Rockape Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, WSA said: Rockape, yeah. We probably always need to make that distinction. Sure as shootin', somebody will come in and confuse the two. While I have long held the belief that the sighting reports ARE proof (maybe not definitive for many, but approaching it for me), I don't make that case here. Just so you'll know WSA, I said that to get ahead of the chucklehead scofftics who will come here and say "hur dur, looks at the silly 'footer's". Wasn't aiming it at you or anyone in particular. Quote Judging from some of the f/u responses too, I think some may be confusing "subjective" vs. "objective" evidence. I believe Norseman's original post was to rank the objective stuff. If I had an encounter of a degree that left me with only two conclusions, them being, 1. "Sasquatch exists"; or..2. "I am crazy", then I've probably reached a level of subjective proof, which is unlikely to persuade anyone but my closest friends and family....well, at least the ones who don't know I AM crazy. But, if my story is collected along with thousands of others and congruency is seen beyond the comparison of that many random hoaxes or misidentifications? You are in the objective evidence category, for sure. I try to look at what is offered with an objective eye and I believe that is what most who make the offer want, not cheerleading or accepting it as abject proof. I'm only interested in satisfying my own curiosity and that's where I differ from other skeptics/scofftics. One I see the information I feel I need to make a call, I bow out and don't feel the need or see a reason to berate those who offer the evidence or to cheer them on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 23, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2018 Quote I try to look at what is offered with an objective eye and I believe that is what most who make the offer want, not cheerleading or accepting it as abject proof. I'm only interested in satisfying my own curiosity and that's where I differ from other skeptics/scofftics. One I see the information I feel I need to make a call, I bow out and don't feel the need or see a reason to berate those who offer the evidence or to cheer them on. What's in bold is what should be on every ones mind when it come to making a call on these creatures. I find that the best evidence that Finding Bigfoot have ever provided is the witnesses that they have provided on the show. Since it shows their true sincerity of what they have witnessed. You can see that they have truly seen some thing that is not normal or that is not some thing that we see in our wilderness all the time. What I some times do not see is their nervousness when they go back to where they seen these creatures. But this could be that they might be among others who believe in what they have seen. Even then I am also skeptical of some of these witnesses that they choose . But they might have a reason for this and that is to show a difference between the two types of witnesses who have seen these creatures and those who have not. Since it is a show it could be that some of these witnesses might just be in it to be on TV or a way for a town to bring in income. But evidence will always point to there being the existence in an area of these creatures. And the show always have a way of pointing that out in the end. They do not always have to show these creatures and it really does not matter to me since it is only a show. But the satisfying of our own curiosity of their existence should be the interest of every one's mind. Nothing should stop us from finding the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said: I find that the best evidence that Finding Bigfoot have ever provided is the witnesses that they have provided on the show. Since it shows their true sincerity of what they have witnessed. You can see that they have truly seen some thing that is not normal or that is not some thing that we see in our wilderness all the time. What I some times do not see is their nervousness when they go back to where they seen these creatures. Speaking of FB, I recall an episode from a village in Alaska where a very young native man claimed to have encountered a rather aggressive one. The first time I saw the show he looked down while talking and to me came across as maybe being ashamed he was not telling the truth. But in a later episode where they add comments about what transpires, they said the young man was very afraid and at first refused to go back to the scene to tell about his encounter. It was only after Bobo talked to him a long time about his own fear that they were able to convince him to go to the area, but he still would only go just off the road and would not go all the way back to where he said he encountered the BF because he was too afraid. I know, being Native American myself, the biggest shame for us, particularly men, is being afraid and showing fear. I don't think the young man was ashamed because he wasn't telling the truth, he was ashamed because he was so scared. I don't know what these people see, but I believe they have seen something, be it hoax or misidentification or possibly an actual BF. I think very few are actually lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmknight Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Norseman, I would leave out the 411 books, too. I don't find them credible in the least. I borrowed the first one from a friend a few years ago, and gave it back after the first 2 chapters. I, for the life of me, just cannot see how that many missing persons can be attributed to a Sasquatch carrying them off into the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2018 Admin Author Share Posted April 23, 2018 34 minutes ago, cmknight said: Norseman, I would leave out the 411 books, too. I don't find them credible in the least. I borrowed the first one from a friend a few years ago, and gave it back after the first 2 chapters. I, for the life of me, just cannot see how that many missing persons can be attributed to a Sasquatch carrying them off into the woods. Paulides the author