The "How To Hunt" Channel and Sasquatch Commentary

[GuyInIndiana]

41 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

The argument could be made that he is now a medium sized fish in a big pond, if we are looking at the size of the other fish in this Bigfoot pond.

 

His popularity and social media engagement is quite surprising.

 

I DO certainly understand what you mean and how you mean it. But think about it. Popularity is only significant to those craving it. It's kind of like giving attention to a bully. In this case he craves attention. I don't give him any. Sure, he has a bunch of sycophants lapping up what he's dishing out, but in the end, it's meaningless. Neither my, nor your lives, are really harmed or improved because of him. It's all just "Dust in the Wind" kind'a thing.

[trapper]

1 hour ago, GuyInIndiana said:

 

Why? Sadly, it's just the internet and blow-hards will take swings when-ever and where-ever they want. He's just one more little fish in a big pond. He can pontificate all he wants and the world will just go right on being fine. There's really nothing that significant about this guy.

My likes are --

 

That he is telling peoples stories with the intent to help people not be ashamed and afraid to share the stores publicly and that people are following that lead and choosing to stand up for themselves and not fear ridicule. (this has its limits but I like the general trend).  

 

I also like that he is a professional hunter and knows what he is talking about being deep in the woods.  He is often 9 days travel off trail out in the woods for days and days at a time.  I respect the level of knowledge and abilities doing that requires and IMO it makes any encounters he claims to have more trustworthy.

 

I like that he is bullying the bullies (provided he is right about who and what these people are as Ive already stated).

 

I like that he speaks about not needing any official agency or the public at large or any scientist to recognize the existence of Bigfoot in order for us to know it exists because thousands of good people (along with some hoaxers, liars and crazy people) have seen them and say so.  I agree with the sentiment here completely and it comes as a relief to hear more people speaking about it.

 

I like his point about not needing to focus so much on IF they exist but to get to the point of finding out why (if there is a cover up type reason) we don't already know as a society.  

 

 

Dislikes are--

 

He seems to judge everyone who doesn't think exactly the way he does about the overview of the topic.

 

He picks on Jeff Meldrum and others for wanting to do "research" and try to prove their existence when we already know they exist.   I really dislike this take of his as it is self centered and immature.    Scientists and researchers provide an essential service to humanity and it is hard to see how he could think otherwise when it comes to this topic.

 

I dislike him picking on everyone who takes money to take people out to and have an experience with bigfoot.  Admittedly I don't know much about these groups and who they are but I am assuming some are legit.   I find this especially hypocritical seeing as how he takes money to bring people out into the woods to give them an experience with hunting......

 

 

His general overall bravado about his opinions on the whole topic and quickness ot have disdain for those who think otherwise.

 

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, trapper said:

His general overall bravado about his opinions on the whole topic and quickness ot have disdain for those who think otherwise.

 

That's how it is in bigfootery. Need a big personality, a thick skin, and be willing to step on those who step on you.

 

For a contrast to that, check out videos of conferences. People are cordial to each other and appreciate the learning experience. It's on the internet where things get heated.

[trapper]

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

That's how it is in bigfootery. Need a big personality, a thick skin, and be willing to step on those who step on you.

 

For a contrast to that, check out videos of conferences. People are cordial to each other and appreciate the learning experience. It's on the internet where things get heated.

I see Jeff Meldrum as an exception to that and a much better example of how to conduct yourself in this field.  I see what you mean though, the internet gives a whole lot of people the safety to be obnoxious.  I have not looked at very many conferences and would actually love to be exposed to more of that in the future.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 

If you have any suggestions for where to start send me a link if you dont mind.

[Arvedis]

Just now, trapper said:

I see Jeff Meldrum as an exception to that and a much better example of how to conduct yourself in this field.  I see what you mean though, the internet gives a whole lot of people the safety to be obnoxious.  I have not looked at very many conferences and would actually love to be exposed to more of that in the future.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 

If you have any suggestions for where to start send me a link if you dont mind.

 

For better or worse, FB seem to be the go to place to hear about events. There is also a conferences section on this board. I would say start with what is local to your area, not just conferences, groups and gatherings and work outward from there.

[trapper]

1 minute ago, Arvedis said:

 

For better or worse, FB seem to be the go to place to hear about events. There is also a conferences section on this board. I would say start with what is local to your area, not just conferences, groups and gatherings and work outward from there.

Ill check that out, thanks for the suggestion Arvedis.

[Arvedis]

21 hours ago, steenburg said:

Indeed I do. Bill Miller and myself with John Green put out 2 articles concerning this nonsense back in 2009 and again in 2012 when it came up again. If you go to my blog site, thomassteenburg.com scroll down and hit January 2019. read posts titled "Here we go again" parts 1 and 2. Also I talked about this whole issue last night on Steve Kulls show.

 

Thomas Steenburg

 

 

https://thomassteenburg.com/2019/01. This should put the so-called massacre to rest.  Also, going to your site reminds me of your involvement on Monster X radio.  The episode at that Jan '19 link covers Tom Slick.  Good stuff!

[hiflier]

48 minutes ago, dereknichol said:

Maybe we have created this by bringing bf into our inviorment. .I can't believe usa so nieve on this you have everything you need to show world big foot is real God wake up USA YOU WERE MY HOPE 

 

No easier for us to prove the Bigfoot is real than it is for you to prove the Bigfoot is real. If science won't get on board, and no one can find a dead one, or find one to shoot and bring in, then the only place left to go is in circles. You may notice that we do that part quite well  

Edited April 29, 2020 by hiflier

[hiflier]

If science got involved then we wouldn't need this Forum because the Bigfoot would have been already proved real. What science so far has done hasn't been good enough and seems to always stop just short of proof. Just enough science to keep the carrot dangling in front of someone's nose but never enough to prove to the public that the Bigfoot is real. To me, it's a game of keeping the ball rolling to keep making money off the Bigfoot business side of things. Real science could have proved this creature long ago but it will not get itself involved in anything approaching a serious research program.

 

To mainstream science, the Bigfoot may as well be a unicorn for all the interest science has. Some say that science isn't allowed to look at the Bigfoot as a real creature worthy of research and public discovery. Also, as long as the Bigfoot is thought to not exist, then a lot of money can be made by harvesting resources from its habitat. Discovery could put a halt to all of that money. Discovery could easily cost losses in revenue of a trillion dollars- probably three times that amount actually. There are many reasons why people might not wish to have the creature proved to exist.

[trapper]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

If science got involved then we wouldn't need this Forum because the Bigfoot would have been already proved real. What science so far has done hasn't been good enough and seems to always stop just short of proof. Just enough science to keep the carrot dangling in front of someone's nose but never enough to prove to the public that the Bigfoot is real. To me, it's a game of keeping the ball rolling to keep making money off the Bigfoot business side of things. Real science could have proved this creature long ago but it will not get itself involved in anything approaching a serious research program.

 

To mainstream science, the Bigfoot may as well be a unicorn for all the interest science has. Some say that science isn't allowed to look at the Bigfoot as a real creature worthy of research and public discovery. Also, as long as the Bigfoot is thought to not exist, then a lot of money can be made by harvesting resources from its habitat. Discovery could put a halt to all of that money. Discovery could easily cost losses in revenue of a trillion dollars- probably three times that amount actually. There are many reasons why people might not wish to have the creature proved to exist.

where are you at on the existence of bigfoot?  im new here and just trying to get a feel for everybody.

 

im in that camp of being certain they exists but i am not an person who has seen one directly by the way.

