The "How To Hunt" Channel and Sasquatch Commentary

[norseman]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Norseman, I'd say then , at the most, they are only wasting their time.  That doesn't violate any tenet of science or rule of law that I'm aware of, so you might want to ask yourself why you care. Thing is, there are a whole lot of people out there who have drawn their own conclusions and have come to realize that waiting on Science to acknowledge something they know for a fact to be true is even a BIGGER waste of time and they've just moved on to finding out as much as they can before they die. Some day we might be grateful to these people that they felt this way. Or maybe they die in obscurity having squandered their life doing something foolish. Who knows which it will be? If I did I would be at the OTB parlor right now instead of here. I can say with some certainty though that they do it for the same reasons people do most things: They can't help themselves.  That YOU think they should be operating on a higher level of scientific rigor and not putting the Sasquatch before the cart is your trip, not theirs. 

Hey it’s a free country! Agreed! I’m not beating up the people that quietly go about their business and enjoy the outdoors. 

 

Here is the rub. If you start a YouTube channel about a cryptid animal? And you get pissed about people asking for proof? Your gonna be pissed a lot.....

 

If you post up picture after picture of shadows in bushes and claim they are Bigfoot? Your gonna be pissed a lot.....

 

If you post up pictures of stick structures claiming Bigfoot builds them? Your gonna be pissed a lot!

 

The moral of the story is? Don’t make claims you cannot back up. Because other people have the same right to form an opinion as you do. If you do not like dissenting views? Don’t put yourself out there. Simple.

 

 

[WSA]

Oh, I agree with that.  If you expect people to oooh and aaah over your almost-research, you are in it for the wrong reasons too.

[NatFoot]

22 hours ago, WSA said:

NatFoot.....You sure about that? Because the way I see it, we can't afford to declare anyone's efforts futile. For one, we have no way to be sure at this point. Two,  they are going to be doing it whether we think it is useful or not. Might as well not rule out the possibility that they might come up with something worthwhile.   Finally, I'd say that anything with  thumbs and the brain to operate them is capable of manipulating anything in the environment within its reach. This seems to be something nobody can reasonably dispute. You saying you have certainty as to what a BF would, and would not care to do with its time strikes me as pretty bold. Do tell..what is the basis of that opinion?   

 

You're hearing what you want to. I never said their efforts were futile. I said they were not documenting species behavior because no one knows if they do it or not.

 

On the long chance they do...what are you learning about stick teepees in the woods without seeing them being created or a creature reacting to it? No one has come forward saying they've seen either...or at least no one credible.

 

So, like I said...if you enjoy it and the "what if" aspect of maybe being right, go have fun in the woods. But those people are not scientifically documenting the behavior of a species. That's a bridge too far. It's a hobby right now.

Edited March 7, 2020 by NatFoot

[BobbyO]

On 3/3/2020 at 3:48 AM, Huntster said:

The only interest I really had in this guy was the fact that he's a professional hunting guide. Folks, hunting guides in Alaska are universally sasquatch disbelievers or are perfectly silent on the issue. If they talk belief, it's at the lowest possible volumn, and likely in a one-on-one conversation. I don't know why that is, but I can guess. So when this guy started putting his staunch belief, along with an "I don't give a **** if you believe me or not" attitude, I was pretty impressed. And his attitude about killing one is similar to mine, I think, and I'm pretty confident that's because he knows what kind of trouble that would bring him. 

 

He's in a great position to get a good pic one day. He spends a lot of time glossing some prime sasquatch habitat.

 

I'm still struggling to work out what he's all about.

 

I see the numbers in his subscribers and video hits (good luck to him) taking prominence over everything to be honest and I see him getting a little giddy with each video that passes it seems, especially if he has taken some criticism somewhere but aside from that, i'm not a seeing a great deal else but a new "BF Celeb" type character.

 

Apt that he promoted Sas Chronicles recently, I see him becoming one of those guys with that cult type following things going on with "fan groups" etc like them.

 

Oh well, if we were all the same it would be boring anyway..;)

[BlackRockBigfoot]

On 3/7/2020 at 4:23 PM, NatFoot said:

 

You're hearing what you want to. I never said their efforts were futile. I said they were not documenting species behavior because no one knows if they do it or not.

 

On the long chance they do...what are you learning about stick teepees in the woods without seeing them being created or a creature reacting to it? No one has come forward saying they've seen either...or at least no one credible.

 

So, like I said...if you enjoy it and the "what if" aspect of maybe being right, go have fun in the woods. But those people are not scientifically documenting the behavior of a species. That's a bridge too far. It's a hobby right now.

We have found all sorts of strangeness in the woods.  Strange prints, objects and symbols left on our previously clear path, seen dark figures that looked man-shaped in the brush, heard strange calls... even what sounded like the stereotypical samurai chatter, although it was higher pitched and not as 'powerful'...

 

The one thing that we haven't seen is an 8 foot tall hairy biped caught in the act of causing any of these, so I can't say that what we are seeing is the result of Sasquatch.  I would like to assume that some of the activity we encounter is related to Sasquatch due to the proximity of eyewitness accounts where people claim to see them...but at the end of the day I don't know.  

 

Maybe there are other things out there or maybe there are some extremely athletic and creative methbillies who have taken a shine to messing with us on a regular basis. 

 

Maybe it's Bigfoot. 

 

Until I catch one in the act I won't know.  And until I dump a mag of 10mm into one and haul at least part of it in I won't expect anyone to blindly believe me.  I don't care if people think that I am crazy for looking for these things.  If I hadn't had the experiences that I have had I would think that the whole thing is crazy myself.  

 

 

[ioyza]

On 3/7/2020 at 3:23 PM, NatFoot said:

I said they were not documenting species behavior because no one knows if they do it or not.

 

Funny you should be going on about this at the exact same time I'm listening to this podcast with a guest reporting seeing a group of sasquatch building a teepee: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-d6u75-d57524?utm_campaign=u_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=u_share

 

It's like any of these purported behaviors, whether it be wood knocks or rock throwing or deer kills up in trees or anything else; if it's seemingly anomalous, and you encounter it in conjunction with other bigfoot activity, and it's commonly reported with similar adjacent activity by other witnesses/researchers, we can start to have some reasonable certainty and build on these hypotheses.

 

Or we can kick our feet about how no one can know anything in this field. That's pretty much the divide in a nutshell, with regards to approach and philosophy toward learning about sasquatch.

[norseman]

56 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

Funny you should be going on about this at the exact same time I'm listening to this podcast with a guest reporting seeing a group of sasquatch building a teepee: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-d6u75-d57524?utm_campaign=u_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=u_share

 

It's like any of these purported behaviors, whether it be wood knocks or rock throwing or deer kills up in trees or anything else; if it's seemingly anomalous, and you encounter it in conjunction with other bigfoot activity, and it's commonly reported with similar adjacent activity by other witnesses/researchers, we can start to have some reasonable certainty and build on these hypotheses.

 

Or we can kick our feet about how no one can know anything in this field. That's pretty much the divide in a nutshell, with regards to approach and philosophy toward learning about sasquatch.

 

I get that videos are not going to prove anything.

 

With that said if you watch a group of bigfeet build a teepee over Im guessing a decent amount of time? Do you own a cell phone? 

 

At least if you make a claim like that? You have some evidence to support it. Even if it’s inconclusive.

 

[Twist]

2 hours ago, ioyza said:

It's like any of these purported behaviors, whether it be wood knocks or rock throwing or deer kills up in trees or anything else; if it's seemingly anomalous, and you encounter it in conjunction with other bigfoot activity, and it's commonly reported with similar adjacent activity by other witnesses/researchers, we can start to have some reasonable certainty and build on these hypotheses.

if the other activities are also only theorized to be BF related than you are using unknowns to justify or verify other unknowns.    It’s like defining a word with a previously undefined word.    
 

The base root of this problem comes down to the mountains of claims with virtually zero proof and very little evidence.  Why is BF seen in so many parts of N.America yet the 50+ yr old PGF the best video evidence to date?   Not even a single picture in that time that tops the PGF.  

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

The base root of this problem comes down to the mountains of claims with virtually zero proof and very little evidence.  Why is BF seen in so many parts of N.America yet the 50+ yr old PGF the best video evidence to date?   Not even a single picture in that time that tops the PGF.

 

Is, and remains, a fair question.   I can't give you an answer, only tell you that I'm trying to find out.    I am convinced the PGF is legit.   That means those two cowboys look luckier and luckier every year that passes.  

 

MIB

[7.62]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I get that videos are not going to prove anything.

 

With that said if you watch a group of bigfeet build a teepee over Im guessing a decent amount of time? Do you own a cell phone? 

 

At least if you make a claim like that? You have some evidence to support it. Even if it’s inconclusive.

 

With me it's just my bullshit meter that pegs when ever someone claims to have all these multiple encounters . Come on 

As rare as it is to even have ONE encounter and we have people that call in saying they have had all these encounters .

 

I guess it could be some people do hear a noise or catch a glimpse of a shadow and just assume it's a bigfoot . If you're always looking for bigfoot then

everything you see in the woods is bigfoot 

[Twist]

33 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Is, and remains, a fair question.   I can't give you an answer, only tell you that I'm trying to find out.    I am convinced the PGF is legit.   That means those two cowboys look luckier and luckier every year that passes.  

 

MIB

 

Lucky indeed if its true.  

 

15 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

With me it's just my bullshit meter that pegs when ever someone claims to have all these multiple encounters . Come on 

As rare as it is to even have ONE encounter and we have people that call in saying they have had all these encounters .

 

I guess it could be some people do hear a noise or catch a glimpse of a shadow and just assume it's a bigfoot . If you're always looking for bigfoot then

everything you see in the woods is bigfoot 

 

Agreed, many in the field of BF see them everywhere, that definitely raises red flags.    

[7.62]

3 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

 

 

 

Agreed, many in the field of BF see them everywhere, that definitely raises red flags.    

Agree

and I don't think all are telling tall tales . I really think many of them truly believe they are having encounters or Sasquatch is mind speaking to them.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

.......Why is BF seen in so many parts of N.America yet the 50+ yr old PGF the best video evidence to date?   Not even a single picture in that time that tops the PGF.  

 

The PGF is simply the best photographic evidence we have, and it comes with excellent casted footprints, two witnesses, and independent people on the scene within 72 hours who photographed the prints........and a government employee, to boot. 

 

But the 1994 Freeman film at Deduct Springs also came with excellent casted prints. The film isn't as good, isn't as long, and the foliage hides the animal below the knees, and Paul Freeman was the only man there, but he also had 15 years of experience in the area and recorded lots of footprint finds over those years on a topographic map. I think it falls in right behind the PGF as photographic evidence. 

[Twist]

Freeman footage doesn’t really do to much for me in terms video evidence.  I understand it has the casts to go with it.  I don’t dismiss it completely but it’s no where near the level of the PGF IMO.

[MIB]

I don't think multiple encounters is a deal breaker.   It might be if it were YOU and you were finding them everywhere you go, but if a person is fortunate (?) enough to spend a lot of time in one specific location and it is near enough where the BFs spend time for whatever reason, then multiple encounter over time is as probable for that person as it is improbable for the person who only goes camping a couple times a year, each in a different spot, and yet seems to run into bigfoot everywhere.   In other words, if you are expecting constant identical results for everyone, you're off-target.   Just as species' sizes, weights, etc vary along a bell curve, so do their concentrations.   If you are where they are, there can seem to be many, if you are where they are not, they can seem to be imaginary.    So ... expect variation .. in everything .. if you're dealing with something real.   Rather than immediately dismissing such people, take a very hard look at the locations their reported encounters come from and see if the locations are "reasonable."   (Expect to have to learn in the process because we don't actually know what reasonable is, we only have stereotypes which can mislead.) 

 

I guess I'm saying caution in everything ... caution in acceptance, but also caution in dismissal.

 

MIB