The "How To Hunt" Channel and Sasquatch Commentary

[BlackRockBigfoot]

24 minutes ago, MIB said:

I don't like the way the hair frames the face so .. what's the word? .. in such a distinct way.  I do expect a more or less hairless face but I expect some hair.   This seems to show a very sharp line between the skin covered face and the hair on the rest of the head.   That reeks of "mask" which points to "suit" and "hoax."   Would love to be wrong.  Maybe I am.  But I'm careful about accepting things as real w/o a higher level of confidence than I have in this one.   If it is a hoax, the guys are good actors, but .. there ARE good actors out there and these guys seem to be in front of a camera quite a bit so they'd be the right ones to hoax it in a believable way.

 

At the end of the day .. FOR ME .. I'd guess hoax but I'm not throwing it off of the table.   

 

MIB

Tim Wells is a well known how hunter.  Not sure if he ever gave a statement on this or not.

[WSA]

So much of the activity on this subject nowadays fall into the category of what I think of as Hoax Policing .  I don't have the stamina for it, and I am constantly amazed at those who do. The premise for all this effort seems to be: WE know that BF is legitimate, and any attempt by others to fraudulently misrepresent what we know to be true diminishes the truthfulness of that reality.  But does it really?

 

(O.K., granted, the research into the nature of the animal needs truthful information, but most of the Hoax Policing is just making a case for or against the veracity of a single image or short video...not a whole lot of value in those, even if legitimate)

 

I for one don't think it matters a tinker's dam.  The only hoax analysis I think that matters is the analysis done on the PGF, which still stands as the gold standard. After that? Meh.

 

Have you ever wondered that maybe the skepticism a lot of people hold about this topic is fed by the constant  sniffing out of potential hoaxes?  What if we were to just adopt this as the default reaction: Of course BigFoot exist,  this (video, photo, track, sound recording) might be evidence of that fact, or it might not be, the ultimate conclusion making no difference as to the truth of their existence or not.  

 

What I'm saying is that all the hoax policing has bid up the value of all evidence way past the point of the usefulness of that evidence, even if proven to be true. Some guys on a YouTube channel faking Squatch videos (or possibly not)? Who cares? I am past that point, I can tell you. I am sure I am not alone in that feeling too.

    

[BlackRockBigfoot]

4 minutes ago, WSA said:

So much of the activity on this subject nowadays fall into the category of what I think of as Hoax Policing .  I don't have the stamina for it, and I am constantly amazed at those who do. The premise for all this effort seems to be: WE know that BF is legitimate, and any attempt by others to fraudulently misrepresent what we know to be true diminishes the truthfulness of that reality.  But does it really?

 

(O.K., granted, the research into the nature of the animal needs truthful information, but most of the Hoax Policing is just making a case for or against the veracity of a single image or short video...not a whole lot of value in those, even if legitimate)

 

I for one don't think it matters a tinker's dam.  The only hoax analysis I think that matters is the analysis done on the PGF, which still stands as the gold standard. After that? Meh.

 

Have you ever wondered that maybe the skepticism a lot of people hold about this topic is fed by the constant  sniffing out of potential hoaxes?  What if we were to just adopt this as the default reaction: Of course BigFoot exist,  this (video, photo, track, sound recording) might be evidence of that fact, or it might not be, the ultimate conclusion making no difference as to the truth of their existence or not.  

 

What I'm saying is that all the hoax policing has bid up the value of all evidence way past the point of the usefulness of that evidence, even if proven to be true. Some guys on a YouTube channel faking Squatch videos (or possibly not)? Who cares? I am past that point, I can tell you. I am sure I am not alone in that feeling too.

    

Perfectly said.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by BlackRockBigfoot

[norseman]

I did see that video, I didn’t know that he was a legit hunter.

[wiiawiwb]

12 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Looks like a person to me, but these two hunters got an adrenaline dump off of it.

 

I put in on 1080 resolution, full screen, and slowed the speed to 25%. To me, it looks like a man in a hoodie rather than a sasquatch.

 

[NatFoot]

Hoax or Sasquatch. Actually better than most.

[MIB]

5 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

I put in on 1080 resolution, full screen, and slowed the speed to 25%. To me, it looks like a man in a hoodie rather than a sasquatch.

 

The head is carried awfully high and the neck is apparent, in other words, it doesn't seem to give the appearance of a nearly neckless head set onto massively muscled shoulders.

 

MIB

[Twist]

Makes me wonder how much physical diversity we will find in these creatures.   If they are anything like us they will vary greatly in size and shape.  

It seems to my untrained eye that apes, gorillas, etc have less diversity in their makeup, a lot look of them look the same to me. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

I watched the last couple of howtohunt videos last night.

 

As much as I like the guy and what he is trying to do, I have to admit that it is a bit much to go on a long diatribe on other researchers for not coughing up evidence when he hasn't done anything more than read emails off of his phone.  

 

Hopefully, his stated plans of big things happening soon bear fruit, but honestly...if that next to last video had been my first impression of him then I would have a similar critical feelings about him like others in this thread.

 

 

[Huntster]

The low density and overall population indicates to me a lot of inbreedng with a bit of sapien hybridization. This might result in lots of commonality.

 

But relatives in the Old World (almas, yetis, yeren, etc) might be quite a bit different than sasquatches, just like sapiens in the two hemisheres were vastly different prior to Columbus.

2 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

..........As much as I like the guy and what he is trying to do, I have to admit that it is a bit much to go on a long diatribe on other researchers for not coughing up evidence when he hasn't done anything more than read emails off of his phone.  

 

Hopefully, his stated plans of big things happening soon bear fruit,.......

 

As a hunting guide who is armed out there all the time, has he at all indicated that he might drop the next one he sees? Clayton Mack, half native American and a renowned hunting guide, had the attitude common among first peoples of not shooting one because they are clearly special.

[Twist]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The low density and overall population indicates to me a lot of inbreedng with a bit of sapien hybridization. This might result in lots of commonality.

 

But relatives in the Old World (almas, yetis, yeren, etc) might be quite a bit different than sasquatches, just like sapiens in the two hemisheres were vastly different prior to Columbus.

 

I'd agree with all but the sapiens hybridization, not sure I'd believe we could interbreed with them.  If so at best it would generate an infertile creature and end that line.   Just my guess of course. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 minute ago, Twist said:

 

I'd agree with all but the sapiens hybridization, not sure I'd believe we could interbreed with them.  If so at best it would generate an infertile creature and end that line.   Just my guess of course. 

I was working through a similar thought process.  Hybrid vigor could go a ways towards explaining their physical abilities.

 

As far as sterile hybrids go, their sterility is caused by the differing number of chromosomes between the parents...as in the case of mules or ligers.  If that chromosomal difference was not present...you might get viable fertile offspring.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The low density and overall population indicates to me a lot of inbreedng with a bit of sapien hybridization. This might result in lots of commonality.

 

But relatives in the Old World (almas, yetis, yeren, etc) might be quite a bit different than sasquatches, just like sapiens in the two hemisheres were vastly different prior to Columbus.

 

As a hunting guide who is armed out there all the time, has he at all indicated that he might drop the next one he sees? Clayton Mack, half native American and a renowned hunting guide, had the attitude common among first peoples of not shooting one because they are clearly special.

Not that I have seen.  He obviously doesn't have a very favorable impression of these creatures, so I don't think that he would have a moral objection to dropping the hammer on one.

 

 

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

I'd agree with all but the sapiens hybridization, not sure I'd believe we could interbreed with them.  If so at best it would generate an infertile creature and end that line.   Just my guess of course. 

 

Yeah, I'm basing that conjecture on the current Denisovan/Neanderthal/Sapien interbreeding theories and the common recognition among geneticists that at least two more mystery markers are out there.

3 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

.........He obviously doesn't have a very favorable impression of these creatures, so I don't think that he would have a moral objection to dropping the hammer on one.

 

That was my impression as well, but I have only watched a couple of his videos. So there is a pretty decent chance right there of a carcass on a slab. He's out there way more than the average outdoorsman, is armed, and appears willing to do the deed.......

[Bigfoot Gumbo]

Interesting video. I'll watch some of the other ones.