[ShadowBorn]

13 minutes ago, dereknichol said:

If you are interested in fuc it am calling my friend Big yin go spend five years on it like Ave done 

You have spent five years in what ? Nothing you have said has nothing to do with Bigfoot. You keep on ranting about Cov-19  and sure we are all dealing with it in our own ways.  I have had that that F#** it attitude ever since I had had my encounters with this creature and I really do not care.  Not sure on what you are looking for but if it is bigfoot then you have come to the right place. If it is about the Cov-19 then this is not the place for it.  If you have info on the big guy then I sure as heck would like to hear about it. But I am not going to fall into your trap. Chasing you for answers that I already know. Teach me some thing new. Some thing that I do not know so that I can go on with my non existing life in this world of Bigfooting

[hiflier]

57 minutes ago, trapper said:

where are you at on the existence of bigfoot?  im new here and just trying to get a feel for everybody.

 

im in that camp of being certain they exists but i am not an person who has seen one directly by the way.

 

I am a proponent for its existence even though I've not seen one. I am also a person who is all about the science of certain scientific fields that I have studied even though I am not a scientist myself. All living creatures leave bits of DNA in the environments that they live in and so I am convinced that there is Sasquatch DNA being left in the environment that science could collect samples of and test.

 

The difficulty in doing that is that there is thought to be no Sasquatch DNA in the universal GenBanks. Science requires Sasquatch DNA in the GenBank in order to match up any environmental DNA samples that are collected. But science won't go out and collect any samples for testing. Even if they did go out and get samples they wouldn't know what to do with them.

 

It has been claimed that most, if not all, suspected Sasquatch DNA samples that have been looked at show Human contamination. But many of us here on the Forum are of the opinion that Sasquatch DNA is so close to Human DNA that scientists think they are finding Human contamination in the samples and so they throw the samples away. I think throwing the samples away is a big mistake and that science may not know that Sasquatch DNA is very close to Human DNA which is why science is finding Human DNA in the samples.

 

And just so you know, we have people here not on our side as well, even in our own families. I forgot to welcome you to the Forum. Welcome! I might also suggest that since this Forum also may have some young people that read our posts we try to watch our language and so try to keep things clean. You probably didn't know which is why I mentioned it.  

Edited April 29, 2020 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Thank you! I added a bit to my post in case you missed it.

[hiflier]

I though Dr. Gemmel from New Zealand and his team of college PhD's were unable to find any DNA from Nessie last year after sampling the water in Loch Ness.. They found DNA from eels which they thought were quite large. But they didn't find anything from something like an ancient plesiosaur and what they did find was more or less from "normal" creatures.

Edited April 29, 2020 by hiflier

[trapper]

17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I am a proponent for its existence even though I've not seen one. I am also a person who is all about the science of certain scientific fields that I have studied even though I am not a scientist myself. All living creatures leave bits of DNA in the environments that they live in and so I am convinced that there is Sasquatch DNA being left in the environment that science could collect samples of and test.

 

The difficulty in doing that is that there is thought to be no Sasquatch DNA in the universal GenBanks. Science requires Sasquatch DNA in the GenBank in order to match up any environmental DNA samples that are collected. But science won't go out and collect any samples for testing. Even if they did go out and get samples they wouldn't know what to do with them.

 

It has been claimed that most, if not all, suspected Sasquatch DNA samples that have been looked at show Human contamination. But many of us here on the Forum are of the opinion that Sasquatch DNA is so close to Human DNA that scientists think they are finding Human contamination in the samples and so they throw the samples away. I think throwing the samples away is a big mistake and that science may not know that Sasquatch DNA is very close to Human DNA which is why science is finding Human DNA in the samples.

 

And just so you know, we have people here not on our side as well, even in our own families. I forgot to welcome you to the Forum. Welcome! I might also suggest that since this Forum also may have some young people that read our posts we try to watch our language and so try to keep things clean. You probably didn't know which is why I mentioned it.  

Thanks for the post and point gladly taken on the language stuff.  I think it is really neat that this forum is a place kids could come.  My own daughter is 9 and beginning to take interest in the subject.   Thank you sincerely for the mention.

Edited April 29, 2020 by trapper