Huntster Posted January 12, 2020 Posted January 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, hiflier said: .........Sasquatch discovery would make the Spotted Owl fiasco of the early 1980's look like a tea party. Would discovery threaten resource harvesting, tourism, hunting, snowmobiling ATV's all other forms of development and habitat intrusions and use? You betcha!....... This fact is something I have found extremely suspicious. The environmental industry is one that would benefit handsomely by the discovery of sasquatches, yet their silence now is deafening. They also have lots of money that they feed to lawyers and appropriately ideological biologists, but they've invested less in sasquatchery (or any other area of paleoanthropology) than I have.
Madison5716 Posted January 12, 2020 Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Foxhill said: The quarry, so what special skill set does a bigfoot hunter have that lets say a deer hunter doesn't? Hopefully an extraction plan and lots of backup! Deer aren't 9 feet tall, 800 lbs, omnivorous and intelligent. 😁 And a good lawyer. Edited January 13, 2020 by Madison5716
Huntster Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 33 minutes ago, Foxhill said: ........ How to move the ball forward, all I can tell you is do something different folks, but declaring bigfoot the ninja of the forest won't work. I agree. Thus, perhaps the best course of action is none? Maybe science, government, and the environmental industry are correct? Leave them alone, or simply accept the "fact" that they don't exist?
Madison5716 Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, Foxhill said: do appreciate your response, but there would be very little difference in hunting a deer/ bigfoot This mindset is why we don't have a bigfoot on a slab. Because there IS a difference. Even the best human hunters hunting a Sasquatch are like Elmer Fudd hunting a Navy Seal. The only way we're gonna get a body is dumb luck on our part and a set of unfortunate events on their part. So far, the stars have not aligned. Best we have is a film, where those circumstances lined up 50-some years ago.
hiflier Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Huntster said: This fact is something I have found extremely suspicious. The environmental industry is one that would benefit handsomely by the discovery of sasquatches, yet their silence now is deafening. They also have lots of money that they feed to lawyers and appropriately ideological biologists, but they've invested less in sasquatchery (or any other area of paleoanthropology) than I have. Not suspicious at all, Huntster. The environmental industry's "windfall" Is a mole hill to the corporate/government's Mount Everest. And the environmentalists do not have ENOUGH money nor do they have incarceration as a bully stick. So. No surprise to me about the environmentalists' deafening silence. No surprise at all. 18 minutes ago, Huntster said: I agree. Thus, perhaps the best course of action is none? Maybe science, government, and the environmental industry are correct? Leave them alone, or simply accept the "fact" that they don't exist? LOL, not on your life! On any of that 7 minutes ago, Madison5716 said: Even the best human hunters hunting a Sasquatch are like Elmer Fudd.... OOPSIE. Nice and easy on the Elmer Fudd stuff. We LIKE our Huntster Edited January 13, 2020 by hiflier
NathanFooter Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, Foxhill said: I do appreciate your response, but there would be very little difference in hunting a deer/ bigfoot . Your Jane Goodall comparison doesn't work, all she had to do is show up, first you have to prove Bigfoot exists the money will follow no doubt. You got the cart before the horse, a species is never going to be declared to exists on reports. Your conjecture about behavior is just a logical conclusion based on the failure to produce any verifiable results. How to move the ball forward, all I can tell you is do something different folks, but declaring bigfoot the ninja of the forest wont work. Your response is just a cop-out, ironic. Conjecture based on nothing as you proposed just above. Hmmm, millions of humans motivated to seek out and harvest out of millions of simple and instinct driven deer available vs virtually no interest ( let alone ability ) with maybe 3000 in total population. Not really a tough question. My example of Jane works just fine, " she had to just show up ". She had the time, resources, commitment and passion to stay out for many months ( years in total ) to just get to a point where she could see more than a vague dark shape through the foliage. Her mother and husband even came out and supported her work from England, LOL. Many discoveries that came with direct intent came from good research and that costs money. My position on existence comes from my experience, my conjecture of collective behavior comes from the consideration of reported behavior and the sources of information provided. I am not creating a top 10 list of reasons why Bigfoot slipped the net, the net has never been cast. You said " based on the failure to produce any verifiable results " so please tell me of the occasions you are aware of where academics ( you know, those guys who historically go out with the intent on collecting results for a living ) have addressed the topic with a well funded/outfitted field study. Right now we have little information and no action, if you can't accept that then you are simply close minded. This issue is a combination effort , the likely rare Sasquatch in it's evolution has taken the route of human avoidance and we also seem to posses the complete inability to actually practice the definition of science itself in regard to this subject. As I have said before, scientific inquiry begins the moment you have a question. I am working on moving the ball but like nearly every single person here, I am one man with limited resources. 1
7.62 Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 4 hours ago, georgerm said: This is the original question that we started with, what is it about bigfoot that no one has been able to find the critter to film or to bring in a deceased one? What is it about the hairy man that the so called bigfoot hunters that have packed their rifles around and every time failed to blast one? Is it something we are doing wrong? We get better technology each year too. We have tons of really good hunters but so far each failed to bring in a bigfoot. What is the reason why bigfoot evades us each time? Not everyone is looking to kill one. It's really simple as that .
MIB Posted January 13, 2020 Moderator Posted January 13, 2020 4 hours ago, hiflier said: And the environmentalists do not have ENOUGH money nor do they have incarceration as a bully stick. This is not entirely true. Certain groups like the Sierra club have some very deep-pockets donors. Moreover, among them are lawyers .. lawyers who do not have to be paid if they care enough about the issue themselves to donate their personal time. It is why they have been successful stopping logging, having timber sales suspended indefinitely, and generally quite successfully shutting the timber industry down in my region. The notion that the timber industry is unstoppable because of their economic impact is simply false. You have to find a different reason for the environmental groups not getting on board with bigfoot existence as a way to lock up public lands. They do have the means, they do have the money, they do have the public support in areas where it matters. MIB 1 1
Foxhill Posted January 13, 2020 BFF Patron Posted January 13, 2020 16 hours ago, Madison5716 said: Hopefully an extraction plan and lots of backup! Deer aren't 9 feet tall, 800 lbs, omnivorous and intelligent. 😁 And a good lawyer. LOL if only that was true, get me within 200-300yrds and I'll put 1 round in biggies earhole and the mystery will be solved. 4
Huntster Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 49 minutes ago, Foxhill said: .......get me within 200-300yrds and I'll put 1 round in biggies earhole and the mystery will be solved. Maybe........maybe not. My caribou shots can be anywhere from 10 yards to as far as I dare shoot, but that's because they're fairly easy to sneak ip to, and they inhabit open ground. Sasquatches? They like the kind of terrain that black bears prefer, and one can have them just 20 yards away, but there's no way you'll see them, because it's a virtual jungle. 1
norseman Posted January 13, 2020 Admin Posted January 13, 2020 17 hours ago, Foxhill said: I do appreciate your response, but there would be very little difference in hunting a deer/ bigfoot . Your Jane Goodall comparison doesn't work, all she had to do is show up, first you have to prove Bigfoot exists the money will follow no doubt. You got the cart before the horse, a species is never going to be declared to exists on reports. Your conjecture about behavior is just a logical conclusion based on the failure to produce any verifiable results. How to move the ball forward, all I can tell you is do something different folks, but declaring bigfoot the ninja of the forest won't work. Listen to your own logic. If there was little difference between hunting a deer and hunting a Bigfoot? We would have a body by now. So you must believe the reason that hasn’t happened is because there is nothing to shoot. If that is the case? Then why are you here? If something possibly is out there and remains undiscovered? Then why yes the moniker of “forest ninja” is applicable. As a hunter I can assure you of this. Each species has its own unique challenges. And hunting a deer is not the same as hunting a bear or a cougar or a turkey. Getting you to within 200 yards of a Bigfoot so you can “ear hole it” isn’t hunting. That’s just target practice. A 10 year old child can accomplish that. The trick is getting within 200 yards for a shot..... that’s the hunting part. Which is not easy. Science needs a body to prove this species real. No amount of reports will accomplish this, your right. But the reports must be compelling enough to make someone go look with a rifle? Are you out looking with a rifle? Conjecture on behavior is a necessary part of formulating a game plan. I’ve never understood that with skeptics..... If I was hunting the Loch Ness monster, I’m going to have to read reports, formulate a game plan in order to get ahead of the beast. Or I could just ignore the reports and scour the mountain tops looking....right? Because the reports are all just conjecture! Again, either your compelled to go look or yer not. But this isn’t some game ran on a points system based on public opinion. Nobody needs to be “saved” from the evil profiteers of pseudo science. Caveat Emptor. 1
SWWASAS Posted January 13, 2020 BFF Patron Posted January 13, 2020 Do female caribou have antlers like female reindeer? I had no idea that reindeer females had antlers. I cut them off a wire yard ornament only to find out on some nature show that female reindeer have antlers.
