Guest Blackdog Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The same way you or I might, with a logical deduction. Walk me through the bigfoot thought process that would lead to that logical deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shelley7950 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Agreed---the issue is not that Bigfoot fears and avoids manmade objects (which I could believe) but that he clearly, at least in this case, does not---he has no problem peeking into occupied houses, banging on roofs, and flitting around under only partial cover, yet he seems to understand that a camera takes a photo, the photo is a 2D representation of his face, and he doesn't want humans to have that...seriously?...Just can't do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Just a WAG, but if magazines have pictures of familiar things, people point those little boxes at those same things, hmmmm. Or, they might have been watching during the seventies when we were all using Polaroids and discarding the dud pictures. The questions in my opinion are "How intelligent are they and do they possess language?" If the answers are very and yes that would be a large factor in the ability to share information and come to conclusions, even when they are wrong, much like us. Of course, if they are a mythical creatures it makes no difference what they can or can't do, or what they can or or can't figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I was just referring Saskeptic to another point to see what he had to say about it. Blackdog and Gershake answered just as I would. I don't find Indiefoot's explanation plausible because there's no connection to be made between the little plastic device and the strange leafy objects on the side of the road. Even if that connection could be made, what would be "bad" about it? The insinuation that anything foreign elicits a fear response does not jibe with Sasfooty's descriptions that these creatures frequently approach her house. Presumably her house is an obvious foreign thing filled with foreign things all around it: lights, tools, cars, chairs, etc. I'm sure the hum of her ventilation system, electric meter, etc. put off foreign noises, yet these don't seem to cause the bigfoots to avoid her house. If anything, these items seem to be inspiring curiosity and close investigation. I'm merely suggesting that if that's the case, there's no reason such creatures would be averse to a camera - either one mounted outside to catch them in the act of their investigations or one provided them to play with as they see fit. I'm sure Sasquatch figures humans are out to kill it What makes you "sure" of that when we have no evidence that such an event has ever happened? Yeah I know, "Ape Canyon", but really what danger are we humans to bigfoots? Taking Sasfooty's example again, these creatures are confident enough in their own abilities that they come right up to her house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Blackdog and Gershake answered just as I would. I don't find Indiefoot's explanation plausible because there's no connection to be made between the little plastic device and the strange leafy objects on the side of the road. Even if that connection could be made, what would be "bad" about it? The insinuation that anything foreign elicits a fear response does not jibe with Sasfooty's descriptions that these creatures frequently approach her house. Presumably her house is an obvious foreign thing filled with foreign things all around it: lights, tools, cars, chairs, etc. I'm sure the hum of her ventilation system, electric meter, etc. put off foreign noises, yet these don't seem to cause the bigfoots to avoid her house. If anything, these items seem to be inspiring curiosity and close investigation. I'm merely suggesting that if that's the case, there's no reason such creatures would be averse to a camera - either one mounted outside to catch them in the act of their investigations or one provided them to play with as they see fit. You are describing a Sasquatch knowingly approaching humans - we are discussing humans invading Bigfoot's territory and planting human technology there. That's a huge difference. A bigfoot inspecting humans under its own terms if perfectly okay, once its on our terms it's a different story. What makes you "sure" of that when we have no evidence that such an event has ever happened? Yeah I know, "Ape Canyon", but really what danger are we humans to bigfoots? Taking Sasfooty's example again, these creatures are confident enough in their own abilities that they come right up to her house. Again, Sasquatch is confident under its own terms. Sasquatch has every advantage in the world over a human. Size, strength, speed, ability to escape through thick forests, etc. Sasfooty sitting at home - presenting no harm to a Bigfoot is much different than men going into the forest and planting all sorts of technology to investigate the creature. Sit still and a shy dog may start approaching you. Turn towards it and it'll scurry away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Blackdog and Gershake answered just as I would. I don't find Indiefoot's explanation plausible because there's no connection to be made between the little plastic device and the strange leafy objects on the side of the road. Even if that connection could be made, what would be "bad" about it? The insinuation that anything foreign elicits a fear response does not jibe with Sasfooty's descriptions that these creatures frequently approach her house. Presumably her house is an obvious foreign thing filled with foreign things all around it: lights, tools, cars, chairs, etc. I'm sure the hum of her ventilation system, electric meter, etc. put off foreign noises, yet these don't seem to cause the bigfoots to avoid her house. If anything, these items seem to be inspiring curiosity and close investigation. I'm merely suggesting that if that's the case, there's no reason such creatures would be averse to a camera - either one mounted outside to catch them in the act of their investigations or one provided them to play with as they see fit. What makes you "sure" of that when we have no evidence that such an event has ever happened? Yeah I know, "Ape Canyon", but really what danger are we humans to bigfoots? Taking Sasfooty's example again, these creatures are confident enough in their own abilities that they come right up to her house. If all animals were easy to photograph there wouldn't be a National Geographic Magazine. Not all animals are too unintelligent to associate the camera with the flash. Ever had a pet who upon seeing the camera would refuse to look in your direction or hide? Yet remarkably wasn't afraid of a air-conditioner, or lawn chair or child's toy? By most accounts BF avoids humans, not their things. A trail-cam has however not only a sound but flash. It wouldn't take any animal too long to figure it out. Before someone points to all the deer, coyote, and other pics taken please explain how you know it was the same animal repeatedly too unintelligent to keep having it's picture taken over and over? Saskeptic you still haven't explained how debating BF behavior changes it's behavior? Avoiding a question does not make it less valid. Edited March 3, 2011 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 You are describing a Sasquatch knowingly approaching humans - we are discussing humans invading Bigfoot's territory and planting human technology there. No we're not. We're discussing whether it might make sense for someone like Sasfooty to leave some disposable cameras out as gifts for the bigfoots she claims frequently approach her property. My opinion (in Jackie Mason voice): "It couldn't hoit!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Saskeptic you still haven't explained how debating BF behavior changes it's behavior? Avoiding a question does not make it less valid. <Hint: Asking a second time politely in case someone has missed your previous question is likely to garner a more favorable response than jumping to an allegation that the person has avoided the question.> Now, what's this all about? "Debating bigfoot behavior changes its behavior?" Do you mean we could type back and forth all day long about what we think bigfoots do but we could still be wrong? Okay. The only problem I'd have with a statement like that is the underlying assumption that are such things as bigfoots, but I'm obviously suspending that issue for the purpose of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Sallaranda, on 03 March 2011 - 10:32 AM, said: I'm sure Sasquatch figures humans are out to kill it What makes you "sure" of that when we have no evidence that such an event has ever happened? Yeah I know, "Ape Canyon", but really what danger are we humans to bigfoots? Taking Sasfooty's example again, these creatures are confident enough in their own abilities that they come right up to her house. Saskeptic, wouldn't you figure that not all people would be as tolerant of BF's shenanigans as Sasfooty? Skeptics say that someone should have shot one by now, yet it somehow makes no sense to them that BF should fear being shot. Should we presume that if BF exists it has persisted to this day without the basic intelligence to test people before exposing thwemselves to danger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Saskeptic, wouldn't you figure that not all people would be as tolerant of BF's shenanigans as Sasfooty? Indeed.Skeptics say that someone should have shot one by now, yet it somehow makes no sense to them that BF should fear being shot. Someone should have but no one has, so why would bigfoots live in mortal fear of humans? Should we presume that if BF exists it has persisted to this day without the basic intelligence to test people before exposing thwemselves to danger? We could presume something like that. The problem is that such a presumption is easily upended by bigfoot encounter stories. Sasfooty's is an extreme example, but certainly not the only one, of repeated approach of humans and our trappings. Bigfoots approach campsites and homes, they skulk around farms and road construction equipment, they cross roads with impunity, they gratefully accept Zagnut bars left as peace offerings, they raid grease traps at casinos . . . Do the accounts describe cautious individuals that don't want to be seen? Yeah, sure (usually at least). Do they describe a creature so terrified of any human objects that they'd never go near a disposable camera left in the woods? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 <Hint: Asking a second time politely in case someone has missed your previous question is likely to garner a more favorable response than jumping to an allegation that the person has avoided the question.> Now, what's this all about? "Debating bigfoot behavior changes its behavior?" Do you mean we could type back and forth all day long about what we think bigfoots do but we could still be wrong? Okay. The only problem I'd have with a statement like that is the underlying assumption that are such things as bigfoots, but I'm obviously suspending that issue for the purpose of this thread. Didn't mean to sound impolite. However numerious indications show that for whatever reason, alledged sasquatches, have issues with camera's. Whether hand held or trail-cams. How they recognize them eventually become's immaterial to those intent on a photograph or video. Humans can hardly take the high ground on this if we keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Assuming (and I am) that most people aren't going to have the financial means to upgrade to even less obtrusive observation equiptment. The chances of catching a clear picture of Bigfoot anytime soon are significantly reduced, due to the high cost. Debating Bigfoots IQ also is immaterial, because until one can be captured and studied it is all just speculation. The only data really worth considering is bigfoot behavior observed and reported to date. Biological samples collected to date, Scat, footprints collected to date. Everything else is wishful thinking. Trying new approaches to collect evidence need to be implemented because what we've "wished" would work hasn't yielded inconclusive proof. Debating the merits of failed techniques is only productive up to a point. Beyond that, it too becomes an endless cycle of supposition. Could have, would have , should have. I fail to see how that either moves the discovery of Bigfoot forward, or puts the subject to rest as "cryptid disproven". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Saskeptic, if you want some disposable camera's put out here, we'll ask Southernyahoo if he minds if you send him a few cases to send on to me. I'll scatter them around like sand on a beach. Be sure to get the waterproof ones, because we get a lot of rain around here. I'll even pay the postage from him to me. Personally, I think it's a waste of money. If I told you how they know about cameras, you wouldn't believe me anyway, so figure it out for yourself. I will say this, though. They have learned a great deal about us & our technology since we "met". They learned about recorders when I would record them & then play the vocals back to them. I could play them at first, & they would come close & answer. Then they realized that it was me, & I was somehow capturing their sounds. I'm not sure that they know exactly how I do it, but they know it gets done, & they don't like it. It got to the point that I couldn't get a recording of anything except knocks & bird whistles for awhile, so I stopped trying. They have relaxed a little now, & I got a couple of good ones a few weeks ago, & you can bet that they won't be hearing them. They're not scared of "everything human". That's as ridiculous as some of this other stuff that people dream up. I don't know if they are scared of cameras, or if they hate them, probably the later, but they aren't afraid to prowl around houses, dig in garbage cans, take food from accessible freezers, look in windows, & whatever else they want to do. They own the night & they know that we can't see them in the dark. Woodslore, nobody's ever camped here in a tent, & frankly, I wouldn't want to. There's a lot of scary stuff that goes on out there at night. And Blackdog, they didn't steal cigarettes from here & I don't give them to them. Maybe somebody else does. Lots of people around here know about them. I don't know where they got them. All I know is they were out there & I smelled cigarette smoke. They also go to a friends house & he smelled cigarette smoke a few times when they were there. He even saw the glow once. We put 2 & 2 together & came up with a smoking BF. YMMV, but if you choose to bring it up constantly, at least get the facts straight! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shelley7950 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Yes but if you were outside at night and smelled cigarette smoke and "even saw the glow once" why wouldn't you think "smoking human"? Why would you think "smoking BF"? I'm just curious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 FACTS?? You claim you have cigarette smoking bigfoot in your neighborhood and you want to lecture me about facts? Please..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shelley7950 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I think someone may have just jumped the shark.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts