Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest walkabout]

Ok, I just finished reading this thread (wow, it's a long one, and I had been skipping over it for some time now...).

Some observations:

While it is perfectly acceptable for Sasfooty and others to relate their experiences here, it is also acceptable for their claims to be questioned.

I have no problem with people questioning someone within reason.

I do have a problem with people questioning another poster because the answers that are provided don't fit into the questioners neat little perception box of reality.

If you ask questions and a poster provides answers, respect the answers you are given. Just because you can't wrap your mind around what happened or perhaps you don't understand all of the circumstances involved, you are gonna talk down to the poster in a condascending manner and insult them (with the I know more then you do because I am a bioligist attitiude) and question the poster's credibility because he/she doesn't want to give you every last detail or elaborate enough on an answer so that it satisfies your thought process?? I'm sorry but that's just wrong on alot of different levels.

My issue with Saskeptic is this: He/she claims that he/she is a bioligist that does research relating to wild birds. He/she also has a self-admitted interest in Sasquatch, but, remains skeptical. That's great, but, what does that have to do with actual Sasquatch research? The answer is absolutely nothing. There is a huge difference between spending time out in the woods looking for birds, following predetermined survey lines & taking a research trip into the swamps/national forrests where all of your time & attention is solely dedicated to looking for & trying to attract and/or bait Sasquatches - a very big difference, anybody who has actually done it knows that.

While Saskeptic presents him/herself in a mild-mannered, well spoken way, he/she still uses a condascending tone and says things with demeaning connotations. Whether it is intentional, or not, I don't know, but, it is irritating & insulting regardless.

If you don't want to believe in Sasquatch, or at least open up your mind a little bit & realize - "Hey, maybe I don't have all the answers, maybe some of the facts I believed to be true might not be. Maybe it's time I start to think outside of my reality box a little bit & see if things start to fall into place." If you are not willing to do that, then, why ask the questions if you already believe you have all the answers??

I don't think that Sasfooty deserved all the B.S. that was shoveled at her because of what she chose to divulge (at least partially) to posters here. That's what really sucks about this place quite honestly.

If Sasfooty wants you/us to respect her privacy then by all means, we should respect it. I don't think that should open her up to ridicule or call her credibility into question.

Edited November 6, 2010 by walkabout

[Guest Spazmo]

If you ask questions and a poster provides answers, respect the answers you are given.

I agree with this 100%, and am also not thrilled that the same question gets asked over and over when an answer has been given. At this point it is just an argument, and is non-productive. Since the original question/answer was also non-productive in the eyes of the "asker", it should simply be dropped and the conversation should move forward.

I don't think that Sasfooty deserved all the B.S. that was shoveled at her because what she chose to divulge (at least partially) to posters here what she has experienced. That's what really sucks about this place quite honestly.

And this is something that is hard to make a blanket statement about, at least for me. I agree that SF didn't deserve some of the stuff she was dealt, but also believe that posters need to be aware that claims will be questioned here no matter what. It's just the nature of the forum. Claimants should make every attempt possible to not become offended by those questions. I know it's hard, but leaving the emotions out of the discussions is the only way they move forward without fighting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with answering a question with "I don't know." It's just about the most honest answer that can be given regarding this subject, but it doesn't get used nearly often enough IMO.

[Guest walkabout]

I agree with this 100%, and am also not thrilled that the same question gets asked over and over when an answer has been given. At this point it is just an argument, and is non-productive. Since the original question/answer was also non-productive in the eyes of the "asker", it should simply be dropped and the conversation should move forward.

And this is something that is hard to make a blanket statement about, at least for me. I agree that SF didn't deserve some of the stuff she was dealt, but also believe that posters need to be aware that claims will be questioned here no matter what. It's just the nature of the forum. Claimants should make every attempt possible to not become offended by those questions. I know it's hard, but leaving the emotions out of the discussions is the only way they move forward without fighting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with answering a question with "I don't know." It's just about the most honest answer that can be given regarding this subject, but it doesn't get used nearly often enough IMO.

Can't disagree with anything you said Spazmo.

[Sasfooty]

Can't disagree with anything you said Spazmo.

I can't disagree with either of you.

Sound observations.

[Guest]

norcallogger,

I would love it if you could check out the area where you saw "the big dark leg" something.

I'd be happy to. And just for you too because I gave up looking into every "unusual" thing that happens out in the woods years ago. Well, I guess if it's really, really unusual I'll still look into it and come to think of it, while the leg thing was probably just a partial view of a deer in the shadows, the singular whack on wood occuring two different times in two different places is a bit odd so I'll look into it for me too. I finished the job but I have to go back up there to get the tractor so I'll do it then. It would be a good place to find tracks, rough ones though, since there's about a foot of mastication debris on the ground inside the unit.

[Guest]

What the howdy heck does "mastication debris" mean Mr.FancyPantsWordMan? Even Google wouldn't tell me right.

Is it thick leaf litter from deciduous trees? A pine needle carpet? Ferns squishing each other as they grow? How's the humus? Is that what it is? Your words defeat me. Touche.

I once saw a deer trotting up the road and thought it was a dog. For about 5 seconds. Rough and ready size/color id from my brain. Saying you saw a leg shape implies that the void space made an impression. Can't have a leg without nothing around it.

[Guest Spazmo]

Mastication debris = stuff that got chewed up, I think.

Right Norcal?

[Sasfooty]

I didn't have any trouble finding it.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~mryan/Research/Battaglia_ESAMulching.pdf

[Guest]

If I did this right, this is the best pic I could find of mastication debris and funny thing is, it's only about 100 yards from where I saw whatever it was that I saw. The big thing that says PRENTICE on it is my stuffy little office. View's not to bad though.

All the crap on the ground is mastication debris. The thicker the plantation, the thicker the debris. Something heavy would leave tracks I would think. But who knows?

Either way, Saskeptic has a good point. I saw what I saw, I just don't know what I saw. ("I know what I want, I just don't know how to go about gettin' it." Guesses anyone?)

Edit: Yeaaaa! It worked. I did something geeky!!!! (added a picture)

Edited November 7, 2010 by norcallogger

[Guest tracker]

Sorry late on the scene, I read the thread. Some of you guys should back off and be professional. This nice lady came forward with her story, so show some respect and courtessy as you would a witness or should. You do want (new) members to share their experiences on this site don't you? They won't do that if you ridicule and scare them and others away. I've seen many sites and clubs come and go and thats one of the main reasons they fail. !st rule, don't beat up or gang up on the witnesses.

Moving on unless someone got a prob with me for standing up for her?

Did someone already suggest that this avatar may be a picture of a younger BF looking inside the window from the roof top up side down? Sure that may sound wild to some but it's possible. Even the very large heavy adults can climb very well. Sasfoot may have built up a repore with them it's happened before. give her a chance, let her tell her side. If you don't believe her than leave the thread.

Edited November 7, 2010 by tracker

[Guest]

I do have a problem with people questioning another poster because the answers that are provided don't fit into the questioners neat little perception box of reality.

No, I believe the problem you have relates to reading comprehension. If you look at my questions to Sasfooty, you'll notice that I kept asking the same question: How? How have you ruled out, for example, coyotes when admitting that the alleged bigfoots were imitating coyotes and there were coyotes in the area as well? Several of Sasfooty's statements indicated that she had bigfoots making various calls but did not address how she knew those calls were made by bigfoots. Hopefully you can appreciate the chasm separating the differences between those two.

Now that we're several pages into this thread (and another), Sasfooty has provided her explanation of how she made the determination that the calls of certain animals she hears around her home have in fact been made by bigfoots. From what I can gather, her reasoning has been entirely circumstantial. It's perfectly legitimate for her to reach her conclusions based on those circumstances, but also perfectly legitimate for others to remain skeptical, simply because her description of those circumstances can never be anything more than anecdotal itself. For those of us interested in any situation that has the potential to produce physical evidence of something like a bigfoot, Sasfooty's stories are interesting, yet so far, nothing more.

you are gonna talk down to the poster in a condascending manner and insult them (with the I know more then you do because I am a bioligist attitiude) and question the poster's credibility because he/she doesn't want to give you every last detail or elaborate enough on an answer so that it satisfies your thought process?? I'm sorry but that's just wrong on alot of different levels.

If you check out Spazmo's very kind post - and the number of folks who "liked" it - you'll see that the thing they were liking was specifically how I could ask questions without sounding condescending.

Here's one of yours, from post #234: I found this statement condescending (and ignorant, and evidence of willful ignoring of statements I had already made several times):

"I have seen areas that special forces recon military soldiers would have trouble getting through, but Mr. "I have to stay on my survey line" can do it right? Give me a break, really, you are a bioligist, (and by your own statements, one that spends alot of time behind a desk) you probably couldn't hike 5 miles by yourself in broad daylight."

My issue with Saskeptic is this: He/she

For accuracy's sake, I am male.

. . . claims that he/she is a bioligist that does research relating to wild birds. He/she also has a self-admitted interest in Sasquatch, but, remains skeptical. That's great, but, what does that have to do with actual Sasquatch research? The answer is absolutely nothing. There is a huge difference between spending time out in the woods looking for birds, following predetermined survey lines & taking a research trip into the swamps/national forrests where all of your time & attention is solely dedicated to looking for & trying to attract and/or bait Sasquatches - a very big difference, anybody who has actually done it knows that.

Hmm . . . that last bit sounded condescending to me . . .

Again, I think there's a reading comprehension issue here. I have (several times) already addressed how the field work that I do very often places me in remote areas and habitats (YES swamps and YES National Forests and YES National Parks and YES Wilderness Areas, etc.) in counties within states where the BFRO database indicates multiple bigfoot encounters. As indicated, I'm often scouring these habitats for ground nests of birds - in other words, combing the forest floor, probing nooks and crannies, crawling through tangles, etc. On top of that, my interest in bigfoot has led me to specifically check out spots that just plain looked like places to find bigfoot evidence. I do look, and in places that should have bigfoots. That certainly doesn't mean that my own poor luck in finding any bigfoot evidence in my career is the main reason for my skepticism, just that I haven't personally experienced anything to challenge my skepticism.

While we're on the topic of me, what I do in the field, and my whole condescending and insulting attitude, I invite you to review the thread from its inception. After my initial "I'm a biologist who studies birds" response to an innocuous question from one poster, everything else on the subject I've written in response to demeaning statements from others to the effect that I'm nothing but a behind-the-desk academic who doesn't know anything about real wildlife, and that's why I refuse to believe in bigfoot.

Why do these threads so often end up being about me? I can only guess that it's because people get uncomfortable with even the most basic questions, politely asked, regarding their experiences.

[Sasfooty]

Saskeptic, believe it or not, I can almost sympathize with you.

You said: "After my initial "I'm a biologist who studies birds" response to an innocuous question from one poster, everything else on the subject I've written in response to demeaning statements from others to the effect that I'm nothing but a behind-the-desk academic who doesn't know anything about real wildlife, and that's why I refuse to believe in bigfoot."

I said, (& I paraphrase here): "I think there are BFs on & near my property because I & others have seen & heard them regularly for a number of years." I provided some things that I perceive as evidence.

You would have thought I said the earth is square & the moon is made of green cheese.

Why am I expected to provide the rock solid proof that the whole world has been searching for over the last 30 or so years? I have told over & over why I think what I think, but there seems to be a quest here to convince me that I am wrong, or prove me to be a fake & a liar.

I guess you still can't understand how I can tell real animals from some that are being mimicked by one of the hairy beings that I perceive to be here, even though you purport to know how to tell one bird that you can't see from another one that you also can't see. I know how you can tell, & I know how I can tell, but how do you explain it?

[Guest]

Why am I expected to provide the rock solid proof that the whole world has been searching for

You're not, and I don't see anyone demanding same from you. Your assertions to the contrary, however, a lot of folks consider repeated close encounters with bigfoots at a specific location to be a habituation. In other words, bigfoots willfully approach your home even though they know darned well that you're in it. They're potentially exposing themselves to humans. (Let it go, wickie . . . ) So if your assessment of what's been happening at your home is accurate, then you are in position to solve this mystery - and it's more like a 300 year mystery than a 30 year mystery. That doesn't mean it's easy to do, only that you would be among the elite who've ever had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

I have told over & over why I think what I think, but there seems to be a quest here to convince me that I am wrong, or prove me to be a fake & a liar.

Not at all. I've called you neither of those things. The only reason I persisted questioning you was because it took several responses before you explicitly explained how you made the determination that you had bigfoots making calls at your home. You have now made that explanation clear, and it is that circumstances convinced you, e.g., the rapidly moving "donkey bray" call that you are convinced couldn't have been made by the neighbor's donkey. I'm not convinced that your perception of that event rules out the neighbor's donkey, but remember that you and I are considering different material in making our respective determinations. I'm relying on a recording and your anecdotal account; you were there.

I guess you still can't understand how I can tell real animals from some that are being mimicked by one of the hairy beings that I perceive to be here

Yes I can, I just don't agree with your conclusion. So what?

[Guest gershake]

Saskeptic, just out of curiousity, did you check out her account plus audio file in the sasquatch sounds thread?

[Sasfooty]

You're not, and I don't see anyone demanding same from you.

That's probably why you can't see bigfoot then, because it's all over the place here & not hard top find at all.

Your assertions to the contrary, however, a lot of folks consider repeated close encounters with bigfoots at a specific location to be a habituation.

Other folks can call it whatever they want to, but I don't. They go where they want, when they want, do what they want, & I have nothing to do with why, when, where or anything else about them. There is no habituation going on here.

In other words, bigfoots willfully approach your home even though they know darned well that you're in it. They're potentially exposing themselves to humans. (Let it go, wickie . . . )

Assuming that they have been here as long as us or before we moved here, they have had 11 years to determine that we are no threat to them. They don't expose themselves...period. They hide in thickets & behind brush & trees in the woods that grow on the property within view of the house. We don't have a neatly manicured estate here, but they don't have to get extremely close in order to watch.

So if your assessment of what's been happening at your home is accurate, then you are in position to solve this mystery - and it's more like a 300 year mystery than a 30 year mystery. That doesn't mean it's easy to do, only that you would be among the elite who've ever had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

There again I get the feeling that you are subtly implying that my account is, in your opinion a lie. As I continue to say over & over, they watch us, know exactly what to expect from us, & no longer allow themselves to be in a position to be filmed. Someone in an area where they aren't used to encountering humans would have a better chance than I do. No excuses, just facts. Why can you not understand that?

Not at all. I've called you neither of those things. The only reason I persisted questioning you was because it took several responses before you explicitly explained how you made the determination that you had bigfoots making calls at your home. You have now made that explanation clear, and it is that circumstances convinced you, e.g., the rapidly moving "donkey bray" call that you are convinced couldn't have been made by the neighbor's donkey. I'm not convinced that your perception of that event rules out the neighbor's donkey, but remember that you and I are considering different material in making our respective determinations. I'm relying on a recording and your anecdotal account; you were there.

The neighbor's donkey was at least half a mile away, & would have not crossed 5 or 6 fences, two of which are electric, to answer whoops directly behind my house, two nights in a row, leave no tracks, in the thick layer of rotten leaves & be nowhere to be found the next morning. Talk about extraordinary claims! Would you have believed me if I had told you that that happened? Yeah, I was here, but apparently my opinion is of no value, even though there had been plenty of solid evidence that they were here before this time.

Yes I can, I just don't agree with your conclusion. So what?

So the taxpayers are supposed to agree with your conclusion & pay good money for it, yet mine is in your opinion worthless, & it's not costing anybody a dime.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Sasfooty