Foxhill Posted January 13, 2020 BFF Patron Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, NathanFooter said: Your response is just a cop-out, ironic. Conjecture based on nothing as you proposed just above. Hmmm, millions of humans motivated to seek out and harvest out of millions of simple and instinct driven deer available vs virtually no interest ( let alone ability ) with maybe 3000 in total population. Not really a tough question. My example of Jane works just fine, " she had to just show up ". She had the time, resources, commitment and passion to stay out for many months ( years in total ) to just get to a point where she could see more than a vague dark shape through the foliage. Her mother and husband even came out and supported her work from England, LOL. Many discoveries that came with direct intent came from good research and that costs money. My position on existence comes from my experience, my conjecture of collective behavior comes from the consideration of reported behavior and the sources of information provided. I am not creating a top 10 list of reasons why Bigfoot slipped the net, the net has never been cast. You said " based on the failure to produce any verifiable results " so please tell me of the occasions you are aware of where academics ( you know, those guys who historically go out with the intent on collecting results for a living ) have addressed the topic with a well funded/outfitted field study. Right now we have little information and no action, if you can't accept that then you are simply close minded. This issue is a combination effort , the likely rare Sasquatch in it's evolution has taken the route of human avoidance and we also seem to posses the complete inability to actually practice the definition of science itself in regard to this subject. As I have said before, scientific inquiry begins the moment you have a question. I am working on moving the ball but like nearly every single person here, I am one man with limited resources. ' Again with the "appeal to authority" for lack of results is a failed argument and then with the "not enough effort has been put into it by the right people" is a fail as well. I guess my point is with the deer hunting analogy is the only difference between you and a deer hunter is your quarry, and of course a deer hunters success rate. You as a Bigfoot researcher and I'm assuming a successful hunter struggle with why you can't apply the same techniques to Bigfoot hunting, your not the first and I'm sure you wont be the last to fail at your efforts, then start imagining all manner of extraordinary attributes that account for the failure to do so, I get it I've been there. I'm not closed minded at all, and at 60yrs old I'd suggest my experience far out weighs most on this website, which includes every type of conjectured behavior attributed to Bigfoot other than a face to face encounter, and obviously I've reached a different conclusion, than you have. I'd suggest a little self reflection on the closed mind issue, lets not make this personal. I'm still wide open to the possibility and would love for Biggie to be discovered. But your argument that we just haven't tried hard enough is pretty weak. You might just be looking in the wrong place for another upright biped, carry yourself to South America or Africa and you might get lucky. Now there I agree with you, in one of those locations you would need a well funded, long duration project, but in the U.S. not so much. What I would suggest to you and anyone else new to the subject is first do a deep dive into the history of the flora and fauna as it relates to the U.S. continent, what you'll find is not a lot of critters escaped our dinner tables and any that were a perceived threat, including another biped were brought to the brink of extinction, its astounding that anything over 10lbs escaped our attention. I'm not trying to denigrate you or your opinion, just offering up a different take on the phenomenon that is Bigfoot. Starting to think about Spring Gobbler season in Virginia, I'll be in numerous Bigfoot hotspots any suggestions? Edited January 13, 2020 by Foxhill 1
Recommended Posts