kitakaze Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 What would you consider reliable? Would it have to be an earth shaking Sasquatch in a cage, or would just a clear photo from a reliable cameraman work? I would consider matching DNA samples from separate sources verified by more than one lab showing a higher primate and clear footage with good provenance to be reliable evidence. Then of coourse proof in the form of a live or dead specimen. These are all things we should absolutely have by now for something that is not a social construct but rather an animal species living across North America. My belief in Bigfoot was not able to withstand the fact that no reliable evidence exists and I don't think it should have.
kitakaze Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 "I like to think of Bigfoot as a figure skater, who does an interpretive ice dance of my life's journey" That is signature material if I have ever seen it.
Guest Forbig Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I would consider matching DNA samples from separate sources verified by more than one lab showing a higher primate and clear footage with good provenance to be reliable evidence. Then of coourse proof in the form of a live or dead specimen. These are all things we should absolutely have by now for something that is not a social construct but rather an animal species living across North America. My belief in Bigfoot was not able to withstand the fact that no reliable evidence exists and I don't think it should have. I'd like to have any of that stuff too.
Guest Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 "I like to think of Bigfoot as a figure skater, who does an interpretive ice dance of my life's journey" I couldn't have said it better!
kitakaze Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 Doubt too funny lol Hey I got to ask. What risks are the skeptics prepared to undertake to prove it either way for themselves? Are they willing to risk their lives attempting to kill one at close range in the dark? Or will they settle with a sighting at a safe distance and say forget the skeptics I am not getting any closer to that? Yea that's what i thought. See you on the forums. JMO Tracker I spend a lot of time in the forest here on Vancouver Island, or "Ape Island" as MonsterQuest dubbed it. I spend zero time worrying about violent encounters with Bigfoot. It's the number of documented Bigfoot attacks being zero as well that does it for me. I do take precautions for real animals that are dangerous like cougars, bears, etc. I would be thrilled to see a Bigfoot, but I have no expectation this will ever happen.
Guest Forbig Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I spend a lot of time in the forest here on Vancouver Island, or "Ape Island" as MonsterQuest dubbed it. I spend zero time worrying about violent encounters with Bigfoot. It's the number of documented Bigfoot attacks being zero as well that does it for me. I do take precautions for real animals that are dangerous like cougars, bears, etc. I would be thrilled to see a Bigfoot, but I have no expectation this will ever happen. I bet you look though
Guest Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 That is signature material if I have ever seen it. Its not mine, another quote from Talladega Night's, Mike Honcho/Cal Naughton Jr. a.k.a John C. Reilly lol.
Guest Strick Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I'm not long back from three weeks of not finding Bigfoot in the Lake Tahoe region and, I have to say, this is one of the funniest threads I've seen on here in a long time!
kitakaze Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I bet you look though I used to. Not anymore. It spoils the nature for me. Real nature is awesome. I don't need Bigfoot to make it more awesome. On the flipside, if looking for Bigfoot is what it takes to get some people into nature, great. It's the notion of people cowering in the dark fearful of every snap and pop that is unfortunate to me. With the right precautions, you are safer in the woods than you are driving to the grocery store.
kitakaze Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I'm not long back from three weeks of not finding Bigfoot in the Lake Tahoe region and, I have to say, this is one of the funniest threads I've seen on here in a long time! I would have been keeping an eye out for wolverine.
Guest Knuck Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 There are those that know, and those that don't. The later includes everyone who doesn't know. Some are frustrated, some are jeaolous, and some don't give a horses patoot either way, and just want to argue and agitate probably because they are bored to death.-Knuck
Guest HucksterFoot Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I used to. Not anymore. It spoils the nature for me. Real nature is awesome. I don't need Bigfoot to make it more awesome. On the flipside, if looking for Bigfoot is what it takes to get some people into nature, great. It's the notion of people cowering in the dark fearful of every snap and pop that is unfortunate to me. With the right precautions, you are safer in the woods than you are driving to the grocery store. In Rockwell/Standing's world; one cowers to the Sylvanic rodent e.g., the small striped Mitchell Pass Squirrel (Neotamias sylvanicaudus) especially, if you get too close to their nuts (cache)
Guest 127 Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) To address the OP: I think that people as a whole are interested in the subject. I don't believe it requires a belief one way or the other. The exuberance of the poster or how conscientious their posts are does not designate them more towards one side of the coin or the other. It's an individual thing. I enjoy reading about the topic and also consider myself a skeptic. I think most folks that post here should remain skeptical of any claims made about bigfoot. There are many stories in the history of bigfoot. Some of those that are unscrupulous or opportunistic in nature I disapprove of. Of course some elements of any topic are going to be licentious. It is not unprecedented in bigfootery either. Others may be individuals that thrive on keeping the legend alive. It's my opinion that many just want to keep the legend alive via leaving footprints and story telling, or other means of hoaxing. Are we to accept every erroneous claim made by salacious believers whom would have you believe every stick pop in the woods is a sasquatch? Only those claims which present proof? Which ones? I guess that is part of the reason many people enjoy reading these forums and about this topic. They like to decide for themselves which to believe or not. Fence or no fence, the topic is an interesting one. Back to the point. I dont think it requires nor denotes belief to have an interest in the subject of bigfoot. Even if you think of it as lore, or as reality we are all here to discuss bigfoot. Is one side of the coin more obsessive than the other? I think one side is waiting for an acquisition before coming to the conclusion there is a real living bigfoot creature in our forests. Neither side is irreproachable. I think people (note: this does not require a label as to your belief) are interested in bigfoot because it is alleged to be manlike in appearance, and because it is also alleged to be ever so elusive. Mystifying? Quite. Edited September 24, 2011 by 127
Guest Strick Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 I would have been keeping an eye out for wolverine. You can rest assured I was keeping my eyes peeled for all of the native wildlife....
Recommended Posts