Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest]

Your resume aside, How often do you go out into national forrests or heavily wooded or swampy areas at night, alone?

I'm not sure it makes sense to put my resume "aside" and then denigrate me for being inexperienced, but whatever . . .

I've done a limited amount of nocturnal work - mostly surveys for owls and rails. It's a tiny fraction of time compared to my diurnal work.

Are you suggesting that this is why I haven't encountered a bigfoot, because I don't spend enough time in the field at night? If so, this argument fails unless we assume that those bigfoots vaporize during the day. Where are they during the day? I check caves, fallen logs, dense cover (e.g. rhodo thickets), up in the tree canopy - nothing. Doing field work in the daytime is actually the best way for me to find something interesting like a footprint, a clump of hair, or a bone. Don't forget that plenty of people also report finding bigfoots during the day. Daytime work didn't keep Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin from finding a bigfoot, right?

So the old chestnut "you don't go out enough at night" is a top-to-bottom fail. Sorry.

You sound to me, exactly like what you said you are - someone who spends alot of time sitting behind a desk.

So the part about the 20-years of my career that were primarily centered on fieldwork, that's meaningless? If a sports analogy helps, we mid-career biologists are like players that become coaches. We may not spend as much time as we used to actually suiting up and battling on the hardwood or the gridiron, but we're still intimately involved in the game. Did Larry Bird cease to know anything about basketball once he retired?

Of course the silliest thing about such arguments is that they're directed at an individual. Let's say for the moment that I was just a desk jockey who really didn't have any significant field experience. That doesn't change the fact that thousands of people who are field biologists are working, right now, in the field in places where they've got ample opportunity to find, photograph, document, or collect a bigfoot. It also wouldn't change the fact that Sasfooty is reporting experiences that are far better explained by everyday occurrences in nature than by the explanation that her home serves as a bigfoot playground. Check out your own signature line:

"When you eliminate all existing possibilities, the impossible becomes possible."

It's a great quote - I'm just working on the first part of it.

[Guest]

Saskeptic and Sasfooty, why do you two combine your researh?

Throughout this thread, Sasfooty has graciously shared multiple recordings from her experiences. I have not heard anything on those recordings that doesn't have a more likely explanation than "bigfoot did it." That's not because I'm mean or have anything against Sasfooty, it's just my professional opinion of what I've heard on those recordings.

Sasfooty, you have many fans here on the BFF 2.0 who want to hear more about your experiences. You're not under attack when one guy asks you how you've determined something that you've reported. When you experience something amazing but lack the physical evidence to prove the event you have to assume that some people simply won't buy it. So what?

[Guest Joey Kay]

Lmao this thread is cracking me up. How Sasfooty aint gon crazy on you guys yet is beyond me. I woulda gone nuts and probably logged off by now. Just one question Sasfooty, Do the BF keep life partners? Like marriage? Or they have multiple partners. I always thought long term relationships are the most unatural thing to humans, and just seems like somthing forced by society. Basically is Bf a player or a family man.

[Sasfooty]

It also wouldn't change the fact that Sasfooty is reporting experiences that are far better explained by everyday occurrences in nature than by the explanation that her home serves as a bigfoot playground.

I find it amazing that someone who claims to have had 20 years of experience out in nature, making a career of listening to all kinds of sounds, thinks it's an everyday occurrence to hear a mocking bird answering an owl, various knocks, whoops, & coyotes howling, all within a few minutes of each other, from an almost totally silent night. Not to mention, at the same time, wood knocks, a bipedal being ducking behind a tree & crunching leaves underfoot, & a rock hitting the roof, all within a few minutes of each other.

I'm afraid there's no hope....

[Sasfooty]

Just one question Sasfooty, Do the BF keep life partners? Like marriage? Or they have multiple partners. I always thought long term relationships are the most unatural thing to humans, and just seems like somthing forced by society. Basically is Bf a player or a family man.

Well, I don't know about the guys, but I do know of a female that is apparently quite a tart.

(Disclaimer: No, I don't have video of her with various partners. There's just been a lot of gossip.)

[Guest walkabout]

I'm not sure it makes sense to put my resume "aside" and then denigrate me for being inexperienced, but whatever . . .

I've done a limited amount of nocturnal work - mostly surveys for owls and rails. It's a tiny fraction of time compared to my diurnal work.

Are you suggesting that this is why I haven't encountered a bigfoot, because I don't spend enough time in the field at night? If so, this argument fails unless we assume that those bigfoots vaporize during the day. Where are they during the day? I check caves, fallen logs, dense cover (e.g. rhodo thickets), up in the tree canopy - nothing. Doing field work in the daytime is actually the best way for me to find something interesting like a footprint, a clump of hair, or a bone. Don't forget that plenty of people also report finding bigfoots during the day. Daytime work didn't keep Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin from finding a bigfoot, right?

So the old chestnut "you don't go out enough at night" is a top-to-bottom fail. Sorry.

So the part about the 20-years of my career that were primarily centered on fieldwork, that's meaningless? If a sports analogy helps, we mid-career biologists are like players that become coaches. We may not spend as much time as we used to actually suiting up and battling on the hardwood or the gridiron, but we're still intimately involved in the game. Did Larry Bird cease to know anything about basketball once he retired?

Of course the silliest thing about such arguments is that they're directed at an individual. Let's say for the moment that I was just a desk jockey who really didn't have any significant field experience. That doesn't change the fact that thousands of people who are field biologists are working, right now, in the field in places where they've got ample opportunity to find, photograph, document, or collect a bigfoot. It also wouldn't change the fact that Sasfooty is reporting experiences that are far better explained by everyday occurrences in nature than by the explanation that her home serves as a bigfoot playground. Check out your own signature line:

"When you eliminate all existing possibilities, the impossible becomes possible."

It's a great quote - I'm just working on the first part of it.

Actually you fail sir.

You fail to realize that sasquatch is primarily a nocturnal creature - that is by & large an accepted fact throughout the Bigfoot seeking community.

When you are looking for a creature that is primarily nocturnal, it only makes good sense to look at night when the creature is most active.

You didn't learn that in your 20 + years of field work?? Why am I not surprised.

Daytime is the best time for YOU to look. Unfortunately, in your infinite wisdom & knowledge you FAIL to realize that does not equate to daytime being the best time to look, especially when dealing with a creature that is most active at night.

That's called "common sense" look it up some time.

The Patterson Gimlin footage is a once in a lifetime piece of footage that was obtained in the daytime.

Since that has happened exactly once in the last 43 years, it's pretty safe to say that that was the exception & not the rule for encountering a sasquatch. Again, another common sense conclusion.

Edited November 3, 2010 by walkabout

[Incorrigible1]

Where is that "beating one's head against a brick wall" smiley? It's sorely needed here. (By Saskeptic!)

[Guest dxm2]

I find it amazing that someone who claims to have had 20 years of experience out in nature, making a career of listening to all kinds of sounds, thinks it's an everyday occurrence to hear a mocking bird answering an owl, various knocks, whoops, & coyotes howling, all within a few minutes of each other, from an almost totally silent night. Not to mention, at the same time, wood knocks, a bipedal being ducking behind a tree & crunching leaves underfoot, & a rock hitting the roof, all within a few minutes of each other.

I'm afraid there's no hope....

Saskeptic's claims are nothing compared to yours, Sasfooty.

And although its true that nobody has to "prove" anything to anyone, everyone who makes fantastical claims and presents them as facts, needs to be prepared to offer evidence of its validity, and have that evidence examined, or risk having their facts dismissed as fiction. Its just common sense. And its also the way the world works. If you don't care what anyone else thinks or accepts, fine, but don't post it as fact and don't get bent out of shape if its not accepted.

It is my opinion, that the age of the scientific bigfoot is now coming to an end, and the paranormal bigfoot, with its camera evading, bird song duplicating, lumber truck dodging super powers is now king of the forest. My opinion is that nothing is beyond the abilities of the paranormal bigfoot.

[Sasfooty]

My opinion is that nothing is beyond the abilities of the paranormal bigfoot.

Well how about that??? We can actually agree on something!

[Guest]

Where is that "beating one's head against a brick wall" smiley? It's sorely needed here. (By Saskeptic!)

Boy howdy! While I'm a die hard BF believer, I can't say as there's much that Sask posts that I don't agree with and he's at the opposite end of the belief spectrum. It would be super-cool-itious if all these "I live with BF" claims were real (and they may be) but I know that I expect a little more than words on a screen from someone claiming all that's been claimed here. A body or really clear pic seems reasonable under these circumstances.

[Guest]

Actually you fail sir.

You fail to realize that sasquatch is primarily a nocturnal creature - that is by & large an accepted fact throughout the Bigfoot seeking community.

<Pssst. Read post 211 again, perhaps more slowly this time. You should find that I qualified why diurnal searches have value. (Hint: I'm more interested in proving their existence than in "experiencing" them.)>

As for those nocturnal bigfoots, I agree that if such creatures existed they'd be primarily nocturnal. There certainly are plenty of people who claim to have seen them during the daylight hours, however. If Patterson was the only person to film a bigfoot in daylight, then am I assume you discount the Paul Freeman video, Manitoba video, and Memorial Day footage as hoaxes?

So just where do those pesky bigfoots go during the daytime?

[georgerm]

There is solid evidence of BF since paranormal animals don't leave footprints, hair, nests, poop, Patterson type films etc. Hundreds of witnesses just don't lie. Just because you can't navigate their nocturnal paths doesn't mean they aren't there. I have driven Oregon roads since 1963 during the day and night. I have fished her rivers, duck hunted, and hiked rugged trails and have never seen a cougar. I finally saw a Bobcat a few years ago and have only seen a few bears. BF is just hard to find. Keep looking and reading about sightings. Just be glad you haven't run into a pissed off BF on a trail at dusk Saskeptic. Yes, we want better pictures but the darn critters are just hard to find. Someone will get lucky.

Edited November 3, 2010 by georgerm

[Guest walkabout]

<Pssst. Read post 211 again, perhaps more slowly this time. You should find that I qualified why diurnal searches have value. (Hint: I'm more interested in proving their existence than in "experiencing" them.)>

As for those nocturnal bigfoots, I agree that if such creatures existed they'd be primarily nocturnal. There certainly are plenty of people who claim to have seen them during the daylight hours, however. If Patterson was the only person to film a bigfoot in daylight, then am I assume you discount the Paul Freeman video, Manitoba video, and Memorial Day footage as hoaxes?

So just where do those pesky bigfoots go during the daytime?

Not that I discount them at all, but, out of all of them, the Patterson/Gimlin footage is by far the smoking gun of bigfoot video evidence to date.

The Patterson/Gimlin footage has been scrutinized time & time again by countless experts and the more expert analysis it gets subjected to, the more & more credible the footage becomes, it speaks for itself really. There was just another documentary about it the other night on the National Geographic channel that again, reinforced the Patterson/Gimlin footage as genuine.

I can not say the same for the Freeman footage, the Memorial day footage & the Manitobia video. That does not mean I dismiss them as hoaxes, but, in my opinion, they are not nearly as concrete & convincing, nor have they been nearly as scrutinized as the Patterson/Gimlin footage has.

As far as where bigfoot goes during the daytime I would suggest that they stay out of sight as much as possible. If you have spent nearly the amount of time out in the woods as you claim, you should realize there is alot of terrain that hikers & campers can not traverse, swamps, wetlands, thick canopies of hardwood hammocks etc.

I'll even take it a step further, while you are out doing your daytime data collection, how often are you staring down toward the ground, staring in the underbrush looking for a 7 or 8 foot tall bigfoot that is down on the ground flat on it's stomach belly-crawling making virtually no noise as it sneaks up on you?

Probably not too often I would guess.

My point is, you won't see what you are not looking for.

Edited November 4, 2010 by walkabout

[Guest]

Not that I discount them at all, but, out of all of them, the Patterson/Gimlin footage is by far the smoking gun of bigfoot video evidence to date.

The point was not assertion of the awesomeness of the PGF, but that you had indicated that it was extremely rare to find and film a bigfoot during the day. In about 20 seconds of Googling, I found links to 5 famous bigfoot films, of which 4 were made during daylight hours. If bigfoots exist, then they are at least occasionally diurnal. Lots of well-known sightings occurred during the day as well, e.g., William Roe, Dr. Johnson, . . .

As far as where bigfoot goes during the daytime I would suggest that they stay out of sight as much as possible. If you have spent nearly the amount of time out in the woods as you claim, you should realize there is alot of terrain that hikers & campers can not traverse, swamps, wetlands, thick canopies of hardwood hammocks etc.

I'll even take it a step further, while you are out doing your daytime data collection, how often are you staring down toward the ground, staring in the underbrush looking for a 7 or 8 foot tall bigfoot that is down on the ground flat on it's stomach belly-crawling making virtually no noise as it sneaks up on you?

Is that what you think bigfoots are doing during the daytime, belly-crawling to noiselessly approach unsuspecting biologists?

From post #203. This is some of the information I presented that you put "aside."

During my career, I have done extensive field data collection in remote areas that do crop up in the BFRO database as having a history of bigfoot sightings. Is it possible that I might have walked right past a cryptic cryptid at some point? Sure, but I've never experienced even a hint that there might be something bigfooty around while I was out in the field - and I do look. I've been interested in bigfoot since I was a boy, so I'm always thinking about it, trying to envision a spot in which such a creature might hole up, and checking it out. My experiences mirror those of literally thousands of field biologists doing similar work, . . .

First, I'm talking about biologists, not hikers and campers. We do go into the thickest thickets, the muckiest swamps, the darkest recesses. Why? Well for one, if the transect bearing says "straight ahead" and straight ahead is an impenetrable wall of greenbrier, it's too bad for us: We've got to stay on the survey line. Sometimes though, we intentionally seek such places out. Why? Precisely because those odd places that don't see a lot of traffic from hikers and campers are often where the rarest species are to be found. When I'm in the field, I'm often doing work that involves scouring every nook and cranny of deep and dark recesses to find nests of rare birds. Birds don't usually nest on trails. If you want to find their nests, you often find yourself bellycrawling through such places. Even when I'm not specifically nest searching, however, I'll still take the time to check out any spot I can that looks like it might hide a bigfoot. Why? 'Cause I'm interested in bigfoot. If I find one someday I'll let you know. So far, nada . . .

[MagniAesir]

Where is that "beating one's head against a brick wall" smiley? It's sorely needed here. (By Saskeptic!)

No kidding, I find it hard to believe how patient Saskeptic has been on this thread.