Bigfoot

[Guest Strick]

I have some sympathy with Para Ape's view that certain aspects of Bigfoot behaviour - in this case the perceived inability to be shot dead - are best explained by a paranormal argument.

I used to think along these lines myself to a degree, but I think it's unsatisfactory to explain a mystery with another mystery, as the flesh and blood guys often say. However, it bothers me when the flesh and blood explanations used to explain anomolous behaviour get so tortuous and convoluted and downright bizarre that the paranormal argument seem to make more sense.

But, moreover, it was Saskeptic who really got to the heart of the matter for me when he commented that if a paranormal argument to explain a phenomenon ever becomes more plausible than a prosaic one, then it's best to go back and examine the nature and veracity of the original contention: ie that there exists a large bipedal, North American creature named Sasquatch, that remains unknown to science in 2011.

If I have in anyway 'misremembered' what Saskeptic said I'm sure he will jump in and correct me - he's good like that!

[Guest Lesmore]

BF impervious to gun fire....no way. Now if BF was an Alien...well that would be different....

[Guest BitterMonk]

This actually goes a long way towards helping my self-esteem, because now I know that those deer and rabbits and various other animals I've missed in my life weren't due to my marksmanship. They were simply bulletproof! How on Earth have we not stumbled upon the presence of these impervious animals until now?

[bipedalist]

....if not they shouldn't bother trying to kill a deer turkey rabbit or beer.

Even if they couldn't hit the broadside of the barn I still think they'd be pumped enough to kill the beer!

[Guest para ape]

When I was on the monsterquest forum,there were those who said that many of you are saying.Their argument was that a creature that weighs several hundred pounds and that is heavily muscled like bigfoot would be hard to kill.That holds little water because moose,grizzly bears,and gorillas also weigh several hundred pounds and are heavily muscled but THEY'VE BEEN KILLED!They also talked about the caliber of weapon,saying that you can shoot a deer with a .22 and it will wander around for a couple of hours before it drops dead.That may be true.But I guarantee that regardless of the caliber of weapon you're using,bigfoot can't be killed.It's already been proven in over 50 shooting cases that go back to the 60's.

If you shot in it in the head,you couldn't kill it.Also,if someone used a grenade or rocket launcher,it wouldn't work.Trust me on this one.

[Guest krakatoa]

Trust me on this one.

I'll pass. Thanks though.

[Guest krakatoa]

You deserve more than snark. I apologize for that.

When I was on the monsterquest forum,there were those who said that many of you are saying.Their argument was that a creature that weighs several hundred pounds and that is heavily muscled like bigfoot would be hard to kill.That holds little water because moose,grizzly bears,and gorillas also weigh several hundred pounds and are heavily muscled but THEY'VE BEEN KILLED!They also talked about the caliber of weapon,saying that you can shoot a deer with a .22 and it will wander around for a couple of hours before it drops dead.That may be true.But I guarantee that regardless of the caliber of weapon you're using,bigfoot can't be killed.It's already been proven in over 50 shooting cases that go back to the 60's.

If you shot in it in the head,you couldn't kill it.Also,if someone used a grenade or rocket launcher,it wouldn't work.Trust me on this one.

You do understand that unverified reports of self-professed marksmen failing to hit a moving target in a high-stress environment doesn't qualify as evidence, don't you?

That is what we call "anecdote". Or, in hunting circles, "tall tales" of "the one that got away."

From another thread:

That's why I joined this forum,to attempt and prove that bigfoot isn't a physical creature.

Unsubstantiated stories and a hardy "Trust me" is hardly the standard of proof that is going to get you to your goal my friend.

I'd submit that you cannot prove the existence of a paranormal bigfoot, because such a being would defy quantification. Saying "bigfoot can't die because he can't die" is as rhetorically empty a statement as "you can't see bigfoot because he is invisible."

Certainly such standards of proof hold just enough logical weight to be self-affirming, but they, much like an invisible bigfoot, are completely insubstantial to an objective appraisal.

[slabdog]

.But I guarantee that regardless of the caliber of weapon you're using,bigfoot can't be killed.It's already been proven in over 50 shooting cases that go back to the 60's.

If you shot in it in the head,you couldn't kill it.Also,if someone used a grenade or rocket launcher,it wouldn't work.Trust me on this one.

uhhh...

do you think this guy could kill a big foot?

I don't even think he used a grenade launcher...

Edited August 3, 2011 by slabdog

[GuyInIndiana]

It's already been proven in over 50 shooting cases that go back to the 60's.

You keep using this word *proven* over and over, yet don't offer *proof*... just stories, which are anecdotal.

What about the 1940's account of the moose hunter who claims he DID shoot and kill one?

[Guest Bucket]

I don't guy into any of the paranormal junk, bigfoot related or otherwise.

[Guest biggy]

Shooting at, hitting, and penetrating are 3 entirely different things. 1-shot kills are EXTREMELY rare in a combat situation which going toe to toe with a Sasquatch would be. Hunters in a stand would have a slightly better chance, but even then its rare.

What caliber was used? For something the sized described as for Sasquatch, hand guns outside of the large revolvers or 10MM auto range most likely ain't doing much damage, even at point blank range. Hollywood example: Jaws. Everyone remember Chief Brody out on the Orca plugging away with his revolver into the sharks hide to no effect? Same sort of scenario. Sasquatch as we know it, has to have extremely thick skin, dense muscle and hair to survive the cold. Those factors would not make him "bullet proof" in a Kevlar sense but would impart enough to slow bullets down and lessen the impact.

one shot kills are extremely rare? You have been playing too much call of duty. Yeah caliber would have some to do with it but unless you are hunting for small game you should have a relatively high caliber weapon that would be more than enough to penetrate an ape like creature. More than enough to produce a blood trail. also animals to survive the cold dont build up dense muscle to keep warm they eat whatever they can to produce the fat that keeps them warmer in the winters. jaws is a horrible movie to compare this too cause that is not real, it is a made up movie that mythbusters busted about every myth on that movie.

[Guest Darrell]

I've seen game animals take a perfect shot and still run a considerable distance before dying. I've also seen the same with men. If you can only explain the who/what/when/where of bigfoot by the paranormal, IMO, existence looses credibility.

[Guest]

Since the subject seems to be have turned to guns and killing; to put it simply, physiologically there are just two ways to kill.

One, shut down the Central Nervous System (CNS), from the brainstem, up - i.e., unplug the motherboard.

Two, systemically, by bleeding out.

To help increase the probalbilty of both, the bigger the holes you make (caliber), the better the chance of hitting an artery or the pump and increasing the rate of blood flow.

This is why man and animals can keep going sometimes after several hits - they just have not bled out yet. But they will eventually.

And of course you can always hit the lungs and decrease the air supply dramaticly.

And of course the more power behind the bullet the more penetration.

Unless you unplug that motherboard, one shot kills are rare.

Now one-shot Stops are another issue. You can put something down and they are still alive.

You can break a pelvis or spine, or lung shot and they will go down, but may not die for quite a while.

I used to be a hunter, but it just does not appeal to me anymore as I get older. I appreciate the living wildlife much more. And I would never shoot a BF unless I felt my life was in great peril.

However, I don't think they attack with lethal intent.

I believe them to be peaceful and just want to be left alone.

[Guest]

No problem at all. It was far from exactly what he said. It was just similar and mad me laugh. He would appreciate your statement that stories are simply not enough when you want to convince others of what you believe. Not saying the TS is doing that as he may just be making a statement and opening it up for argument. I do not know Incorrigable1 either, so don't fret. You will sooner or later come across a thread with him involved. He is a very levelheaded guy (and can also make a very enteraining post).

As far as Para Ape goes, there is a thread he may enjoy under the media reports section which has a more supernatural kind of feeling to it. Here is the link within the board: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7591-news-feed-giants-in-the-americas-ufodigest/

Lots of stuff goes through the news feed section on the big guy that is more paranormal. He should enjoy conversating over there when they post a story like that. I think it is possible, not probable, that they may have a supernatural origin (at least what we would consider supernatural) but I would never argue that they are not flesh and blood. I hope I didn't just lower my shield with that statement.

Thank you for the info, Greek!

[Guest]

I have some sympathy with Para Ape's view that certain aspects of Bigfoot behaviour - in this case the perceived inability to be shot dead - are best explained by a paranormal argument.

I used to think along these lines myself to a degree, but I think it's unsatisfactory to explain a mystery with another mystery, as the flesh and blood guys often say. However, it bothers me when the flesh and blood explanations used to explain anomolous behaviour get so tortuous and convoluted and downright bizarre that the paranormal argument seem to make more sense.

But, moreover, it was Saskeptic who really got to the heart of the matter for me when he commented that if a paranormal argument to explain a phenomenon ever becomes more plausible than a prosaic one, then it's best to go back and examine the nature and veracity of the original contention: ie that there exists a large bipedal, North American creature named Sasquatch, that remains unknown to science in 2011.

Strick (I've just noticed this thread) -- find myself on the same page as you here, to some extent. I give more room, though, to the "paranormal" contingency. Have come to the conclusion that there are a basic three alternatives on the table.

1) Bigfoot does not exist, except in the human mind: everything is hallucinations / misidentifications / hoaxes / lies / folklore / relaying of anecdotes.

2) It does exist, as whatever kind of purely-flesh-and-blood large bipedal creature, which is so reclusive / elusive / rare / intelligent that it has managed to remain unknown to science up to the present day.

3) In some way, the paranormal is in play -- hence the utter elusiveness of, whatever-it-is.

For me, number 3) is less difficult to credit, than either of the others -- and if that's explaining a mystery with another mystery; I don't regard doing so, as being against the rules of the game. It could be suggested that this kind of (non)-explanation is unlikely to lead to any solution, and that logically, I should write off the whole Bigfoot thing as an intractable dead end, and abandon interest in it; it's just that I find -- and have found pretty well lifelong -- the whole business, totally fascinating, teasing, and engaging-of-attention.