is very very careful to NOT invoke the name Sasquatch around his books. He presents the facts and lets you the reader decide. Never once did he say that Sasquatch carried them off. I will say this......there is some strange s**t that goes on out there. Some of those police reports defy explanation. Thank goodness for my luck in the backcountry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Paulides has his own theories, but he seems to be uncertain of them, and generally doesn’t go into detail. In some of his radio interviews he’s given hints that anomalous mental phenomena is a likely culprit for many of the reports. Based on my own study into it, I would have to agree that it’s one very notable culprit. As far as sasquatch go, there were several cases where sasquatch would’ve very likely been responsible if the reported observations were accurate, but such unambiguous cases are quite rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 I'd rank vocalizations higher on the list, simply because they can inform the listener about the subject vocalizing and for the purpose of actually finding one for the sake of further evidence, they help you cover more ground. There are subtle elements in the sounds that do repeat in multiple independent recordings. It's part of the cogency of evidence that forges proof. Here's one from Texas that I've recently been made aware of............ https://sasquatchchronicles.com/sam-houston-national-fores-6-minutes-of-vocals/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 24, 2018 BFF Patron Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) Awesome, thought I was the only one to record five or more minutes in one sound encounter before.....guess not! Guess, Michigan Recording Project would challenge me, but hey, they ain't here any mo' and they aren't the only game in town now are they! Edited April 24, 2018 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 24, 2018 Admin Author Share Posted April 24, 2018 37 minutes ago, southernyahoo said: I'd rank vocalizations higher on the list, simply because they can inform the listener about the subject vocalizing and for the purpose of actually finding one for the sake of further evidence, they help you cover more ground. There are subtle elements in the sounds that do repeat in multiple independent recordings. It's part of the cogency of evidence that forges proof. Here's one from Texas that I've recently been made aware of............ https://sasquatchchronicles.com/sam-houston-national-fores-6-minutes-of-vocals/ Are they sure that’s not just another group of Bigfooters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 24, 2018 Admin Author Share Posted April 24, 2018 I hear Bigfoot whoops, dogs barking and people talking. Dogs are always a clear indicator of a human presence. Either way I don’t think I would personally put this at the top of the list. But I do enjoy listening to audio files, and straining to hear the sounds of the forest. Thanks for posting SY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) Great thread Norse. 1 PGF . Even a skeptic like me is very impressed by the film . I can dismiss tracks including the Bossburg tracks , eyewitnesses,dermal ridges Snow tracks are the worst of all. Easily distorted. Sounds and knocks Undiscovered fossil record . i say undiscovered because i don't rule that out. DNA would be nice . Type specimen is the only acceptable evidence that will suffice. So in conclusion. I agree with hiflier. The Patterson film. Edited April 24, 2018 by Patterson-Gimlin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 24, 2018 Admin Author Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Great thread Norse. 1 PGF . Even a skeptic like me is very impressed by the film . I can dismiss tracks including the Bossburg tracks , eyewitnesses,dermal ridges Snow tracks are the worst of all. Easily distorted. Sounds and knocks Undiscovered fossil record . i say undiscovered because i don't rule that out. DNA would be nice . Type specimen is the only acceptable evidence that will suffice. So in conclusion. I agree with hiflier. The Patterson film. What about trackways in snow that defy human scale? In stride, etc? So long is there is no corresponding road, etc where somebody can ride in a pickup bed with a stomper on a stick? Or in deep fresh snow where a hoaxer cannot wear the stompers backwards and run down hill? And why do you dismiss the Bossburg tracks so easily? Foot doctors seem to think they are a legit example of club foot? And what about the cuts on dermal ridges that seem to heal and can identify a single individual? Your my favorite skeptic so I’m pinging your opinion! Edited April 24, 2018 by norseman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Snow distorts tracks. It has been demonstrated tracks in the snow of normal size can appear much larger and accomplished with snow shoes. I have not seen any that you have described. I would certainly like to. Bossburg tracks I believe were orchestrated by Ivan Marx who had the resources to study foot anatomy. For a time the tracks were my second favorite evidence after the awesome film. I am not aware of dermal ridge tracks that heal. I am aware of only that they can be faked. You have brought up some interesting points. I would love to learn more. Thank you for the video. You are my favorite Sasquatch hunter. I am very willing to listen and learn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 ^^ Just an excellent post 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 11 hours ago, norseman said: Are they sure that’s not just another group of Bigfooters? I can't speak for the researchers that recorded those, But do pay attention to how often the word "human" comes up in various explanations and descriptions of the sounds .I hear "voice" that is very reminiscent of the Sierra Sounds in them. Not to mention the whoops. Canines find their way into many of these recordings, potentially because of the same symbiotic relationship we have with them. They can be an alarm system and a hunting partner out there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts