Huntster Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 5 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: Or like means of DNA, a carcass need not be shot, it can be found after dying of other causes......... Or we can simply wait for one to surrender, no? .........To listen them theirs is the ONLY way. A multifaceted approach covers more bases. A multifaceted approach doesn't necessarily have to be taken by every individual or group in order for all facets to be employed. They can focus on killing one. Another group can wait for a sasquatch to surrender. You can search for a carcass. Others can take pictures of trees hoping for a sasquatch to materialize. Etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 14 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: No, you assume... if its that black and white, I'm not the one with a rigid mindset. Well your attacking NAWAC completely based on assumptions.... So how does it feel? They have taking DNA samples. They have used radio tags. None of these things being lethal. If they stumbled upon a dead body? I don’t think they are gonna step over it because they didn’t shoot it...... they will rejoice. But if it’s staring them in the face? It’s gonna be a type specimen. And good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Huntster said: Others can take pictures of trees hoping for a sasquatch to materialize. It would be more convenient if the Bigfoots would simply fall out of them once in a while. Unless no one's there. I mean if a Sasquatch falls out of a tree and no one is there to see it, do they bounce? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 23 minutes ago, hiflier said: It would be more convenient if the Bigfoots would simply fall out of them once in a while. Unless no one's there. I mean if a Sasquatch falls out of a tree and no one is there to see it, do they bounce? They look like leaves when they fall out of trees. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, NatFoot said: They look like leaves when they fall out of trees. If there are any trees left after the napalm strike.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 20 minutes ago, norseman said: If there are any trees left after the napalm strike.... That joke will age well, I think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, NatFoot said: They look like leaves when they fall out of trees. In NE Kansas, definitely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 17, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 17, 2020 I got a down vote because I’m afraid to lose my house in a forest fire!? Wow. Tough crowd. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, norseman said: I got a down vote because I’m afraid to lose my house in a forest fire!? Wow. Tough crowd. I got you for a plus this time...but it's obvious you aren't committed to this cause. Get out of your armchair. Edited January 17, 2020 by NatFoot 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 5 hours ago, NathanFooter said: I apologize for my pointed replies, I have become a very blunt person these days as I am not exactly a new comer to this subject. I am open to self reflection or considering a point of perspective from other angles but I am also very experienced for my age. Some would suggest I know something and others may say that my level of bias has made things less than clear. ( make of that what you will ) I continue to stand by my points, in short it is most likely an issue of very smart, very few and very little search. I asked you to back up your position that discovery should have happened with all the boots and eyes out over the years, you have not effectively done so. I pointed out that Jane was entirely outfitted for years to specifically study chimps, not that she was any kind of expert at the time, it was simply a perfect storm at a time that nobody was. She did have local guides who set her up very well, she consulted those with encounters/sightings. My point is that no serious level of education/expertise has been conducting investigation into this subject. The direction of effort matters when examining something specific, to find creatures with intelligence you need to apply intelligence. If you wanted to find an 8 foot ninja living in an wilderness area would you call a biologist or a psychologist, LOL. I am very aware of the level of forest/environmental impact humans had in the early construction of North America, effectively we laid wast to the majority of old growth forests by way of logging and river diversion. Many forms of wildlife numbered within 10% of their original population due to over-hunting, exposure and reduced breeding habitat. The truth is that science has been phobic of Sasquatch since the beginning for a variety of reasons ranging from religion to industry and as of now a top down position on academic interest in conducting investigation of topic ( several biologists come to mind who can tell you it is more than a perspective ). Science has not investigated this topic, if you disagree then can you provide some evidence of this position that can render the point ? This creature has been here for a very long time and the behaviors have not changed, the body of evidence remains consistent and does not illustrate the hallmarks of simple human story telling as the data is clearly not fictitious, the patterns we can note closely mirror standards within biology ( outside of misidentification ). This particular section of discussion is very wide and would need a new thread. The original questions posed in this thread is what is it about bigfoot that makes it hard to find, or kill and bring in? When I say find, I mean locate bigfoot and study one a regular basis much like Jane Goodall did with other primates. Yes, many scientist have been phobic about studying bigfoot. This has added another reason for not finding BF. How many PHDs studying primatology have begun studying bigfoot, and the dean of the department kicked them out of the college or forced them to change their focus? When a primatologist brings in 10 hours of detailed video of bigfoot the lid will blow off and more students will switch to the study of Sasquatch. We assume BF is very smart and has keen senses to help it avoid us. Shall we call this a theory or a fact? Most on the forum probably have not seen one yet. Why? Is it because some of us come close to ninja primatologist that are nearly clever enough to find bigfoots? If bigfoot were as common as deer our problem would be solved. Fact: BFs are rare. With all of the research groups and individuals that have done hours and hours of searching for bigfoot there is little to show for it. Search means stalking bigfoot and watching its behaviors in the woods and documenting with film or body parts. have done have made this a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7.62 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 9 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: Or like means of DNA, a carcass need not be shot, it can be found after dying of other causes. To listen them theirs is the ONLY way. A multifaceted approach covers more bases. Hows that been working out so far 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 17, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, NatFoot said: I got you for a plus this time...but it's obvious you aren't committed to this cause. Get out of your armchair. Ummm SWWASAS can we load these 55 gallon drums with a flare duct taped to the side in your Cessna? Im being called out! 1 hour ago, georgerm said: The original questions posed in this thread is what is it about bigfoot that makes it hard to find, or kill and bring in? When I say find, I mean locate bigfoot and study one a regular basis much like Jane Goodall did with other primates. Yes, many scientist have been phobic about studying bigfoot. This has added another reason for not finding BF. How many PHDs studying primatology have begun studying bigfoot, and the dean of the department kicked them out of the college or forced them to change their focus? When a primatologist brings in 10 hours of detailed video of bigfoot the lid will blow off and more students will switch to the study of Sasquatch. We assume BF is very smart and has keen senses to help it avoid us. Shall we call this a theory or a fact? Most on the forum probably have not seen one yet. Why? Is it because some of us come close to ninja primatologist that are nearly clever enough to find bigfoots? If bigfoot were as common as deer our problem would be solved. Fact: BFs are rare. With all of the research groups and individuals that have done hours and hours of searching for bigfoot there is little to show for it. Search means stalking bigfoot and watching its behaviors in the woods and documenting with film or body parts. have done have made this a fact. I don’t think a Jane Goodall style approach is applicable with this species.... not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, norseman said: ........I don’t think a Jane Goodall style approach is applicable with this species.... not happening. I think it can be, but the homo sapien who does it will have to be one tough sob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 12 hours ago, Huntster said: Or we can simply wait for one to surrender, no? Others can take pictures of trees hoping for a sasquatch to materialize. Etc. Ah... the Youtuber/Paredolia method. 12 hours ago, norseman said: Well your attacking NAWAC completely based on assumptions.... So how does it feel? They have taking DNA samples. They have used radio tags. None of these things being lethal. If they stumbled upon a dead body? I don’t think they are gonna step over it because they didn’t shoot it...... they will rejoice. But if it’s staring them in the face? It’s gonna be a type specimen. And good for them. Excuse me for not giving every effort blind acceptance, fact is , yes they're well funded, and have been doing this for some time and haven't gotten one. Maybe it's time to more closely scrutinize their efforts. Because, yes, I think they've lost objectivity. SHooting one isn't the only way. It is a way, but hardly the only one. 8 hours ago, 7.62 said: Hows that been working out so far Just as well as those trying to shoot one and coming up empty as well, so all this "Hunter posturing" is kind of amusing at this point. The prize goes to the one who brings in one in whatever form, and the pro killers are no further along than any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 7 hours ago, norseman said: Ummm SWWASAS can we load these 55 gallon drums with a flare duct taped to the side in your Cessna? Im being called out! I don’t think a Jane Goodall style approach is applicable with this species.... not happening. I hope you know I was completely joking on "calling you out". I'm not in a position to do that to 90% of the people here and it's not like you're taking pictures of leaves or trying to gain a following by manipulating people by saying you are so special you can talk to groups of Sasquatches across the country telepathically. You also don't see Sasquatch in every single thing you find while you're outdoors. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts