Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OntarioSquatch said:
You guys are hilarious :)
Click to expand...
Speaking of hilarious, probably the funniest part is you making us decide that you're one of only two things, a dim-witted ne'er-do-well or a deliberate BLAARGer (which includes "trolling"). The "reasonable man just seeking answers" option is long gone and for a thousand reasons, but you already know that.
 
What do you mean by making you decide? Are those the only two options? Between the two, I think I'd rather be considered a "BLAARGer" than some dim-wit.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Over 99% of people who go missing while out in the wilderness were either out alone or were separated from a group. Just walking in pairs is enough to pretty much guarantee a person's safety.

In other words, if Bigfoot is real and it hunts humans, its attacks are on lone hikers.
Click to expand...
Given how many people have been out in the woods alone or not, and for how many years, what would be the reasonable likelihood that never ever has any sasquatch made a fatal mistake, and failed to kill a person and effectively hide the remains? Or perhaps failed to see the other person lagging behind? Nobody since the dawn of time has ever prevailed? Nobody the 'squatch hunted down ever turned out to have a gun? It would only have taken one person with a bigger knife than squatchy reckoned on. Not in hundreds of years has anyone brought back even a piece.

The wily sasquatch roams around the woods and farms and yards, too fumbleprone and stupid to figure out what to do with a found hammer or axe, too incurious even to drag it away, but has never in the annals of time failed to pick up every scrap of evidence that a human passed through, to the last shoelace, belt buckle and cigarette butt.

Or perhaps he's just morally advanced. A furry saint, this, smart as can be, but too pure to sully himself with tools. Oh, he eats the occasional dog and tosses a pig or two, and of course he eats people, though no doubt they deserve it...but he'd never stoop to using a shovel to bury their remains.
 
The NAWAC's recent paper gives an idea of how often they make mistakes and what kind of mistakes they make. The reality seems to be that they are somehow able to accurately assess details about humans such as how well we are able to see and hear and slowly push their luck based on that. Never pushing their luck to the point where they are in any possible danger. That takes a great deal of intelligence. These people are supposedly in an area where there are lot of these animals, yet the frequency of sightings is once every 6 weeks per person with the average time being only several seconds. In other words, these animals don't give people any opportunity. It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
 
Last edited:
HarryHenderson said:
Speaking of hilarious, probably the funniest part is you making us decide that you're one of only two things, a dim-witted ne'er-do-well or a deliberate BLAARGer (which includes "trolling"). The "reasonable man just seeking answers" option is long gone and for a thousand reasons, but you already know that.
Click to expand...
What happens to the gullible believers who realize they have been tricked? I can imagine some of them continuing to play and enjoying the game instead of leaving it. If their involvement was important, it could be a way to avoid a vacuum and to protect their ego.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
The NAWAC's recent paper gives an idea of how often they make mistakes and what kind of mistakes they make. The reality seems to be that they are somehow able to accurately assess details about humans such as how well we are able to see and hear and slowly push their luck based on that.
Click to expand...
The word reality does not mean what you think it means in the context of these sentences.
Never pushing their luck to the point where they are in any possible danger. That takes a great deal of intelligence. These people are supposedly in an area where there are lot of these animals, yet the frequency of sightings is once every 6 weeks per person with the average time being only several seconds. In other words, these animals don't give people any opportunity.
Click to expand...
The word supposedly means exactly that in the context of anything NAWAC.
It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's frustrating when critical thinkers point out that all animals exhibit certain behavior patterns, and they're not going to let you get away with simplistic fantasies about footie behavior without first offering adequate justification. That justification wouldn't be "they're elusive" or "they're different" because those would be (beyond simply simplistic) unjustified, or as it's sometimes referred, special pleading.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The NAWAC's recent paper gives an idea of how often they make mistakes and what kind of mistakes they make. The reality seems to be that they are somehow able to accurately assess details about humans such as how well we are able to see and hear and slowly push their luck based on that. Never pushing their luck to the point where they are in any possible danger. That takes a great deal of intelligence. These people are supposedly in an area where there are lot of these animals, yet the frequency of sightings is once every 6 weeks per person with the average time being only several seconds. In other words, these animals don't give people any opportunity. It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
Click to expand...

That's some mighty fine imagination you've got there. Well oiled. Well versed in covering for people. Excellent excuse-making.

Well done.

9/10
 
April's fool is over, son... No point trying to sell NAWACkos as having anything substantial to back bigfoots as real critters. They produce nothing but the usual bigfootery BS.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The number of fatal bear attacks that occur across the entire continent each year is less than a dozen. I think it's something the media has caused people to be afraid of.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need the media to be afraid of getting mauled by an 800 pound grizzly bear. Someone who has never seen a TV or a Field And Stream Magazine, getting charged by a mamma grizzly bear, is going to be afraid.

I think Bigfooters as a group are afraid of the dark, and afraid of the woods. They rationalize their fear of the dark woods, by making up a mysterious, sometimes scary humanoid covered with hair. This way they can go hiking in the state park just outside the city, and face their fears head on.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The NAWAC's recent paper gives an idea of how often they make mistakes and what kind of mistakes they make. The reality seems to be that they are somehow able to accurately assess details about humans such as how well we are able to see and hear and slowly push their luck based on that. Never pushing their luck to the point where they are in any possible danger. That takes a great deal of intelligence. These people are supposedly in an area where there are lot of these animals, yet the frequency of sightings is once every 6 weeks per person with the average time being only several seconds. In other words, these animals don't give people any opportunity. It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
Click to expand...
So what you seem to be saying is that you know about it because you don't know about it. Ordinarily not seeing them would suggest that they're not there, but because we somehow know they're there, not seeing them proves the opposite.

I think if I saw a bigfoot regularly every six weeks or so, I'd consider getting a camera. Or at least a smart phone. Presumably among the details the wily critter assesses is whether a person is packing.
 
Drewbot said:
I think Bigfooters as a group are afraid of the dark, and afraid of the woods. They rationalize their fear of the dark woods, by making up a mysterious, sometimes scary humanoid covered with hair. This way they can go hiking in the state park just outside the city, and face their fears head on.
Click to expand...

I think you're on to something, but I view it differently.
People like to be scared. That's why they watch scary movies, ride roller coasters, stuff like that. In much of north america, there's absolutely nothing to be afraid of in the woods, so these guys invent something to make a simple hike seem like an adventure or "expedition". It's just a way to get excited.
 
Do you suppose bigfoot lives in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana or in the Yukon Territory in Canada? Wouldn't these be better places to look for bigfoot predation upon humans rather than say, oh I don't know um Iowa? The BFRO works in strange ways.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
These people are supposedly in an area where there are lot of these animals,
Click to expand...
No reason to suppose that. It's an unsubstantiated claim, and no more.

OntarioSquatch said:
yet the frequency of sightings is once every 6 weeks per person with the average time being only several seconds. In other words, these animals don't give people any opportunity.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that the claim is true and then invent a fanciful creature with fanciful qualities to support the claim? Isn't it far more likely that the claim is in error? (Hint: Yes. Yes it is.)

OntarioSquatch said:
It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
Click to expand...
There are things that living organisms do. People claim that bigfoot is a primate, and possibly even in our genus. Okay then, at the very least it's a large mammal in a temperate environment and at most it's likely somewhere between humans and great apes in its general behavior, anatomy, and physiology.

It is an endothermic homeotherm.
It has a long gestation period.
It takes probably at least 10 years to reach sexual maturity.
It is long-lived (several decades).
It has opposable thumbs.
It both uses and makes tools.
It has at least a rudimentary language.
It eats, poops, dies, etc.
etc.

What would you like to propose about such creatures that would deviate from the items listed above?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's frustrating seeing people assume that Bigfoot would behave like a known animal. It's not a known animal so it might not act like one.
Click to expand...

It's a thing of beauty watching you tell us how much you know about bigfoot by reading the NAWAC reports and end your lecturing by saying it isn't a known animal.

A person who actually believed would behave in such a radically different manner. Our state for example has millions of people who come to see the real animals, and they pay FAR more to travel such great distances, pay $200 a night or more for just the lodging alone.

There is no greater proof of general BLAARGer disbelief in bigfoot than observing how much faith they pretend to have in the Ouachita reports and the glaring contradiction of not bothering to go see for themselves. It is such a trifling cost by comparison to what people pay in coming to Alaska for real animals.

Your behavior proves beyond any doubt that you know bigfoot does not exist, but that you like pretending so that you can game people on the internet.

That makes your behavior the key study question, not the existence of bigfoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom