hiflier Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 52 minutes ago, dmaker said: More than likely the tooth is of mundane origin. Yeah, you're right.
7.62 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 4 hours ago, ShadowBorn said: Norseman Every year during deer season I go out for one reason and it is to try to bag one of these critters. Reason being is because I know that this is what it its going to take to get them on the books. Biggest fear is what happens if I succeed? what will it do to me personally as a person knowing that you just killed what everyone has been saying does not exist. There has to be one dumb critter out there that is willing to put it self out there in the cross hairs. As a proponent I know that they are out there but do not understand why they are not like other animals. They do not make mistakes and if they do they some how escape discovery. As hunters we look for sign, patterns and ways to set up ambush. So how are we all being out smarted by an ape if they are an ape. With all the technology that we have now days we should of had a specimen by now. Physical proof should have been in our hands and in a lab by now. To see a big buck or even an old tom come into view of my scope is no big deal. But to have to have a creature of this size and the strength that it carries well that makes it a very big deal. Is it really worth it for science to know the truth. When will it be when one of us do not come back from the field chasing these creatures. Will we even know when one of us gets shred to pieces going after these things for science. There is a lot to think about when one is not drinking beer . I just don't think it's as easy as some think it would be to squeeze the trigger if you ever had one in your cross hairs . You're not looking at a deer or an elk . You would be looking at something walking on two legs , with arms , a torso , a human looking head , somewhat of a human looking face . I believe hunters have had them in their cross hairs before and didn't squeeze the trigger. And if this creature wasn't threating you in anyway or if it wasn't even aware you had it in your cross hair it would take a very determined person to shoot and kill one.
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 9 hours ago, 7.62 said: I just don't think it's as easy as some think it would be to squeeze the trigger if you ever had one in your cross hairs . You're not looking at a deer or an elk . You would be looking at something walking on two legs , with arms , a torso , a human looking head , somewhat of a human looking face . I believe hunters have had them in their cross hairs before and didn't squeeze the trigger. And if this creature wasn't threating you in anyway or if it wasn't even aware you had it in your cross hair it would take a very determined person to shoot and kill one. This is why I tell people to read reports (and for petesake think about them); folks that have had the drop on a bigfoot and not shot are legion, and their rationales about as understandable as could be. An Ontario witness wrote that when one sees one of these things, one doesn't react in the way people think one will. The main reason for that, of course, is that people don't think, when it comes to this, nearly enough.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Realistic ghost stories are the best evidence of the existence of ghosts. ^^ 1
Rockape Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 10:45 PM, 7.62 said: I believe hunters have had them in their cross hairs before and didn't squeeze the trigger. I've seen quite a few reports from hunters who claim to have seen one, but said they didn't shoot because it looked too human, and some that they didn't think the weapon they had would kill it anyway, but rather just make it mad.
MIB Posted June 1, 2017 Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 44 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said: Realistic ghost stories are the best evidence of the existence of ghosts. ^^ Even better when backed by 1) evidence the witness was where the reported incident occurred and not online in their mommy's basement and 2) there is some physical evidence of SOMETHING happening. They don't add up to proof, but they are evidence, at least partially corroborated. And all the scoffing in the world doesn't change that. (Oh, for the record, I don't personally believe in ghosts ... but I do look at evidence anyway. Scoffing was not a scientific technique taught in any of my classes in any discipline. Was it in yours?) MIB
Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) I don't personally believe in anything. But here are two things that you cannot say don't exist and have me respect you as a scientist: 1) unicorns 2) ghosts In fact, if you understand a lick about science - and most scientists don't, outside their narrow specialties - you know this: You are no more allowed to say something doesn't exist than you are allowed to "believe in" ANYTHING. If anyone tells you ghosts or unicorns are real, you ask them why they think that. Any answer that doesn't cite evidence is, oh, well, thanks, and on you go with your busy scientific life. If there's evidence, well, what is it? One should be able to very quickly determine its quality. (Oh, and here is how a true scientist approaches relativity if he's not a physicist: Right, charming idea, that. No impact on my life, and I can go with it until evidence changes.) Edited June 1, 2017 by DWA
norseman Posted June 1, 2017 Admin Author Posted June 1, 2017 We have no more physical evidence for an extant Sasquatch than we do unicorns or ghosts...... Sure, I think Sasquatch is more probable as we have extinct animals in the fossil record that match the description. (I guess they did find some odd unicorn rhino thing is the fossil record....whatever.) But probable doesn't mean "walking among us today". We need proof to advance this field outside the realm of pixies and gnomes.
dmaker Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, DWA said: If anyone tells you ghosts or unicorns are real, you ask them why they think that. Any answer that doesn't cite evidence is, oh, well, thanks, and on you go with your busy scientific life. If there's evidence, well, what is it? One should be able to very quickly determine its quality. I actually somewhat agree, or at least I see how you are deliberately using strict logic to try to make your point seem reasonable. So sure, a scientist cannot say X does not exist--at least when unrealistically rigid logic is applied. But the part that you always leave out is that it is perfectly acceptable to say that I do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest that X does exist right now. That is a perfectly valid response. Q: "Do you think unicorns exist?" A: "I don't know, but right now there is no good reason to think they do."
Rockape Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 So Dmaker, your personal opinion aside, do you think there is good reason for someone to think BF does exist?
dmaker Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 Aside from seeing one? No. The current evidence should not cause anyone to believe that bigfoot exists. Anecdotes should not be a reason to believe something like this, especially when there is no good reason why there isn't more solid evidence. I know how faulty human perception can be. I know how dishonest humans can be. And I know that hallucinations and delusional thoughts are a very real thing. Therefore, I will never be moved by anecdotes. Someone else seeing a bigfoot is not a good reason to believe bigfoot exists.
norseman Posted June 2, 2017 Admin Author Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) From my personal standpoint it depends on the person telling you their account..... Ive got a couple of friends who have had sightings and experiences I'd trust completely. Which makes it compelling for me. They have never ever given me a reason to question their grasp on reality. It will never ever replace proof of course. And there a lot of people I don't trust at all. But it's my own experience that makes me leave the door cracked. Very compelling for me. Why we have no proof after all this time? If real I don't think they are nearly as numerous and widespread as reported. I think Bigfoot mania is responsible for a lot of it. And who knows maybe we are not looking for a giant bipedal ape. Maybe we should be on the lookout for a very tall Native American wearing fur clothing......I don't know. Very frustrating. But it's also what makes it mysterious. Edited June 2, 2017 by norseman 1
dmaker Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 33 minutes ago, norseman said: But it's also what makes it mysterious. I think that is a big hook for some people and why they refuse to let go. They enjoy the mystery, so they play the game. 33 minutes ago, norseman said: Maybe we should be on the lookout for a very tall Native American wearing fur clothing There was a theory from Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide documentary that went something along the lines of an old native tradition of shamans in training spending large portions of time in the woods alone. It was suggested that possibly bigfoot is some lost groups of these people continuing this tradition. It's pretty wacky.
norseman Posted June 2, 2017 Admin Author Posted June 2, 2017 I had a buddy who was a USAF SERE instructor who told me that they had "wolf" people in their training area on the Colville National Forest. I told him I did not believe in werewolves. To which he explained that they were normal humans but feral or semi feral. And that they had even found bare foot tracks in a skiff of snow snooping around one of their camps. But they either thought they were wolves, were trying to commune with them or whatever. Who knows. Weird. Mick Dodge will dress up and play Bigfoot and trick people, and he is semi feral.
Recommended Posts