Jump to content
Yetie9

It's time

Recommended Posts

7.62
20 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I read of a woman’s story that you will not find in any current sasquatch database. I believe it was told to Peter Byrne and he wrote of it in his book, which was published in the mid-1970’s.

 

This woman lived in a secluded, rural Oregon location. She either lived there alone, or would only see this saquatch when nobody else was around. She would see it and watched from, I believe, the kitchen window of her home. It was a female sasquatch, and it was noticably pregnant. It hung around her back yard for a number of days or weeks. Then one day the woman watched as this sasquatch gave birth just in the woods from the open area of her back yard. Some period of time later, both female sasquatch and baby stopped showing up.

 

Later in life, through personal experience (especially with moose), I came to realize that animals have specific types of environments, patterns, and behaviors that they prefer when they give birth, primarily because all infant creatures are potential prey, even those of apex predators like humans, bears, wolves, pumas, etc. This woman’s story sounded valid because it fit all traits common with the criteria, including a woman's intuition to let this creature bear its young in private and safety. 

 

That isn’t the only lesser known report of a pregnant sasquatch that has impressed me, either........ 

Maybe I didn't make my post too clear . I believe that they exist it's just now with the internet there are 100's if not 1000's of people who call into these podcast shows and tell about seeing these creatures multiple times on a regular basis and not some fleeting glimpse or night time encounter but daytime where they stand there for good amounts of time.

 

I saw something for 4 or 5 seconds once and I'm not sure what it was but my first thought after was why didn't I have my camcorder ready .

 

But they never think to take a good photograph or a good video . It doesn't sound believable to me at least . I think a lot of people just out right lie about these encounters .

 

 

Edited by 7.62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I agree, and I'm sure plenty if them are fabrications. Glickman theorized on this in his report:

 

http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

 

..........Let’s assume that manufactured reports will be uni- formly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Big- foot, which may influence the density of manufacturing.



 

The author speculates that Group A and Group B repre- sent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to popu- lation, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green’s data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result...........

 

I suggest that all types of sightings present a percentage of fabrications, and some which are accurate. Believe it or not, there really are people out there who don't care about "discovery" or whether or not you believe them. Many sightings we will never hear about.......maybe the majority. I believe rhat members of my wife's family who lived in a sasquatch hotspot have had experiences that they won't even share with family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62

I'm sure there's that very ,very small percentage that has no interest in proving it to anyone but that is more of the exception . I also agree with you that many sightings we will never hear

about it due to several factors but I think the least of them would be that they have no interest in discovery . Some people think they would be thought of as crazy so they might just tell family . But when it comes to people calling into these shows that claim multiple sightings with no photographs or video It is fabricated nonsense .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
12 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Has anyone you have run across claiming that they come in contact with Bigfoot on a regular basis, but to take a picture of one would be rude?

 

Or a DNA sample from eaten fruit? Betrayal?

 

Or a hair sample? Horrifying?

 

But yet Bigfoot tells them telepathically X,Y or Z and you are to accept that as fact? And if you don't? They become irate?

 

No one comes to mind like that? If you cant think of anyone? I cannot help you...

 

   This post nails it.   I have never met a single person who holds the claim of prolonged habituation that can provide a single piece of tangible evidence that can support their statements. The proof and evidence I have gotten to look at has about as much heft or substance as an empty paper plate sitting on someone backyard bird bath.   They will come up with the most ridiculous and unfounded statements to defend their position of not sharing ( even though they continue to post hinting statements on a public forum ).   IF such individuals do have such a situation going on then they are incredibility selfish ( they have to feel special somehow ) and either do not care about the species or they are entirely ignorant of the importance of the situation.    

 

   The truth is " being visited by bigfoot " is not an everyday thing so it makes you cool, special or unique, this is something people grasp onto to give them some degree of self worth or importance.   It is entirely psychological.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454

See the right hand bottom left?

 

Image result for skunk ape

Edited by RedHawk454

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
13 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

.........But when it comes to people calling into these shows that claim multiple sightings with no photographs or video It is fabricated nonsense .

 

I would agree with that. Those shows are like the Jerry Springer show. They feed the nonsense, then profit on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454

I know in the south there were a lot of primates that escaped (mainly Orangutans and chimps) from holding because of hurricanes and tropical storms back in the 1850's all the way up to the 60's

 

I even read somewhere all animals were imported from Africa through NOLA back then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said:

See the right hand bottom left?

 

Image result for skunk ape

 

I do..... yes? What of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
4 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I'm sure there's that very ,very small percentage that has no interest in proving it to anyone but that is more of the exception . I also agree with you that many sightings we will never hear

about it due to several factors but I think the least of them would be that they have no interest in discovery . Some people think they would be thought of as crazy so they might just tell family . But when it comes to people calling into these shows that claim multiple sightings with no photographs or video It is fabricated nonsense .

 

I disagree that the ones who don't want to prove it are in the minority.

 

If I had a sighting and became a knower, that's all I would really need....and I wouldn't stress about other people not believing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

For many years I thought a sasquatch should be killed in order to prove their existence. After a few years debating with the skeptic community on the James Randi forum, and as society has polarized politically and ideologically, I have come to a complete reversal in my opinion. If people are so vociferous and militant in how they understand the world, whether that understanding is based on truth or a fantasy, let them steep in that world. Why should I care if they accept reality or not?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62
58 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

I disagree that the ones who don't want to prove it are in the minority.

 

If I had a sighting and became a knower, that's all I would really need....and I wouldn't stress about other people not believing me.

Isn't that the reason most seek out this journey ? To prove it ? BFRO members and every other group and youtube folks who have channels showing structures , prints , howls etc..?

 

I think you are the minority of researchers .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
13 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

Isn't that the reason most seek out this journey ? To prove it ?.........

 

I believe most start the journey with that desire. Many peter out in skepticism when the mystery continues without solution. Many die with the goal of discovery. 

 

And some get real quiet..........

 

.........BFRO members and every other group and youtube folks who have channels showing structures , prints , howls etc..?........

 

I'm not so sure about some of those organizations. For example, consider BFRO. I think after "Finding Bigfoot", and after their successful "expeditions", where they charge people lots of money for camping trips where little rocks get tossed at you in the dark, and thumping on trees can be heard in the distance, maybe "discovery" (where government takes complete control of the "industry") might not be such a great thing..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62
10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

 

And some get real quiet..........

Maybe I guess but still will go back to those being the very small minority  of researchers . It takes a very special type of person to fall into that category .

A researcher who has indisputable proof  but decides to keep it only to themselves is not common in my opinion . I would go as far as saying it would only be a hand full of people so to speak.

 

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
3 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

........A researcher who has indisputable proof  but decides to keep it only to themselves is not common in my opinion . I would go as far as saying it would only be a hand full of people so to speak.

 

First of all, there is really no such thing as "indisputable proof". Even if you dumped a carcass on a coroner's table or dragged in a cage with a live creature in it, some Bozo will argue that it's a mutant or is a man suffering from a unique disease. For example, that is exactly what happened with the discovery of the Homo floresiensis skeletons on Flores. 

 

If any researchers have "proof" (for example, they're co-habitating with them in close study ala Goodall/Fossey), it would still behoove them to keep quiet about it as long as they could. In fact, the government would likely cooperate with such activity in order to learn as much about them as possible before the world started their BS about what to do with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62
28 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

First of all, there is really no such thing as "indisputable proof". Even if you dumped a carcass on a coroner's table or dragged in a cage with a live creature in it, some Bozo will argue that it's a mutant or is a man suffering from a unique disease. For example, that is exactly what happened with the discovery of the Homo floresiensis skeletons on Flores. 

 

If any researchers have "proof" (for example, they're co-habitating with them in close study ala Goodall/Fossey), it would still behoove them to keep quiet about it as long as they could. In fact, the government would likely cooperate with such activity in order to learn as much about them as possible before the world started their BS about what to do with them.

That was before they discovered more of them , at first they thought it was a child .but after more discoveries the arguments stopped .

I have to disagree with you on the indisputable proof  , I believe with a body  it would be established  or even a recent skeletal remains would be enough (not fossilized ones). I agree that there will always be some bozo saying something or other  but in the end science would prevail on it being a new discovered animal .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×