-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Anyone know about the unreleased Midwest bigfoot video
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
You're talking to a skeptic so I doubt any report is true. I know more more about Bigfoot sightings than any normal person really should. There's no doubt that Bigfoot has been traditionally associated with the PNW but I would like you to tell me where you are getting your over 50% number from. What is that statement based on?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Mayaka, I won't assume you're a woo or crank. Entertaining BF's existence doesn't gaurantee being one. It's all in what you do with facts and speculation. It comes down to accepting as fact what has been put out by people who have an investment in one manner or another in believing in Bigfoot. Bigfoot is very cool but what it comes down to is that it's a very cool myth. There is not persuasive reason to consider otherwise. I would very much like there to be but there isn't. Please feel free to share one that is persuasive for you and we'll have a good look at it.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,654
We got skin from the rare blue bear, but nobody seems to be able to get it from Bigfoot. Maybe you should not use the bear as an example or analogy.
and im surprised: why no dead hoaxers, no bones, no hair, no sightings of these alleged hoaxers. if this is all a hoax, i think someone should have found a dead body of some idiot running around in a costume. unlike most cryptids, sasquatch resembles no other animal we know of. nessie can be mistaken for tons of things, but bigfoot seems to be alone. the mundane explanations are just as silly as the species explanation
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Tibetan blue bears:
Know them. Found Them. Put them in a zoo.
Know them. Found Them. Put them in a zoo.
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,654
The circumstances are entirely different and those circumstances matter. The blue bear and the mountain gorilla didn't go centuries before being "found". The difference between those and BF is that the locals had no "Western science" within their culture seeking to acquire and catalog animals. If you came across a carcass, you didn't send it to an institution or hold a press conference. You probably just kept on walking.
Now fast forward to modern North America and Bigfoot. We don't expect that people would see a dead Bigfoot and keep on walking (or at least not report it to authorities). We expect that over the past 400 years in NA - people would pay extreme attention to any dead Bigfoot and quickly bring it to the attention of others... with the rapid transfer of the remains to scientific entities.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Mayaka, come now. Gorilla dismissal and no searching? This is really grade "A" Bigfoot enthusiast stuff here. Where've you been picking this up, BFF?
Here's an excellent documentary I just recently recommended to everbody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rRL3XWE0s&feature=PlayList&p=885F51D5BD2CF18B&index=0&playnext=1
That will give you an idead about how much effort some people have put in to searching for Bigfoot.
The gorilla line is just terrible. Immediately after we set out to find a specimen we found it and that was that.
im correct bout the no searching. neither side has gave a damn to put effort to search, and no, the bfro is a joke when it comes to searching. the remote areas of na are rarely visited by man, and im stating this as a fact, that theyre RARELY visited.
the gorilla took a couple weeks to find it in areas where we know they exist. it did not take a day or 2.
but you ignore the fact that scientists laughed at the natives accounts of the gorilla, sorry mate, but just accept that science has been wrong countless times
the gorilla took a couple weeks to find it in areas where we know they exist. it did not take a day or 2.
but you ignore the fact that scientists laughed at the natives accounts of the gorilla, sorry mate, but just accept that science has been wrong countless times
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Have a look at that documentary I linked for you when you have some time. That showcases a highly organized and well funded longterm effort to find sasquatches. I often am in communication with many people who devote serious amounts of time searching for Bigfoot. I really can't stress enough that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is out there looking for Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is out there and maintaining a breeding population all this time, we would find it. What remote areas are getting consistent Bigfoot reports that we aren't looking at?
Of course it did not take a day or two. The point is that when we went to the places where we were told the gorillas were, we came back with specimens.
Tell me, what crucial information, specifically, are scientists ignoring about Bigfoot now?
how would we find it if some slobs are too busy in the armchair. ive spent my fair share of traveling out doors, so now its time for not the skeptics, but for the armchaired debunkers to see what its likes to hike and travel those places before they ridicule people for doing it
Will you please capitalize the 1st letter of your sentences? You're coming across as a 13-year old with a cell phone, instead of as an intelligent adult who may be worth taking seriously.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I have some advice that might help. I can see that your passionate about Bigfoot and that's great. It doesn't make you a woo to be interested in Bigfoot. The best thing you can do is try and get as much factual information as you can. I noticed that you joined the BFF under the handle blue bear. One of our members here who is also a member there, RayG, has put together a thread detailing all the scientists who are now or ever have involved themselves actively in the search for Bigfoot. That would be a great place to start. The first example you will get of a scientist who is actively involved in searching for Bigfoot is Idaho State University professor Jeff Meldrum.
There are lots of smart people at the BFF who can help you with lots of questions. I see that Saskeptic has given you some excellent answers about Bigfoot and fossils:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24601&view=findpost&p=510240
I would also recommend when you start communicating with others about Bigfoot to try and figure out what it is that attracts you and what it is you want to acheive. Think scientists are ignoring Bigfoot? Saskeptic is a scientist and a person who enjoys Bigfootery. He'll be a great person to ask about that. Just keep in mind that when you come here, there is not a single argument you could bring forward that we haven't examined in great detail countless times. We enjoy Bigfoot too, it's just we enjoy it as a myth.
Last edited:
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
Makaya - you are forgetting a very crucial point when you continously argue that "scientists" are doing nothing about going out and looking for sasquatch. It does not have to be a "scientist" that obtains the evidence.
Your lack of knowledge about the huge amount of natural resource exploration and extraction - not to mention reclamation and replanting - and the number of people who spend a great deal of their professional lives in the wilderness doing such things, is obvious.
There are thousands of people every day in the wilderness areas of British Columbia engaged in forestry, mining, or other activities. These people would not ignore a dead sasquatch - or part thereof.
Your lack of knowledge about the huge amount of natural resource exploration and extraction - not to mention reclamation and replanting - and the number of people who spend a great deal of their professional lives in the wilderness doing such things, is obvious.
There are thousands of people every day in the wilderness areas of British Columbia engaged in forestry, mining, or other activities. These people would not ignore a dead sasquatch - or part thereof.
Rockin, i doubt their are 1000's of people out their daily. Im sorry, but maybe a few doing some logging, wildlife studies etc. but not 1000's. Why dont we just say billions of people are doing that for a matter. Why is it that people say you can go years without seeing other signs of man? Also with increased logging in the 50's, bigfoot sightings skyrocketed. maybe its a possible connection, but its pointless to bring up as any form of evidence
Last edited: