Guest Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Here's a hint. No lie. Well, the snow shoes just proves that it's a juvenile Bigfoot that also happens to look like a dead feline of some sort, silly..... What do we got ? Hats, birds, owls, stumps, bears and a woman wearing a towel on her head (among other things) considered to be Bigfoots; might as well add this one to the list.....LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 The head always looked like a St. Bernard or Newfoundland to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I don't believe that the number of actual sightings has risen. Maybe it is getting easier to report them now with the technology. Back in the days when many Indians lived here in the US, I would like to see a survey of them. My understanding in the NW is that most if not all Indians reporting seeing a BF at some time in their lives. I'd say maybe 1/10 or 1/100 of sightings got reported or get reported. As BF gets more and more famous and media talked about, people will report their sightings more. In the South, many of the oldtimers in rural areas knew all about these animals. In particular, those who had some Indian blood. Choctaw Indians called the old people and they knew all about them. Cherokee Indians had many names for them, and BF's were nothing new to them. Other Indians and Indian descendants called them the shadow people. In the rural areas of the South, there is a very long tradition of knowledge about the "boogers." You had a curious situation where some oldtimers in the rural South knew these animals well, especially those with Indian blood. While those in the cities scoffed at them. There was no BFRO website a half century ago to instantly report your sighting. Yes, anyone who says the sightings started with Wallace and his stompers is a liar. I've had some folks come to my site and recite that very meme to me. The media has broadcast this particular lie very, very well. How many stories have you read in the media about "Ray Wallace started the Bigfoot legend with his stompers." I think blanket statement like this are dangerous, and your post is contains a lot of subtle racism. Native Americans are just like anyone else, and to say imply that they have any kind of special sense, or abilities is just not true. Modern NAs live normal, western lives for the most part. Just for your information, I grew up (and still live) in the Pacific Northwest, and I have plenty of experience with NAs here, having known them and been around their traditions since childhood. I don't think any of them ever told me about seeing a bigfoot, and to say that most of them have would be wrong. Most have told me that they don't believe in bigfoot. In fact, I've only really heard bigfoot stories from white people in the area, especially the ones that live in rural areas or in the mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Well, the snow shoes just proves that it's a juvenile Bigfoot that also happens to look like a dead feline of some sort, silly..... Y'all have got it all wrong. That there is a bonafide full grown sasquatch. Those are just Paul Bunyon's snow shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Silver Fox - I believe that BF's exist and I also believe they have been shot and for various reasons there has never been proof of it, and because of those reasons there is no sound reason to say there is proof nor is they any substance to saying that skeptics are lying when they say there is no proof of them being shot. Because sadly they are correct. The bottom line is you are treading a dangerous line by generalizing that all skeptics are lying when they are simply asking for proof, not sure what your motivation is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 The best we can say here is that there are a lot of stories. And it looks like the skeptic line that no one ever shot a BF to death is another one of their lies. I wouldn't call it a lie, but perhaps disingenuous to say one has not been shot, since it is impossible to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I wouldn't call it a lie, but perhaps disingenuous to say one has not been shot, since it is impossible to know that. No one has ever shot and killed a Bigfoot. That is probably not a scientific statement. People have shot and killed BF's many times. That's not a scientific statement either. Has anyone ever shot and killed a BF? The answer is inconclusive. It is not known if humans have ever killed a BF. There are many stories that they have, but proof is lacking. That's probably the most scientific statement of the three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Has anyone ever shot and killed a BF? The answer is inconclusive. It is not known if humans have ever killed a BF. There are many stories that they have, but proof is lacking. That's probably the most scientific statement of the three. That is pretty much what the skeptics here have been saying. Perhaps you need to look back at your article and amend it to include this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 That is pretty much what the skeptics here have been saying. Perhaps you need to look back at your article and amend it to include this statement? Sounds like the skeptics here are more civilized. I've spent some time over at JREF, and those skeptics are the lowest of the low. Pretty mean, petty, vicious people over there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) I'm a member of the JREF as are a number of longstanding posters here. I have been a member of this board since early '05 but used the 'changeover' to make a clean* break from posting here. I had become very jaded with the whole Them & Us/ Skeptic vs Believer thing. As a result of that and certain other things I'm not intending to wade into the fray again either. Personally, I always find that there are two sides (at least!) to every story and I like to see both sides to get a balanced view. You sound as if you had a very bad experience on JREF, which is unfortunate. I had been a long-time reader of the JREF (I used to find the Paranormal Challenge hilarious for admittedly all the wrong reasons), and when I finally joined to use the search facility I made it plain from the first post that I was open minded about the bigfoot phenomenon. Apart from a mild ribbing over that statement from a member (whom I now consider a friend) I never had a bad experience from other posters. That's not saying I have never seen posters taken to task over there, but certainly the same can be said for the old version of this board. So overall I'm more than a little surprised at your harsh, blanket condemnation of 'the skeptics' on JREF and from personal experience it's not an accurate statement. *ETA - OK make that slightly soiled as of today! Edited May 16, 2011 by John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) As an infrequent poster on the JREF, I agree. Silver Fox, I might also add that your article, and some posts you have made here are very confrontational and rather harsh. Perhaps the response you received at the JREF were a direct result of how your posts were read by others. You still haven't addressed the "millions of lies" comment here and personally I am letting that one go, but in all honesty you came in posting rather harshly. I can imagine going into the JREF with the same attitude might have a different effect. I haven't read your posts there, so I cannot say if that is the case, only that if it is, I do not understand why you would be surprised at the responses you got. You have toned down your rhetoric, but you still seem to want to cling tooth and nail to the opinion you have built up about skeptics. The skeptics here are not fitting into your mold, so you complain about skeptics from another board (and just for the record, problems and issues from one board are not looked upon kindly on other boards, here for instance...what happens in Vegas...) Edited May 16, 2011 by Redwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 IMO and back to the question at hand. After giving this some thought I would find it highly unlikely that pre 1960 that any hunter having shot biggie would not have had the corpse across the hood or in the back of his pick up and driving it around town a few times! Also having hunted all my life I can't recall the last time I had a shovel with me to bury an 800 lb animal much less the balls to dig the grave. I respectfully submit think it thru people... The only grave I've ever dug was for my dogs one of which was about 100lbs try it sometime then imagine being in the woods digging a grave for biggie while his family may be about IMO it's never happened... wounded one and it ran off and died maybe.... digging graves for 800lbs animals then moving the body into the grave and then burying it.... who's got a backhoe in their back pocket we shot another Bigfoot Billy Bob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted May 16, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 16, 2011 Do not bring issues from other forums here. Lets get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) I suppose it is possible Cervelo, though if you think bringing a bull elk out of the woods is a pain in the butt.... Personally, unless I felt my life or family member's life were in danger, I couldn't shoot one. I think there is a underlying assumption by some (not all) non-hunters that hunters will shoot anything that moves. While there are irresponsible idiots in the hunting world, they are not the norm. Also sad that there are poachers out there that get lumped in with responsible hunters. There is a big difference between the two. Would a poacher take a sasquatch? Quite likely I suppose and far more likely IMO than your average hunter. I have seen no proof of this occurring either. Edited May 16, 2011 by Redwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 16, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 16, 2011 I'm a hunter and I would shoot one in a heart beat. Not because I want a stuffed squatch on the wall, but because I want to see the species to take it's rightful place in zoology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts