Why Has No Hunter Ever Shot A Bigfoot?

[Guest]

Ray, Parnasses WAS saying no "Bigfoot" reports predate 1958, but he modified his statement to say he thought the earlier reports describe humans. I think the depictions and reports spanning many years, cultures (White and Native American/First Nations), and geographic regions is not at all similar to the Medusa comparison.

[Guest John]

So I should have to spoon feed someone information?

No - it is not yours or anyone's obligation to spoon feed information. Likewise, I am 100% committed to confidentiality. But you know what - there's a simple solution. If you are 'in the know' about something you feel is sensitive or confidential information - don't post anything about it on a public discussion board.

If someone has a problem with someone elses post the burden is on THEM to first, make sure it is incorrect, and secondly if it is such a problem, whatever they feel is correct. I would not have posted info that was not correct in the first place.

I couldn't disagree more - hence my original post. If an extraordinary claim is posted, you think it's up to other posters to verify or disprove it rather than ask for a qualifier from the person making the claim? Sorry - not in the real world.

[Guest RayG]

Maybe You missed my other thread? Gathering Information? Where I was very clear on folks who felt they needed more information should do their own research.

It was enlightening!

No, I saw your other thread. Lots of navel gazing, but no real sustenance from what I recall. Basically turned into another whine fest against the nasty skeptics who just won't take someone's word for something.

You made a bold but completely unsupported statement in this thread -- "The name Bigfoot was only "popularized" in 1958.....It was used locally before that". That's quite unusual, unheard of, and unsubstantiated too. I'll believe you though, if you believe I shed my skin once a year, just like a snake. You'll just take my word on that won't you?

So anyhow, when asked to provide evidence of your bold claim, you not only fail to do so, but you make negative remarks towards those that try to hold you to the same standard as everyone else.

Personally, I've been interested in the bigfoot mystery for about four decades now, and in facts surrounding the bigfoot mystery. People making stuff up as they go only puts us that much further away from solving the mystery, and it certainly isn't taking a scientific approach to bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest]

RayG, on 23 May 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

It was? Was this documented? Who, when, where?

RayG

RayG quoted a post I made to Parnassas, With the above reply. There is abundant information on the internet by various sourses that The term Bigfoot indeed was used locally before it was popularized in 1958.

To once again (It's increadably frequent on the forum) a poster instead of looking into what I said themselves, is expecting me to "Spoon Feed" them yet more information. When someone says something I'm curious about I politely delve into the topic to learn more, and corroborate it myself. You may not have been around often in the past few months, but this has been (altho within the rules) used for a type of "Hit & Run" post where after it's done neither hide nor hair of the poster is seen to follow up like they legitimately cared about the topic.

____________________________________________________________________

No - it is not yours or anyone's obligation to spoon feed information. Likewise, I am 100% committed to confidentiality. But you know what - there's a simple

solution.If you are 'in the know' about something you feel is sensitive or confidential information - don't post anything about it on a public discussion board.

It absolutely isn't up to to anyone to spoon feed anyone info. I never said anything about confidentiality, claimed or felt to be in the know and what I posted is easily researched public information.In fact it has nothing to do with anything in my post you quoted. It's irrelevant to the discussion too!! Majorly irrelevant enough to cause me to ask you, Do you really think derailing the thread more than it has been is courtious behavior?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I couldn't disagree more - hence my original post. If an extraordinary claim is posted, you think it's up to other posters to verify or disprove it rather than ask for a qualifier from the person making the claim? Sorry - not in the real world.

Back to the old song & dance with "Extraordinary Claims" because I told a poster to do their own researching?? Did you even read the post of mine you were responding too? Had RayG expounded on his questioning of my post I would have gladly cooperated since he would have demonstrated he genuinely was interested.

A short "Prove it" type follow up to a previous post will ALWAY'S indicate to me that poster is more interested in creating division on the forum, rather than being genuinely interested in the material on the Thread.

(JMO)

My apologies to everyone for equally de-railing the thread.

Edited May 24, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY
removed improper sentence

[Guest]

No, I saw your other thread. Lots of navel gazing, but no real sustenance from what I recall. Basically turned into another whine fest against the nasty skeptics who just won't take someone's word for something.

You made a bold but completely unsupported statement in this thread -- "The name Bigfoot was only "popularized" in 1958.....It was used locally before that". That's quite unusual, unheard of, and unsubstantiated too. I'll believe you though, if you believe I shed my skin once a year, just like a snake. You'll just take my word on that won't you?

So anyhow, when asked to provide evidence of your bold claim, you not only fail to do so, but you make negative remarks towards those that try to hold you to the same standard as everyone else.

Personally, I've been interested in the bigfoot mystery for about four decades now, and in facts surrounding the bigfoot mystery. People making stuff up as they go only puts us that much further away from solving the mystery, and it certainly isn't taking a scientific approach to bigfoot.

RayG

Having an opinion on decidely "lazy behaviors" hardly equates to "Navel Gazing". LOL!!

[Incorrigible1]

No, I saw your other thread. Lots of navel gazing, but no real sustenance from what I recall. Basically turned into another whine fest against the nasty skeptics who just won't take someone's word for something.

Ray, I'm not sure what's happened to the old notion of being able to "back up what you post." Probably a hopelessly outdated idea. I'd type a longer reply but my skin is itching like the devil and my eyes have clouded up. Where's that scratching post?

[Guest BuzzardEater]

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.

Edited May 23, 2011 by BuzzardEater

[Guest BitterMonk]

The Adults on the forum are equally capable of doing the same.

Reported. Adding JMO to the end of each post does not make you immune to the rules of the forum, and insinuating that a member is not an adult is a clear violation of the Rules & Guidelines.

[Guest parnassus]

This is a cheap ploy, The word Bigfoot was coined in 1958, prior to that people reported a wildman or woman covered in hair. and there is plenty of evidence pointing to that fact.

Emphasis on the "wildman or woman." The printed Anglo reports generally identified the subject as a man, often crazy or a hermit.

Compared with many tribal people, I am a hair covered giant.

I would use your "cheap" term for the efforts to make these reports into Bigfoot reports. Or perhaps "yellow journalism" is more apropos pos.

[Guest LAL]

Hairy giants known as sasquatches, 1934:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sasquatch-1934/

[Guest ajciani]

Actually, bigfoot was coined long before 1958. I have seen newspaper and magazine articles from the 1920's which used the term "bigfoot". You might say that "bigfoot" was used locally, all over the country. I even saw a 1780's article which used the term "big foot", taken from the NA word.

Many of the NA names for bigfoot translate lit.: big foot. In French Canada, they said "Les Grand Pieds" or "Homme aux Grands Pieds". Interestingly, this left popular use in the 1800's, and was later re-introduced in the 1960's by translating "bigfoot" from the English.

[Guest ajciani]

Oh, and not all of the Anglo reports indicated a "crazy" or "wild" man. What's even stranger, is that about half of the ones that did, described a very hairy and large man.

[Guest RayG]

I even saw a 1780's article which used the term "big foot", taken from the NA word.

You must be a hellaba lot older than you look.

RayG

[Guest]

News Flash..........nobody knows exactly what a bigfoot/sasquatch is therefore one cannot state with certainty what someone else used to describe an unknown creature is the "correct" terminology. When the European settlers came to North America they called the Wapiti an Elk, but it wasn't the same creature referred to as elk in Europe, so they called that creature in N.A. a moose.

More goal moving/ derailing, come on! Why hasn't somebody shot one, tossed it in the back of his pickup, and drove it to the tavern to show off to the guys? Nobody would really care what he called it, but they would sure want to hear the story of how he bagged it!

[Guest]

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.