Guest Cervelo Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Only that they occasionally use field glasses too when they do it.....j/k, couldn't resist Why not he has plenty of experience in making up animal behavior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsalagi Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Questionable Remark of the Week: Frozen Sasquatch in WA episode: MM makes the statement, "mountain lions and bears are known to go to the top of a mountain just to survey the surroundings" as an attempt to explain why a bigfoot would be at such a spot as seen in the Silver Star pictures. WTH?! Being from a region that has lots of bears and cougars, I have NEVER heard of this. Anyone else? I almost wet myself laughing over this comment. Now that I have composed myself, I want to confirm from any hunters, biologists, zoologist, cougar and bear-ologists... has anyone actually ever truly heard that this happens? All I can picture is a mountain lion hiking up a mountain peak in snowshoes and busting out its binoculars to take a look round. Now in regards to the show, I'm actually happy with the show and its pretty much exactly what I was expecting it to be. It's not a show about bigfoot, it's a show about a particular group of "investigators" and their efforts in fieldwork. Anyone who actually thought there was going to be a sasquatch or definitive evidence presented were just fooling themselves. I always thought cougars climbed up on rocky ledges and cliffs occasionally just slightly above their prey to get a better look...never heard of them climbing up to the top of a mountain peak. They would have to race back down to chase that bunny rabbit they saw in the field glasses and that would be tiring. I know bear climb up trees to take naps and to retreat when they feel threatened; however, I've never heard of bear climbing mountain tops. If anything there is less food the higher up you go. Bear do tend to use scent to find food and do not survey the valley below by sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Derekfoot and other will tell you that animals use ridgelines to cross a range, but it doesnt means that can see prey w a a a y off in the distance and want to stalk it. The times I've camped higher up with a buddy, I've had to ask the question "what the %$#!@" would BF be doing up here? There's isnt squat up here to eat or look at." So unless BF wants to get away from the skeeters while waiting for game on a peak so he can punt them off the side of a ridge, I can't imagine why one would be there. We could speculate that they climb peaks in order to observe Mt St. Helens or Mt. Ranier etc, or looking down an entire range for bearings, but even that's just speculation. Why did BF cross the mountain? To get to the other side. . Edited June 29, 2011 by CaptainMorgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Questionable Remark of the Week: Frozen Sasquatch in WA episode: MM makes the statement, "mountain lions and bears are known to go to the top of a mountain just to survey the surroundings" as an attempt to explain why a bigfoot would be at such a spot as seen in the Silver Star pictures. WTH?! Being from a region that has lots of bears and cougars, I have NEVER heard of this. Anyone else? I almost wet myself laughing over this comment. Now that I have composed myself, I want to confirm from any hunters, biologists, zoologist, cougar and bear-ologists... has anyone actually ever truly heard that this happens? All I can picture is a mountain lion hiking up a mountain peak in snowshoes and busting out its binoculars to take a look round. Now in regards to the show, I'm actually happy with the show and its pretty much exactly what I was expecting it to be. It's not a show about bigfoot, it's a show about a particular group of "investigators" and their efforts in fieldwork. Anyone who actually thought there was going to be a sasquatch or definitive evidence presented were just fooling themselves. Theres only one animal I know of stupid enough to climb to the top of a mountain just to look around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The Silver Star "sasquatch" was more likely some hiker in a snowsuit, or this fella: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2240888009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 In response to MM's theory about BFs hunting deer by grabbing their back legs and breaking them, as lifelong hunter I am going to have to see that one to believe it. In my opinion, that has to be the most unlikely way for any kind of predator, especially a large bulky one, to hunt or catch a deer or elk. It is pretty dangerous for the predator as well, considering how sharp the hooves of deer are and how hard they can kick. I'd be interested in seeing some other experienced hunters post their thoughts on the topic, maybe in a new thread. I am a lifelong hunter as well, and have been reading the 'naysayer' side of the rear-leg breaks, and wanted to drop my .02 into the well, as well:) (And Surveyor...Not saying you are a naysayer at all. Was referencing a majority of the other posts) I know people think that MM gets 'carried' away with some of his theories, and excitement for every bump in the night, but when you know for an undeniable fact that these creatures are real, you tend to start viewing some of this circumstantial evidence, vocalizations, knocking, etc in a different light. I'm not sure if Matt knows for a fact, but I do, and can somewhat relate to the zeal, and enthusiasm when you come across evidence of this nature, when people essentially pooh-pooh it, or assign it to any known predator, or happenchance circumstance. Being from the camp that believes that Sasquatches hunt/eat elk, and deer, I assume that they would have a tried/proven method for making their kills, and leg breaks seems like the most efficient way for them to execute a kill, IMO. I know that a lot of the top apex predators attack the neck, but we are talking about a creature that is more like us, than our four-legged friends with sharp teeth, claws, and probably more speed, and quickness. I think there are probably a couple of reasons for going for the legs. One being that they possess opposable thumbs, and would be easiest way to grab the deer, and is probably the closest part of the animal that they can get to when they go in for the kill. And two..Kicking with their rear legs are how deer/elk defend themselves. If you snap it's rear legs it can't go anywhere, and can't defend itself, and then I'd imagine blunt force trauma by it's fist/rock, or neck snapping is used to finish it off. It also boils down to risk/reward. If a Squatch were to get kicked in the abdomen, or in it's legs, it could very well end up being fatal. So if they used the leg break, it kills two birds with one stone. Animal can't move, and can't attack, and they have a large amount of protein with minimal effort, and risk. I could be totally wrong, but it just seems like the most logical way to me. I also think they'd hunt in groups with pushing/flanking/ambushing, so I could be way off-base in the first place:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Wow. Very interesting -- a lot more cynicism than I expected from bigfooter's. Do you think some of this is the "Crab Pot" theory? The collective subject of Bigfoot finally get's a dedicated Series on Animal Planet, but the Bigfooting "community" at large would like nothing more than to see these folks fail??? The concept is fine. Maybe if they changed the approach and spent more time on the research or evidence and procedure? The show seems to be more about the four crusaders racing around the country then about finding Bf. Nor sure what a thermal vid will do ? it will prove nothing except raise more questions IMO. " Yep, there goes something big running away from us (again) go get'em Matt " That part of the show was funny. JMO tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) <br />The concept is fine. Maybe if they changed the approach and spent more time on the research or evidence and procedure? The show seems to be more about the four crusaders racing around the country then about finding Bf. Nor sure what a thermal vid will do ? it will prove nothing except raise more questions IMO. <br /><br />" Yep, there goes something big running away from us (again) go get'em Matt " That part of the show was funny. <img src="http://bigfootforums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> JMO tracker <img src="http://bigfootforums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> Well, Finding Bigfoot will soon have competition from the Sanger Paranormal Society's (SPS) upcoming new show (the reason behind their latest publicity stunt with the window prints): http://www.sangerpar...com/secret.html The SPS will cover more than Bigfoot, But, when they are up against Finding Bigfoot in the Bigfoot category, it's going to be interesting to see what each show will do for ratings. Edited June 29, 2011 by Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Well, Finding Bigfoot will soon have competition from the Sanger Paranormal Society's (SPS) upcoming new show (the reason behind their latest publicity stunt with the window prints): http://www.sangerpar...com/secret.html The SPS will cover more than Bigfoot, But, when they are up against Finding Bigfoot in the Bigfoot category, it's going to be interesting to see what each show will do for ratings. Yea there's going to be some spin offs if the ratings merit slicing it up. I hope they set up camps at all these supposed sightings? It good for tv to show the excitement of the hunt. But as far as proving anything they need to zero in and stay put at one location with activity and not scare any away. JMO Rod i got a couple of buds in the AF that repair the jets. What was your trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 <br />Yea there's going to be some spin offs if the ratings merit slicing it up. I hope they set  up camps at all these supposed sightings? It good for tv to show the excitement of the hunt. But as far as proving anything they need to zero in and stay put at one location with activity and not scare any away. JMO<br /><br />Rod i got a couple of buds in the AF that repair the jets. What was your trade?<br /><br /><br /><br />I was Air Transportation. There is a brief description in my profile under, "About Me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) I am a lifelong hunter as well, and have been reading the 'naysayer' side of the rear-leg breaks, and wanted to drop my .02 into the well, as well:) (And Surveyor...Not saying you are a naysayer at all. Was referencing a majority of the other posts) I know people think that MM gets 'carried' away with some of his theories, and excitement for every bump in the night, but when you know for an undeniable fact that these creatures are real, you tend to start viewing some of this circumstantial evidence, vocalizations, knocking, etc in a different light. I'm not sure if Matt knows for a fact, but I do, and can somewhat relate to the zeal, and enthusiasm when you come across evidence of this nature, when people essentially pooh-pooh it, or assign it to any known predator, or happenchance circumstance. Being from the camp that believes that Sasquatches hunt/eat elk, and deer, I assume that they would have a tried/proven method for making their kills, and leg breaks seems like the most efficient way for them to execute a kill, IMO. I know that a lot of the top apex predators attack the neck, but we are talking about a creature that is more like us, than our four-legged friends with sharp teeth, claws, and probably more speed, and quickness. I think there are probably a couple of reasons for going for the legs. One being that they possess opposable thumbs, and would be easiest way to grab the deer, and is probably the closest part of the animal that they can get to when they go in for the kill. And two..Kicking with their rear legs are how deer/elk defend themselves. If you snap it's rear legs it can't go anywhere, and can't defend itself, and then I'd imagine blunt force trauma by it's fist/rock, or neck snapping is used to finish it off. It also boils down to risk/reward. If a Squatch were to get kicked in the abdomen, or in it's legs, it could very well end up being fatal. So if they used the leg break, it kills two birds with one stone. Animal can't move, and can't attack, and they have a large amount of protein with minimal effort, and risk. I could be totally wrong, but it just seems like the most logical way to me. I also think they'd hunt in groups with pushing/flanking/ambushing, so I could be way off-base in the first place:) PacNWSquatcher, I think I may start a new thread about this to open up critical discussion about it and to keep from hijacking this thread. In it, I will try to lay out my reasoning for disagreeing with leg grabbing as feasible method of hunting deer, etc. other than incidentally. Bear with me, though, as I have a lot of stuff to do today as will. If you or someone else happens to start a thread on it before I am able to, please PM or email me so I won't miss it! Edited June 29, 2011 by Surveyor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wood4004 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Derekfoot and other will tell you that animals use ridgelines to cross a range, but it doesnt means that can see prey w a a a y off in the distance and want to stalk it. The times I've camped higher up with a buddy, I've had to ask the question "what the %$#!@" would BF be doing up here? There's isnt squat up here to eat or look at." So unless BF wants to get away from the skeeters while waiting for game on a peak so he can punt them off the side of a ridge, I can't imagine why one would be there. We could speculate that they climb peaks in order to observe Mt St. Helens or Mt. Ranier etc, or looking down an entire range for bearings, but even that's just speculation. Why did BF cross the mountain? To get to the other side. . Actually I do not feel he is too off on his comment. I have been hunting, hiking and camping in the Adirondack High Peaks for over 25 years. I have seen quite a few bears and other animals at higher elevations. Is he right about going up to look around, not sure. In bird species birds are known to go to the higher branches to make their calls. The Northern Cardinal for instance. In doing so their call is sent through a larger area. This could be a reason for them to go to higher elevation. The thing that bothers me with Finding Bigfoot is there seems to be so much prejudice against Matt Moneymaker that everything else gets thrown out. Haven't checked Cliff's blog on this episode yet, but if he hasn't addressed it you could always send him a note from his site and see what he says about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wood4004 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Derekfoot and other will tell you that animals use ridgelines to cross a range, but it doesnt means that can see prey w a a a y off in the distance and want to stalk it. The times I've camped higher up with a buddy, I've had to ask the question "what the %$#!@" would BF be doing up here? There's isnt squat up here to eat or look at." So unless BF wants to get away from the skeeters while waiting for game on a peak so he can punt them off the side of a ridge, I can't imagine why one would be there. We could speculate that they climb peaks in order to observe Mt St. Helens or Mt. Ranier etc, or looking down an entire range for bearings, but even that's just speculation. Why did BF cross the mountain? To get to the other side. . Actually I do not feel he is too off on his comment. I have been hunting, hiking and camping in the Adirondack High Peaks for over 25 years. I have seen quite a few bears and other animals at higher elevations. Is he right about going up to look around, not sure. In bird species birds are known to go to the higher branches to make their calls. The Northern Cardinal for instance. In doing so their call is sent through a larger area. This could be a reason for them to go to higher elevation. The thing that bothers me with Finding Bigfoot is there seems to be so much prejudice against Matt Moneymaker that everything else gets thrown out. Haven't checked Cliff's blog on this episode yet, but if he hasn't addressed it you could always send him a note from his site and see what he says about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I might well indeed be too off on my comment, and I will be the first to stand corrected on any BF related speculation, not offended in the least. I'm not a life long hunter, but I did watch a lot of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fud growing up. No doubt there are bears up there. And birds. And cougars, and anything else that decides to just mozy on up a couple of thousand feet via the scenic tour. And I would not dispute the logic that sound travels further without obstruction, even if the air is a tad thinner. I think a BF has a larger lung capacity than a cardinal but I'll stand down on that one. When I'm up there looking down, down at more trees, down at water, down at roads, down at meadows, I see a banquet. What's down there? Brooks, streams, lakes. They have fish. Ponds at high altitude are less likely to have fish. I look down there, and I see a dense tree canopy. What's in the dense tree canopy besides shade and seclusion? Squirrels, rodents, rabbits, frogs, varmints, and those little birds running around. I see more berries at lower elevations. More lichens. More broad leaf plants and orchids. Of course bear and deer and elk wonder the slopes, so it makes sense to me that BF does too. I'm not (willingly) part of that ecosystem or food chain and I'm not an expert at it. I just know that when I'm waaaay up some dusty old logging road near the top, which was what I was commenting on, and I see all that down there, I have to ask WTH? Why am I up here? Look at these rock slides and this pine scrap . . . looks like god's toilet bowl. Ptooey! . Edited July 1, 2011 by CaptainMorgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The thing that bothers me with Finding Bigfoot is there seems to be so much prejudice against Matt Moneymaker that everything else gets thrown out. Point taken, but remember the fable of the boy who cried wolf?! I just can't believe what MM says. Blame the editors, the other researchers in the field, the weather, the hoaxers, whatever. From believing the Sonoma hoax, the Jacobs bear pics, the Skookum elk wallow cast and now "Finding Bigfoot," MM makes a lot of extraordinary claims but does not supply extraordinary evidence to support them. If someone disagrees with him, he becomes very defensive. You must believe what he says, or you are wrong. Michael Shermer puts it nicely- "If you disagree, your reasoning is flawed; if your reasoning is flawed, it can be corrected; if you do not correct your reasoning you are flawed and do not belong in the group." http://condor.depaul.edu/gmichel/extra/Wk5-6r.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts