The "How To Hunt" Channel and Sasquatch Commentary

[trapper]

1 hour ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Must be a character flaw on my part, because when someone feels the need to continually tell you how honest they are it raises suspicion.

I see that point but I don't really notice him doing that about himself.  I think he is making the case for believing OTHER honest people who have encounters and we should trust basic hard working people in general.  

 

In either case you seem like a good guy and we sure as heck don't have to agree on everything.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, trapper said:

.........I appreciate Steve's work for really only two things I will hang my hat on.  

 

1- people ought not be made to feel ashamed for speaking of experiences that the "herd" is afraid of or judges.  In principle this holds all of humanity back in very serious ways on all levels of human engagement.   I support his energy and motive to get people to stand up on this level and call BS.

 

2- I support his point 100% that there is something wrong with peoples thinking who cannot accept the testimony of honest trustworthy people, or in this case thousands or honest trustworthy people,  many of them experienced woodsmen who have seen bigfoot.   The scientific bias and need for evidence, as needed as that is in its field, should not have us distrusting one another experiences across the board like it does in this present time.  For some people if it didn't happen in a lab-- it didn't happen.    That is dumb IMO.

 

The above principle is why Steve doesn't give a dang about people demanding proof and I agree with that completely.

 

I think he is dead right about that.  

 

Not having watched/listened to him much, these points piqued my curiosity. Do you know Isdahl's position on those folks who claim to have had pet sasquatches in their yards whom they fed blueberry pancakes to, or who they left cigarettes and Bic lighters for, or communicated with in  some sort of mind speak language? Does his St. Michael style of defense include such witnesses?

[trapper]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Not having watched/listened to him much, these points piqued my curiosity. Do you know Isdahl's position on those folks who claim to have had pet sasquatches in their yards whom they fed blueberry pancakes to, or who they left cigarettes and Bic lighters for, or communicated with in  some sort of mind speak language? Does his St. Michael style of defense include such witnesses?

You should watch his channel and see.  

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Do you know Isdahl's position on those folks who claim to have had pet sasquatches in their yards whom they fed blueberry pancakes to, or who they left cigarettes and Bic lighters for, or communicated with in  some sort of mind speak language? Does his St. Michael style of defense include such witnesses?

 

First, it was blueberry bagels though sasquatch would likely also enjoy pancakes. 

 

It would be a pretty horrific interview. The blueberry bagel lady is a talker. She can take up a lot of air time describing her perceived paranormal experiences, including mindspeak and other types of interaction. She's a difficult read. She talks about paranormal very fluently and confidently, strikes me almost as an alpha personality. She was the Erickson Project's/Melba Ketchum's former assistant, who provided media responses. Though, I don't think she composed the mails, just editorial stuff.

 

She, Igor Burtsev and Janice Carter Coy have a team up going on. Igor has spent a lot of time at both Carter Coy and blueberry bagel lady's former property doing his investigations. Now they are all buddies. 

 

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, trapper said:

You should watch his channel and see.  

 

I'll pass, thanks.

 

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

First, it was blueberry bagels though sasquatch would likely also enjoy pancakes..........

My pet sasquatch gets plenty of wild blueberries. He prefers figs, and despite me trying to convince him to stop smoking for the sake of his health, he gets downright unruly if I don't leave him Marlboro reds on occasion.......with a fresh Bic lighter, of course.......

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Huntster

[trapper]

26 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I'll pass, thanks.

 

My pet sasquatch gets plenty of wild blueberries. He prefers figs, and despite me trying to convince him to stop smoking for the sake of his health, he gets downright unruly if I don't leave him Marlboro reds on occasion.......with a fresh Bic lighter, of course.......

 

Well if you don't want to know don't ask.

Edited April 27, 2020 by trapper

[Huntster]

I did want to know. You won't tell

me. I'm not going to watch hours and hours of him talking squat.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I did want to know. You won't tell

me. I'm not going to watch hours and hours of him talking squat.

I don't think that he has addressed any accounts that get into habituation claims.  It appears that Isdahl's views and subsequent narrated encounters are evolving somewhat.  He has gone from calling them 'those damned creatures/things' that were too dangerous to pursue into describing them as 'hairy people' .  

 

No accounts of feeding them, although the last account that he posted seemed like it was ready to veer into Bigfoot erotica territory.  

 

 

[Huntster]

3 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

I don't think that he has addressed any accounts that get into habituation claims.  It appears that Isdahl's views and subsequent narrated encounters are evolving somewhat.  He has gone from calling them 'those damned creatures/things' that were too dangerous to pursue into describing them as 'hairy people' .  

 

No accounts of feeding them, although the last account that he posted seemed like it was ready to veer into Bigfoot erotica territory.  

 

I thought I read posts here indicating that he was flirting with the paranormal/UFO side of things?

 

Bugfoot erotica? Really? If that's on the table, nothing is off limits.

 

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

6 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I thought I read posts here indicating that he was flirting with the paranormal/UFO side of things?

 

Bugfoot erotica? Really? If that's on the table, nothing is off limits.

 

 

He was.  He was pretty much right in line with Carpenter's views on Sasquatch being the Nephilim and he promoted Ketchum's DNA study.

 

This is why I am a bit confused by the Bluff Creek stuff.  Carpenter had openly stated that he believes that the vast majority of Bigfoot are basically evil.  He says that a few may be good, but that the majority are basically demonic.  He thinks that they have varying abilities to cloak, have psychic powers, etc.  

 

Isdahl used to talk about Sasquatch as being extremely dangerous and no friend of man. Now, somehow, Bigfoot are still hybrids but are more human.  They are now peaceful and are unable to defend themselves against a few human hunters with guns.  It all turned on a dime and I still haven't quite figured it out.  Heck, I wouldn't know as much as I do if I wasn't stuck at home so much lately due to Covid and now the weather.

 

Carpenter seems to have lost his wariness and distrust of Sasquatch.  He is going on about how Bobby Short was sickened by the slaughter and that Gimlin and company are murderers for supposedly killing off a bunch.

 

I don't like the"Bigfoot for all seasons" approach, where the supposed nature and abilities of the creatures change to suit the current narrative.

Bigfoot erotica was a slight joking overstatement.  Very slight however.  His last written account was from a woman who was very taken by Bigfoot's masculine attributes.  I kept expecting the story to veer into R rated territory.

[Huntster]

27 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

.......Isdahl used to talk about Sasquatch as being extremely dangerous and no friend of man. Now, somehow, Bigfoot are still hybrids but are more human.  They are now peaceful and are unable to defend themselves against a few human hunters with guns.  It all turned on a dime and I still haven't quite figured it out........

 

I can understand some evolution of theory. It has sure occurred with me over the long term. For years I considered these creatures as bipedal apes. Now I consider them to be hominins. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

15 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I can understand some evolution of theory. It has sure occurred with me over the long term. For years I considered these creatures as bipedal apes. Now I consider them to be hominins. 

I understand that completely.  I am evolving in my thinking on the subject.  

 

Carpenter just surprises me with all this.  He had it so figured out that he claims to have stopped active research.  Like Paulides, who claims that the Ketchum study put all of his questions to rest... which is why he focuses mostly on the Missing 411 cases as opposed to Bigfoot.

 

 

[Arvedis]

36 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Carpenter just surprises me with all this.  He had it so figured out that he claims to have stopped active research.  Like Paulides, who claims that the Ketchum study put all of his questions to rest... which is why he focuses mostly on the Missing 411 cases as opposed to Bigfoot.

 

I think Carpenter could have made his case in a different way that could have been more convincing. Instead, he throws everything into the hopper. Religion, evolution, aliens, orbs, DNA, etc and in the end, he has no case at all. A non starter is use of the term Nephilim with BF - which he used in the title of his book.  He's just way off. It's not a sidebar or religious discussion, not a theory. It's just off. 

 

Paulides just might be the only person in bigfootery who supports Ketchum and continues to make sales of any kind.  Paulides is a card carrying member of bigfootery whether he wants to be or not, regardless of him talking circles around the very subject he is addressing. Missing persons is a cover story for his bigfoot obsession.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Arvedis

[trapper]

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

 

I think Carpenter could have made his case in a different way that could have been more convincing. Instead, he throws everything into the hopper. Religion, evolution, aliens, orbs, DNA, etc and in the end, he has no case at all. A non starter is use of the term Nephilim with BF - which he used in the title of his book.  He's just way off. It's not a sidebar or religious discussion, not a theory. It's just off. 

 

Paulides just might be the only person in bigfootery who supports Ketchum and continues to make sales of any kind.  Paulides is a card carrying member of bigfootery whether he wants to be or not, regardless of him talking circles around the very subject he is addressing. Missing persons is a cover story for his bigfoot obsession.

what makes you say that about it being a cover story for bigfoot?   he has specifically addressed this so many times and given good reasons why he does not think its bigfoot.  i dont understand the thinking here.  one can simultaneously believe bigfoot is out there and sometimes caused problems and at the same time not think bigfoot is the only thing out there causing problems.

 

also he did a whole book showing that these strange disappearances happen in the middle of cities everywhere too.   how could Paulides thing bigfoot are responsible for disappearances  in the middle of New York City?

Edited April 27, 2020 by trapper

[Arvedis]

1 minute ago, trapper said:

he has specifically addressed this so many times and given good reasons why he does not think its bigfoot.

 

where did you see or hear that?