior. Relies heavily on observations by humans, sometimes Indians and old fur trappers. That's considered "good enough" in wildlife biology. It's not considered good enough to declare a new species, though. Greeks wrote a lot about the behavior of Satyrs and no one thinks they were ever real; biology is a science and evidence is needed to make a claim in that field. It's good that you're admitting the best you can say is that there are stories, but you only admit that when pressed. You constantly act like these stories are gospel truth and by your own logic, you can't do that. Not without clear evidence backing them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I think Sasquatch have to be seperated from Bigfoot. They do not even resemble each other. Swamp apes resemble niether. There is clearly more than one variation. They are clearly adapted to different environments. Buzz, I did not know that! Wow, Thank you for this information. You, Dear One, are a sweetie I appreciate knowing this because I had no clue about any differences in the BF population. I thought that they were all the sorta the same with slight hair color differences, Like blond humans or brown or black haired people. We may have different skin and hair color, but we are all of the same species, but it sounds like this may not be true among the BF population. Help Please? Is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I think Sasquatch have to be seperated from Bigfoot. They do not even resemble each other. Swamp apes resemble niether. There is clearly more than one variation. They are clearly adapted to different environments. There are different species of BF, or just variations like we have among our human populations? I had *no* idea! Is it Sorta like Anglo Saxons, Africans, Italians, Chinese, Eskimos, all human but looking a little different? We are all human with different appearances. Is the BF species the same way, or are they different species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 It took ten years for them to find a seven foot tall Middle Easterner on dialysis. I think there are bureaucratic issues inherent in every branch of our government, as well as in other countries. I just can't see a big bigfoot, UFO, whatever kind of cover up going on for very long without someone talking since you can't change human nature. The bigger the organization gets the more apt they are to mess things up. People talk all the time during coverups and conspiracies, but no matter. The conspirators don't care. They just keep on conspiring away. This is how it works. Those who conspire, frankly, the power elite and the state, brainwash the population that there is no such thing as conspiracy. There can be no large state or power elite conspiracies. It's all woo woo. Then the critical thinkers, "scientists," "skeptics," and James Randi types get on board. Science now is unanimous that no power elite or state is capable of undertaking any large coverups or conspiracies. The state/power elite uses their media power (they control 100% of the US media) to continually brainwash people that "there is no such thing as conspiracies." People are blowning the lid on these things, existant or non-existant, continuously. The Roswell case has dozens up people all the way up to General rank stating that there were aliens at that site. But since there is no such thing as conspiracy, everyone laughs them off. How many people have blown their cover on the JFK assassination? Or on all sorts of conspiracies, real and unreal? It doesn't matter. Since "there is no such thing as conspiracy" conspirators need to worry about the cover blowers. They can always threaten them, mess them up or knock them off anyway. Or they can just laugh them off. Once you brainwash the public to believe that there is "no such thing as state/power elite conspiracy," now you are free to conspire away to your hearts content. So people blow cover? So what? Laugh at them. They're all lying, because there's no such thing as conspiracy. You say no UFO conspiracy is possible because people will talk. Dozens talked in the Roswell case, including deathbed confessions. All the cover-blowing was worthless, because the conspiracy still stands. Because according to skeptics, all the Roswell witnesses blowing cover are "liars." Why are they liars? Because skeptics say state conspiracy does not exist. See how this game works? This is how state/power elite conspiracies work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 What's really amazing is "they" allow this forum to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 What's really amazing is "they" allow this forum to exist. Why not? As long as BF's are proven not exist, let the loonies talk about them all they want, right? Haha! They believe in BF! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 What's really amazing is "they" allow this forum to exist. You only think that because they allow you to think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Here's a picture of the bigfoot holding pen I worked at while employed in the military in British Columbia in the mid 70's. That cage musta been 30 feet or taller, and it still couldn't hold some of the more athletic squatches. Talk about your high jumps. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I work for an NBC/Fox affiliate and it's all true. In fact I have been editing all of your posts and then flashing you with a light pen thingy so you forgetwhat you wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Yeah, but all joking aside, I really did work at that location. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I work for an NBC/Fox affiliate and it's all true. In fact I have been editing all of your posts and then flashing you with a light pen thingy so you forgetwhat you wrote. Gee, I just thought that is was just middle aged problems. I'm so glad it is just a flash... Now what were we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts