Guest uprightchimp Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 folks, its just like bobby said, the bigfoot are MASTERS of their domain (the forests, mountains) it's kind of like comparing airplanes in this respect-let's take a world war one monoplane for example, (I think its a SPAD if I'm not mistaken) compare THAT to maybe a MIG 23 or F-16. now BOTH are AIRPLANES, BOTH FLY, but there & then the similarity will end, the new one (jet) will SEVERLY outclass the FORMER one in EVERY aspects in the air! now you take Homo Sapiens vs Bigfoot- BOTH are PRIMATES but the 2nd one being MUCH more agile & MUCH larger with VASTLY better eye sight in the dark MUCH stronger, better hearing you can see that we as HUMANS @ this stage anyways are WAY outclassed in these areas.there is just no comparison untill we DO get smarter in understanding how bigfoot live in the wild unacssable places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Give a man one of these and he doesn't have to have the speed of a cheetah, the strength of an elephant, the size of a rhino, the eyesight of an eagle, the fierceness of a wolverine, the cunning of a fox, or the agility of a howler monkey... he just has to know how to point 'n click. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Owl Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I started out thinking I was dealing with just an animal which could easily be out smarted and tricked. Over time, I ending up very fraustrated with very little working for me. I then met and interacted with some folks who related things I just couldn't easily accept or wrap my mind around, for it sounded much too incredible and belong somewhere in a Hollywood movie or fiction story. I took a giant leap and changed some of my thinking and my past feelings have been blown to pieces over the past year. From first hand experience, I have witnessed some truly amazing things and abilities that they possess. I don't fully understand how they do it, but I know they do and have documented some of it with night vision and video. Some reading these words will know exactly from where I speak. Those who don't know will be in the same place I was over a year ago. Hunting for Bigfoot requires a particular knowledge, understanding and acceptance of them. It is not about being favored or chosen, it is about having respect and your attitude towards them. They are not game to be hunted or captured. Trust me, the majority of the well established Bigfoot groups out there in mass, who treat the Forest People like they were some dumb animal, will be no closer to finding the Holy Grail of proof next month or next year. If you keep doing the same things you have always done, you will get the sames results, plain and simple. They have and will continue to run established groups of people in circles out there, chasing the wood knocks, howls and bread crum trail of footprints. Just my opinion folks. I hope it will be a help to someone back at a place I used to be...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 But Mulder, people have been at the BF game for 50+ years and still nothing. On the contrary, we have casts of tracks, forensically typed hairs, photo, video, audio, etc. But the Skeptics simply dismiss it as "not evidence" because it doesn't meet their standard of absolute proof (ie, a slab monkey). Which might sound like I'm contradicting myself, so I'll elaborate. My point isn't that it's IMPOSSIBLE to do (obviously, given that we have done it), but that it is very DIFFICULT to do. There hasn't been the kind of sustained, focused effort on the professional level it takes to document a relatively rare, intelligent, elusive creature like BF. Thus we are limited to the evidence gathered after fortunate chance encounters. Excuses don't make bigfoot real. Nor do Skeptic denials make it NOT real... COGrizzly: Your 'one man hiding in the woods' analogy is false if we are to believe there is a breeding population of THOUSANDS of bigfoot roaming the woods of North America. There has to be a significant population of a lot of rare critters to maintain the species (cloud leopard, qiant squid, et al) but we only ever see the rare occasional individual...just like with BF. Mulder: Yet we DO have film of those rare beasties, and have identified and classified them. Bigfoot not so much. Proponents have done their job and obtained the evidence. It's not our fault that Science isn't doing it's job and accepting the species... PacNWSquatcher: You might be on to something with your bounty idea. Seems kinda strange that with all the hunters, trappers, mappers, trackers, packers, lumberjacks, road-builders, surveyors, foresters, explorers, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, zoologists, biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, entomologists, botanists, herpetologists, ornithologists, lepidopterists, ichthyologists, limnologists, mineralogists, adventurists, activists, arborists, and arsonists on the loose in North America, we turn to the apologists for the lack of a discovered bigfoot. Back to the same old "so many people" arguement? The same one that I and others tore to shreds at least twice now? You need to get a new tune Ray. Giving reasons why your assertion doesn't hold up isn't "turning to the apologists"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 10, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) There hasn't been the kind of sustained, focused effort on the professional level it takes to document a relatively rare, intelligent, elusive creature like BF Ok, so you don't consider any of the BF research groups working for years at this to be professional? (and I grant you some are not, but all?) What about the.. well, no use naming names. But certainly, it seems to me there are some groups who have approached the subject in a professional manner for an extended period of time. Edited September 10, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Give a man one of these and he doesn't have to have the speed of a cheetah, the strength of an elephant, the size of a rhino, the eyesight of an eagle, the fierceness of a wolverine, the cunning of a fox, or the agility of a howler monkey... he just has to know how to point 'n click. RayG Which may or may not have already happened several times, as you well know. You also well know that there are many hunter reports in the evidence files where they refrained from shooting, either out of general fear, hesitation due to the human-ish appearance of the creature, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 All it takes is a ride over a wilderness area in a helicopter to truly appreciate what a difficult task it would be to find something that is probably one of the smartest creatures on earth(speculation, of course:) that doesn't want to be found. It wouldn't be hard at all to remain undetected by humans. We are one of the most unequipped species that roams the forests. We are slow, our hearing/eyesight isn't that good, our sense of smell is weak, and we generally always stick to roads, or trails, and rarely go off the beaten path. Think about it from their perspective. They only know what they see from us....We have habits, the same as every other animal in the forests, and I'd imagine they've adopted their niche based on what we generally don't, or won't do. They probably stay on side hills, above valleys, or rivers, where they can observe anything moving below, where they can move up, or down at will, if we were to actually climb, or descend them, which we would hardly ever do unless a trail was cut through. If they were above an inaccessible waterway, they could drop into the creek/river/valley, after observing no threats, and move up, or down in elevation with relative ease, and leave virtually no trace of them ever being there. It's just not in our nature to tread in areas that would be tough to climb, descend, or navigate. If BF were patient, and lived a calculated lifestyle, we would never see them, except for in rare cases of extreme happenstance, or if we deceive them. Think about this. If you were to take 20 members of Seal Team 6, and break them up in 5 groups of 4, in a wilderness area of 1,000,000+ acres, and told them that if they remained undetected by anyone for a couple months, that they would receive a million bucks each, and then offer John Q. Public the same to find them, but only allowed a couple hundred people a day to look, do you think they'd ever find them? I seriously doubt it. What tactics would they implore to remain hidden? They would probably be similar to Squatches, IMO. They'd also have all their gear, with nightvision, etc, but have to hunt their food, and gather water. Ar you kidding me? It's not in our nature? Well I do differnet stuff all the time. There is just nothing to support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 PacNWSquatcher: You might be on to something with your bounty idea. Seems kinda strange that with all the hunters, trappers, mappers, trackers, packers, lumberjacks, road-builders, surveyors, foresters, explorers, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, zoologists, biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, entomologists, botanists, herpetologists, ornithologists, lepidopterists, ichthyologists, limnologists, mineralogists, adventurists, activists, arborists, and arsonists on the loose in North America, we turn to the apologists for the lack of a discovered bigfoot. RayG It's weird how naysayers never make the list of people who go into the woods, and put in their due diligence, yet they always seem to come up with their .02 to throw in the well anyways! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Which may or may not have already happened several times, as you well know. You also well know that there are many hunter reports in the evidence files where they refrained from shooting, either out of general fear, hesitation due to the human-ish appearance of the creature, etc. So Mulder you believe every report where a hunter did not shoot b/c they thought it might be a BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Ok, so you don't consider any of the BF research groups working for years at this to be professional? (and I grant you some are not, but all?) What about the.. well, no use naming names. But certainly, it seems to me there are some groups who have approached the subject in a professional manner for an extended period of time. Ok, I need to clarify what I mean. I honor the existing groups of ameture researchers for generally doing their level best with the limited time and resources available to them, but when I say "sustained effort" and "extended periods of time", I don't mean a bunch of scattered weekend trips with the proverbial "3 friends and a cooler of sodas." It's not the same as the type of effort expended on a properly financed and staffed expedition. Those can spend weeks or even months in the field 24/7 obtaining data (or in the case of wildlife photographers, footage and images), and are equipped with 10s (if not 100s) of 1000s of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment. Do yourself a favor and read up on how such expeditions work, and just how much effort and money it takes to mount a proper one. So Mulder you believe every report where a hunter did not shoot b/c they thought it might be a BF? I wouldn't go so far as to say every report, no. But it apparently does happen. And to correct your statement, it isn't that they held fire because "they thought it might be a BF"...it's because they were either simply afraid, or because (as some have openly stated) they weren't sure if what they were seeing wasn't some kind of "human". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It's weird how naysayers never make the list of people who go into the woods, and put in their due diligence, yet they always seem to come up with their .02 to throw in the well anyways! But how a bout any evidence that there is A BF creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Ar you kidding me? It's not in our nature? Well I do differnet stuff all the time. There is just nothing to support this. And of course your sample size of 1 trumps everything... It is a fact that even in "developed" wilderness areas like Yellowstone, the overhwhelming majority of the visitors stick to the improved areas where amenities and facilities are available. Most of the park, esp the sections far removed from the roads, maintained campgrounds, etc see very little human traffic if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I will point out again what I always point out when this type of question gets asked: 1) wildlife are not as easy to film as National Geographic or Marty Stauffer would have you believe. It takes systematic, concentrated effort, and even then it can take years. It took over 2 decades of dedicated work to document the giant squid in the wild. It took many years to likewise document the Cloud Leopard. 2) the amount of potential encounter space is vast, and the area of observation of any given expedition or film crew is infinitesimal by comparison. You would have know the difference between a giant squid and bigfoot. A giant squid live below 1000 ft sea level, bigfoot supposedly eats out of our dumpsters...enormous difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 But how a bout any evidence that there is A BF creature. You mean other than the cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, photos, audio recordings, scientifically analyzed witness accounts, and so forth? You really live up to your name mon frere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 You mean other than the cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, photos, audio recordings, scientifically analyzed witness accounts, and so forth? You really live up to your name mon frere... So there's a recognized biped other than human? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts