or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finding Bigfoot - Page 40

post #586 of 745
Thread Starter 
post #587 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

What constitutes a reliable sighting?

The snow leopard was first "sighted" in late 1700's, but it was not until 2006 where the first "reliable" film in the wild were taken. What exactly makes that a sighting over 200 years ago credible?

Okay, the first good film may have been made five years ago, but for a lo-o-o-ong time before that snow leopards were shot as trophies and exhibited mounted in museums and alive in zoos. Where are the BFs?
post #588 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Okay, the first good film may have been made five years ago, but for a lo-o-o-ong time before that snow leopards were shot as trophies and exhibited mounted in museums and alive in zoos. Where are the BFs?

Understood, but my point was that way back in the late 1700's the people that made this claim were taken at their word. Of course we live in a much more cynical society today, but has to be statistically significant when you consider overwhelming number of sightings reported. That may people can't be lying. If I had to break it down, I'd say 60% saw a bear, 30% are lying, maybe 10% really saw one. That still leaves thousands of reported sightings.

Also, I hold the short end of the stick on the footage front, but this reminds me of a Bengal Tiger documentary I saw years ago. A tiger was literally right there in front of the camera, barely behind any foliage. And the narrator said you were looking right at it, but just no way you could see it. When the tiger jumped from the forest in front of the camera I jumped too, it scared the hell out of me. It was literally right in front of my eyes and I couldn't see it. And a tiger is ORANGE.

Forests are naturally dark and shaded places. Its incredibly easy to hide.
post #589 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

reliably sighted

What constitutes a reliable sighting?

The snow leopard was first "sighted" in late 1700's, but it was not until 2006 where the first "reliable" film in the wild were taken. What exactly makes that a sighting over 200 years ago credible?

Nice evasion of the actual point, you know the point that you seem to know a remarkable amount about the natural history of bigfootses without any of that whachamacalit, you know? It's on the tip of my tounge ... hmmm starts with 'e' Ahhh that's right, evidence.
post #590 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

reliably sighted

What constitutes a reliable sighting?

The snow leopard was first "sighted" in late 1700's, but it was not until 2006 where the first "reliable" film in the wild were taken. What exactly makes that a sighting over 200 years ago credible?


Wrrrrrrrrrrong.
post #591 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Okay, the first good film may have been made five years ago, but for a lo-o-o-ong time before that snow leopards were shot as trophies and exhibited mounted in museums and alive in zoos. Where are the BFs?

Understood, but my point was that way back in the late 1700's the people that made this claim were taken at their word. Of course we live in a much more cynical society today, but has to be statistically significant when you consider overwhelming number of sightings reported. That may people can't be lying. If I had to break it down, I'd say 60% saw a bear, 30% are lying, maybe 10% really saw one. That still leaves thousands of reported sightings.

Also, I hold the short end of the stick on the footage front, but this reminds me of a Bengal Tiger documentary I saw years ago. A tiger was literally right there in front of the camera, barely behind any foliage. And the narrator said you were looking right at it, but just no way you could see it. When the tiger jumped from the forest in front of the camera I jumped too, it scared the hell out of me. It was literally right in front of my eyes and I couldn't see it. And a tiger is ORANGE.

Forests are naturally dark and shaded places. Its incredibly easy to hide.

Based on what?
post #592 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Nice evasion of the actual point, you know the point that you seem to know a remarkable amount about the natural history of bigfootses without any of that whachamacalit, you know? It's on the tip of my tounge ... hmmm starts with 'e' Ahhh that's right, evidence.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what I have evaded? It escapes me.

I know as much as anyone reading about a Snow Leopard may know, consider the fact that I have never seen either that or a BF (and I suppose you too, no?)

Evidence: not being a guy with the time to trek woods on weekends, I tend to rely on other forms of evidence about BF. Fang, how many Snow Leopards have you seen? Bengal Tigers in the wild, Mountain Gorillas (again, in the wild), or Giant Squid? But you accept them as real, right? So maybe accept people have different tolerances of acceptance of a species.

I have seen 0 Bigfoots, yet I can lie here and pretend I have seen it and make a story up. But somehow you have a leg up because the species has not yet been detailed to the level you would find acceptable. I grant you that, which I share the same sentiment... honestly not enough concrete evidence yet. It does not change my view that I believe it exists and will eventually be documented to your level of relevance.

In the mean time, I am no different that folks that took those 1700's trekkers at their word and accepted the existence of a snow leopard before there was a body.
post #593 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

.
Forests are naturally dark and shaded places. Its incredibly easy to hide.

Not easy enough for the hundreds of thousands of deer, bear, elk and moose that are annually bagged by American hunters. Nor, for that matter, for tigers, despite their excellent natural camouflage, considering how their numbers have crashed in my lifetime. Yet not a single BF has been dropped by a hunter.

In earlier centuries, animals customarily became known to science when some traveller or sportsman brought back a skin and skull.

Let us consider the snow leopard: It lives in some of the most inaccessible, dangerous terrain in the whole world. Much of its range has been inaccessible for most of the past century for political reasons. Yet, I have been aware of its existence almost my entire life. Contrast this with the Bigfoot, which is claimed to inhabit almost every wooded tract in temperate North America, yet no hard physical evidence has ever turned up. Oh, and although I did say "temperate" North America, let us not forget his close relatives the Sisemite, the Didi and the Mapinguary to the South. And, yeah, I know some people speculate the Mapinguary is a relict giant sloth, not a BF type critter.
post #594 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Not easy enough for the hundreds of thousands of deer, bear, elk and moose that are annually bagged by American hunters. Nor, for that matter, for tigers, despite their excellent natural camouflage, considering how their numbers have crashed in my lifetime. Yet not a single BF has been dropped by a hunter.

In earlier centuries, animals customarily became known to science when some traveller or sportsman brought back a skin and skull.

Let us consider the snow leopard: It lives in some of the most inaccessible, dangerous terrain in the whole world. Much of its range has been inaccessible for most of the past century for political reasons. Yet, I have been aware of its existence almost my entire life. Contrast this with the Bigfoot, which is claimed to inhabit almost every wooded tract in temperate North America, yet no hard physical evidence has ever turned up. Oh, and although I did say "temperate" North America, let us not forget his close relatives the Sisemite, the Didi and the Mapinguary to the South. And, yeah, I know some people speculate the Mapinguary is a relict giant sloth, not a BF type critter.

JL, I can really only respond with speculation. That said, I think the best argument I can make is this: lets suggest the BF is highly intelligent, very close to Homo Sapiens. As a human, aren't you smart enough to evade detection by hikers and hunters simply using your intellect?

Next, lets consider as a wild animal the BF has much more highly tuned senses of smell and sight, especially at night, and has an intimate knowledge of the terrain it operates within. Then consider a family unit, wouldn't (with language) there be a natural evolution taking place with these skills from generation to generation? Similar to American Indians... who during early American settlement were noted for their intimate understanding of the terrain and later (when warring) famed for their ability to hide.

Finally this is a species that operates at night. Not a lot of hunting takes place at night.

All this reminds me of that book/short story about the hunting of a human, its not just about the advantage of a gun. I think the BF is smart enough not to engage and is hyper aware of its surroundings.
post #595 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

JL, I can really only respond with speculation. That said, I think the best argument I can make is this: lets suggest the BF is highly intelligent, very close to Homo Sapiens. As a human, aren't you smart enough to evade detection by hikers and hunters simply using your intellect?

Not indefinitely, and certainly not with my "intellect." I should expect most "intellectuals" would make singularly inept bushmen.
Quote:
Next, lets consider as a wild animal the BF has much more highly tuned senses of smell and sight, especially at night, and has an intimate knowledge of the terrain it operates within. Then consider a family unit, wouldn't (with language) there be a natural evolution taking place with these skills from generation to generation? Similar to American Indians... who during early American settlement were noted for their intimate understanding of the terrain and later (when warring) famed for their ability to hide.

Let's consider the Indians. Yes, they had, by and large, superior knowledge of the terrain and superior stealth and woodcraft, but in the end the whites cleared them out. The story of Ishi, the last wild Indian in America, always brings a few tears to my eyes. Also, the whites were very aware of the presence of the Indians.
Quote:
Finally this is a species that operates at night. Not a lot of hunting takes place at night.

