Bigfoot yay or nay ?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

We are in agreement, I just think you misunderstood what it was I was saying. Someone said that no hunter would ever kill a Bigfoot. I was simply explaining that hunters do not live by some universal moral code. The one thing they all have in common is that they are killers. Some hunters would kill bigfoot, some wouldn't.

There are treasure hunters, bounty hunters, fortune hunters etc. and then hunters.
Depends a lot on your personal definition of hunter. The hunter can be seen as essential
to the spirit of man. Those who hunt with respect.

reply to post by dave_welch


Dave with your post being the only one I didn't know how to count so far. The count is

Yay - 40

Nay - 28

One big yay.
Too many sighting, for far too long not to be something. And for so many trusted ATS members having had encounters, it only reinforces my opinion.

reply to post by Pressthebutton


Yay it is.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

We are in agreement, I just think you misunderstood what it was I was saying. Someone said that no hunter would ever kill a Bigfoot. I was simply explaining that hunters do not live by some universal moral code. The one thing they all have in common is that they are killers. Some hunters would kill bigfoot, some wouldn't.

There are treasure hunters, bounty hunters, fortune hunters etc. and then hunters.
Depends a lot on your personal definition of hunter. The hunter can be seen as essential
to the spirit of man. Those who hunt with respect.

reply to post by dave_welch

 

Dave with your post being the only one I didn't know how to count so far. The count is

Yay - 40

Nay - 28

edit on 2-7-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You're being obtuse now. Within the context of the conversation, we were specifically speaking about men who go into the woods with the predetermined purpose of harvesting animals. It doesn't depend on a 'personal' definition of hunter, because even in each of your examples, the word hunter was preceded by a qualifier separating 'hunter' from its meaning.

Originally posted by Malynn

Originally posted by anton74
True, but it is believed to not have resembled BF but, in fact an Orangutan. If it did cross and evolve, why no fossils?

Because as I mentioned fossil creation happens under very specific circumstances. Based on the statistics finding one (or one being created) of a primate is like being struck by lightning. Absence of fossil records is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence. If you are going to look at BF from a scientific point of view, then you have to take into consideration the lack of remains. That is data that cannot be ignored. Does that prove that BF isn't real? No, but it supports the arguments of those who say it doesn't.

Look at the fossils of the Neanderthal. They were believed to only exist in small numbers but, we have enough fossils to paint a picture of what they were like.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


"To answer, Bigfoot mat not need technology if it is in fact that most physically adaptable mammal in the world."

when you understand the concept of a coherent argument come talk to me and I can't believe there is another person here giving you a star every time you post something. Anyone applauding what you just wrote must be either completely brain dead or you under another profile.

reply to post by anton74


you're giving anthropology too much credit for a potential to find things.

have you watched the Munns video about the Patterson film? I think he pretty much nails the "costume" theory, so what is it that we are looking at in that film?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


"You're being obtuse now. Within the context of the conversation, we were specifically speaking about men who go into the woods with the predetermined purpose of harvesting animals. It doesn't depend on a 'personal' definition of hunter, because even in each of your examples, the word hunter was preceded by a qualifier separating 'hunter' from its meaning. "

this comment should be flagged for being off topic. it has nothing to do with yay or nay on BF

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

"To answer, Bigfoot mat not need technology if it is in fact that most physically adaptable mammal in the world."

when you understand the concept of a coherent argument come talk to me and I can't believe there is another person here giving you a star every time you post something. Anyone applauding what you just wrote must be either completely brain dead or you under another profile.

No, my friend. When -you- understand the concept of a coherent argument, please continue to address me. You continue to attack -me- instead of trying to disprove my line of thinking. Not only are you insulting -me- but you are also insulting others that agree with me, simply for agreeing with me.

Bad form.

Let's stick to discussing bigfoot, and when you can wrap your head around my position, or if you would like more help understanding my position, please tell me what you have a problem with, and we can continue.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

You're being obtuse now. Within the context of the conversation, we were specifically speaking about men who go into the woods with the predetermined purpose of harvesting animals. It doesn't depend on a 'personal' definition of hunter, because even in each of your examples, the word hunter was preceded by a qualifier separating 'hunter' from its meaning.

Mac, settle down, you're gonna give yourself a heart attack. This thread was only meant to be a depot
for casual debate, that counts up participants in the two columns as an FYI, at it's end. But you've
tak'in it way over the top in a constant vigil. I thank you big time for making this thread more
interesting, because you certainly have done that. But you seem to be stuck on serious.
Just say'in it's ok to lighten up a little friend.

I know there are a lot of folks in this world, who just aren't going to let you tell them, they haven't seen Sasquatch.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by anton74

 

you're giving anthropology too much credit for a potential to find things.

have you watched the Munns video about the Patterson film? I think he pretty much nails the "costume" theory, so what is it that we are looking at in that film?

Actually, Anthropologists are doing a pretty good job of finding things. It only takes one set of remains to completely change the game and we are still waiting.

I would consider the Patterson-Gimlin film the greatest footage(real or fake) in the areas of cryptozoology and all other fringe topics. I've seen it dozens of times and to call it conclusive would be a joke. Although, I am open to the possibility that it is a real creature in the footage. If we had remains or fossils from BF, then we would have to look at the video in a much different way.

reply to post by Druid42


You have valid points. True enough.

But it comes down to "I saw the critter". At least to me. Trust me, I've done a lot of thinking about what else it could have been...

Someone hoaxing. Maybe. If it was, it's acting worthy of being knighted. Just the feeling I got from it, that I've never got with other wild life encounters that I've had. Bears. Mountain Lions. Even an Orca once. All very dangerous creatures in their own right. But none of them triggered that deep down lizard brain "fight or flight" reaction that I got. As I said in my thread about the sighting, I went from a fairly sophisticated twenty first century man, to a cave dwelling primitive who knows that "there are things out there in the Dark". I somehow doubt that a guy standing under a tree wearing a monkey suit would have the same effect on me...

Another creature entirely...

A bear? Bears don't come that big, even on their hind legs...big yes, but black bears generally, in my experience anyway, don't come quite that tall.

A deer/elk? Nope. Not possible.

It was, after much thought, something from outside my experience. ...and Sasquatch best fits it.

thought this should be posted again. This guy is an expert on how to b uild a big foot suit, back then and now, the stuff they used, he goes through the patterson film and did tests using real people, and points out how the suit moves the same way we do...very clearly explained...

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by HomeBrew

I have researched the Bigfoot/Sasquatch topic as much as anybody save for devote experts and sadly I can not hold up a single beacon of truth with regards to proof.

let me introduce to you Mr. Bill Munns:

there are languages from around the world that have a name for this same thing.

that is not a suit, so what are we looking at?

Hello, everyone!

Just a little reminder to keep it nice, keep it friendly, and keep it on topic.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so please respect each other.

Thanks! Happy posting.

reply to post by AshleyD


Yes Mam, most likely my bad, so I offer apologies to Mac and all the way around.

reply to post by Pressthebutton

Too many sighting, for far too long not to be something. And for so many trusted ATS members having had encounters, it only reinforces my opinion.

I agree and would like to add that while not all ATS moderators believe Bigfoot is real.
I think it takes an all around quality person of faculty to be a Moderator here.
All I mean to demonstrate by that is, that not just a bunch of over excited boy scouts
are seeing hairy apemen in the woods. Reputable people like Seagull are coming
face to face with these giants and many of 'em are scared in their pants.
So this is far beyond being brushed off as a nay. And it's obvious that it isn't
just my opinion.

reply to post by seagull

But it comes down to "I saw the critter".

I cannot refute your sighting, as it was a personal experience. There's no photographic evidence, so as such, I can easily believe you saw "something".

The mind is wonderful for playing tricks on your perception, and more than once, I've had those "hair raising" experiences, such as yours. It's a situation you can't comprehend, but the hair on the back of your neck tingles, and adrenalin pumps, and panic overwhelms. Call it "Spidey Sense", but it's something you can't identify, and common sense is left behind. You've encountered something "abnormal", something that doesn't fit properly within your understanding of reality.

I've been camping on Mt. Hood in Oregon before, prime BF habitat. 50 miles up, where there's no cell phone reception. Wilderness in it's purest sense, and if you've ever been there, you'll admit the sprawling Cedars are beautiful. I've never tried to search for "them", and never had an abnormal experience, nothing unusual save the local fauna. So I can't relate to "feeling" a BF nearby. I can imagine the effect, being weirded out, and for that, I can accept that your experience was real. Thus you believe.

Do you have a link to your thread? I'd love to read it.

reply to post by randyvs


While your poll seems to indicate the respondents have produced a majority in BF belief, it would be interesting to see you expand the idea to other factors on ATS in new threads.

For example, Aliens yay or nay? This poll is almost 2:1, but the Alien one would be 5:1 for sure, or more.

We may not agree on this one, but the responses in this thread have been interesting enough to suggest you make a new thread, with the same premise but different topic. It's what we do here, right?

reply to post by Druid42

Do you have a link to your thread? I'd love to read it.

Go to his Pub Pro page Dru. It's an astounding read.

We may not agree on this one, but the responses in this thread have been interesting enough to suggest you make a new thread, with the same premise but different topic. It's what we do here, right?

You know I was considering that and I decided if someone else ( wink )
want's to make a sister thread to this.
I would enjoy seeing it done with a different director. ( nudge elbo nudge ).

reply to post by Druid42


Here's the link for you.

What the hell is that?

As you'll see, there are some who believe me, and those who don't.

It is possible that my mind played a trick on me... I'll leave it to you to decide. I've pretty much made up my mind...

I believe that bigfoot exists, but I do not believe most of the Big foot sightings. It is very possible that they could be in secluded forests around the world. We haven't seen every inch of the woods yet. I've never seen one personally nor have I seen any evidence of one. That does not mean that a creature that is considered bigfoot does not exist. If I knew where a family of them were living, I wouldn't tell anyone other than a trusted member of my family. I would make sure noone blabbed where they were. I don't think I will need to worry about that though, Odds are I will never see one..