Jump to content
OhioSquatch

Missing 411

Recommended Posts

Huntster
On 3/14/2020 at 12:45 AM, wiiawiwb said:

If something is flesh and blood, it can be defended against regardless of being outmatched physically.  If something is paranormal, how does one hope to protect oneself against it?.......

 

Paranormally.

 

 

........When out alone in the backcountry, especially at night, it is not the thoughts of a stealthy sasquatch encircling my camp that can keep me sleepless. It is wondering how I could defend myself against something out there that is paranormal or not of this earth.  If that time ever comes, it's not my decision of whether I'm taken or left alone.

 

The dangers to one when zipped up in a sleeping bag like a breakfast burrito and in a tent are based upon unpreparedness and the vulnerability of a fabric shelter that also completely eliminates visibility of the dangers outside. Fear enters the equation, and that is valid fear. Merely getting my sidearm in my hand quells much if that, because that fabric can't stop a bullet from exiting like it can stop my body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I never liked the idea of being entrapped in a small space and not knowing what's outside.  Other than below-freezing nights, my backpacking tent(s) are almost all netting rather than fabric. That allows you to be able to see everything around you and, of course, everything to see you.  Nothing will sneak up on me unless I'm asleep and I rarely get much sleep when out in the woods.

 

Even if it is an unproductive sasquatching night, it is still a joy to be able to lie back and see the blanket of stars above you and everything around you. Less than a month I will be out under the stars!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug

I am much the same. I never slept in a tent, camper or trailer until I was in my 40s. Even now, if it is nice out, I will sleep on a air mattress out side of the tent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I'm also a fan of mesh tents / bivys unless weather dictates otherwise.   I like mesh to keep the skeeters and yellowjackets at bay while avoiding the condensation I get from a regular tent or bivy, especially the smaller backpacking sizes.  I'll use a tarp overhead a few feet to keep the condensation / dew off if needed.   I've got 2 tents that breath well so they don't get much condensation but they are also very cold if the wind is blowing.     My notion of idea ... well, I'm a big fan of Western Mountaineering semi-rectangular bags and I wish they'd offer one with the Gore Windstopper shell without having to go with a bag with a sub-zero rating.   That shell on bags from 25 to 45 degrees would have great utility where I hike.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Western Mountaineering is the benchmark by which all sleeping bags are measured.  Their testing is rock solid and if the bag says its rated to 20F you can take that to the bank.  I have two WM bags. The Caribou which is a microfiber 35F bag and a Lynx -10F down bag.

 

I've migrated to quilts and have a 10F Enlightened Equipment as my go to.  When it's below freezing, I open up the WM Caribou (microfiber) and put it on top of me and the EE quilt on top of that.  That way, as I perspire during the night, the microfiber will wick the moisture to the next layer above.  Were I to put the down bag on top of me, I'd risk wetting out the down, having it freeze, and potentially get into trouble.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaveMan

The answer here is simple. Paulides does believe it’s Bigfoot responsible for those cases. He won’t say that because he doesn’t know what Bigfoot is exactly and none of us do. That’s why he won’t just attribute it to one thing. He’s avoiding the “what is Bigfoot conversation” which his leaning towards the paranormal side of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
19 hours ago, CaveMan said:

The answer here is simple. Paulides does believe it’s Bigfoot responsible for those cases. He won’t say that because he doesn’t know what Bigfoot is exactly and none of us do. That’s why he won’t just attribute it to one thing. He’s avoiding the “what is Bigfoot conversation” which his leaning towards the paranormal side of things. 

I have spoken with him a couple of times as well as following his work... and could not disagree with you more.  While there might be a couple of cases that could be attributed to Sasquatch predation, the vast majority of them are not related in the slightest to Bigfoot.  Nor does he seem to believe so.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

@wiiawiwb @MIB

@Doug 

 

Squatching in the Smokies is so sketchy there is almost always a need for a rain fly if not a bombproof tent and not mesh; star-gazing almost always means getting above the rain first, depending on season.  To stay on topic, I am not a fan of being wet on the ground, Paulides or 411 propaganda, over and out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Just curious, what is the propaganda, of 411 propaganda, that you're not fond of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
11 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Just curious, what is the propaganda, of 411 propaganda, that you're not fond of?

 

In my case: the way he tries to half-lead the person through a story without committing to what the cause of the disappearance is, and his at least one time association with the Melba Ketchum farce doesn't help either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Isn’t the point of the series that these are unsolved cases, aka mysterious disappearances?   He’s elating the story, he doesn’t know the cause or he’d solve it. Unless I’m missing something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I fully accept aspects of sasquatches abducting homo sapiens, especially women and children. Such behavior has been common throughout primitive human history. 

 

I can also accept cases of occasional sasquatch predation on homo sapiens. That, too, is an occasional reality.

 

But I have to wonder about cases like Albert Ostman and Muchalat Harry. Why would a sasquatch abduct a grown man? Within the homo sapien family, the only reason that occurs is slavery/bondage...........or hostage taking. I suppose curiosity might be another motive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExTrumpet
2 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

In my case: the way he tries to half-lead the person through a story without committing to what the cause of the disappearance is, and his at least one time association with the Melba Ketchum farce doesn't help either. 

 

I haven't researched in great detail, but I seem to remember that Ketchum's case was dismissed by skeptics on semantics, not necessarily on the actual evidence?  Somebody refresh my memory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

I fully accept aspects of sasquatches abducting homo sapiens, especially women and children. Such behavior has been common throughout primitive human history. 

 

I can also accept cases of occasional sasquatch predation on homo sapiens. That, too, is an occasional reality.

 

But I have to wonder about cases like Albert Ostman and Muchalat Harry. Why would a sasquatch abduct a grown man? Within the homo sapien family, the only reason that occurs is slavery/bondage...........or hostage taking. I suppose curiosity might be another motive.

In the case of adult hunters,   I can think of two BF motives for capturing or killing.     Revenge might be one if they or a relative were shot and injured or the relative killed at some point in time by a hunter.    The other is cannibalism (if that definition even applies).      An older BF may slow down so much that they cannot run down a deer.   We see the same thing in old or sick cougars attacking humans they would not ordinarily attack.   For all we know BF cannibalize their own dead.  Some human cultures have done that for religious purposes.  If so,   eating an older human may be part of their culture.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 hours ago, ExTrumpet said:

I haven't researched in great detail, but I seem to remember that Ketchum's case was dismissed by skeptics on semantics, not necessarily on the actual evidence?  Somebody refresh my memory...


A bit of both.   Not just skeptics, though, but also proponents (including "knowers" like me).

 

On semantics, a science paper has a very rigid format for presenting the information.   Ketchum has an advanced degree.  She has followed that format many, likely hundreds, of times, else she wouldn't have gotten her degree.   And yet she refused to do it with something this important .. why?    The main breakdown was that the conclusion for the paper has to reflect and interpret the experimental results.   She flatly failed to connect those dots.   Her conclusion was a rambling opinion piece without substantive connection to the rest of the paper.

 

On evidence, on paper content, she fell flat in two ways.   First, she claimed to provide data for full genomes.   She presented less than 10% enough volume of data to represent a full genome.   There is no way around this simple fact.   She is truly a subject matter expert, she cannot NOT know this.   She did it anyway which gives the appearance of deliberate deception .. scientific fraud.   In the second way, there was something flawed in her methodology.   She came up with gibberish data by using the "next gen" sequencing on DNA sequences that were too short to correctly assemble.   She ignored what should have been red flags regarding her intermediate results and rather than back up to reconsider her methods, she plowed forward putting forth irrational assessments of the data.  

 

I truly wish Ketchum had been right in concept and forthright in presentation.   She was not.   I would love to have a private confab with her to see if there is some way I'm overlooking something.  I wouldn't expect it to turn out well.  So far, when confronted with these seemingly irrefutable facts, rather than address the substance of the question she has attacked the questioner.    That is the behavior of a sociopath and narcissist, not a scientist. 

 

In the end, bigfoot is still out there to be discovered.   What Ketchum accomplished, rather than providing the protection she said she was trying for, she made proof of existence almost inseparable from putting one or more on a slab.   DNA and pictures might have been enough before her.  They no longer are.  If you want to prove existence, you're going to have to kill one.   Thanks, Doc.  Thanks.  :(  

 

MIB

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...