But don't a lot of sightings take place by day? And as I have previously remarked in this thread, no other higher primate is nocturnal. Moreover, quite a bit of hunting does take place at night--both illegal jacklighting of deer and other game and legal hunting of raccoons and such by houndsmen.
Quote:
All this reminds me of that book/short story about the hunting of a human, its not just about the advantage of a gun. I think the BF is smart enough not to engage and is hyper aware of its surroundings.

Ah yes, "The Most Dangerous Game," that old favorite of high school anthologies. I remember it well from my 10th grade year, now almost 57 years past. Anyway, aren't most animals hyper aware of their surroundings? I should think a BF, a very large, powerful creature with no possible natural enemies over most of its supposed range, would be less vigilant than, say, a deer. And if you want to argue that man is the natural enemy of the BF, we have been extraordinarily inefficient since we haven't brought one to bag in 400 years!
post #596 of 745
All of a sudden bigfeet have language and are almost as smart as humans? Smarter than any other great ape?
post #597 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imatlas View Post

All of a sudden bigfeet have language and are almost as smart as humans? Smarter than any other great ape?

Atlas, as I said at the beginning of the post, I'm speculating.

Language is based on some recordings of vocalizations, and the fact that most animals have some form of language. I cannot think of any primate which is an exception. Not much of a stretch. There is a former naval intelligence officer that has studied it:

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/watch-scott-nelson-navy-cryptolingust.html


The intelligence part is the stretch, but primates in general are the smartest animal group on the planet. Save for maybe dolphins, what else comes close? So its not unbelievable to suggest a BF is somewhere in the spectrum. If it has managed to remain hidden this long, it would suggest its highly intelligent.
post #598 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Not indefinitely, and certainly not with my "intellect." I should expect most "intellectuals" would make singularly inept bushmen.
Let's consider the Indians. Yes, they had, by and large, superior knowledge of the terrain and superior stealth and woodcraft, but in the end the whites cleared them out.

Viruses did more for this process than anything. But your point is taken. The settlers had guns, as well as will to remove them. I'm sure the Indians were willing to co-exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

But don't a lot of sightings take place by day? And as I have previously remarked in this thread, no other higher primate is nocturnal. Moreover, quite a bit of hunting does take place at night--both illegal jacklighting of deer and other game and legal hunting of raccoons and such by houndsmen.

Almost all signtings happen during the day. The night time sightings tend to be roadside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Ah yes, "The Most Dangerous Game," that old favorite of high school anthologies. I remember it well from my 10th grade year, now almost 57 years past. Anyway, aren't most animals hyper aware of their surroundings? I should think a BF, a very large, powerful creature with no possible natural enemies over most of its supposed range, would be less vigilant than, say, a deer. And if you want to argue that man is the natural enemy of the BF, we have been extraordinarily inefficient since we haven't brought one to bag in 400 years!

That's it! "The Most Dangerous Game". Ha ha.

I think its only potential enemy could be a grizzly bear or a pack of wolves. I'm not sure I agree about vigilance. I can see the argument that they would let their guard down, but I'd suggest their instinctually driven to evade detection. Its not easy to hunt a deer by hand so you better be good at hiding, staying down wind, tracking, etc.

Regarding the lack of a kill, there are a few stories out there of killings, for example:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=9552
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/ouachita/siege-at-honobia.asp
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm


From 1829 to now there are 36 separate reports of BFs being shot by humans, so it begs the question of where the bodies are, you're right. No good answer expect that most of the stories are probably bullshit.

Most hunters who have claimed to witness a BF report being more shocked and/or terrified than anything. They're hesitant to shoot something walking on 2 legs for fear its a person.
post #599 of 745
Thread Starter 
post #600 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post


I think its only potential enemy could be a grizzly bear or a pack of wolves. I'm not sure I agree about vigilance. I can see the argument that they would let their guard down, but I'd suggest their instinctually driven to evade detection. Its not easy to hunt a deer by hand so you better be good at hiding, staying down wind, tracking, etc.

But don't a lot of BF reports come from areas where grizzlies have been extinct for generations or never existed at all? Ditto for wolves (except they covered most of North America until the past few centuries). Besides, bears are highly intelligent animals, comparable to the primates. They have been hunted a lot, but they become readily habituated to the presence of humans when persecution is lifted. The same is true of many animals. Look at how Jane Goodall was able to chum up the chimps, Dian Fossey the gorillas.
.[/quote]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot